/sci/ - Science & Math

>>14506662
same

Is the mental decline from depression, laziness, and isolation reversible?

>>11706127

>>11447120
unironically a flat earther got it right

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KlRt3MwZi0c

>>11393153

>>11296694
it doesnt work because you will need an engine on the front car aswell to gain any advantage LMFAO, and even then it wouldnt work because you cant go faster then the one infront cause its stuck to you

>>10811850
follllooooobbbbb.... jub

Why do some astronomers say we're seeing light from 40 billion light years away? isn't the universe just 13 billion years old?

>>10659484
>I don't mean measurement/interaction, I mean observation. You don't have to interact with the particle at all.

>chinks are better

>>10412524
>>10412574
>humans will go extinct tomorrow
>why
>because the chances of you drawing a small n number from an arbitrarily large N pool of numbers is small
the doomsday argument more like the brainlet argument.

>>10393704
>>10393708

Is it useful for an engineer to learn math outside of what is taught in the program?

If so, what are the best topics to study?

>>10377682
They are chilling inside computer simulations that simulate a perfect word for them until the end of time.

Why the fuck would you bother with the boring dead ass universe when ucan literally do anything you want in your own simulation?

>>10346393
>/ and ÷
>different

>>10330636

>>10328230
thanx fren. I've seen that kind of thing tons before, just know what the specific name for it was

>>10307221
haha, yes
only classic music is good

>>10216310

>>10176506

>>10145037
>kids taking meth will lead to more neurotypical brains several years later

>>10081708
>I'm saying my experiences are physical, brainlet
If they're physical, then why can't I experience them? Why can I only experience a lump of your brain mass instead of the experiences? Maybe that's because those experiences aren't physical after all.

>Why the fuck would I need to hold it?
Then why are you unable to grasp that something you can't directly sense as an external object might exist?

I'm done talking to you, brainlet.

>>10045575
>MWI is a thing

>>10012478
A political point: when elitists say "the climate deniers are arrogant because they think they are more intelligent than climate scientists" or some similar criticism, they are forgetting that the climate denier is simply parroting other scientists (even if they are "pseudo-scientists"). Climate deniers are not challenging scientists from arrogance, they are deferring judgement to a (pseudo)scientist. Just because that pseudoscientist is wrong, doesn't mean that their follower imagines themselves to be smarter than scientists. Again.. they will perhaps consider themselves smarter than their associates, because they have sought out the "facts" "reality" and so on from his superiors, but he does not imagine himself to be above these superiors.

Any arrogance from the idiot against intellectuals is normally a kind of anti-intellectualism. That the intellectual is too abstract whereas "common sense" is a better tool, the intellectual complicates things, has no utility in a society, and so on. They are never claims to superior intellect.

Every believer in quack medicine believes a quack doctor, and every cultist believes a cult leader. The false belief is not itself a claim to intellectual superiority, only the consequence of a belief in a false intellectual.

"Rationalists" attend debates between public intellectuals because those intellectuals are avatars, and champions of their beliefs. They watch public intellectuals debate as a sporting event, hence the boxing metaphors, and this actually reveals that stupidity is not a delusion that they are themselves an intellectual, but reveals a sort of veneration of the intellectual...