let's discuss philosophy and stuff

[dean_r_koontz]

yeah but there's no way of knowing that. if we're going to drop quotes: richard feynman "if reality is like and union with endless layers and we get sick and tired of peeling off the layers than that's the way it is" or something similar. and feynman died 1979 or something.
you want to battle with quotes?

[dean_r_koontz]

i see now that the last einstein quote could be interpreted differently. whatevs

[Travis Meeks]

Originally Posted by DeviousJ

Not really, I heard about that computer they built not long ago, but I know it's limited in what it can solve. As far as I know it's basically about solving problems in multiple dimensions, so every possible outcome is observed and then summed, and then you get the most likely result. I should read up on it, I'll see if I can find a link.

http://the-gadgeteer.com/assets/tandy-1.jpg

[Ever]

No that's not what he means. Nothing so far is all that complicated. I mean the laws governing how things work aren't all that complicated. Newton's laws are very simple. Einstein's relativity simpler still, even if it is very abstract. It's just recently all this new stuff requires phonebook maths and kernels to do all this stuff that maybe there is no need for.

Everyone knows that you can find the area under any curve using an integral by limiting the height of trapeziums formed by f(x) and dx. And a computer can provide a very very good estimation of the result of any given integral using this mechanical process. Give that computer 50 floating points and there will be no difference between that and the primitive for a certain set of bounds.

But only a human can find the primitive or, as you americans call, it the antiderivative. What's the difference? one is a qunatative approximation and the other is the qualitative abstract idea which it represents. Anyone with any slight understanding of philosophy will obviously prefer the latter over the former.

[Travis Meeks]

the relationship of all forces in the universe will one day be summarized in one simple formula which is pretty cool

but it's takes friggin forever to figure out these simple formulas.

[Ever]

No well. Yes. that's what they're trying to do. But that's not what it's like and everything is never gonna be summarized by one formula; that's not what simple means. That is a very superficial understanding of the word simple.

[Travis Meeks]

Originally Posted by Ever

No well. Yes. that's what they're trying to do. But that's not what it's like and everything is never gonna be summarized by one formula; that's not what simple means. That is a very superficial understanding of the word simple.

What I meant was that one day there will be one simple formula which show how all of the four fundamental forces in the universe relate to each other. This formula will most likely be simple, like Newton's formulas, but in the end are very difficult to discover, like Newton's laws were. I don't really have a point other than what seemed complex in the past seems quite simple now.

[dean_r_koontz]

tell him about his superficial understanding of the word simple ever

[Travis Meeks]

blow me

[Ever]

blow me too, dean

[Rockin' Cherub]

is there any empirical evidence for the existence of more than one universe or is it just a theory with no practical application whatsoever

[Rockin' Cherub]

also i don't see how every decision we make creates another universe for the decision we didn't make. there's always only one solution to a given situation due to physical / chemical circumstances. i think scientific determinism is correct but cannot be observed or used to predict future events due to its complexity. i don't see how parallel universes come into play here

[<sp3]

just out of curiosity, how many people here are in favor of giving a lot more money to NASA as opposed to other things that we should fund?

[exactlythesame]

Originally Posted by Travis Meeks

do you know what compilation this story was in? I was looking for the story at Barnes and Noble once and couldn't find it.

As far as I know, it was never published as a compilation, as the book was released after Mark Twain's death. You can get the 'authoritative text' over at Amazon, or you can simply read it in it's entirety courtesy of eNotes (it's not a copywritten work.) Whatever you do, make sure you read it -- it's one of Mark Twain's best, in my opinion.

[Rockin' Cherub]

mabye that isn't the most important topic but i'm definitely for giving money to science and taking money from the military

[exactlythesame]

Originally Posted by Rockin' Cherub

also i don't see how every decision we make creates another universe for the decision we didn't make. there's always only one solution to a given situation due to physical / chemical circumstances. i think scientific determinism is correct but cannot be observed or used to predict future events due to its complexity. i don't see how parallel universes come into play here

I think it's merely an entertaining thought -- other than the string theory, no other plausible ideas pertaining to multiple universes comes to mind.

[Mo]

Originally Posted by Rockin' Cherub

mabye that isn't the most important topic but i'm definitely for giving money to science and taking money from the military

.

[Rockin' Cherub]

ah this is obviously just us being all eu here

[Mo]

European Uniony?

[Rockin' Cherub]

yes. quasi-liberal progressivist european uniony bastards

[Travis Meeks]

Originally Posted by exactlythesame

As far as I know, it was never published as a compilation, as the book was released after Mark Twain's death. You can get the 'authoritative text' over at Amazon, or you can simply read it in it's entirety courtesy of eNotes (it's not a copywritten work.) Whatever you do, make sure you read it -- it's one of Mark Twain's best, in my opinion.

thanks pal! for the record, if I do decide to buy the book I will not use the amazon/netphoria link.

Thanks!

[Mo]

Speaking of philosophy and stuff: Read God's Debris by Scott Adams [yes, that Dilbert-guy]. A really excellent 'thought experiment'. Plus it's free.

[exactlythesame]

Originally Posted by Rockin' Cherub

yes. quasi-liberal progressivist european uniony bastards

sounds like a good time to me!

Originally Posted by Travis Meeks

thanks pal! for the record, if I do decide to buy the book I will not use the amazon/netphoria link.

Thanks!

no problem, it's a fairly unheard of work by such a talented author. many people think of mark twain as just an old southern storyteller, but he was so much more than that.

[exactlythesame]

Originally Posted by the antipop

Speaking of philosophy and stuff: Read God's Debris by Scott Adams [yes, that Dilbert-guy]. A really excellent 'thought experiment'. Plus it's free.

Not Found

The requested URL /fringe.davesource.com/Fringe/Entertainment/Books/Scott_Adams.Gods_Debris.pdf was not found on this server.
Apache/2.0.52 (Red Hat) Server at forums.netphoria.org Port 80

[Mo]

Fixed, try again. It's really worth your time.

[exactlythesame]

Interesting stuff so far, anitpop. I had no Idea Scott Adams was such an accomplished writer.

[DeviousJ]

Originally Posted by Rockin' Cherub

also i don't see how every decision we make creates another universe for the decision we didn't make. there's always only one solution to a given situation due to physical / chemical circumstances. i think scientific determinism is correct but cannot be observed or used to predict future events due to its complexity. i don't see how parallel universes come into play here

So are you on the team that believes that humans have no free will, and that every decision or emotion is just down to the most recent in a series of chemical reactions and so on?

But yeah I'm just talking here, there's absolutely no reason to believe in any of it. I think it's only really applicable to time travel, when someone is able to move back along the path time has taken and see how they can affect it. Like in the single reality idea, you couldn't go back in time and kill your grandfather because then you wouldn't be born in the future to go back and do it. With the multiple universes, you could go back in time and hop onto another path, where you do appear and kill your grandfather, and you would still exist because you originated in another reality, you're just visiting this other scenario. Your equivalent wouldn't be born in that reality, but that wouldn't affect you.

It's a way of dealing with the whole 'we'll never be able to travel through time, because we'd have seen evidence of it' argument. People could go back and interact with alternate realities, but they wouldn't affect this one

[Travis Meeks]

Lee, if you go back in time and Biff tries to bang your mom do you start to fade away from any family photos which you may have in your wallet?

[DeviousJ]

No - or maybe. Probably not, you can go high-five biff if you want

[exactlythesame]

This parallel universe / reality thing also kind of reminds me of the plot of that Jet Li movie "The One," where one Jet Li is on a mission to kill all of the other Jet Lis in order to become the most powerful Jet Li in existence because he is regaining the parts of his soul from the other iterations of himself, or something. All I remember is that it ended with him fighting like a thousand of his other selves rendered in bad CGI.