Anonymous at Mon, 10 Jun 2024 02:47:35 UTC No. 16226062

>>16226054
The lines between these fields are pretty blurry at a fundamental research level. Bio-physics and physical chemistry can be mathematically involved disciplines despite having most of the work being done by MCB types.

Anonymous at Mon, 10 Jun 2024 02:52:48 UTC No. 16226072

>>16226054
polluted with tards who don't understand separation of variables

Anonymous at Mon, 10 Jun 2024 03:10:00 UTC No. 16226094

>>16226054
the best people went to physics and math.
what left in biology is the mediocre tier with occasionally some MD who have never been trained in the doing research.
resulting in the bottom tier research field with widespread fraud renamed replication crisis in an attempt to fool the public into thinking that the frauds are not delibrate.

Anonymous at Mon, 10 Jun 2024 06:03:02 UTC No. 16226265

>>16226054
>Why is biology so objectively inferior to chemistry, which in itself is so objectively inferior to physics & math?
Because the further upwards one goes in that hierarchy, the more chaotic systems become.

Anonymous at Mon, 10 Jun 2024 15:41:46 UTC No. 16226898

>>16226054
cheeky trying to put physics on a level with math
the correct continuation is physics is objectively inferior to math

Anonymous at Mon, 10 Jun 2024 16:04:37 UTC No. 16226934

>>16226054
What do you mean by "inferior"? Chemical and biological understanding has changed the world at least as much as physical understanding, possibly more.
Do you enjoy having enough food to eat?
Thank biologists and chemists that created fertiliser from air and developed hyperproductive strains of crops and cattle.

Anonymous at Mon, 10 Jun 2024 16:50:08 UTC No. 16227016

>>16226054
Serves them right for having turned their backs on the Glory of Rome

Anonymous at Mon, 10 Jun 2024 21:34:13 UTC No. 16227469

>>16226062
I bet you're a biotard that have never read a decent mathematics, statistics, physics or theoretical compsci papers to spout such nonsenses. the level of intellectual rigor required to read those papers and them bio-physics papers of yours are like between university student and a toddler.

Anonymous at Mon, 10 Jun 2024 21:37:37 UTC No. 16227471

>>16227469
I have an EE degree and work on stochastic optimal control. I did a bit of BME in undergrad before switching to EE because I preferred the more "grounded" mathematics of the systems part of EE over the "squishy" bio-med.

If you want to take a look at what I was referring to, look into hybrid QM/MM transition state papers. They do some pretty interesting stuff.

Anonymous at Mon, 10 Jun 2024 21:43:55 UTC No. 16227482

>>16226054
You can't live a modern life without biology, chemistry or physics.

Anonymous at Mon, 10 Jun 2024 21:46:30 UTC No. 16227486

>>16227482
That said, physics and math have mathematical precision and statistical predictability that other fields don't have.

Anonymous at Mon, 10 Jun 2024 21:49:40 UTC No. 16227491

>>16227486
It is sometimes called the hierarchy of the sciences theory.

Anonymous at Mon, 10 Jun 2024 21:53:21 UTC No. 16227497

>>16227471
anons like you are so cool.

Anonymous at Mon, 10 Jun 2024 21:59:52 UTC No. 16227505

>>16227471
I'm a CS+math minor turned ML PhD with a focus on optimization and control and I can never tolerate the sloppiness and crapshoot that was in bio during my highschool. that's why I never even bothered to take the med exam even tho I can apply for both CS and med bachelor at the same time in my country. I read like 40-50+ papers on covid during the lockdown and it confirmed my lifelong impression is that most of published literature on bio are just wordcel slop.

Anonymous at Tue, 11 Jun 2024 00:31:33 UTC No. 16227711

>>16227505
To be fair, papers on "hot topics" are always hot trash regardless of the field. Have you seen the absolute state of the random arxiv papers on transformers now that they are being used everywhere? NLP papers are like 80% hot trash at the moment because they are trendy, and when the trend inevitably moves on the quality will go back up again.

>>16227497
That's very kind of you to say. Thank you. I don't feel cool but I'll take your word for it.

Anonymous at Tue, 11 Jun 2024 01:08:23 UTC No. 16227756

>>16227711
I don't do LLM and NLP. many of them papers are bullcrap right now. some of them are borderline social science. my cup of tea is reinforcement learning, semidefinite programming, optimal control... etc. you can also do ML theory which is pretty much either hardcore statitistics or pure math but I don't have enough brain juice to work in those areas.

Anonymous at Tue, 11 Jun 2024 01:10:14 UTC No. 16227760

>>16227756
Ah, so we do fairly similar research then. That's cool. I don't want to give anything identifying away, but SDP and linear matrix inequalities are pretty important to my research.

Anonymous at Tue, 11 Jun 2024 01:14:12 UTC No. 16227763

>>16227760
no one can identify you with just this general information. there're gazillion of people who are doing optimal control. chemical engineers and system engineers surprisingly also are really good at this areas. for me I am trying to mix optimal control inside neural net architectures themselves to impose some constraint and maybe even do search and optimization inside the NN. there might be like 100 people who are doing the same so even if you get this information you wouldn't be able to identify anyone.

Anonymous at Tue, 11 Jun 2024 01:20:17 UTC No. 16227766

>>16227763
Just be careful. I understand wanting to avoid paranoia, but you'd be surprised how small of a world specific niches can be.

🗑️ Anonymous at Tue, 11 Jun 2024 11:16:03 UTC No. 16228224

>>16226054
>>16226094
>>16227469
Biology and Chemistry are extremely important fields also but it probably has something got to do with see image

>>16226094
>resulting in the bottom tier research field with widespread fraud renamed replication crisis in an attempt to fool the public into thinking that the frauds are not delibrate.
To be fair to biology physics is going through its own replication crisis

https://www.newscientist.com/article/2431927-physicists-are-grappling-with-their-own-reproducibility-crisis/
https://pubs.aip.org/physicstoday/article/72/12/8/811763/The-margins-of-reproducibility

Anonymous at Tue, 11 Jun 2024 11:42:45 UTC No. 16228238

>>16226054

Anonymous at Tue, 11 Jun 2024 11:47:00 UTC No. 16228242

>>16228238
correlates with mathematical rigor, and predictability of mathematical models.

Anonymous at Tue, 11 Jun 2024 11:54:07 UTC No. 16228248

>>16228242
>correlates
>correlation causation something something
The models say IQ is always increasing.
Number go up!

Anonymous at Tue, 11 Jun 2024 11:57:43 UTC No. 16228256

>>16228248
correlation does not equal causation is something midwits parrot nowadays whenever some correlation comes up with no nuance or situational discrimination.

and biology and chemistry are still extremely vitally important fields.

Anonymous at Tue, 11 Jun 2024 12:00:14 UTC No. 16228259

>>16228248
Correlation is equal causation 99% as long as you get the direction right.

Anonymous at Tue, 11 Jun 2024 12:00:15 UTC No. 16228260

>>16228242
>>16228256
The predictability of mathematical fields relate more to the nature of the fields themselves because as you go up the scale of the universe you start dealing with infinitely more variables, as opposed to decreasing number of variables as you go down the scale of the universe i.e. physics.

Anonymous at Tue, 11 Jun 2024 12:01:19 UTC No. 16228261

>>16228260
*The predictability of mathematical models

Anonymous at Tue, 11 Jun 2024 13:11:38 UTC No. 16228342

>>16226054
In the beginning, there was void.
It was defined by arithmetic, and mathematics was born.
Physics is applied mathematics.
Chemistry is applied physics.
Biology is applied chemistry.
Psychology is applied biochemistry.
And so forth.

Anonymous at Tue, 11 Jun 2024 17:25:34 UTC No. 16228650

>>16226054
As a math and theoretical physics pleb I have to admit that chemistry is superior. I wish I started chemistry maxxing earlier.

Anonymous at Tue, 11 Jun 2024 18:18:25 UTC No. 16228773

>>16226054

Biology & chemistry are currenltly more useful than physics & math THOUGH.

Anonymous at Tue, 11 Jun 2024 23:48:25 UTC No. 16229414

>>16228773
How so?

Anonymous at Wed, 12 Jun 2024 01:29:57 UTC No. 16229559

>>16226054
The intersection of biology and chemistry is where it's at!

Like oh, you want to synthesize the chemical Pisscumfartane? Well this bacteria has a chain of a dozen 800-atom enzymes that build it out of sugar and iron filings, with methane as a byproduct.
Meanwhile chemists try synthesizing Pisscumfartane. They create tons of toxic byproducts, use heavy metals as catalysts and reactants, heat and cool stuff, have bad yields etc. Literal cavemen banging stones togather in comparison.