/sci/ - Science & Math

>>2204140
Evolution may just be a theory, but christianity is just a religion among many other and there is no more reason to believe it than hinduism, pastafarianism, greek mythology, fairies...

hello /sci/

Im not one of those retards who likes to claim the moon landing was a hoax but how was it that the people on the moon and the people here on earth were able to communicate without any delay? Does it not take 8 seconds for light from the moon to reach earth? How could they have communicated as if they were right next to each other?

And I'm referencing to this video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RMINSD7MmT4

(pic not related)

>>2103122
It's no mistake that I identified with Dr. Manhattan. It's the disconnect from the concerns of human beings that worries me because everything about me and society screams, loudly, that I should be concerned.

I know rationally that I shouldn't necessarily. Siddhartha held that it was fetters that cause our transitory non-satisfaction. He classified attachment to the state of others as a fetter. Which I feel at this point is true. Whether or not it is universally, impersonally, or "Really", is up to debate.

I've made the choice. I know every day, I'm going to get rid of one more thing, one more attachment. The logical progression of this is pretty simple to reason. Eventually, I will pass beyond the death of all I've loved, the fear of my own mortality, and the restraints of others. An unfettered person. Not a god. Not a superhero with silly powers. A person with nothing to lose.

http://www.google.com/search?client=ubuntu&channel=fs&q=meditation+increase+brain+size&i
e=utf-8&oe=utf-8

pic highly related

>>2041360
Luke: I don't, I don't believe it.
Yoda: That is why you fail.

>>2007972
If you want to have an argument with me about how I should go along with what's most widely believed, I'll show you long periods of time when ignorance and prejudice ran rampant in the society.

Karl Popper says we should favor the least likely theory because it will be easiest to refute if it's false and the hardest if it's not.

What O'Brien says about quantum processor development agrees with my analyze of the research. Your argument precludes the development of things like the Analytical Engine in the 1800s or the rapid advancement and adoption of cellphones.

Call me a sheep, but I follow where the data leads. The data says we get quantum computers in under ten years.

>>1981992
This wouldn't be contreversial except that people pull the same kind of thinking into Science. Many women who go into the science do so with something to prove and an agenda to push.

Is it really that surprising that the feminist agenda left the hard sciences almost completely untouched and only really proliferated out among the soft sciences wherein opinion, intuition, conjecture, and emotional reasoning is given the same weight as data and rigorous analysis?

http://arxiv.org/abs/0905.1283
http://arxiv.org/abs/0704.0646

>>1739599
There are four noble truths. They are akin to scientific laws. They are not phenomena. They are simply true by observation and experimentation.
1. The Nature of Nonsatisfaction
2. The Cause of Nonsatisfaction
3. The Negation of Nonsatisfaction
4. The Path Leading to the Cessation of Nonsatisfaction

There are Three Marks of Existence. These are properties of phenomena. Possession of these marks is proof of existence.
1. Nonconstance
2. Nonsatisfactoriness
3. Nonpermenance

There are Five Cognitive Aggregates. They are phenomena, bundles of properties that make up our first-hand subjective experience of illusionary reality, of the simulation, of the world. They are:
1. Form - Physical embodiment, mediation
2. Sentience - Signals to our mediation, sensations
3. Perception - Our feelings and emotions related to our sensations
4. Conception - Our thoughts, perspectives, and opinions about our perceptions.
5. Conscious - Our decisions and choices about that which we conceive.

Phenomena have positive existence. Which is to say we can assert their existence and prove them to be the case. Reality is not a phenomena. We can not assert anything of reality. We can not do more than ascribe properties to reality. The process of doing that is referred to as identification. Which is part of simulating reality; thus, we can only describe reality by negation of phenomena because once we have nothing, we have reality.

Our observation of the interaction of phenomena is mediated by our bodies which are themselves, a collection of interdependent phenomena. Which brings about the web of causality embodied by interdependent origination. The reality that phenomena arise from other phenomena. We are necessary for the simulation of reality, the observation of phenomena, and for causation. Without us, simulated reality is not.