Tuesday, November 25, 2014

UW Daily Update Monday Nov. 23: Artificial Life and Effective Altruism

1.     UW Daily Update Monday Nov. 23
a.     Grab a egg sandwich at Motosurf, then take final physics midterm. It's fairly easy.
b.     Go to the SPS lounge and write my portfolio statement for Honors 100.
c.      The lunchbox seminar is about some small steps towards “artificial life”. Our professor has designed particles that bind together using the “lock-and-key” model. Larger spherical particles with semispherical dimples fit together very closely with smaller spherical particles. (These particles were large macromolecules made of many small linked monomers.) When a large particle and a small particle fit together, they bind due to what is known as “osmotic pressure”. The particles are floating in solution, so on their own they experience constant pressure from all sides, due to both water and larger molecules in solution. But when their surfaces get close enough that there are some water molecules between them, but the larger molecules can’t fit in the gap, the surfaces facing outwards experience pressure from both the water and the other particles in solution, whereas the surfaces facing inwards only experience pressure from the water, so the lock-and-key particles experience a net force towards each other and bind the rest of the way. This is called “depletion binding” since the inner large molecules need to be depleted before it can occur.
d.     But, I hear you ask, as I asked, don’t the larger molecules displace the water, so that when the larger molecules are forced out of the gap between the surface and they are replaced by water, the water pressure inside increases by the same amount the pressure due to the larger molecules decreases? The professor, being a physicist, not a chemist or biologist, gave a entropic explanation rather than a mechanical one. The total entropy of the system is lower if the larger particles are stuck together, because then there is more volume available to all the molecules floating in solution outside the particles, and this means more possible states for these molecules and hence more entropy. (The professor stated (I can’t give the derivation) that entropy = c*number of molecules*ln(volume available to each molecule).)
e.     Anyway, the professor used the larger particles’ ability to side-link to create chains of particles to seed the “reproductive” process by which the particles linked with the smaller spherical particles, which then linked with larger particles that naturally lined up in the same order; if the larger particles were small-dimple-big-dimple-small-dimple, they would link to small-sphere-large-sphere-small-sphere, which would in turn link to small-dimple-big-dimple-small-dimple. (There were multiple sets of locks and keys; a given type of smaller particle only fit one size of larger particle) These secondary chains would then split off, since the interactions between the locks and keys were relatively weak, and you’re left with the original chain and a copy. Sometimes a wrong molecule would bond, creating a mutated copy that would compete with the original one.
f.      The most remarkable thing that occurred during the seminar: a young woman studying biology, Rachel, whom I knew from Go club had come into the physics lounge to study with no idea that the lunchbox seminar was going on. I told her the topic of the seminar, and she was very excited. During the seminar, she jumped up to discuss a new technology, helical protein bundles, with the professor, since it would solve many of his technical issues. At first, he was skeptical, but she pressed on. I caught myself holding my breath at one point. After many questions, the professor asked Rachel for citations, which she readily agreed to provide. It was awesome.
g.     I discussed a little bit with Gorm, the tutor graduate student I had met at my first seminar, then left for lunch.
h.     I read a fascinating Ribbonfarm article at lunch, then went to CS class, where Reges gave the clearest exposition on abstract classes I had yet received. Reges is such a good lecturer that he strengthens topics I thought I had solidly covered.
i.       I dropped by the Commuter Commons, a place for off-campus students to hang, to try to get advice on how to get to the airport for my family’s Thanksgiving visit to extended family in California. I gained some good information and readied myself to take public transit the next day.
j.       Went to SPS lounge again, this time for Go club. Played a quick game of 9x9 with Rachel. I played pretty well, but messed up a corner invasion. Learned a little bit more about her—she hopes to go to grad school at Stanford, but fears her application will be denied since she can’t put her current research on yet. I want to tell Eleanor I’ve found a second Natasha J.
k.     Earlier in the day, I saw a flyer in the SPS lounge for “Effective Altruism Informational Meeting: altruism supported by evidence-based reasoning” in the Haggett South study room, run by one of my floormates Issa Rice. I decide to go, feeling thoroughly Leroy. I fear that the group will be dominated by passionate social justice advocates or people who advocate some stilted version of rationality to an irrational extent. But I get extremely lucky, and find a group that consists of very reasonable people. The head of the Seattle group, John, who came to help Issa with the meeting, is an Amazon programmer; half of the others are CS majors and programmers, while the rest are STEM majors. The regulars dismiss ideas that they think are irrational (in each case, I agreed) with politeness, but an almost politically incorrect refusal to hedge their statements with uncertainty they don’t feel. It feels very refreshing. Everyone has agreed on values to an extent that allows efficient discourse without side-stepping around direct assessments. We talk about the Effective Altruism group in Seattle, some interesting meta-charities, and future meeting topics. Afterwards, I talk with a mathematician, Tim, who tells me about a flaw with academia I hadn’t heard articulated: full professors are forced to simultaneously do research, teach, and manage an army of graduate students, and many people simply don’t have talents in all three areas.

l.       John provided pizza, so I go straight to my room without passing “dinner in the HUB”. I finish up my portfolio website and statement for Honors 100 and turn it in, get Rick’s, do laundry, print my boarding pass, and write this log.

No comments:

Post a Comment