Thorham

And everyone knows that these things are completely absurd. Underlying mechanics and different physics in other places are of course valid hypotheses, especially when current theories are incomplete. The big bang theory fails at a certain point, and quantum physics can't be merged with relativity. So apparently there's more to it then we know now. It's actually a certainty that there's more to it. Indeed, and science never got anywhere by clinging to broken theories.

It's not wrong, it's unknown, because: 1. We don't know all of reality, which means there may be places where the laws of physics are different. 2. We don't know if there are underlying mechanics that cause this maximum speed. None of this is very useful right now, of course, but that's besides the point. It's because the solid steel's atoms aren't moved out of the way by the finger, and they push back at the finger (more or less). Steel isn't hard, and it isn't solid. It's because of interactions of forces. At some level everything just is. Pretty useless, that. Why can a computer add 1 and 1? Because it just can. Right. It only becomes a philisophical question when you get to the point when there are apparently no more underlying mechanics. Until then, why is a perfectly valid question. It's not deep at all. It's very simple. If the universe works in a logical manner, then you can describe it with any Turing complete language.

Why wouldn't I be joking?

That's a little simple, isn't it? 'Why' questions are fine. Why can't I push my finger through solid steel? Shouldn't be to hard to answer, right? A better way of saying this is that you just don't know. There's always the possibility of underlying mechanics that cause these phenomena. Us not knowing doesn't mean 'why' questions aren't right.

If they were male, I'd kill them where they stand. If female, no problem.

Unless you're staring at people and/or making lots of noises while eating, who the hell cares?

What do you care? You feel what you feel. Yes, why wouldn't it be? Who cares about what other people think? It's simply none of their effing business. No. Again, who the hell cares? Seriously, why make this an issue?

Science and technology keep advancing, you don't know what the future brings.

If he's the most intelligent life form on this planet, them I'm the Easter bunny.

They're just humans, like us

Me, obviously. Within a thousand years we'll have access to synthetic bodies that are far more advanced than our current bodies, and I'd go for that in a millisecond. After that, technology will likely keep becoming more advanced until we've reached some ridiculously insane level, and I'd be there to take part in it That, or we blow everything up because we're raging idiots The Q can die, because they can kill each other.

According to current theory and experiments you certainly can't even get to the speed of light unless you have no rest mass. However, that doesn't mean that it's impossible in all of reality

Exactly. The bullet won't ever reach the speed of light. You could be traveling at 99.9999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999 percent of the speed of light, and it would make no difference at all.

Yes. It enables us to go to the supermarket to buy stuff without having to take a cow with us and receive chickens as change. No. Greed is destructive.

Those videos are generated by the demo software, which is 4 kb. It's all done with a single 4 kb executable file. There's some compression involved, but that will only get you so far. The demos generate everything. The textures, 3D objects, animation sequence, the music, etc. That's why they're impressive.

Did anyone at least watch the two videos of 4 kilobyte demos I posted? I like going off-topic too...

That's not a good color vision test. It tests intensity. You could probably pass that if you could only see in black and white.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ddkvC65Efu4

How could we possibly know whether or not it's infinitely complex? Proof?

Okay, that seems very reasonable. That may be reasonable as well. However, gods who need to be worshiped still seem like a human notion. I somehow doubt beings who are truly beyond us have a need for us to drop on our knees and sing about how damned fantastic they are. That's why I now say that I'm not religious, because I don't see any need for that, regardless of who may or may not be out there.

Are they different, or are they just two different parts of maths, each with their own different use cases? Perhaps not, but perhaps we have figured out and discovered part of logic. Anyway, is it so unreasonable to say that it's impossible be immortal and die at the same time? I don't see (yeah, that doesn't necessarily mean much) how extremely simple logic like that is different anywhere. Of course it depends entirely on the definition of those words, so it really does seem extremely obvious, because something that's both immortal and can die at the same is simply neither immortal nor mortal, but something else for which we probably don't have a word.

Of course it doesn't. It just tells us that something exists, not what it is. Therefore you can know at least two things about reality, namely that it exists, and that reality consists of everything that exists.

I have absolutely no idea of what you're trying to tell me

But how is it relevant?

What does that mean, and how is it relevant?