/sci/ - Science & Math

>>9204418
>it's politics
>high score hasn't been updated get despite explosive """ideas""" from """"""""Genius man"""""""

>>9038890
The flesh is weak, so we built computers, because they are strong. But computers are stupid, so we'll never be completely obsolete.

Our ability to discover (read: invent) math is predicated on our uniquely human reasoning. So we're not really "limited" by the fact that we are biological. Mathematics is biological in and of itself. We made it. There is no math that we cannot understand, because if we cannot understand it it is not math. We quantized space and time and discrete objects because we already understood the world in such terms, before anyone ever decided to systematize those ideas with mathematical language.

And while there are problems that we already understand, but must make many millions of calculations to answer, we use computers. But the computers can't replace the mind that understands the problem. The computer isn't a brain, it's a muscle. It's like a gun that you point at something. Computers can't understand math. They only appear to be better because they can add and multiply stupidly huge numbers. A computer can't create axioms and derive theorems, only a brain can do that.

So I don't know what limits you speak of when you think about humanity as a species. Is it mortality? That's why writing exists, to preserve memory inevitably. If you can't solve it in 60+ years, maybe your students can. Is it the inability to do really complicated calculations? There are computers for that. So what limits are there?

what if photons have negligible but nonzero mass?

Don't we technically have an infinite time of consciousness, since we can only think and ponder such questions WITH consciousness?

As in, all we will ever know is life, we don't experience anything else, so this life is infinite for us.

>>8967503
14.5

>>8960287
I've had people just read it straight as in "cose". I honestly would rather hear co-sin than this.

>>8890060
Public library
>large variety of books because there's no incentive to purchase certain books
>library fines don't accrue interest
>people too poor to afford books can still read them

Private library
>membership fee; fuck off, poorfags
>less variety of books; only books which are likely to be checked out and returned late are purchased
>library fines accrue interest. that book you lost over the summer in the fifth grade now costs more than your college tuition
>nobody is a member of your library because every book can be downloaded for free off of the internet if you look hard enough, and those with enough money and interest in books purchase their books from a store and actually own them instead of renting them from you

you might be able to keep your shitty private library afloat if you were subsidized by the local government... perhaps with tax dollars...

>>8845071
whata paradox, i should make a thread about this