/sci/ - Science & Math

Why do we even have a science board?

/sci/, I woke up and had this crazy idea.

If Gravity is what happens due to mass curving space, then why can't the other three fundamental forces be the warping of other spatial dimensions?

>>1390929

Virtual photons.

>>1381130

tl;dr tl;dr: Intolerance will not be tolerated.

>>1381124

Furthermore, certain of the various forms of Christianity, to make a specific example, lead to an abandonment of personal responsibility. Those creeds who adhere to the concept of sola fide, or the belief of Justification by Faith, wherein one's salvation comes solely from one's acceptance and belief and worship of the Deity, are the prime example of this. Any sort of societal transgression (codified in the religion as a Sin), can be forgiven simply by faith. Theft, Arson, Murder, Rape -- all these are forgiven. The most vile of individuals who commits unspeakable evils will be forgiven, while the man who does a life of good works and good deeds and strives to make his world a better place is condemned to torment for a lack of proper belief. This kind of faith is an abandonment of responsibility, a denial of consequences for one's actions. It leads to atrocity such as the Inquisition.

tl;dr: Orthodox breeds of monotheistic religions which are rooted in absolutes, and whose beliefs and doctrine are incapable of adaptation or amendment, are the problem. The breed a culture of intolerance and abdication of personal responsibility which leads to conflict and atrocity. They are the religions which should be done away with, if such a thing were possible. As long as one's religious beliefs do not render one incapable of functioning in society without causing a great deal of dysfunction and conflict, there's no problem. If you can play well with others, what's the problem? There is only a problem when we can't all play nicely. It is unfair to lump all religions together and judge them all based on vocal minority segments of a few particular religions. Such thinking is the same as the thinking of those very religions.

>>1381117

Tied up with this mindset of manifest rightness, this belief of inherent correctness and monopoly on Truth, is the Fundamentalist mindset. Perhaps they are one in the same. Perhaps they are merely different lengths along a single spectrum. Perhaps they are two separate manifestations of an underlying behavior or insecurity. Inflexibility is a liability in reeds, just as it is in humans, and just as it is in societies. Intolerance, inflexibility, an inability to adapt to changing times and changing technology, and the changes in ethics that result from said technology, causes a group to become alienated from from the society in which it is embedded, which leads to anger and violence.

Ultimately, this seems to have its root in a desire for absolutes. For example, polytheistic religions tend not to have a stark separation into Good and Evil -- The Gods are the Gods; Mortal foibles in immortal guise. There are a multitude of shades of grey. In contrast, monotheistic religions, such as Christianity, Islam, Zoroastrianism, and, to a lesser extent, Judaism, have a stark division into Good and Evil. There is a deity who is the supreme force of Good and Right and Justice in the Universe, who is opposed by an evil counterpart. There are no shades of grey, merely absolutes of black and white. Right or Wrong; Good or Evil. In an uncertain world, a desire for security tends towards a belief in absolutes, and absolutes are resistant to change, and resistance to change is another form of intolerance.

>>1381111

However, at present, religion seems to be a necessary evil. We must be very careful, therefore, in what forms of religion we allow to exist. Religions, if one assumes that there is no such thing as Gods or the supernatural, are entirely man-created entities, and, man-created, can, in theory, be designed.

In my opinion, monotheism is the problem. The tendency engendered by monotheism towards the belief that your particular form of religion is the only true and correct one leads to a great deal of friction -- Crusades, Pogroms, Genocide. Judaism seems to be an exception to this, due to certain peculiarities of Judaism, such as the near total non-existence of proselytizing in the religion. Christianity and Islam, at least as presented by statements of a good deal of their adherents, and with their respective scriptures, endorse the Ecumenism of the Sword -- "We are right and you will accept it or die."

An example of the opposite would be a polytheistic society such as the Roman Republic and Empire. Religions by the dozens flourished in the Roman Empire. Christianity and Islam are primarily orthodox religions; you can be a horrific murderer, child rapist, mass murderer, but Jesus will love you and forgive you and absolve you of your sins as long as you believe in him. A similar condition exists for Islam and its five pillars and its statement of Faith. Most polytheistic religions, on the other hand, are orthopraxic -- it doesn't matter what you believe, it just matters that you do the correct actions, say the correct words in the ceremony. If you are already conditioned or disposed to believe that there are many Gods, it is easy to extend such belief to the Gods of other peoples. The Roman Legions would sometimes worship the Gods of a nation whose armies they were engaged in battle with, under the basis that maybe the enemies Gods were stronger than their own, and it was better to play it safe.

>>1381109

So, basically, a civilized individual acts in a fashion considered by his culture/society to be proper/acceptable because they either understand that these guidelines governing interpersonal interaction are necessary to lower the amount of conflict between individuals which can destroy any cooperative venture such as a city or tribe or community if it reaches a certain point, or they act in such a fashion because they are so heavily indoctrinated in their society's mores that they wouldn't think to act otherwise, or because they are entirely or nearly incapable of acting against society norms due to mental deficiency. They, too are inculcated, but due to their mental defect they are incapable of contemplating contrary action on an appreciable level.

The very fact that we, more or less as a species, require laws, is because your average human being is incapable of internalizing the "basic rules" that are necessary for us to get along on a level higher than Hunter/Forager bands except in a very superficial fashion. They know that committing murder is wrong, for example. They may even be able to, upon reflection, be able to explain, to a greater or lesser degree, the reasons why we do not commit murder. But they are incapable of internalizing that until it is a part of their person. Maybe willpower, whatever that is exactly, has something to do with it. I am unsure. Willpower is something that is hard to quantify.

A group of people who all subscribe to the same ethical code or moral standard out of belief of its rightness, instead of out of fear of punishment, and are rational individuals, will not require laws, as they would not act in a contrary fashion to begin with.

>>1381102

a) understand that certain rules are needed to allow society to function. We don't take things that don't belong to us because we don't want people taking our things, and because if people ran about taking things all the time someone might run off with something valuable, and because when someone takes something that belongs to someone else, violence often follows. A civilized individual would understand the reasons behind the prohibition, and obey it because the rationale makes sense to them

b) they are so heavily inculcated into a certain code of behavior, conduct, morals, and/or ethics that they cannot, in and of themselves, contemplate breaking it. This would be commonly defined as "innocence," perhaps. The sweet, innocent, gentle person who, upon having the suggestion put to them that they do something contrary to the code to which they were raised/indoctrinated, replies, "But... but that's wrong!" with their lips quivering, is this sort of person.

c) Somewhat similar to above, some people with various degrees of mental retardation may fall into a category similar to the one above, save instead of being able to contemplate violating an ethical rule or societal norm or folkway due to inculcation/indoctrination, they are incapable of doing so simply because they literally cannot do so. I feel I'm not articulating this properly, though. Or maybe I'm just worried people will get offended because I don't subscribe to the euphemism treadmill for certain things.

The only way you could destroy religion is if you destroyed all of mankind (and any other intelligent species similar to us.)

It's part of the way our brains are wired -- therefore, at least during our tenure as plains apes and scavengers, prior to the Modern Age (and possibly prior to the advent of Agriculture), it was at the very least not a detrimental mutation.

Religion also serves another purpose: Some people are just too damn im/amoral to refrain from committing acts which cause interpersonal friction, which, when multiplied by the number of people in an agricultural society city, causes the collective organism called society to collapse, without the threat of someone spanking them.

People who require religion to stop them from committing 'immoral' or 'amoral' or 'unethical' acts are exactly like those people who obey the law out of fear of punishment: uncivilized, if I may use the term loosely in this anthropological discussion.

A "civilized" individual does not need threat of violence, be it from a deity's displeasure, or in the form of violence from the State, to make them act in a certain fashion which they and/or their culture/society define as "moral" -- they obey an ethical code/mores/folkways because they either

>>1379817

I wonder exactly how a modern processor (X86, for example), catches Division by Zero, and if there's some way you could convince the processor to continue the operation ad infinitum

>>1379703

0/0 is undefined.

You think this thread is bad?

I had a Pre-Calc teacher a couple of semesters ago who, when asked by a classmate what a number was divided by zero, replied, "Infinity," instead of "Undefined."

I mentioned this to a friend who was in her last year of getting her Computer Science and Math degrees. She apparently mentioned it to the department head.

I haven't seen that professor on campus since.

<span class="math">x=b^{y}[/spoiler]
then
<span class="math">y=log_{b}(x)[/spoiler]
let <span class="math">x=1[/spoiler], <span class="math">b\neq0[/spoiler], and the exponent <span class="math">y=0[/spoiler].
<span class="math">1=b^{0}[/spoiler]
<span class="math">1=b^{0}\equiv 0=log_{b}(1)[/spoiler]
<span class="math">0=log_{b}(1)[/spoiler]

Hope I used the right symbol for equivalency. It's been ages since I had to do anything resembling a proof.

Only if you don't use birth control or it fails.

>>1378956

In that case you'd think it'd have more nociceptors, so that it hurts more, so that falling and injuring yourself are more strongly discouraged.

>>1378793

I've never had a piercing (I once stuck a safety pin through my ear lobe; my dad ripped it out and I never did that again), but I've had a lot of needles stuck in me (I was allergic to damn near everything as a kid and had to get shots,) so the thought of sharp pieces of metal pierce my flesh doesn't bother me (Rabies post-exposure was hilarious,) but I have no desire to get a piercing.

I think they look good on some people, but they're just... I dunno. I don't consider them taboo or exotic, so I guess they're not appealing/rebellious to me.

I want to get tattoos, however; My sclerae tattoo blue like a Fremen from Dune would be one, but that would cause so very many problems in everyday interaction (particularly in a Hospital, as a Doctor), that it'll never happen.

Probably has a lower nerve density than your back, and your back is pretty damn insensitive. I don't have my Anatomy textbooks handy at the moment, but I can make a few guesses:

1) Very few nociceptors of any kind, or

2) Mechanical nociceptors (which detect scrapes, tearing, cuts, pinches, pressure) as a reduced, maybe very reduced, level, and thermal and chemical nociceptors at some higher level (since it seems to me that burning/cold pains and sensations come through normally,) or

3) They're silent nociceptors -- they respond only to actual injury, that is, you won't get a pain single until you slam your elbow against something, or scrape it, or burning. Until the amount of pressure applied reaches a level that is damaging to the tissue, you don't get shit for pain.

Genetic Engineering.

Create the Plague that is the Cure for the Plague that is Man.

>>1318354

We have no reason to adapt to our environment anymore; we adapt the environment to us. Once you develop intelligence and tool use, a good deal of selective pressures change.

>>1318187

Wow. I'm not talking about "Boo Hoo, I wanna kill myself." I'm talking about the fact that once you get smart enough, you can destroy your own species, which is detrimental to the species, and, ergo, that level of smartness is detrimental and will be selected against.

>>1318162

There is a difference between being suicidal and "bitching and moaning and never actually going through with it."

>>1318135

Show me an ant that sits around and contemplates the meaninglessness of its own existence, and then takes its own life.

I rarely meet stupid people who are suicidal. Uneducated people, yes, but not stupid people.

>>1318066

The "n" in "noko" needs to be lowercase, methinks.

Example: Once a certain level of intelligence is reached, that is, when a certain level of consciousness is attained, an animal is capable of committing suicide. Intelligence is genetic, and there is some evidence that disposition towards suicide is also genetic. Intelligence of a level that grants the creature the capability to form the intent to kill itself (excluding kin altruism) is detrimental.

Unless associated behaviors are considered "attractive" by the opposite sex and lead to reproduction.

Another example: Being intelligent enough to create weapons capable of ending the species' existence. Examples include atomic weapons (particularly salted bombs), the ability to grossly damage the global ecosystem, such as developing the ability to drill at the bottom of the ocean, genetic engineering (which can be used to create "superbugs"), etc.