Thorham

But what kind of complexity? Is it geared towards the kind of intelligence we have? That's why I said 'how it's wired up' and not 'complex'. Example: A brain of a trillion neurons, where each neuron is randomly connected to a million other neurons, is certainly very complex, but doesn't do anything useful.

Shouldn't that be the number of neurons and how they're connected? I have a hard time believing that if a hypothetical creature the size of a whale has a human brain, that they would somehow be less smart than a human.

The observable universe doesn't look infinite, so why would it make it seem that space is infinite? It's quite a mistake actually: The universe looks big, so space must be infinite.

Not really.

Indeed. Plus the death penalty is just damned savage anyway. Do we need that in the world?

The notion that everything must end somewhere is very human. When looking at the universe, one much look beyond such notions. Seems to me that space is infinite and existence is eternal.

Unknown. Really? And they want to make a theory of everything

The death penalty is savage. Get rid of it.

You really need to get rid of all that duplicate code. This: if (temp > 30) { if (images[temp - 10].src === rootimage && images[temp - 20].src === rootimage && images[temp - 30].src === rootimage) { match = true; document.getElementById("score").innerHTML = parseInt(document.getElementById("score").innerHTML, 10)+100; for (i = temp; i > 0; i = i - 10) { if (i > 40) { images[i].src = images[i - 40].src; } else { images[i].src = shuffle(array)[0]; } } } } And this: if (temp.toString().slice(-1).indexOf(7) === -1 && temp.toString().slice(-1).indexOf(8) === -1 && temp.toString().slice(-1).indexOf(9) === -1) { if (images[temp + 1].src === rootimage && images[temp + 2].src === rootimage && images[temp + 3].src === rootimage) { match = true; document.getElementById("score").innerHTML = parseInt(document.getElementById("score").innerHTML, 10)+100; for (i = temp; i > 0; i = i - 10) { if (i > 10) { images[i].src = images[i - 10].src; images[i + 1].src = images[i - 11].src; images[i + 2].src = images[i - 12].src; images[i + 3].src = images[i - 13].src; } else { images[i].src = shuffle(array)[0]; images[i + 1].src = shuffle(array)[0]; images[i + 2].src = shuffle(array)[0]; images[i + 3].src = shuffle(array)[0]; } } } } Don't copy paste these five times. It makes code harder to read and harder to maintain. Copy paste seems easy, but it isn't. Making a function and calling the function is easy. Get rid of habits like this as quickly as possible.

Thanks for explaining They sure make it seem as though it does in documentaries. They really need to stop doing that. That clears that question up, then.

It's not that simple, because of space curvature. It seems to go a little farther than just the distance between things. It leads to the question whether space is something that physically gets curved by mass, or that it's just nothingness. Note that I'm not questioning the current gravitational model here, because that undoubtedly works very well.

Volume is a quantity, not a 'stuff'. I asked what space is physically. Is it some sort of medium that consists of something, or absolute nothingness? LOL

It's not compression. The software generates the data. When you decompress the 4kb executable it'll only become a few times larger.

What I want to know is what space is physically?

You're right. I looked it up in the dictionary. Yeah, that makes sense. Human language ain't easy.

It's a very reasonable assumption based on evidence. Perhaps it's just a wording problem.

These questions ultimately lead lead to questions that can't really be answered, but is it so bad to ask why, while we haven't reached that point yet? Why it's logical may or may not be answerable. I certainly don't know. Why mathematics works, and why the universe appears to function in a logical manner are two different questions. Why mathematics works is easy: It's because the universe seems to work in a logical manner. Why the universe works in that way is the much harder question, and may not ever be answerable. Local would be the 'product of the big bang', if you can call it that, and non-local would be everywhere else. I couldn't agree more, except for the word universal, because that implies everywhere, and not just locally. Seems to be a language issue. Yes, undoubtedly. It just sounds like nay saying to me when people say certain things are impossible, and I don't like that. Saying that the speed of light is the maximum speed while we don't know all of reality is one of those things. Also, seemingly legitimate scientists are trying to find out if you can't go faster anyway, so saying it's unknown doesn't seem unreasonable.

Eh, what you're saying is exactly what I was arguing against I started out by saying that something is unknown, nothing more. I'm literally the last person who would claim that something doesn't exist just because I can't see it

All of reality is a little bit larger than the earth Assuming things to be true locally is very different from assuming them to be true everywhere.

It's not unreasonable to assume that people just write what they mean. You write impossible, it means impossible. I've seen this before. A universe from nothing, for example. Sounds like utter nonsense because you think of absolute nothingness, which is actually what it should mean. Isn't the case, nothing means something, and I find it ridiculous. Writing what you mean prevents this kind of confusion: This reads as if it's utterly impossible. A simple 'Not possible under current theory.' sounds much less definitive, is not longer to write, and doesn't need interpretation. You'd think that in science people would use language in a more exact way. Look, you said: To which I responded that it's unknown. If it's so trivially obvious, why argue against it?

There's already a problem with that: We can only use telescopes to examine the observable universe, so we can't observe everything that's going on out there, which means we can't even say for certain that the laws of physics are the same everywhere in the observable universe. Of course it's not unlikely to be true, but it's still not known for sure. I don't doubt it. Not yet, no. According to what we know now, which doesn't mean a whole lot. And yes, that's not very useful right now. I just don't like words like never and can't, see below. If we don't mess up, we're probably going to be here for an exceedingly long time. I'm not willing to say it's unlikely when there's potentially several hundreds of millions of years of development ahead of us. I didn't claim they are, I said they might be different.

It's not a cop-out, because we can't test that. It might not even be testable in principle. Claims like that shouldn't be part of any theories.

The first post I down voted was a bad counter to what I said, namely that something is unknown for some specific reasons, while ignoring the rest of my post entirely. The second post I down voted made both an assumption that's not true, and an accusation that's not true. I said that it's unknown that the speed of light is the maximum speed. Nothing wrong with that statement, and it's not speculation. I'm also NOT anti-science.

Of course it is, and I don't think that.

I'm NOT an anti-science type. I know science works, because I use some of the things it has produced on a dayly basis. Things which would be utterly impossible without modern science. Anti-science, how absurd I'm not speculating, all I said is that something is unknown because of certain reasons. As for baseless, if current theories are incomplete and break at some point, then there must be more, right? Guess what real physicists have been working on for decades now. And then there's the following problem: What if physicists come up with a great theory of everything we know? What then? Is that the end, because there's no reason to look for more? Basically what you're saying is that types like me are anti-science because we assume there's more out there to be discovered then we know now (something that has been shown time and time again in the past), and that's obviously ridiculous.