More "you are not your brain"

Lost User

Ilíon wrote:

When are you going to grasp it?

:rolleyes: Miss the point much?

Bob Emmett wrote:

Well, you've grasped that much, well done.

Which, in the context of:

Ilíon wrote:

this "science" thingie you worship isn't even about truth in the first place

is an agreement that science has never been about truth. Toodle-loo, old bean.

Bob Emmett

Synaptrik

So says the 14 year old master on all things physical. So you are saying that you can prove Quantum Mechanics wrong and validate your assertion? AND can prove there's always a because? Did it come to you in a dream? Lookup some material on Carl Jung and falling frogs.

This statement is false

Ilion

You're a fool, and likely intellectually dishonest.

Oakman

Ilíon wrote:

You're a fool

Turing Test failure #1

Ilíon wrote:

intellectually dishonest

Turing Test failure #2

Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface

soap brain

73Zeppelin wrote:

I have to say that Jon is right - sometimes there isn't an explanation for why things happen, as I'm sure you'll discover as you get older. It happens to be one of the more maddening aspects of the human condition.

*grumble grumble* I maintain that a completely bad reason is still a reason...

73Zeppelin wrote:

By the way - your summation function, while not continuous as written, can be made continuous.

Is that if you say S(x) = { x(1-xn)/(1-x), x != 1; n, x = 1 } ? :confused:

soap brain

Synaptrik wrote:

So you are saying that you can prove Quantum Mechanics wrong and validate your assertion? AND can prove there's always a because?

I frame no hypotheses.

Synaptrik wrote:

Did it come to you in a dream?

If things happened for no reason, completely randomly, then science would be an entirely futile exercise. But as it stands, cause and effect still has some say in the matter.

73Zeppelin

Ravel H. Joyce wrote:

Is that if you say S(x) = { x(1-xn)/(1-x), x != 1; n, x = 1 } ?

I think that's what you mean with your notation. To be clear, calculate the limit at x=1 using l'Hopital's rule (hint: the limit is n). Then you can define the (continuous) function as: S(x) = x(1-x^n)/(1-x); for x != 1 S(x) = n; for x=1 Then S(x) is continuous on R. Additionally you could say: S(x) = x(1-x^n)/(1-x) is continuous on R\{1} but discontinuous on R.

Ravel H. Joyce wrote:

*grumble grumble* I maintain that a completely bad reason is still a reason...

Age will teach you things you cannot learn in school.

73Zeppelin

When and why does a radioactive atom decay by positron emission?

fred_

coming from him that's precious. Fact of the matter is I have yet to see an original thought from him, only regurgitation of dubious links that I suppose makes him feel like a intellectual.

soap brain

73Zeppelin wrote:

When and why does a radioactive atom decay by positron emission?

It does it next Tuesday, because visiting its relatives is so dull it loses energy and decays just a little bit. How should I know? I'm no particle physicist - I downloaded a program a while ago called Orbital Viewer[^] and it has a PDF file with it that describes the maths behind orbitals, but I was too dumb to understand it.

soap brain

73Zeppelin wrote:

I think that's what you mean with your notation.

Yeah, my notation is, I think, slightly made up. Sorry.

73Zeppelin wrote:

To be clear, calculate the limit at x=1 using l'Hopital's rule (hint: the limit is n). Then you can define the (continuous) function as: S(x) = x(1-x^n)/(1-x); for x != 1 S(x) = n; for x=1 Then S(x) is continuous on R.

OK, yeah, that's what I meant. ;P

73Zeppelin wrote:

Additionally you could say: S(x) = x(1-x^n)/(1-x) is continuous on R\{1} but discontinuous on R.

Oh really? That's freakin' awesome! :-D

73Zeppelin wrote:

Age will teach you things you cannot learn in school.

Meh. I don't learn much in school anyway. But I'll figure this stuff out earlier than that.

73Zeppelin

The decay of a radioactive atom is a completely random process. There is no explanation for when it decays. Nice link, though.

soap brain

73Zeppelin wrote:

The decay of a radioactive atom is a completely random process. There is no explanation for when it decays.

But there has to be an explanation for why it's completely random! ;P

73Zeppelin wrote:

Nice link, though.

Thanks! :) I thought it was pretty cool.