/sci/ - Science & Math

Can't you fags will steal this shit.

I have a thory (just a gesus) that OP is faggot.

I am the only real person and everyone else is a simulation/robot/figment of my imagination.

>>3591973

Thats an interesting theory, but unfortunately youre wrong.

I have a theory that everything I'm experiencing is a self-imposed delusion where I have disconnected myself from reality to escape from the violent rape my real body is currently experiencing.

>>3591975

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solipsism

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simulation_argument

Not a theory.

Theory: 1. A set of statements or principles devised to explain a group of facts or phenomena, especially one that has been repeatedly tested or is widely accepted and can be used to make predictions about natural phenomena.
2. The branch of a science or art consisting of its explanatory statements, accepted principles, and methods of analysis, as opposed to practice

>>3591984

but what if you would be put to sleep by niggers and then they would rape you while youre asleep, and while youre asleep, youre dreaming that youre being raped as well.

Then thats like triple rape =)

I have a theory that inertia is just a kind of resistance at the quantum vacuum level

>>3591997
Then I'm dreaming within a dream to escape a rape within a rape. INCEPTION

>>3591997
Are you a woman?

>>3592000

>>3591998
O hai Peter Higgs, didn't know you were a /sci/bro

My theory is that OP is a fag and /sci/ sucks

I have a loose hypothesis that no such thing as matter really exists and everything is just space folded up in very interesting way, but as the fabric of space expands outward that complex folding is being reduced until it completely flat (maximum entropy).

>>3592026

i get it, but it doesnt make any fucking sense..

I don't know enough math to hypothesize, and I'm not going to start trying until I have a firmer grasp of the art.

Construct a ring around the bottom of a rocket which compresses the air and introduces fuel to the mix, Instant Ramjet

I have a theory that almost nobody on /sci/ actually knows what they are talking about. I'm still working on it.

some constant numbers like Boltzman constant, and the gas law constant are actually another state function we havn't noticed yet...We'll probably be able to change it one day and possibly has to do with our universe.

>>3592032

Hey guys, I got this theory. Particles can be like a wave also, and be at two places at once!

My theory is that when 2 galaxies interact with each other, they will create similar patterns as the electrons circling an atom.

My theory: Gravity is in fact the universe conserving entropy. The unification of quantum and relativity will come when we unify entropy and energy.

Any physicfags wanna prove me wrong I would really like to see why I am wrong.

inb4 black holes have really high entropy despite the fact that they clearly don't

I have a theory that this is all in my head, and my real self is in a mental institute, in a straight jacket, slowly swaying back and forth.

>>3592120

its weird how many consider the possibility that this is an alternate reality.

It makes no sense to me. Theres to much detail for this reality to be imagined.

>>3592135
>Theres to much detail for this reality to be imagined.
Your "what seems real" filter is also under the influence of the dream state.

>>3592120


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zSJJ2XKIVhI

>>3592135
>Theres to much detail for this reality to not be MAGIC! JESUS LIVES!

I have a theory that you're dumb and shortsighted. And i have good support for it.

>>3592139

nah, you know its bullshit..

We could also hypothise about little people stealing your shit at nights, but you know thats bullshit as well.

>>3592151

I know its not impossible, but i also know that its incredibly unlikely..

>dumb

I guess this is the internet, where you can spout out all the bullshit you want without any consequences.

I have a theory: every time a wavefunction collapses the universe splits@

>>3592154
If one hundred billion neurons with a few trillion synapses can take a stream of input and make it into subjective reality then a properly complex computational device could pretend to be said brain and another could pretend to be the enviroment. What if real reality exists in 6 spatial dimensions? you could put a 3D football stadium worth of servers in a 6D matchbox.

And we only need to simulate the moment right now, any errors in details and causailty could be removed from memory with error-fixing algorithms. Some could even be allowed to slip, crazy people claiming UFOs/God or just dying or disappearing, no problem, business as usual.

>>3591975
This is false, because I am real/conscious/aware. I know this, and only this, with 100% certainty. Unfortunately, I cannot prove it to you. Interesting dilemma, right? So it goes.

>>3592111
Anyone wanna discuss this at all, I really am interested. I thought /sci/ was full of sheldons.

>>3591963
the universe is a scale-free network of points that have no properties and either exist or don't exist

>>3592111
I think Gravity is an emergent phenomenon

>>3591975
solipsism.
Which is false, because an observed event being rare is much rarer than it being common.

Also, occams razor

>>3592111
Gravity is a primary force of attraction and, as far as I am aware, pertains exclusively to masses within space-time regions. (does pure energy have gravity?)

Entropy is describing how systems become more disordered as time progresses. Entropy itself is underlied by more fundamental laws that explain why things behave the way they do.

In a way you are correct; gravity is helping to counter disorder and thus sustain a liveable system and our existence is testament to this fact. Furthermore, entropy works because of gravity. Take out gravity and you lose entropy as it stands.

We should look to the anthropic principle to decide whether or not this truly has any scientific merit. Perhaps there are no coincidences or everything is a coincidence. The only thing certain to me is that we are.

I have a theory that we have a common ancestor with chimps and the like and that we have slowly developed in different ways, this would also apply to other species. Now if I see any of you wankers steal this theory then I will slap your shit.

>>3592427
I hope you are joking XD

>>3592440
Wow

I have a theory that each of our "true" selves live in a different world line, and we are unknowingly the God of that world.

>>3592440
I'm dead serious, man. This'll be the breakthrough of the century, hell, even the whole history of mankind!

Humanity is almost certainly going to create a purely mechanical alternative to itself with electronic brains, within a millenia, and it is going to evolve.

At the end of the universe, the only matter in existence will be either processed by robots, or un-processable.

QM is not actually random, we just don't understand it enough so it appears to be at the moment. Our understanding of physics is actually only as in depth as our understanding of psychology, and we have a heck of a long way to go.

>>3592454
but....god started it all right?

>>3592490
oh yeah, yeah

THEO-ZEUS 194 started it, actually.

>>3592454
how are you going to get people to think that they're no better than monkeys?

>>3592500
how about we lie?

We say people "descended" from "apes". Dumb shits won't realise it's the same thing and apes don't even exist.

>>3592454
That actually makes sense, bro.

Good luck against all the religions in the world, though

>>3592490
My theory does not refute God, it would only prove that the Almighty engineered this world more delicately than what was earlier believed, if people will believe me, that is, but I have no doubts that they will, in time.

The "Stoned Ape" Theory of Human Evolution

In his book Food of the Gods,[22] McKenna proposed that the transformation from our early ancestors Homo erectus to the species Homo sapiens mainly had to do with the addition of the mushroom Psilocybe cubensis in out diet - an event which according to his theory took place in about 100,000 BC (this is when he believed that our species diverged from the Homo genus). He based his theory on the main effects, or alleged effects, produced by the mushroom. One of the effects that comes about from the ingestion of low doses, which agrees with one of scientist Roland Fischer's findings from the late 60s-early 70s,[23] is it significantly improves the visual acuity of humans - so theoretically, of other human-like mammals too. According to McKenna, this effect would have definitely prove to be of evolutionary advantage to our omnivorous hunter-gatherer ancestors that would have stumbled upon it "accidentally"; as it would make it easier for them to hunt.

In higher doses, McKenna claims, the mushroom acts as a sexual stimulator, which would make it even more beneficial evolutionary, as it would result in more offspring. At even higher doses, the mushroom would have acted to "dissolve boundaries", which would have promoted community-bonding and group sexual activities-that would result in a mixing of genes and therefore greater genetic diversity. Generally McKenna believed that the periodic ingestion of the mushroom would have acted to dissolve the ego in humans before it ever got the chance to grow in destructive proportions. In this context he likened the ego to a cancerous tumor that can grow uncontrollable and become destructive to its host. In his own words:

>>3592465
>QM is not actually random, we just don't understand it enough so it appears to be at the moment.

There's a theorem or proof or whatever that states that QM actually is 100% random, that it does not contain any hidden variables, just random.

Hypothesis: Human beings can enjoy the scent of freshly cut grass because, in the history of our species, especially when reliant on herd animals for sustenance, the scent of freshly cut grass could signal and allow the tracking of herd animals.

>>3592513
He's talking about Bell's theorem, though I'm not sure that's exactly what it says as my knowledge of physics/math is limited
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bell's_theorem

>>3592513
I very much doubt that, and I don't think the double slit experiment would give sufficient information for such a test to tell you anything. Remember Geocentrism?

>>3592500
Well, apes and monkeys have their own nisches, they are different and they do what they need to do in order to survive, does anything else even matter in this world? I won't deny the human species are dominating this world, but is it really necessary?

>>3592449

Is that an excuse to make up your ego?

protip: no one likes people that think theyre god

>>3591973
that's no theory but a well-established fact

>>3592514
That's brilliant. I think I might nick it.

>>3592514
hmmm,

How long have we been cutting grass? You need advanced tools for that.
I think that we had tracked most of the herd animals by the time we had modern agriculture technology.

>>3592505
i like lying. lying is good. lying works.

i'm in

We are actually living in a computer simulation which runs in a different universe from ours. Our physical constants (for eg the speed of light) are a order of magnitude smaller than in the upper universe in order to make calculations easier/faster.
Also, being in superposition and falling into one state or another upon observation is just like in videogames: you don't render things that cannot be seen in order to save up resources.
What do you think about this /sci/???

>>3592514
test subject reporting in. love the smell of freshly cut grass. want to follow it to herd, cull the weak member.

>>3592526
Nope. We didn't go fully domesticated in the west until about 200AD, and there are still tribes in the tropics that are partially nomadic.
>>3592528
That's how we got funding for windmills, after all.
>>3592531
simulation argument.
http://www.simulation-argument.com/

>>3592526
Herd animals whose diets consisted of mostly grasses need no tool more advanced than their own teeth. Any advanced tool to cut grass acts in a similar way to their jaws, and the scent of cut grass could just as easily propagate from one action (animals eating grass) as another (a human tool cutting grass).

>>3592531
cool theory bro but does it mean that God is represented by the civilization simulating our reality?

>>3592561
yes
but HURR NO GOD IMPOSSIBLE YEA

If everything is relative, this means that nothing actually has any properties, only properties relative to other things. In such a world there aren't actually any "things", only observations of contrast. This leads me to believe we may be living in a purely hypothetical equilibrium. The scary part is that cosmology and quantum physics supports this idea.

The end of the universe is pure light. Get with the program.>>3592465

>>3592513

theory and proof are two completely unrelated things.

There are an infinite amount of dimensions that determine each and every possible action and affect. All of our dimensions are made up of little strings and loops. I put it in retard for all the fags in this thread. Read up on String Theory, and buy The Elegant Universe. Maybe you won't think like an ape afterwards.

>>3592749
I mean before that bit, when there's still potential on a large scale.

Quantum physics is just a concept; particles are created by beams of energy attracted to each other by gravity and their subsequent gravitational, momentous characteristics.

Space time, too, is just a concept that describes a pretty simple phenomenon. Energy is matter, thus, gravity effects energy. Energy creates time, because energy drives the changes that create changes that make up time. Hence, larger gravitational bodies (including those created by speed, as energy is matter and matter creates gravity) create gravitational pull on bodies of energy that drags down the rate of change making the illusion of time slowing down.

The history of physics is full of moments where oridnary people with no background in math or laboratory science propel great breakthroughs in understanding.

>>3592679
It's not scary at all... and isn't anywhere near as serious as you make it out to be.

That's the irony in it.

1. Space is quantised. In other words, space is made up of "pixels".
Not much to that one, just an idea really.

2. There is no such thing as true knowledge.
Not a particularly new idea but I have logical proof for it.

>>3592910
There is also no such thing as an original idea. Only a re-organisation of pre-existing information.

The fact that we haven't found gravitons should imply that we should be looking more into the possibility that gravity is emergent/induced.

>>3592910
I know I exist, pretty sure that's true. Can't speak for your existence though.

>>3592937
Thats the one thing I cannot contest.

If it cannot be observed it does not exist.

If something CAN be observed, but is not, it can cause a result (which is observed as caused by something seemingly existing and not existing at the same time).

It's pretty sad knowing that every idea I come up with someone else has done so first and articulated it much better. Just look at that lackluster sentence.

Consciousness:
You are always getting stimuli from your environment.
This allows certain penetration of the stimuli into the hierarchy of neurons in the brain, which give a certain response.
The stronger the stimulus, the more suitable (precise) the reaction is.
Example;
you need to know what time it is
you look, but only briefly, you've seen the time, but when asked what time it is, you don't remember; then you looks again and then you know what time it really is.
Stronger stimulus.
Now, maybe if "thinking" is sort of loop, being created by a stimulus and circulating in the brain, going through all sorts of neural networks, triggering memories, thoughts, reactions to, emotions, ... then this might be what consciousness really is.

>>3592999
Bullshit. If you think they're better than you then you should feel proud that you independently concluded the same thing. The fact that they can put it it prettier words than you proves nothing more than the fact they're an artsy fartsy type.

>>3592679

101: Spacetime is like a bed sheet, on top of itself (like a mattress made of bed sheets.) Planets have mass (they're made of matter) and are like dents in the matrress, creating resistive force to other objects, creating orbit, etc. and manipulating matter and energy at X levels, as well as with the nuclear force, electric forces, etc.

Things must still exist inherently.

There is only two things; space and time. Space constitutes Energy and Matter (They're equivalent) and time is the result of these forces interacting within a set area of X. (Space in general) (Our universe) This is a fact.

Time = Distance over Rate. Gravity slows time because things that are forcibly resisted by gravity / vice versa slow the travel time of X particles in X conditions. This is another fact. Imagine trying to move, but something is pulling you slowly backwards. This would make it seem like you are moving slowly from your own relative perspective. Photons are effected by gravity due to the curve of space time due to matter.

The question is; what exactly constitutes
'space'? Surely we can't have spacetime without space, and it can't be 'empty' in the sense that it is a perfect vacuum. This is true.

So, if not all of space is absolute zero temperature (the temp at which all atomic movement stops) and it is expanding with a given amount of entropy, what exactly is space where atoms are not?

There is no perfect vacuum, but the amount of atoms per X area decrease in warmer/colder places, so what constitutes this space, the one we see as cold and empty?

Does vacuum in X areas only exist due to relativity?

>>3592999

Consciousness can be expressed as the human brain as a computer with an extremely high amount of dendrites and neurons creating synaptic connections for survival in evolutionary compensation for lack of physical strength, etc.

X law dictates that biological computers (brains) are the same as electromechanical computers in principle, but not in physical structure yet can perform the same actions for which they were constructed (The human brain is for survival, modern computers evolved from computers intended for calculation, not 'survival')

Tl;dr : The brain, with enough transistors and electrical networking, can be emulated. Moore's law dictates that every 2 years, transistor capability doubles.

Memories are physical information stored within cells in the brain.

http://en.wikipedia.org(REMOVE THIS)/wiki/Intelligence


>>3593002

This

Universe not expanding, everything within just shrinking, meaning 1 metre in a minutes time or so will be longer than a metre. evrything is shrinking in perfect harmony meaning we cannot detect it, and yet, TRUE mass is lost, therefore energy created therefore expansion of the universe is increasing (with just the shrinking, rate of expansion would be constant;input of energy increases this.)

Time = Distance / Rate,

Achieve Absolute Zero temp in X relative to X in anything.

Freeze time.

You be jelly like gelatin

I shall now provide incontrovertible proof that man never actually landed on the sun, and that the footage and accounts of said achievements in 1969 were nothing more than outright fraud.

Firstly, no evidence has been found of the landing site nor equipment supposedly left there by the astronauts, even with careful scanning by our most powerful telescopes.

Second of all, the sun is known to be quite warm, and none of the transcriptions of the interactions between the astronauts and Houston ground control show even the slightest mention of the temperature, as one would naturally expect (e.g. "Houston, it's getting quite warm, over." "Quite warm, roger that, Tranquility Base.") It should be noted that the astronauts also "returned to Earth" as pale as when they had left, though defenders dismiss this by pointing out NASA's PABA sunscreen technology.

Third, none of the surviving astronauts will go on record as saying they definitely have or have not walked on the sun, despite persistent harassment from noted experts.

Lastly and most damningly is the stringent denial of all of this evidence, in most screaming and hysterical tones, of the mind controlling radio waves broadcast by the CIA and Freemasons since 1972 - why would they so vehemently defend the sun landings if they weren't insecure about the facts ?

WAKE UP AND SMELL THE REAL !

>>3593176

I tried to smell the real and all I got was Old Spice :'(

And lol, you mean the moon? Or are you trollin' like yo be rollin' ?

>>3593176
I got to the mention of temperature bit before I realised you did mean sun.
NWO PROSPECTUS: MONEY MONET MONSTERS

I write down my theories sometimes. Some of them make sort of sense, I have a possible solution to the Chinese Box dilemma.

Though most of the physics ones make me seem like I was stoned when I wrote them.

>mfw I read over some of them after a while

>>3593275
heh, I have the exact same problem. I don't understand half of the stuff I wrote two years ago, I think it must be pretty useless.

>>3593275
what's the chinese box dilemma?
google didn't know :(

>>3593341
google chinese room. It's not actually a dilemna at all unless you start from the position that souls exist, so It doesn't really matter all that much.

this universe consists solely of the echoes of God's Word uttered approximately 6,000 years ago

>>3593349
6015*

>>3593346

Not really. Souls have little to do with it. I was talking more from the AI perspective.

>>3593358
What's the difference between the man in the room fluent in chinese and the man outside the room who learnt chinese from a textbook?

>>3593360

What? That's not how it is.

The man outside is fluent in chinese, the man inside did not learn it. He's following instructions on how to respond to patterns.

>>3593363
And what is the man who learnt it doing that's different, internally or externally, to what the man in the room does?

the whole thing's ridiculous. If anything, the AI is more represented by the person explicitly taught to perform the task of understanding chinese than he is to the person who happened to learn it.

>>3593368

The man who is fluent is following a unique pattern, one that changes based on experience. The man inside is not, it's just a progression of replies based on rules.

If it isn't, then whoever wrote the rules, their "personality" shows within the rules, so you're really talking to who wrote the rules at that point. If, instead, the pattern changes based on how many conversations the room has and the information it learned, than at that point it becomes intelligent. It's got to do with algorithm identity, somewhat.

>>3593386
BS, sir.
The man who is fluent is using a pre-learnt set of rules to comprehend and respond to the phrases he hears. It's not unique beyond the vocabulary he knows. The exact same thing is true for the man inside the room.

Seriously, if your chinese teacher gave you words one at a time and told you to learn them, you would be learning chinese. The only difference here is that it's posed as some kind of incredible philosophical problem.

There is no original thought, both are simply recalling patterns they have learnt to work. A child growing up learns language in the exact same way as the man in the box- by hearing phrases, responding in certain ways, and then retaining the responses that have the desired effect.

>>3593397
>It's not unique beyond the vocabulary he knows
>Seriously, if your chinese teacher gave you words one at a time and told you to learn them, you would be learning chinese.

Memorizing words != NLP.

There is original thought, no two patterns are the same. If there really was no original thought, no one would be able to converse.

Understand what AI is before trying to argue.

We are the universe experiencing itself.

>>3593404
Yes, it is. You haven't shown any evidence whatsoever it isn't.

There is no original thought in the sense that there is nothing new, all is derived from the environment. AI is quite possibly identical to conventional intelligence.

>>3593413

>Yes, it is.

So your browser's lexicon parser can also double as a natural language processing system?

>>3593418
If it were programmed with grammatical laws, yes, it could. You still have yet to provide evidence that the methods of learning lead to any difference in the eventual knowledge. The notion is completely absurd.

>>3593426

>You still have yet to provide evidence that the methods of learning lead to any difference in the eventual knowledge.

Really, look into AI before trying to argue. Don't just read pop-sci books on it and think you know how it works. There's myriads of different approaches to AI, supervised, unsupervised, statistical, mass data approaches (Google), and they all arrive at different conclusions and eventual knowledge.

>>3593445
Brah, I have looked into AI, and I have found that the chinese room argument is complete tripe. People consistently fail to pin down the difference between the man in the room and anyone outside of it, or the difference between a chinese kid and the man in the room, as you have. They all learn through trial and error, gradually gaining knowledge of the language. The only possible difference is that the man in the room doesn't know it's chinese he's learning, as far as I know. He'd treat it as a language, identical to the way the kid, or the student would.

Really, substantiate your arguments. The fact this has gotten this far is disappointing.

If I made an exact digital model of my brain as it is right now and taught it chinese, would it be learning chinese like I would?

>>3593460
also: 6 minutes till my battery cuts out.

>>3593460

Yes, because it'd be a copy of your current system.

The fact that you think having a lexicon parser with grammar capabilities is equal to NLP shows you don't know how AI works at all. Even if it knows all the grammar rules and definition, a sentence like this would destroy it:

"Sally passed by a store and saw a puppy. She wanted it."

How does it know why she couldn't take it? Is there a window? Do stores have windows? Was it on this play? Why did she want it? Are puppies desirable things?

Each sentence requires insane knowledge on the world. Rules are not enough, what is necessary is building a model of the world.

>>3593468

>Was it on this play
I meant "Was it on display". Trying to type too fast within the 6 minute limit...

>>3593460
you mean, when you adopt a chinese babby, they don't come pre-wired to speak chinese???

>>3592044

>>3593468
so what's the difference between the chinese room guy and the same guy outside of the room who learnt using rosetta stone? or learn when he was growing up?

Also, as I said before, if with sufficient rules, it would be possible for the parser to understand the statement.
Thanks for taking the time into consideration

>>3593477

Each model of the world built becomes unique if the data fed to the system is unique (i.e., not two systems fed the same data at the sametime, then they become copies).

Rules can't build models of the world. Rules can only build frameworks for learning, the framework itself is what interprets the world. No matter how many rules you give a system, it won't be self-sufficient if it isn't able to mutate it's own rules based on experience. That's what "intelligence" is.

Something that is just based on constant rules like you think all AI is is more an Expert System than an "Intelligent algorithm".

Not sure if you're even there anymore.

>>3593460
New poster here. I agree that the Chinese Room argument doesn't hold up very well, and two main reasons come to mind ATM.

1) The room knows Chinese, not the man. Just like your brain knows a language, but none of the neurons do.
2) The room is immutable and does not really demonstrate intelligence. It is absolutely fixed in its input/output response patterns, and cannot ever learn or change. This throws people off, as this thing is clearly not intelligent. You can reconfigure the argument to have a complex set of rules about how and where to make new records and connections, including quite a bit more than simple input/output mappings, and then the room looks VERY much like a brain, and is essentially a man simulating a brain with pen-and-paper calculations.

The universe has a center, but it's outside of the universe itself. Like how a washer's center of gravity is in the space at the center of the washer where no washer actually is.

>>3592065

Boltzmann's constant is just the constant of proportionality between the energy scale in joules and the temperature scale in kelvins when the energy of each degree of freedom is equal to kT/2.

>>3592111
>>3592305

I didn't read anything after these posts just for the record.

Entropy is a much more contrived concept than you really realize. It is easy to see this when you consider the expression for the different ways the internal energy of a system can change. The most familiar form is

dU = TdS - pdV

but you can add any terms you like, depending on how you define the internal energy. Suppose you include gravitational potential. Then the expression becomes

dU = TdS - pdV - Fdx

If you rearrange to solve for dS, you'll see that even changes in gravitational potential are taken into account in calculating entropy, and so gravity is in no way inconsistent with the concept of entropy.

>>3593502

One thing I noticed in the Chinese Room is that Searle disregards that there is no such thing as a 'sufficiently convincing' translator. If the outsider has an arbitrarily long amount of time, eventually he'll find a mistake because while a syntactic translator is relatively simple, semantics and the framing problem will make sure that <span class="math">\it{any}[/spoiler] non-sentient translator will, at some point, fail to understand something, whether it's colloquial speech or a neologism.

So, to throw these objections away, Searle begins by assuming that the computer perfectly 'understands Chinese', and then tries to prove that the computer can never understand Chinese.

Gravity is not the contraction of space between objects, it is the expansion of objects.

Space doesn't exist, all that exists is light-time between objects.

Space could be a distance field. Then when you collapse space to form a massive object, it's basically another universal curled into itself, with gravity being the result of this spatial vacuum.

An inverse theory, the universe isn't expanding, in any way. Things are getting smaller, and it's actually objects at the edge of the universe are being pulled towards the center most slowly, while objects close to the center of the universe are shrinking, being pulled back into say a higher-dimensional funnel which was generated when the universe came into existence, and is required to get sucked back in for the universal unequilibrium to resolve.

>>3593576

I'd like to expand upon this. Entropy is also defined in two interesting ways in statistical mechanics.

S = klnW (1)
S = -k Σ_i p_i ln(p_i) (2)

If all of the probabilities of every microstate are equal, equation 2 reduces to equation 1. What this says is that, if a particular microstate is more likely to occur than another, than its contribution to the absolute entropy of that system is larger. So, if you have a black hole, the microstate corresponding to a particle inside the gravitational potential is much (much much much much) more likely than the microstate corresponding to the particle outside of the gravitational potential, and so entropy is maximized when the particle is trapped in the black hole.

>>3593595
* then its contribution

>>3593591
>Gravity is not the contraction of space between objects, it is the expansion of objects.

explain orbit.

>>3593602
Both of the objects are contracting space linearly between eachother, which causes an apparent acceleration between them.

>>3593602
I'm still thinking, ok

No theories are complete :(

The amount of sage in a thread is proportional to the amount of butthurt and trolled fags.

For every religious trolling thread (RTT) in /sci/ there're at least, 50 guaranteed replies.

For every reply in a RTT there is at least one (1) EK post, one (1) other tripfag that isn't EK and at least ten (10) newfags who think /sci/ is a religious-hate board.

The amount of science in a /sci/ thread is proportionaly inverse to the amount of people giving a fuck about it.

For every "Biology isn't a science" thread in /sci/ there're at least 20 butthurt faggots.

Trolling is a art.

fermions and bosons are actually the same thing in a different state

>>3593176
>man never actually landed on the sun

Wat.

hmm. better think one up pretty quick.
when I was 11 (12? idk.) I read A Brief History Of Time and underlined a passage that said that the universe started out as a singularity, a single little (little in this case meaning infinitesmally small) point. I reversed the logic and came to the conclusion that the universe would eventually revert back to that state. I also came to the conclusion that within each singularity was contained another universe, and that at a certain point in the lifespan of that universe, it burst like a balloon, and triggered a new 'big bang', one level up. I was precocious to say the fucking least lol.

I've tried coming up with a solution for the origin of terrestrial life, but the more I read, the more I realize that all of my ideas were already thought up. It's obviously discouraging, but also rewarding in a way, because it means that I independently figured something out that someone has established as theory.

the details of the theory posted in
>>3593784
can be used to explain the theories posted in
>>3592068
and
>>3592026
and also
>>3592881
and
>>3592679

>>3593848
Logical people should always reach the same conclusion. If this doesn't happen all the time, you should be worried.

>>3593935

This

>>3593823

This will blow your mind

>>3591963
The universe when traveled in the physical world is from point A to B and is traveled along this tubes that are intertwining, that is my theory on what the Universe looks like. When the physical world enters the folds of the universe we can travel distances in mere seconds. So if we were to try and find a fold of which the universe meets our destination we can simply pass through it by creating a black hole. I also have a theory that the universe always has the same amount of matter (derp) and a black hole will transport you to another part of the universe.

>>3594336
>>3594374

Wow, I literally just typed up the theory I have had for 2 years that I formed on my own thinking and the picture above it is one pertaining to it. MAH GAWD!

>>3594336
>maximum popsci achieved

Dark matter is creatable with very strong magnets by reversing the charge of the electron cloud surrounding the atom and passing it under the magnets creating a field of attraction that will attract atoms creating an implosion that destabilises gravitons.

>>3594407

Makesmemoist.jpg

My theory is that our consciousness is somewhat a parasite. The body we are in now is not ours, but a superorganism made of multiple variety of cells. this doesnt only mean us, but all multi-celled organisms. In my theory, there is no such thing as a multi-celled organism, but individual single-celled organism working together under the comand of our consciousness.

The universe exists because it wants to. As the macrocosm reflects the microcosm, the desire and will to exist shown by life is the perfect explanation for the existence of the entire universe.

Dark matter is akin to RAM.

ITT: No actual theories, only vague hypotheses.

You MFers sure don't know how to use words.

>>3593495
I found another battery, but you're probably gone anyway :(

My argument is against the chinese room problem, not against AI, just to clarify.

I just don't see any difference between the man in the room and a child learning outside of it, in any non-arbitrary sense.

I'd say it's completely possible for the man in the room to derive rules from the words he recieves (assuming he did get sentences).

The ubiquitous nature of mathematics, as an emergent and observable result of both physical (e.g., golden spiral in seashells) and non-physical processes (e.g., probabilistic functions of economic statistical distribution) implies something fundamental about reality; namely, processes that appear to be entirely unrelated (like quantum mechanics and the weather or stock market) may actually be manifestations of some chaotic, probabilistic "proto-force".

>>3594336
noice, astrophysics.

So can any information beyond energy be passed through the wormhole?

>>3594336
If all the mass is on the outside of the black hole then anything falling into it will be greatly attracted to the ring; it will be impossible to fall into the center. Also I find it difficult to believe that the ring won't collapse in on itself.

>>3594387
You sir are a faggot of the highest callibre.

Consciousness is the point where a decision is made on what action to take based on sensory.

>>3596163
Well documented actually

>>3596167
Orly?

I think the Conscious is the output of the brain. It doesn't actually make decisions or compute anything, it is fed information from the subconscious.

>>3596173
What we would label consciousness is indeed constantly being fed sensory information from the subconscious. Intuition is what arises from the collaboration of sensory and processing units. The higher brain functions synethesise thoughts from relevant areas. Consciousness is an extension of the subconscious; an extension that not every creature has because of the physiology of their neural systems (mainly the parietal lobe, frontal lobe, cerebral cortex, the medulla).

I have a theory that 0.999... =/= 1

>>3596222

>>3596222
Now you can move on to the other theories and shut up.

>>3596251
that picture is horrible

just

no

whoever decided to save it as a jpg should be shot.

>>3596222
>>3596251
YOU KNOW IT. YOU KNOW THAT EVEN THOUGH IT IS INFINITE, THAT AFTER EVERY SINGLE REPEATING 9 IT IS STILL LESS THAN 1. EVEN IF YOU REPEAT THIS TO INFINITY, IT IS STILL LESS THAN 1,ALL THE TIME. YOU FUCKING KNOW THAT MATH IS A LIE

>>3596270
;_;
Thread is dead.

>>3596255
Point out errors or make it better than.
I'm no mathematician and I thought we needed some handy copypasta image to counter such claims or threads which occur quite frequently.

>>3596322
I did, I made a PNG and posted it here, citing sources and providing other resources. It was promptly forgotten.

I'm on a different HDD at the moment, so don't have it.

>>3593002

seeing as a neuron cannot continusly fire (or can they?), if you want to keep having the same thoughts for a period of time you need a central control (conciousness) which keeps the neccesary neurons firing in loops.
Otherwise the sub-modules required would go off thinking new things when you need them to keep thinking about what you're doing.

If that's what you were trying to say then: wow. This changes the way i think of things.

>>3596015

All you have to do is define your standings

>>3595956>>3596758

>>3595926

Cool

Only vague hypotheses

We are nothing, that coming from nothing and are going to nothing.

>>3596758
Certain neurons do fire continously.
From my textbook anatomy:
>The Reticular Formation
>The reticular formation runs through the central core of the brain stem. The neurons of the reticular formation have long, branching axons that project to widely seperated regions of te thalamus, cerebellum and spinal cord. Such widespread connections make reticular neurons ideal for governing the arousal of the brain as a whole. For example, certain reticular neurons send a continuous stream of impulses to the cerebrum (through relays in the thalamus), thereby maintaining the cerebral cortex in an alert, conscious state.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reticular_Formation
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reticular_activating_system

And it's not what I'm trying to say.
See of it like this.
You see a red car.
You see red and a car. (what I'm doing now is grossly simplified)
The red will cause a certain pathway that will diverge internally in the brain, causing loops firing, other divergences which will evolve into thinking patterns, which is why you might think random things at any time.
The car will do the same to you.
And because we are continously receiving stimuli, we are capable of thinking structurally, randomly; with seemingly limitless combinations.

bumping
one
last
time

>>3596885
>>3596885

WAIT!!!

Those neurons continously fire short signals, they do not send out one long continous signal!

The theory stands!

THERE ARE NUKES ON TIME MACHINES

ALSO, IN MY TIME, THE PICTURES HAVE NO FRAMES

bumpalumpdumpahump

Homosexuality is a choice, not a trait or gene.

If it were genes, they wouldnt have been carried on (gay men dont reproduce)

nuff said

>>3603068

How do you know they dont reproduce?

>>3603071

men don't have wombs

>>3603068
homosexuality wasn't always as accepted as in our generations.
most gay men may had a wife and kids just to appear normal.

since it's accepted now and the gays being gay n all, the percentage of homosexuals should be in a rapid decline in this century, IF it is a genetic trait.
If homosexuality is a choice we should see an increase.

Time will tell
yay homotheory

>>3603097

assuming homosexuality is genetic, if it were a non-dominant trait it could flourish even in an homo-accepting environment.

for you see, having a homosexual brother/sister could help somebody have kids

>>3603097
It's highly unlikely that there is a "gay gene," especially one that works with any of the simpler methods of inheritance.
More likely, it is environmental in the womb, so it is still not a choice, but it is not directly heritable either.

>>3603076

Yeah but women do.

Anyway, if you think homosexuality is a choice, that doesnt exempt it from evolution. Decision making has a genetic basis. Which is why we've been deciding to be heterosexual to begin with.

>>3603156

>CHECKMATE HOMOPHOBES

>>3603097

It was accepted in most places before the Christians started spreading their homo hate.

>>3603141
if it's non dominant... our species if fucked
the horror visions of a Gay Pride parade in 4th July scale

>>3603173

The wrong man in the right place can make all the difference.

We'll use rockets fueled by antimatter collected on the orbit to travel to other stars and maintain FTL communication by quantum entaglement-based devices. Hurr durr.

LAW OF CONCIOUSNESS/COMPLEXITY + PRINCIPAL OF SYNERGY

= Omega Point

> I don't really involve myself too much in this but its fun to imagine and think about, and honestly I think the Noosphere and Noosphere-like principals are ones we could adopt even if the Noosphere doesn't exist... after all the internet is pretty damn close to a thought-realm.

Guys
I have this theory
that there's only 1 electron in the entire universe

Each of the smallest subatomic particles in our universe is another universe, whereas our universe is the smallest subatomic particle in a larger universe. This extends infinitely in both directions.

Mine is easy to get but hard to word.

Take the typical "we are living inside a simulation" scenario, yet instead of being run on a computer our reality is being run on just a set of more complicated natural laws in a more complicated universe.

Another analogy would be the way insects or things like starfish operate on simple principles without a centralized brain and do not even need to understand how their environment actually is or what their sense are - we are a version of this in something even more complicated to the degree random physical laws might be connected in totally unexpected ways in "actual reality".

>>3603694

Run by brain

Principle of synergy

I think it may be possible to engineer microorganisms that constantly purge built up nitrogen in the tissues of your body, such that your body never saturates no matter how deep you dive or for how long. There may also be some similar method of negating oxygen toxicity so that normal air mixtures can be used much deeper.

>>3603694

This could imply even the way we mentally divide up our reality and things like logic itself are actually purely physical realities in this more complex universe. We are doing something else when we think we are discovering, or deducing something. Mathematical or abstract problems could actually correspond physically real things which might not even be that significant or universal in the outer reality.

Currently oil is taken out of Bituminous oil sands reservoirs by SAGD (Steam Assisted Gravity Drainage). They pump steam down into the reservoir in a horizontal well (parallel to the ground) and use the steam to heat the oil. The oil then flows down to a lower horizontal well which is pumped back to the surface.

The issue arises with the production of steam. For every barrel of oil you're pumping out of the ground, you're burning natural gas to heat the steam. This is costly and counter-productive, not to mention its impact on emissions.

I argue that the solution to this problem may be to resolve another long-standing issue in the oil industry, that is the over-production of sulphur. Many wells, particularly in my province of Alberta, produce Sour Crude (which contains high levels of H2S gas). The sulphur is not even worth the cost to ship it, so yellow pyramids have dotted up around our landscape.

Okay, enough exposition. The series of reactions from Hydrogen Sulfide to Hydrosulfuric Acid are highly exothermic, to the point where alternative but more costly reaction mechanisms are used to limit the energy release during reaction for fear of meltdown. But if you were able to run your well bore as a Plug Flow Reactor (PFR) you could be producing heat as the reaction yield increases with depth. By controlling the concentration at the inlet and accounting for heat loss by the pipe to the ground, it might be possible to be producing steam at the bottom of the well. This assumes that it would be possible to create enough heat of reaction to make up for the sensible and latent heat deficit. Anyways it's probably infeasible due to corrosion and its reactive effect on reservoir geology, but I wanted to put it down in writing somewhere.

I posted this yesterday, but its relavent to this thread:

Sup /sci/?

Random passing thought:

natural selection is quite obviously true. Natural selection works so that certain variations of individual species may die out, whereas another variation may prosper. (for example, throw a chihuahua in alaska, and it will not survive, whereas a husky will)

Natural selection is at work right before our eyes, within our own species.

all the starving people in africa are dying off, because they can not successfully adapt to their environment, therefore, they are obviously not a capable species.

All the help that we are sending them, is just fucking with the natural flow of things.

Shits fucked up.