>>12515045Information Theory: ET Jane's Probability Theory: The Logic of Science just fucking blew my mind. Building a model of thinking/reasoning from the ground up. Information theory and Entropy is so simple yet so defining in what it allows.
metalogic: Already mentioned in this thread, but to define the limits of our knowledge (Godel is the easy example) and of our formal limits is pretty haunting.
Computability theory/computational complexity: I think this is the big underdog that flies under the radar. We implicitly assume that problems can just be defined/solved by people, and if not people, then computers. This explains the limits of what we can/can't do computationally, which puts bounds, to a degree, on the ability of human knowledge in an almost cursed way; we can know something has a solution while knowing full-tilt that we will *never* be able to get to that solution before the heat death of the universe. Goes beyond just "computers" as we think of them, and dives into generalized computation/math/logic. Related to metalogic.
cellbiology/genetics/mol bio: This is my field (cell bio, PhD): I don't find it that cursed, except how easily we can manipulate biology. I don't think people realize how much we've mastered biological tools that already existed and repurposed them for our own investigatory tools, and if we wanted to play god, we could get real fucking crazy in a very, very short amount of time. But for obvious reasons (morality) we can't/don't. I'm not even talking about just CRISPR, but building some crazy transgenic people.
Quantum computers: Got meme'd outta /sci/, but I've used them in my research, and the R^n nature of qubits available for computation, knowing that at the end of the day you can never recover those hidden states, is fucking maddening. Seriously, an infinite bloch sphere surface per qubit can be used for computation, but then you're forced to collapse to one of two states with some probability? And you can't clone qubits?
