Jump to content

Dear Long Live Yorke


Recommended Posts

It would be a ridiculously amazing experience to fly past another planet, especially Mars or Saturn for example. The moon would be pretty good too... but if we're talking about paying to just go up to about 40,000 feet and flying around a bit, then it becomes less inspiring. I guess I just wish we were already more advanced than we currently are and not only had the ability to colonize planets in our solar system, but neighbouring stars too. I also wish there was some kind of evidence for other life relatively nearby. It'd make things so much more interesting, but listening to scientists like Hawking etc, there's basically no evidence of life within at least 100 light years of Earth. When put in that perspective, it's almost depressing.
hawking has been wrong about A LOT of things
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 851
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

for some of us, every month is STD awareness month.

Immortality, hmmm that's going to be expensive. I better open a 529 for my unborn great grandchildren now.

Link to post
Share on other sites

If you think politically correctness is out of control now, wait till immortality because feasible. Obviously, we can't just make everyone on the planet immortal, and make all their children and their children's children immortal too. Soon the earth would just be destroyed by sheer numbers of humans. So Either the world is going to have to take on orwellian measures to prevent reproduction, and give immortality to everyone, or it's going to be only given to an elite( no matter how big that elite is) and there's going to be all kinds of clamour against it be those whom are doomed to die. It will cause riots and wars and what not.. It should be given out in a meritocracy basis, IE the very, very best and brightest it should go to, but it will inevitably go to the richest and (mostly) whitest, and i will cause huge backlashes. I can see the ignorant mob lashing out against it, and immortal technology be outlawed, and a secret black market for immortality being formed, who's profitability ( and militarization) would dwarf the drug trade. Unless we start colonizing other planets ( or maybe the sea floor), Immortality is going to be the most contentious issue ever to hit mankind.

Link to post
Share on other sites

There's going to be no immortality.People die. That's just the way it is.If you program people to live for 200 years, something new is going to pop up that's going to start killing them. Some virus that will evolve in the human system over 200 years will appear, or something like that.We'll keep living longer, but you can't stop the inevitable.Nature will find a way.

Link to post
Share on other sites
There's going to be no immortality.People die. That's just the way it is.If you program people to live for 200 years, something new is going to pop up that's going to start killing them. Some virus that will evolve in the human system over 200 years will appear, or something like that.We'll keep living longer, but you can't stop the inevitable.Nature will find a way.
you say nature will find a way? are we not part of nature? are we not the smartest, most creative, most advanced, most capable part? we agree. we will find a way. we may find new viruses occur when we live so long but why wont we just cure those like we cured everything so far? people may die but what about a persons consciousness downloaded into a harddrive? what about things you cant even imagine? look how far weve come from a couple thousand years ago. try explaining the LHC to someone in the bronze age. so imagine what well have thousands of years from now. a million years...why is death inevitable? is there something in physics that tells you this?
Link to post
Share on other sites
why is death inevitable? is there something in physics that tells you this?
Turning and turning in the widening gyreThe falcon cannot hear the falconer;Things fall apart; the centre cannot hold;Mere anarchy is loosed upon the worldAt some point the sun is going to explode, the galaxy is going to die, our local group will fade, and the universe will grow cold and dark. Nothing is forever. After you're dead, you don't care how long you lived.
Link to post
Share on other sites
Turning and turning in the widening gyreThe falcon cannot hear the falconer;Things fall apart; the centre cannot hold;Mere anarchy is loosed upon the worldAt some point the sun is going to explode, the galaxy is going to die, our local group will fade, and the universe will grow cold and dark. Nothing is forever. After you're dead, you don't care how long you lived.
Unless you get invited to testamony night in heaven.Man that would really suck for most of us.Sure Daniel, let's here about the lion's den one more time.Ohhh Joan of Arc wants to share....again.Great, here's half the people in ancient rome who were burned alive for their faith.Hey Balloon guy..snicker..let's here about how vbnautalis and LLY made you feel stupid...hahahahaha...rough life.....LOSER!I am not looking forward to it I can tell you.
Link to post
Share on other sites
At some point the sun is going to explode, the galaxy is going to die, our local group will fade, and the universe will grow cold and dark. Nothing is forever. After you're dead, you don't care how long you lived.
i dont believe that given billions of years of intergalactic technology and knowledge this will be a problem. but youre right, its a win win situation. you either live forever or you die and dont care.
Link to post
Share on other sites
i dont believe that given billions of years of intergalactic technology and knowledge this will be a problem. but youre right, its a win win situation. you either live forever or you die and dont care.
If we survive that long as a species, which is highly unlikely, who the hell knows what we'll be like. Like LLY said, we'll continue evolving, and as we do so the things that take our lives will evolve as well. It's hard to imagine us living forever...unless we figure out a way to transfer our consciousnesses into some crazy form that isn't even...I've gone crosseyed.See, I almost didn't post this because I know it's a strikout, but I'm going to hit "Add Reply" anyways. You know why? Because fuck you, JoeyJoJo, that's why.
Link to post
Share on other sites
Dear LLY...I've heard stories about how one infinity can be bigger than another one. How can this be true, if they are both infinite? I'm skeptical. Convince me.
First, the concept of a bijection. If I have two sets of things, I say that I have the same number of things in both sets if I can take all the things out and match every thing from set A with a thing from set B and have nothing unmatched or left over.So, if set A is: a, b, c, d and set B is 1, 2, 3, 4, they have the same number of things because I can make the following "bijection":a <-> 1b <->2c <->3d <->4Of course, the choice of which item from set A goes with which item of set B doesn't matter. It's only the fact that I can come up with some scheme of matching them up one-to-one.So, that's the mathematical way of determining that two things are the same size. Well, it's pretty obvious, right. If I have two sets, then only if they can be lined up in the previous way do they have the same amount of things. Nothing difficult or exciting going on thus far.The nice thing about the above definition is that it can be extended to infinite sets.One infinite set is called the natural numbers. It's just the counting numbers and consists of 1, 2, 3, 4, 5.... and so on forever.Let's do a simple bijection. Consider another infinite set called the negative natural numbers: -1, -2, -3, -4....Intuitively, one would have to say that they are the same "size." And it's easy to show that by making a simple bijection between the two:1 <-> -12 <-> -2 3 <-> -3etcWe haven't specified the entire isomorphism because it's infinite. But we have constructed it in a way such that WE KNOW FOR SURE that for every item in the first set, there is an item in the second set, and there is nothing left over or unmatched. So, these two infinite sets are the same size.Okay, a slightly more interesting case.Consider again the natural numbers: 1, 2, 3, 4...Now consider the even numbers: 2, 4, 6, 8, 10....Which set is bigger? Naively, one would guess that the natural numbers are bigger because they contain the even numbers but also have the odd numbers. But this is incorrect. They are actually both the same size. We can prove this by constructing the bijection:1 <-> 22 <-> 43 <-> 6 4 <-> 8etcIf we do this, we never miss a number and every number is matched up. If you pick a number from the first set, I can tell you what the matching number in the second set is, and if you pick a number from the second set, I can tell you what the matching number form the first set is. Every number from each set has a match. Thus, they are the same size.Now, any set that has the same size as the natural numbers (1, 2, 3, ...) is said to have Cardinality 1. This is just a definition. But there are infinite sets that don't have the same size as the natural numbers.Consider the real numbers, which just means any number, eg 1, 3.5, 8.453634, pi, e, 501, .00000003, etc.There is no bijection between the natural numbers and the real numbers. It's sufficient just to consider the real numbers between 0 and 1, eg .1, .01, .0001, .6, .585, .8, .005843, .300054, .999843, etcI can't come up with a scheme that matches these up with 1, 2, 3, 4 without missing numbers. Maybe I try the following:1 <-> .12 <-> .013 <-> .001etc, but clearly I miss many numbers by doing so. One can prove without a doubt that no such bijection can be made, but it should become clear if you just think about the situation for a bit.So, real numbers have a higher cardinality than the natural numbers. We say that the infinity of the real numbers is bigger than the infinity of the natural numbers. For every bijection between the two, we can use up all the natural numbers and still have plenty of unmatched real numbers left over.
Link to post
Share on other sites
Naively, one would guess that the natural numbers are bigger because they contain the even numbers but also have the odd numbers. But this is incorrect. They are actually both the same size.
Silly naive motherfuckers who don't even understand the concept of a bijection really grind my gears.
Link to post
Share on other sites
First, the concept of a bijection. If I have two sets of things, I say that I have the same number of things in both sets if I can take all the things out and match every thing from set A with a thing from set B and have nothing unmatched or left over.So, if set A is: a, b, c, d and set B is 1, 2, 3, 4, they have the same number of things because I can make the following "bijection":a <-> 1b <->2c <->3d <->4Of course, the choice of which item from set A goes with which item of set B doesn't matter. It's only the fact that I can come up with some scheme of matching them up one-to-one.So, that's the mathematical way of determining that two things are the same size. Well, it's pretty obvious, right. If I have two sets, then only if they can be lined up in the previous way do they have the same amount of things. Nothing difficult or exciting going on thus far.The nice thing about the above definition is that it can be extended to infinite sets.One infinite set is called the natural numbers. It's just the counting numbers and consists of 1, 2, 3, 4, 5.... and so on forever.Let's do a simple bijection. Consider another infinite set called the negative natural numbers: -1, -2, -3, -4....Intuitively, one would have to say that they are the same "size." And it's easy to show that by making a simple bijection between the two:1 <-> -12 <-> -2 3 <-> -3etcWe haven't specified the entire isomorphism because it's infinite. But we have constructed it in a way such that WE KNOW FOR SURE that for every item in the first set, there is an item in the second set, and there is nothing left over or unmatched. So, these two infinite sets are the same size.Okay, a slightly more interesting case.Consider again the natural numbers: 1, 2, 3, 4...Now consider the even numbers: 2, 4, 6, 8, 10....Which set is bigger? Naively, one would guess that the natural numbers are bigger because they contain the even numbers but also have the odd numbers. But this is incorrect. They are actually both the same size. We can prove this by constructing the bijection:1 <-> 22 <-> 43 <-> 6 4 <-> 8etcIf we do this, we never miss a number and every number is matched up. If you pick a number from the first set, I can tell you what the matching number in the second set is, and if you pick a number from the second set, I can tell you what the matching number form the first set is. Every number from each set has a match. Thus, they are the same size.Now, any set that has the same size as the natural numbers (1, 2, 3, ...) is said to have Cardinality 1. This is just a definition. But there are infinite sets that don't have the same size as the natural numbers.Consider the real numbers, which just means any number, eg 1, 3.5, 8.453634, pi, e, 501, .00000003, etc.There is no bijection between the natural numbers and the real numbers. It's sufficient just to consider the real numbers between 0 and 1, eg .1, .01, .0001, .6, .585, .8, .005843, .300054, .999843, etcI can't come up with a scheme that matches these up with 1, 2, 3, 4 without missing numbers. Maybe I try the following:1 <-> .12 <-> .013 <-> .001etc, but clearly I miss many numbers by doing so. One can prove without a doubt that no such bijection can be made, but it should become clear if you just think about the situation for a bit.So, real numbers have a higher cardinality than the natural numbers. We say that the infinity of the real numbers is bigger than the infinity of the natural numbers. For every bijection between the two, we can use up all the natural numbers and still have plenty of unmatched real numbers left over.
So we can say one infinity is larger than another, but we can't really quantify it?
Link to post
Share on other sites
Dear LLY...I've heard stories about how one infinity can be bigger than another one. How can this be true, if they are both infinite? I'm skeptical. Convince me.
LLY's answer is probably way more complete, and I'm not sure that this is entirely accurate, but it explains the idea very very simply. It's the answer I got to your same question awhile back on this forum (possibly even in this thread). Consider the set of all possible integers. Then consider the set of all possible even-numbered integers. Both are infinite, but the former clearly contains twice as many numbers as the latter.
Link to post
Share on other sites
LLY's answer is probably way more complete, and I'm not sure that this is entirely accurate, but it explains the idea very very simply. It's the answer I got to your same question awhile back on this forum (possibly even in this thread). Consider the set of all possible integers. Then consider the set of all possible even-numbered integers. Both are infinite, but the former clearly contains twice as many numbers as the latter.
That's not right, from LLY's explaination...because 1-2, 2-4, 3-6 etc. Because both are sequential, there will always be one number that lines up with the next..but if you do, say, the group of real numbers between 0 and 1, and the group of integers, which would be the starting point to line them up? .01? .001? .0000000001? That's how I understood what he was saying, maybe I'm wrong.
Link to post
Share on other sites
That's not right, from LLY's explaination...because 1-2, 2-4, 3-6 etc. Because both are sequential, there will always be one number that lines up with the next..
I'm not sure what that means. I feel like it's very vague.
Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

Announcements


×
×
  • Create New...