/sci/ - Science & Math

>>5355218
Brain = balck hole

>>5355218
> using 'phenomena' in the plural
> for 'brain'
I hate this.

>>5355221
>brain = blackhole

Yes

Both and neither. They are the most complex in their field, which they can consider the most complex from their viewpoint. However, labeling something as "The most complex in the universe" is incorrect, as the most complex object in the universe would be the universe, as it comprises of both, in addition to many other complex things.

>>5355218
>>physicists: black holes are the most complex phenomena in the universe

[citation needed]

But... black holes aren't complex at all. They have, like, mass, charge and local momentum, and... nothing else? A random atom has more complexity.

>>5355238
And therefore, it is a phenomenon in itself.

>>5355229

Universe isn't a phenomena, it's the set of phenomenon.

>>5355238
As is a brain, comprised of sets of neurons, charges, and various chemicals.
Any thing can be considered a phenomenon, occurrence, object, or whatever other thing applicable to a single thing in it's whole.

Black holes are abstract concepts that we cannot directly interact with or do any direct experiments on, and yet we know a fair deal about them compared to how much we deal with them.
The brain is something that is right there, right in front of us, we can experiment on it, we can test it, it is a tangible thing, and yet we know so little.
Id say we know less about blackholes than the brain, but the brain is a far more common thing.

>>5355241

sets aren't phenomena, they are platonic forms, like numbers.

>Real physicists: The universe is the most complex phenomena.

/thread

>>5355265

> Mathematician : the set of all sets is the most complex phenomena

> Philosopher: what do you mean by set?

Philosopher master race.

>>5355265
Or even better:

>Real physicists: The universe is the phenomena.

>>5355238
> using the plural as a singular
and
> using the singular as a plural

Christ....

>>5355275

Good, good.
I was hoping you'd notice.

>>5355218
How the fuck is singularity complex?

I thought it was the exact oppossite of complexity.

>>5355281
It's complex in theory through how non-complex it is in reality.

>>5355273
>Mathematician : the set of all sets
Not while ZFC is the dominant religion.

Isn't there a theory that deciphering the human's brain's function is the physical limit of human comprehension and that we are physically incapable to trully understand or derive explanatory variables for anything more complex than that?

>>5355277
I don't believe you meant it.

I bet you use bacteria and criteria in the singular too.

>>5355313
Bacili is plural latin or plural greek?

>>5355345
*A computer can do many things with it's own specifications.

>>5355311
Possibly, but I don't see why that would be. A computer can we many things with it's own specifications, and given the right information and parts even build improved versions of itself.

>biologists: the brain is the most complex phenomena in the universe

>physicists: black holes are the most complex phenomena in the universe

>carpenter: the hammer is the most complex phenomena in the universe

>4chan user: the /d/ board is the most complex phenomena in the universe

Who do we trust?

>>5355352
Clearly 4chan. I'll never understand the /d/ board.

>>5355320
'Bacterium' is Latin singular, 'bacteria' is Latin plural (for 2nd declension neuters).

'Bacilus' is singular Latin for 'walking stick', 'bacili' would be the plural for a 2nd declension masculine.

βακτρον is Greek singular for 'walking stick', and the 2nd declension neuter plural would be βακτρα

>>5355229
Yes, but the brain is objectively more complex than a black hole.

Come at me. I can't wait to assdevestate you with your feeble rebuttals.

Yeah man, they're just so easy to understand. They're totally not an enigma of the universe or anything.

Unless you're arguing the semantics - you're an idiot or a troll.

>>5355360
Heus, modo itera omnia quae mihi nunc nuper narravisti, sed nunc Anglice?

>>5355361
I agree, I believe the brain is more complex than the black whole by a fairly large amount. My point was that the universe as a whole is more complex than either of them alone, and question was a poor one all together.

>>5355361
Not going near this. Define complex. I'll be back in an hour after this thread undoubtedly enters into a philosophical quagmire and read the last couple posts to see how confused everyone got while laughing quietly to myself.

>>5355367
Quod? Anglice fuit. Verbum 'bacili' singulis 'bacilus' est.

Sed linguam Graecorum optima est, lingua Romanorum est barbarorum.

>>5355375
You sir are also objectively wrong. As the universe does not contain itself. Feel free to also come at me.

>>5355376
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Complexity

>>5355385
Vero, Latine loqui non est difficilissimum. Atque memento, nulli adsunt Romanorum qui locutionem tuam corrigant.

>>5355376
A pair of reals. Their addition and multiplication operations are:
(a,b) + (c,d) = (a+c, b+d)
(a,b) * (c,d) = (ac-bd, ad+bc)

>>5355345
Yes but this implies transhumanism.
Using external input to dramatically increase in complexity isn't exactly a new thing. It's been happenning for at least 3,5 billion years on earh.

>>5355311
This would be true if we had infinite memory. Then our brains would be equivalent to an universal turing machine and it would be impossible for us to know some stuff, like if the brain ever halts when examining another brain... Although I guess every brain halts when it dies, so we would have to consider it to be immortal too.

Since we obviously don't have unlimited memory and our brains are not immortal, I believe we might be able to trully understand our brains.

Well, if the brain was simple enough to understand, we'd be so simple, we couldn't understand it

>>5355392
Well now we've essentially gotten into set theories, but I suppose you do have a point there.

>>5355392
>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Complexity

I suggest you read the page you posted in its entirety before using it as a source. See:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Complexity#Varied_meanings_of_complexity

Pick one.

>>5355425
In fact, I could pick any and be objectively correct, but I do choose this one:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Physical_systems#Complexity_in_physical_systems

As that is what we are talking about here. You should have already known that, as it is implicit in the definition of 'black holes' and 'brain'.

>>5355447
This is a quote from within the definition you are using: "The study of such systems as applied to our universe is in its infancy and speculative in nature, but it appears that there are some low probability systems that are able to sustain themselves through time."

Looks like you picked the wrong one. Whoops.

>>5355465
Nigga you went full wut. How exactly do you presume you negated my argument?

>>5355479
>The study of such systems as applied to our universe is in its infancy and speculative in nature.
>Speculative in nature

sage cus this shits gettin out of hand and not actually a very cool discussion

>>5355492
>The study of such systems
>The STUDY of such systems
lel, trying to pretend like you didn't just buttfluster yourself with your own stupidity.
Sage harder faget.

>>5355492
Sage isn't a downvote. Go back to reddit, newfag.

>>5355492
get a load of this faggot

>>5355535
No, it leaves the front page open for more interesting discussions, so the good people who come to sci looking to learn something don't have to get bogged down reading yet another thread that has fallen into the bottomless shit pit of name calling and off topic crap posting. I have a choice to bump or not to bump. I choose not to.

>>5355588

>>5355597
b/c why not?

>>5355644
bump

> stop replying
> hide the thread

>>5355235
>black holes aren't complex at all

Tell me, what goes on inside of a black hole?

>>5355719

> using ignorance as a measure of complexity
> using the human feeling of surface understanding as a measure of underlying complexity?

ISHYGDDT

How many bits of data do you need to describe or simulate a non-quantum black hole? How many bits of data do you need to describe or simulate a human being?

By your logic, God is less complex than evolution.

>>5355719
For all observable purposes, nothing.

I have a b.s. degree in physics (I don't think that makes me a "physicist") but I still say a brain is more complex than a black hole.

1) Just because we can't fully explain it doesn't make it complex
2) A blackhole may seem more "strange", or "complex" to a human only because it uses physics that we aren't used to thinking with in our every day lives. But brains are much more complex structures.

basically:
* black hole - throw a bunch of random shit together watch what happens
* brain - requires cells and interconnected networks where very small changes can have large effects (chaos)

>>5355719
> implying there even is an inside
> implying that everything isn't contained on the surface

>>5355218
A black hole, is a theoretical construct. It can only be proven by complex mathematical formulations for the nature of an object with infinite mass and, subsequently, infinite density. It only regards the gravitational force actng on the object and does not take into account the electromagnetic envirenment that such an object exists in.

Particles being unrealisticly close to one another and forming such a tightly bound structure, that partcles within the object would have to have zero space between them. Such particle density would result in very noticable desortions in magnetic fields. In which none have ever been detected.

In fact, there are zero black hole anomolies in the observed universe. The only evidance out there to validate the existance of black holes, is the unusual rotation of stars in the centre of galaxies. As they appear to rotate empty space. Before jumping to the conlusion of a black hole, another unmesurable entity of the universe is plasma. (can only be seen opticaly, not with radio or xray) It is far more likely that the centre of galaxies rotate around a highly dense for of plasma that generates huge electromagnetic fields. It would also explain the orbit of the stars, as stars have very powerful electromagnetic fields.

>>5355588
Saging a thread with a post this mad doesn't help kill the thread, it just gets people to respond to you , you fucking faggot. If you had posted nothing at all, this thread would probably have 404'ed a lot sooner

>>5355218
Neither

>implying we can even know what the most complex phenomena of the universe is
>2012

>>5355223
Perhaps the word "phenomena" is the most complicated phenomenon in the English language?