/sci/ - Science & Math

>>3482514

A certain set of atoms exist that we call my fingers. We group them together and use the term "five" to refer to how many are in the group.

The number five doesn't actually exist. What exists is a collection of atoms. We identify them as a grouping, we use a number to describe how many there are in that grouping. The numbers themselves don't exist. What exists is the atoms.

Numbers are a human creation to describe a quantity or quality, like something's mass or speed. The numbers themselves are descriptors of something but do not themselves exist. That's why we have numbers like Graham's Number, which simply couldn't exist if written out.

>>3482517

Here's a question, then: Do you believe the universe exists as an infinite regression downward to smaller and smaller parts? If so, you're going to have provide some serious proof of this. If, however, there is some lowest point, for lack of a better term, the paradox doesn't exist in reality.

So, which is it: Do you believe the universe gets infinitely small and, therefore, there is no actual base to the universe (because if it recedes infinitely, there is no actual base; it's all built atop something else, which is atop something else, which is... etc.), or are you wrong?

>>3482484

If you want to put it that way, sure, if we have no evidence. If we have no evidence, we have to remain agnostic. If we've seen no evidence for supernatural beings, though, you'll find few people embracing the concept as likely.

As has already been said, if everything else is found to be caused by something natural, it's reasonable to assume this was too. It might not be, and, if there's no evidence to support this conclusion, naturalists must remain as agnostic as anyone.

It still makes intelligent design no more likely than my "Cosmic Mexican striking the discoball of Creation" example

>>3482461

You're talking about Zeno's Paradox, or at least one of them. Thing is, that paradox fails in reality. Eventually, you reach an indivisible point, like an atom (or sub-atomic particles, or some even smaller quanta of reality if you're gonna get really crazy). No infinity there because, at some point, you reach a limit of how small you can go before the room becomes indistinct from the background that is the universe.

Also, you asked why someone can believe there's an infinite amount of numbers. Disregarding the fact that, as I said, numbers are artificial constructs created by humans, the easily tested version of their falsifiability is that we run out. If someone could bring about such a scenario or prove, somehow, that it would occur, then numbers clearly aren't infinite. That's a test of falsifiability.

>>3482452

Just to be utterly fair here, if you claim to be purely scientific about it, and you say there's no evidence as to what created the universe, wouldn't you have to remain agnostic about it?

I mean, if there's something you know occurred (a universe being created, in this case), and you don't know what caused it, and you have no evidence, isn't saying "God did it" just falling into the God-of-the-Gaps fallacy?

I can say with equal levels of justification that the universe was born from a cosmic egg, or that it has always existed, or that it was, in fact, an enormous disco ball that was shattered by the Cosmic Mexican who thought it was a glass pinata.

If you have no evidence, you have to remain agnostic. If you have evidence, you can create a hypothesis.

So which is it? No evidence, and you're agnostic, or some evidence, and we can argue it?

>>3482442

Glad to be of service, Anon.

>>3482267

You're arguing with them on YOUTUBE, man. This is not a site known for its intellectual reparte.

>>3482429

To continue further, the idea that we have an infinite number of numbers IS falsifiable. The falsifiability test would be "We run out".

Something being falsifiable doesn't make it true, but it means that it definitely can be false and we have a way to test it. If we can't, we can't make any sort of claim on it. Something that isn't falsifiable is something that is outside testable reality.

So, while falsifiability may not mean something is correct, non-falsifiability means that something can't be scientifically tested and, therefore, is essentially useless as an explaination.

>>3482372
>>3482417

Easy. Numbers are artificial constructs created by humanity. None of them actually exist, they're just representations for something. The universe, for example, is infinite but it still has a definable size at a given moment, however immense it may be.

There are no actual infinites in nature. Infinity doesn't actually exist. It's just a convenient tool in the mathematical tool-set for when you don't need to bother with getting an actual number to get a result.

>>3401147

>Welfare: Not okay to get more than you put in.
>Share dividends, bank interest: Okay to get more than you put in for almost no work because it's like opening a store and working really hard

Yep, because, when it comes to shares and bank interest, you are making an investment in a company. You take a risk, you give them your money, and, in return, you get a share of the profits. A bank that loans someone money to open a store doesn't have its employees stock shelves, but it made an investment and took a risk and, in return, it gets paid.

Welfare is different. It's essentially insurance and, for any insurance company to be profitable, it must only pay out what the policy is worth. Someone taking from the government without providing in return is a drain on the system, which is objectively bad for everyone.

You aren't investing in the government when you pay for welfare. The government does not generate profits directly. You're paying for a safety net to be there if you slip up, and it should not be a yolk on everyone's neck to support unproductive members of society.

>>3401137

Some people argue that the Moon is what's helped keep Earth's core generating a magnetic field for as long as it has, and our planet so geologically active. As such, it's possible that Luna may be responsible for keeping our planet wobbling and for life existing this long.

I could be wrong, though. Someone wanna confirm/deny this?

>>3401108

It's true that Sol and Luna appear the same size in the sky because of their size-to-distance ratio being so very neat, and it's true that, without Luna, there'd be no life on Earth.

It's also true that there's no life on Venus or Mercury or Mars because conditions for them aren't right.

The Earth/Moon/Sun thing is a lovely coincidence. Nothing more.

>>3400249

Welfare is unearned income if you are taking out more than you ever paid in. Share dividents, bank interest, etc. is earned, because you invested money to get a return on it. The latter is no different than someone opening a store and running it, save that an investor gets a lesser return for a larger investment. Bank interest is much the same.

Unearned income is not a good thing. Someone taking in more resources than they provide in return to society is a drain on society.

This is why I think that social security should only pay out an amount equivalent to what you pay into it, or that it has some other sort of limit to ensure it does not allow for abuse. I'm for similar limiting of government-provided programs, since the long-term effects outweigh any temporary suffering it causes.

>>3400925

>you will never fuck a supermodel

Thank goodness. Why would I want an air-headed barbie doll?

>you will never be a polyglot

Je parle Francais

>you will never be a leader of men

Been there, done that. Why would I want to? Producing a TV show was hard enough, getting people to agree as a nation is just ridiculous.

>you will never be a tourneyfag

Maybe. Depends on what counts as a tournament.

>you will never be a (real) concept artist

Been there, done that. Did level design too. It was my first job, if you can believe it.

>you will never be in a (real) band

Doesn't bother me. Music's not my talent.

>you will never take a hot blooded 10/10 15 year old hard between the thighs

... Who the fuck would want to?

>you will never be an actor

Already have been. It's fun but not something I'd pursue professionally.

>you will never climb mount everest

Nope. Probably the only thing here that disappoints me a little, so far.

>you will live to see your parents die

I'm rooting for immortality before then. If I do, though, I'll be sad, but I'll move on eventually.

>you will see your country decline as a world player

My country isn't a major world player anyway, and I wouldn't want it to be one. Being a world player is just getting yourself fucked up by other people and pretending it's worth it.

>you will see a depression (good luck surviving it)

I'm in the entertainment/news industry. Suck it

>you will die and be forgotten

I'm hoping not to die, but people remembering me after I'm dead doesn't mean shit to me. If I'm dead, it doesn't matter to me if people remember me or not. My life is what I have and it's what I choose to enjoy, not trying to build some legacy for some possible future.

Question: Didn't Rebecca Watson release the Skepchick Calendar, a pin-up calendar featuring pictures of women skeptics?

Am I sensing a big hypocrite?

>>3390803

The former, definitely. The latter's hollow as all hell, and easy to do. The former's nearly impossible.

>>3390830

People like controversy. We love to hoot and holler from the side of a conflict.

Skepchick got offended by a guy asking if she wanted to come back to his room for sex (and let's be honest, that's what he was doing), which was silly, and then Dawkins responded in a way that was absolutely hilariously stupid. He could've responded rationally, reasonably, but he didn't, and that's what's making this hilariously bad.

It's even more hilarious when you have people talking about privilege, when you realize Dawkins has probably had more than a handful of death threats by now.

Stupidity all around, folks.

>>3387571

I'm not saying that the Republicans aren't mucking stuff up, I'm just saying the Dems do too.

If the US can spend trillions bailing out Wall Street, why can't it give NASA an extra 18 billion, doubling its funding, and get people on the Moon and a base setup started?

Bah, I'm just ranting at this point.

>>3387538

But it's not a black hole; the future of Constellation was a permanent moon base. At the very least, you can rework the program; make it more ambitious, instead of just cancelling it and leaving it in limbo for potential future cancellation.

There's a lot of better options than just cancelling it and creating another project for someone else to cancel later.

It's like watching lions kill the offspring of the last lion, then create their own that you know will be slaughtered by the next male to take control of the pride.

>>3387543

When faced with two evils, you shouldn't give up. Giving in just perpetuates the problem.

This isn't just an American problem either. No other country is even approaching anything remotely ambitious. Even China, probably the most ambitious country at the moment besides the States, won't be doing anything manned on the Moon until the 2020s.

>>3387475

The Apollo missions were a PR stunt, that doesn't make them any less incredible. Apollo was a nuclear launch platform show-off.

>>3387480

The Democrats aren't exactly helping. Remember, Obama cancelled Constellation.

In 1961, John F. Kennedy said that, within 10 years, America would send a man to the Moon and safely return him to Earth. 8 years later, Neil Armstrong landed on Luna's surface.

In 2005, the Constellation program was approved to go to the Moon by 2020. 15 years it would have. Before even 5 years had passed, it was cancelled. Now, 2025 has been set as a time for a journey to an asteroid, no doubt to face budgetary mixes and risk cancellation.

I tell you why this is, /sci/: Because 15 years is longer than a President can be in office. In a decade, a President who has two terms can be assured that the accomplishments will appear within his time in office or will be too far along to be cancelled by the time he's out of it.

What can we do to change this, /sci/? How can we get a mission to the Moon or an asteroid before 2020? How can we make people see that we could have possibly even been there by 2015?

>>3369596

Education, parks and leisure, transportation, and, of course, SCIENCE spending accounts for less than 20% of all spending.

... Seriously, the fuck.

>>3369446

Made it to the end. Then he said that last sentence, and my eyes began to sting a little...

>>3369270

These things are not allowed on this board, please delete the thread.

>>3309874
>>3309848
>>3309833

Y'know, for you to say any of this, you first need to define what free will is. The ability to make a decision irrespective of prior states isn't free will, it's essentially being random.

Before you can trash free will, you must first define what it is.

I can't comment for other religions but I can answer about Christianity.

They don't. Christianity doesn't have a problem with sex any more than it has a problem with drugs or alcohol or similar things.

Sexual promiscuity, however, like drug or alcohol abuse, has negative impacts on people. It increases the spread of disease, creates emotional troubles, and generally increases the amount of pain and suffering in the world. This is in addition to complicating family lines.

It's fairly self-explanatory, really.