• Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by ydoaPs

  1. What is Time?

    I thought clocks measure other clocks.
  2. Energy, Cost and Subsidy in Power Production

    ! Moderator Note This thread has become nothing but Trolling/counter-Trolling/bickering. It is now closed.
  3. How is energy conserved when length contracts?

    Energy is conserved, but not invariant. Within a frame, energy in equals energy out, but between frames, energy need not have the same sum.
  4. Italy invented the compass.

    ! Moderator Note This thread started off in a grey area and isn't going anywhere. Upon staff review, this thread is closed.
  5. Could be a great idea!

    ! Moderator Note Link in the OP removed. If you want to discuss your speculations here, present them here.
  6. Removal of the down-vote, yes or no?

    Theoretically, improved quality means more up votes, so increased quality over time will "get rid of" the negative reputation. It's not an insurmountable task like it would be were we using the old system where a downvote from somebody with enough positive reputation *cough* swansont *cough* would have such a strong effect that the damage to the reputation would be effectively infinite. And we have both natural and artificial buffers to reputation abuse. Posters notice abuse and often upvote to counteract the unnecessary downvote. Also, we have a special user group that habitual rep abusers get put into. That being said, staff don't read all threads, so we don't notice all abuse. If you think somebody is abusing the reputation system, report a post that was abused and tell us about it. A great way to help with both issues is to be very generous with positive rep. A post doesn't need to win a Pulitzer prize to deserve some rep. The problem there is that it could lead to feuds of reputation abuse. Iirc, we had that sort of problem when you could leave a comment with your rep. Though, that was before I became a demigod. Just so you know, staff *can* see who reps what posts, and it's not always who you think. For example, a few posts above, one poster got a negative rep and the immediately following post is replying with a snide comment. One might reasonably think that the poster making the snide comment left the rep, but they didn't (I checked).
  7. Scientific Method in climate science

    ! Moderator Note Upon staff review, this thread will remain closed.
  8. quantum mechanics related problem

    ! Moderator Note Homework Help Rules A simple reminder to all: this is the "Homework Help" forum, not the "Homework Answers" forum. We will not do your work for you, only point you in the right direction. Posts that do give the answers may be removed.
  9. Yeah, as far as I can tell, it's because x is being treated like a constant instead of a function on the right hand side in the first step.
  10. x^2 = x + x + ... + x (x times) d/dx x^2 = d/dx [x + x + ... + x] 2x = x 2 = 1 Enjoy. Now, can you find the problem?
  11. I contend that the concept of an objectively Greatest Possible Being ("GPB" for short) isn't a coherent concept. As the concept is about being greater than other things, we're talking about Partially Ordered Sets ("posets" for short). To argue a fortiori, I will be making the following GPB friendly assumptions: 0) The greatness interval is bound for all Great Making Property ("GMP" for short) orderings. 1) The orderings for all GMP are chains (totally ordered). 2) The greatness orderings for each GMP are objective. There is an objective fact of the matter that more moral is greater than less moral. 3) There are objective GMP. There is an objective fact of the matter as to whether a given property is a GMP. For the beginning, we'll stick with independent GMP to make things easy and to clearly illustrate the problem. Let's look at two great-making properties, P and Q. The value ordering of P is <P, <> = P1 < P2 < ... < Pn. The greatness ordering of P is <P, ≺> = P1 ≺ P2 ≺ ... ≺ Pn. Similarly, for Q, we have both value ordering and greatness ordering. The value ordering for Q is <Q, <> = Q1 < Q2 < ... < Qm. The greatness ordering for Q is <Q, ≺> = Q1 ≺ Q2 ≺ ... ≺ Qm. Where "X < Y" is "the value of X is less than the value of Y" and "X ≺ Y" is "X is less great than Y". Now, consider two beings, A and B, who exemplify both P and Q to varying degrees. Being A exemplifies P7 and Q12, while entity B exemplifies P12 and Q7. Of the entities A and B, which is greater? To answer that question, we need to look at the product space: PxQ. That's the set of all possible combinations of values of P and Q. So, the entity A, on PxQ, corresponds with point (P7, Q12), and, likewise, B corresponds with point (P12, Q7). Even with the objective ranking, it's not possible to give an objective answer. The product ordering on PxQ only gives a partial ordering, and it's one such that there is no answer as to which of A and B is the greater being [(A ≺ B ) iff ((P(A) ≺ P(B)) and (Q(A) ≺ Q(B)))]. So, the only way to compare them is if one entity is greater in both properties than the other entity. That makes tons of entities not directly comparable. Each added GMP makes more entities incomparable. If we have three GMP, than one entity is greater than another only if it is greater in terms of all three GMP. At this point, you might be wondering, "So? GMP has the property value corresponding to the greatest greatness for all properties. It's (Pn, Qm).". And, if we only had independent properties to deal with, you'd have a point. I introduced independent properties first, so you could see that this is a problem with *ALL* GMP. Not all, GMP, however, are independent. The values of some GMP are linked to the value of other GMP. Sometimes, the more one GMP is exemplified, the less another is. If we then move on to great-making properties such that they aren't independent, but are rather somewhat inversely related (such as moral goodness and potence), then you can't max out the product ordering, since raising one property lowers the other. They come in pairs: (P1, Qm), (P2, Qm-1), ... , (Pn-1, Q2), (Pn, Q1) There is no place in this space of property pairs where one entity is greater than another in all properties. Thus, when we introduce inversely related GMP, we go from losing some ordering to losing all ordering. There is no objective ordering such that a GPB exists.
  12. Greatest Possible Beings and Posets

    I don't actually agree with that assumption. It's part of arguing a fortiori. An argument has more force if you make assumptions that make it harder to make your point, but support the point against which you're arguing. In this case, specifically, denying this assumption in the argument would be tantamount to circular reasoning. It would be arguing that there is no fact of the matter that there is a Greatest Possible Being because there is no fact of the matter that there is no Greatest Possible Being. While logically valid, it's not persuasive, and is in fact an informal fallacy.
  13. graviton / space / dark matter / dark energy ?

    ! Moderator Note Everybody play nice. Don't make me turn this car around.
  14. Greatest Possible Beings and Posets

    Newton Medal award? I don't know what that is, but it sounds shiny, and I just can't turn down shiny things.
  15. The definition of nothingness exactly

    Despite how often apologists with no understanding of physics make this claim, it's not true. Fyi, two of the three have publicly stated that the above quoted claim is false, while the third, afaik, has not commented on the subject. Pro tip: Don't get your science from people who are paid to lie to gullible people
  16. A discussion of heathen religions

    ! Moderator Note I'm not sure why this wasn't closed months ago and I'm not sure why OP necroposted it yesterday, but it's closed now.
  17. Yay, GUNS!

    There have been photos recently spreading on facebook about the recent shooting during the Batman premier. These people are suggesting that it wouldn't have been nearly as bad if someone in the crowd had a gun. Not only do I disagree with this premise, but I think it is insanely ridiculous. Discharging a firearm into a crowded room is extremely dangerous even when trained professionals in ideal conditions. To think that untrained civilians could have safely stopped the tragedy while under a cloud of teargas is insane and dangerously so. Now, moving from the specific to the general case, I found this article citing studies showing the obvious conclusions that more guns means more gun violence and more strict gun laws mean fewer shooting deaths. Thoughts?
  18. Greatest Possible Beings and Posets

    Does a chaotic neutral god not have more options for action than a lawful good god?
  19. The title is a common view among crackpots. They often think that the ability to imagine something means that the universe might actually be that way or could have been that way were things differently. To use philosophy words, they often think that conceivability means epistemic or metaphysical possibility. But, the question is, is that true? To find that out, we need to find something that is conceivable but is impossible. For the first sense of possibility, (how things might actually be), that is incredibly easy. All we have to do is find something that is conceivable but not the case. Have you ever been wrong about something? If you have, you've shown that conceivability does not mean epistemic possibility. The second one is a bit harder, since there's disagreement on the exact requirements of what makes something metaphysically possible, but we do know that for something to be metaphysically possible, it must also be logically possible. That is, were things different, an accurate description of the universe still wouldn't entail a contradiction. So, we can knock this out by finding something which is conceivable, yet logically impossible. Can we imagine things which are contradictions? You might be tempted to say "No one can imagine a square circle!". But I'd like to talk about one which almost everyone intuitively conceives. People intuitively like to group things. It's how we make sense of the world. We have apples, chairs, etc. All you have to do is put things together and you have a group. In mathematics, we call these kind of groupings 'sets'. The things in these groups are called "members". Any group of members of a set is called a "subset". This does mean that all sets are subsets of themselves, but that's not of interest to us here. What we're interested in is the idea that you can group whatever you want into a set. You can make sets of sets. You can take your set of cats and your set of dogs and put them together into a new set! So, let's take a look at a specific set: the set of all sets which are not members of themselves. The set of all cats is not a member of the set of all cats-it's a set of cats, not of sets! So, it goes in! Likewise, any set consisting of no sets will go in this set of all sets which are not members of themselves. So, we pose a question: Is this set of all sets which are not members of themselves (from here on out, we'll call it 'R') a member of itself? If R is a member of R, then it fails to meet the requirements to be in R, so it isn't a member of R. That's a contradiction, so that's no good. That means R must not be a member of itself. But what happens if R is a member of itself? If R is a member of itself, it meets the requirement to be in R. Since R is the set of ALL sets meeting this requirements, it goes in. Again we have R both being a member of itself and not being a member of itself. So, either way, we get a contradiction. This means something is logically impossible. But we got this result simply from the definitions of sets and members and from the very conceivable idea that you can group whatever you want together. This is a situation in which something is conceivable, but logically impossible. This means it is not the case that whatever you can imagine is possible. Crackpots, take note: the fact that you can imagine something in no way implies that it is possible. It doesn't matter how clear your perpetual motion device/unified theory/God/electric universe is, imagining it doesn't cut the mustard. This is one of the reasons you NEED the math.
  20. If I can imagine it, it is possible!

    I take it you didn't actually read the OP. It's generally good practice to do that before posting in its thread.
  21. When do AIs become moral agents?

    What features would be required in an AI for us to include it in our moral sphere of consideration? Facebook just shut down an AI. With what minimum features of the AI would that be immoral?
  22. In linguistics, a cognates are words two different languages that sound the same and have the same meaning. English "beer" and German "Bier" are cognates. Similarly, false cognates sound the same, but have vastly different meanings. English "gift" and German "Gift" are false cognates, as an English gift is something you get someone you like and the German Gift is something you give someone you want to die, namely poison. In CS, different languages have similar ideas with similar names. Floats, ints, and doubles are everywhere. I'm interested in seeing your favorite examples false cognates in programming languages. My favorite is the for loop. Python's for loop is nothing like the rest of the for loops. Python's for loop iterates over an iterable while letting the program do stuff with the current member for each iteration. The rest of them initialize a variable, then let the program do stuff with the variable, then increment/decrement the variable. That goes on until the cessation condition is met. Python: for member in iterable: stuff(member) C++: for(initialize variable; cessation condition; increment/decrement){ stuff(variable);} For python to mimic the other for loops, it would need a while loop. def cpp_for(initialization, condition, incrementation): i = initialization while(condition): stuff(i) i += 1 if incrementation == 'increment' else i -= 1 What's your favorite example?
  23. Need a percentage problem done

    80 = 0.25x y = 0.75x Solve for y.
  24. When do AIs become moral agents?

    Probably more of a fuzzy gradient than a sharp line, but that's the idea.