/sci/ - Science & Math

Where is his math?

Suppose you have 1 g ball going at 10m/s next to another 1g ball going 100m/s.

What, physically, is the difference between the two objects? One has more momentum, but what actually accounts for that physically? Can you point at anything in the microphysics of the particles to see that it has more momentum, or is momentum just a complete mystery?

Ahem

Why haven't you written a theory of everything yet, /sci/?

Langan chads, we cant stop winning!

>>14739997
Based Langan Poster

>>12804990
A wild Langan enters the thread.

Does simple math prove the existence of aliens?

P1: If exactly 1 planet in the universe (Earth) has intelligent life, then the number of planets in the universe (P), and the chances for intelligent life to evolve on the average planet (L) would have to line up such that P * L ~= 1.
P2: There are significantly more possible values for PL than those that ~= 1
P3: It is significantly more likely that PL is a number that is not ~= 1.
P4: Since intelligent life exists on at least 1 planet (Earth), PL has a lower bound that excludes a significant amount of low PL values.

Conclusion: It is significantly more likely that the universe has more than 1 planet with intelligent life.

>>12487315
You are projecting. You are projecting your own degenerated mind into a society that doens't have your beliefs.

Considering the severity of the hard problem of consciousness, is the most rational action to reject physicalism in regards to the mind?

>>12262621
You are infinitely moronic. So it does exist.

Have you ever had a moment of realization in your scientific education, where some equation or law suddenly clicked into place and you understood it in such an intuitive way that it changed how you viewed reality?

Theoretically speaking, would it be possible to negate the g-force effects on the body caused by extreme acceleration by subjecting the pilot to an opposite g-force of the same magnitude (by say, jolting the pilot seat rapidly forward as the ship accelerates)?

Can consciousness ever be understood in a physical/functional sense?

Scientifically speaking, does putting "scientifically speaking" in your thread make it scientific?

Does it bother you that if you were to randomly generate an image, there is a non-zero probability that it would be a perfect copy of your graduation photo, the way you die, the future you 10 years from now, or anything imaginable?

Does the sheer fact that any possible scenario can be depicted mean that those scenarios already exist, in the same way every large number already exists even if we haven't discovered/used them yet?

Scientifically speaking, how would one best reduce the number of low effort, off-topic shitposts on /sci/?

What is consciousness?

If you had 100 billion in funding, what scientific endeavor would you spend it on?

Will we ever come to understand consciousness in scientific language?

>if a circle was a square, pi would be 4
wow

>>10765983
>>10765992
>>10766008
>>10766011
>>10766061
>>10766071
>>10766080

I also believe when people say they "see" something they imagined, they're conflating two different concepts. When you actually look out your window, you see things with a qualitative punch that's undeniable, whereas when you imagine the outside of your window, it's more like you have a blueprint of that area in your mind. It's like you're a computer and you have a video game level loaded into memory but you're not rendering the scene.

Why do all scientists seem like children intellectually once you start reading philosophy?

Is there a hard problem of consciousness, /sci/?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hard_problem_of_consciousness