I'm a cock sucking retarded mouth breather, where do I go to learn caclus and shit?
Waht's th SICP of math? What would you recommend, besides killing myself. I already know about khanacademy.
Any advice?
bump
Btw I'm not learning lisp or reading SICP.
bump
Try sosmath.com
The European Organization for Nuclear Research (CERN) had built the largest particle collider on Earth smashing like crazy different particles and atoms purposely to find the Higgs boson or more commonly known as the "God particle".
Now, we don't really have any idea what might come next with the next particles they smash: maybe a black hole, another big bang, the Quantum Zeno collapse, or even a chronological collapse.
What are your thoughts?
We will initiate the Final Sanction. The end of time will come at my hand. The rupture will continue until it rips the Time Vortex apart.
What do you mean when you say "a chronological collapse," >>1? I am unfamiliar with that term and from context I can only perceive that you believe it to be a possible negative consequence.
>you clearly have minimal understanding of science
>you use words like 'crazy different particles', further underlining your ignorance
>the LHC currently IS deactivated and will be for approximately 2 years (upgrades and stuff)
>it's Higgs' boson, not higgs. get that apostrophe right goddammit
>it's not something new, accelerators have been built since the 1930s; they know their shit
>there will be none of that catastrophe bullshit you're talking about
>quantum zeno effect is a real thing, but unrelated; there's no quantum zeno collapse
now, go back to 4chan, asshole.
>>4
Who are you quoting?
CERN is trying to build a time machine and take control over the world. We have to stop the d-mails from changing the past and we have to achieve a 1% variation in the time line...
The destruction of the universe is the least of your problems. Just be glad that the machine hasn't awakened the great Cthulhu like in the Steven King move "The Mist"!
Then the ultimate question is—if one accepts that theses 1, 2, and 3 are at least possible, which of the following is more likely?
a. We are the one civilization which develops AI simulations and happens not to be in one itself? Or,
b. We are one of the many (billions) of simulations that has run? (Remember point iii.)In greater detail, his argument attempts to prove the trichotomy, that:
either 1. intelligent races will never reach a level of technology where they can run simulations of reality so detailed they can be mistaken for reality (or this is impossible in principle); or
You're all wrong, the universe is simply the creation of a mna that's very talented with shadow puppets.
Oh my questionably Non-computer virous god where has this thread been all my simulation?
We're way ahead of things here at 4-ch. We were talking about this almost five years ago. The johnny-come-latlies at the University of Washington are finally getting around to testing the theory, though. The link above has links within to a number of more detailed articles.
So what happens now? What if we run test after test and keep getting positive results? Are our lives less meaningful because they're simulated? Do we marvel at the graphics? If it's a simulation, then there ought to be cheat codes...
Link may be broken above. Try this: http://yhoo.it/Spy6N3
Well, there is the rather obvious problem with that theory -- namely it's untestable and therefore not science. We can't exactly go out side the universe to see if there's some pimple-face kid running a simulation. So it makes the entire question silly on that level.
As far as whether other civilisations would run a simulation -- we do, to a point. We run weather, we run geographical simulations, hell, we run MMORPGs stuffed to the gills with AI. It's certainly possible, in fact it's likely. How many COD and Elder Scrolls games are there each populated by thousands of AI characters and existing for the purpose of entertaining one singular non-AI character controlled by a player in a world created by another party. Maybe the PC will show up for milk and cookies. But as it stands, it's impossible to tell him from another one of us, or know if this is a simulation.
not science - true
still the idea is logically consistent and even plausible
and that would explain a lot
it's much like a fecund universes theory in a sense
only with fecund universes there is a hope that sometime we might actually find a way to test it
but here we can't even hope
>>42
this study doesn't make any sense. if the host doesn't want the guest to know that he is actually being run in VirtualBox, he can prevent this from happening by simply rolling back the simulation and making necessary edits in case the guest had found out or it could be done in real time by an AI software. remember The Matrix? The Deja Vu scene? For us it would be the same. Only there is no Neo to spot any signs of change. I thought that was kind of obvious. That's why the theory is not testable.
>>44
If there are active measures to conceal it, of course we won't find it. That would be assuming that whatever is running the simulation cares to hide it. There's also the possibility that it wants to be discovered.
There's even a chance that whatever is "running" the simulation doesn't understand that it doing so, isn't conscious at all, or otherwise undertakes actions for entirely different reasons than we (the simulated) do.
Is the simulation hypothesis unlikely? Well, yes. That aside, it's fun to think about and doubly interesting now that's there's a way to test it.
1 - if we don't know if we are real or simulated, we can't trust or senses.
2 - (...) -> we conclude "i think therefore i am".
3 - the only thing we are sure is that we think but not if it's artificial or not
4 - that means we have to find out what the thought is to advance any further.
5 - if thinking is processing information, then what is the program?
the answer to this is as incomprehensive as the beginning of the universe... we are infinitely smaller then the infinite and yet infinitely bigger than nothing. therefore we can't understand neither of them.
unless, of course, someone deletes our answers when we are getting close to the end but that was already said above by someone else...
either way it's pretty absurd thinking that there is another universe, and we are just a simulation, if we can't even figure out how ours was created. if we are a simulation, then who created our creators?
I think the most logical thing to do is to accept that it is impossible to understand our origin and live with it. although it also means that live has no reason...
So how long do you think it will be before such technoloogy is widely availble to the public?
10 years? Maybe 25?
We already have Multiple Instruction Multiple Data processors. I really doubt increasing instruction bit size would help anything.
No need for 128, 256,512,1024 OS and compatible CPU?
Well the biggest example you have,you are using right now. The Internet. Runs mostly on a 32 bit IP address, but now we need a bigger address scheme, hence 64bit was introduce. It was said we would never need more IPs than the 32 bits could address, but yet here we are. If not for NAT the Internet working would have crash years ago.
We can't see the need for 128 or even a 256 right now but the need is there just a little ways down the road. Get your binoculars and look a little further ahead.
It is true however, a 128 or higher OS will not bring faster computing at least not very noticeable anyway. What we need is a complete and utterly new computer system i.e. new bus capable of transfer data near the speed of the 128 bit CPU, storage near that speed as well. In other words the hardware needs to match or approach the speed and performance increase gain by a 128 bit or higher.
This is a no brainer
We have 7 billion people on this planet only and a 32 bit OS can only address 4 billion adresses
We know that we will need a 1024 bit OS and processor eventually
and not something bigger in this universe,as the number of atoms in this universe is contained in this 2^1024 number
So why not build it now?
we skip the unpleasans 32 to 64 bit transitions like in the future
>>1
Apparently, before 2008: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Efficeon
...And no one noticed.
a 256 bit processor would be amazing for AES encryption since the main step involves a 256 bit state matrix.
"256 bit" means that there are 256 numbers that a computer can read. most computers now can read up to 32 bit numbers, or numbers with 32 digits in them. there are also 64 bit computers, which can read 64 digits. for a better explanation, head over to Numberfile on youtube.
Nobody should need more than 640 bits.
Okay, I'll branch this thread off the other one myself if you guys don't want to take the initiative. It may die in silence, but at least I tried. :p
RULES
-No flaming or trolling. Emphasis on flaming. Keep the argument down to a mild level.
-Back up what you say. I know it's hard for this, but don't just say something like "God is evil". Tell WHY you think God is evil, and use logic to back it up if you have tot. If you want to say "God is good", then the same goes for you.
-Keep this as mature as possible. This is basically like repeating the first rule, but don't let your emotions/beliefs get in the way of your argument. It makes you and your whole case look childish.
STARTING ARGUMENT:
Supposing that a God exists, he cannot be both benevolent and omnipotent, because evil also exists.
that's why human must die, because the life/death is judged with existence as the criterion of good/evil, which human had eaten the knowledge. you kill Christ and your existence when you chose another purpose for this world and yourself.
that's why you can demand life or death as much as you are holy or evil for the purpose, and have emotion to be happy, anger, sad, and afraid when you demand universality or refuse it of the subject, and it is or not.
that's why God is love, holy, and omnipotent, which is not for any nonsense. because Here is the existence which needs love, holiness for the purpose, and the divinity to make it real.
why do you kill each other for nations, no "sacred" land, identity of animal flesh and blood which is often for ethnic base, which are to be burned by Christ. or are you slaves who are under just names-like "America","Women", or family names-, as before the knowledge of good/evil?
>>58 wait, you're saying that God actually wanted and commanded that the nazis commit those atrocities in world 2 and that it was God's will that ted bundy, jeffery dahmer, and all those other psychos out there kill/torture people? Sorry but those are not the actions of a loving god. It's possible that some sort of rule prevents God from interfering with the universe directly. Then again maybe he DOES interfere and things would actually be a whole hell of a lot of worse if he was really standing around doing nothing and letting evil run rampant.
Theist, theist everywhere.
It's near impossible to engage in a debate with someone that disregards all of the evidence that you can possibly throw their way because of some sort of emotional bias that they have due to how they were raised or some sort of "miracle" that occurred in their life.
If god has always existed then what's keeping other organisms from doing the same?
The whole purpose of god is to explain existence and if you can't explain god's existence than perhaps the organisms that evolved into what we are today have also existed since the beginning of time thus defeating the purpose of a god.
Actually somebody has proven in youtube the existence of God. It would be even suspicious not to be a theist.
>>59
No, I'm not, it's a lot more nuanced than that. The framework is all about doing the least amount of harm, not none at all (which is usually impossible, depending on your definition of harm). You should really read Schmidt-Salomon's book, it's a shame it's unlikely to get an English translation any time soon.
>>62
I am merely exploring the meaning of the word "omnipotent." If an all-powerful God exists, then all these things must have been His will. Otherwise they could not have happened, for nothing can happen that is contrary to the will of God.
When we look at it that way, perhaps an empty, uncaring universe doesn't seem so bad after all.
>>67 used ALL CAPS. It's super effective!
>god is good (christian dogma), and wants the well-being of humans
>god is all knowing and all powerful
>[i]some[/i] humans do bad things
>god doesnt punish them
why?
inb4 free will
that would make god inherently bad, because he's letting humans do bad things
>bible says retarded things
>ex. homosex
>god doesn't do anything
why?
This board has nothing to do with science.
YOUR MOTHER
figured as much.
There is a thread about scientific threads on this page. Does that count?
This page and the server it is hosted on is based on scientific principles. That is good enough for me.
>> 1 "This sentence is a lie."
Hypothesis: Putting science in a thread claiming there is no science on this page will destroy the page.
Experiement: By creating a post containing science, we either expect to see the thread deleted or else the post deleted.
Observations: Neither the thread nor this post have been deleted.
Conclusions: The hypothesis about the thread destroying the page has been proved invalid.
Dickery: I had to have written the observations on this post before the effects of this post on this page could be observed.
I can recite the quantum chromodynamic gauge invariant lagrangian in my sleep.
Amazing thing in San Francisco
ZOMGORZ!!! Curiosity finds life on Mars!!!
http://www.space.com/18565-mars-rover-curiosity-discovery-mystery.html
I have been contemplating the universe..
I have come to a fork in the road for many of my thoughts..
Is the Universe Finite or Infinite
Each choice dictating the direction of further contemplation on any given thought
For example: Finite: If the universe started out from an impossibly hot, impossibly tiny singularity, (such as in the Big Bang Theory), then.. What did that singularity exist in? what was around it, what co-existed with that singularity? how was it considered hot if nothing around it existed with any varying temperature with which to compare?
These examples represent one blade of grass in the entire milky way, as far as how many questions there are with the two-headed fork
But if the Universe is infinite, these questions don't exist and an equally massive list of new ones pop up..
>>40
That is an awful argument and you know it, Math Man.
If the universe were finite, gravity would make an example of it.
Says Hawking.
If the universe is not infinite, then we're in a confined space. it has the limits even though they are not available to people. but what is it - an end and limits? if the universe has a boundary, then what behind this edges - emptiness? emptiness - the space too. empty space. I think the universe is infinite. but I also think that the human brain can not understand it. I have a feeling that in our brain is not enough detail, with which we could understand it. yeah, it's lousy explanation.
>>39,42
So infinite compression breaks thermodynamics, and Hawking says the universe can't be finite. Seems like either Hawking is wrong, or the big bang theory is in trouble.
Perhaps the universe somehow loops back, and the way we try to assess it is as
flawed as the way our ancestors viewed the world as flat. Ofcourse, while our world might
be looped in only two dimensions and we can leave by moving up, the universe will loop in all three.
As a matter of fact, fuel on the universe runs out, so it's definitely impossible for it to have run eternally, also if there were an infinite amount of time before us, our time wouldn't take place, since there is an infinite there, it never ends, so we never come to be. It's similar to Zenos paradox, only that zenos paradox was about a fixated distancy that couldnt be ran because each time there was one more half to advance (in case anybody wants to actually go and claim that it is like that, it isn't, its totally different).
>>48
the universe doesn't fucking run on "fuel"
