/sci/ - Science & Math

>>15361913
Space is big, there won't be too many actual collisions.
There's a chance we might get flinged out of the galaxy though.

There are several problems with the concept of free will.

What most people seem not to grasp from the theory of special relativity is that time is relative - this necessitates that all time already "exists" for many points of space and particles, and thus our fates are already woven. You cannot really change anything, as everything has already "happened"; all you are doing is basically reading the book of your life by experiencing it.

This means that there cannot be a "free will". In the end history will always go only one way - how could you choose anything else but the thing that you were meant to choose? In actuality, there is no choice, as you will choose the "best" action that fits that particular situation.

>>10347670

>>9603071

>>8213412

here's a simulation

>>7206805

is gravity antimatter?

I'm going to scratch an old wound here, but I'd like to hear your input.

A computer simulation of a human society would require an absolutely astronomical processing power and knowledge that we don't have at this point. Our abilities in this regard, however, grow stronger every year, so it's a reasonable assumption it's going to be possible one day. In the beginning it would require resources of an entire nation, but should the computing power growth continue, it'll become easy on very small scale as well, making the process widespread.
A simulated world can be made with whatever initial conditions, making the current known age of the universe meaningless. which in can give a lot more time for civilizations to develop, making the sources of such simulations even more widespread. And it's not constrained by time either, because whenever it would be made would make no difference to simulated beings, so it's not only every civilization ever, but also every civilization whenever - meaning there is far more simulated worlds than real ones. And if simulations can be made inside simulations..

I mean jesus fuck
We just have to be living in one.

I made a meaningless estimate based on drake's equation once. It served no practical purpose other than to illustrate a point, since I ended up with a huge number even though I used very low estimates for the unknowns. It obviously doesn't go in line with the assumption that the simulated world doesn't follow the rules of the original, but, as I said, it was only supposed to make a point.
Maybe I can still dig it up/

What do you think about that?

astrophysics because it's STEM and I can still get laid talkin bout stars and shit

>>6768049
I enjoy sex (all of them were uncut), but I suck at relationships in a sense that they require a lot of my time and thought and I'm just picky and think too much about it when I do. I started doing bad in uni due to trying to pursue a healthy sex life, so I decided to go without dick (it's been about a year now). Plenty of meditation (I use sounds on YT of tibetan bowls and lie in bed eyes closed, try to empty my thoughts, I usually go for 30-60min I haven't tried testing the limit I can go). The effect is I am able to go into extreme relaxation quickly (usually by lying down eyes closed), concentrate and imagine myself in situations where I can, in a way, experience what's going on (a sort of dream-like state). This makes getting out of bed a pretty heavy subject though. Falling asleep can be a bitch as well because I get energetic after an orgasm.

>>6714311
this, everytime I see one of these retarded threads.

>HI /SCI/ I WANT TO TALK BOUT IMMORTALITY

k, wanna talk about telomer-

>LOL THAT'S NEVR GONNA HAPPEN LET'S JUST UPLOAD CONSCIOUSNESS

fine, but you will remain in your body so nothing will change from your point of view, you will die nevertheless

>IT WILL BE JUST LIKE WAKING UP AFTER SLEEPING

ok so WHY THE FUCK are you labeling this as "immortality" if all you want is to make a copy of yourself and die during or after said process?

What can you tell me about astroparticle physics? seems like a very interesting branch of study to me.

>>6550337

>>6354116
Good golly I love that gif.

Does anyone know of any functional analysis video lectures on the internet that covers some or all of the contents of Reed and Simon's mathematical physics book (hilbert spaces, banach spaces, topological spaces, locally convex spaces, bounded and unbounded operators and the spectral theorem)?

I haven't been able to find any except for one lecture series with really poor quality audio and video.

Just one question /sci/.
Do you believe we can be certain about anything?

>>4739317
yes! ive actually found it now
<<<