/sci/ - Science & Math

We're going to need some diazepam and B vitamins, stat.

how do you know stars dont ponder their existance?

can you tell a mind ponders its existance just by looking at it?

You're very intelligent.
We're just patterns. Created by hot/cold heat waves. Second law of Thermo is a lie - It's words/patterns. It's nothing, we're all patterns only, nothing else. We name things, that's not the universe naming them. We're all equal to 0, apart from a black hole, that's 1.

Actually,

Any existence of anything is just as probable as "our" existence is (I assume you are reference to the evolution of human beings), at the current time, that is. But it would be hard for this concept to be intuitive unless you were able to watch the entire history of the universe play out. Try playing "Conway's game of life":

http://www.bitstorm.org/gameoflife/

It explains how with very simple rules, complex patterns will form and sometimes multiply.

think about how incomprehensibly long the universe has been forming everything, stars and everything like that formed from phisics with the matter in the universe they were likely to form, sure the chance that they were going to form into exactly us is incredibly small. but there are also billions of other universes that our universe could have formed into that are almost identicle to ours, same for everything else you mentioned.

>Think about how infinitely improbably your current existence is. Stars had to form, live, and die simply to forge the ingredients in your body. We appear to be the some of the most complex and peculiar material formations in our universe. Stars don't ponder their existence, Galaxies don't ask for or need any purpose, but we do. What exactly are we? What is this universe we live in?
You guy`s have a luxury problem for real (doesn`t mean it isn`t a problem)

There was a 100% chance I would exist as soon as the universe was born.

>>1551787
Quantum Mechanics says otherwise~

>>1551604
patterns don't think. we're something other than patterns

>>1551792

Keep your religion to yourself please.

>>1551639
Nothing particularly complex evolves in conway's game of life.

>>1551792
Quantum mechanics is deterministic:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/De_Broglie%E2%80%93Bohm_theory

Is the term desterministic or causalistic? Deterministic makes it sound like it all happens by design.

>>1551760
The problem is that at least so far, we haven't found an even POSSIBLE way for life to have formed. If it's not possible, it doesn't matter how long the universe has to work on it. For example, one of the necessary steps in abiogenesis is called the hypercycle which remains an unsolved problem.

A living, duplicating cell just popping into existence isn't going to happen without going through the necessary stages.

>>1551824
That is an unproven hypothesis extending QM. That is not QM. QM itself is non-deterministic.

>>1551824
Deterministic means a future state is completely determined by every prior state. Classical mechanics is deterministic. Quantum mechanics is not. They are both causal, but this is a more vague concept. Causes in QM, at least in the copenhagen interpretation, make things happen according to a probability distribution.

>>1551801

Well, you have a point, but conway's game of life operates on only 4 simple rules. We have no idea how many the universe operates on. Also, define complexity? I think a glider is pretty complex for 4 rules.

What is wrong with "I don't know."?

>>1551819
Enjoy your aether theory.

>>1551568
I am SORRY but i was under the impression one had to conduct some sort of observation or study with a vast sample size in order to determine probability for specific events. Have you gone back in time and observed the star which created my matter die over and over again to see what the probability of the necessary outcome for my creation was? If no, then shut up, your probability assessment has no basis to it.

>>1551568

>>1551854
I've seen a lot of evolution-type programs, with varying complexity of rules. I've never found a single one where the complexity of the output can just build and build, like seems to have happened in evolution. In these simulated environments it seems to hit a (pretty low) ceiling and just stop there. Note that the simplest cell is more complex than any computer program ever written. It seems like we're missing something.

duhhhh, what do you think a thought is?
fucktard
>>1551796

>>1551568
I think it might have to do with the fact that galaxies aren't self-aware.

We're one of many universes that were made yet ours was the only one with the right specifications to be perfect. Does that mean god chose this universe? No, it just fucking happened.

>>1551957
this, nature's intricacies trump even our most advanced achievements. we need to look moar into this

>>1551957
The universe, even just the solar system is a more complicated environment than any we've managed to simulate on a computer, by many orders of magnitude, it's no wonder why we're missing so much detail, the simulations are horribly inaccurate / overly simplistic compared to what the universe had to work with.

>>1551979
Please present your evidence for different universes existing with different laws of nature. Oh, right, you have none because you are an anti-scientific fuckwad who just sucks the cock of Dawkins.

>>1551964
I don't know what thought is, but I know it is not an algorithm or a pattern, fucktard.

>>1551568
Pondering about the improbabilities of our existence is useless. If the universe would have been made in a way, that cannot support life, there would be no one around to ponder about how improbable a life supporting universe is. It just happened to be that way.

It's a pattern.
You recieve patterns by looking at something. For example, a tree, and you register it, then create your own pattern based on what it looked like. You think in patterns. Symbols, Letters, Images =/= patterns. You are a pattern - 2 eyes, 2 nostrils, 2 ears, 1 mouth. 2 arms, 2 pectorils/nips, 2 legs, 1 dick. Everything in life is made out of the same 'good' pattern as you, otherwise your eyes wouldn't attract it, and you wouldn't be able to think/feel in this universe.

Gosh.
>>1552004

>>1552027
Senscience involves the processing of patterns. But senscience isn't itself a pattern. It is something else that works in the processing of patterns.

We are not our bodies. We are our minds. Our minds deal in patters. Thought thinks in pattern. That is not to say that minds or thoughts are patterns.

Then it's just an assertion from me. I'm not a scientist (obviously), you do the tests.

>inb4 "why are you here then GTFO", or similar mad responce
>>1552044

>>1552076
earlier today you said you were a god scientist

what happened to your degree in god science?

>>1552083

Don't give the faggot trip attention.

Why would I need a degree? LOL!
A degree is used to get a Job, it's a tool - to aid the econemy. No education, no jobs, no money - just God.

Yall retards,
Peace, I'll leave for a few hours. Let you guys spew a senseless drivel of patterns all over this board, shouting "God doesn't exist" using patterns, and being a pattern then saying, "I'm not a pattern", using patterns like fucking REtards. Aight... I'm good, I'll leave you Dooods to it.

>>1551568
Think about how inevitably determined your current existence was. The laws of physics dictate stars will form, live, and die, forging the ingredients in your body. The universe is vast, supporting chemical-rich oasis in which life can arise, and given time must according to simple chemistry. Stars don't ponder their existence, galaxies don't ask for or need any purpose, but we do. We are a way for the cosmos to know itself.

>>1552246
>The universe is vast, supporting chemical-rich oasis in which life can arise, and given time must according to simple chemistry.
You wish. I wish too. We don't even know how life CAN arise from simple chemistry. Must less do we know that it MUST.

If you want to be a scientist, you should be looking for answers rather than pretending that you have answers that you don't. The illusion of knowledge is the greatest obstacle to knowledge.

My life is not improbable at all, although it's wondrous and I thank Him for this gift everyday.

sci, this sounds like a bunch of philosophers argueing over hard science. most of the arguements here are terrible...

yes we don't know how life formed, we know how the building blocks formed, we know what we are made up out of, we are missing steps in between, we know some how something happened where these gaps are, we should be doing research into what this is, but that doesn't mean we should discredit the theory completely just because of a few gaps, look at evolution, there are some gaps in their, their is also a hell of alot of compelling evidence as well. If you want to discredit the abiogenisis theory, than find a theory of abiogenisis that explains how we got here.

also nearly any arguement from probability (including OP's statement) is bullshit as it is normally dumbes down and misrepresents the entire arguement.

>>1552314
This is not an assumption or simple assertion. This is one such oasis. This proves there are some. We are alive. This proves life can arise. You are the evidence of my claim.

>>1552314
I read a theory of how all the elements would have formed from hydrogen at the start (or near the start) of the universe with the right conditions, into all the elements we have now, and guess what all the elements that exist now, exist now! what a coincidence, what are the chances of that, man they must be pretty damm small

Isn't it amazing that our legs are exactly as long as we need them to be to reach the ground?

ITT: trolls trolling trolls