Science @4-ch

>>24
And then we could all be gods. Actually I'm quite fond of that idea, being able to control a simulated world full of little virtual creatures that evolve and adapt to better survive the virtual nature using their A.I. and then fucking with them for a couple hundred years while they're still wearing virtual rags, then leaving them to figure things out for themselves while I sit back and watch the fireworks, and maybe after a couple thousand simulated years I'd reintroduce my presence in their man-made reality and delete them all. Rinse, repeat.

>>29

So you say you know some things of programming? You're not the only one :P Give me other proper reason to have 1024bit processor. Unless of course you want to have matrix multiplications done by it.

Of course you can have precise calculations as accurate as you want even on 8-bit computer but if you want them to be as fast as possible you'd go for processors doing them with one command, ie. with 64-bit word you can have more precise calculations done in same time as with 32-bit but being more accurate. And other thing is memory but even then, you can have huge memory available even on 8-bit system - it will be tricky of course.

"Turing-completeness is not sufficient to simulate thought". I think that even people who don't know what Turing test is, would say that :P But then, tell my what thought is? And what about consiousness? What do you think is needed to use term "thinking machines"?

If machine will think (analyse, combine facts etc) about itself, about world surrounding it, will even have some avatar and will say "I know that I am. It is me. I do things that alter world and I regard myself as unique entity, though I can be copied". What then? Will you look into it's database/code and then tell that it is just a simulation? Then what?

Instead of having greater bit sizes we should work on clock speed and core temperatures. I would like to have a nice 6.0 GHz processor without the need for Liquid Nitrogen. Plus 1024 bit Machine Code would be such a bitch to debug, or even write an assembler for. I have enough problems attempting to read 32, 64 and 128 bit instructions.

they have 128 bit programs now?
I thought we were still stuck at 64.

Why do we have to discrimnate based on simulation terms? Is it a murder to have a simulated entity? No, wait I know what it is ... some people have way too much ego, and are afraid to acknoledge, share, talk or even consider the presence of other types of entities.
And what's with the convicing part? it's like you're having an obsession about convictions, reminds me of religion.

256-bit? 1024-bit?

256-bit OS would allow you to address up to 115,792,089,237,316,195,423,570,985,008,690,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 bytes of RAM. (Rounded; That's 115 quattuorvigintillion)

... and a 1024-bit OS would allow up to 179,769,313,486,231,590,772,930,519,078,900,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 bytes of RAM. (Obviously rounded; That is 179 uncentillion)

I don't see us needing that kind of computing power within our lifetime. Even the next step up to 128-bit would increase potential to 281,474,977,000,000 yottabytes.

That's more than a google! The 1024 bits would be for the CPU, not the OS

*googol

No, Microsoft are developing Windows 8 which is supposed to come out 1st July 2011. There are rumors that there will be a 128 bit version

>>38
you do realize how long it took for there to be a 64-bit version of windows after 64-bit hardware was widely available, right? i wouldn't expect to see a 128-bit version of windows until at least 2015, if at all.

>>Why did the Virginia Tech killer shoot up his classmates?

For the lulz.

From the Medline encyclopedia:

Psychosis is a loss of contact with reality, usually including false ideas about what is taking place or who one is (delusions) and seeing or hearing things that aren't there (hallucinations).

There are many possible causes:

* Alcohol and certain drugs
* Brain tumors
* Dementia (including Alzheimer's)
* Epilepsy
* Manic depression (bipolar disorder)
* Psychotic depression
* Schizophrenia
* Stroke

>>11

You forgot 'genius'.

It figures.

>11 "psychotic depression"

But how did the person develop it?

If I were to try and expalin it, I'd say there's a load of crap hanging mid-air over each "looney", and the scent of it- feeling the pressure nearby- is what drives them nuts.

Correct. But you are a long way from knowing how much more it is than animalistic fear.

Ecstasy, and this thread.

frustration.

Lack of tunnel vision.
YOU ARE ALL BLIND.

remove the "go" and you have your answer

Do some pcp, your friends will tell you it will be ok, just get a little slippery. Next thing you know your walking up and down your street breaking fences and scaring cats.

Science could be considered a 'faith' of sorts, as we cannot hope to prove every little fact of science to every individual - some facts and equations we just have to take as true to keep forging ahead.

Science, however, encourages (and forces) introspection, and often changes its 'beliefs' to better match the world. True religions do not do this.

Also, the fact that what science discovers actually corresponds to what is measured much of the time, as well as the fact that science can predict events and important happenings, makes it the winner in my book.

>>93
Accountancy is my faith. Pay your bills on time.

If it weren't for God man would still be swinging from the trees and throwing feces at each other!

>>95

Could argue the same point for lions and other large cats. Try again. >:3

>>1

You do know that, um...
evolution is pretty much proven...
...right?

I mean, there IS a crap ton of evidence that was discovered prior to the advent of modern genetics, that just happens to fit perfectly with it? Like, evolution has been observed multiple times?

You do also know that there's no reason to assume that a fairy tale intelligence made anything happen, right? Like, you could assume that natural laws set everything in place and that the point of termination is there... you know this, right?

And I'm sure you realize that evolution has nothing to do with the origin of life. That's abiogenesis.

But you knew all that, right?

Lies are not inherently dirty, as they have no method of picking up or transmitting bacteria or other harmful microflora.

I can't even be bothered to read the replies except to say that I really hope that 1-san is trolling.

>>1 Actually life does just happen. They proved it at Cornell.

>>100
really? they proved this?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spontaneous_generation

>102 replies

LOLOLOLOLOL

We really don't know what will happen as a result of climate change honestly the climate has been warming since the last ice age and species have adapted just fine. Sure we have advanced climate models and simulations but how valid are they really. I was looking at them the other day and all the areas of significant rainfall and temperature changes were where there were very few sensors and a lack of historical data i.e. the middle of the ocean and were no one lived. Also all temperature readings have been increasing a lot recently due to urbanization and development around weather stations a local not global effect. I don't get what the deal is really I understand energy efficiency and oil independence but halting and slowing carbon emissions worldwide is impossible. lol It’s hilarious and frustrating to see people get all worked up about it. I don't get it and I'm majoring in meteorology. Sure the earth is warming but how much who knows. Meteorology data is not flawless and you know what even if it was warming a lot what of it? Seriously I don’t get it.

>>25
Don't you frikkin forget Alamo! Otherwise WTC7 will fall on you at a free-fall spped.

Don't let the Republic fall. Come aboard with me on USS Maine!

Let's Blow up those Viet-Cons at the Bay of Pigs.

> It’s hilarious and frustrating to see people get all worked up about it.

Considering the repercussions if the scientists are right, what do you expect?

The problem here is your risk assessment is completely broken. If you're stuck at night in Africa and hear something big moving nearby, your first reaction isn't to pretend it can't be a lion, especially if a group of natives who know the land think that it probably is. Climbing that tree may take some effort, but it sure beats the possibility of being eaten alive.

Unfortunately, we don't have two planets to do a controlled experiment with just to be sure, just like you only have one life to test whether that's actually a lion or not.

Why do I even have to explain something so obvious?

Because its definitly not that obvious its not like all the natives are agreeing some of them are from Australia and are just telling everyone they are natives, convincing everyone to climb the tree is impossible, and the natives really don't have a complete view of whats going on its like thier ears are synthetic robot ears calibrated in some far away factory. Plus If everyone doesn't climb that tree we will all die anyway so whats the point. Plus I personally haven't heard anything at all which drection was it from? How long ago did you hear it? Was it the sound of branches snapping or a heavy thud?

> its not like all the natives are agreeing

Please provide some evidence that the vast majority of climate scientists don't agree with AGW.

> If everyone doesn't climb that tree we will all die anyway so whats the point

Hooray for surrendermonkey! Have a banana.

I am not saying that the earth is not warming it is, To what degree is debatable and there really is no definitive answer on what will happen as a result thats what I meant. All we have are comuputer models. So fine lets do this. So the glaciers are melting they have been melting since the last ice age, The poles are shrinking ok but as the climate warms precipitation will increase in these areas so they will not dissapear entirely. Apparenty there will be fewer hurricanes according to my meteorology professor refrencing a recent study granted they have a chance of being stronger with the increase in ocean temperatures. What do you want to do there are three options: moderate our carbon emissions ok but china produses more than anyone and they aren't ever going to change, are you going to spend astronomical sums on putting reflective partices in orbit or in the high atmosphere why don't we I mean its not like we'll create another ice age thats silly, or do we adapt as it happens. None of these options are good the world economy couldn't handle it and like I said we do not know what will happen for sure no climate scientist will say that. I agree that we should rely less on oil but I'm really sick of global warming/climate change debate. Climate change is real the earth is warming but don't you dare fucking tell me the world will end if we do nothing about it right now.

> I agree that we should rely less on oil but I'm really sick of global warming/climate change debate.

Except that we must debate this. You can't say to physics later on, "o shi, time out, brb!" The sooner we do something to moderate out likely impact on the environment, the less costly it is for our descendants.

Now, you may think it unlikely we'll do anything until the price we'll pay is much higher -- and I agree with that -- but that's a separate issue. Stuffing our head in the sand is the wrong thing to do; that only increases the disruption later on.

> don't you dare fucking tell me the world will end if we do nothing about it right now.

No, but the longer we take to respond, the more it'll hurt. The first step to responding is discussion and awareness.

Both of those points are valid and I actually agree but the thing is the discussion and awareness that is put out to the masses is mostly complete nonsense bullshit that pisses me off. What is a scientific issue has turned into an obnoxious political issue polarizing people and hiding the truth. Movies and TV shows exaggerate the predictions and make numerous scientific errors in favor of better ratings. The weather channel mentions it constantly and likes to pull the whole change people by fear thing by playing dramatic reenactments of people getting their homes eaten by tornadoes. They are turning it into entertainment. Not only that but it’s like some of the people who put out this info seem like paranoid crazy people I remember one National Geographic issue where every single article mentioned climate change and one was about mummies seriously. I just for once want people with intelligence to get the information out instead of people like Al Gore and people who exaggerate the truth. That’s why I'm sick of it.

oh by the way guyz:

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/01/100127134721.htm

ScienceDaily (Jan. 28, 2010) — A new estimate of the feedback between temperature and atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO2) concentration has been derived from a comprehensive comparison of temperature and CO2 records spanning the past millennium.

The result, which is based on more than 200,000 individual comparisons, implies that the amplification of current global warming by carbon-cycle feedback will be significantly less than recent work has suggested.

>>35
Just another source debunking Global Warming.

Some parts are questionable, and some parts are downright absurd.

I like how after he spends alllll that time building up a supposedly sound and valid argument, he goes and resorts to "proof by the obvious" and asserts, without any connection to the previous steps in the argument, that the only possible way these "immaterial, universal, unchanging laws" could exist is if God were around to create them. I'm sorry, but EVEN IF every part of the argument up until that point were sound/valid, the fact of the matter is that God's existence does not follow logically from the existence of the kind of "laws" he describes. He's still going on faith, in the end, and he doesn't even realize it.

Of course, it's not just that -- there are so many other fallacies at work in this "proof" that it's hard to even take it seriously.

>>587
I believe the term for that is "argumentum ad lapidem."

This thread is slightly less annoying than hate-fueled political rants. Bump.

let's try that again

i fail at life

retarded.

I believe in a god simply because the alternative is too depressing. What if life was just a meaningless accident? If that's true, then the universe is just there - it's not there for us. The what's the point of even having a universe at all? It's all just meaningless, pointless suffering.

I prefer to think that God gives life context. It's like... If you think of god as a parent, and kids as all life, and the universe as a jungle gym.

The kids can play and be happy and be sad and make their games, and they can do so safely because their parent is right over there watching everything. (S)he won't interfere in the games, but when the games are all over, (s)he'll take you home, put bandaids on your bruises, and encourage you to go play tomorrow.

Without a parent there... The whole scene just becomes more sad.

>>593
Well, it is a meaningless accident. Life with it.

ffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffff
Universals are a fine thought experiment, but equating universals to god is unfounded. A universal has a perspective: math measures unchanging facts, science measures facts that may change or be reinterpreted, and morality is variable however ethics (as a universal) is for the good of as many individual freedoms as possible (a perspective in itself).

But the quiz forces one conclusion, stating that God exists as a universal without a perspective. Not even one of human suffering. Pathetic, weak attempt at a faith-based topic that is inherently a faith-based topic. http://proofthatgodexists.org/ is fail.

If you want to believe in an all mighty, omniscient Creator because you fear there being an end to your existence, that's fine, but when you try to pass off faith and absence of answers as proof of existence for such a higher power, that's when you have failed. You can't go into a store to return an item without a receipt, no matter how much you believe you had bought it only a few days ago, the cashier still needs proof of purchase.