tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1973938108988281018.post2782228100338952099..comments2024-02-06T03:23:37.329-08:00Comments on No Jesus, No Peas: I don't get people who deny common descentJames Sweethttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17212877636980569324noreply@blogger.comBlogger4125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1973938108988281018.post-37985906213183357762012-08-07T10:31:56.636-07:002012-08-07T10:31:56.636-07:00I am talking about to the nearest sig fig in the a...<i>I am talking about to the nearest sig fig in the argument. I assume that's obvious</i><br /><br />Yes, I understood what you meant :) I had to read the paragraph twice, but I got it. Neat trick!James Sweethttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17212877636980569324noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1973938108988281018.post-15113940030015217472012-08-07T10:30:37.575-07:002012-08-07T10:30:37.575-07:00I find thinking of it with logarithms, while it ma...I find thinking of it with logarithms, while it makes the numbers easier to work with, is actually even <i>worse</i> when it comes to an intuitive sense of magnitude. Now you have the quantitative difference between 10,000 and 10 being just "3".<br /><br />You just blew my mind with this, though:<br /><br /><i>So if the universe were 10^10^15 millenia old, it would also be 10^10^15 nanoseconds old.</i><br /><br />Woah. That was some serious mental jujitsu you just pulled right there...!James Sweethttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17212877636980569324noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1973938108988281018.post-76617636439605693992012-08-07T10:28:30.792-07:002012-08-07T10:28:30.792-07:00Of course when I say 'equals' above, I am ...Of course when I say 'equals' above, I am talking about to the nearest sig fig in the argument. I assume that's obvious, but I said a few ludicrously false things otherwise so perhaps worth pointing out. And I apologize for the tangent, but who can resist mentioning this case where units do not matter. <br /><br />In any case, I would back down from my ludicrously false claims when someone explains why I am wrong, rather than putting my fingers in my ears and yelling louder. Unlike certain people with opinions on certain theories of biology.Tyle Stelzighttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12950590908966127944noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1973938108988281018.post-42603646298670560332012-08-07T10:20:34.375-07:002012-08-07T10:20:34.375-07:00For big numbers such as comparing 10^110 and 10^12...For big numbers such as comparing 10^110 and 10^124, I must think in terms of logarithms. By systematizing the mental process involved, translating back from logs to raw numbers etc, the big numbers can become surprisingly familiar and intuitive. I think we just need to teach the creationists logarithms. :)<br /><br />SIDEBAR: This works so well that I can even feel (relatively) comfortable with numbers such as 10^10^120. For example: Let's call A = 10^10^120. Then A*10^5000 == A, because 10^120 + 5000 == 10^120. So if the universe were 10^10^15 millenia old, it would also be 10^10^15 nanoseconds old. Ha. :) Add a third exponentiation though, and the process is just too meta for me to fully grok. My mental recursion depth is only n=2 for intuition purposes. <br /><br />Anyway, denial. I think the only answer is that the evidence has nothing to do with it - those minds have been made up, end of story. Which of course should not come as much of a surprise.Tyle Stelzighttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12950590908966127944noreply@blogger.com