<div dir="ltr"><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:comic sans ms,sans-serif;font-size:small;color:#000000">Nothing is more complicated than my field. Much, perhaps most of what we think we know might be wrong. Now for something completely different:</div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:comic sans ms,sans-serif;font-size:small;color:#000000"><br></div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:comic sans ms,sans-serif;font-size:small;color:#000000">I am re-reading some of Faynman's popular works. One is There is Plenty of Room at the Bottom.</div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:comic sans ms,sans-serif;font-size:small;color:#000000"><br></div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:comic sans ms,sans-serif;font-size:small;color:#000000">'It would be very easy to make an analysis of any complicated chemical substance; All one would have to do would be to look at it and see where the atoms are. The only trouble is that the electron microscope is one hundred times too poor.'</div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:comic sans ms,sans-serif;font-size:small;color:#000000"><br></div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:comic sans ms,sans-serif;font-size:small;color:#000000">Now if I am not mistaken I saw in the news the other day that for the first time scientists have been able to look at a single atom. (Took a long time, didn't it?)</div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:comic sans ms,sans-serif;font-size:small;color:#000000"><br></div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:comic sans ms,sans-serif;font-size:small;color:#000000">Now why have I not seen scientists ecstatic about it if it is as revolutionary as Feynman says it will be?</div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:comic sans ms,sans-serif;font-size:small;color:#000000"><br></div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:comic sans ms,sans-serif;font-size:small;color:#000000">bill w</div></div><br><div class="gmail_quote"><div dir="ltr" class="gmail_attr">On Mon, Jun 29, 2020 at 5:12 PM spike jones via extropy-chat <<a href="mailto:extropy-chat@lists.extropy.org">extropy-chat@lists.extropy.org</a>> wrote:<br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex"><div lang="EN-US"><div class="gmail-m_-562398761061047398WordSection1"><p class="MsoNormal"><u></u> <u></u></p><p class="MsoNormal"><u></u> <u></u></p><div style="border-right:none;border-bottom:none;border-left:none;border-top:1pt solid rgb(225,225,225);padding:3pt 0in 0in"><p class="MsoNormal"><b>From:</b> extropy-chat <<a href="mailto:extropy-chat-bounces@lists.extropy.org" target="_blank">extropy-chat-bounces@lists.extropy.org</a>> <b>On Behalf Of </b>William Flynn Wallace via extropy-chat<br><b>Subject:</b> [ExI] marksmanship<u></u><u></u></p></div><p class="MsoNormal"><u></u> <u></u></p><div><div><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:12pt;font-family:"Comic Sans MS"">>…<span style="color:black">I understand all those reasons for being good at it, but I still think that the people with very superior vision will be at the head of the class. All the other skills seem learnable to me - not nuclear physics. So the difference at the top of the class is genetic.<u></u><u></u></span></span></p></div><div><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:12pt;font-family:"Comic Sans MS";color:black"><u></u> <u></u></span></p></div><div><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:12pt;font-family:"Comic Sans MS";color:black">bill w<u></u><u></u></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><u></u> <u></u></p><p class="MsoNormal"><u></u> <u></u></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:14pt"><u></u> <u></u></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:14pt">Not nuclear physics? Why is it not nuclear physics? It was a surprise to me to find out when you really start digging in, nuclear physics isn’t as difficult as chemistry: there are fewer particles to memorize. Down at that level, everything works very logically and predictably. The math models are well-understood and they work to several digits of precision.<u></u><u></u></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:14pt"><u></u> <u></u></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:14pt">Top level markshumans are (somehow) aware of their own heart rhythms. They don’t actually control them, but they work with their own hearts, according to some sources. Fun exercise, if you get a good analog weight scale, stand on it and watch your weight bop around by about a quarter of a pound as the heart shoots blood toward your head. Now get a good laser-enabled rifle and watch how your aim point also moves with your pulse. I don’t know how the hell those straight-shooters do it, but they do it.<u></u><u></u></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:14pt"><u></u> <u></u></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:14pt">Nuke physics isn’t more difficult than other fields, BillW, it isn’t as difficult as yours, psychology.<u></u><u></u></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:14pt"><u></u> <u></u></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:14pt">spike<u></u><u></u></span></p></div></div></div></div>_______________________________________________<br>
extropy-chat mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:extropy-chat@lists.extropy.org" target="_blank">extropy-chat@lists.extropy.org</a><br>
<a href="http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat</a><br>
</blockquote></div>