Jump to content


Senior Members
  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

2 Neutral

About sciwiz12

  • Rank

Profile Information

  • Favorite Area of Science

Recent Profile Visitors

3443 profile views
  1. http://www.itis.ethz.ch/virtual-population/tissue-properties/database/low-frequency-conductivity/ Data base of tissue properties, in particular low frequency conductivity. http://www.physlink.com/education/AskExperts/ae512.cfm There, according to physics there are no magnetic field insulators, even weak magnetic fields penetrate the skull, my bad. I didn't know it was even up for debate but fine, I was mistaken, there, magnets get through just fine. Happy? Can we continue now?
  2. Sorry, when I said nanite I wasn't referring to microscopic robots, which is why I tried to avoid saying nanobots. I'm no nano tech expert but I'm at least up to speed on advances in nano tech and also the problems with programmable matter, which I know is kind of a separate thing. Anyway, as far as sources I have a few in mind, I'm really lazy when it comes to citations so I'd have to work up the energy first and I'm not particularly motivated. I'm not going to say that I don't need to cite sources because I'm just right, that would be stupid of me. However, please don't make me g
  3. OK, yeah, I see that it was a mistake to try anything one more time, we apparently just aren't even communicating on the same level, I say something and you focus on the most irrelevant slices of my position. Although I'll agree that I should definitely cite my sources, sure, but here's my reverse ask, why the fuck should I bother? Is there some magical point at which I'm going to say something in a specific enough way that you look at it and go, "huh, you know actually that's a good point, I think if I could look at these particular sources directly with my own eyes I would be incline
  4. Hey, there's a valid point you raise there, but that seems to me like an important distinction. There are some publications regarding the reasonable ineffectiveness of math in some areas like biology and engineering where for various reasons the utility of the mathematics that we use doesn't do a very good job of describing the patterns in the universe. Still now that you mention it I think that's what this entire argument has been about really. There's the math humans do and the "math" or rather the appearance of order and consistency inherent in the universe. If you call the thing th
  5. I'm aware that electrical stimulation of certain regions of the brain can insight various reactions, and I have recently seen work done with nano machines so small that they could not contain internal electrical components and so were piloted by magnets outside of the human body. Here is my query, what are your thoughts on the potential of piloting injected nanites to various regions of the brain and generating an external field which would cause the nanite to produce a small charge and stimulate regions of the brain through non-invasive means? I mean you still could theoretically run
  6. I'm sorry, I've been meaning to dig a lot deeper into physics, but something just occurred to me. The fundamental forces acting upon distant objects, quantum entanglement of particles across vast distances, is it possible that space is an illusion. Rather, is it possible that we could perceive space and distance as real on a super atomic level, and yet that the universe could be better explained if distance were not real on some subatomic level, that distance could be some sort of trick. I mean mathematically you can represent three dimensions with three coordinates. I could al
  7. I will give it one final go. People see the face of Jesus in toast for the same reasons they see math in the universe. Human brains look for patterns, mathematics assigns names to patterns such that when the pattern is observed it can be described in reference to mathematics. The patterns themselves are real because we seem to live in a highly ordered and organised universe. At the same time they are not real because the universe does not consult mathematical laws in order to form patterns in the same way bread does not pull information about the face of Jesus in order to form a pa
  8. You might have heard of it, the devil's breath, schopolamine. If you haven't there's a documentary on Vice on YouTube that discusses the effects of the drug. Now I'm still studying chemistry and haven't had time to get very deep into it yet, nor neurology yet. I'm getting to it, anyway, so here's my question, to the best of your knowledge are the claims valid? For those who don't know, the drug supposedly kills you in even moderately high doses, but in sufficiently low doses inhibits activity in the frontal or prefrontal cortex rendering the victim unable to refuse commands and unable
  9. I give up. This is the same head bashing I would expect to encounter in a religious debate, not on a scientific forum such as this. I simply don't have the patience nor the energy to continue to engage in such a fruitless endeavour. You can go on believing whatever you want. I'm really not trying to be an elitist or take any sort of high ground, I simply see a lot of unsupported declarations and lack of logical standards. Maybe from your perspective I'm guilty of the same crime, I hardly see how that is the case as I've attempted to avoid matter of fact declarations and holes in logic but
  10. Arc, you simply declared that alien races would use the same system of mathematics because they must adhere to the same physical laws. I cannot accept this claim at face value until you prove that any sufficiently intelligent race under the same physical laws regardless of sensation and communication must necessarily develop the same systems of formal logic and mathematics. I'm not saying you're definitely wrong but you've declared it very matter of factly without showing why this should necessarily be the case. Under the same logic why wouldn't they all speak English? I mean they exist in the
  11. Also fine, if you want to declare any words I use to belong to some branch of mathematics I should tell you there's a completely non-mathematical way to describe the shape of any object: I can draw it. No mathematical terms are required, just a paint brush, or I could sculpt it in clay. Also it's faulty reasoning anyway. Even if I needed math to describe an object I need English to describe the world, that doesn't make words real, nor even that which words describe. For instance, I need words to describe the color of the ocean as blue, and you might argue that the oceans would be blu
  12. Here, let me use more formal logic. If a system is objectively real, then we will be able to observe any aspect of that system in nature. If an element of a system does not and cannot exist in nature, the system cannot be objectively real. Imaginary numbers cannot exist in physical reality and do not exist in physical reality. Imaginary numbers are a necessary element within our mathematical system. Thus mathematics contains elements which cannot and do not exist within nature, and because systems whose necessary elements do not exist within nature cannot be objectively rea
  13. Daedalus: That was a really solid effort, literally from a certain perspective, I commend your attempt at rigor. Still the contention makes a few assertions that, A:lack imagination and B: as far as I'm aware have no basis in truth other than the fact that you said it was so. For instance: "geometric arrangements... Can only be described mathematically". Now if you said "can" be described mathematically I would have agreed but you've given no proof of the only part of your claim beyond asserting that such is the case. If that were true it would be impossible for me to describe in plain
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.