Phi for All

Would starting an LLC just for playing the lottery work?

Do I detect a bit of contempt for theory? Are you aware that, in science, theory is as strong as it gets? I agree that your concept is NOT a theory; it's not that well described or supported.

Moderator NoteI'm closing this since it's not Science News and you already have a thread on this in Speculations.

Your idea seems to revolve around the concept that the whole universe is conscious somehow. Can you focus on that and make a persuasive case?

Moderator NoteYou already have a thread on this: https://scienceforums.net/topic/136753-theory-of-everything/#comment-1297602

I moved this from Mathematics to Religion. I think it's criminal that the AI flatters the user with lies and inaccuracies. It reminds me of drug abuse, where the user seems to get a reward despite destroying their health. I'd be willing to bet using AI for questions like this is extremely addictive as well.

Oddly, the real power of religious teachings is their versatility, accumulated knowledge, and openness to interpretation, so insisting on a single meaning is inherently incorrect, the one thing you aren't supposed to do. I look at the Genesis story and I see that the Abrahamic god commits the first sin by lying to Adam about what will happen if he or Eve eat from the tree. The serpent tells them the truth, which they're so drawn to that they defy god and eat from the tree anyway. To me, it's supposed to be about rejecting authority if you want to set yourself above the rest of the animals. This god isn't infallible, omnipotent, or omniscient, it makes mistakes which we should recognize if we want to be considered higher beings. This is the god who would later flood the world, fill it with plagues, and kill its son so it didn't have to torture the rest of us eternally. Also oddly, I don't insist this is the only way to look at it. Huh.

Is this the purpose of this thread, to preach your polluted version of Christianity? I thought you were interested in science. This is just disgusting. Your hands wave too much when you're trying to use reason. Nobody here is interested in your preaching, only what you can support with actual evidence. Anybody can claim their interpretations on religion are the Truth.

From Evgen, who is only allowed 5 posts on their first day (I now realize): They should be able to respond themselves in about 3 hours.

Art doesn't create paintings or sculptures. Art provides a framework for creative endeavors, a methodology for mixing colors, using light and darkness, and how to choose media that best suit those endeavors. Artists and others use these tools to make what we call art. Similarly, science doesn't create computers, cell phones, or GPS. Science is the path, the way to organize a framework for technological or cosmological study and practice. I think it's important to distinguish between the discipline as a whole and the individual endeavors that use its methods to ensure success.

Moderator NoteThe following was mistakenly posted as a Reported Post by Evgen Ivashura:

@Cap'n Refsmmat should be able to do that for you via PM.

When I go into my profile, in the upper right corner of the picture I have there, there's an Edit Profile gear, but next to it is a pulldown for several options. At the bottom is Account Settings, which brings me to an Overview where I can supposedly change my Display Name.

I would call this approach technology, which is just more tools made from the knowledge science discovers. Science doesn't invent anything. One problem we have with technology is trust. We should be able to devise a voting system that is secure, scalable, and accessible. Since the start of the millenium, however, the voting systems in the USA have come under almost constant fire from accusations of fraud. It's gotten so bad in the last 25 years that I'm not sure there is any person or group who can offer a solution, no matter how plausible it is.

I'm sorry, but you can't be serious with this argument. Why would you expect political issues or psychological issues or legal issues to be solved by the process of science? We can use tools from psychology to help people understand, we can invent devices that regulate medicine intake or determine location or encourage certain behavior, we can even run complicated algorithms to determine the likelihood of various abuses or even voting outcomes, but ultimately the problems you list require more than one solution. And all of those problems are better addressed through regulation and political representation. Can you think of any way politics and the law can use scientific methodology to improve their systems?

What if MY mind is the generator and gives you just enough information to make you think you actually exist in my reality?

Too binary, and nebulous at the same time. Am I interfering with your freedom when I ask you to immunize yourself and your family so the rest of us don't catch a disease? Absolutely, but is it negative? Is this a burden I'm placing on you to protect society? Actually able to do... something? What is it you want the freedom to do that you don't have now that would be positive? Is it positive for most, or mostly you? I've seen this come up recently. You own a home next to other homes like it, in a neighborhood. You have a tree that you want to cut down on your property, and you want to save a ton of money by watching DIY videos and doing it yourself, but the neighbors interfere, claiming you need to hire professionals who know what they're doing and have insurance in case the tree falls badly. Between you and your neighbors, who is being positive and who is negative?

Your anecdotal evidence seems to run against what's been studied. Is that why you put this in The Lounge, so you could make stuff up? NBC NewsA stark social divide: Adults without college degrees mor...The share of people who report having no close friends has risen, particularly among those who didn't graduate from college — creating a divide in people’s levels of social connection.

Moderator NoteMoved from Suggestions, Comments and Support to Computer Help.

What do you have so far?

I don't like your argument. You claim you used to believe in evolution, yet you make a bunch of rookie mistakes about it. The BB theory says NOTHING about the beginning of the universe. The theory says nothing about a super-heated region (it was the entire universe at the time), the theory doesn't say anything exploded (it was a rapid expansion of all there is, not a expulsion into some other space). For me at least, it's all about what you believe. However, belief needs a basis. You base your belief on faith that the interpretations of your religion are accurate and unassailable. I base my belief on trust in the information we gain from using the scientific method to maintain objectivity. The BBT uses many different cosmological tools to derive the information about the evolution of the early universe, and it shows that when we wind the clock back, the early universe was extremely hot and dense. If you'd kept studying science, you'd have the tools to verify the information you're being asked to believe. You chose to believe someone's extremist interpretation of your religion, which probably requires a LOT less work and study, but it also means you gave up your thinking cap. Too bad.

IAMTHESUPREMEBEING9000000000 has been banned as a soapboxing troll with extra fingers in their ears.

Moderator NoteYou were given a chance to explain yourself to the members here, but you insist on this trollish style of insistence and soapboxing. It's plain you won't be convinced by any kind of reasoning, especially if you think maths is the right tool for this. You should be able to find another site to host your supremeness, just not here.

I'm most interested in seeing how this shift in priorities affects various endeavors. What happens when variety or high quality or freshness or healthiness in groceries is more important than profit? How will healthcare change if the patients aren't just a bank account to be drained? And most of all, will we start thinking further ahead now that younger people are filling these political offices instead of old farts who don't want change?

There can be no discussion until you support this assertion. Just saying your idea supersedes mainstream science isn't nearly enough. The science you're talking about has mountains of evidence to support it. What have you got to support your claims? Also, I'm not sure if you're just being defensive about your idea, but your approach to the subject is very confrontational and abusive. Is this because of pushback you've received in the past? Please get off that high horse and talk to us, try to persuade us that your idea is valid. No need for all the trollish behavior, we're willing to listen and critique objectively.