VikingF

Except if this it true, then you (or to be more specific, the new "you") will keep experiencing, of course without any knowledge of what the old you experienced earlier. On the other hand, if this is false, then you (which will not exist) will not experience anything more. I think that is the big difference.

Even if it doesn't exist right after you are dead, it doesn't necessarily mean that it will never exist again. We have seen that it is theoretically possible to exist, haven't we? The probability that there exist higher dimensions than "our" three is quite high, isn't it? Then there may be parallel universes in an infinite(?) multiverse, and if that is the case, then at least we can say that there will always exist a universe like our. I recommend Max Tegberg's "Parallel Universes". If there exists some kind of infinity, then the probability will absolutely not be small at all, but on the other hand very high! Exactly! But if parallel universes exist, then there isn't that important whether THIS exact universe exists or not somewhere in the future. (If you didn't get it, I'm very fascinated by Multiverse theories these days. ) And the answer to he/she who started this thread: Yes.

Merry X-mas!

I actually wrote a termpaper on (pseudo)randomness not too long ago. All computer based algorithms are really deterministic, but the quality of a pseudorandom sequence generator differs from generator to generator. The formulae I mentioned above is called a Linear Congruential Generator, and is the one most used, e.g. in cryptography. If a and c is chosen as large numbers and m is a prime, then it will be difficult to guess what number that will be next, if you don't know a, c, m and X_0 (the seed). This is because the sequence will generate more numbers before it repeats itself.

According to the Mensa test from Denmark, I have an IQ of 110.

When random numbers are created by an algorithm, it isn't random, but pseudorandom. Pseudorandom means that to know the next element in a sequence is quite difficult, but even if there seems to be random, it exists a formulae that calculate what the next number should be. This is often calculated by the fomulae: X_n=aX_{n-1}+c (mod m).

That's 4^3,000,000,000, which is a number a lot larger than the total number of electrons in the Universe. The question then is of course whether time is finite, the same way as space is. I really can't understand the concept of "no time existing". Maybe time is infinite, but the Universe is finite? Then, IFF that is the case, I guess there is a sound chance that a Universe quite identical to this may appear again some time in the future, the way it already has done atleast once. Where do you see the individual in all this? And what makes you believe in reincarnation? If everything is changing all the time, and nothing stays the same, then I would almost conclude that we have only one chance. Maybe I missed an important point here...? As I said before, the fact(?) that all those incidents had to happen for me to exist, is one of the main reasons why I believe there is more to reality than we know today. More than pure coincidences.. I have no clue what it is though. That's why I think both philosophy and science are exciting fields. They seem to compete against each other, but in the end, they have the same goal: They want to solve the mysteries that we wonder about quite often. No, I think it was very interesting! Thanks!

That IS an interesting question, and I guess you don't mean "why I am the way I am" (... "because my father's DNA and my mother's DNA coupled once in the past" ...)-thing, but actually "why I observe the world through VikingF's senses (that isn't my real name, though) and why you view the world through Imasmartgirl's senses". Of course we can never(?) answer this question, but that question is actually the main reason why I think there is more to it than what we/science know today... I will never give you a reason why, because - as said earlier in this thread - one possible sollution is as possible as any of the other 1000000...0 sollutions. The probability in the past that the "potential VikingF" would be born and exist and not for instance "the potential VikingG" was not too big either...

Isn't it called "irrational equations"? (I'm a Norwegian too, so I know what "irrasjonelle likninger" is.)

I'm very sorry to say, but "yes", the London Police had no other choice than to shoot him. In these days, it's dangerous to act like a bomber in London, and the police cannot take the chance and let a possible bomber kill more people. In that situation, they had to react rapidly. I don't think for instance NYPD would have solved the situation another way. R.I.P.

I have thought the same as the thread starter - that the Universe is the sum of the objects in the space, and that it was these objects that were created at (and after) the Big Bang. I did also thought that the space was infinite and had existed forever. In other words, that the Universe was not the same as the Space. Do anyone know for a fact what's real and not? It would probably not been a discussion in that case, but maybe scientists have explored something which can be a step towards a sollution of this problem? Interesting topic!

Not that hard to explain. We know that: [uv]' = u'v+uv' If we take the integral on both sides, we get: int([uv]')dx = int(u'v)dx + int(uv')dx (assumes that x is the variable in the equation) int([uv]')dx = uv, so: uv = int(u'v)dx + int(uv')dx The sollutions are then: (1): int(u'v)dx = uv - int(uv')dx, and (2): int(uv')dx = uv - int(u'v)dx Not more woodoo than that.

SELECT * FROM MyThings WHERE ('TotalVotes' / 'Voters') > 2.5 might work to?

It is still interesting HOW the brain is able to generate consciousness and self-awareness, though. The brain controlls all those functions, but what controlls the brain, if anything? I don't say that it is a "soul"-thing, but it is still an interesting question, because we don't know the answer to that today... (or do we?).

The answer to the problem is: 1/root(2x-1), but when I solve Dave's equation above, I get -1/root(2x-1)....? d/dx(root(f(x))) = f'(x)/2root(f(x)) isn't it?

http://integrals.wolfram.com/ Try this.