Science desk
< March 19	<< Feb \| March \| Apr >>	March 21 >

Welcome to the Wikipedia Science Reference Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is a transcluded archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current reference desk pages.

March 20[edit]

Intracellular pH modulators?[edit]

I recently read that one of the ways in which drugs like chloroquine may have antiviral properties is due to the fact that it raises intracellular pH.^[1] I'd like to know what other agents modulate intracellular pH—either up or down, and either indiscriminately or in a targeted fashion. Please don't assume my question is limited to things that might be relevant to coronaviruses, or even to antiviral therapies. I'm looking for general information on intracellular pH modulation. Information on and discussion of the physiological effects of such modulation would be appreciated as well, but is not necessary. Thank you in advance! 199.66.69.88 (talk) 01:52, 20 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Google Scholar search for [intracellular ph modulator] found several ideas. DMacks (talk) 03:41, 20 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ Savarino, Adrea; Boelaert, John R; Cassone, Antonio; Majori, Giancario; Cauda, Roberto (November 2003). "Effects of chloroquine on viral infections: an old drug against today's diseases?". The Lancet Infectious Diseases. 3 (11): 722–727. doi:10.1016/S1473-3099(03)00806-5.

The Physics that Suggests Our Future is Cast in Stone[edit]

The Brits like science and philosophical issues behind it. I have seen videos about the Universe and Quantum Mechanics made in Britain. They are so good and memorable. But this is something special. Please take a look at this [1]. This video claims that everything in the world that happens is predetermined and has been known way before it actually here. If this is true, then how about the statistics? It's been said that mathematics is a program for the Nature, and the Probability Theory is a part of mathematics. That man who appears in the video, with his name beginning at Al-, sort of an Arabic surname, he is a nuclear physicist at one of the British Universities. I've watched two of his long multi-series videos. He states that there is no free will. So, there is a place somewhere where everything in the world is described in some gigantic differential equations? Is it true? It is kind of super bizarre. What is your opinion? The answer to this question has a practical significance for me. Years ago I made a decision that in my opinion resulted in negative consequences for a lot of people. Should I feel guilty? Thanks, - AboutFace 22 (talk) 15:23, 20 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That question is better-asked at Wikipedia:Reference desk/Humanities. But you could start by reading the lede of our article about free will, which does a good job summarizing the various philosophical positions, in particular compatibilism. Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 16:09, 20 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Were you compelled to make that decision, or did you choose to make it? Did it seem like a good idea at the time? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:10, 20 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I was not compelled to make this decision but I was under some emotional pressure unrelated to this decision. It seemed a minor thing that snowballed. It affected me badly too and in the long run it became irreversible and resulted in a death of a person close to me, yes. I wish I never made this decision, but since it was so minor in my eyes I wonder if other circumstances could have resulted in similar outcome later on. At that time I felt that it was a magnanimous thing for me to do. So, do we have a free will or not? Thank you, AboutFace 22 (talk) 17:32, 20 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It was your choice. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:00, 20 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it was my choice 100%. AboutFace 22 (talk) 19:03, 20 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

For interest, "That man who appears in the video" is Jim Al-Khalili, a science presenter well known in the UK. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 90.197.27.39 (talk) 19:25, 20 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The idea that the world is predetermined is called determinism and has been a philosophical puzzle for millenia. The current "scientific" version of it is superdeterminism if you believe there is only one world, or the many worlds interpretation which says (roughly) that every possible world actually exists. The mathematical universe hypothesis is an even more extreme version. Mathematical statistics doesn't have much to say about any of this. It starts with the idea of assigning probabilities to different sets of possible experimental outcomes (see probability distribution) and then seeing what happens as you combine them via mathematical operations. 67.164.113.165 (talk) 20:18, 20 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

One problem in discussing the concept and (im)possibility of free will, is that (IMO) all definitions of the concept are either circular or incoherent (or sometimes both). Like in the lead of the article on Free will, "Free will is the ability to choose between different possible courses of action unimpeded." What does "unimpeded" mean here? If the future, and thereby your future choice, is predetermined, does that fact constitute an obstruction to your ability to choose? As is preordained, you are going to make a choice, so apparently you are able to choose. It would be a different situation if you wanted to choose A but somehow are forced to choose B instead. But no, you actually want to choose B. Now you can counteract the argument by saying that (in this scenario) not only is your will not free, but also your desire is already carved in stone in the timelessly eternal World Script. But no philosopher talks about free desire, for a good reason: what is the point in considering the scenario that someone is unable to make a different choice than the one they want to make in the first place? Mistakes aside, isn't that already true for everyone? So "unimpeded" apparently just means, "freely able to choose as you wish". Circle closed. As to compatibilism, it has a mirror image in the position that the non-existence of free will and non-determinism are mutually compatible. Even if you have truly random events, not predictable by any laws of nature and not carved in stone, one's agency can still be an illusion. --Lambiam 20:42, 20 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

One problem in discussing the concept and (im)possibility of free will, is that (IMO) all definitions of the concept are either circular or incoherent (or sometimes both). Not only that, but pretty much every time I see people arguing about whether or not free will exists, the two sides are using different definitions, but without defining them clearly at the start of their argument. (And often, it turns out that one person is arguing for the existence of something that everyone agrees exists, and the other is arguing for the non-existence of something that everyone agrees doesn't exist, and the real disagreement is which of those things can be labelled "free will").Iapetus (talk) 09:35, 23 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

See also here. Count Iblis (talk) 23:29, 20 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Also you can look at block universe. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 11:33, 22 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

But only if you are predestined to do so. 2606:A000:1126:28D:F901:4184:4A25:4308 (talk) 17:59, 22 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently I was predestined, so I looked that reference up. Thank you, AboutFace 22 (talk) 01:48, 23 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Which ANA titer is more positive 1:100 or 1:40?[edit]

I've read this article about ANA (this section) and the following isn't understood for me. Is 1:40 more positive since we find more Anti-nuclear antibody per less quantity, or 1:100 is consider more positive? I'm confused a little bit. Also if it's written that <1:100 is negative, is 1:100 by itself is positive? Thank you.ThePupil (talk) 22:29, 20 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

1:100 is a higher titer. Ruslik_Zero 15:31, 21 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If a test at <1:100 is negative, 1:100 will also be negative. As the dilution factor goes up, the test will go from positive to negative. --Lambiam 20:31, 21 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much. I got my mistake. ThePupil (talk) 00:21, 22 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

[1] Savarino, Adrea; Boelaert, John R; Cassone, Antonio; Majori, Giancario; Cauda, Roberto (November 2003). "Effects of chloroquine on viral infections: an old drug against today's diseases?". The Lancet Infectious Diseases. 3 (11): 722–727. doi:10.1016/S1473-3099(03)00806-5.

[1]