Ah, thanks.

Someone in the last thread made the point that the two sides in the free will argument both use the same evidence, they just have different ideas on what the words "Free Will" mean.

Personally, I think that free will can, and does, exist in an entirely deterministic universe.

Very, Very, Hot, you say?

>>7326236
You have your priorities wrong, sir.

http://vega.org.uk/video/subseries/8
Richard Feynman lectures on quantum physics
First lecture he speaks on the nondeterministic nature of quantum states

>things which are very, very, hot

that may have been a poor choice of words

I still hold that Many Worlds interpretation is true, if nothing else than because of Ockham's razor.

Oh yeah and Schrödinger's Cat Thought experiment gets debunked. Nice to have that over with.

>>7326236
I want to die with my head between those thighs, and it will be with a smile.

I'm with the argument that if all circumstances are known, you can find a solution to an issue.

I just don't see how if everything is known, you wouldn't be able to find the solution.

>>7326244

I do believe that you will never feel the tender, yet firm caress of a woman much stronger than you.

>>7326265
I don't think you know what Occam's Razor is.

>>7326244
>priorities
You're using that word inappropriately.

>>7326236
Here we show outside influence effecting free will, as I was going to TRY to resist posting sexy stuff, but seeing someone else do it made me feel it more acceptable. Experience is a huge determining factor in decision making, but obviously it's constantly evolving. If I know you're throwing a brick at me to prove a point, it would suddenly be a battle of wits as I might anticipate what you are anticipating... and then have to anticipate if you will anticipate my anticipation and thus predict what I would think you'd predict. Too many possibilities honestly for it to be calculated by anything.

>>7326280
Thank the uncaring cosmos for that.

I honestly cannot understand the minds of people who are into that sort of thing.
I suppose I should explain myself. Occam's Razor says that where not necessary, do not introduce entities into an explanation. Basically, if it isn't necessary for an idea to fit the facts, leave it out.

I think the Schrödinger's Cat experiment is bullshit because it's a lack of knowledge that's preventing a conclusion, not an actual magical property.

It's like saying if a tree fell in a forest and no one observed it, there's an equal chance it made no sound versus it making one. We have science that says it does make a sound regardless if it's observed or not.

>>7326265
Occam's razor doesn't prove things, you can't hold something to be true just because it makes sense.

>Here we show outside influence affecting free will

sorry I couldn't help myself

>>7326311
See, Quantum Mechanics.

>>7326281
>MWI, being a decoherent formulation, is axiomatically more streamlined than the Copenhagen and other collapse interpretations; and thus favoured under certain interpretations of Ockham's razor.
Direct quote from Wiki.
>>7326278
What we're saying is that as long as free will exists you simply CAN'T know everything, it's impossible to even theorize.
Except under MWI. I know it sounds like I'm beating a dead horse here, but MWI allows the universe to be totally deterministic yet retains even the most frivolous interpretations of free will.

In a nutshell, the universe in MWI is deterministic in that you know exactly what a given person is going to do because he's going to exactly everything that is within his power to do, at any given moment. It's just a question of "which" reality he ends up in, but this is not something that determinism touches on.

rolled 5 = 5

>>7326296
>anticipating anticipations

GB2/v/

>>7326296
But the current evidence suggests that certain things cannot be known. Now, that doesn't mean they can't be known, it just means that all we have to work with says it's so, so we have to assume that until new evidence comes to light that either confirms or denies it.

Now, this throws a wrench into the idea that we can predict anything, because science currently says that some things are inherently unpredictable.

>>7326234
one must first determine WHAT free will is
is it the ability to be random or the ability to choose?
if it is the ability to choose, is it less free if what you will choose is already determined?

I try to use this argument when (I try) explaining causality to Christians
If God is allknowing, then he must know what you will choose before you choose it, but he gave you a free will. Thus, you chose it, he just knew what you would use your free will to chose before you were aware that you had a choice to make

Is the basement dweller any more free than the caged man?

>>7326311
No, but it inductively strengthens the argument.

>>7326303

Welcome to Quantum!

>>7326358
I hold that free will is the ability to choose, and that it doesn't make it any less of a choice if you were always going to choose the way you do.

>>7326337
>What we're saying is that as long as free will exists you simply CAN'T know everything, it's impossible to even theorize.

Okay, what do you even think Free Will is?

>>7326355
>inherently unpredictable.

Yes, the root of this debate

>>7326302

Unless I am missing your point, we should engage in the most streamlined sexual experience possible?

>>7326379
It smells a lot like bullshit in Quantum

>>7326388
Interesting. What if you were cloned, and then subsequently killed a few moments later? From a first person perspective, would you still exist as your clone, or would you be dead?

>>7326397
The explanation of Occam's Razor was in reference to my previous post, not to the one I was quoting.

I think our sexual experiences should be fractal.

>>7326406
We've had this debate here before.

"I" wouldn't know anything had changed. I don't believe in objective experience, so it wouldn't make any difference to me.

>>7326410

That is an interesting way to describe it. 10 points to Griffindor.

>>7326303
And we have science that says that isn't at all the case as well.

You guys should take a philosophy class some time. It really clears your head of a lot of misconceptions. Like how we can't really prove anything, because there is no proof that anything aside from my emotions and thoughts is real.

Much less any proof of a tree making a sound although there is no one there to hear it, and MUCH less anything on a galactic level.

That's why we have axioms, because it's impossible prove anything without first making assumptions.

>>7326303
actually... it is close to 'magic', in that we don't fucking understand it

check the Feynman lectures, he describes an experiment that shows that shröediungers cat does work.
A photon can take two paths through an obstacle to hit a wall. If the path is not measured then it WILL take both, if it is measured it will only take one of them

>>7326423

But that would cloud up our SCIENCE and then we would be no better than christfags.

>>7326429
How is it known that it took both if it's not measured?

>>7326423
Actually there's no proof your thoughts and emotions are real either. Someone else could be imagining you, feeling and thinking that way.

Just saying.

>>7326392
The ability to choose given alternatives, and that my collective past has not determined my choice already, merely made some choices more or less probable. Which fits perfectly with the MWI-model.

>>7326303
You should at least understand the basics of quantum mechanics before you go claiming that shit like the cat is "magical bullshit." At the sub-atomic level, there are clear measurable mind fuck type things going on. The cat experiment is simply a magnification of this mind fuckery to a macroscopic scale.

>>7326444
Interference pattern. A photon can INTERFERE WITH ITSELF.

>philosophy

most useless shit ever invented

>>7326444
It is measured, actually.

I haven't heard of the photon experiment before, but I have heard of one using an electron and slits in paper. If you fired an electron at a piece of paper with two slits in it, it would either hit the paper, go through one slit, go through the other, or go through both. It would affect the paper in a certain way if it did any of these, and that can be measured after the fact.

Quite often if the experiment went on while unobserved, the electron went through, and affected, both slits.

>>7326444
because the wave from the first path interacted with the wave from the second if not measured while the it was uniform when measured

>>7326456
>my collective past has not determined my choice already, merely made some choices more or less probable.

Because you say so?

>>7326388
Tesseract/Dark Flow/Nuclear fusion guy here.

So you define free will as "the sensation of agency?" We have the feeling of choice, and even though we don't actually HAVE a choice, that's still free will?

If you agree with what I've said, you might want to read some of the stuff Daniel Dennet has written. He basically says the above in some of his writings. It's good.

I don't quite AGREE with him, being a hard determinist myself, but it's still good.

>>7326432
No, that's where you are wrong. Science constantly operates under these circumstances. Again, see axioms.
>>7326448
Then that someone else would be "me", whatever "I" am.

Philosophy has proved that we can deductively prove that everything we think and feel emotionally is "real", whatever "real" means. Anything beyond that is actually just inductive science using axioms.

>>7326471
Don't be so quick to judge. I fucking hate it when people quote what I call "Philosphical Bullshit" in a thread about science, but at it's heart, philosophy is "Love of Knowledge" and it's a good thing.

It should just stop inventing bullshit terms.

>>7326505
>philosophy
>prove

Repost from the original thread, because I think it's just too awesome:

For the first three minutes of the universe, there were no atoms. It was just elementary particles. Prior to that, the entire universe was too hot for nuclear fusion to take place.

Read that again. The entire universe was too hot for nuclear fusion.

In fact, for the first twenty or so minutes after the big bang, the universe was hotter than the inside of the hottest star that exists today.

>>7326444
The implications of the double split experiment are mind boggling. Even if the source is set to emit an electron at say once every 10 minutes, an interference pattern STILL shows up.

It's like shooting a pistol at a wall every ten minutes and by the time you're through with your magazine, a wave pattern appears.

>>7326471
Without which you would not have science, at all. You know that right?
Good call there mate.
>>7326489
As opposed to your argument that is opposite, because you say so?

>>7326490
I like Dan Dennet a lot, and I've listened to a lot of his lectures. I have a few disagreements with him too, but you'd be fairly safe assuming I agree with him on a given point.

I don't quite agree with your assessment of my opinion. I'd say that yes, we do have choice, it's just a choice that's the result of a long chain of inter related events.

>>7326506
>>7326540

Don't argue with it, it's just some troll.

>>7326540
Yes, philosophy lead to the creation of science, but that doesn't mean it gets to tell science what to do and how it should work, and hasn't for a very, VERY long time.

I also say that no, philosophy can't "Prove" anything. Trying to prove things with philosophy is like trying to kill a bear by beating it to death with a dream you had.

>>7326471
that isn't true. Philosophy is pretty much the only way to attain meaningful answers to some pretty profound questions. The idea of applying the scientific method to learn objective truth about the world around us? that's philosophy.

Philosophy is the field of ethics, how we know what is right. It's the field of aesthetics, how we know what is beautiful. It's the field of epistemology, how we know what we know. Logic as a hard field is the child of philosophy and mathematics.

Philosophy should be a required course for any education, as surely as hard sciences, literature, statistics, and rhetoric should be. They're the fields that teach you how to think so you can function, so you know when someone is just blowing smoke.

>>7326558
I know, I just want to see how this specimen reacts to the whole "Philosophy is the mother of modern science" truth.

They bring me great joy they do, these trolls.

>>7326548
Our primary disagreement seems like it's going to be the definition of free will. I define it as "the ability to act without prior cause," because that's how most people non-compatibilists define it. And that definition is, in my opinion, absolutely absurd.

I'm totally fine with what you call free will- that your choice is the end effect of the sum total of causality. I just don't call that free will.

>>7326569
Science completely precludes the idea of "Objective Truth.", the two are incompatible!

Philosophy is good because it gets people thinking, but philosophers shouldn't assume that their field describes things that are real!

>>7326572
It'd be more fun if you got mad again.

>>7326588
Well fine, then let's call your definition "Free Will A" and ours "Free Will 1."

That way we won't get confused.

I guess one thing that messes things up for predicting free will, is that if you are shaped by all of your past experiences, everything counts in that. As there are somethings that are apparently just plain unpredictable in the universe, any of these unpredictable things could have effected the formation of who you are at the point where a brick is thrown at you, in unpredictable ways. Taking the experiences of a human life and allowing EVERY SINGLE ONE to be a factor means there is alot to sift through, and even then nothing is assured. The only thing that gives us a starting point to work of us is our common ground as human beings.

Pic related to the discussion if you're in the right frame of mind.

>>7326602
Agreed.

In that case, Free Will A is virtually impossible. Free Will 1 is entirely believable.

>>7326602
LET'S BE THE FIGHTING MONGOOSES

THAT'S A GOOD TEAM NAME

>>7326568
Again, you obviously need to take a course in philosophy, because you're just spouting the normal misconceptions and coming off like an ignorant fuck.

Philosophy is the very basis for any science. Not only that, philosophy provides us with the tools with which we can effectively prove anything at all.
You are deluded when you think that these things that are discussed in this thread and the previous one are somehow "hard facts". There are no hard facts, there are just theories that seem to hold true for a set of axioms. Anyone who calls himself a Scientist knows this, as do many others (I am nowhere near a Scientist, for example).

>>7326589
>philosophers shouldn't assume that their field describes things that are real!

perhaps the same should be said of scientists. Physics is the fine art of writing instructions for folding a paper airplane, and announcing it describes the functionality of a 747

>>7326624
Well then we're in agreement.

I still say that, as of now, science says quantum effects have an inherently unpredictable element to them. I just don't think this applies to the "Free Will" question as those who believe in Free Will A seem to think it does.

>>7326642
You should stop talking about things you don't understand.

>>7326637
Just keep philosophy in philosophy discussions, not scientific ones, that's all I'm asking.

>>7326423
unless emotional states are based entirely on interpretation of external stimuli none of which you can be certain are genuine and real...

>>7326589
>philosophers shouldn't assume that their field describes things that are real!
Quite the opposite. Philosophy is the field that describes things that are irrevocably real, yet no living man could possibly truly believe in.

Take the fact that there is no way we can be sure whether there is something more than our minds. Yet we have to assume there is to function as human beings. No one can claim to be a silopsist without somehow being dishonest.

>>7326705
-And vice versa. Philosophy+Science makes you an insufferable nigger, not a reeses cup.

>>7326727

Karl Popper would like a word with you.

>>7326746
I'll bet he was an insufferable nigger. I'll go check.

science = unprovable assumption + deductive reasoning + experimental results

That's all it really is; it's upsetting how few people understand science.

>>7326678
you're assuming I'm someone else.

Physics doesn't describe real phenomena. It aproximates descriptions of real phenomena. we have an existing model, which is just that. a model.

There are always layers upon layers of phenomena which are simply not a part of the model, simply because modeling them would be inconvenient, or the difference is so minute, or because we simply aren't yet aware of the phenomena.

for example: all of the Newtonian Laws of Motion are false. They are not accurate descriptions. we have a more accurate description than Force Equals Mass times Acceleration. We don't generally use the more accurate relativistic force equation, but that doesn't make F=MA genuinely true.

same with pi, which is not, and never will be 3.14159

>>7326705
You still misunderstand. Nothing is more relevant to science than philosophy.
What you're saying is basically "I want cake, but it can't be made out of solid matter."
>>7326714
The source of my emotions is irrelevant. The fact that I am living them and the fact that they are, because of that, real, is all I can know.

Back on the subject of mind blowing SCIENCE:

Human beings aren't really objects. They're more like waves.

The cells in your body are constantly dying off and being replaced. At the end of seven years, there isn't a single cell in your body that was there at the beginning of those seven years.

Think of something important that happened more than seven years ago. Your first kiss, maybe. The day you met your spouse. The day you learned to ride a bike. The day your dad died.

Now, think of what you had for breakfast yesterday.

On a molecular level, you have more in common with that leftover pizza than you do with the person you were when that thing happened.

Ok... I may be jumping on the boat a bit late here, but here's my take on the whole 'dead cat in a box' experiment.

The whole point of it is to take a krazy quantum mechanical effect and impose its effect on the macroscopic world. Whether or not the cat dies is he cat is tied to the decay of radioactive material, which sets of cyanide using a Geiger counter. Supposedly, the cat is alive and dead at the same time because we can’t predict whether the radioactive atom in question will decay or not at the proper time. Until it is observed, quantum wildness lets it shuffle on in both states. The Geiger counter takes this and pulls it up into the macroscopic world by tying the atom’s state to the cat’s health. So until we look in the box, the cat’s alive+dead, right?

My first issue is, can’t the cat observe itself? Well, maybe, you say. So we redo the experiment with something not alive, to get away from the magical power of human consciousness observing things. Which gets to my second issue. Isn’t the Geiger counter also observing the atom in question?

tl;dr: Quantum mechanics might let crazy stuff happen at the very small scale, but if someone thinks they can actually get that to manifest on the scale we all live at, they should have to retake high school physics.

>>7326776
Ohhhhhh.

I get it! You're a troll!

That explains it.

All I know, is right this second, I'm hungry for a chocolaty treat!

>>7326799
He's making a better case than you are right now. Go crush him for my entertainment.

>>7326775
It gets a little more complicated with inductive reasoning instead, but yes, that's the gist of it.

>>7326799
Are you fucking daft? How does anything he wrote make him a troll? All scientists know that physics is an approximation of phenomena; not the other way around.

>>7326790
QFT.

>>7326790
It's important to remember that Schrodinger's whole point in describing this experiment was to point out the massive inconsistencies in quantum mechanics. Although he helped pioneer the field, he'd always hoped that either he or some of his peers would find a system that allowed them to reconcile quantum mechanics.

>>7326824
He doesn't understand, or chooses to ignore, that Newtonian physics is just as true as relativity and quantum physics.

So, troll.

>>7326799
Everything he said is patently true.

I'd like to see you try to prove him wrong.

>>7326790
This is entirely correct and forgotten all too often. Quantum events only affect things which take place at the quantum scale.

>>7326790
>>So we redo the experiment with something not alive, to get away from the magical power of human consciousness observing things. Which gets to my second issue. Isn’t the Geiger counter also observing the atom in question?
Any interaction between two systems with different wavefunctions is 'observation'. There is no conscious aspect to observation.

>>7326848
The best part is, I want him to. I want him to cut your balls off Masterfag, because you are the most outrageously insufferable of your kind. The fact that you happen to be defending a point I approve of at this moment changes nothing.
Come on Chairman, go damn you!

>>7326846
...what. You missed his point. He's saying that our universe is not based on Newtonian physics. Which is true. That was all his point was.

>>7326846
Newtons models does not hold true for the speed of light, thus are false.

What now?

God dammit, Newtonian physics describes the universe perfectly well in the areas that it describes anything at all. Just because it doesn't apply to things it was never meant to apply to doesn't make it wrong god dammit.

Chairman, you've just dug your own fucking grave man. I wish I could get my professors to come over and laugh at you.

We don't yet have a theory of everything that works with everything.

>>7326878
I'd almost be inclined to ask why you feel this way
but the likelihood of getting a nonsensical reply coupled with the likelihood of me not giving a shit is somewhat overbearing.

>>7326919
You have your answer.

>>7326887
>>7326846
You realize that you're both right, right?

Newtonian physics are correct, they're just not anywhere near as accurate as relativity and quantum mechanics. In the same way, when superstring theory is completed, it will not make relativity incorrect. It will just make it a true thing which is less useful than another thing.

>>7326832

Quite true. As a teaching aid / demonstration / metaphor, it's not bad. It's just that people take it and start doing bad things with it. Before you can say “but that... it doesn’t... I..." it’s being used to form the 'hard science' core of some Piers Anthony scifi novel. And then I go back to reading revelation space while crying.

>>7326899
Newtons models describes speed. Indiscriminately. Scientists have found speeds for which these models do not hold true.

How much harder debunked can you get?

Note that none of us are saying that Newtonian physics is utterly useless. It's good for teaching low-level physics on a more understandable scale, if nothing else. But you ARE, effectively, teaching a lie, which is why this should always be mentioned by the teacher. Or else you might end up like, well, you.

>>7326941
Of course, but that's not why there is so much drama. The Chairman just called someone a troll in that sort of "I'm above you" tone who was actually entirely correct.

>>7326941
Seconded.

>>7326972
I for one am just upset that Chairman has done nothing to piss me off yet, and thus I cannot take pleasure in his deconstruction.

>>7326930
No, I don't.

>>7326799
no, I'm really not. I'm a scientist.

but when I say something like "water expands when it enters a solid state" which is.. generally true.

and then Ice IV, which is a ice phase produced under high pressure, shows up and has a higher density than water, fucking that description up.

so, I could describe it including that fact. or I can skip that part of the description under most discussion because when I'm talking about punch bowl decorations, it doesn't fucking matter.

our scientific laws are approximate descriptions, not the word of god describing how things SHALL BE.

>>7326941
Superstring theory is looking less and less viable as time goes on. That said, it all ends up just being math. As long as the math works out, I don't care what bullshit it requires as assumptions for it to be true.

Ugh. Look, just TRY and explain a car crash with relativistic physics. TRY.

>>7326972
Then I would propose that the two namefags who helped make this thread interesting should stop being cunts to one another and get back to the fun SCIENCE! discussions.

>>7326992
And now you have two. I'll tell you when you have a third.

>>7326993
So you're saying that at the scales that it was written to describe, Newtonian physics is correct. Which is exactly what I was arguing for in the first place.

>>7327030
Precisely. But you ended up calling him a troll for god knows why...

>>7327007

When you've made this kind of post the thread is already over.

>>7327023
You're the guy who hunted Masterfag a while back. Is this still over the zeitgeist thing? Nobody holds a grudge that long.

>>7327007
Agreed, I haven't crapped my pants in an hour at least.

>>7327050
I calls them like I sees them.

>>7327003
It's perfectly possible, it just takes a little longer.

Now the real bugger comes with Quantum Physics VS Relativity. Both are of "a higher order" than Newtonian physics, as they hold true for a larger subset of the universe. The problem though, is that they are both of the same order, yet seemingly incompatible, because one is utterly unable to describe the micro-cosmos, while the other is utterly unable to describe the macro-cosmos.

>>7327059
This sounds interesting, what were they arguing about?

>>7327059
The conspiracy theory business? No. I'm going to go yell at something for a quarter of an hour. You'll get your answer soon enough if you've got eyes.

>>7327083
Normally I'd say that in that case, they're probably both wrong, and the universe is governed by a different set of laws than either one, but this is PHYSICS! and all bets are off, so I'll say that given the evidence, both seem equally true.

>>7327030
Again, it was written to describe the universe, which it fails to. At no point did Newton even fleetingly wonder if there was some greater circumstance under which his theory did not hold true, and they are completely devoid of any such thoughts.

>>7327085
I wasn't there for the original. It was some stupid shit though, it gets called up every so often (by him, I imagine.) Since then whenever MF shows up, there's been a sinister presence behind him.
Probably a lictroll.

>>7327124
Hey Massafag, sounds like you've got a tsundere.

>>7327124
I'm done arguing, consider it a win if you want. Get back to the science please.

>>7327128
And all I ever said then was that Zeitgeist had some interesting points and someone took that to mean "I BELIEVE EVERYTHING IN THIS MOVIE AND I WILL RAPE YOUR MOTHER".

The sensible thing is your to ignore them at that point. If they want to hound me and shit up otherwise good threads, who am I to stop them?

>>7327150
THIS is what science is.

If you think otherwise I'd be interested to hear your definition.

>>7327156
Does that relate to conspiracy theories? Because he said up yae that that wasn't it.
How long have you been aware of this lictor? Did you step on someone's grave? Because I've seen a few pretty terrible shitstorms fly up over this, and it's getting tedious.

The Andromeda galaxy, if we could see it, would be over twice as big as the moon in the night sky. It's so dim, however, that we can only make it out as a dim patch.

Bad news: Our galaxy is on a collision course with the Andromeda galaxy, and such a collision would cause unfathomable destruction

Good news: We won't have to worry about it too much, because our sun will have died first, and we'll be either dead or far away.

>>7327176
Might be that he's a swede. Everyone hates swedes.
No wait. Nobody hates swedes. Damn it.

>>7327180
And in any case, it's highly unlikely our solar system would be hit by anything, stars are just too far apart for that.

>>7327128
>7327128
>7128
>7+1 = 8
>28
>28 - 8 = 20

>>7327197
BALLS.

>>7326778
It is almost more important to know what the source of emotions and thoughts is than to know that external information is unreliable. If they are generated by the ego it implies an independent source and individuality. If emotions and thoughts are only interpretations by the ego that implies only that an interpreter but not independent existence because an interpreter could be fed (unreliable) external information from multiple positions turning on it's head the common question of "is the external world real?" and giving us "is the internal world real?" or "am I real?"

>>7327180

Speak for yourself. I intend to live forever.

>>7327197
God fucking dammit Masterfag, we had almost killed it! All fucking most!

>>7327201
Seconded.

>>7327193
Not hit, no. But I imagine the gravity would have some neat effects on some of the more important celestial bodies. It's kind of unfortunate- being out in the boondocks of our galaxy would mean, in this case, that we'd get pretty good seats for a truly awesome show, either from the balcony or from the front row.

>>7327212
Isn't there a thing where two stars will start orbitting each other, and then one will just sort of... Fuck off and go flying out at random at like a hundred billion miles per hour?
Rogue Star or something?

>>7327003
yes. exactly.

Which is why we use Newtonian Physics. They're useful approximations that work very clean mathematically.

but "higher order" and "lower order" are artificial distinctions, used by humans to make their math easier. how many atoms do we need before we just skip to Newtonian Physics? How many exotons do we need before we move on to relativistic gravitation?

Saying "this is a Newtonian Universe" is, in fact, just as true as saying "this is a Quantum Universe" or "this is a relativistic universe"

Each model is a different blind man, grasping an elephant and trying to describe the fan/wall/snake-like object.

>>7327210
Thirded.

>>7327201
Ray Kurzweil is the shit.

I gotta say, the one [potentially] irrational belief I reserve for myself is the Singularity. I greatly anticipate being made into a machine.

>>7326851
Not totally true, my computer is running through use of a series of quantum interaction as we speak. I tend to believe that its not so much as the cat is both alive and dead at the same time, but that its either alive or dead, but we have absolutely no evidence either way until we observe i.e. open the box. Basically, the quantum interaction DOES in fact follow one course of events, we just have no way of knowing what those events were until we measure the system.

>>7327265
that part is easy, no singularity required. Just live to be sixty or so.

>>7327225
Is this true?

Space is badass.

To return to the blowing of minds:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AU8PId_6xec

I can't watch this without my head spinning.

>>7327265
I'm waiting for that, and then the first server crash. There are so many people excited about this, the idea of them all being swept away by a dropped decimal point is so delicious that contemplating it is like one long, stretched out orgasm after another.

Science fact of a different bent:

Cyborgs are real, and have existed for some time now. Several scientists and engineers have volunteered to have various devices implanted into their bodies that allow them to sync up with simple machines.

There are several devices that allow quadriplegics to write, draw, and type with their minds.

And anyone with a cochlear implant to correct deafness is a cyborg.

>>7327225
>>7327282
It happens at the core of galaxies, in the area of concentrated black holes and the "supermassive black hole".

That area is surrounded by suns orbiting the holes. Most of the time the suns get destroyed and fall beyond the event horizon, but every now and then two suns "catch" each other and spin together, and as one sun gets pulled into the hole, the other is flung outward with astronomical speed, hurling it through the galaxy.

At the moment, there are suns moving a billion of miles per hour, suns several times larger than ours, just hurling with no emotion but indifference towards anything in it's path.

>>7327303
On a similar note, I place some of Carl Sagan's speeches up there with a proper chorus of the Battle Hymn of the Republic on my Experience scale. He's in the religious experiences category.

>>7327304
They'll have backups.

>>7327305
Similarly, you know why it is that you'll occasionally get phantom vibrations on your leg like your cell phone is vibrating, even when your phone isn't there?

It's because your brain has started reconfiguring itself around your phone. The elasticity of the human brain is so great that it sets aside a portion of itself just for the spot where you keep your phone. It is functionally no different from a phantom limb.

>>7327268
read the early thread

experiments with photons and electrons show that the cat is alive AND dead until observed

>>7327338
Would it be improper to infer from this that we could get a third, robotic arm grafted on, and after a while, using it would feel as natural as our two natural arms?

What about new senses?

>>7327330
Thankfully, I subscribe to the theory that a copy of a mind is just a copy. All that means is that I get to watch them die again the next time someone fucks up.

>>7327338

okay, that is just terrifying. I don't own a cellphone for various paranoid reasons but now I think I'm sure to stay away from them.

>>7327268
What's really interesting, is that there is a difference between when a parameter is hidden, and when it is generated when measured. It turns out that no, the parameter is not hidden. The truth is that the system does not possess the parameter until you measure it.

As an example, an electron has neither mass nor energy until you measure it.

That should blow your mind.

>>7327352
Actually, by that reasoning they'd die once just by uploading. So there's a bonus for you.

>>7327357
But it's not the cellphone that's scary, it's your brain. How do you run away from that?

Someone post a good explanation for the phenomenon of Change-Blindness. I want to see if we can get this anon to shit his pants.

>>7326790
I've heard from a professor of mine that one of Schroedinger's close friends (another renowned physicist, apparently) mentioned that Schroedinger was implying an inherent error in the current model for quantum physics with his thought experiment.

>>7327304
I'll be honest, I don't fucking care. Just the idea of being digitized makes me giddy. Even if it's just for, you know, hours. Experiencing that would be incredible that I'd take the chance, regardless of the risk.

Same goes for a trip to Mars. They're talking about sending a one-way expedition there, and I'd go in a fucking heartbeat if given the opportunity.

>>7327376
Good. It is better for me if you enjoy it.

>>7327338
The interesting thing is it isn't localized, like to your thigh.

I commonly carry my phone in a breast pocket or on a holster attached to my belt. And so I get those "phantom vibrations" and I immediately pat my chest or my waist.

>>7327370
Your options are die for certain when the meat vessel craps out, or die maybe when you upload.

I'll go with option B myself.

>>7327395
Which is why it is so delicious. Are you following? Your enthusiasm and hope is what makes it like sex with a nymph on a bed of kittens.

>>7327323
because Carl Sagan was a philanthropist.

in the literal sense of the word. He loved humanity. He believed within us is a beauty and strength beyond any deity of magic or science fiction.

His expression was not so much "HUMANITY FUCK YEAR" as "Hey, everyone ever? I made you a macaroni picture. I put it on the fridge. and by fridge I mean I shot it into space at a thousand miles a second so that anyone who ever sees it ever will know how much I love you."

Carl Sagan's love for humanity involves his sotto tenor singing to every heart that could hear:

You are my sunshine
my only sunshine
you make me happy
when skies are gray
you'll never know, dear
how much I love you
please don't take my sunshine away.

>>7327373
It wasn't just his friends. He was open with the fact that he was mocking the idea, known as the Copenhagen interpretation.

>>7327413
He was like Mr. Rogers, except with stars instead of a neighborhood

>>7327409
Uh huh... So then, you're cool with death?

>>7327409
that sounds uncomfortable in multiple ways.

like, she's probably not cool with the kittens dying from my fatass squishing them. hell, I'm not cool with that. I like kittens.

also, kittens will claw and stuff. that would probably hurt.

is a regular bed cool? maybe a couch?

>>7327442
It is a very natural part of life, yes. What amuses me is that people seek to escape it, and that in doing so, they'll probably kill themselves without knowing it. I've got a thing for irony.

>>7327458
Only if it is made of kittens. Or harp seals.

>>7327462
We stopped listening to what nature thought a long damn time ago. The quality of life improved measurably.

Natural=/=good.

>>7327462
I'm less about escaping death than I'm about seeing some totally amazing shit nobody else has ever seen.

Here's what I have to regard as "Quantum mechanical absolute bullshit":

They did the 2-slit experiment with electrons.
They had slit A make all the electrons that pass through it be Spin-up
They had slit B make all the electrons that pass through it be Spin-down
When the electrons hit a piece of paper that measured spin, that proved they went through only one of the slits - and no longer interfered with themselves.

Now.
When someone put a spin randomiser right in front of the fucking paper, as in, not affecting the area IN WHICH THE ELECTRONS WERE (non)INTERFERING IN ANY WAY, the electrons started interfering with themselves again.

So ... what the fuck.
Apparently electrons ~know~ whether they'll be measured in the ~future~, and thus either interfere or non-interfere as appropriate.

Or, more likely, the wavefunction consists of the electron's entire fucking past, and only resolves when it gets observed - meaning until a definite observation is hit, we can do all kinds of crazy bullshit.

Take, for instance: There are subatomic particles that exist for such short half-lives that their energy (and thus mass) can't be accurately observed.
Those particles act as though they have two different masses at the same time - i.e. they can form in a region with only x spare energy, and output y energy somewhere else, and since you can't OBSERVE a violation of the conservation of energy, the universe just fucking does it anyway.

>>7327479
>The quality of life improved measurably
Life of humanity has also shortened.

Just for the record, I am totally afraid of death, and I will do anything to stop it, get away from it, and hopefully kill it once and for all.

>>7327479
Tsk. That's a bit of an arrogant attitude you've got there. You need to work on that if you want to crush Masterfag for me later.

>>7327493
You know after the fact that the universe just {temporarily} violated energy conservation, but since at no point in time could you OBSERVE an energy difference, the universe feels free to say "fuck your bullshit" and hax the energy.

>>7327485
And you will! Which is why you should totally go through with it.
I, however, will find borderline sexual pleasure in you extinguishing your own life.

>>7327499
Immortality is a curse

>>7327496
I got bitten in the ass for this last time, so instead of "Troll" I'll say "Hilariously Mistaken."

>>7327525
Well, yes, but by those same criterion life is also a curse. And mind you, I'm the one rejoicing in their mass suicide.

>>7327528
No no, you're right. That's a low blow, and you shouldn't take it sitting down. This isn't a vague statement that could be construed to make you look like a jackass later, this is just stupid. Crush it. Crush it, that you might better serve me later.

>>7327537
I have no idea why you insist that uploading consists of death, and unless you can present some evidence I'm going to have to assume you're just an asshole.

>>7327496
Now, are you going to provide some evidence for that claim?

>>7327552
If I presented you with evidence, you might change your mind and not do it, which is entirely counterproductive to my desires. And I doubt you'll still be useful to me by then.
Also, I am totally an asshole.

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

There.

>>7327571
Ooh! I might live long enough to see the kool-aid go down after all.

>>7327565
You confuse my meaning.

I didn't mean "the life span of a person", thanks to modern medicine that has improved.

I mean the entirety of humanity, we have essentially pillaged this planet to the point we need to start looking for a new one. If we cannot, they we shall perish.

>>7327513
You want some hax? Read up on virtual particles and the Casimir Effect. It turns out that there are particles popping in and out of reality everywhere, all the time.

>>7327586

also, Hawking Radiation

>>7327583
What? Bitch, I work harder on my bowel movements than on this, you must RESEARCH before you troll, find a solid basis, implement it carefully, HUNT someone, and then spring it. Do not bring this weak shit in here.

>>7327598
Do you deny that we are running out of this planet's finite resources? And that we have made no major leap to get off said resources?

>>7327583
You were fed on Enviro crap as a child, weren't you?

Listen, when we run out of a resource, we don't die, we just find a new resource. No more oil, we use fission, no more uranium, fusion, no more tritium, solar power. And one of modern science's greatest goals is sustainability of resources.

>>7327617
Do you know how dangerous of a word finite is? At the very worst, we bust ourselves back down to pre-industrial age and have to work our way back up.

>>7327598
Dear god. You are the lictor. How many of you are there?

>>7327631
With the advantage of having figured much of the science out already, if we can manage to keep enough of it.

>>7327642
No more than 19, no less than 1.

>>7327619
>fusion

Whoops, haven't figured out a way to do that for more than a millisecond

>>7327583
I still ask for some evidence.

From you, I require:
1) The lifespan of technological humanity, in its entirety, including when it ends.
2) The lifespan of some other humanity that didn't develop technology, including when it ends.

>>7327645
As I'm sure we will, my beautiful little instrument. Though there is much to be said for our lack of "hard" information, as everything is digital nowadays, we still have textbooks and things that could survive the test of time.
What we really need is a huge, huge slab of stone with all of modern science carved into it so that we can pick it back up if we accidentally the whole civilization.

>>7327667
WE REQUIRE HELIUM-3

WE MUST RETURN TO THE MOON TO HARVEST

>>7327617
Do you finish your drinks or do you flip out when you realize the glass is half full and order another rather than face a world without alcohol?

>>7327499
Whaaaaat. I thought you said that you were philosophical zombie and felt particularly nothing about death.

>>7327619
Isn't the amount of Uranium in the world a fraction of the amount of oil we have?

>>7327681
>the planet has over half of it's fossil fuel left
lol

>>7327667
Actually we have, and the answer is awesome.

"Build a Bigger Reactor."

Which is what we're doing. It goes online... next year I think.

>>7327689
Yeah, but you can get more energy out of uranium. Several orders of magnitude more.

>>7327711
>implying we'll even be able to use the energy before nuclear waste destroys the planet.

>>7327711
Indeed, this.

>>7327703
My mistake, ITER goes online in 2018, and it's successor, DEMO, goes online in 2024, and DEMO will be connected to the power grid.

Also, fusion produces no nuclear waste.

>>7327677
I second this. I think we need a colossal monolith devoted to preserving knowledge. Even if we don't destroy ourselves, it'd still be awesome.

>>7327728
What? No, we just had this, you must be RIGHT before you start doing this!
No no, this just won't do, you spoil everything!

>>7327700
I just chose an appropriate sounding fraction. Don't hate.

>>7327757
Good. Delicious. Giant nuclear reactors, I've been saying we need to switch over to those for years.
Seriously, why the fuck do we use anything else? Because coal is apparently preferable to nuclear in Santa Cruz, that's why.

>>7327586
The Casimir effect, while not bullshit, is mathematically equivalent to Van Der Waals force.
Particle pairs exist and unexist all the time.
This is where quantum mechanics and general relativity shit themselves, because particles have mass, and mass bends space, and having mass randomly exist and unexist (well, BOTH at the same time) at every point in space makes the curvature of space go so far up its own asshole that all your math turns into "Infinity = 0".

>>7327703
Yeah, that's pretty much the answer to everything.
The magnetic field strength you need to contain fusion is equal to ... the total surface area, I think?
And the power you get out of it is related to total volume.
So, to get more power out for less power in, make the fucker bigger.

>>7327784
I don't fucking get it, either.

Actually, that's a lie, I do get it, but it pisses me off. It's all because people are afraid and they don't make any effort to understand it. So they get all NOT IN MY BACKYARD, and we get stuck with immensely inefficient, antiquated technology so these people can remain free to freak out and not read.

>>7327728
Nuclear waste is going to destroy the planet? You do realize that nuclear waste is derived from radioactive material. Radioactive material that has been on the planet this whole time (Human History). That's what is going to destroy the planet?

>>7327784
The best part? Fusion reactors MAKE tritium, which is the stuff that fuels fusion reactors.

>>7327821
>>7327814
Ahhhhh, fucking hippies, rite?

>>7327829
i kno rite?

>>7327814
NIMBY's and BANANA's. Those fuckers.

>>7327816
The problem of nuclear waste is that it gathers all that material up into one place.

The good news about fusion power is that it produces practically no waste, the only radioactive things that come out are pieces of equipment that have been bombarded with neutrons, and even those will have very short half lives.

>>7327846
I was a right-winger in my younger years, a reaction from my burning, seething hatred for hippies. In retrospect, I think all of America's partisan issues can be traced back to hippies.

>>7327855
This is a problem how?

>>7327868

I don't think that is a fair assessment. We had strong disagreements on ideas about government from the very beginning.

>>7327871
Read the thread, he's your staunchest supporter here. He's just speaking the other guy's party line as a matter of fairness.

>>7327894
Yeah, but I don't think it was ever this bad. It went from reasonable politics to one both sides being disgustingly ineffectual because of their hatred for each other.

>>7327868
I'm pretty liberal. That said, I wouldn't piss on a hippie's face if his teeth were on fire.

Nuclear power is awesome and we would all be way fucking happier if the russians hadn't fucked everything up.

>>7327959
Three Mile Island happened too.
Both those incidents just showed that A: Nuclear power is safe unless everyone working the plant is a collossal fuckup and B: Almost everyone is a collossal fuckup.

Is this fair? No. Should we get over it? Yes.

>>7327846
It's that sort of mindset that makes me rage. I can't stand Luddism, but it seems like it's just a human thing to fear new technology and to cling to the "natural."

Know what's natural? Fucking smallpox, motherfucker. Doesn't get much more natural than that.

I think it's because technology is hard to understand, and it's overwhelming for some people. And instead of attempting to understand what they can and coming to terms with what they can't, they decide to reach out for "simple" things that they can understand and control.

>>7328009
It's for this reason that I don't think democracy works. It relies on an informed populace, and the voting population just isn't informed, at all.

It also pisses me right off how people are saying that ITER and DEMO suck funding away from other alternative energy sources.

Shut your goddamn mouths greenies (And Robert Bussard..). We're getting a fusion reactor and that's final. Stop trying to stop us making cool things!

>>7328050

The problem is that we don't really have anything better. Democracy is far from perfect but it's as close as we've managed to get. I mean the ideal is obviously benevolent dictatorship but that's never going to happen.

>>7328050
Yeah, I agree, but I don't know of any other system that'd work. Pretty much every system of government, including both anarcho-capitalism and anarcho-communism, requires people to not be idiots or douchebags. And is there any way of making sure people who aren't idiots or douchebags are running things?

>>7328100
We could always require that people be informed to vote, but that would be met with cries of "Tyranny!"

>>7328113

What was the phrase...Tyranny of the masses I think? Basically where a bunch of stupid people screw democracy up for the smart people.

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

Well I was sort of right. This is basically what I see happening in the world (NOT just the US) right now.

>>7328113
Of course it would. Anything that requires any amount of work on behalf of the hoi polloi would be met with great anger. In fact, I suspect more effort would be put into resisting such a policy than would be required by the policy itself.

>>7328105
Pretty much everybody BUT politicians are of the opinion that their idea should be forced into place without regard for the process, it'd probably be a good idea to show that we aren't like that.

>>7328100
the whole "best so far" thing with democracy is pure bullshit

technocracy is leagues ahead of democracy. the people are just too stupid to let up control

and benevolent dictatorship is rather common, problem is how to guarantee it for each new dictator that takes the throne.

>>7328169
Most Americans don't vote anyway, I fail to see how it would be all that different. Maybe we could get it through as an amendment to a more mainstream election law or something.

As for the rest of the world, they probably wouldn't vote either if they weren't legally required to, or given days off to do so.

>>7328153
If the US really was a democracy, we'd still have slaves. Hell, we'd still be a colony of England- two thirds of all Americans were still loyal to the crown when the States declared independence.

>>7328105

Churchill said it best: "Democracy is the worst form of government. Apart from all of the other ones that have been tried".

>>7328169
>>7328113
The last time we had poll tests they were used exclusively to bar black people from voting, while ignorant white people were waved on through.

There is no way to reduce the amount of people who can participate in the system without stomping on the poor, racial minorities, and especially poor racial minorities.

/tg/, being composed of white, middle class, suburban males, is ok with this.

>>7328208
One third was neutral and one third was loyalist, it was the Patriots being the most highly motivated that won us the day.

In fact that's about what US law is equal to nowadays, most motivated faction wins.

Just watch, once the oil runs out and the middle class has to go without heat, they'll be screaming for as many nuke plants as Uncle Sam can build.

>>7328251
Well for one thing, this idea that just because you were born with a disadvantage that you should get special treatment needs to go out the window. Just because you're poor or black doesn't mean you get to be dumb.

Another point to be aware of is that no country really has a REAL Democracy. If any of them did ALL matters of policy would be put to a nationwide referendum. We all just have representative democracies even though we probably have the tech to run a real democracy, give everyone a voting tab. Check it every day. Vote on the issues of that day, shit gets tabulated that night, policy next morning, rinse, repeat.

>>7328271
And how do you expect to deconstruct white male heterosexual privilege immediately?

Southern schools were desegregated at gun point, and southern slaves were liberated while the south was burned to the ground. Compared to previous techniques for eliminating white cultures of privilege, affirmative action is downright tame.

>>7328272
This is true, and would be a terrible idea for reasons mentioned above.

I've always wondered about starting a new country using political ideals more conducive to science.

Maybe some kind of underwater supercity... eh I'll think about it later.

>>7328272
>>7328311
Wonderful. Rule by Youtube posters.

This thread has fallen off the first page, does it deserve a third?

>>7328311
I think a lot of people would want to be a part of that... problem is that we would all somehow agree to how we would do it... and somehow get an economy up and running without sacrificing any of our ideals

>>7328272

The notion that democracy == voting is a very flawed and shallow idea, and leads to bullshit like Iraq and Afghanistan where you hold a vote and call it democracy.

Democracy means that the right to govern is derived from the consent of those governed, regardless of the apparatus used to implement this principle.

Holding a vote in a place where political power still flows from the barrel of a gun (or the pulpit, or a concentration of wealth) no more makes that place a democracy than sticking rabbit ears on a fa/tg/uy makes him a playboy playmate.

>>7328251
Why would it make sense that we expect people to be qualified to make our food and wash our clothes, but don't require them to be qualified to decide policies that affect millions of lives?

I'll grant that it's not exactly tenable, since you'd have to have somebody capable of deciding who qualifies, and there's nobody out there trustworthy enough to decide that, but I never got that disconnect.

>>7328324
Well no, if everyone voted then the "normals" would drown out everyone else. Of course everyone won't vote.
>>7328320
Yes.

>>7328362
BECAUSE EVERY TIME IT'S TRIED WE TYRANNIZE THE SHIT OUT OF THE DARKIES. DITTO WITH EUGENICS/SOCIAL DARWINISM.

Whatever good things you intend restricting sufferage is nothing more than an exercise in the majority disenfranchising it's hated minorities, ethnic and otherwise.

>>7328311
Some times I think that game was made with the purpose of making anyone capable of realizing such a project dismiss the idea. I want my technocracy!

Actually this is a new topic already, so I'm going to make a thread about TECHNOLOGY! and how it can be better implemented to serve humanity.

>>7328398

C'mon /tg/.

You can't have all left already.

rolled 3, 5, 6 = 14

The mass at the center of our galaxy, Sagittarius A*, has been estimated to have a mass 3-5 million times greater than our sun. In comparison, VY Canis Majoris, the largest known stellar object, has a mass 12-25 time that of our sun. VY is 2,000 times the size of our sun, but it is, at bare minimum, 120,000 times less massive than the "core" of our galaxy.

rolled 5, 1, 2 = 8

>>7328464
Comparison.