Popcorn Sutton

Guys, does it matter how many points are needed to determine a particles position in space? If you ask me, all you need is one, "There!". In other words, a one dimensional point of reference. Observer and observed. Are we planning a trip to Trihyptocline-Z143 anytime soon? We still need to figure out how to get off the planet efficiently and cost effectively.

Wellllllllll, not necessarily. Quantum Entanglement, split. If God is observing, he (sorry for gender) could be observing all divergent realities simultaneously. I'm a believer that there is no past or future, it is all occurring right now. Statistically, you can travel 11 trillion light years if you want to shake your own hand. Same goes for travelling back in time and shaking Ben Franklins hand, you just might need to travel a little farther.

I'm interested in this. I want to fly. I want a flying car. Michio Kaku demonstrated that if you use a piece of ceramic and submerge it in liquid nitrogen(?), you can make a magnet levitate and travel seemingly without friction. I believe that EM waves are probably the most efficient waves to surf with respect to friction that we know of. Who knows, maybe we can find an alternative, but in the meantime this is my hypothesis. Freezing gas is not an option, it's much too expensive to maintain. What I notice is that the liquid nitrogen boils when it is poured into the container. The ceramic is pretty solid. I'm going to have to assume that there is a repulsive force causing the nitrogen to decay rapidly and be reduced to powerful EM waves. There are two options, instead of using ceramic, we could use an even more solidified object which would mean that we can use a liquid that is warmer than liquid nitrogen. The problem with super solid substances is that they are brittle and they are combustible, so we would need to maintain the substance because it would most likely dissolve in the liquid. So, what if we just use water, but introduce it to a solid substance that causes reduction. One way of reducing the water (or causing it to boil at room temperature) would be to carbonate it as much as possible, although it would go flat after a little while. Im going to have to think about this one more.

I am not going to put your code to the test because in this context, I do not believe it has relevance (although in some sense I do, but I will leave that aside for now). I am familiar with the term "recursion" as it is used specifically within a linguistic context. Chomsky wants a recursive generative procedure. I translate this to the desire for a program to continually think and make sense while doing so. If this is achieved, as he states in his "60+ years of generative grammar" on YouTube, then the only problem is to add more memory. If you add more memory, the program will keep running. He explicitly states that "if you take a bunch of data and you throw a big computer at it and do a bunch of boring and totally irrelevant statistical analysis, something interesting will pop out" although he follows up by saying that the chances of that are slim to none. I, personally, have been working on this problem computationally for over 5 years although I didn't find the motivation to start coding until approximately 2 years ago (all using Python 2.7). The reason was because I thought I had the answer (and still do), AFAIK it is all about focal points and pattern recognition. From what I currently have, I see that I am on the right track and I can do the calculations by hand to provide an output that the program would produce given a set of data. A recursive procedure would look something like this (with about 100 or more lines of code between the input and the output) While 0 == 0: n = 0 + 1 print n 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 etc. But as I have stressed on these forums and on the linguistics forums, to say that something is truly recursive is contingent. The reason is that it implies infinity, and, on the basis of observation, infinity is logically invalid.

I've convinced myself that I can learn enough of any language within 9 days to make it by in society. Give me a cellphone and I might even be able to reduce it to 5 or 6. At this point I speak these languages. English (natively) Spanish (very fluently) Japanese (could use work) Thai (could use work) And if you want to count computer languages, I currently use Python with great fluency for my purposes. I'm going to work on html and java in the near future, but I've been putting that aside for a little while. My trick is to find a friend who you can speak with. Chatroulette is a great way to meet new friends, you can even specify the countries of origin for the interlocutor you desire. However, you can do it using the method of Rosetta Stone etc, but you are much more likely to learn the language when it is necessarily sufficient in specific contexts.

I was under the impression that recursion is simply an endless "while" loop such as "while 0 == 0: listen and generate output". Btw, there is a linguistics forum, which can be found at www.lingforum.com. I've probably done well over 10,000 hours of research in linguistics and that is my impression. Basically, it may have at once been a category error, which was challenged, and is now being reduced to, if you're alive, then your running a recursive procedure.

I believe you make a few category errors in your assumptions here. One is obviously when you refer to consciousness, the simple fact is that no one knows what it is, it's been argued over for such a long time and there is still no consensus, so what are the alternatives? Well, we can forget it for one and concede to the idea that it is a category error, or we can try to point to a physical object and say "oh, that object is now conscious". How can we do that? Well, we can look at radiation and electromagnetic oscillations. If we had a device sensitive enough to electromagnetic oscillations, and a good speech to text program, we may even be able to extract language from those oscillations, however, neuroscientists have found to some extent that the brain is "noisy". So targeting consciousness and determining a thought is more about separating the noise. As you can see, there is a growing consensus that there is A LOT of thought that is simply "not conscious", or that it slips our awareness. I'd say that we have pretty good evidence for this even by simply looking at behavior. I like to approach it from an engineering perspective. Another flaw in your argument is the use of the word "instincts", again, there is no physical object we can point to and say "well, that looks like an instinct" and must be a category error. Eric Von Markovich says that our greatest fears are death and rejection. I agree with him, but I don't hold the same stance specifically. I think that when someone/something with cells undergoes a change, there is usually a rapid release of saturation often occurring from the eyes (tears). This is a reaction to the absolute understanding that someone/something that was once experienced very often and was very probable to occur in the future is now lying there motionless and unresponsive. The conclusion, death. All at once the creature realizes the permanence of the issue and quickly calculates all the future occurrences that will not happen because of this event, and hence, releases saturation which probably contains the knowledge predicted and often strengthened while that (now deceased) creature was around. The same goes for rejection, it can be reduced to probability. Rejection is a different reaction though, because when someone is rejected, especially by someone very close to them, the knowledge will often not be released in tears, especially between members of the same sex. Instead, the subject will continue to predict interaction between them and their interlocutor, which if it doesn't occur, then it is a false prediction, which leads to frustration because the program your brain is running is now making false predictions, and therefor it is not useful.

Thank you Fresh, I am in the process of completely changing my behavior. I want to be a determined philosophical thinker and make every effort to stay right. I hope I don't become a loser with no money living under a bridge.

I agree with peter on the emptiness stance. I think I've expressed it before. Repulsion occurs between two points, the 'jello' surrounding them is contracted as they separate, but there is a void left between them where something recognizable occurs. When the two points are inevitably pushed back together, it would cause flattening of the void.

Please do not appeal to eternity. And also, to say that nothing has no energy means to me that nothing is not physically affected by it's surroundings, which would mean that nothing exists in perfect equilibrium and hence cannot interact with reality, this is not what I observe. I could be committing several fallacies however To say that any term is clearly defined is false as well, my argument is that 1 is equal to .9r. Therefor, 1 is not 1, but it is the closest thing to it.

If you accept that we are machines, then you accept that we are at least mostly programmed by our environment, and probably even more so by language. If someone gets input that prompts them to act a certain way, then there is a person involved in the behavior, and their weapon was their words.... Another attempted suicide prompted me to post. There needs to be an established and reliable solution to abuse, physical or mental (like theres any difference).

Morgan Freeman Youre an amazing man. Listening to you brings me so much joy. You say "people have a lot of questions...", I have so many questions lol. No surprise there. I'm trying to make a computer think so we can get some help with that. Michelle Thaller You gave me an idea about using jupiter to fling earth out of the solar system as our spaceship lol. Crazy idea, but I respect you.

There is a simple method of testing for allergies. Scratch yourself, and apply the thing that is in question. If it itches, then you are allergic.

My current prediction would be this. Two singularities collide producing one observable unit. Every collision of the singularities should produce 1. My current opinion is that time is produced at a location in space (probably a black hole), which would explain why all things with observable mass gravitate near a singularity. It's either time given a unit, or a unit given time. But there could be an equilibrium between the two.

I saw an allergist, and I do have a mild allergy to pork, but I've continued eating it. Maybe I'll stop and see what happens

Thank you. I'll have to use a computer to blog though, my phone doesn't work for that

I've spent many years dealing with lumps in my groin and under my armpits. I don't think MRSA is a disease, I think it's much more complicated. I noticed that over the past week I've gotten real sick with a stuffy nose and a lung infection on top of the bumps in my pubic hair that have been there for a while. I want progress, so thats why I'm posting. It turns out that my room got me pretty sick, so I'm taking steps to keep it sanitary and I'm going to document it (with the permission of the moderators). I will not take Bactrim because it makes me feel like my body is a warzone. Extreme discomfort to say the least. Doxycycline requires constant attention to detail and us probably a very powerful antibiotic, but it leads to chest pains from what seems to be a fungal infection. The best (and tastiest) antibiotic I have used yet is Clarithromycin. It's really clearing up my lungs (I'm a smoker unfortunately), and I'm constantly coughing and spitting up chunks. My bumps have went down in the pubic region and they have been draining. I'm not so embarrassed about it anymore (although I still have no sex drive thanks to rispersal). I've finished about half the prescription and I still feel great, but I will keep the thread updated. I'm currently taking 1 500mg tab twice daily. I'll also keep this thread updated on my methods of keeping my room sanitary. I just bought an air purifier so hopefully that helps because I have noticed a lot of dust build up. Please, if you have questions, ask. One method of draining and reducing the lumps quickly is by mixing mupirocen with a hint of copper and using it topically. Another proposed method from a friend of mine was to dry it up overnight with toothpaste and pop it in the morning, and then sanitize it with rubbing alcohol. Put a bandaid on it for a day or two afterward. When popping these, or any bump/infection on your body, make sure, if youre using a needle or something along those lines. Sanitize the needle. I usually burn it, but let it cool first before using it. Again, copper is a good metal for keeping infectious matter at bay.

I think that if we simulate the universe computationally, would we achieve immortality before we died? I do not believe in infinity for the sole reason that it is unobservable, and therefore, I must conclude that god is not immortal, which has the implication that god might already be dead. After all, he hasn't (to our knowledge) participated in our reality for a very long time... unless you want to accept mysticism as participation. But mysticism is too superstitious for my liking. So the new question is, is god still alive? How can we prove beyond a doubt with logic that he is in fact immortal (which I doubt) and that he hasn't already passed?

If you guys give me the results of your calculations in wave/particle duality and black holes, I can plug it into my program and get the best approximation of what occurs

When it comes to black holes and waves, I think the equation goes like this. Hole/wave = P(time| unit) as opposed to P(unit |time) And split, I know that youre a very smart person. There is a typo here and there, but, is there a reason you use the word "BRAKE" as in "the math BRAKES down" as opposed to "break"? Does the math not break down? It just "BRAKES" down?

Existence without observation is impossible (i hate to use that word but unfortunately there is no known method of proving that something exists without having an observer to verify the claim). In order to verify observation, you need knowledge of what is being observed. Knowledge requires input. To take this to string theory, say there was a single string before all of this happened. If something twanged the string and hence producing a quark, the string had to be twanged. In other words, the string required input. I'm not saying I accept string theory, but that even within that specific framework, input is necessary. Mathematically, take 0 and put it to the power of 0, you get 1. Even then, 0 requires that you put it to the power of 0, which is input. Lets say that after all these years of computers lacking the ability to know about themselves, someone finds a method to make them sentient, it still required input and observation.

I think that for anything to come into existence, there needs to be input. The question is, what was the input? Where did it come from? Did it create the entire universe or just our galaxy? I want to know if n^0 truly equals 1 and why is this mathematically true?

Is 1 also equal to the closest thing to it as well? How close does it need to be in order to equal 1? Also, black holes are the mind because we can't predict that unit, it is prompting/printing us. It needs to emit attention in order for our galaxy to have been solidified to this point. Waves collapse, but if there were any observation to cause that to occur prior to my known existence, then it needed to originate from the ultimate point of interest. The one where all prediction breaks down

A doctor, a great base of knowledge, and access to any medication I feel that I would need. No hassle, no worries, hopefully a smooth recovery. That would be nice

I mean that I feel like I need to be safe and the people who can keep me safe are literally the ones who are closest to me I'm sorry I won't do it again.