<p>Well, ideally, I’d like to learn everything, of course.</p>
<p>But that is impossible. For one thing, I can’t really read through proofs (without forcing myself to read them, which makes me just stare at them, causing me to hate my birdbrain even more), so anything proof-intensive is out. But that still doesn’t keep me from wanting to get a graduate-level understanding of CS, physics, EE, biology, chemistry (which I will leave until the last, unfortunately), applied math, statistics, astronomy, neurobiology, atmospheric science, economics, political science, psychology, and sociology. Each and every one of them. I do recognize, at least, that my interests in astro, atmospheric science, and the social sciences, would be quirky for an aspiring scientist. </p>
<p>It often does seem like a lot of applied math/physics profs have a graduate-level understanding of CS, physics, biology, chemistry, applied math, statistics, AND EE though (though “graduate level” doesn’t necessarily imply “grad level” at an Ivy League college, where one can easily work through the problems in books like Jackson’s “Electrodynamics” or Rudin’s “Real and Complex Analysis”). Even though Poincaire was probably the last person to be an expert in every field of math (now it’s impossible), many profs I know do seem to be polymaths. Especially the ones who are into complex adaptive systems and interdisciplinary research, like that done at the Santa Fe Institute.</p>