<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	xmlns:slash="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/slash/"
	>

<channel>
	<title>DJ Strouse &#187; evolution</title>
	<atom:link href="http://djstrouse.com/tag/evolution/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://djstrouse.com</link>
	<description>the rantings of a baby scientist</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Sun, 08 Aug 2010 05:46:05 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<language>en</language>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.0.1</generator>
		<item>
		<title>Book Review: The Fabric of Reality by David Deutsche</title>
		<link>http://djstrouse.com/book-review-the-fabric-of-reality-by-david-deutsche/</link>
		<comments>http://djstrouse.com/book-review-the-fabric-of-reality-by-david-deutsche/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Sat, 28 Mar 2009 02:10:48 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>djstrouse</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Book Reviews]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[computer science]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[evolution]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[physics]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[quantum theory]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://djstrouse.com/?p=266</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[My Goodreads Review rating: 3 of 5 stars This is David Deutsch&#8217;s plea to the scientific world to tear down the separation between theory and their own worldviews and truly own the picture of reality that modern physics has painted for us. He begs that we take our theories seriously as fundamental paradigms and not [...]


No related posts.]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><a href="http://www.goodreads.com/book/show/177068.The_Fabric_of_Reality_The_Science_of_Parallel_Universes_and_Its_Implications?utm_medium=api&amp;utm_source=blog_review" style="float: left; padding-right: 20px"><img alt="The Fabric of Reality: The Science of Parallel Universes and Its Implications" border="0" src="http://photo.goodreads.com/books/1172446224m/177068.jpg" /></a> <a href="http://www.goodreads.com/review/show/14650745?utm_medium=api&#038;utm_source=blog_review"><b>My Goodreads Review</b></a><br />
<em>rating: 3 of 5 stars<br />
</em><br />
This is David Deutsch&#8217;s plea to the scientific world to tear down the separation between theory and their own worldviews and truly own the picture of reality that modern physics has painted for us.  He begs that we take our theories seriously as fundamental paradigms and not set them aside as interesting little quirks of Nature.  In particular, he makes a solid case for embracing the &#8220;many-worlds&#8221; interpretation of quantum mechanics (given my greenness on this subject, I&#8217;m reserving judgment until further notice).</p>
<p>His central idea, however, is a draft of an approach to a theory of everything that melds quantum theory, the theory of evolution, epistemology, and the theory of computation.</p>
<p>As for quantum theory, this was book provides one of the best popular introductions to quantum theory and quantum computation that I&#8217;ve seen.  Certain ideas (such as the concept of parallel computation in the multiverse) only clicked for me after hearing them from Deutsch.</p>
<p>As for epistemology, Deutsch commands a knowledge of his contemporary scientific philosophy rivaling that of Galileo, Newton, and Einstein &#8211; men who were not afraid to dabble in the &#8220;softer&#8221; science of epistemology.  He drives home the mistakes of induction-based scientific philosophies and presents the case for adopting a Popperian philosophy, emphasizing the <em>relative</em> problem-solving efficiency of a theory as criterion for its success.  The reading can be a bit rough though if you&#8217;ve never been introduced to Kuhn, Popper, or other scientific philosophers before.  I&#8217;d highly recommend reading some of their works before picking up Fabric of Reality (I had read some Kuhn but no Popper and wish I had).</p>
<p>His introductions to evolution and computation are noble efforts but again, this book is much richer if you have a bit of a background in these subjects.  I&#8217;d particularly recommend Richard Dawkins&#8217; <a rel="nofollow" target="_blank" href="http://www.goodreads.com/book/show/61535.The_Selfish_Gene_30th_Anniversary_Edition">The Selfish Gene</a> as a prerequisite for Deutsch&#8217;s discussions.</p>
<p>I was extremely intrigued by the seeds of a multiverse theory of knowledge that Deutsch planted as well, something I intend to further explore as I gain more background in quantum theory.</p>
<p>Given the radical and rigorous nature of this book&#8217;s explorations, I found Deutsch&#8217;s use of chapter summaries and glossaries extremely helpful in structuring my reading.  I think this feature is an excellent take-away for any science writer.</p>
<p>All things considered however, the fact that this book is not stand-alone and can be confusing at times without the proper background lead me to grant it only three stars.</p>
<p><a href="http://www.goodreads.com/review/list/206483-dj?utm_medium=api&#038;utm_source=blog_review">View all my reviews.</a></p>


<p>No related posts.</p>]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://djstrouse.com/book-review-the-fabric-of-reality-by-david-deutsche/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Building Fluency in &#8220;Touch&#8221;</title>
		<link>http://djstrouse.com/building-fluency-in-touch/</link>
		<comments>http://djstrouse.com/building-fluency-in-touch/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 21 Aug 2008 12:49:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>djstrouse</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Hubli]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Travelogues]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[biology]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[culture]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[evolution]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://djstrouse.com/?p=142</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[[wp_geo_map] A more responsible me would be packing right now. But I feel like I&#8217;ve left so much unsaid about India on this blog. Its definitely not for a lack of insights and excitement (my blogging absence has been the product of intermittent internet access, project business, and illness). There are a hundred little themes [...]


No related posts.]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[wp_geo_map]<br />
A more responsible me would be packing right now.  But I feel like I&#8217;ve left so much unsaid about India on this blog.  Its definitely not for a lack of insights and excitement (my blogging absence has been the product of intermittent internet access, project business, and illness).  There are a hundred little themes about India I could blog about right now: the food, the noise, the colors, the head-bob, the dogs, the trash, the &#8220;What is your country?&#8221;s&#8230;  Anyone who has traveled to India knows each of these Indian tidbits well.  But there&#8217;s another aspect of Indian culture that I&#8217;ve noticed that I haven&#8217;t heard mentioned much.  Combined with my reading of a <a href="http://www.economist.com/science/displaystory.cfm?story_id=11919360&#038;fsrc=rss">recent article from the Economist</a> and viewing of the excellent new Pixar film <a href="http://www.apple.com/trailers/disney/walle/">WallE</a>, I&#8217;d like to talk about that lost form of human communication: touch.</p>
<p>In India, people are just as fluent in &#8220;touch&#8221; as they are in the spoken word.  Beggars in the street flock to me and any other white people in my company, touching our arms and gently tugging on our sleeves.  We watch same-sex friends drape themselves over each other shoulders and interlock fingers and hands in the process.  New acquaintances we meet smother our hand shakes in double-fisted hand pumps and warmly throw an arm around our shoulder like they&#8217;re picking up their son from a tee-ball game.</p>
<p>So what are they all saying?  Touch has a wide vocabulary but all of these people are generally saying the same thing: &#8220;I want to connect with you.&#8221;</p>
<p>Touch is a way of building relationships.  <a href="http://www.boston.com/news/globe/ideas/articles/2004/03/21/monkey_love/">Harry Harlow&#8217;s famous study</a> of monkeys separated from their mothers showed that this is indeed one of the primary ways that a baby monkey builds a relationship with its mother (babies separated from their mothers and any other soft touch showed extremely high levels of stress whereas babies whose mothers were replaced by terry cloth towels bonded with the soft touch of the towel just as they would to the soft touch of a mother).  The same is true of humans.</p>
<p>Yet the shift to internet communication, the cult of personal space, and homophobia in the US has greatly reduced our fluency in &#8220;touch&#8221; in America.  Sure we still shake hands with new acquaintances and hug old friends but we often seem to do so out of tradition, rather than a genuine desire to embrace.  And a touch for the sake of tradition doesn&#8217;t communicate much.  It can also be easy to think that emails, video chat, and text messages can communicate just as much as anything we do or say in person, but the fact is we&#8217;re still biological creatures with evolved needs.</p>
<p>Fortunately, as any student of a foreign language who has returned to their former study abroad location after years at home, though languages fade fast <em>without </em>practice, they revive themselves in our minds almost as quickly <em>with </em>practice.</p>
<p>So try something this week.  Next time you really want to show some gratitude, say it with touch.</p>


<p>No related posts.</p>]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://djstrouse.com/building-fluency-in-touch/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
	</channel>
</rss>
