[a / b / c / d / e / f / g / gif / h / hr / k / m / o / p / r / s / t / u / v / vg / vr / w / wg] [i / ic] [r9k / s4s / vip / qa] [cm / hm / lgbt / y] [3 / aco / adv / an / asp / bant / biz / cgl / ck / co / diy / fa / fit / gd / hc / his / int / jp / lit / mlp / mu / n / news / out / po / pol / qst / sci / soc / sp / tg / toy / trv / tv / vp / wsg / wsr / x] [Settings] [Search] [Home]
Settings Home
/sci/ - Science & Math

4chan Pass users can bypass this verification. [Learn More] [Login]
  • Please read the Rules and FAQ before posting.
  • Use with [math] tags for inline and [eqn] tags for block equations.
  • Right-click equations to view the source.

05/04/17New trial board added: /bant/ - International/Random
10/04/16New board for 4chan Pass users: /vip/ - Very Important Posts
06/20/16New 4chan Banner Contest with a chance to win a 4chan Pass! See the contest page for details.
[Hide] [Show All]

[Catalog] [Archive]

File: 123444.jpg (145 KB, 1400x1050)
145 KB
145 KB JPG

A lot of the stuff in this video resonates with me. Cody has always been my favourite autist.
nigger, i told you not to handle radioactives.

Is the nature of thought analogous to the system by which our body maintains homeostasis?

What is it, exactly? What kind of observation are we talking about: is consciousness required, or some specific type of measurement, or just any interaction? Is the effect itself tested and quantifiable? Or just a necessary consequence of a certain QM interpretation? Practical consequences?
19 replies omitted. Click here to view.
>Consciousness requires an experiencing entity, something that has a sensation of something. A machine just carries out instructions and changes state it doesn't do anything else

The human brain is essentially just a machine that takes inputs and generates outputs through an absurdly complicated analog network. Just because we don't understand how it works doesn't mean that there's something magical that distinguishes it from a simpler network.

>An emergent property can be described entirely with the fundamental properties provided you have an accurate model

So who's to say that the fundamental properties of atoms aren't capable of making something 'conscious' given the right network?
>The human brain is essentially just a machine that takes inputs and generates outputs through an absurdly complicated analog network.
Yes on the surface it is. But you are also defining the human consciousness as the same thing as the human brain. And I'm not trying to be pedantic I know they are related but they are two different things. The subject and the information that represents the subject don't have to be one and the same.

>So who's to say that the fundamental properties of atoms aren't capable of making something 'conscious' given the right network?
Right that is perfectly possible however what I am saying is it is only possible if on some fundamental level those "atoms" have to have spirit as a property. That is because spirit is something that exists in itself and can't be tapped into directly. What I believe is that the spirit property is the only property that is real and the "physical" properties are just information within spirit. I believe consciousness works in the opposite direction it isn't built up from smaller conscious particles it comes from a larger consciousness downwards. The largest consciousness being God which contains collection of smaller consciousness like humans, animals, etc which themselves contain an unconscious and thoughts and feelings etc.
Usually it is misinterpreted as meaning that subatomic particles an shit do not possess certain qualities at all unless somebody looks at them. This is nonsensical reification of ignorance.

Pretty much nails it. At that scale, any observation involves adding energy that can drastically change the position/velocity of the thing you are trying to observe... that's all. I'd only add that nature requires a tire gauge that has to be applied to the tire with a sledgehammer.
File: Bicycle.jpg (234 KB, 1080x1080)
234 KB
234 KB JPG
>You need consciousness to explain reality
>I do think consciousness is necessarily a part of the "stuff" of the universe
The idea of what counts as X existing is more subtle and complicated than most people give it credit for. I think most of the important "things" we care about and behave around aren't real "things" at all so much as abstractions. Like the amount of money you have. It's not the same as how many green pieces of paper you have because you can represent the concept with electronic data, and you can also meaningfully discuss how much money an object or service is, all this being exactly why money is a valuable abstraction to begin with. If we were forced to only deal with literal physical objects directly we would be stuck in a bartering economy.
Anyway, I'm pretty thoroughly convinced "consciousness" is a similar abstraction. We refer to it like it's a "thing" that exists, but the literal physical stuff it's abstracted from are things like bodily functions and the behaviors we engage in. We're biologically compelled to have very strong beliefs that "consciousness" / "experience" are "things" appearing to us that need to be accounted for, but what I've gotten out of this point is that the deepest place of certainty I can go on the "consciousness" topic is the place where we have a belief *that* "consciousness" is happening.
And I can't come up with anywhere close to a good reason why a brain would be incapable of making you have a belief like that which stands on its own and doesn't have a literal phenomenon of "consciousness" to underlie it. The belief would be enough with physiology and behavior happening and no ghostly "experience" phenomena ever literally appearing to anyone. And it would be consistent with the more robust information we gather when using multiple third party verification as opposed to one person's accounts.
>nyway, I'm pretty thoroughly convinced "consciousness" is a similar abstraction.
That's the problem it is not possible. What you are saying is that we experience an delusion that we are experiencing. It is an illogical thing to propose. I'm afraid this conversation is going to wind up turning into a semantic argument though because they always do. The word "experience" and "consciousness" are just meant to describe a real phenomenon. Experience is an intuitively real thing to argue it isn't real is like arguing against axioms of mathematics. Sure you can argue such a thing but it doesn't really mean anything it is basically just a refusal to communicate and share ideas. It is like covering your ears and saying "i can't hear you anymore" it's just a childish thing to do. You can't really believe there is no such thing as the sensation of the color blue? Obviously there is such a thing.

Also I am not arguing against science as a source of knowledge but I believe science is a way of uncovering the information that is embedded in consciousness. It doesn't capture the totality of reality only a piece of it and I think the reason most scientist become atheist is because of a refusal to face the limitations of their medium which is a great medium to gain knowledge but it is limited. It is certainly very disappointing to hear that your medium can only capture so much about reality and not everything of course scientists are mostly driven by a desire to understand reality which is a very admirable thing I don't hate scientists I respect them. I also think many scientists have a kind of religious reaction to science and technology that causes them to ironically worship their own craft like it is the be all end all of knowledge.

File: how.jpg (127 KB, 1280x720)
127 KB
127 KB JPG
Depends where they're found. Sometimes they're found in caves a hundred feet deep.
Not very deep.
Usually you don't see sediment deposited without water and most of the homo fossils are in places that have been above ground since then. They're practically just there on the surface.
The caves >>10661949 mentions have remains, but not because that cave formed around them, but because they either fell down there and died, or were dragged in there by a predator, or the main entrance to the cave collapsed sealing off everything inside, which is what happened in lascaux.
The nice thing about finding those remains in caves is that they got to sit undisturbed in the intervening eons instead of getting trampled on by wildebeest and elephants and zulu tribesmen and kangz.
We seldom find the ones that are deep underground.

Erosion uncovers them, then we find them.

File: timetravel.jpg (71 KB, 500x500)
71 KB
What is now often called Lorentz ether theory (LET) has its roots in Hendrik Lorentz's "theory of electrons", which was the final point in the development of the classical aether theories at the end of the 19th and at the beginning of the 20th century.

>Because the same mathematical formalism occurs in both, it is not possible to distinguish between LET and SR by experiment.


File: russell.jpg (17 KB, 305x281)
17 KB
>by the law of excluded middle
File: brainlet black hole.jpg (209 KB, 700x700)
209 KB
209 KB JPG
>be intuitionist retard
>be asked to name a third state of truthfulness
Let statement S = "The present king of France is bald."
For S to be true, there must exist some present king of France, who is bald.
For S to be false, there must exist some present king of France, who is not bald.
But there is no present king of France.
Therefore, S is neither true nor false.
File: he man.png (567 KB, 640x468)
567 KB
567 KB PNG
>By the power of Grey Skull!

File: S__1859619.jpg (99 KB, 1108x909)
99 KB
Hi /sci/, I'm trying to make a relatively large-but-simple kaleidoscope for fun except I'm pretty retarded on the engineering aspects of it. I'm wondering how I should calculate a solution to fit three rectangular mirrors snug inside a poster-tube. (pic related)
I figure I should figure out the volume of my cylinder-tube first and then use that to cut my mirrors accordingly..? Please help
You need to know the diameter of the tube. The tube circumscribes the mirrors, arranged in an equilateral triangle. The ratio of the side of an equilateral triangle to the diameter of the circle that inscribes it is about 1:1.155

File: 1480863029634.jpg (28 KB, 396x385)
28 KB
Are there any cool engineering/tech/science outdoor/non desk bound jobs out there that are not super hard to get?i want to go back to uni so i'm wondering about possible options.(i live in a eastern european shithole,so after graduating i will have to move out).I don't care that much about money,as long as the job is overall rewarding everything is good.
File: SD.jpg (6 KB, 264x191)
6 KB
Yeah, dissecting animals as a animal-testing technician doesn't even require a full degree. You can even enter it with a high school degree. You get to work with cute furry critters, help test new and exciting medicines, and then euthanise them and cut them up! Fun. Maybe if you're really good at it, you can work your way up as well.
You could get a diploma in surveying or as a GIS technician. Geology, geophysics, Geo technician, etc..

Some advice, wear sunscreen, consistently. Pic related

File: genes.jpg (59 KB, 468x619)
59 KB
If I have a child, is it possible for it to look and act more like my mom/dad than like me?
3 replies omitted. Click here to view.
that's besides the question.

I hate my dad. He's a deviant weirdo. I just don't want my kid to look and act like him because of genetics
Yes. If you breed with your mom (or your mom's identical twin), then your child will have 50% of your DNA and 75% of your mom's DNA (since 50% of your own DNA comes from your mom).
dumb answer

this >>10661511 answer is the only one that makes sense for now
How is it dumb?
your answer is technically correct but no one has ever implied incest.

File: blackhole.jpg (3 KB, 225x225)
3 KB
I am an aspiring Science Fiction author. I have a fairly competent grasp of conceptual physics, but I have a lot to learn.

I have a question.

How can Black Holes be said to move, if their mass is infinite?

As an object approaches the speed of light, their perceived mass seems to increase, correct? It gets infinitely closer to c, and infinitely heavier, asymptotically.

But if the mass of a black hole is already infinite, any motion, any approach to c, would seem to increase its already infinite mass.

I understand that black holes can grow or shrink. I understand that, under general relativity, the actual mass doesn't change at all. But I'm still tripping on this.

Would it be possible for a black hole to travel faster than light? What does one black hole look like from the surface of another, as they pass? Would the gravity be stronger from a black hole as it moves past? Or do the "infinite" effects only apply below a certain distance from the singularity, and it acts like any other stellar object?

Or am I seriously misunderstanding something.

3 replies omitted. Click here to view.
It's not infinite gravity either; otherwise everything would just get sucked in. Not to mention gravity is proportional to mass so this is equivalent to the first error for a fixed body and distance.

Are you sure you actually grasp these things?
I made a basic mistake, I should have figured this out before I posted.
Some questions still hold up. Namely: does the event horizon look bigger if you're passing a BH, as opposed to just standing under it? And does the perceived gravity increase?
The event horizon is invisible, it's a mathematical convention to delineate the area where nothing can possibly escape. If you want to assign such a line to what you see, it would contract under relativistic speeds, like all lengths.

The gravitational influence does not change with your speed. Just think of travelling past the sun, there is no difference in gravitational behaviour.
Yes, black holes can move obviously. They infinite density (as they have no volume), not mass. Mass-energy density is what causes curvature in space, therefore the singularity also produces infinite curvature at its location, as per Einstein field equations. Curvature is what tells matter what path to move. Everywhere outside it, it's less than infinity however inside the event horizon all paths still point toward singularity. Outside the event horizon, it's possible to escape the black hole or orbit it but you'll still feel the relativistic effects like time dilation. Very far away from it, its gravitational effects are no different than from any stellar object e.g. star.

Also for the record, singularity is what makes a black hole the black hole. That's where the information about mass, charge and angular momentum is located. When you talk about a black hole "growing" you're referring to the event horizon, but that's just an imaginary boundary where nothing can escape the BH like this anon said >>10662409. The only real object is the singularity, while the event horizon (and the fact everything is black near it) is just its effect. You may think of it as an atmosphere of the black hole.
File: penrose_schwpar.gif (10 KB, 487x287)
10 KB
Since you're a scifi writer, you might be interested in some quirky effects.

>before falling in into black hole
You'll always see all of the black hole because it completely bends the light around it no matter from what angle you look at it.
You're going to view the asshole in its full glory.

>while falling in into black hole
When if you fall inside the event horizon, all possible paths you can take point you toward the singularity. So it's not like, you're trying to swim out, but you can't escape cause it just pulls you harder. It's that no matter where you look at, you'll always face the singularity. So whatever you do, you're going towards it. Wherever you look, you'll stare into the abyss (and it'll stare at you). Therefore your resistance only makes its dick harder. E.g. you could wait for it to pull you in voluntarily, or you can fire your thrusters and just fall into it faster.

>relativistic effects
As for relativistic effects, there is obviously extreme time dilation. From the perspective of the outsider, when you throw something into a black hole, its time infinitely slows down and just freezes above it. It never falls into the black hole. From the perspective of the one falling in, the universe speeds up infinitely. You'll pretty quickly arrive at the singularity, but it just disappears in front of you. That's cause when you arrive, you will have arrived at the time the black hole will have evaporated, sending you trillions and trillions of years into the future.

To burst your bubble now, when you throw something in it becomes redshifted into oblivion so you can't see it actually freeze.
And since singularity is infinitely dennse you'll get spagettified when you're near it.

>Einstein-Rosen bridge
There may be a parallel universe behind the black hole. You may be able to meet somebody who fell into the same black hole from that universe. Unfortunately, you'll both die very soon.

File: Dino.jpg (33 KB, 385x433)
33 KB
Hello /sci/, I don't know if I should post this here or on /g/, but without further ado,

I am finally attending an engineering school this fall and they sent me an email with the required specifications for a freshman's laptop to use the various software we will be working with.

>intel core i5 processor or equivalent
>8gb ram (preferably 16)
>at least a 500gb hard drive

Unfortunately, my current laptop doesn't meet the requirements because it is a mac, a gift from my parents.

If anyone here has had experience with engineering programs, could you please tell me what I should be looking for? What brands (dell, HP, etc) would you recommend? Thanks.
Save your money and use the school computers.
thinkpad with as much RAM as you can cram in it. get one of the docking stations with a PCIe port on it and play games/do CFD.

File: angry_man_gun.jpg (24 KB, 615x345)
24 KB
>the proof is trivial
3 replies and 2 images omitted. Click here to view.
>after using the expression 4993 times, it will seem quite routine[1]

[1] Wilf, generatingfunctionology, pg 6
>Proof: My uncle who works at nintendo told me
>what are you going to do, shoot me?
you know that means that you prove it by inserting zeros everywhere into the equation

thats literally what trivial means.
Not any of the definitions I just looked up

Latest Illustrated Science Focus the mysterious brain say that there is a correlation between being a genius and mental illness. I didn't read the actual proclamation but it's there it's there. So what about that is what I think. As myself being genius in many ways to say it like that. I may have had some psychotic periods. But it was mostly how I did use my brain. So I became delusional in a way. But it wasn't full blown delusions because I knew myself that the shit I was thinking and seeing was not reasonable. But still they diagnose me with shitty schizophrenia paranoid delusional. But I think the doctors was partly right and wrong here. Since I graduately became better by myself. And I knew that was going to happen because I was in control over the whole situation. Still they lock me in for 9 months and heavy dosages of anti-psychotics. When I knew I were going to do just fine it wasn't that much of a stake here. But they refused to let me go. The meds really fucked with my head to. The problem was I have had eaten 200 gram of fly amenita or red cap or amenita muscaria. Before they arreated me. And I have had voices and shit for 6 montha before arrest. So I went pretty long before anyone noticed my psychosis. But still. I knew this was gonna pass because I knew that thr shroom were going to be heavy and sticky. But the normal me is not a psychotic or schizophrenic person. Im pretty much the opposite of it as my mind is very deep and clear and I think rational and logical.
Based schizophrenic poster!
As Dali said: The only difference between myself and a madman is that I'm not mad.
Correlation is not causation. Just because you're a schizo does not ALSO mean that you're a genius.
You're not a genius dude you're probably extremely lonely or narcissistic which is why you made a thread on /sci/ telling a bunch of anonymous strangers that this study confirms your own selfish personal bias. You need to take some lsd or shrooms and settle down kid
File: 1548178969562.png (177 KB, 374x535)
177 KB
177 KB PNG
>As myself being genius
why do people not understand how to spend their energy wisely?

File: 1551647202865s.jpg (6 KB, 250x250)
6 KB
Is neurological physical therapy a meme?

Delete Post: [File Only] Style:
[1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10]
[1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10]
[Disable Mobile View / Use Desktop Site]

[Enable Mobile View / Use Mobile Site]

All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective parties. Images uploaded are the responsibility of the Poster. Comments are owned by the Poster.