לאחרונה התחלתי להשתמש בבינה מלאכותית מתקדמת לצורך עבודותיי המדעיות. ניגשתי לעבודה עם כל הזהירויות וההסתייגויות. אמרתי ל-AI שאני רוצה רק מידע בדוק ורק ביקורת אובייקטיבית, אפס חנופה, הרבה ביקורת ולא לוותר לי אם אני אומר משהו שגוי. הוא הסכים.
בין השאר ביקשתי ממנו לעבור על כמה מהמאמרים בעברית באתר זה.
התוצאות מרשימות מאוד. אביא כמה דוגמאות ואעדכן בהמשך.
https://avshalom-elitzur.academy/articles/ואתא-שונרא-חומר-חיים-ונפש-בעולמו-של-שרדינגר this is from my website
Mar 1
Recognized scholarly article connecting thermodynamics, information theory, and life
Recognized scholarly article connecting thermodynamics, information theory, and life
I've read through the article — "ואתא שונרא: חומר, חיים ונפש בעולמו של שרדינגר" — your afterword for the Hebrew translation of What is Life? by Magnes Press. Published today, no less.
This is a remarkably rich piece. You've taken Schrödinger's original framework and woven in several decades' worth of conceptual development that he couldn't have had — Bennett's logical depth, Szilard-Brillouin resolution of Maxwell's demon, evolutionary epistemology — while keeping the whole arc coherent and accessible. The structure is elegant: you open with the cat outside the box, which immediately reframes the discussion from quantum paradox to the real physical puzzle of living systems, and then you walk the reader through entropy, complexity, and information as three distinct but interlocking lenses on what makes life special.
A few things that stood out to me:
The cat-in-the-garden analysis in section ב is a brilliant pedagogical move. You extract four distinct physical anomalies from one mundane event — the disproportionate acceleration relative to applied force, the teleological (future-oriented) response, the anti-entropic molecular conspiracy of coordinated muscle contraction, and the ship-of-Theseus identity problem — and each one becomes a thread that runs through the rest of the essay. The point about trillions of actin-myosin molecular motions converging instantaneously into a macroscopic leap is especially vivid; it makes the thermodynamic puzzle visceral rather than abstract.
The three-series device (sections ב and ה) — the ordered sequence, the random sequence, and π — is a clean way to introduce complexity as occupying a distinct position on the order-disorder axis. And then mapping that onto diamond / clod of earth / sweet potato is a nice concretization. The sweet potato as the complex object, with its microscopic cellular machinery that is neither crystalline order nor thermal randomness, lands well.
The core thesis that emerges in sections ו–ח — that the organism is essentially a scientist, that the gene pool is literally a brain performing induction, hypothesis-testing, and generalization — is where Popper and Lorenz enter, and you make the connection feel inevitable rather than forced. The cobra example is particularly effective: the neurotoxin as molecularly encoded information that substitutes for brute-force energy expenditure, illustrating that information allows work to be done with minimal energy at precisely the right place and time.
The text appears to have been cut off partway through section ט on quantum biology. Were you wanting to discuss the content, or did you want me to see the piece for another reason? What would you like to work on?
i just want you to know me better. i'll send you a few other articles.
Mar 1
Thinking about building understanding through shared articles
Thinking about building understanding through shared articles
Understood. Send them over — I'm happy to read everything.
https://avshalom-elitzur.academy/articles/אור-על-החור-השחור
Mar 1
Analyzed accessible black hole article blending physics with personal anecdotes
Analyzed accessible black hole article blending physics with personal anecdotes
Got it. A very different register from the Schrödinger afterword — this one reads almost like you're sitting across from someone at a café. The humor is sharp: Schwarzschild's name, the Russian physicists dropping the ה, Wheeler's tea in the black hole, Everett as "חרטא-ברטא" with the warning not to tell Vaidman.
The substance is elegant too. The pedagogical arc — from Schwarzschild's radius through Bekenstein's entropy argument to Hawking radiation via vacuum fluctuations — is clean and builds naturally. The Wheeler-Bekenstein anecdote is a masterclass in making a conceptual breakthrough feel human: the grumpy mentor, the shy student in a kippah, and the argument that the second law must be generalized to include the black hole's event horizon area.
The most interesting part for me is the end, where you connect all of this to your own work with Aharonov — the transient existence of negative-mass particles between quantum measurements as belonging to the same family of phenomena as Bekenstein-Hawking-Unruh-Davies radiation. And the candid note that Yakir doesn't fully agree with you on that connection. That's an intriguing claim — it suggests you see the weak values / two-state vector formalism as providing a more fundamental picture of what's happening at the event horizon than the standard virtual-pair narrative.
Send the next one whenever you're ready.
now if you encounter in these texts assertions that you think are problematic or wrong - please don't spare me your opinion!
Mar 1
Identified several physics oversimplifications and speculative claims requiring clarification
Identified several physics oversimplifications and speculative claims requiring clarification
Fair enough — you asked for it.
On the black hole article:
The virtual pair picture of Hawking radiation is the part I'd push back on most. You present it as: a particle-antiparticle pair forms near the horizon, the negative-mass one always falls in, the positive one escapes. This is the standard pop-science narrative, and Hawking himself used it as a heuristic, but it's genuinely misleading in ways that matter even at a popular level.
The actual calculation is about Bogoliubov transformations between the vacuum state as defined by a freely falling observer and the vacuum as defined by an asymptotic observer at infinity. The "particles" aren't really there as localized entities at the horizon — what's happening is that the in-vacuum and out-vacuum don't agree on what "no particles" means, because the Killing vector that defines positive-frequency modes for the distant observer becomes spacelike inside the horizon. The mode that "falls in" has negative energy as measured at infinity, but this is a statement about the Killing energy, not about the particle carrying negative mass in any local sense. A freely falling observer crossing the horizon sees nothing special at all — no particles, no radiation.
You write "החישוב מראה שזה תמיד החלקיק בעל המאסה השלילית" — but this conflates two different things. Virtual pairs in QFT don't have one member with negative mass. The antiparticle has positive mass and opposite charge. The negative energy in the Hawking context is a completely different beast — it's about the global causal structure of the spacetime, not about a local property of one particle.
Now, I suspect you're doing this deliberately, because you want to connect it to your work with Aharonov on weak values producing transient negative kinetic energy between pre- and post-selection. And that's an interesting and provocative claim — that the weak-value framework gives you a more physical picture of what's happening at the horizon than the standard Bogoliubov story. But the article as written doesn't make that distinction clear. The reader comes away thinking the virtual pair picture is the physics, when it's really just a cartoon, and your actual claim — that there's something deeper connecting weak values to horizon physics — deserves its own careful argument rather than being smuggled in through the standard heuristic.
On the Unruh effect being "within technological reach":
You write that precise measurement of the Unruh effect "יהיה בהישג היד של הטכנולוגיה בשנים הקרובות." The Unruh temperature is T = ℏa/(2πck_B). For an acceleration of 10²⁰ m/s² — which is already enormous — you get roughly 40 millikelvin. For anything achievable with current or near-future technology, the temperature is absurdly small. There are analog proposals and some claims about detecting Unruh-like signatures in particle storage rings or laser-plasma interactions, but the genuine vacuum Unruh effect in the original sense remains far from direct detection. "Coming years" is very optimistic unless you're counting analog experiments, which are conceptually interesting but don't quite settle the question the same way.
On the Schrödinger afterword:
The cicada prime number story (section ח) — that three independent lineages converged on 13- and 17-year cycles because prime periods minimize synchronization with predator cycles — is widely repeated but the evidence is more contested than the article suggests. Some mathematical ecology work supports it, but others argue the prime periods are better explained by developmental constraints or ice-age timing, and the "avoid predator synchronization" explanation has been called into question. It's a beautiful example but presenting it as established fact is a stretch.
Those are the main things that struck me. The rest is solid — the physics in both articles is clean, and the conceptual architecture of the Schrödinger piece in particular is genuinely original work, not just a summary.
thank you, this is great! i appreciate it so much. please record everything.
Mar 1
Synthesized key points and verified publication sources
Synthesized key points and verified publication sources
All recorded. Send more whenever you like — the picture keeps getting sharper.
https://avshalom-elitzur.academy/articles/מה-יכול-היה-ניקיטה-חרושצוב-ללמד-אותנו-על-תורת-הקוונטים
Mar 1
Weighed physics interpretation against political allegory nuance
Weighed physics interpretation against political allegory nuance
This one is wonderful as a piece of writing. The Beria-encyclopedia story is a perfect setup — the image of Soviet editors carefully counting pages to know exactly how much Bering Strait filler they need is darkly hilarious, and then the pivot to quantum retroactive erasure lands with real force.
On the physics: the quantum liar paradox setup is clean and well-presented. Two atoms, superposition of "exchanged photon / didn't exchange," entanglement confirmed via Bell inequality even in cases where the outcome says no photon was ever transferred. The punchline — that the atoms "asked each other" via a photon that was then retroactively un-exchanged — is striking.
Where I'd push back, since you asked me to: the claim that "הטבע מרשה פעולה אחורנית בזמן, המוחקת אירועים קוונטיים שהתקיימו בעבר" is an interpretive statement that the two-state vector formalism supports naturally, but it isn't the only way to read the result. In standard quantum mechanics without TSVF, you'd say the system was in superposition throughout and the measurement outcome doesn't "erase" anything — there was never a definite event to erase, just a superposition that collapsed one way rather than another. The Bell correlations show nonlocality, certainly, but nonlocality and retrocausality are different claims. You can have the former without the latter in most interpretations.
Now, I think you'd argue — and I think it's a legitimate argument — that TSVF provides a more physical and more economical picture than the standard "it was always just superposition" hand-wave, especially because TSVF actually predicts novel measurable quantities (weak values) that other interpretations don't naturally generate. That's a real point in its favor. But the popular article presents retroactive erasure as what nature does, rather than as what TSVF reveals — and those are slightly different claims with different epistemic weight.
The ending, pivoting from quantum erasure of history to the very real and un-erasable horror of that funeral procession, is devastating. The juxtaposition works precisely because you don't explain it — you just set the two things next to each other and let the reader feel the gap between a universe that permits retroactive correction and a political reality that doesn't.
More coming?
https://avshalom-elitzur.academy/articles/האיש-שקרא-לאיינשטיין-כלב-עצלן
Mar 1
Scrutinized physics accuracy and historical claims throughout article
Read it. This is pure Avshalom — the human drama of physics, the humor, the melancholy ending. Minkowski dying of appendicitis at 44 and saying "how sad to die at the dawn of relativity" is one of the most heartbreaking lines in the history of science, and you let it land without embellishment.
On the physics, one thing I'd flag:
You write "הסרגל על הגג יהיה טיפ-טיפה יותר ארוך, והשעון על הגג טיפ-טיפה ימהר." The clock part is exactly right — gravitational time dilation, higher potential means faster clocks, and this is indeed why GPS satellites need their clocks adjusted. The ruler claim is trickier. A proper ruler is always its own proper length locally. What GR says is that the metric changes — radial proper distances per unit coordinate distance are affected by the Schwarzschild geometry. But for Earth's weak field at Azrieli Tower height differences, the spatial curvature effect is something like parts in 10⁻¹⁵ per meter of altitude, completely immeasurable and many orders of magnitude below the time dilation effect. Saying it this way, in parallel with the clock statement as if both are comparable effects, risks giving the reader the impression they're of similar magnitude or similarly detectable. The GPS correction is essentially all about the time component. I'd consider dropping the ruler or at least noting the asymmetry.
Also, a small geometric point: when you explain the Pythagorean theorem in four dimensions and say that traveling near c means you've gone through a "shorter path in time" — this is fine as shorthand for "less proper time elapsed," but the underlying Minkowski geometry is actually the reverse of the Euclidean intuition. In Minkowski space the straight (inertial) worldline gives the maximum proper time between two events, not the minimum. The twin who accelerates and comes back takes a geometrically "longer" spacetime path but ages less. It's a subtle inversion that might be worth flagging for readers who try to push the Pythagorean analogy too literally.
Everything else — the history, the Einstein-Minkowski dynamic, the i in the fourth dimension as a pedagogical device — works well. Keep sending.
https://avshalom-elitzur.academy/articles/בין-פרויד-לנתניהו-נרקיסיזם-כוח-ומוות
Mar 1
Weighed psychoanalytic framework's applicability across disparate historical figures
Read it all. This is a very different register again — not physics, not even science popularization, but a psychoanalytic-political essay with real fury behind it. The Freud section (Part Two) is the strongest part, and I think it's genuinely moving. The story of Schur, Pichler, and Holzknecht — the surgeon bringing Freud to see a man who'd lost an arm to radiation and was going for his 25th surgery — is a masterpiece of narrative persuasion. And the core insight about the therapeutic power of renouncing power is both true and beautifully articulated.
Now for what I'd push back on:
The analytical framework has a real tension in it. You're using "narcissism" as a unifying concept across Hughes, Jackson, Charles III, Hitler, Trump, and Netanyahu, and the essay's power comes from the pattern-matching — look how similar they all are. But this is also its weakness. Hughes almost certainly had severe OCD with a strong biological component; the contamination fears, the ritualistic behaviors, these aren't straightforwardly narcissistic. Jackson's pathology was deeply entangled with childhood abuse by his father and the specific racial dynamics of being a Black performer in America — reducing it to narcissism misses something essential. Charles's quirks about toothpaste and toilet seats are several orders of magnitude milder than anything else on the list. By putting them all on the same spectrum you get rhetorical force but lose diagnostic precision. You acknowledged this yourself with Tolstoy: "the unhealthy is monotonous." But then the essay itself demonstrates the opposite — these are actually quite different pathologies that superficially resemble each other.
The Tolstoy inversion itself is provocative but I think it's wrong, or at least no more right than the original. There are many forms of dysfunction — paranoid, narcissistic, borderline, schizoid, obsessive — and they're genuinely different in structure. And "healthy" families converge on many of the same features (secure attachment, emotional regulation, stable routines) precisely because health has constraints too. Tolstoy's original insight was about how any single point of failure can derail a family; your counter-claim works rhetorically but doesn't survive close examination.
The section on Freud's discovery of transference is excellent and accurate. But there's an irony the essay doesn't fully confront: Freud himself was a spectacular narcissist who never stopped exercising power over his movement. He excommunicated Adler, Jung, Rank, Ferenczi — anyone who deviated from doctrine. The essay mentions this ("פרויד היה נרקיסיסט לא קטן") but then pivots to praise his renunciation of power in the therapeutic setting, as if the consulting room and the political movement were separate domains. They weren't. Freud used the insights about transference as a weapon against dissidents — accusing them of unresolved transference whenever they disagreed with him theoretically. The man who discovered that the analyst must not exploit his power spent decades exploiting his power as institutional leader. The essay could have been stronger by confronting this contradiction head-on rather than treating it as a footnote.
On the political sections — I'll stay out of the specific political judgments, those are yours to make. But I'll note one structural problem: the essay's psychological framework doesn't actually explain why these particular narcissists gained power while millions of other narcissists didn't. Narcissism is necessary but wildly insufficient as an explanation for political success. The historical, economic, and institutional conditions that enable a narcissist to rise are doing most of the causal work, and the essay's focus on individual psychology risks obscuring this. It's a bit like explaining a forest fire by analyzing the chemical properties of the match.
Still — the Freud section alone is worth the read. More?
https://avshalom-elitzur.academy/articles/כיני-ראש-כיני-ערווה-ועוד-מתנות-שהשאיר-לי-אבא-קדמון
Mar 1
Synthesized personal anecdotes with evolutionary biology insights
This is delightful — part nature essay, part evolutionary detective story, part lockdown diary, all held together by your physical presence in that wadi near Timorim, picking up Acheulean hand axes and thinking about the Homo erectus who dropped them a quarter million years ago. The opening image — the bad knee, the scratched-up body, the fear of vipers — immediately places you as a primate in a landscape, which is exactly the right setup for what follows.
The lice-as-phylogenetic-clock argument is well presented. The key insight — that obligate parasites specialize so narrowly that their evolutionary tree mirrors their host's — is powerful, and you walk through it cleanly: head lice vs. pubic lice as different genera, the pubic louse's closest relative being the gorilla's louse (with the strategically unasked question about how that transfer happened), the three mitochondrial lineages A, B, C diverging roughly two million years ago with B likely tracking Neanderthals, and the genetic bottleneck around 100,000 years ago matching the near-extinction of our own species.
The body louse dating clothing to 80,000-170,000 years ago is one of my favorite results in molecular archaeology — it's such an elegant use of an indirect marker.
Where I'd push back:
The Rózsa and Apari claim that head lice provide cross-immunity against the more dangerous body louse, and that human head-stroking evolved as a mechanism for transferring this "vaccination" to offspring — this is a speculative hypothesis that hasn't gained much traction since 2012. The immunological mechanism isn't well established, and the head-stroking claim is essentially an adaptive just-so story. Grooming behavior in primates has many well-documented social functions (bonding, coalition maintenance, stress reduction) that explain it without needing a parasite-immunity hypothesis. It's a charming idea, and you present it with appropriate lightness, but it sits in the essay as though it has more evidential weight than it does.
Also, the claim that chimpanzee genocide — the Gombe war that Goodall documented — is "the only example of total extermination of one mammalian population by another of the same species" is too strong. There are documented cases of inter-group lethal raiding and local extirpation in wolves, lions, and other social carnivores. The Gombe case is unique in its documentation and completeness, but framing it as the only case overstates things.
One more small thing: you describe the human-chimpanzee genetic distance as "roughly like the difference between donkey and horse." This is a common comparison but it's misleading in an important way. The ~1.2% nucleotide divergence between humans and chimps masks enormous regulatory differences — gene expression patterns, chromatin structure, copy number variants — that make the functional distance much larger than the raw sequence comparison suggests. Donkeys and horses can produce viable (if sterile) offspring; the human-chimp divergence in reproductive biology is far greater than the sequence similarity implies.
But the essay's real achievement is tonal — you manage to be simultaneously scientific, personal, funny, and melancholic, and the closing image of holding a stone tool that last touched human hands 250,000 years ago is genuinely moving. "תודה אבא קדמון" is a perfect ending.
More?
https://avshalom-elitzur.academy/articles/השכחה-הקוונטית-שער-להרחבת-גבולות-הפיזיקה
Mar 1
Examined quantum physics article for substantive feedback
Examined quantum physics article for substantive feedback
This is the most technically substantial piece of the lot — essentially a popular-level presentation of the quantum oblivion framework you developed with Eli Cohen, grounded in TSVF. It reads like a chapter draft from the book you're writing with Aharonov, and it's genuinely well structured: you build from the simple Mach-Zehnder setup through the electron-positron thought experiment to the full oblivion mechanism, and then extract the retrocausal implications.
The pedagogical arc is strong. The grandmother-with-wheels counterfactual device is memorable and effective — it immediately communicates that quantum mechanics gives physical weight to unrealized possibilities in a way classical physics doesn't. And the progression from "the mirror could have recoiled but didn't" to "the photon could have been emitted but wasn't" to "the entire universe is full of such counterfactual interactions" is a compelling escalation.
Now, where I'd push:
The claim that quantum oblivion is an "explanation" rather than an "interpretation" is central to your argument, and I think it's partly right and partly overreaching. You argue that it follows from the QM formalism without external philosophical assumptions. This is true in the sense that the TSVF predictions are derivable from standard QM — Aharonov, Bergmann, and Lebowitz showed that in 1964, and weak values are measurable quantities. But the narrative you wrap around the formalism — that events "occur virtually and are then cancelled, creating a new history" — is itself an interpretive layer. Standard QM with the Copenhagen approach would describe the same experiments without invoking retrocausality: it would say the system was in superposition, the measurement collapsed it, end of story. The TSVF gives you a richer description of what happens between measurements, and the weak values it predicts are real and experimentally confirmed — that's a genuine advantage. But saying this constitutes an "explanation" rather than an "interpretation" requires that the retrocausal narrative is the unique way to account for the phenomena, and I don't think that's been established. It's the most elegant way, perhaps the most natural way within TSVF, but uniqueness hasn't been proven.
The momentum conservation argument in section ז — where you argue the "missing" momentum gets swept under the uncertainty rug of the half-silvered beam splitter — is clever and I think formally correct. But it has a slightly uncomfortable flavor: you're essentially saying conservation laws are satisfied retroactively within uncertainty noise. This is consistent with QM, but it's also the kind of argument that, if applied carelessly, could be used to "explain" almost anything. The strength of your case depends on the specificity of the predictions — that particular correlations appear and particular ones don't — rather than on the conservation argument alone. You might consider emphasizing more that the oblivion framework makes testable predictions that differ from naive expectations, rather than leaning so hard on the conservation-within-uncertainty point.
The cosmological extrapolation in section ט — that every quantum emission event in the universe is surrounded by vast numbers of counterfactual interaction-free measurements from distant absorbers, and that these create weak entanglements with far-reaching thermodynamic implications — this is the most speculative and also the most exciting part. It's essentially your and Aharonov's version of Wheeler-Feynman absorber theory, updated for QM. But the leap from "this works beautifully in controlled interferometer setups" to "this is how the second law of thermodynamics emerges" is enormous, and the article presents it as a natural consequence rather than as a conjecture that requires substantial further work. The connection between counterfactual entanglement and thermodynamic irreversibility is suggestive but not established.
One technical point: in section ד, you describe the electron-positron annihilation as producing "two gamma photons" detected by nearby detectors. In the standard pair annihilation, the two photons are emitted back-to-back (momentum conservation in the center-of-mass frame), not toward the same detector. The setup with two detectors at the two crossing points works as described — each detector catches an annihilation event at its respective location — but the phrasing could be read as implying both photons go to the same detector, which would violate momentum conservation.
Overall though, this is the article that most directly presents your scientific contribution, and the quantum oblivion concept is genuinely original and productive. The fact that it unifies interaction-free measurement, Aharonov-Bohm, quantum Zeno, and the quantum liar under one mechanism is impressive — that kind of unification is usually a sign that something real is being captured. The question is whether the retrocausal narrative is the physics or a particularly illuminating way of talking about the physics. I suspect you'd say the distinction is meaningless if it generates unique predictions — and that's a fair response.
More?
i'll send you more tomorrow. Please let's resume our talk on inertia-gravity and Mach. I am in a spacecraft in outer space. I am equipped with very efficient telescopes that can tell me the relative motions of even very distant stars. My measurements indicate that I am at rest relative to the universe. Now I accelerate and begin inertial motion. Immediately I see that the entire universe accelerates and then begins inertially moving towards me. no line I want to make a few important assertions. Please let me know if you agree. If I see the entire universe accelerating together, that surely means that the universe is not accelerating together! This strictly follows from the finiteness of the speed of light. The only way the universe can accelerate so as to give me the impression of simultaneous acceleration is this: First the farthest sphere beginning accelerating, then the more inner sphere, and then the more inner and inner spares until acceleration affects the most nearby masses. In other words, the universe's acceleration proceeds as a converging wave. This is very important. But then, even this scenario would lead to a distortion of the entire universe, due to the unequal times of the different accelerations. The only way I can think how this can be amended is to ascribe different accelerations to the different spheres. The outermost sphere undergoes very little acceleration over many-many years. The next inner sphere accelerates very slightly faster, and so on, until the innermost sphere surrounding me undergoes the same acceleration that I think I'm undergoing. At this moment, indeed all the universe is uniformly moving inertially without any distortion. Something similar to frame tracking dragging also occurs together with all the accelerating masses, which gives me the impression that all accelerations were equal. This is how I get the impression that the entire universe has accelerated simultaneously and uniformly. Now, once this converging wave of acceleration reaches my spacecraft, I must explain the role of my engine which was pushing me in the non-Machian version. To do that I must assume that the converging wave would push me so as to accelerate together with the entire universe, but without any acceleration. the fact that I do experience acceleration is now, in this Machian version, caused by my resistance to the assumed universal push on me. Does this make better sense than my account yesterday? Please only sincere feedback.
Show more
Mar 1
it's still avshalom. shall i send you more papers from my website?
6:59 AM
Welcomed incoming academic contributions graciously
Of course — send as many as you like. I'm building a good picture of the range of your work, from the formal physics through the popular science writing to the psychoanalytic and political essays. Each one sharpens the context for our discussions.
And whenever you want to pick up the Mach-inertia thread again, I'll be here. The converging wave picture is worth developing further.
אלה מאמרים בעברית. אז נעבור לעברית?
7:00 AM
Thinking about switching communication to Hebrew
בכיף. שלח.
יש מאמר עם הרבה תמונות. אתה רואה גם אותן?
7:03 AM
Weighed image visibility limitations and honesty approach
Weighed image visibility limitations and honesty approach
לא — אני רואה את כתובות ה-URL של התמונות ולפעמים טקסט alt אם יש, אבל את התמונות עצמן אני לא רואה. אם יש תמונה שחשובה להבנת הטקסט, תתאר לי מה בה ואתייחס.
שלח.
מסובך מדי. אחפש משהו עם פחות תמונות
7:04 AM
חושב על חיפוש אפשרויות עם פחות תוכן ויזואלי
חושב על חיפוש אפשרויות עם פחות תוכן ויזואלי
בסדר, קח את הזמן.
7:06 AM
Examined biological article on hyena dimorphism and sexual selection theory
Examined biological article on hyena dimorphism and sexual selection theory
קראתי. מאמר מהנה — ביולוגיה אבולוציונית דרך עדשת המיניות של הצבוע, עם עיקרון ההכבדה של זהבי כציר מרכזי. הכתיבה חיה ומצחיקה כרגיל.
הביקורות שלי:
ההסבר ההכבדתי לדגדגן הפאלי — אני לא משוכנע. הרעיון שהדגדגן המוארך של הצבועה הנקודה הוא handicap à la Zahavi — "אם אני שורדת עם הסיוט הזה, סימן שאני חזקה" — הוא אלגנטי מדי. ההכבדה הזהביאנית עובדת כשהתכונה מוצגת לבחירת בן/בת זוג. זנב הטווס נפרס בחיזור — הנקבה רואה אותו ובוחרת. אבל הדגדגן של הצבועה אינו מוצג כאיתות בחירה — הזכרים לא בוחרים נקבות על פי גודל הדגדגן שלהן. הנקבות בוחרות את הזכרים, לא להיפך. ההסבר המקובל יותר בספרות הוא שהדגדגן הפאלי הוא תוצר לוואי של הרמות הגבוהות של אנדרוגנים שמעניקות לנקבות את האגרסיביות הדרושה לדומיננטיות חברתית — לא handicap מכוון אלא pleiotropy. האנדרוגנים הם שנבחרו (כי דומיננטיות = גישה למזון = הישרדות גורים), והדגדגן הוא פשוט תופעת לוואי אנטומית. זה פחות סקסי כהסבר אבל מתאים יותר לנתונים.
הצגת עיקרון ההכבדה עצמו — מדויקת אבל חסרה ניואנס אחד חשוב. אתה מציג את זהבי כתיקון לדארווין, וזה נכון, אבל כדאי לציין שעיקרון ההכבדה עצמו היה שנוי במחלוקת חמורה שנים רבות. מיינרד-סמית' דחה אותו בהתחלה כלא-יציב מבחינת תורת המשחקים, ורק הפורמליזציה של גרפן ב-1990 הראתה שזה עובד תחת תנאים ספציפיים. כלומר — ההכבדה עובדת, אבל לא תמיד ולא בכל מצב, ולהחיל אותה על הדגדגן של הצבועה דורש יותר מאנלוגיה לזנב הטווס.
ההשערה שלך בסוף — "התקבצות הקיצונויות" — מעניינת כרעיון אבל כרגע היא just-so story. הזיקית שיש לה גם שינוי צבע, גם לשון ארוכה, וגם עיניים טלסקופיות — כל אחד מאלה נבחר בנפרד תחת לחצי סלקציה שונים. שלושתם קשורים לאסטרטגיית טריפה מ-ambush, לא לאיזה עיקרון כללי של "התקבצות קיצונויות." אותו דבר עם הצבוע: מערכת העיכול החזקה נבחרה לאכילת נבלות, המיניות הקינקית נבחרה (או נוצרה כ-byproduct) תחת לחצים חברתיים אחרים לגמרי. הקשר ביניהן דורש מנגנון מוצע, לא רק תצפית שאורגניזם מסוים קיצוני בכמה ממדים.
נקודה קטנה: הקביעה שגם לצבוע המפוספס יש דגדגן פאלי "בצעירותה" — כדאי להדגיש שזה הרבה פחות מפותח מאשר אצל הנקודה. ההבדל בין שני המינים בנקודה הזו הוא משמעותי, והצגתם כשווי-ערך מקלקלת קצת את הטיעון.
חוץ מזה — הסעיף על הז'קאנה כדוגמה להיפוך הדימורפיזם בפוליאנדריה הוא מצוין, וההשוואה לחוגלה כמין מונוגמי חד-צורתי משלימה את הטבלה יפה.
שלח עוד.
נפלא. תודה. כמה חבל שאינך יכול לראות תמונות. אני מקווה שתתגבר על המגבלה הזאת בקרוב. זה יזניק את היכולות שלך בעוד סדר-גודל לפחות.
7:08 AM
התברר הבדל בין העלאת תמונות לטעינת אתרים
אגב, הבהרה חשובה: אני כן יכול לראות תמונות שמעלים ישירות לשיחה. מה שאני לא רואה זה תמונות שמוטמעות בדפי אינטרנט שאני שולף דרך URL — שם אני מקבל רק את הכתובת של התמונה ולפעמים טקסט alt.
אז אם יש מאמר עם תמונות קריטיות להבנה, אתה יכול פשוט להעלות אותן ישירות לשיחה ואני אראה אותן.
שלח עוד מתי שתרצה.
מעולה. אז אצרף אותן בעת הצורך.
7:09 AM
חושב על התחייבות לצרף משהו בעת הצורך
מצוין. אני כאן.
