ITT post real scientific facts, theories and hypotheses that

KIC 8463852

File: F4.medium.gif (102KB, 650x703px) Image search: [Google]

102KB, 650x703px

things I find creepy are events in earth's history for which there is no conclusive explanation

for instance, chemostratigraphy shows enormous negative and positive excursions in the δ13C at the end of the Permian. They're the biggest spikes in the entire phanerozoic and the Carbon-values are generally all over the place until they spontaneously stabilize in the middle of the Triassic.
Geologists have yet to determine the source of these excursions.

File: moloch.jpg (220KB, 778x1023px) Image search: [Google]

220KB, 778x1023px

>>8232652
Moloch worship by the global elites

>>8232652
Gravity. Not even Newton know what causes gravity.

File: 1469652839530.jpg (118KB, 720x960px) Image search: [Google]

118KB, 720x960px

>>8232663
The fact that the end of permian mass extinction is still unexplained is creepy as fuck desu

>. It is the Earth's most severe known extinction event, with up to 96% of all marine species[5][6] and 70% of terrestrial vertebrate species becoming extinct.[7] It is the only known mass extinction of insects.[8][9] Some 57% of all families and 83% of all genera became extinct.

No exact cause known

File: F2.large.jpg (306KB, 1476x974px) Image search: [Google]

306KB, 1476x974px

>>8232720
some weird shit was going on back then

we know that massive volcanism took place at the same time, but even that (as big as it may have been) isn't enough to explain the geologic and chemical features.

For a certain time, all evidence of forests disappear, with significant coal deposits vanishing until well into the Triassic. There is also evidence of massive erosion and the strata just above the P-Tr-Boundary is pyrite-rich (which hints at an absence of oxygen), void of life and without any bioturbation.

>>8232720
Probably those damned immigrants

>>8232663
Can you dumb this down for non-geology fags? I'm a mathfag and I have no idea what you're talking about.

>>8232720
God?

File: 1.jpg (121KB, 768x1280px) Image search: [Google]

121KB, 768x1280px

>>8232652

Fermi paradox

Planck-length and Planck-time

Thermodynamic laws govern your neural interaction

>>8232789
>Planck-length and Planck-time
Fucking this. The idea that the universe essentially has a resolution limit makes me very uneasy.

>>8232799
It's not the universe, it's the scale at which we can do experiments

File: 42343242.png (125KB, 484x358px) Image search: [Google]

125KB, 484x358px

>>8232652

That the human organism is an organic robotic machine which houses molecular replicators, whose on board computer has developed self-awareness.

That awareness is resultant of a particular series of interrelated structures formed by neural networks in the brain the exact nature of which we do not currently understand and our perception of reality is merely an internal simulation.

That we are animals whose behaviour is governed by genetic and environmental programming, stored in the form of particular nucleotide arrangements and neural networks that correspond to our genetic code and an array of psychological mechanisms crafted by the evolutionary processes of natural selection.

That these psychological mechanisms govern an array of behavioural programs, which developed in response to the adaptive problems humans faced throughout their evolutionary history.

That cultures and societies are the manifestations of genetic programming interacting with a wide range of external environments over time.

That from the roaming bands of prehistory, to the economically and technologically specialised civilisations of today, our societies are built upon the foundations of our evolutionary programming.

That, as is the case with most primates, human societies are hierarchical in nature and largely organised around the desires of the socially dominant, whose power is denoted by financial wealth; these desires are of course not specific to the socially dominant and are primarily related to social prestige, resource acquisition and familial prosperity, otherwise known as kin altruism, to name a few.

That our intelligence is employed for the purpose of completing a smorgasbord of dopamine mediated goal pursuit programs, the nature of which very few ever think to question.

That perhaps my penchant for alcohol [read: alcoholism] is in part due to its correlation with ripe fruit and our frugivorous past.

>pic related

>>8232652

The implication that there is a second consciousness inside of you that operates independently
http://youtu.be/wfYbgdo8e-8

>>8232807
okay, that's scary

>>8232807
There is, but you can communicate with it

>>8232807
Not sure how much this is pseudo-science, bro-science, pop-science

But I think there are two me. There's one that's more rational and cold, and there's me. The rational and cold always tell me I am stupid when I am wasting time and such.

>>8232807

While the phenomenon is real, the framing used in this video is misleading.

>>8232652
Perhaps it counts as /x/-tier, but quantum immortality. The idea of being physically prevented from dying, because there's always some universe where I'm conscious (never mind what state the rest of my body is in) makes me hope that the many-worlds interpretation is bullshit.

>>8232807
That's really not how it works unless you're literally a split-brain patient. When your brain hemispheres are able to communicate normally (i.e. the "wire" mentioned in the video isn't severed), they form a collective consciousness, sort of like a two-component hive mind. This is why people who've sustained substantial trauma localised to one hemisphere often undergo personality changes.

>>8232815
pop-"science" needs to die

>>8232652
Entropy always increases

>>8232822

Yes, yes it does.

>>8232815
elaborate, please

>>8232740
Molecular biofag here, I'm not well versed on the subject at all, but from my reading and understanding of the topic, it's most likely a combination of factors that caused the extinction, not just volcanism alone for example, right?

It could be for instance, that volcanism led to high carbon dioxide which led to very high temperatures through global warming and anoxia in the oceans, which in turn killed most oxygen-dependent marine life and opened the niche for sulfate bacteria and archaea to produce hydrogen sulfide and poison terrestrial life, which would explain the absence of forests. Plus the excess hydrogen sulfide could weaken the ozone layer according to wikipedia and contribute to the lethality of the event as the cherry on top.

But what parts of the permian event would remain unexplained by such a combination of theories for example? Really interesting to try to fit models like this into the data that we have from the extinction era.

>>8232807
I remember seeing this in a House MD episode some years ago, lel

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alien_hand_syndrome
for anyone who might want to read more

>>8232804
what's the difference?

>>8232835
It's about measurements

>>8232780
you might have heard of the δ18O analysis, where we measure the ratio of 16O-atoms to 18O-atoms in ice or carbonate rocks, which tells us something about the temperature conditions when the ice or carbonate rocks were deposited.

With δ13C we look at the ratio of 13C-atoms to 12C-atoms. This tells us something about the carbon cycle at that time, though it isn't as straight-foward as δ18O because there are many different processes that determine the deposition of 12C to 13C atoms. Among them are primary production (=photosynthesis), volcanic exhalation of CO2, methane release and oxidation of organic matter.

For example: organism preferentially take up the lighter 12C atom. This means with high primary production, a lot of 12C atoms are bound within the metabolism of the organisms, which in turn means that (marine) rocks that form at that time are comparatively heavy (i.e. have a higher number of 13C-atoms). If however a lot of organisms die and the primary production falls very rapidly, more 12C atoms are free to be incorporated into the rocks, which makes them comparatively heavy.

This is just one example, another significant one is methane, which is very light. Therefore if a lot of methane is released from bogs or from the continental shelfs, the sedimentary rocks that form will be lighter.

The thing with the changes in δ13C at the end of the Permian is, that they are so massive (strongest in the entire phanerozoic) and come in such a rapid succession, that geologists have yet to make sense of the process that would produce this signature. Insane amounts of CO2 and methane would have to been released as well as buried again at incredible speeds.
As mentioned in other posts, a lot of other weird things were happening at the same time. If you ask stratigraphers and geologists, most of them will just say that it was a "large-sclae perturbation of the carbon cycle" which isn't very precise.

>>8232822
>>8232827
Yes, let's kill the thing that boosts interest in science by dumbing it down a little for the masses. We should only make videos/magazines showing the actual study to show how riveting it is and not explaining the future use of it.

>>8232844
Did you watch the video?

That's not dumbing down. That's just lying.

>>8232820

Are you really sure? I mean the two consciousnesses can communicate but that doesn't really mean that they are one while connected. The evidence is that in split brain patients the right hemisphere acts as an independent consciousness.
Sure if right brain feels like doing something and communicates it to left brain you know why you're doing a certain thing and are not surprised at your own actions, but it doesn't really change that you have two consciousnesses that receive and proceed information differently.
If the least we can take from this it's that your subconsciousness should isn't that much "sub" as rather mute and should get a little more credit and consideration when discussing behaviour.

Most people I believe pictute their subconscious as something dormant that doesn't really play an active role, bit as split brain patients prove, the subconscious really is capable of doing active decisions

>>8232807
That's pretty interesting anon
Does someone has an academic opinion/>>8232807
article about this?

>>8232839

>mfw Aliums are real
>mfw Earth is an artificially teraformed (aliumformed) planet

>>8232845

What was it lying about? Elaborate.

>>8232847
>two consciousnesses
define

>>8232839
Thanks anon, that does raise some big questions.

>>8232815
Frame it in a better way then

>>8232822
b..but.. the normies want it senpai

>>8232807
further proof there is no external consciousness, and that consciousness is merely an organic process.

>>8232828
>>8232848
>>8232847

Consciousness:

>the state or quality of awareness, or, of being aware of an external object or something within oneself.

There's still one 'consciousness'; however, it becomes aware that it is not guiding all of its actions.

It's a structural change that results in increased subjective awareness, relating to how we operate.

We do not make decisions, we simply draw up explanations for the actions after they have already been executed.

This phenomenon allows an individual a subjective insight into the illusion of free will.

Therefore, it is rather creepy.

>>8232857

An entity that can receive imformation, process, understand and respond

File: 1431251694328.jpg (25KB, 435x435px) Image search: [Google]

25KB, 435x435px

>>8232653
o fug

>>8232864

Why the need for a "consciousness" to explain your own actions?
Your eloboration doesn't really explain why consciousness does what it does.

Also consciousness doesn't just explain your past actions. It's also able to deduce, plan future actions and reflect

>>8232869

By that definition, my laptop is consciouss.

Nice try, anon.

>>8232847
Split brain patients are a special case and in no way indicative of the state of things in "healthy" minds. Otherwise the phenomenon would show up outside of the very specific conditions in which it's currently observed.

Anyway, personality shifts in people who have had significant portions of one of their brain hemispheres destroyed (or the hemispheres have been severed - I wonder why this is'nt mentioned at all in the video) is fairly well documented. It strongly implies that consciousness is a composite process distinct from any of its individual components.

Also, I'm not sure you entirely understand what the subconscious actually is.

File: 710669669ac17926fda2a1a6174f7dba.jpg (23KB, 274x247px) Image search: [Google]

23KB, 274x247px

>can be traced back to the Cambrian
>still can be found today
>no one knows what it is
>trace fossil?
>burrow?
>impression of organism?

fugggggg

>>8232875

Your laptop cannot "understand" though

>>8232883
"Understand" is not a meaningful word

>>8232885

You can understand what I wrote. Your laptop cannot.

>>8232886
State of the art natural language processing begs to differ.

>>8232873

>why the need for a "consciousness" to explain your own actions?

Why did consciousness evolve?

Well, we do not currently understand how consciousness arises as we do not have a complete neural map of the brain; however, it is not guaranteed that once we do have such a map, that consciousness will be immediately understood.

The technology and data processing techniques pertinent to this field are advancing every year, however.

To indulge in informed surmising, it is possible that consciousness is a spandrel; that is to say, a by-product of other evolved mechanisms.

In this respect, it would be viewed as an emergent property.

>also consciousness doesn't just explain your past actions.

That is not what the available experimental data indicates.

>It's also able to deduce, plan future actions and reflect

Again, this is where the illusion comes into play.

All available evidence indicates that we do no such thing; we merely think that we do.

Essentially, consciousness is an internal simulation and free will is merely an illusion.

>>8232883

Understand:

>1. perceive the intended meaning of (words, a language, or a speaker).

>2. interpret or view (something) in a particular way.

Yes it can, anon.

File: 2.png (1MB, 931x656px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 931x656px

does anyone know anything about "Dark Flow"?

according to wikipedia it's an unexplained acceleration of several galaxy clusters towards a point beyond the cosmic light horizon

also gives me the chills:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Attractor

>>8232896

Yes and it is a little creepy.

>Zorg the consumer of galaxies is coming for us all

>>8232870
A bunch of comets in all probability.

>>8232902
not really, that was discarded by the most recent paper

>>8232891

>All available evidence indicates that we do no such thing; we merely think that we do.

I'm currently planning how I'll spend the rest of my day. How the fuck is this an illusion?

>>8232905

>I'm currently planning how I'll spend the rest of my day.

The planning is being undertaken by what some call the subconscious and then being fed into an internal simulation, which we recognise as consciousness.

>How the fuck is this an illusion?

It’s an illusion insofar as you believe there is a ‘you’ that has a ‘choice’.

You are an organic machine performing computations and running programs/subroutines, which operates on an input-output/stimulus-response basis.

The conscious experience and notion of free will are illusory in that respect.

>>8232816
That is most definitely /x/-tier shit. Anything with the belief that consciousness isn't integrated within an organic framework is /x/

>>8232914

How can the planning be subsconscious if I can actively create a list of things I'm going to do? That's not created by outside stimuli or against my control. It's not reactionary.

>A simulation
A simulation of what? And what exactly would perceive and process that simulation?

>>8232905
How you decide to spend the rest of your day is already pre-determined by the events and conditions leading up to the moment of you making the decision. Your act of planning is mostly your consciousness observing some of the deterministic factors that contribute to the inevitability of that choice.

Even if you decide to do something different hat you were going to to show that fucking anon that you do indeed have a free choice, in reality it will have been influenced by this post.

Have a nice day, though.

File: 1464109806130.webm (761KB, 568x320px) Image search: [Google]

761KB, 568x320px

>>8232904
do you have a link (or maybe a quick explanation why coments were dismissed)?

>>8232922

>How can the planning be subsconscious if I can actively create a list of things I'm going to do?

The list is created before you are aware of it, as is the decision to pursue one of a range of potential goals.

The decisions are made before you are aware of 'making' them.

>A simulation of what?

A simulation of conscious experience.

>And what exactly would perceive and process that simulation?

We do not currently know how consciousness arises.

>>8232923

That's an ergo hoc ergo propter hoc.
Just because outside influences can influence your decisions doesn't mean they only happen because of outside influences.
Just as I can choose to change my decision because of your post I can choose to completely ignore your post and stick with my original decision regardless or change it because of deciding to take more time thinking about my plans and coming to a different conclusion by having a longer and deeper thought about it completely independent from anything I've experienced today.

>>8232929

>Consciousness is an illusion
>but there is a something that we do not understand that thinks it has a consciousness because it pretends to have one

Really you're just moving the problem to another layer where you can answer any question with "we don't know".

All you're really arguing is that consciousness is a lot more complex than one might assume and has way more layers to it, but nothing proved that it"s non-existent

>>8232936

>
Just as I can choose to change my decision because of your post I can choose to completely ignore your post and stick with my original decision regardless or change it because of deciding to take more time thinking about my plans and coming to a different conclusion by having a longer and deeper thought about it completely independent from anything I've experienced today.

It is not based on your experiences of today.

You can't ignore all of the genetic and environmental programming you have recieved over the course of your life.

That is ultimately what decides how you behave.

As the other anon said, you then observe:

>some of the deterministic factors that contribute to the inevitability of that choice

That obervation/simulation is consiousness.

>>8232940

>but there is a something that we do not understand that thinks it has a consciousness because it pretends to have one

Nobody said anything remotely like that.

I specifically defined consciousness and refuted the statement that there are 'two conscious agents' as the video implied:

>>8232864

>All you're really arguing is that consciousness is a lot more complex than one might assume and has way more layers to it

No, I'm saying exactly what I'm saying if you'd care to read my posts properly.

>but nothing proved that it"s non-existent

Nobody said consciousness is non-existent.

You either haven't read my posts properly or are a little slow.

Perhaps both.

>>8232936
You don't understand. There are nothing but outside influences. Your brain is essentially a very complex difference engine: the only thing it does is process input. It's not capable of producing a truly independent action. Absolutely everything that happens in there is a response to outside stimuli. Those stimuli may not necessarily be based on sensory perceptions of things happening at that very moment. Sometimes those stimuli initiate processees that go on for very long periods of time - possibly for your entire life. Your consciousness is composed of a very large number of such processes.

Your entire life is already pre-determined. Your subjective self is only there for the ride.

>>8232946

>Your entire life is already pre-determined. Your subjective self is only there for the ride

Well said.

File: me2_collector_base.jpg (27KB, 600x334px) Image search: [Google]

27KB, 600x334px

>>8232653
HOLY FUCK THEY FOUND THE COLLECTOR'S BASE

>>8232946

You literally cannot prove that and you never will be able to. Heck quantum processes literally are based on chance and are unpredictable so really the only thing that you can prove is that nothing is predetermined and even if it were chaos theory dictates that arbitrarily complex become so chaotic that even IF there was a way to literally acquire every single piece of information it would be impossible to calculate the outcome

>>8232880
Paleodictyon nodosum

Guys what is this?

File: 8589130429320-bane-batman-mask-wallpaper-hd.jpg (123KB, 494x411px) Image search: [Google]

123KB, 494x411px

>>8232997
>it would be impossible to calculate the outcome
For you.

>>8232997

I knew this was coming.

>You literally cannot prove that and you never will be able to.

The brain is a computer that performs both analogue and digital computations.

It relies on genetic and environmental programming in order to operate.

The available data indicates that decisions are made before we become aware of them.

What can’t we prove?

>Heck quantum processes literally are based on chance
>and are unpredictable so really the only thing that you can prove is that nothing is predetermined

Only if you accept the Copenhagen Interpretation; however, QM is far from complete and there are several competing interpretations.

>even if it were chaos theory dictates that arbitrarily complex become so chaotic that even IF there was a way to literally acquire every single piece of information it would be impossible to calculate the outcome

Yes anon, calculate an outcome.

That means that we wouldn’t be able to calculate a person’s behaviour by taking note of every single aspect of genetic and environmental programming and discerning their interactions and subsequent effects.

That doesn’t mean that our behaviour isn’t determined by genetic and environmental programming.

>>8233030
This.

>>8232997
>We are predetermined robotic machines
>We can determine a persons future behaviour

Not even slightly the same thing.

Clathrate gun hypothesis;
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e5nCiqOHnxM
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clathrate_gun_hypothesis

How has no one posted this???

>>8233044

There's already an entire thread about it >>8232912

>>8233041
He's too dumb to get it

>>8233044
>Guy McPherson
almost immediately discarded
there are better sources than him, anon...

>>8233044
This effected both the Paleocene–Eocene Thermal Maximum 56 million years ago, and most notably the Permian–Triassic extinction event, when up to 96% of all marine species became extinct, 252 million years ago

Yeah,anon, history will repeat its self, and we will all be killed by a giant fart. :^)

>>8232699
Just to recap we know how gravity works, how we're kept from flying away, but not how it's created?

>>8232914
I mostly agree with you. I think that we are just made up of atoms that act deterministically. I don't think our brain has programs and subroutines' and I don't think there is even close to enough evidence about these things to correct people and state your opinion as fact

One thing that has always bothered me is the idea of a fine Fine-Tuned universe.

For example; N, the ratio of the strength of electromagnetism to the strength of gravity for a pair of protons, is approximately 1036. According to Rees, if it were significantly smaller, only a small and short-lived universe could exist.


Things like this make me believe in a higher power.

>>8232864

This reminds me of Kafka for some reason

>>8233105
>if it were significantly smaller, only a small and short-lived universe could exist.
These universes died before they could reproduce by black holes, obviously.

>>8233097

>I don't think our brain has programs and subroutines' and I don't think there is even close to enough evidence

Well then you clearly haven't looked into it, anon.

There are pleny of cross-cultural studies that indicate the presence of universal psychological mechanisms.

In addition to this, several of these mechanisms appear to be present among other species.

>>8233112
It just explains the universes fined tuned nature and for the existence of humanity ! Another example; Omega (Ω), commonly known as the density parameter, is the relative importance of gravity and expansion energy in the Universe. It is the ratio of the mass density of the Universe to the "critical density" and is approximately 1. If gravity were too strong compared with dark energy and the initial metric expansion, the universe would have collapsed before life could have evolved. On the other side, if gravity were too weak, no stars would have formed.

Yes, i agree this whole theory sounds like a natural selection of the universes, but i choose to believe there is more behind it.

>>8233121
>It just explains the universes fined tuned nature and for the existence of humanity
Meteors always fall in craters. Craters were created for the meteors!

>>8233105
>>8233121
>>8233112

Finely tuned is nothing more than every other possibility having been tried.

>>8233136
I actually just changed my entire argument. Life is "fine tuned" and adapts to variables the forth by the universe.

The change of heart came about after reading this quote, "We have no reason to believe that our kind of carbon-based life is all that is possible. Furthermore, modern cosmology theorises that multiple universes may exist with different constants and laws of physics. So, it is not surprising that we live in the one suited for us. The Universe is not fine-tuned to life; life is fine-tuned to the Universe."

it makes logical sense

>>8233148
I agree....A more in depth explanation than mine...

>>8233121

>It just explains the universes fined tuned nature and for the existence of humanity!

No it doesn’t.

>Another example; Omega (Ω), commonly known as the density parameter, is the relative importance of gravity and expansion energy in the Universe. It is the ratio of the mass density of the Universe to the "critical density" and is approximately 1.

Yes…

>If gravity were too strong compared with dark energy and the initial metric expansion, the universe would have collapsed before life could have evolved. On the other side, if gravity were too weak, no stars would have formed.

This is what tells me you have no idea what you are talking about; the value of omega informs us about the curvature of the universe and how it will evolve.

If Ω = <1 then we live in an open universe.

If Ω = >1 then we live in a closed universe.

If Ω = 1 then we live in a flat universe.

Ω = <1 = expand forever

Ω = >1 = collapse

Ω = 1 = expand forever, slowing down but never quite stopping so that at ∞ v = 0

Omega being less or more than 1 would not have impeded the universe from formation of the universe or stars; you’ve just pulled that out of your ass.

>Yes, i agree this whole theory sounds like a natural selection of the universes, but i choose to believe there is more behind it.

If inflation is confirmed, then we live in a multiverse and the only universes that would form matter, galaxies, stars, planets, life and conscious observers would be those that had the necessary parameters to do so.

This is exactly like a natural selection among universes and an extension of the anthropic principle.

There is no place for a creator here; believe in one if you like, but there’s no logical reason to do so.

>>8233105
I always found the fine-tuning argument wierd
maybe that's pseudo-philosophy but I'm thinking that since we only live in this universe, we can't really know how many universe exist without live in them.
Let's assume there are 500 billion universes that don't allow life. Since there isn't life, no one can go "Aha! This universe isn't fine tuned, so it'S without life!"
By definition, life-forms will only ever see the "fine-tuned" universes, so they'll have a 100% track record of hitting the right universes. Isn't it therefore idiotic to claim the universe was made with intent?

>>8233156

>Isn't it therefore idiotic to claim the universe was made with intent?

Yes.

>>8233153
>>8233156
>>8233165
I literally just changed my argument, see >>8233148

>>8233174

Well, I was refuting your initial argument.

However, retraction accepted.

I'm glad to see you came to your senses.

>>8233176
That's what intelligent discussions are about , my friend. precisely what differentiates us from places like /pol/ , we can learn and develop.

>>8233156
And yes i fully agree now that basing any beliefs on a higher power on this "fine-tuning" claim would be misguided and illogical.

>>8233183

>precisely what differentiates us from places like /pol/

I wouldn't go that far.

>hard vs soft science
>math is a science
>psychology isn't a science
>biology isn't a science
>CS is pointless
>etc.

>>8233012
Fuck it, I'll expand on this instead of just shitposting.

You're probably aware of Laplace's demon. It's fairly easy for an educated person to accept it, because our minds are capable of conceptualizing, if in a very abstract manner, an tracking every atom in the universe. We do this by simplifying the thought to a scale that we can operate in: perhaps you visualize the journey of a single atom through the ages, then form an abstract expanded image from that. It's easy to see all the ways an atom might interact with other atoms if you've studied enough physics. The building blocks of matter are easy to understand.

The human mind isn't. We don't even properly understand what the mind really is. Therefore it's extremely hard to the mind as a clump of if-then sentences. You'd have to account for biological factors, the surrounding physical world, and even immaterial systems like society, which is ultimately composed of the interactions of six billion people. It's impossible.

It's easy to think that the human mind doesn't adhere to the same kind of mechanistic-deterministic principles as those simple atoms in Laplace's articulation just because of that event horizon of complexity. But in that you're proposing that the mind has some intrinsic, special quality that exempts it from the laws and mechanics of the entire rest of the universe. You kinda need proof for that, dog.

The fact that the mind is beyond some threshold of complexity alone doesn't mean shit. That we don't currently possess the means to model all the interactions contributing input to a mind doesn't mean they're not fundamentally computable - even if in practice necessitates and omniscient god-being with infinite computing capacity to do it.

>>8232997
Plenty of evidence points to this. Its easy to deny because we are essentially wired to believe in free will, but when have you made a decision that wasnt based on anything at all. I dont mean "basically nothing", i mean actually nothing

File: 1418447590666.jpg (74KB, 400x400px) Image search: [Google]

74KB, 400x400px

>The harmonic serie diverges

>>8232997
>Heck quantum processes literally are based on chance
>what is bohmian mechanics

>>8233153
I was always aware that an Ω = <1 , or open universe would produce inescapable and devastating issues such as; the Big rip, Big freeze and the heat death. All of which calls for the inevitable distribution of said universe? am i wrong?

>>8233139
This right here.

You don't even need to buy into the multiverse theory to see that the fine-tuned idea is based on some major observer bias. If it wasn't "fine-tuned", we wouldn't fucking be here to observe the fact that it ostensibly is.

>>8233203

Ω = >1 The Big Crunch.

Ω = <1 The Big Rip.

Ω = 1 = Heat Death

We end up with heat death.

>>8233196
>sum of reciprocals of primes diverges

>>8233210
Ah i see, of course we got the lame one. All the others seems entirely surreal and actually amazing ,for the scientific observer though. The heat death is fucking lame

>>8233206
Addendum: we aren't really capable of conceptualizing realities with physical laws notably different from the ones that govern our own reality. It's entirely possible that there are different configurations of those laws that would result in an universe far more favorable than the one we have.

>>8233216

Yeah, the way our universe is evolving means that billions of years from now astronomers looking out into the cosmos will end up thinking that the universe is comprised of one galaxy in an otherwise dark and empty universe.

'We live in a very special time: the only time when we could say that we live in a very special time.' - Krauss

>>8232847
The subconscious is you. Your consciousness is just the final output you experience from the total workings of you brain, sort of like the CEO of a company with the company being your mind.

>>8233227
Observable universe = size of 1 proton
Total universe = size of the sun

Everything we know about cosmology = observing the 1 proton

File: Anon I Love Your Nips.jpg (699KB, 1389x690px) Image search: [Google]

699KB, 1389x690px

>>8233244

Not exactly.

>>8233247
That's the cosmic radiation of 93 billion light years of space, the universe is 10^23 larger

>>8233247
>Anon I Love Your Nips
w-what

>>8232652
Universe as a simulation. Wave–particle duality and Young's experiment with observer's delay (or Bell's inequality) is just mindblowing for me.

>>8232942
That's demonstrably wrong, even in cases where there are genetic similar twins. You can't ignore genetic factos but that doesn't mean the govern everything.

>>8233264
>Wave–particle duality
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nmC0ygr08tE&feature=youtu.be

>experiment with observer's delay
Such as? inb4 quantum eraser meme (protip: it's just a statistical effect)

>>8232946
You're saying that it's influenced by outside stimuli, and that's true.

Where's your proof that there's literally no INTERNAL work?

Not necessary creepy but Experiment suggests that humans are capable of perceiving single photons.
www.nature.com/news/people-can-sense-single-photons-1.20282

Not neccesarily creepy either but there are some really weird shit on neurological disorders out there, like blind vision.

It pretty much proves that the brain, as in, the material thing that we have no direct control over, is determining what we do. Still hold that there is a "mind" that we control of course (even if it's still grounded in the material brain).

Another really interesting theory is Novikov self-consistency principle, which corrects all major time travel logic inconsistencies. So hes based , but unfortunately its not widely accepted.

File: Enrico Fermi chalkboard_0.jpg (331KB, 1200x920px) Image search: [Google]

331KB, 1200x920px

some possible answers to the Fermi Paradox are fucking creepy

one possible answer is that there is a genocidal alien race that murders every new and emerging civilization it can find

>>8233312
the most important answer is the size of the universe itself

we can only receive light from 0.000000001% of the universe

File: 1469210280607.jpg (2MB, 3112x2338px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 3112x2338px

>>8233314
not who you responded too but that is completely mind baffling, and makes humanity feel even more insignificant ;-;

>>8233265

>You can't ignore genetic factos but that doesn't mean the govern everything.

Yeah, I guess that's why I said:

>You can't ignore all of the genetic and environmental programming you have recieved over the course of your life.
>and environmental programming you have recieved over the course of your life.
>and environmental programming
>environmental

Fantastic reading comprehension, faggot!

>>8233253

I only consider the area contained within our light cone to be the universe.

>not really I'm just being silly

>>8233255

Fancy a bum?

File: 1443443199681.png (345KB, 1346x1086px) Image search: [Google]

345KB, 1346x1086px

>>8233312

Counterfactual definiteness is the ability to assume the existence of objects, and properties of objects, even when they have not been measured. It kills my mind even trying to comprehend the implications , utterly god like.

File: image.jpg (170KB, 1021x944px) Image search: [Google]

170KB, 1021x944px

>>8232671
This.

the romans equated their god SATURN to the original jewish/canaanite king of the gods, EL.

MOLOCH, spelled MLK in hebrew since there are only consonants, really means king. so to identify EL as the king god would be written EL MLK. still, an acceptable way for jews to write the name of their god would be EL MLK. they worshipped the moloch god, or MOLOCH.

2000 years later we finally go to that astronomical object the romans thought was their god SATURN and what do we find?

EL/SATURN/MOLOCH's esoteric 6 pointed figure, also known as Solomon's Seal, or what modern jews call "The Star of David," the symbol of their EL MLK worshipping religion

>>8233329

Well, if inflation is confirmed then we live in a multiverse.

Pretty much any form of the many worlds interpretations throws counterfactual definiteness out the window.

So maybe it has its limits.

>>8233269
>Where's your proof that there's literally no INTERNAL work?
I can only offer deductive arguments.

Take the closest analog to the human brain: the computer. Everything a computer does is either due to input or pre-programming - which itself is based on prior input. Now name ways in which the brain is dissimilar to an electronic computer. Pick any of those that could conceivably give the brain the ability to essentially create information out of nothing.

I can't, at least without resorting to some spiritual bullshit like "the soul" or "a spark of consciousness".

>>8233320
>>and environmental programming you have recieved over the course of your life.

What I meant is that there are internal factors. That's my bad on writing.

>>8233350
This is true, proving the existance of multiverse would in turn prove that we literally know nothing of science and physics in its governing all universes in its entirety. We would only know those laws affecting our immediate universe. Such a discovery would be rather depressing man

File: 20160711_042425.jpg (284KB, 510x528px) Image search: [Google]

284KB, 510x528px

>>8232652
>HAARP
>garbage

>>8233359
It would be great for mathematics though

>>8232740
Sounds like the civilization that came before us used all the coal and trees and then glassed the planet

>>8233355

Yes, it's called epigenetics; I'll tell you all about it if you like.

I don't think stating that something is 'demonstrably wrong' is an unintended ambiguity.

>I'm watching you

>>8233359

I think it'd be a right laugh; we all take ourselves too seriously.

Plus this:

>>8233364

Math would explode with researchers developing models for alternative universes, spaces and physical laws.

>>8233364
nice trips m8

And oh it would! It would make everything considerably elegant. :)

>>8233372
I feel like the existence of humanity would be just as significant as a floating rock in the Oort cloud. So i prefer this doesn't become proved so i feel like i have some kind of meaning kek

Deijavu

>>8233326
Why couldn't you intercept an RKE? If you know it's moving at x speed and when you saw it it was at y location why can't you plot it's course

>>8233312
To be honest the most likely explanation is simply that due to interstellar distances and the timescales involved it's astronomically unlikely for two civilizations of comparable technological level to be active within such distances from each other that would enable them to meaningfully communicate. In other words, civilizations stay in the space opera stage for periods of time that are completely miniscule compared to the time it took for them to evolve into intelligent beings in the first place. Any aliens close enough to us to communicate might have been dead for 300 million years, which would still be a fairly short time in terms of Earth's age, or they might be so advanced that they don't give a shit about us because we compare to them like ants do to us.

>>8232839
Bible global flood. Checkm8 atheistz

>>8233369
>>I'm watching you

I meant that I forgot to type something, are you bein intentionally dense?

I am, of course, referring to something OTHER than genetics are enviroments.

With AlphaGo there is not a single tactical game a computer can't beat a human in.

our species is done for good.

>>8233387
besides games regarding depth recognition of paintings and pictures :^)

File: 564654656.jpg (28KB, 394x391px) Image search: [Google]

28KB, 394x391px

>>8233377

Is senpai attempting to apply meaning, a.k.a emotional association to the external reality?

Meaning originates in the brain; it is an intrinsic part of the emotional interface on which we rely when attempting to interpret the world around us, in relation to personal goal pursuit and our relationships to others.

While it may be useful for individualistic and communal pursuits, it would be silly to attempt to apply it to the objective study of reality.

Don't be a silly sausage, senpai.

File: w2343234.jpg (41KB, 600x458px) Image search: [Google]

41KB, 600x458px

>>8233384

>to something OTHER than genetics are enviroments.

What's that then, anon?

>I'm going to bum you

>>8233381

This would mean our destruction is inevitable. I.e. future great filter theory

>>8232789
I like you

>>8233392
I'm not applying evidence found in our external reality to a scene of meaning! I'm merely using our external reality to justify my personal individualistic scene of meaning. :^)

>>8233278

I think it's pretty amazing. We can not really see but rather "feel" single photons meaning even a single photon of some quantum procesd might be perceived by us and influence us in some way

>>8233406
Yeah ikr its honestly such an eye opening idea and experiment. That is truly a world that we have yet to even scratch the surface in understanding, its so beautiful

>>8232997
>You literally cannot prove that and you never will be able to.
That's ultimately for figuratively everything.

But that's a fatalistic approach with zero utility.

You can have a high degree of certainity that our computers are just like computers and not random.

You can also just assume that literally everything is 100% random and every state of the universe is just based on random chance but we can't do shit with shit like that.

File: image.jpg (7KB, 183x172px) Image search: [Google]

7KB, 183x172px

>>8233400

I'll use my external reality to justify your individualistic sense of meaning.

>>8233397
Well, not necessarily. We might advance sufficiently to cease operating in a scale recognizable to civilizations such as our current one. We might decide that instead of scaling our civilization up and deal with all that mega-engineering bullshit, we should scale down to the micro or nano-level where the energy requirements for doing anything are lower. We might create a virtual reality indistinguishable from this one in resolution and make our own rules instead of playing with the unfavorable cards we were dealt with in this reality. There's a myriad ways of how and why an intelligent species might back off from an interstellar mode of existence, or indeed, never pursue one in the first place.

>>8233105
Or maybe it's just chance.

>>8233414
Talk dirty to me ,baby ;) sex me now

File: image.jpg (15KB, 236x299px) Image search: [Google]

15KB, 236x299px

>>8233420

>>8233416

>"we"

You're forgetting that we do whatever the fuck we want. For every advocate who says we should retreat to nano levels and virtual reality there will be someone who wants to literally fuck the most outer stars of the universe and try to rip into the multiverse

>>8233387
>With AlphaGo there is not a single tactical game a computer can't beat a human in.
What about strategic games?

>>8233139
>>8233203
>>8233156
>we live in a universe consisting entirely of rational interconnected laws, all of the non-scientific "laws" of reality are perfect for allowing matter and life to be formed
>but surely this does not suggest that we live in a single rational universe, it must mean that we just got the absolute best universe out of a completely random 1 in infinity chance logically consisting of infinitely more universes that would have never become stable because they did not have our perfect set of rational laws
Actually this is where modern science has venture hilariously into wild and irrational speculation. To avoid answering the question of why our universe has a perfect set of rational laws dictating reality, science invokes infinity (a number it is otherwise ALWAYS delighted to say does not exist) and randomness that is wholly irrational and can never be observed. By building so many theories on this kind of speculation and avoiding the real questions science is effectively becoming it's own faith-based religion.

File: image.jpg (58KB, 500x500px) Image search: [Google]

58KB, 500x500px

>>8233433

>there will be someone who wants to literally fuck the most outer stars of the universe and try to rip into the multiverse

>>8233433
Which is the reason why destroying ourselves is still the most likely outcome in the bunch. It's literally impossible to maintain any kind of political or cultural cohesion across multiple star systems, and the amount of memetic divergence bound to happen in the timescales necessary to build even a very small interstellar civilization virtually ensures internal conflict.

>>8233452
Can this irrational world explanations be a byproduct of the approach to the limits of human understanding and comprehension?

>>8233030
What is uncertainty? What does it mean in material terms to exhibit cognitive dissonance, where a mind is dedicated to multiple incompatible thoughts and holds them all to be true? Why are these not clear examples of superimposing taking place in the mind?

>>8233433
>who wants to literally fuck the most outer stars of the universe and try to rip into the multiverse
tfw someone would develop wormhole technology just to rip the universe a new asshole

>>8233452

>To avoid answering the question of why our universe has a perfect set of rational laws dictating reality, science invokes infinity

Our strongest hypothesis for the formation of our universe is inflation, which if confirmed will indicate that we live in a multiverse.

Nobody is invoking infinity; however, infinity may be implied by several hypotheses.

Inflation happens to be one of these.

>By building so many theories on this kind of speculation and avoiding the real questions science

The multiverse is a natural implication of the inflation hypothesis.

The BICEP experiment is attempting to detect polarised radiation signals that would confirm inflation.

If inflation is confirmed then the multiverse hypothesis is confirmed.

We're asking the question about how the universe formed and conducting experiments in order to confirm or falsify hypothetical models.

The multiverse is related to real questions in science, whether you like it or not.

>>8233467

>Why are these not clear examples of superimposing taking place in the mind?

LOL

Amazingly dense.

File: identified.jpg (230KB, 598x792px) Image search: [Google]

230KB, 598x792px

>>8233479

>>8233447
english is not my main language, I think I meant strategic games.
I wanted to imply that strategic components of sports can also be considered mastered ortough the physical part cannot be matched by robotics (yet)

I shouldn't have put an adjective before game anyway.

>>8232837
everything is

File: image.jpg (75KB, 808x606px) Image search: [Google]

75KB, 808x606px

>>8233489

If our thoughts are to be subject to quantum law, then individual neurones must be able to be in a superposition of firing and not firing.

This would mean that around a million sodium atoms would have to be in two places at once: both inside and outside the neurone.

Quantum superpositions can only exist providing that they are not 'observed' or interacted with.

So how long could a neurone exist in a superposition, without being interacted with?

Approximately 10^-20 or ten billionths of a trillionth of a second.

That's how long it would typically take before a random water molecule bumped into one of the sodium atoms and led to decoherence.

In light of this, you would have to be able to think 10,000,000,000,000 thoughts per second in order for your thoughts to correspond to a quantum computation.

And that, anon, is why you are amazingly dense.

File: sgvgfffsd.jpg (38KB, 435x426px) Image search: [Google]

38KB, 435x426px

>>8233347
>scientists face when trying to explain this

>>8232720
Bacteria.

>>8233499
>I think I meant strategic games.
I have serious doubts that it would have much of a chance then

Games like go are pretty simple in comparison to a lot of strategic games.

File: images.jpg (19KB, 500x378px) Image search: [Google]

19KB, 500x378px

>>8233833

>>8232720
why do those worms love that block so much

>>8233940
Fair point, I think we're yet to see a computer beat a Korean at Starcraft.

>>8232740
gamma ray burst

>>8232943
lol moron

>>8232652
Supervoids

I just imagine they are super advanced civilizations sucking all the energy out of stars.

Also anything related to advanced intelligence in the universe that are hostile to all life and spreading.

File: image.gif (906KB, 500x282px) Image search: [Google]

906KB, 500x282px

>>8233467

>where a mind is dedicated to multiple incompatible thoughts and holds them all to be true

Only one of which is permitted incorporation into an individual's world view.

>What does it mean in material terms to exhibit cognitive dissonance

It means that humans 'attempt' to hold compatible thoughts.

The material process of which have been documented via fmri.

>Why are these not clear examples of superimposing taking place in the mind?

Because our brains are not quantum computers.

See >>8233549

>>8234443

Pleb.

>>8234443
See >>8233489

File: image.jpg (91KB, 533x693px) Image search: [Google]

91KB, 533x693px

>>8234439
That could work.

>>8234443
>pic related

>>8234444
>Checked

Yeah, I imagine them to be giant space demons; destroyers of worlds.

Holographic universe and computational physics models.

>>8234473
argument against what?

>>8234499
Against anything.

>>8234503
well, exactly. If there is nothing to argue against, one does not need to make an argument

>>8234507
There's an entire thread's worth of arguments, none of which have been refuted despite numerous attempts.

The 'debate' ended here >>8233549

You have also failed to refute a single argument.

I'm not even that anon; I just know a retard when I see one.

No one's mentioned Church-Turing thesis?

>tfw humans will never be able to understand arbitrary algorithms

>>8234327
See the water covering the ground?

They climb it so they don't drown in the waterlogged soil.

>>8233489
Don't post your sophist cult leader here.

Thanks.

>>8234509
>There's an entire thread's worth of arguments
sure
But not every post is responding to the whole thread. The post was replying to the post it was replying to.
Also, this isnt even a "debate me" thread.

Poincare recurrence and Bolzmann brains

>>8234559
That post was part of a chain posts making arguments that have not been refuted despite numerous attempts.

If you follow the replies up or down the thread, you'll be able to see them for yourself.

And yes I know, hence I wrote 'debate'.

>>8234567
>making arguments that have not been refuted
For example?
just looks like a back and forth between anons to me. None of them were outstandingly right or wrong

File: image.jpg (480KB, 1175x1554px) Image search: [Google]

480KB, 1175x1554px

>>8234559
>>8234567

I am that anon and I'll help direct you to the chain of arguments.

It begins here:

>>8232864
>>8232873
>>8232891
>>8232905
>>8232914
>>8232922
>>8232929
>>8232940
>>8232943

It then moves to:

>>8232997
>>8233030
>>8233467
>>8233479
>>8233489
>>8233549

And that's where it ended.

>>8234573

See >>8234575

The last counter-argument remains unrefuted.

>>8232835
There are little things in between the things that we used to do the experiments

>>8233505
>buying into the empiricism meme
How is religious life treating you?

>>8234575
>>8234577
so
>>8233549
is what you are talking about.
The point is "your mind is not a quantum computer"
I dont know why you expect an argument against this

>>8232886
This is the scariest part, if you are just the result of a representation of consciousness via the neurons arranged in your brain, what is stopping your laptop from representing consciousness?

Albeit not as complex a yours

Now we're getting into animal rights controversy

>>8234587

I don't expect an argument against this; my last post was a counter-argument against the notion of the human brain being a quantum computer.

The original argument was that the human brain is an organic machine that performs digital and analogue computations on an input-output/stimulus-response basis, and that free will is merely an illusion.

The chain of posts represent attempts to refute this notion and counter-arguments reinforcing it.

The last counter-argument reinforcing this notion remains unrefuted.

That's it.

>/x/-tier garbage like chemtrails, HAARP, UFOs certainly not welcome
Actually they all exist...

>>8234584
Well, if we can't measure it at all, then it has no relevance to our life what so ever because it doesn't influence even one tiny thing.

>>8234584

How's epistemology 101 treating you?

>>8232835
fugg

>>8234408
For a real time test you'd first have to get good robotic hands to test to see if the AI can out think the human player.
Even managing that there's just an insane amount of more variables in computer games.

>>8232805
But what is creeping you out about this?

File: 1466815334936.jpg (13KB, 246x232px) Image search: [Google]

13KB, 246x232px

>a big trans-Neptunian planet could explain weird orbits of many smaller objects their

>no one knows what caused the Ordovician-Silurian mass extinction

>white holes should exist according to general relativity

>Cosmic microwave background radiation has a pattern

>>8234408

A computer would absolutely slaughter any human at Starcraft.

>>8233940

Simple in comparison to what? You would have to enroll at a reputable school at an incredibly young age and devote your entire life to go if you want a chance of playing at the highest levels. It is the most competitive game outside of sports.

>>8233238
This. I think it's an arbitrary distinction. Your brain has different modules or sites for different processes anyway, if you cut one or more off the others that's just what happens.

>>8234634
there*

>>8234638
>Simple in comparison to what?
To computer games like starcraft.
Simple mechanics, few variables in comparison.

>You would have to enroll at a reputable school at an incredibly young age and devote your entire life to go if you want a chance of playing at the highest levels. It is the most competitive game outside of sports.
Yeah it's a very hard and competitive game, but it's still simple.

>A computer would absolutely slaughter any human at Starcraft.
No they're easily overwhelmed since there are way too many ways to approach the game.
To really test the AI though you'd first have to get it to physically use a mouse and keyboard through robotic hands.

>>8234595
I mean, they do exist, there's no denying that. It's just that chemtrails are more properly called contrails and are made of water vapor, HAARP is a research program, and UFOs are, as the name implies, "unidentified."

>>8234629

Nothing.

It leaves me disillusioned and apathetic, which I thought was somewhat in line with the topic of the thread.

>>8233060
Wtf it's the result of things being manipulated inside a vaccume, the negative pressure is being spread across any surface area, colliding surface areas in order to have the largest uninterrupted surface area

Denser materials have more "gravity" because they have more microscopic surface area

>>8232652
The fact that scientists suspect a Neptune-sized object could be at the outer reaches of the solar system, undetected to this day, implies that a smaller object with much greater mass, say a neutron star, could be headed our way from not too terribly far off and we wouldn't even know it until it screws with our orbits. A rogue black hole could turn our sun into a gaseous disc and swallow its contents, or at the very least, take us out of our habitable zone and fry or freeze us alive.

>>8234708
except you would see a neutron star or black hole because they emit radiation, and they'll cause even more of a disturbance on the way here as they rip through the interstellar dust that floats through our local group

>>8234708
Info?

>>8234725
>>8234708
This

>>8234722

This.

>>8234722
>black holes emit radiation

oh fug they got a new feature

>>8234736
>new
Are you posting from the 70s?

>>8234722
The interstellar dust is very diffuse. We don't exactly live in a nebula, and we very frequently observe right past it.

>>8234740
Black body radiation is something we've calculated but never actually observed in nature. In order to detect black holes, we either use its gravitational effects or the bursts of radiation that only emit from its two poles. The same is true for neutron stars.

If a neutron star were to come by, it could have a mass of around one to three suns. That's not a terribly great amount of disturbance in our local group of stars. We get virtually zero gravitational effects from our nearest stars, the Alpha Centauri system, so I see no reason to suspect that a neutron star would make a very noisy approach. It's very hot, sure, but at the same time, remember that it's on the size scale of an asteroid, and outside of the Oort cloud. As long as it doesn't flash us its pulsar, it's a terribly stealthy object.

However, if such an object were nearby, it'd likely follow a path similar to the other stars in the neighborhood instead of ramming into its neighbors. That's just conservation of momentum from when it was formed.

>>8234760
there are also accretion discs and you might also look into neutron stars some more, if you think they could "sneak" into our solar system

>>8234708
What if the Neptune-sized object isn't a Neptune-sized object but actually a very small black hole that our solar system is orbiting from afar?

I'd welcome our new black hole overlord senpai.

>>8234763
Check again. Accretion discs are formed from the remnants of other stars, which, again, aren't always present.

>>8234770

Tru dat.

>>8234770
Well sure, radiation emitted by a black hole is still no "new feature"

>>8234775
>Black body radiation is something we've calculated but never actually observed in nature

I mean, that statement isn't entirely true unless you consider the black-body radiation being from black holes. We've never actually seen Hawking radiation. It's no new feature, but it's still just one we suspect is likely there.

>>8234782
I would consider radiation coming from the accretion disc and/or poles of the black hole as comming from the black hole in the context of detecting them.

File: elephants.jpg (71KB, 600x400px) Image search: [Google]

71KB, 600x400px

>>8232652
If dolphins or whales had the physiology to manipulate the world well enough to actually experiment with the world around them, they could be on the road to human-like intelligence.

A similar principle goes for the octopus, except that it's missing the social ability to pass information between each other and offspring. If we weren't social animals, the octopus would probably be the smartest animal alive.

Elephants and some primates may have some ability to develop free thought and culture in the next hundred or so generations. However, they'll always be under our thumb, driveling idiots in our presence. It seems a sad existence where your species could be the great one if it wasn't undermined by the presence of gods or destroyed by said gods before you even got the chance.

File: 6a00d83451c0bf69e200e54f7944488834-800wi.jpg (118KB, 475x445px) Image search: [Google]

118KB, 475x445px

>>8232652
That fact that /sci/ is full of mentally retarded babies that don't know what real science is even is.

>>8234793
Yeah this.
I thought a lot about this. I dont know if it makes me feel humble or god-like. Some of the smarter animals must know, how superior we are. Or imagine the Neanderthals slowly realizing that there is no way to outsmart the homo sapiens

>>8234793
>>8234812

What if we could speak to dolphins one day?

>>8232720
>its unsettling that science has a hard time determining what happened 250,000,000 years ago.

While science is arguably the greatest human enterprise, people assume it is literally godlike magic that is as confident in its claim to truth as the bible is.

There is nothing in science that claims it is able to reveal every single truth ever.

>>8234837
Arent there already some neat experiments with simple sign languages and shit? Nothing beyond extremely basic communication, tho.
There is also quite interesting stuff with apes.

Iirc, there is one thing they never witnessed: An animal asking a question

>>8234850
Asking a question implies that the animal knows that you have some piece of information that it doesn't have access to itself, implying a theory of mind. I think we've only ever tested it on higher primates, though. Other candidates include ravens, elephants, and higher marine mammals. However, that's all a question of how we would construct a suitable experiment to test it.

>>8234859
>implying a theory of mind
exactly!
But thats what I want to know

>>8232839
So you're telling me there's some sort of global reaccuring catasrophic event that nodoby knows what is or what it is caused by?

Aliums fukken confirmed, the mayans were right all along

File: premina239.jpg (455KB, 727x1022px) Image search: [Google]

455KB, 727x1022px

>>8234708
Remina is coming for us

>>8232789
Planck-Autism

>>8232880
honeycomb?

>>8232810
Mine hates me most of the time and is ashamed of the decisions I make. What I used to think were intrusive thoughts have been explained, partially, by this information. Kinda neat. You ever have an introspective stream of consciousness conversation with yourself? Literally just speaking outloud without putting any thought or effort into it? I'll give myself the most honest, truthful self evaluations at those times. I'll also do it to get through a difficult problem or while studying. It's like putting aside your awareness and self control to let your brain just straight up work, do it's thing, make shit happen. It's a strange state of being. Kind of like meditation.

>>8234859

Right. Wasn't it so with this gorilla who they teached sign language and she never ever stated a question beyond "where is my food"?

>>8234984
Maybe it has something to do with the way they actually learn those sign languages. They basically see them as tricks to get food as a reward. I think some animals are curious but dont realize the potential communication they could do with those simple languages.

>>8234859
I think there were some examples where dolphins passed a false belief test, strongly indicating they have a theory of mind

Gamma Ray Bursts. We have some idea why they exist. But no way to predict or see them coming. And they may possibly me responsible for certain unexplained mass extinctions on Earth and might possibly be the "ultimate weapon" used by advanced alien civilizations to wipe out others in answer to the Fermi paradox for all we know.

Forget relativistic missiles, you cannot travel faster than the gamma ray burst.

>>8234984
>Wasn't it so with this gorilla who they teached sign language and she never ever stated a question beyond "where is my food"?

Washoe the chimpanzee is claimed to have signed "water" and "bird" when seeing a swan for the first time. There are possibly some rather profound implications of that.

>>8232805
>>8232864
>>8232864
>Whose consciousness are we talking about here?
>how can I tell that others are conscious?
>who defines consciousness?

File: 85757466474.jpg (485KB, 805x1024px) Image search: [Google]

485KB, 805x1024px

>>8233361
>UFOs
>garbage

OP is a shame for the scientific spirit

File: Mars-Rover-630x425.jpg (82KB, 630x425px) Image search: [Google]

82KB, 630x425px

>>8234850
>>8234859
dogs do that of sorts. they encounter a problem they cant solve, they will call for humans to solve it.

File: ball.jpg (711KB, 1600x1200px) Image search: [Google]

711KB, 1600x1200px

>>8232652
Witch's broom. What the hell are those balls. Also disgusting galls on leaves.

Anything QM. Even experts find it mysterious. Sure, they understand the mathematics, but what it means? Mystery.

>>8235210
They're caused by disease or attacking organisms like nematodes (gotta love those wormy fucks).

My step dad is a botanist. He explained it to me once.

>>8235132

>Whose consciousness are we talking about here?

Human consciousness.

>how can I tell that others are conscious?

Theory of mind.

How exactly does that work?

We don't currently know.

>who defines consciousness?

Define it however you like.

>>8235225
the thread isn't about mysteries, it's about creepy things

>>8232826
Ellaborate?! m8 are you saying enthropy is exponential? Ayy spooked

>>8235242
Then post your face

>>8232839
And people still deny the existence of aliums

>>8232896
I'm confused, given that matter would be randomly spread out at the birth of the Universe, wouldn't it make sense that some of it would clump up just like galaxies do? Isn't the GREATO attractor just an abnormally large cluster?

>>8233380
I'm assuming by the time you've observed it you're already dead

File: gattaca3[1].jpg (62KB, 685x385px) Image search: [Google]

62KB, 685x385px

CRISPR/CAS-9

gattaca is literally right around the corner and you have globalist elites saying "nothing to worry about goy its just some fancy stuff for wiping out disease!" at the same time as scientists saying "this changes EVERYTHING, we need to be careful"

>>8233326
>the species in charge of any given planet will be highly intelligent,
Tell that to the dinosaurs. They ruled about 2000 times longer than humans have even been around, and they accomplished nothing intellectually.

I don't see why so many assume that, given the time, life will evolve human-like intelligence. There was no need for it in the cretaceous, so no creature ever developed the rudiments of wisdom. We evolved hands to hang on to trees, and they happened to be good at experimenting with and learning from the world. We evolved to be pack animals, developing communication in ever-finer detail to make for more successful hunts and smarter children. These two adaptations happened independently and in a world that didn't hinder them with a much mightier earlier form like the dinosaur. Intelligence requires not just time, but the necessity.

>>8232807
I watched the other video and it said that brain cells rewrite their DNA all the time and the genome is distinct from the surrounding cells.

is this where memory comes from? Is genetic memory a thing? Not hereditary, since sperm and egg cells probably aren't undergoing the same mutations, but could memory be programmed through gene therapy?

>>8236257
>They ruled
By that logic bacteria are and have always been ruling the planed.

File: 1469645527963.jpg (156KB, 727x1000px) Image search: [Google]

156KB, 727x1000px

>>8233347
>six pointed star with eye in the middle

>>8232652
Thus we cannot escape the fact that the world we know is constructed on order (and thus in such a way as to be able) to see itself. Spencer-Brown

A long time ago (approx. 3 billion years) in a galaxy far far away (roughly five times the observable universe)

There were a local cluster of a very star dense region. Each of those stars were massive and contained a number of habitable planets.

On those planets simultaneously evolved a hominid species and a million years later all those planets formed an intersolar alliance.

To this day we dont know if they were anhilated, and by what.
Or if they are coming for us, just beyond the edge of our observable part

>>8236257
without highly advanced predators, we would never have developed highly advanced senses
try again please

>>8236261
> Assassins Creed is real

All cells rewrite/cut of pieces of their DNA. Even twins vill have different DNA a few years after birth.

Sperm and egg cells are different in the sense that they somehow repair their DNA much better than the rest of their cells, keeping the mutations to a minimum.

In conclusion - DNA changes due to EXPERIENCE, not due to memory...

UFOs are fking real ya cunt
one day you will learn the truth and have to reconsider your entire worthless life

>>8236367
Highly advanced senses mean shit when it comes to our intelligence. Bats hear better, mantis shrimp see better, mole rats feel better, bees taste better, and dogs smell better. Don't reduce our intelligence to sensory input. It's all about being able to manipulate the world, learn from that manipulation, and pass it on to other members of our species.

>>8236384
our species survives only because it can physically function, manipulate objects, make tools, travel etc...
A highly intelligent albeit disabled species would never have left Africa. Please, try harder next time and think before you vomit garbage everywhere.

>>8232805
Pls anons give me something to read with a theme like this.I'm really curious

>>8236220
my nigga! learned about it this year in my introduction to cellular biology. saw gattaca some months ago as well, got scared by the movie. but didn't combine the two things. you're probably right, this has a big chance of disrupting society and no one seems to be talking about it.

>>8234589
It will probably be conscious but differently.not less.

Also why having a consciousness should give you rights?
I understand animals have some sort of consciousness but still like to eat them

>>8236389
If a species can't physically function, it wouldn't have evolved our form of intelligence in the first place. That's what I'm saying; there are prerequisites for intelligence that aren't just waiting a really long time and having advanced predators around.

Hell, I'd wager to guess that anything besides high degrees of learning, manipulating, and communicating aren't even necessary for intelligence. A highly advanced race that never left Africa could be very much possible. It's not like there's some special land area amount that needs to be inhabited. Earth has limited land area in the first place.

>>8236429
grey aliens are small and fragile and communicate telepthatically, so I'll give you that 1 m8

>>8233354
Don't people against determinism use some argument about how quantum physics is random or some shit (correct me I I say something stupid or am a giant faggot ) .
I obviously don't know much about science shit but the argument I think is that due to quantum randomness it can be argued that the universe is not deterministic.

>>8236455

Right. The universe isn't deterministic. What you will do is not determined.

But it is not "you", the thing which feels and which observes and the thing you hold most precious in life.

Statistical randomness of the universe does not give you free will. How should it?

Everything you do is governed by physically chemical laws, like mixing enthalpy and increase of entropy. There is nothing in this chemical universe at the nanoscale which permits a free will

>>8232946
Yesterday I concluded that we don't live in a deterministic universe. How you ask...
Well, since I'm the smartest man ever and I exist now, then it means that in the future I haven't gone back in time to destroy humanity before it has a chance to fuck up everything.
(Or that just creates one of those spliting time paradoxes or I'm not the smart and we do live in a deterministic universe)
either way, nothing reality matters

>>8232652
The problem of induction.

Caffeine is legal.

>>8236536

This.

Fucked my shit right up on 1g a day.

>>8236546
It's availability to myself as a teenager only lead to destruction and dependency.

File: 55464521336.png (402KB, 960x619px) Image search: [Google]

402KB, 960x619px

>>8236520
>mfw literally everything we learned from science could be wrong

>>8234649
You can simply build a virtual interface for the AI and then show it as much games as possible with labeling the correct moves as positive stimulus and bad moves as negative ones and i guarantee you that that AI will beat every Starcraft player that will ever exist. A human can't compete with the experience such a system can get through going to all these games.

>>8236560
>u cant kno nuffin
>u cant even kno that u cant no nuffin

>>8236471
This isn't a fact. Only if accept the Copenhagen interpretation, like the fellow anon before me wrote in this thread. In fact, Schroedinger, one of the founders of this interpretation accredited the probalistic nature of quantum mechanics to the process of observing, i. e. it is only random because of measure inaccuracies.

>>8236567
Sorry, it was Heisenberg, not Schroedinger, who held different believe than Bohr in terms of Determinism

>>8236563
>>8234649

Beating the best humans at Starcraft is orders of magnitude less complicated than beating the best humans at go.

Again, a human would stand absolutely no chance against a computer in Starcraft. A computer could aggregate every single game of Starcraft ever played between humans in the first 5 minutes of developing a strategy. A computer could play against itself, in 1 hour, more games than have ever been played of Starcraft between humans. A computer could continue this process indefinitely assigning values to winning strategies and would beat any human within several hours and construct a Nash equilibrium within several weeks.

>>8236567

I had quantum chemistry in university in 2014. That's approx. 100 years more research in the qm sciences. Pretty certain even heisenberg did not know everything and the standard model is a combination of every major scientific advancement in this field.

Heisenberg uncertainty does not come from empiric data but from rigorous math

>>8236263
They do. Bacteria have always been the biggest threat to human life, massively outnumber us and we need them to live in the first place.

>>8235209
I think there's a small nuance there. Dogs "know" that humans are more capable than themselves, or at least they learn it early on. They "know" that anything they can't do, a human probably can. They're probably observant enough to see that a human is capable of opening a door, even if they themselves can't understand how we do it. Interestingly, cats show the opposite behavior. Bringing you game they killed because they seem to think you're incapable of hunting.

>>8236620
>Bringing you game they killed because they seem to think you're incapable of hunting.

Or ya know, gratitude.


Fuck you you cunt. Cats are the best and you are retarded waste of carbon based life.

>>8236597
I'm not attacking the validity of the standard model, im just saying, that we don't know for certain, wether the universe is deterministic or not. For now this is a question one can only philosophize about and to underline this, i pointed out that one of the founders of the copenhagen Interpretation, which states that the universe isn't deterministic and which is learned all over the world, doesn't make any clame about the nature of our world and adresses the uncertainty aspect in Quantum physics to measurement inaccuracies, thoroughly different to Bohr, who states our world is in fact random at the lowest level.

>>8233121
>It just explains the universes fined tuned nature and for the existence of humanity
Except this universe is absolutely hostile to humanity, and life in general.

If some higher power was making a reality just for us, I don't think we'd be sitting on a speck of dust that could be wiped out at any moment, in a universe filled terrifying amounts of energy and made largely of insta-death freezing quasi-vacuum. In other words, one in which our existence seems so absolutely miraculous as to trigger such comments.

>>8233312
Simpler explanation is that any race that's going to be around long enough to be space fairing, is going to abandon any infinite growth mechanism in order not to use up or destroy its own planet before it does so.

Thus, any space faring race is going to have a population cap, and thus have no motivation to run off and colonize the entire galaxy. At most, they'll have a home planet, and one or two backup worlds in other systems. Beyond that, the only way to further ensure their survival, would be to repeat the process in another galaxy.

Any such successful race would also likely be so unfathomably resource efficient that there'd be no evidence of their existence from any real cosmological distance.

On the other hand, that would indicate that, if we don't get our act together in short order, we're going to be among the, likely many, failed species, as all our future projections are based on infinite growth models (so much so, that we think the Fermi Paradox is a thing, and thus can barely imagine a civilization without one).

It's kinda scary but I kinda like the thought that a nearby large Gamma Ray Burst could kill literally every single human on the planet in the shortest possible apocalypse, something like 40ms between people doing normal things in their lives and then every single human is dead.

And because the GRB is travelling at C it's literally impossible for anything to warn us that everyone is about to die doing whatever the fuck they're doing at the time the GRB hits us

>>8236824
So before it's too late we need to invent brain uploading and figure out how to fit a human on a vacuum tube computer that could resist such dose of radiation, obviously.

>>8236824
Could a gamma ray burst kill people on the other side of the planet though?
>inb4 flat Earth

>>8236923
If it was powerful enough surely

Thinking about it reminded me of another fun fact.
Observing a supernova at a distance of 1AU would be more intense than observing the Tsar Bomba go off with your eyeball pressed against the surface of the bomb.
Also supernovas can produce enough neutrinos to kill you with neutrino radiation at that distance, despite how unlikely it is for an individual neutrino to hurt you

>>8236367
NTG, but most social/intellectual advancement among the primates, seems to come about due to scarcity, prompting increasingly complex methods of scavenging and communication. Similarly, most evolutionary changes are not driven by the predatory/prey conflicts, but by environmental changes. (Which would include sea life coming to live on land, and wolf-like things doing the reverse.)

>>8232916
maybe you are just stuck on an organic framework being a thing
maybe it's not even a thing
maybe everything can be said to be conscious, to some degree

maybe language is just holding you back

>>8236953
Yeeah, but there's nothing that close going Nova, ever. On the other hand Betelgeuse is collapsing, some 600 light years away, which *should* be safe enough, but these super nova don't always explode uniformly, so there's a very slight chance it might still cook us. As it's 600 light years away, there's also a good chance it already exploded, and by the time we can see it, well, it'll be too late.

As for alien weapons, gamma ray bursts are scary, relativistic weapons are scary. You *might* see the latter, but you wouldn't be able to do anything about it. Even scarier still are artificial black holes, which you can neither see coming nor do dick about if you did, and maybe easier to make and direct than you're thinking.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x32AkL6HPfc

>>8232805
>>8236393
If you guys like sci-fi check out Blindsight by Peter Watts. The author is a biologist and the book is a first contact story where the aliens lack consciousness.

>>8236560
We might have reached a local maxima but our future ASI overlords will help us ascend.

>>8236978
Indeed extremely unlikely

Eta Carinae might get us

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eta_Carinae#Possible_effects_on_Earth

File: e108_2.png (1MB, 800x527px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 800x527px

>>8232652
Has no one mentioned false-vacuum?

(No one has mentioned false-vacuum.)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_vacuum#Vacuum_metastability_event

Nothing like having the whole universe fall apart at the speed of light from one or more random points.

Though I suppose it's a quick, merciful, death that you can't see coming nor do anything about.

>>8236566
OHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH

>>8236824

Nice and I am sitting here with diarrhea

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boltzmann_brain

>>8232812
Fucking lol. I hope this is bait.

>>8232822
There needs to be disclaimers and more content-creator responsibility. But to eliminate all of that stuff would only encourage an even more science illiterate society.

That in the past hundreds of millions of years, the 2nd most destructive volcano of that period occurred only 70,000 years ago.

/shouldn't be alive

>>8232789
Readit is a great app

File: 1433735051344.jpg (25KB, 460x603px) Image search: [Google]

25KB, 460x603px

>>8236369
Oh my fucking god. The bullshit you see on /sci/ nowadays is just astounding. This board is 18+. Get the fuck out you underage retard.
>>8236582
>A computer could play against itself, in 1 hour, more games than have ever been played of Starcraft between humans.

Are you running the AI on a Star Trek computer? Think before you write faggot.

>>8236701
If some higher power was making a reality just for us, I don't think we'd be sitting on a speck of dust that.. bla bla bla... In other words, one in which our existence seems so absolutely miraculous as to trigger such comments.

Do you even realize what you're saying? God you're so fucking stupid dude. A creationist would just laugh at you and thank you for affirming that life is a miracle and the bible is the TRUTH.

>>8236977
>maybe everything can be said to be conscious, to some degree

>>>/x/
Btw next time you see an aborted fetus flushed down a toilet, I want you to think about that fetus' consciousness really really hard.

>>8236986
>spoiling one of the most important elements right from the beginning

Great going there, asshole. It's a great book though, can definitely recommend. Not flawless, but still probably the best sci-fi book I've ever read.

i think it may very be a explainable possibility in an alternate universe that evry time we sleep we die and woke in a paraller universe

>>8233381
so many trains passses the tracks .. how many time they colide at a point

File: image (5).jpg (12KB, 391x239px) Image search: [Google]

12KB, 391x239px

>>8238260
>Are you running the AI on a Star Trek computer? Think before you write faggot.
If you omitted the graphics component, maybe. Certainly a couple of networked computers could. They wouldn't learn anything from it nor improve though. (At least, I don't think the Starcraft AI has such a function - dunno - never actually played it.)

>>8238260
>If some higher power was making a reality just for us, I don't think we'd be sitting on a speck of dust that.. bla bla bla... In other words, one in which our existence seems so absolutely miraculous as to trigger such comments.
>Do you even realize what you're saying? God you're so fucking stupid dude. A creationist would just laugh at you and thank you for affirming that life is a miracle and the bible is the TRUTH.
They are going to say that regardless of the argument... But the fact that the universe is so hostile to life, and there's so little life in it, does rather suggest, if there is a creator, he either doesn't give a fuck about us, or is far, far, from omniscient and omnipotent, and very limited to the tools and methods he can apply to create it.

Also, damn you are pic related.