Sorry your browser is not supported!

You are using an outdated browser that does not support modern web technologies, in order to use this site please update to a new browser.

Browsers supported include Chrome, FireFox, Safari, Opera, Internet Explorer 10+ or Microsoft Edge.

Geek Culture / The Thread of All Things Science!

Author
Message
Yodaman Jer
User Banned
Posted: 27th Mar 2015 16:09
Link
2015 has already seen several new ideas come to light, many of which are quite revolutionary, sometimes in more ways than one.

First, the scientists at CERN believe they can make contact with a parallel universe sometime in the very near future. For those of who have watched shows like "Fringe", this will probably thrill you!

Next up on the list? What if I told you that the universe, in some capacity, has always existed? Not only would this have a huge impact on our understanding of the universe and physics, but it would have a rather large impact on philosophy as well.

There have been so many other ideas. Alzheimer's could be better treated with this new drug, which may even prevent it altogether.

I shall leave at these three things for now. If any of you guys have anything else to share, please do so! This is already proving to be a fascinating year!

The formatting keeps messing itself up thanks to the Apollo Forums poltergeist!
Back to top
Profile
TheComet
17
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 18th Oct 2007
Location: I`m under ur bridge eating ur goatz.
Posted: 27th Mar 2015 16:55 Edited at: 27th Mar 2015 17:40
Link
Consciousness may be able to influence a true random number generator in its favour.

Random thoughts on the subject, to give you an introduction:
http://www.museumofconceptualart.com/science/randomness_consciousness.html

Quote: "How can I move my little finger just by thinking about it? If thought is some etherial, insubstantial mind-stuff, how can it trigger the physical changes in the brain that are ultimately responsible for the movement of my finger? If mind isn't allowed to forcibly move particles around in the brain, then by process of elimination, the associated physical events must be events that could have happened on their own without violating physical laws such as conservation of energy.

The only leverage the mind-field has is the ability to trigger a "random" quantum state reduction, ultimately causing neurons to fire and eventually leading to larger-scale electro-chemical changes.There is no transfer of energy between the mind and body sides of the equation, just a transfer of information."


Numerous tests have been conducted, and it has been shown that artefacts exist in the random data when consciousness becomes involved. The following shows 6 different conducted experiments:
http://www.deanradin.com/papers/Physics%20Essays%20Radin%20final.pdf

An interesting explanation proposes that actions of consciousness may be able to take place within the limits of the uncertainty principle, thus not violating the law of conservation of energy.
http://www.newdualism.org/papers/J.Burns/Burns-9-25-4-PB.pdf

These aren't all too new (2012), but they're constantly being researched and are definitely going to be a major subject in future science.

We have to accept that the brain cannot be a machine, simply because in order to be able to simulate a brain, we would have to be able to simulate an atom, and we can't. The key to building a machine that is self-aware is to use true randomness.

Need help with C/C++ game dev? PM me or add me on skype: the__comet.
Current active project: Light Ship
Back to top
Profile PM Email Website
Dar13
17
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 12th May 2008
Location: Microsoft VisualStudio 2010 Professional
Posted: 27th Mar 2015 18:51
Link
Lockheed Martin thinks they've solved fusion. Too lazy to grab a link right now, but they released some information a year or two back I believe.

Back to top
Profile PM Email
Yodaman Jer
User Banned
Posted: 27th Mar 2015 19:14
Link
Quote: "Consciousness may be able to influence a true random number generator in its favour."


I have read about this before, it's a very interesting topic!

Quote: "Lockheed Martin thinks they've solved fusion."


I have heard about this from somewhere as well, can't remember where from though.

Definitely some interesting things, keep 'em coming!

The formatting keeps messing itself up thanks to the Apollo Forums poltergeist!
Back to top
Profile
Seditious
User Banned
Posted: 27th Mar 2015 20:53
Link
Quote: "Next up on the list? What if I told you that the universe, in some capacity, has always existed? "


God created the universe, so I think that's wrong.
Back to top
Profile
bitJericho
22
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 9th Oct 2002
Location: United States
Posted: 27th Mar 2015 23:38
Link
Quote: "Consciousness may be able to influence a true random number generator in its favour."


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

Sorry this is pseudo science.

Quote: " We have to accept that the brain cannot be a machine, simply because in order to be able to simulate a brain, we would have to be able to simulate an atom, and we can't. The key to building a machine that is self-aware is to use true randomness."


Why can an atom not be simulated?

Back to top
Profile PM Email Website
TheComet
17
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 18th Oct 2007
Location: I`m under ur bridge eating ur goatz.
Posted: 28th Mar 2015 03:30 Edited at: 28th Mar 2015 03:56
Link
Quote: "Sorry this is pseudo science."


No, it's really not. It's solid science. The experiments were conducted seriously and the data was interpreted rationally. Actually read the papers, and you will see the phenomenon is real and reproducible. There is arguably sufficient evidence for this phenomenon in some cases.



Quote: "Why can an atom not be simulated?"


Uncertainty principle.

The state of an atom is indeterminate, and relies on statistics. For instance, it's impossible to tell where an electron is and what it's angular velocity is at the same time. An atom isn't a mechanical thing. The electron doesn't spin around the proton and neutron in a perfect, predictable orbit. That's just a model they teach school children in 7th grade, because they don't have the mental capacity to understand quantum mechanics.

Here's a similar question with the same answer:
https://sciencequestionswithchris.wordpress.com/2014/09/15/could-scientists-perfectly-simulate-the-entire-universe-in-a-computer-down-to-the-last-atom/
Quote: "The universe is non-deterministic.
On the fundamental level, the universe obeys quantum theory. Quantum theory is probabilistic and non-deterministic. This means that if you know everything there is to know about a certain electron at the current moment, and then perfectly apply all the equations of quantum theory to the electron, you cannot exactly predict where the electron will be in one minute. You can only predict the probability of the electron being at various locations. The probability distribution may give you a general idea of where the one electron will end up, and can even tell you the average location of many electrons, but quantum theory cannot tell you the actual, exact location of the electron. The problem is not with quantum theory. The problem is with the electron itself. Quantum objects like electrons are not hard little balls or classical waves. They are more complicated beasts that are somewhat particle-like and somewhat wave-like at the same time. Furthermore, quantum objects innately contain uncertainty in their properties. Electrons fundamentally don’t have exact locations. They have locations that exist only up to a degree of definiteness as a result of their inherent uncertainty, which depends on the state of the electron"


A real atom cannot be simulated on a classical computer, so it logically follows that the brain cannot be simulated either.

Need help with C/C++ game dev? PM me or add me on skype: the__comet.
Current active project: Light Ship
Back to top
Profile PM Email Website
bitJericho
22
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 9th Oct 2002
Location: United States
Posted: 28th Mar 2015 08:51 Edited at: 28th Mar 2015 08:56
Link
Pure speculation from me warning, there's no stating whether our brain utilizes quantum mechanics, probably it does but I suspect its more like a traditional circuit than a quantum computer. Or at the very least, simulating intelligence and sentience doesn't need quantum mechanics.

As for the uncertainty principle, that applies to our measuring an atom, not for our ability to simulate one.

Back to top
Profile PM Email Website
Indicium
16
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 26th May 2008
Location:
Posted: 28th Mar 2015 14:24
Link
How are we supposed to simulate an atom when we don't know what it's electrons will do?
Back to top
Profile PM
BatVink
Moderator
22
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 4th Apr 2003
Location: Gods own County, UK
Posted: 28th Mar 2015 14:53 Edited at: 28th Mar 2015 14:56
Link
This one is more complicated, before you move onto the rest of the story...

Quote: "How can I move my little finger just by thinking about it?"


Tests have shown that at the point you make the conscious decision to move your finger, the signal to move your finger has already been sent. In other words, you have accepted the decision made in your non-conscious brain and adopted it as the conscious decision you made.

That hurts my head and scares me because it suggests I've never made a decision of my own.

[EDIT: Can't recall the source, but I think it was Thinking Fast and Slow by Daniel Kahnemann]

Quidquid latine dictum sit, altum sonatur
Back to top
Profile PM Email
TheComet
17
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 18th Oct 2007
Location: I`m under ur bridge eating ur goatz.
Posted: 29th Mar 2015 00:24 Edited at: 29th Mar 2015 00:28
Link
Quote: "Pure speculation from me warning, there's no stating whether our brain utilizes quantum mechanics, probably it does but I suspect its more like a traditional circuit than a quantum computer. Or at the very least, simulating intelligence and sentience doesn't need quantum mechanics."


It is one of the 10 dogmas of science to believe that nature is mechanical, as is the belief that the mind is located in the brain. Upon checking how these claims stack up when facing the facts, they fail, over and over again.

While you are correct that, on a macro level, the brain is entirely mechanical (synapse intercommunication, etc.), we cannot ignore the many phenomenon on the microscopic level.

One of the simplest, yet unexplainable phenomenon, would be the embryo. How is it that every cell knows how to grow, when to grow, and what body part to grow into? You could claim that it is all programmed into the cells from the beginning, but that theory is immediately rendered invalid when you cut away a few cells from a very young embryo, and observe that it adapts and fixes itself. How could it possibly know? There is no physical communication between the cells, and yet they orchestrate themselves as if they had a consciousness of their own.

The brain doesn't appear to contain our mind or memories. Experiments with patients that have lost vital parts of their brain (apparently) responsible for consciousness are still able to function at a normal, conscious level. How can we explain this behaviour?

All I ask of everyone is to look at the facts and leave everything open to question. If something is true, then it will hold true when tested. The 10 dogmas really aren't holding true at all, and for some reason, everyone blindly believes they are true.

Quote: "That hurts my head and scares me because it suggests I've never made a decision of my own."


Could it not also suggest that our conscious perception of reality is merely delayed? I've heard about the experiment you mention, but don't know much of the details. I'll do some brushing up.

Need help with C/C++ game dev? PM me or add me on skype: the__comet.
Current active project: Light Ship
Back to top
Profile PM Email Website
bitJericho
22
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 9th Oct 2002
Location: United States
Posted: 29th Mar 2015 05:20
Link
Quote: "The brain doesn't appear to contain our mind or memories. Experiments with patients that have lost vital parts of their brain (apparently) responsible for consciousness are still able to function at a normal, conscious level. How can we explain this behaviour?"


How do you explain people's personalities completely changing when brain damage occurs then?

Back to top
Profile PM Email Website
Seditious
User Banned
Posted: 29th Mar 2015 05:56 Edited at: 29th Mar 2015 06:19
Link
Quote: "One of the simplest, yet unexplainable phenomenon, would be the embryo. How is it that every cell knows how to grow, when to grow, and what body part to grow into?"


What does this have to do with the brain?

Quote: "How can we explain this behaviour?"


Adaptation. The brain is a very pliable organ.

Quote: "The brain doesn't appear to contain our mind or memories."


Yet it does appear to - just look a the recent memory-implanting experiments, or read about any neurodegenerative disease.
Back to top
Profile
TheComet
17
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 18th Oct 2007
Location: I`m under ur bridge eating ur goatz.
Posted: 29th Mar 2015 06:18
Link
Forgot to respond to part of your previous quote, I'll do it here:
Quote: "simulating intelligence and sentience doesn't need quantum mechanics."


You're making this claim based on what? There hasn't been a single "mechanical" machine capable of self awareness in the entire history of human kind.

Quote: "How do you explain people's personalities completely changing when brain damage occurs then?"


Ah yes, the brain damage argument. It falls into the same category as drugs modifying the way our brain functions. Your theory is as good as mine, as so far there is only speculation, but the generally accepted theory is that the brain is the mind's gateway to the world, and the mind makes use of the brain's several functions to accomplish its tasks. When the brain is damaged, the mind is unscathed because it is a noncorporeal entity. However, the mind's "tool" has been damaged to the extent that the mind can make use of only certain functions, often in a limited way, and in some cases not at all, depending upon how extensive the damage to the brain is in any particular area. As an analogy, what you have is a workman with a damaged tool; the workman is fine, but he has to contend with damaged equipment simply because he can obtain none other.

It's an interesting thought, although it probably doesn't answer all of the difficulties.

Need help with C/C++ game dev? PM me or add me on skype: the__comet.
Current active project: Light Ship
Back to top
Profile PM Email Website
Seditious
User Banned
Posted: 29th Mar 2015 06:21 Edited at: 29th Mar 2015 06:21
Link
Quote: "but the generally accepted theory is that the brain is the mind's gateway to the world"


Since when is this the generally accepted theory? Are you being serious? And what are you claiming the 'mind' to be?
Back to top
Profile
TheComet
17
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 18th Oct 2007
Location: I`m under ur bridge eating ur goatz.
Posted: 29th Mar 2015 06:27 Edited at: 29th Mar 2015 06:32
Link
Okay, I'm going off too far into my own thoughts on the subject. They're controversial, and they're speculative. If you really want to pick my brain on the subject, we can do that over skype. I feel like I'm going to derail this thread if this continues.

I'm going to stick to the facts here, namely the ones I posted in the first two posts.

1) Under some circumstances, consciousness can influence a true random number generator with statistical significance.
2) There are a lot of strange phenomenon surrounding the mind-body problem that the mechanical approach cannot answer.
3) Atoms cannot be simulated, and the universe is indeterministic.

If you ask me things like where the mind is, or whether or not the brain is a quantum device, I can only provide an opinion I've formulated based on the papers I've read, and based on my own philosophical thoughts I've invested into the subject.

I'm not saying I have the answer, I'm saying the classical approach to these problems has more holes in it than Swiss cheese, and dogmatism is holding science back from exploring these fascinating areas and actually taking them seriously for a change.

Need help with C/C++ game dev? PM me or add me on skype: the__comet.
Current active project: Light Ship
Back to top
Profile PM Email Website
bitJericho
22
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 9th Oct 2002
Location: United States
Posted: 29th Mar 2015 18:20
Link
http://www.bionet.ee.columbia.edu/projects/neurokernel

Something that came up in the news today.

Quote: "Under some circumstances, consciousness can influence a true random number generator with statistical significance."


I find it wildly inappropriate to call this a fact.

Quote: "There are a lot of strange phenomenon surrounding the mind-body problem that the mechanical approach cannot answer."


Such as? Just because you don't understand something doesn't mean it has some magical properties.

Back to top
Profile PM Email Website
TheComet
17
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 18th Oct 2007
Location: I`m under ur bridge eating ur goatz.
Posted: 29th Mar 2015 19:33 Edited at: 29th Mar 2015 19:35
Link
Quote: "I find it wildly inappropriate to call this a fact"


Oh I'm sorry, I didn't know scientific papers showing reproducible experiments surrounding these phenomenon weren't fact. I guess we'll just have to dismiss these findings because they directly attack your beliefs.

Is this what science is to you?

Quote: "Such as? Just because you don't understand something doesn't mean it has some magical properties."


Such as patients who've lost vital parts of their brain and are still able to function normally, even though existing science says they shouldn't even be conscious. Such as the thing BatVink said, where it has been proven that your body's decision to move a finger is made 100ms before the conscious decision to do so. Such as patients who were considered brain dead, yet still showed signs of brain activity.

You seem to be under the misconception that science already has everything figured out, and all we have to do now is fill in the gaps.

If the brain really was a mechanical, predictable device, then why is it that we've not been able to simulate consciousness yet?

Need help with C/C++ game dev? PM me or add me on skype: the__comet.
Current active project: Light Ship
Back to top
Profile PM Email Website
Seditious
User Banned
Posted: 29th Mar 2015 19:59 Edited at: 29th Mar 2015 20:02
Link
Quote: "If the brain really was a mechanical, predictable device, then why is it that we've not been able to simulate consciousness yet?"


Well we haven't managed to "create life from nothing" yet, does that mean all organisms are magic?

Quote: "Oh I'm sorry, I didn't know scientific papers showing reproducible experiments surrounding these phenomenon weren't fact."


If they are peer-reviewed and have been conducted by reputable institutions I'd say they are as good as fact. But is that so?

Sure we don't know everything, but that doesn't mean we should ascribe magical answers to difficult questions. This sort of reasoning reminds me of people who claim to see ghosts. They say "well how can you explain what I saw?" as if THEY have the explanation - and it's magical. Unfortunately they don't have any tangible evidence, only anecdotes.
Back to top
Profile
Yodaman Jer
User Banned
Posted: 29th Mar 2015 20:07
Link
TheComet said:
Quote: "There are a lot of strange phenomenon surrounding the mind-body problem that the mechanical approach cannot answer."


bitJericho said:
Quote: "Such as? Just because you don't understand something doesn't mean it has some magical properties."


@bitJericho:
One phenomenon I can think of is the numerous stories of out-of-body experiences, in which the person can describe in exact detail what's happening, sometimes in the room over. There's tons of those stories and nearly all of them are legitimate. There was even a story several years ago of a neurosurgeon who was convinced of the existence of the mind outside of the body, because he had personally experienced the out-of-body effect. It was quite the interesting read!

One more thing I'd like to add; why is it that I can post a story about the universe possibly having existed forever, and Comet makes an equally "pseudo-science" post which prompts immediate (and somewhat negative) responses, but nobody picks at my post? It seems like he gets an awful lot of negative responses. He was just sharing something interesting, which was the point of this thread to begin with.

Maybe this thread should be titled "The Thread of All Things Interesting!" and then maybe people wouldn't take things so damned literally in here.

The formatting keeps messing itself up thanks to the Apollo Forums poltergeist!
Back to top
Profile
bitJericho
22
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 9th Oct 2002
Location: United States
Posted: 29th Mar 2015 20:13
Link
This thread should be titled The Thread of All Things Pseudo-Science!

Back to top
Profile PM Email Website
Yodaman Jer
User Banned
Posted: 29th Mar 2015 20:18
Link
In which case would you stay out of the topic then?

I can see this will probably end poorly if we don't post some other topic.

I found this to be an interesting look at the kilogram.



The formatting keeps messing itself up thanks to the Apollo Forums poltergeist!
Back to top
Profile
Seditious
User Banned
Posted: 29th Mar 2015 20:29
Link
Quote: "One phenomenon I can think of is the numerous stories of out-of-body experiences, in which the person can describe in exact detail what's happening, sometimes in the room over. There's tons of those stories and nearly all of them are legitimate."


I'm sure a lot of them BELIEVE what they saw was true, but when under scrutiny these stories always fail to provide anything convincing.
Back to top
Profile
Yodaman Jer
User Banned
Posted: 29th Mar 2015 20:31
Link
OK, seriously, strive away from this topic because it's going nowhere fast. Let's be civil and if you have something interesting to share, please post about it.

The formatting keeps messing itself up thanks to the Apollo Forums poltergeist!
Back to top
Profile
BatVink
Moderator
22
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 4th Apr 2003
Location: Gods own County, UK
Posted: 30th Mar 2015 10:15
Link
In light of above comments, I'm not attacking TheComet, just adding to the discussion. This is a rant against the scientific establishment

Quote: "Under some circumstances, consciousness can influence a true random number generator with statistical significance"


I'n not commenting on the content here, but the wording. Statistically Significant means that the results cannot be put down to chance. Amongst other things, it must have had a power calculation performed (working out the number of samples required to be accurate) and be within the realms of the margin of error.

The problem with most of these reports in the media is that they don't supply the report and analysis. The media cherry-pick the best bits and more often than not, misrepresent it to make a media-worthy story out of it.

I'd love to see the data behind these stories so we could have a proper discussion about it. Unfortunately we have no way of knowing how much we are missing.

Another side to this is that as humans, we try to find patterns in everything. Somebody sat at home trying to reproduce this stuff will nearly always think they have affected the outcome due to non-random patterns in a random sequence. By doing the experiment they are already biased towrds a positive result. So it needs to be a controlled experiment.

Another issue is that rare events are not as rare as we think. The chances of somebody flipping 10 heads is just the same as flipping any other random sequence. 10 heads is still a random sequence. The guy on loopy juice in the report cited above could easily have hit upon a rare event. H-T-T-H-T-H-H-H-T-H is just as rare, but nobody ever tells you when they get that sequence!

In summary, scientists need to start showing us the data rather than hide it behind a firewall of prohibitively expensive fees.

Quidquid latine dictum sit, altum sonatur
Back to top
Profile PM Email
Van B
Moderator
22
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 8th Oct 2002
Location: Sunnyvale
Posted: 30th Mar 2015 15:17
Link
These days science means Brian Cox and Dara O'Briain showing us what the vastness of the universe would look like if it was made from fruit.

The discovery channel has made sure that all questions go unanswered, but it's fine, Yukon Gold Truckers is on next.

I am the one who knocks...
Back to top
Profile PM Email
Indicium
16
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 26th May 2008
Location:
Posted: 30th Mar 2015 17:22
Link
Quote: "Another issue is that rare events are not as rare as we think. The chances of somebody flipping 10 heads is just the same as flipping any other random sequence. 10 heads is still a random sequence. The guy on loopy juice in the report cited above could easily have hit upon a rare event. H-T-T-H-T-H-H-H-T-H is just as rare, but nobody ever tells you when they get that sequence!"


But the odds of flipping all heads is 0.09765625% compared to the odds of not flipping all heads, which is obviously 99.90234375%, makes it exceptionally rare.
Back to top
Profile PM
Seditious
User Banned
Posted: 30th Mar 2015 19:09
Link
Quote: "These days science means Brian Cox and Dara O'Briain showing us what the vastness of the universe would look like if it was made from fruit."


Unfortunately that's what it's like when the majority of the population aren't interested enough in science to watch a program that isn't hosted by a comedian.
Back to top
Profile
tiresius
22
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 13th Nov 2002
Location: MA USA
Posted: 30th Mar 2015 20:39
Link
Quote: "
Quote: "Under some circumstances, consciousness can influence a true random number generator with statistical significance."

I find it wildly inappropriate to call this a fact."


This is true! When I was much younger and playing RPG Might and Magic II on the Commodore 64 and making a new character - I kept rolling and rerolling the virtual dice over and over again for 15 minutes. And then one time (which I secretly swore to myself was the last time because I was being called for dinner) I willed for success with every piece of my quantum being. And lo and behold, I received awesome stats that let me pick from any character class!!!

I could only get it to happen that once, though.

Funcygames.com
Back to top
Profile PM Email
BatVink
Moderator
22
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 4th Apr 2003
Location: Gods own County, UK
Posted: 30th Mar 2015 23:26 Edited at: 30th Mar 2015 23:28
Link
Quote: "But the odds of flipping all heads is 0.09765625% compared to the odds of not flipping all heads, which is obviously 99.90234375%, makes it exceptionally rare."


You're comparing apples and oranges. What you say is perfectly correct (I assume, not done the maths), but also not relevant.

The point is that flipping any predefined sequence has odds of 0.09765625%. But it will happen once in roughly every 1000 attempts. That's not so rare. You might not get the outcome because you'll get bored first, but somebody somewhere in the world probably will in the next few hours.

It's like the scenario where somebody says "I bumped into my next door neighbour on holiday, what are the chances!" That is rare. BUT of all of the millions of holidays taken in a year, this situation will occur many times...just not for the specified 2 people. Rare events are not as rare as we perceive, we just frame them incorrectly.

What are the chances you will win the lottery? Probably never. What is the chance that someone will win the lottery. With multiple winners factored in, almost 100% every week.

Quidquid latine dictum sit, altum sonatur
Back to top
Profile PM Email
bitJericho
22
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 9th Oct 2002
Location: United States
Posted: 31st Mar 2015 01:33 Edited at: 31st Mar 2015 01:34
Link
Quote: "The point is that flipping any predefined sequence has odds of 0.09765625%. But it will happen once in roughly every 1000 attempts. That's not so rare. You might not get the outcome because you'll get bored first, but somebody somewhere in the world probably will in the next few hours."


You should be careful with statistics. one example that I can think of to be wary of is the "fact" that the entire works of Shakespeare should be in Pi somewhere. The probability of that being true is actually almost 0 and in fact it's such an impossibly slim chance that if every atom in the universe was one bit towards the calculation you'd consume all the atoms in the universe before you found it, and in fact, it may not (and probably doesn't) exist in Pi at all. If it were found, it would probably prove that Pi is not random at all.

And why should it be anyway? It's not like the universe is particularly all that random anyway. We've sprung up out of the atoms and achieved sentience, that takes a lot of order for something like that to happen. In a truly random universe, that would not really be possible, similarly to how Shakespear's works is probably not encoded in pi.

Back to top
Profile PM Email Website
Dark Java Dude 64
Community Leader
14
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 21st Sep 2010
Location: Neither here nor there nor anywhere
Posted: 31st Mar 2015 02:29
Link
Quote: "(and probably doesn't) exist in Pi at all"
Statistically, it almost certainly does exist. Why wouldn't it? Something with an infinitely small chance of occurring, given an infinite number of chances to occur, should indeed occur.

Quote: "If it were found, it would probably prove that Pi is not random at all."
How? If you flipped a coin 100 times, all resulting in heads, would that probably prove that flipping coins isn't random at all? I don't think so. The chance of finding Shakespeare's works in Pi is just as likely as finding literally any other same-length combination in Pi.

"Sorry, you can redo your sig...Stupid Mod pressed the wrong button." - JLMoonDog
Back to top
Profile PM Website
bitJericho
22
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 9th Oct 2002
Location: United States
Posted: 31st Mar 2015 02:57 Edited at: 31st Mar 2015 03:01
Link
Quote: "How? If you flipped a coin 100 times, all resulting in heads, would that probably prove that flipping coins isn't random at all? I don't think so. The chance of finding Shakespeare's works in Pi is just as likely as finding literally any other same-length combination in Pi."


Because if instead Pi is a normal number that has Shakespeare embedded in it, it would mean that the universe or a copy thereof is embedded in pi. Which seems more likely? That pi is to our universe like dna is to animal life, or that pi has giant tomes of texts within it randomly. If you flip a coin 1000 times and it hits heads, maybe your coin is messed up.

Anyway, just because something has the chance to occur doesn't mean it will occur. In an infinite number, it could just not show up no matter how deep you look. I guess that could imply it is not truly random, but nothing in the universe seems to be truly random anyway. Pi is certainly not random, it's less than 4 and greater than 3. It has an infinite number of digits, but so do all numbers. The numbers that make up pi don't seem to have a pattern, except that it does, when you look at a circle you are looking at the embodiment of Pi.

Back to top
Profile PM Email Website
Indicium
16
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 26th May 2008
Location:
Posted: 31st Mar 2015 06:59
Link
Quote: "nothing in the universe seems to be truly random anyway"


I was under the impression that the decay of radioactive isotopes was completely random?
Back to top
Profile PM
Dark Java Dude 64
Community Leader
14
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 21st Sep 2010
Location: Neither here nor there nor anywhere
Posted: 31st Mar 2015 07:08 Edited at: 31st Mar 2015 07:15
Link
Quote: "If you flip a coin 1000 times and it hits heads, maybe your coin is messed up."
Maybe! But it very well may be a normal coin, too. What if you first flip 1000 heads in a row, and then flip 1000 more seemingly random results with the same coin? Well you'd probably be bored, for one, but it would be possible.

Heck, every now and then while I am bored or listening to some sort of podcast or video, I do an experiment with some coins. I have 32 of them, and I simply throw them all on the desk. I then remove all of them that landed on, say, tails. I then take the remaining pile of all heads and repeat the process with it. Eventually (after 5 or so tosses) I usually do end up with 1 or 2 coins that have flipped heads every single time. Granted, that's not 1000 flips, but the principle can be scaled up.

Quote: "Anyway, just because something has the chance to occur doesn't mean it will occur."
Of course, I can agree with that. So, then, literary works may not exist within Pi. But they may, too.

Quote: "Pi is certainly not random, it's less than 4 and greater than 3. It has an infinite number of digits, but so do all numbers. The numbers that make up pi don't seem to have a pattern, except that it does, when you look at a circle you are looking at the embodiment of Pi."
I suppose here it depends on your definition of 'random'. By the circle argument, even I would say it's a quite basic, normal, and generally non random number. But based upon the actual sequence of digits, it does indeed appear quite random. Go to this website containing the first million digits of Pi, and type a few random number sequences into your browser's text search function. Providing your numbers are short, up to 5 or 6 digits, most of them should be found. So for a sequence of numbers entailing an entire literary work, you'd probably need an incomprehensible number of Pi digits, but I bet you'd find it. You may also not ever find it.

This site is pretty cool, it lets you search the first 4 billion digits of pi for strings. I haven't found any significant strings yet; even "hellothere" doesn't exist in the first 4 billion. But, I bet it's in there somewhere!

"Sorry, you can redo your sig...Stupid Mod pressed the wrong button." - JLMoonDog
Back to top
Profile PM Website
bitJericho
22
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 9th Oct 2002
Location: United States
Posted: 31st Mar 2015 09:20
Link
Future Dark Java Dude 64

After a life's work of over 70 years, Dark is about to receive a printout of everything he's worked so hard for. It took an alternate universe's entire mass converted into binary digits, that's 10^82 bits, or 1.11*10^66 petabytes, but he did it. The printout of the proof is spitting out of the antique dot matrix printer. He thinks it's quaint. Finally! It reads:

"Two households, both alike in dignity,
In fair Verona, where we lay our scene,
From ancient grudge break to new mutiny,
Where civil blood makes civil hands unclean.
From forth the fatal loins of these two foes
A pair of star-cross'd lovers take their
l---3.14159265"

Damn!

Back to top
Profile PM Email Website
TheComet
17
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 18th Oct 2007
Location: I`m under ur bridge eating ur goatz.
Posted: 31st Mar 2015 11:00
Link
This is why talking about controversial topics on this forum is senseless. Everyone is just voicing their opinions about what they think the world should look like, with no one backing anything up with actual facts.

Need help with C/C++ game dev? PM me or add me on skype: the__comet.
Current active project: Light Ship
Back to top
Profile PM Email Website
Quik
16
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 3rd Jul 2008
Location: Equestria!
Posted: 31st Mar 2015 11:35
Link
Quote: " facts"

Facts aren't necessarily hard grounded truths either; They're just theories with backing; However we can't know that it's the "truth", sooner or later we might end up finding some new "fact" that erases previous facts.

...
Anyway; Opinions weigh more to me than "facts" but "facts" does make the discussion or topic more grounded.



Whose eyes are those eyes?
Back to top
Profile PM
Seditious
User Banned
Posted: 31st Mar 2015 13:23
Link
Quote: "This is why talking about controversial topics on this forum is senseless. Everyone is just voicing their opinions about what they think the world should look like, with no one backing anything up with actual facts."


Well I think the problem is that bold claims require big evidence, and whenever anyone talks about their controversial theory they never really have any evidence to back it up - usually just some 'reports' from a few quacks.
Back to top
Profile
Dark Java Dude 64
Community Leader
14
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 21st Sep 2010
Location: Neither here nor there nor anywhere
Posted: 31st Mar 2015 15:26
Link
Quote: "Damn!"
Lol, that was pretty good actually. I think it is quite agreeable among us all that literary works may or may not be within Pi. My personal intuition says they should be, but that's just an intuition and I have no proof for it.

"Sorry, you can redo your sig...Stupid Mod pressed the wrong button." - JLMoonDog
Back to top
Profile PM Website
TheComet
17
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 18th Oct 2007
Location: I`m under ur bridge eating ur goatz.
Posted: 31st Mar 2015 16:32 Edited at: 31st Mar 2015 17:10
Link
Quote: "Well I think the problem is that bold claims require big evidence, and whenever anyone talks about their controversial theory they never really have any evidence to back it up - usually just some 'reports' from a few quacks."


Agreed. The things I linked are very much still a work in progress (one of them was a pilot study), but that's no ground to completely dismiss it either. Even the critics and peer reviews aren't entirely dismissing it, they're agreeing that there may be a phenomenon present, and are waiting for more replications of the experiments before formulating a definitive decision.

What I'm saying though, is statements like
Quote: "As for the uncertainty principle, that applies to our measuring an atom, not for our ability to simulate one."


or
Quote: "nothing in the universe seems to be truly random anyway"


or
Quote: "Because if instead Pi is a normal number that has Shakespeare embedded in it, it would mean that the universe or a copy thereof is embedded in pi. Which seems more likely?"


are displaying a clear lack of understanding of the subject at hand, and if everyone started using opinions like these in an argument, you just won't get anywhere, ever.

(Sorry Jericho, I'm really not trying to bash you specifically, these are the quotes I felt needed highlighting and they just happened to be all from you).



[EDIT] As to the pi discussion, it has not been proven that pi is a normal number, so we cannot prove or disprove that pi contains the information of anything and everything.

http://timeblimp.com/?page_id=1482

There's no point in arguing about this, unless you can prove that pi is or isn't a normal number.

Need help with C/C++ game dev? PM me or add me on skype: the__comet.
Current active project: Light Ship
Back to top
Profile PM Email Website
Yodaman Jer
User Banned
Posted: 31st Mar 2015 17:41
Link
All this talk of pie!



Quote: "Future Dark Java Dude 64

After a life's work of over 70 years, Dark is about to receive a printout of everything he's worked so hard for. It took an alternate universe's entire mass converted into binary digits, that's 10^82 bits, or 1.11*10^66 petabytes, but he did it. The printout of the proof is spitting out of the antique dot matrix printer. He thinks it's quaint. Finally! It reads:

"Two households, both alike in dignity,
In fair Verona, where we lay our scene,
From ancient grudge break to new mutiny,
Where civil blood makes civil hands unclean.
From forth the fatal loins of these two foes
A pair of star-cross'd lovers take their
l---3.14159265"

Damn!"


I laughed so hard at this I almost shot coffee out my nose

The formatting keeps messing itself up thanks to the Apollo Forums poltergeist!
Back to top
Profile
Wolf
17
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 8th Nov 2007
Location: Luxemburg
Posted: 31st Mar 2015 18:15 Edited at: 31st Mar 2015 18:27
Link
@TheComet: I've sent ya a message

Quote: "Unfortunately that's what it's like when the majority of the population aren't interested enough in science to watch a program that isn't hosted by a comedian."


Whenever I watch a scientific show...something about astronomy or wildlife on natgeo... my family tends to join in and is very interested. They'd just watch it on their own as mindless entertainment seems to be more alluring for most.

Quote: "What if I told you that the universe, in some capacity, has always existed? "


I always figured as much...at least intuitively altough I never did any actual research on that, its not my field. The big bang theory doesn't claim otherwise from my understanding...it just claims that the universe expands from an incredibly dense state. (this might be highly incorrect!)




-Wolf

On a light note:
Quote: "This sort of reasoning reminds me of people who claim to see ghosts. "


I once did that on this very forum... (my first and only attempt at trolling). Wanted to weave a complex story out of it but no one really jumped on it.

Editness: Speaking of opinions: I just watched the drunken peasants podcast (a thing on the youtubes) and they had a woman on there that did not believe in the moon, claimed that planets are not real and that the stars are angels! Wrap your head around that!

"If the mods didn’t see it, I didn’t do it!" - Rick Bamber
Back to top
Profile PM Email Website
Back to top

Login to post a reply

Server time is: 2025-05-13 06:28:41
Your offset time is: 2025-05-13 06:28:41