/sci/ - Science & Math

>>4626713

Some people are honestly trying to do that, and it's a damn good idea. It really cuts recidivism rates pretty sharply.

>>4626708

Not if you wanted to effect it in any way. If you existed in one universe and, somehow, without altering or impacting anything, could theoretically scan another universe, and then model everything within it perfectly...

Then, yes, assuming quantum effects aren't actually random, you could map everything and predict the perfect future outcome.

However, you couldn't ever interact with that universe without ruining your predictions, nor could anything from any other universe.

>>4626678

You said theoretically, you were wrong. Any time you include read-outs of predictions in the system, you have to include the predicting system in the system itself.

Using that room example, you'd have to not just model the person in the room, but also the computer monitoring the person in the room, because the computer is part of the system at that point.

>>4626654
>>4626659

Also, 2 is impossible. To accurately predict the future with absolute certainty, you'd need to model the entire universe down to the sub-atomic scale. This, out of necessity, would include modelling the computer, which, in turn, would have to contain a model of the computer modelling the computer, which would have to contain a model of...

It'd be computers all the way down.

Infinite recursion. Ergo, impossible.

>>4607451

>the regulation of abortion isn't based upon its status as human or otherwise.

Yes, it certainly is. The question of abortion regulation is based upon what point the fetus can be considered a human being. That's why most places have cut-off points unless the mother's life is in danger.

We'll likely never face a "What happens when oil runs out?" scenario. What we will face is rising oil costs. As oil costs rise, people will start switching from it to alternatives. Plastics made from organic materials, for example, or electric/hydrogen power for vehicles.

Oil won't vanish overnight, it'll just reach a tipping point where it'll be more economically effective to not use it. On that day, people will make the switch.

It was an attempt at a scientific theory that was discarded after sufficient evidence was discovered to contradict it. It was treated as reasonable by the scientists of the day because it was what they had evidence for.

It's a good lesson in science works. People develop hypotheses, they build them into theories, and, no matter how pretty the theory, if sufficient evidence arises to contradict it, it's wrong and discarded.

>>4594686

He cancelled an over-cost and underdeveloped program, while increasing NASA's funding. He also increased NASA's private development funding.

Then, Congress cut that shit in half.

It's an old stage magician trick.

Still pretty cool, though.

>>4578364

This is one of the genuinely funniest things I think I've read because I can honestly believe you're genuinely serious.

Disregarding for a moment here that horses are not native to Africa and, hence, could not be used by the native peoples, do you realize for one damn moment how incredibly useful and successful guerrilla tactics are? They allow numerically inferior forces with worse equipment to take on an otherwise superior force and win.

Hit-and-run tactics, camouflaging amongst the terrain, etc. are excellent methods of dealing with an opponent. This goes double when that opponent is a far better funded one and especially if they're foreign invaders.

To dismiss that use of efficient tactics because it doesn't fit your retarded aesthetics? Damn, man, you're calling other people stupid?

>>4578351

.... It's like some hideous hybrid of weeaboo and ignorance.

1. Africa martial arts. Look them up.

2. Look how untrained humans fight, regardless of race. We all move pretty identically.

3. Samurai were basically wealth privilege incarnate. The moment they encountered an army that fought to win, instead of agreeing to basically give them an advantage, they got utterly slaughtered.

There could be a lot of possibilities, including how seeing how a human kidney would handle the different composition. I don't honestly know, though, it's just speculation.

They tended to have more serious scientific intent than Nazi pseudoscience did, so I'd assume there was at least some justification for it, however weak.

Just gonna recommend this book for everyone.

>>4578287

Because we're all at least supposed to be of a scientific mindset and are generally utilitarian. Racism fails in both categories; even if there was evidence for a sufficient difference in racial intelligence from some biological origin (there isn't), you still have to support the proposition of treating them as slaves and inferiors as in any way a good idea. Instead, it just leads to barbarism, atrocity, and mass human suffering.

It's an unscientific and brutal attitude that is quite rightly ostracized.

< ---- This guy might also help.

>>4578277

They are, but there really are people who think this way. They just don't exist on 4chan.

Thread's a troll-thread or an idiot who doesn't know what the word "science" means, or the first damn thing about how evolution works.

Press neither and fight back against whomever gave me the choice. Even if you can't succeed or the consequences for doing so might be worse, it's the only moral action. Anything else is a compromise with evil.

It always saddens me when someone with access to all the incredible innovations, wealth of knowledge, and level of stimulation of the incredibly rich world we live in can't somehow muster the energy to bother even working the necessary amount to sustain themselves.

If you're looking for a way to die, at least do it in a worthwhile manner. Go work in Africa for a year, fighting to protect people or something. If you're going to kill yourself, hey, how's it matter how you die?

>>4486395

Those are dried lava rock. Basically, areas of the moon were made re-molten by impacts. Google it, it's fun stuff.

The ISS cost 1.8 billion to maintain in 2005, so certainly not less than 1.8 billion inflation-adjusted 2005 dollars.

>>4471085

I never said that.

>>4471081

If you replaced one neuron per second, instantaneously, with an exact replica, you would, apart from taking eons to finish the transition, not be interfering with continuity, no.

However, disintegrating someone entirely into component molecules and then rebuilding them would destroy continuity.

>>4471042

That already happens. I have none of the same neurons now that I did when I was an infant (even those that have persisted have had all their components changed out by now).

However, they were changed gradually, instead of all at once. If you replace something's parts slowly enough, you maintain continuity of one thing to another. That is what is meant by continuity: A link between what was and what is.

>>4470950

Not necessarily. Just because the neurons/chemicals form a consciousness with the same memory/personality as me does not indicate they are me.

Consciousness is funny like that...