Bender

In 10 million random digits, there are almost 10 million strings of six digits. There are only one million such strings, so any string is expected to show up about 10 times, as illustrated by koti. On average, strings of seven digits occur only once, but for individual strings, that is not a certainty. As expected, about half the constants searched have six digits, and about half have more.

It can start with dogs or lizards or birds or octopusses. It's anyones guess which animal at which point would gain enough evolutionary advantage from increased intelligence. We have only one example, and it took about 400 million years from first land animal to quantum mechanics. I would guess that it could take shorter, because there is already a large variety of complex animals today. But given the randomness of evolution, the race towards intelligence could start anywhere between one million and one billion years from now. Once it starts, a couple of hundred thousand years seems like a decent estimate to complete it.

Interesting idea. For the record: this is absolute accuracy. The relative accuracy won't be that great.

Is this another reactionless drive that tries to disprove Newton's laws with Newton's laws?

Another way to calculate it, is to start from the density, which for standard paper is about 1200 kg/m3. Printer paper is typically about 80 g/m2. 0.08/1200 = 0.00007 m or 0.07 mm

What makes you think our universe is not an amoral system that doesn't care about personal suffering (or about anything else)?

You know that a lot of dogs will suffer too, don't you?

Don't you mean their "human" minds, since it seems that according to you it is a very human thing to want to torture dogs? Just wondering: are you ok with torturing humans? You seem to think killing and raping humans is fine.

What's wrong with that? I don't like strawberry sorbet, but if someone attacks another person because they are eating strawberry sorbet, I expect them to be treated the same way as anyone else who exhibits such disruptive behaviour. It is not because I don't like something that I think that is a good reason to start attacking people. Likewise, it is not because people hate society that they condone randomly attacking other people for it.

It's a trick question, isn't it?

About Matlab: do you use a for-loop? Matlabs for-loop is notoriously slow. You have to combine the vectors and use matrix calculations instead. This is much faster. I don't see how it could converge to zero. I think the series would look like a 1D random walk.

What about the magnitude? Is it restricted?

Edit: I think if the magnitude of the vectors is kept constant, the inner products would converge to zero. By "length" do you mean dimension or magnitude?

If all elements have to be positive or zero, the inner product can only be zero if at every index one of the vectors is zero, which is not very random.

He was probably the first to build a house with that particular configuration.

Genie is a girl that was deprived from human contact and locked in a room for 13 years, most of the time bound to her toilet or her bed. Obviously, her development was severely impaired.

Yes, Belgium is great .For the record, we don't go around killing each other and calling it suicide. Assisted suicide and euthanasia are heavily regulated, under supervision of physicians and only in case of unbearable suffering.

People tend to regret the things they don't do more than the things they do, so go for it.

Why not simply nuke the world and be done with it?

I have. Several. Under any definition of humanist. Both are simply not related. People like you are the very reason we have those rules. You have to love the irony . The point remains: you are the only victim of your hate.

So what do you suggest? Shall we release them all to starve, be ripped apart by predators, succumb to disease, crippled by traffic and extinct within one generation? Besides, I already addressed your argument and won. If you care to read back on my posts you will find out that you lost the argument.

If I could, I'd give you a hug. You are only fooling yourself. Nobody suffers from your hate (except perhaps those who love you). So the only result of your beloved hate is your own suffering. Yet you keep returning to your abusive "partner", called hate.

They return because of easy food and shelter. I don't see where you are going with the habitat argument. The discussion is about livestock. Their habitat is a cage.

You are quite picky about your hate...

As I said, he mentioned only the Copenhagen interpretation, and yes, I had a problem with that.Not that he discussed it at all, but that he only gave one view. thanks Perhaps, but the fact that this argument regularly shows up in religious arguments annoys me. Perhaps he wanted to put in a wink towards colleges in the largely religious US, as a selling point? (The book is translated from English )