I had a think about this recently and I don’t know how you could test this gradient of randomness idea empirically.

The method they use in this study is to compare the size of error bars in papers published in different fields. Surely the people working in those fields are all subject to a trade-off between expending resources on the study and gaining enough data (or working in a simpler sub region of their field) to get sufficient statistical power to test hypotheses. Therefore the size of error bars they find to be common across fields probably just reflects a statistical error rate deemed to be acceptable for publication in that field (i.e. significance = p<0.05 for most!).

That said, a fractal pattern of randomness is, I guess, equally as plausible as the linear pattern I suggest above!

The upshot of either theory is that the ultimate source of randomness stems ultimately from physics or mathematics (or can be described physically or mathematically, depending on your semantic preference). Neither answer whether this is true randomness or really complex determinism which is what really interests me.

Thanks for reading, I'll try and get the next post up soon!

]]>I am looking foward to read your next parts ðŸ™‚

]]>http://www.anyclip.com/movies/jurassic-park/a-dinosaurs-breakfast/#!quotes/ ]]>

The best way to resolve this would be to recreate sauropoda using mosquitos fossilized in amber.

]]>