/sci/ - Science & Math

>>3716695
>Well isn't the idea that the universe was created for a specific purpose by an intelligent being?
Yes
>Many of the arguments against creationism apply here.
Which? Throw some a

>>3716683
what does that first point even mean? Define "Nature"

There's no evidence either way on the second point, but I see no reason to believe AI to be impossible.

>>3716671
See the OP text:
>Suppose that these simulated people are conscious (as they would be if the simulations were sufficiently fine-grained and if a certain quite widely accepted position in the philosophy of mind is correct)

Simply put, there's no reason not to believe we cannot simulate a human at an atomic level, ergo there is no reason to believe they would have difficulty.

>>3716678
Firstly, [citation needed]. Secondly, there is no reason the start universe would have to be as small as ours- I envision it being orders of magnitude larger. Is that estimate based on our current computing ability? If so, utilisation of quantum computers could easily cut the estimate down hugely.
>>3716681
How so?

>http://www.simulation-argument.com/simulation.html
"Many works of science fiction as well as some forecasts by serious technologists and futurologists predict that enormous amounts of computing power will be available in the future. Let us suppose for a moment that these predictions are correct. One thing that later generations might do with their super-powerful computers is run detailed simulations of their forebears or of people like their forebears. Because their computers would be so powerful, they could run a great many such simulations. Suppose that these simulated people are conscious (as they would be if the simulations were sufficiently fine-grained and if a certain quite widely accepted position in the philosophy of mind is correct). Then it could be the case that the vast majority of minds like ours do not belong to the original race but rather to people simulated by the advanced descendants of an original race. It is then possible to argue that, if this were the case, we would be rational to think that we are likely among the simulated minds rather than among the original biological ones. Therefore, if we don’t think that we are currently living in a computer simulation, we are not entitled to believe that we will have descendants who will run lots of such simulations of their forebears. That is the basic idea. The rest of this paper will spell it out more carefully."

So, What does /sci/ think? Valid hypothesis? Satanic lies? I'd like to hear some opinions.

>>3707109
Sociologist here, 700 isn't that round. go for 1000.

>>3707053
Yeah, but the universe is only a complex sim. the *real* universe is far cooler.

>>3698073
Fucking standards, how do they work?
Besides, it's Microns per hectare.

>>3698045
hey, if you can pull your knees up fast enough it might work.

>>3697994
forward as in towards or away from the car?

>>3697921
but Che shutter shades thing

>>3697947
:/
No permanent injury, I hope?

>>3697868
This, I can see there being a risk of shins snapping.

Perhaps if you jumped 45 degrees from the direction the car is heading? Hopefully then you could reduce the impact and get yourself out of a position in which you'll almost certainly be run over.

>>3697848
I think I'd rather have full limb usage than hefty settlement. Or at least, arm usage.

Electric wheelchairs are fun though, I could cope.

>>3697865
IIRC, there's evidence to suggest that being on depressants/muscle relaxants does help a fair amount in a car accident.

>>3697822
At what angle?
>>3697830
ctrl+space. Got it.
Isn't there a risk of kneeing yourself in the face and doing some srs damage?
>>3697834
Not sure if you'd have time. If it were a truck then this would probably be wise though

>>3697839
Fuck <span class="math">you[/spoiler]
>>3697844
Fun, but I'm tripfagging.

Yes, it would. I don't know if you could accelerate fast enough for it to have a noticable effect though.

>>3697846
Good advice sir.

>walking down the street
>listening to symphony of science looped
>wearing vaguely witty T-shirt
>look up
>car heading directly for you at 35 M/H
>not enough time to jump clear

How would you minimise damage?

>>3643943
Most of us are engineers anyway. Thanks.

Nothing. The problem is usually with the entities people apply the utilitarian philosophy to, which others don't like.

>>3642460
Liberty isn't that new. Definitely a troll though

>>3642896
You are <span class="math"> such [/spoiler] a bitch.

>>3642881
Hawking, Penrose, and a shit-ton of other atheist scientists would disagree.

>>3642850
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Bang
>>3642858
[citation needed]

>>3642843
Last I checked the universe isn't infinite

>>3642749
What are you comparing these facts to.
What you're saying is equivalent to "There are 6 billion humans, what are the chances that just ONE of them was jesus"

>>3642622
strictly speaking, it's not hard scifi. We don't know if life has arisen anywhere else in the universe, nor are we in a position to assume that there is.

>>3642512
...and do we do anything like that?
ever?