Thorham

According to the dictionary definition of science, computer science is a science, so it's a science. Seems a bit pointless to debate the meaning of well defined words.

science ˈsʌɪəns/ noun noun: science the intellectual and practical activity encompassing the systematic study of the structure and behaviour of the physical and natural world through observation and experiment. "the world of science and technology" synonyms: branch of knowledge, body of knowledge/information/facts, area of study, discipline, field "the science of criminology" a particular area of science. plural noun: sciences "veterinary science" a systematically organized body of knowledge on a particular subject. "the science of criminology" archaic knowledge of any kind. "his rare science and his practical skill"

Considering how badly we treat non-humans, absolutely none.

Good point. Wish they stopped doing that, though, because now religious people think that we think that everything came from absolute nothingness physically, which is of course nonsense.

You're absolutely right. Science needs to start naming things properly instead of Big Bangs that aren't bangs and aren't big, and nothings that aren't nothing.

So you mean what they see in their minds? Also, I don't see only black when I close my eyes, either.

That's easy: They simply don't see. Physically it doesn't seem to make sense that something can come from nothing, so there probably won't ever be evidence for that anyway.

No one is advocating anything. I just wondered what gravity is physically.

Yes, but we can see orbitals, while, as far as I know, we can't see space time curvatures. All we can see are the effects of what space time curvature describes or, if it's physically happening, causes. Space would be room for 'stuff' to exist in, while distance is the difference between two points. For the mathematical model it doesn't matter what you call it, as long as you get the right output for a specific input. It's about the fact that the atoms interact. It's physically happening. What's physically happening in the case of gravity doesn't seem so straightforward. Not to me. The orbitals are really physically there as described, but do space and time exist as described? Doesn't matter, as long as we can see them so that we know they exist. Also, all of our senses are highly specialized 'equipment' too

Because it could be a coincidence that the model is close to what's physically happening. Yes, but physically space might just be nothing, while time could simply be the speed at which things happen and not some physical thing. Or, they could both be something completely different. In the case of chemical reactions it's easier, because it seems that physically there's definitely interactions going on between the involved atoms. At least the orbital shapes can be observed, so you know there's something there. It's not so clear for space time.

Can we really? It doesn't seem so safe to say that space-time is this physical stuff that can be curved to cause gravity. Physically you'd think it's a force, or some kind of interaction between matter and gravity particles.

Doing wrong things at the human level in no way justifies an eternal punishment of unspeakable suffering. Not to mention that not worshiping this god is enough to be condemned. Willfully causing infinite suffering has nothing to do with love (obviously), and is far beyond being wrathful as well. It's a form of pure evil.

The Christian god isn't about love, but about subjugation. Sending people to hell for all eternity, where they suffer unspeakable torture, has absolutely NOTHING to do with love. In fact, it's pure evil. To equate such a horrible person with love is just incomprehensible.

With a hundred percent certainty on the lowest 'mechanical' levels it's indeed impossible, but what about higher levels? For example, it seems that we know that chemical reactions are a kind of interaction between atoms. Perhaps it's possible (in the future maybe) to say something similar about gravity with a good amount of certainty.

I wonder if it's knowable what gravity is physically.

It may not have to be rediscovered. 1. Humans evolve into another species with equal or greater intellect. 2. Humans replace their bodies with machines. 3. Humans bioengineer themselves into a new species. In all these cases our knowledge won't be lost.

Because it read as sarcasm, perhaps?

And why exactly is that incorrect?

Indeed. We're just another species. You're applying human values to evolution and the rest of the animal species. Our values are irrelevant to evolution, and they're irrelevant to other species.

Except that god did it. Easy, huh?

It's not. It's a rational decision. In programming, you don't pick an algorithm because it feels good, you pick an algorithm based on requirements. Programming is a rational activity, regardless of why you do it. You can't program on emotion. That's a side effect, and it's not the reason you picked the algorithm. There's a lot more to emotion than that.

Wrong. It's a provable that it's faster. I'm not going to present any proof here, just know that this is common knowledge in computer science and that's it's also quite trivial to implement. Here's an example of hash lookups vs plain string compares: You have one million strings. With plain string compares you'll get, on average, half a million string compares. If you use a hash table with 10000 entries, where all the strings are evenly distributed over the table, this drops to just fifty string compares. That's a lot faster, and in practice, you'll get very close to those theoretical numbers. Also, thinking isn't the same as feeling

I'd always be pissed. Someone's trying to kill you, does it matter why?

Sport sucks.