I am four billion years old.

[Kai]

I've heard it as for a high as 10^250 before, but I don't recall how the author arrived at that order of magnitude.

Its so ungrokably high that biology will never exhaust all the possibilities, is the real point of the matter.

[indigoblade]

Science may sate my wonder but never the awe.

This is by far one of the best statements I have ever seen. It's beautifully poetic and yet at the same time true.

[Requia ☣]

If I remember correctly, human DNA is something like 3×10⁹ base-pairs. Four base pairs, so that's two bits each, i.e. a quarter of a byte. So that's around 700 to 800 MiB, about a CD-ROM's worth. This'd very likely go down with entropy coding, but I cannot estimate to what ratio.

The files are all plaintext though, so its 8 bits per base pair when uncompressed.

[Kai]

Science may sate my wonder but never the awe.

This is by far one of the best statements I have ever seen. It's beautifully poetic and yet at the same time true.

I don't think science will ever sate my wonder either, ie "the more I know the more I realize I know nothing".

Theres always more wonder around the corner, and theres always a reason for awe.

[ñͤͣ̄ͦ̌̑͗͊͛͂͗ ̸̨̨̣̺̼̣̜͙͈͕̮̊̈́̈͂͛̽͊ͭ̓͆ͅé ̰̓̓́ͯ́́͞]

It's true that we have not evolved to process probabilities. However, we are very capable when faced with frequencies.

"The idea that we are evolved to make frequency judgments, not probability calculations, is supported by evidence that we use frequencies as inputs and outputs for our likelihood estimates. We automatically notice and remember the frequency of events (input) and have subjective feelings of confidence that an event will or will not occur (output)."¹

This suggests that we are better able to grasp probability statistics if they can be rephrased in terms of frequencies.

1-"Mind Hacks" by Tom Stafford and Matt Webb, pg 237

[ñͤͣ̄ͦ̌̑͗͊͛͂͗ ̸̨̨̣̺̼̣̜͙͈͕̮̊̈́̈͂͛̽͊ͭ̓͆ͅé ̰̓̓́ͯ́́͞]

Also, directly regarding the OP: I love it. This is the angle I like to argue when people start getting all uppity and chauvinistic about their "heritage."

These types don't like to admit that their claim of having historical roots in a particular place and culture is a matter of how they prefer to frame "where they're from." If they trace it back far enough, we all ARE from the same place, they just stopped tracing it back far enough to realize this because their head is too far up their ass.

[indigoblade]

Also, directly regarding the OP: I love it. This is the angle I like to argue when people start getting all uppity and chauvinistic about their "heritage."

These types don't like to admit that their claim of having historical roots in a particular place and culture is a matter of how they prefer to frame "where they're from." If they trace it back far enough, we all ARE from the same place, they just stopped tracing it back far enough to realize this because their head is too far up their ass.

friggin' love it!

[Kai]

Also, directly regarding the OP: I love it. This is the angle I like to argue when people start getting all uppity and chauvinistic about their "heritage."

These types don't like to admit that their claim of having historical roots in a particular place and culture is a matter of how they prefer to frame "where they're from." If they trace it back far enough, we all ARE from the same place, they just stopped tracing it back far enough to realize this because their head is too far up their ass.

Yeah, it depends upon frame. Most things do.

Also, thanks for the mind hacks quote.