/sci/ - Science & Math

Will you bully me for giving you honest answers? I am autistic. I actually am a doctorate in mathematics.

Where does this notion that artificial intelligence would one day become smarter than every human on the planet put together?

How do we, as the creators, make something that is beyond our intelligence?

Wouldn't it be more feasible that future advanced artificial intelligence be equal in intelligence to that of the smartest human?

How can a feeble mind construct a superior mind?

https://youtu.be/4kDPxbS6ofw

Is the moon really an egg?

>>7369893

That's a human that deserves a trip on the TARDIS

>>6741758
People assume that time is a strict progression of cause to effect. But actually from a non-linear, non-subjective viewpoint it's more like a big ball of wibbly-wobbly timey-wimey... stuff.

>>6559912

Honestly, I've wondered this myself. But the idea of an area of infinite doesn't really make sense. This would mean all particles are packed into an area smaller than a point. In fact it would be infinitely smaller than a point.

>>6561676

The idea of black holes being infinite in density is part of a mathematical theory. There is no actual evidence. However the theory in question (Einsteins General Relativity) is the best us humans have and this is the only place in the universe we have found were it doesn't seem to work.

>>6562277

Saying Black Holes have never been observed is a little misleading. You would be right to say they haven't been observed directly. But the effect they have on surrounding objects HAS. If your going to say they don't exist then do you have an alternative theory for what's holding this galaxy together?

As for the "You can't have infinity in a finite universe" claim. Did I miss something? At what point did somebody prove the universe to be finite?

OK. In a hypothetical empty universe if i placerv one object about the size of a pea in one place. and another at very large distance away. lets just say 10 times the distance of the edge of the observable universe.

Would these two objects eventually meet each other given infinite time due to gravity.

i want to see this and the evidence that supports them

read some of John Lennox's work. i think you would enjoy it .

Do you guys believe that your taste in music can reflect your intellectual capability.
Feel free to input your taste in music, or articles supporting your side

According to copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics, nothing is true, and everything exists in a superposition state until the moment you make an observation.

While, according to the many-worlds interpretation, which is the current mainstream interpretation as it allows understanding of quantum mechanics from more fundamental physical principles, every possible outcome exists (reality is a many-branched tree, wherein every possible quantum outcome is realised) and your looking doesn't really matter.

There are many other interpretations of quantum physics about how reality behaves, but those two are the most popular. [en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interpretations_of_quantum_mechanics]

>>5761884
>>5761868
>>5761862
>>5761861
>>5761850

Up your dosage.

How it would work, how it wouldn't, what you'd need, would there be rules, if so what?, etc. etc.

>Learn to teleport
>Make a base code of every when and where of the universe.
>Multiply electron speed to jump to that point

>(Optional) Get in my TARDIS

>>4142615
>>4142614
>>4142611
>>4142602

OP here, I'm actually from /tv/ but I have a vested interest in science IRL. But after reading this thread I've gotta say you're worse than /sp/

>Create grey goo
>win at evolution
>profit?

It's a consequence of the uncertainty principle and there is nothing mystical about it. Just because you can't make a continuous observation it does not follow that the particle is anywhere. You just don't know. And that seems to freak out the best and the brightest and entice the mystically inclined.

Bullshit. Everywhere.

I'mplant a nest of symbiotic spiders to cocoon you in protective silk.

>>3623652
OP wasn't asking about universal entropy, just the entropy of our civilization.

>>3623585
We don't actually know the size of the universe, just what's visible to us.

>>3623471
Suppose then either a black hole or a particle. It will be its own reference frame.

Brian Cox supposedly said the universe will end with being composed solely of photons. The passage of time experiened by photons may be a universal baseline.

To some extent you're doing it right now.

>>3607287
The subject needs to be handcuffed with access to a bone saw.

We really need to be able to plug a feed straight into the optic nerve. Anything else seems less than ideal.