Delta1212

Considering the massive success of M-rated games and that the mean age of gamers (defined as anyone who plays videogames for an hour or more per week) has been in the 30s for almost a decade, I challenge the idea that games are marketed primarily at children. Also, as stated, cartoon strips are very frequently geared toward adults, and while most, but not all (see: South Park, Archer, etc) western animation is geared towards children, Japan really runs the gamut in terms of the age-appropriateness of its material.

Point: Has anyone ever tried using snakes as filament in a lightbulb?

Here, let's use numbers. If a pitcher riding on a train moving at 100 mph throws a 90 mph fastball in the direction of travel, someone watching on the ground using classical addition of velocities would say the ball was traveling at 190 mph. Using the more accurate formula for adding velocities in relativity, we'd get this: [math]V_t = \frac{v_1+v_2}{1+ \frac{v_1v_2}{c^2}}[/math] [math]V_t = \frac{100+90}{1+ \frac{9000}{670616629^2}}[/math] Which gives you a result of 189.9999999999961769 mph. That's a difference of a quarter of a millionth of an inch per hour. So you can see why it looks like velocities add normally at speeds we usually encounter that are so far below lightspeed.

I didn't call you a creationist crackpot. I said that the idea was one advocated by many, many creationist crackpots. Therefore, finding one specific person advocating the idea will be very difficult without more to narrow it down, because there is a lot of hay around your needle.

That's going to be difficult. It's called irreducible complexity, and it's an idea championed by pretty much every creationist crackpot alive. Finding a specific one with nothing more to go on may not be possible without an extreme amount of luck.

I don't think that computers perfectly correlate to the functioning of the human brain, which is a neural network, but that said: ever tried to do something on a computer while running a bunch of memory intensive programs?

The first known steam engine was invented around that time, but as far as I'm aware it was a scientific curiosity and wasn't really put to practical use, more of an inventor's toy for playing with steam than tool. As far as the door goes, there was some ancient work with hydraulics and counter-weights in that area. I'm not sure about steam power.

And we can use the Twinkie prosecution and say that we have to lock you up and don't have any choice in the matter, whether you're at fault or not.

0.11111111111111111... goes on to infinity. That doesn't mean that every numeral from 0-9 is found somewhere within it. And it certainly doesn't mean that just because I can imagine one of the numerical places in the sequence being occupied by a miniature drawing of an elephant that there must be an elephant somewhere in that number just because it has infinitely many places.

I guess the ability to imagine effective intelligence without imagination wasn't evolutionarily advantageous.

But entanglement isn't about having identical properties. It's about correlated properties. If I flip a coin and look at the side facing up, I instantly know what is facing down because the two faces are correlated. They are not, however, the same (unless I'm cheating).

Dark energy and dark matter are really labels for effects that we observe. They sound like "things" that might cause those effects, but the "dark" part of the name really means "we have no idea what is causing this." That's also the only real thing that dark matter and dark energy have in common. Dark matter refers to the fact that there appears to be more gravity in the universe than we would calculate based on the amount of matter we can see. Hence there must be some "dark matter" that we can't see. Whether it's a completely different type of matter, normal matter that is just hard for us to detect out in space for some reason or other, something completely unlike matter altogether or just a problem with our understanding of how gravity works is pretty much up in the air. Dark energy refers to the fact that not only is the universe expanding, but the expansion appears to be accelerating. "Dark energy" is causing that acceleration, by which we mean that we don't actually know why it's doing that even though we can see that it apparently is.

Keep in mind, humans are a part of the universe. If the universe runs on a mathematical framework, then anything we do as a part of it will also be describable mathematically, including our economics. The universe isn't a magical place containing the heavens and all the fundamental specs that compose us. The universe is everything, even the mundane stuff of every day life. A language of the universe that couldn't be applied to the mundane wouldn't be a language of the universe.

How in the world do you have an AI that is posing abstract questions about the nature of reality? And why does it think pi is a variable?

That's why I was asking for the context of the quote, because considering Google's new focus on extending the human lifespan, I assumed it was in relation to that venture and didn't read it the way you seem to be doing. Cancer is something of a looming specter associated with death by most people, for good reason as so many people are affected by it directly of indirectly over the course of their lives. Google launches a project to extend the human lifespan and I guarantee they get asked "are you going to work on curing cancer?" a lot. The answer is that, while cancer is horrible and curing it would certainly help a lot of people, it wouldn't extend the average human lifespan by nearly as much as most people think, which is the focus of Google's particular project.

Context? Medically, curing cancer would be a huge advancement, but knowing that Google has launched a project to extend the human lifespan, curing cancer would not be as huge an advancement toward that particular goal as most people would probably think. In the context of that project, he's correct.

Any interaction where the state has an effect is a "measurement" of that state, regardless of whether anything "knows" about or records the state. The cat never experiences itself in a superposition because it would be immediately obvious to the cat when/whether the poison kills it. The cat is in a superposition for the rest of the universe because the very special box in this thought experiment prevents any interaction between the contents and everything else. The cat is therefore equally likely to be alive or dead until the box is opened and the cat can be interacted with. Similarly, the universe has no idea what the camera has recorded until the box is opened and the recording can be observed. The camera would be no more or less in a superposition than the cat regardless of whether it can see in the dark or not. What exactly any of this "really" means physically is something of an open debate.

I'm not surprised. I had to dig through a lot of results about a different "live" mammoth video from last Spring.

Nope. Googled it. It's cropped footage of a CGI mammoth from a documentary with some filters applied.

No more of an observer than the cat is.

Think about the number 7 billion.

Some of it, yes. Much of it results from fundamental conflicts of interest, such as "You have something I want." Most of the miscommunication boils down to situations where you didn't really have it, I didn't really want it, or I could have gotten it just as easily without killing you.

And suppressing the immune response to get around this would leave it vulnerable to disease.

The physical evidence for the subject under discussion isn't off topic. I'm pretty sure it's actually required by the forum rules.

You keep saying that there is a great deal of evidence, but I'm not clear on what that evidence is.