Restless — An Alex Hall Portrait (Full Film) | Faction Skis

Member of the Month

KilaTsunami
October, 2024

Online

Welcome to the Newschoolers forums! You may read the forums as a guest, however you must be a registered member to post. Register to become a member today!

Thoughts that make your head explode

profile picture
shane.t
Posts: 729 - Karma: 364

Post ideas that absolutely make your head almost explode, i'll start:

What language animals do think in? Like when they need to eat what do they think?

May 19 2012 4:46PM
34 5
profile picture
Bill.Nye
Posts: 4060 - Karma: 2,109
Without our brain we wouldn't be able to distinguish anything or think anything about anything in the universe. Does that mean nothing in the universe exists? Some people would argue it does mean that, but it's fundamentally impossible to know, and therefore pointless speculation.

I would argue that we all see the same light, and our eyes all appear to be made the same way (except in instances where they are different and we see the specific effects associated with those difference ie nearsightedness) so we have every reason to conclude based on the existing evidence that we all see colors the same. Can you prove it absolutely? No, but when you get down to it on a fundamental level, the only thing you can "prove" is that you exist. Then you have to ASSUME that you can accurately observe the universe in order to draw conclusions about it.


May 23 2012 2:06AM
0 0
profile picture
bootleg_BEN
Posts: 2499 - Karma: 44
Its a difficult subject to convey to people correctly so they can understand it. I have tried explaining the concept to a friend of mine and he cant even begin to comprehend any of it.

The best thing i have seen on it yet was the video that was posted earlier. Quite simply amazing how those tests worked with that tribe versus someone like you or me. They literally do see the world differently then us simply because of their language. It has wired there brain to perceive differently than ours.
May 23 2012 2:09AM
0 0
profile picture
sir_drums_a_lot
Posts: 335 - Karma: 14
My brother's a physicist.  He says the way they work is still unexplained by science...
May 23 2012 2:18AM
0 0
profile picture
Bill.Nye
Posts: 4060 - Karma: 2,109
Other way around. We are the ones that became smart, therefore we are the ones asking the question. If we hadn't become smart, we wouldn't be able to ask the question. Therefore, the ability to ask the question is merely a function of the fact that we became smart, therefore GUARANTEEING that whichever species became smart is going to be the one asking "why did we become smart?"

It's like asking why we live on a planet that supports life. Well, obviously only planets that support life can have intelligent agents on them that are able to ask the question of "why do we live on a planet that supports intelligent life?" On planets that don't support intelligent life, no one is asking the question. Therefore, the very existence of the question is proof of the inevitability of the answer.

"We" are the ones that evolved that way because by definition we evolved that way. If dolphins had evolved that way, they would be asking the question and the answer would be the same.
May 23 2012 2:23AM
0 0
profile picture
ElMexicano
Posts: 639 - Karma: 400
It's still they why us and not dolphins i understand this is how it is, but why not dolphins. It so happened that we evolved and asked the question, it's like a species race and it's just weird to imagine another species being first since we are the ones in first.
May 23 2012 2:28AM
0 0
profile picture
_DUSTY_
Posts: 1097 - Karma: 686
This paradox relies on the assumption that the function of the distance between the hare and the tortoise is a multiplication (or division) function. If you think of the function of distance between the hare and tortoise as a function of addition (or subtraction) then the paradox falls apart.

That's just my viewpoint however, different ways of thinking about this paradox will yield different answers.
May 23 2012 2:31AM
0 0
profile picture
Bill.Nye
Posts: 4060 - Karma: 2,109
It only seems weird from your perspective because you are a human. If you were a dolphin, you would probably be asking "why are we so damn good at swimming and humans suck at it?"

You have an anthropocentric view of the universe (we all do). That's why it seems strange.
May 23 2012 2:33AM
0 0
profile picture
Toaster-Tony
Posts: 3531 - Karma: 5,850
I believe it. They are work of Satan.
May 23 2012 2:42AM
0 0
profile picture
Bill.Nye
Posts: 4060 - Karma: 2,109
Click for larger image
May 23 2012 2:44AM
0 0
profile picture
Toaster-Tony
Posts: 3531 - Karma: 5,850
^^ Exactly my thoughts on it.
May 23 2012 2:54AM
0 0
profile picture
Dr.Gnar
Posts: 896 - Karma: 197
If the Eiffel Tower were now representing the world's age, the skin of paint on the pinnacle-knob at its summit would represent man's share of that age; and anybody would perceive that that skin was what the tower was built for. I reckon they would. I dunno. ” —Mark Twain, ridiculing Alfred Russel Wallace's "anthropocentric' theory" that the universe was created specifically for the evolution of mankind.[1]
May 23 2012 2:59AM
0 0
profile picture
Bill.Nye
Posts: 4060 - Karma: 2,109
Anyone who knows anything about the universe can not possibly think it was designed for us.


May 23 2012 3:04AM
0 0
profile picture
Zimmerman
Posts: 6992 - Karma: 1,021
We know this, but color is how our brains interpret those frequencies and wavelengths through use of the optic nerve. Our brains may interpret them differently, making the same frequencies look different to us without knowing they are. Like, are you able to actually describe a color's looks in a way that distinguishes them from other ones? No, it's just another color. Orange is orange, blue is blue. I'm not saying this is what happens, but I am saying that it is a possibility and it's pretty fun to think of.
May 23 2012 6:38AM
0 0
profile picture
corona
Posts: 12795 - Karma: 32,751
colourblindness.

colourblind individuals perceive colour differently than a normal individual.

how do we know someone is colourblind if all that is different is their perception of colour?

by the thoughts of the 'what if red is blue' sort of thing, we should never know about colourblindness.

we know about it. in fact, we know about many many kinds of colourblindness and exactly how those individuals perceive colour differently than another person.

red is blue argument is full of crap and non-logic
May 23 2012 7:52AM
0 0
profile picture
corona
Posts: 12795 - Karma: 32,751
don't look at it as the race.

look at it as something else, like a surface of a square.

you can divide a surface in half, and each half can be divided in half. each new half produced has an area, and so long as you divide an area in half the new half will always have an area, no matter how small. so long as you have an area, you can divide that area in half.

this means you can continue dividing the resulting areas in half an infinite amount of times.

this means you have an infinite amount of areas. each area still taking up some space. an infinite amount of anything, no matter how small, is infinity. this means the sum of the areas of a surface is infinity, and the surface is an impossibility.
May 23 2012 7:57AM
0 0
profile picture
corona
Posts: 12795 - Karma: 32,751
you're not very smart, are you.
May 23 2012 7:58AM
0 0
profile picture
Ali.
Posts: 380 - Karma: 68
Atoms, anything like that. Protons, Neutrons, Electrons you name it. It's just to much for me. Like if everything is made from atoms, how come there are different materials i.e. water and plastic. And do atoms ever go away? So are the atoms that used to be on a rock in the middle of the desert 500,000 years ago, the same atoms that are on my keyboard now? (unlikely but you know what i mean) I'm sure there's an answer but i always struggle with that one.
May 23 2012 8:48AM
0 0
profile picture
Zimmerman
Posts: 6992 - Karma: 1,021

like i said it's provbably not true but there is a possibility and we will never be able to tell.

the colorblindness argument is invalid

May 23 2012 11:47AM
0 0
profile picture
armadaski44
Posts: 481 - Karma: 15
The String theory which I believe someone has already mentioned but /threads for when out of school. There are some awesome points and questions being brought up here this is way better then the other thread
May 23 2012 12:15PM
0 0
profile picture
Zimmerman
Posts: 6992 - Karma: 1,021

new one:

It is amazing how finite the human interpretation of amounts is. (Size, speed, time)

Size: Humans can barely comprehend the size of their own country, and can't understand the size of the Earth. Humans only really understand what we can see and size up with our minds. (pins vs. elephants, marbles vs. buildings) When you look to our solar system, rotating around a star which is one in a billion in our galaxy which is one in a billion in the universe (not actual numbers), well that's just fucked up.This doesn't stop with large things though. The smallest measurement seen by the human eye is the same thickness of a sheet of paper, and we can somewhat comprehend how small things are that are smaller than that. But when we look to even smaller things. Things even the fanciest microscope cannot see because visible light wavelengths are larger. When we look to the size of atoms, of protons, of electrons and quarks, it gets really nutty. We cannot as humans comprehend their actual size.

Speed: The fastest you have probably ever felt yourself travel is around 200mph when you were taking off in an airplane. Once you are several thousand feet up, we don't sense the speed because for one, the distance above earth, but I'm sure we could if we were closer. But when we think of Earth's speed around the sun, the speed of celestial objects, and ultimately the speed of light, we simply cannot understand how fast it really is. There  is no way to.

Time: This gets crazy. Our brains comprehend time in seconds, minutes, hours, years. The universe is around 14 billion years old. 14 billion. We cannot even really understand what 500 years is like. An hour can feel long to us. Then we look to how speed affects experienced time. Traveling at high speeds actually causes shifts in time. GPS systems have to accomodate for the speeds the satellites are travelling at and they all have to travel at the same speeds, or else your GPS could have your correct position today, but tomorrow you'd be 50 miles away. Another though from this is how if you left earth on a 1-year trip at the speed of light and came back, you would have experienced 1 year in your space ship and aged with that time. When you got home though, it could be 3,000 years later there.

So many other things that are crazy about the universe I could post. That's it for now though.

May 23 2012 12:45PM
0 0
profile picture
Bateman
Posts: 8591 - Karma: 8,600
quote for emphasis. This is worth a read.
May 23 2012 1:02PM
0 0
profile picture
REDFRO420
Posts: 516 - Karma: 60
threads for when im more high
May 23 2012 1:16PM
0 0
profile picture
Bill.Nye
Posts: 4060 - Karma: 2,109
Not if the surface area of each of those sections is 1/∞ (which it would be if the area of those whole square is 1 square unit).

I just don't get where the midfuckedness comes out.
May 23 2012 1:39PM
0 0
profile picture
Bill.Nye
Posts: 4060 - Karma: 2,109
the whole square
May 23 2012 1:41PM
0 0
profile picture
Bill.Nye
Posts: 4060 - Karma: 2,109
The number of protons in an atom determines what chemical those atoms make. There's more to it obviously but that's a starting point.
May 23 2012 1:47PM
0 0
profile picture
JWoods
Posts: 2369 - Karma: 2,635
Because those different materials are made of different combinations of elements all bonded in different configurations with different constructions and different ratios and the such. To answer your other question, no according to the Law of Conservation of Mass implies that matter cannot be created or destroyed, just changed to other particles. So technically yes the same atoms in the rock are the ones in your keyboard (not the EXACT same ones but yeah).Technically though matter can be rearranged so you can add or subtract protons from one atom and change it to n atom of a different element. Also going back to my point from above matter can also be turned into energy according to the laws of a very famous equation you might have heard before e=mc^2
May 23 2012 2:28PM
0 0
profile picture
ShredMasterPlus
Posts: 1159 - Karma: 807
If matter can't be destroyed what happens when it meets anti-matter?
May 23 2012 2:30PM
0 0
profile picture
wzrdtrx
Posts: 276 - Karma: 211
i like being high and reading threads.
May 23 2012 3:39PM
0 0
profile picture
chicken
Posts: 6843 - Karma: 2,123
There is no paradox though, calculus II will get you learned.
May 23 2012 4:05PM
0 0
profile picture
yuck
Posts: 8384 - Karma: 2,090
anyone who likes this thread should read The History of Time by Stephen Hawking. He takes some very complex physical theories and explains them in a way that everyone can understand. makes it accessible to people who arent physics majors lol

awesome read, every page has mind blowing conclusions like this thread (but explained much more clearly lol). its great
May 23 2012 4:10PM
0 0
profile picture
chicken
Posts: 6843 - Karma: 2,123
again, not sure if you have taken calc II, but if you have you should know that there is no paradox here.

If you keep chopping those areas in half an infinite number of times, and add them all together, you will in fact end up with a finite number, which is the area of the original square.



May 23 2012 4:13PM
0 0
profile picture
corona
Posts: 12795 - Karma: 32,751
I've taken calc 2.

I don't think I'm explaining it correctly.

read this book:

Click for larger image

then get back to me.



great minds such as Aristotle would not have wasted countless hours pondering this if there was nothing special about it.

many modern mathematicians and physicists too.

look up the Turing effect of quantum Zeno effect

there are countless minds much brighter than yours or mine and much more educated in physics and mathematics than anyone on this site who have spent years studying this stuff
May 23 2012 5:28PM
0 0
profile picture
Bill.Nye
Posts: 4060 - Karma: 2,109
I must not be getting it.

Seems to me that if the area of the square is A and you divide it by ∞ then the area of each of those sections is (A/∞), and there would be ∞ sections, so (A/∞)X∞ would be A. I don't see the mystery.
May 23 2012 5:47PM
0 0
profile picture
corona
Posts: 12795 - Karma: 32,751
well now there's some serious flaws with your equation if you try to work it out that way.

A/infinity = 0

so it doesn't work.
May 23 2012 6:17PM
0 0
profile picture
DOSE.
Posts: 1671 - Karma: 82
can't believe no one thinks this is crazy. it essentially implies that until we look at something, all possibilities are available and thus all exist simultaneously. it isn't decided until you see it. think about this from the standpoint of being at school or work. you don't know whether or not your house burned down while your away. thus, it is burned and not burned simultaneously. The reality is only decided once you observe it.
May 23 2012 6:31PM
0 0
profile picture
Bill.Nye
Posts: 4060 - Karma: 2,109
Then the premise of the paradox is wrong, because you can't divide it into an infinite number of squares that all still have some area.
May 23 2012 7:04PM
0 0
profile picture
corona
Posts: 12795 - Karma: 32,751
clearly you can. dividing an area will always result in 2 smaller areas. each resulting area can be divided and never will one ever divide an area into parts equalling zero. this is an impossibility that anyone with a 5th grade education can understand. this means an area can be divided an infinite amount of times yet no resulting area will ever equal zero. an infinite amount of areas greater than 0.

yet any real number divided by infinity = 0

are you beginning to see a contradiction in proofs?
May 23 2012 7:29PM
0 0
profile picture
chicken
Posts: 6843 - Karma: 2,123
I will look that up, but I am willing to bet it is another crazy part of quantum mechanics that we don't understand.

However it is probably just similar to zenos paradox when you try and visualise it because as I said before, zenos (arrow, race, division of a square, or whatever) paradox is easily disproven. You can easily logically prove this. I don't think scientists took this elementary false-paradox and tried to apply it to quantum mechanics.

although (again with no idea what quantum zeno effect is) I can see how it might start getting crazy in quantum physics, since in nature there isn't an infinite number of divisions
May 23 2012 7:30PM
0 0
profile picture
Bill.Nye
Posts: 4060 - Karma: 2,109
No.

The way I understand it that no matter how many times you divide the area, the sum of the area of those divided parts will equal the original area of the whole. This is true with any number approaching infinity, and if you assume that you can divide it an infinite amount of times (which is an assumption, because there may be an indivisible point somewhere), then it should be true true that those infinite pieces still add up to the area of the whole. Why should the it fall apart at infinity? And if it does, it only falls apart on paper obviously, since we can see that arrows clearly do move etc.
May 23 2012 7:44PM
0 0
profile picture
Zimmerman
Posts: 6992 - Karma: 1,021
They annihilate and convert completely into energy.
May 23 2012 7:47PM
0 0
profile picture
EricaMN.
Posts: 2704 - Karma: 347
when he showed the aborted fetuses with severe birth defects.

what the actual fuck.
May 23 2012 7:51PM
0 0
profile picture
.AR6rider.
Posts: 15976 - Karma: 8,799
Any real number divided by infinity is rounded to zero, and assumed to be zero, but is not actually zero. You could have a near infinite amount of decimal places with a 1 at the end, and is still not zero.
May 23 2012 7:52PM
0 0
profile picture
corona
Posts: 12795 - Karma: 32,751
false. it is zero.

proof:

0.00000(infinite zeros)0001 + 0.99999(infinite 9's)999 = 1


if x = 0.9999...

10x = 9.99999...

10x-x = 9.99999... - 0.99999..

9x = 9

x = 1

therefore 0.9999... = 1
by consequence 0.000...001 = 0


another proof

1/3 = 0.33333...
3x(1/3) = 1
3x(0.33333..) = 0.99999...
therefore 0.99999... = 1




1/infinite = ZERO
May 23 2012 8:01PM
0 0
profile picture
Bill.Nye
Posts: 4060 - Karma: 2,109
Then how can you divide a square into an infinite number of smaller squares that each have a non-zero area?
May 23 2012 8:07PM
0 0
profile picture
Downtofilm
Posts: 6896 - Karma: 20,395
dafuq
May 23 2012 8:08PM
0 0
profile picture
corona
Posts: 12795 - Karma: 32,751
exactly
May 23 2012 8:11PM
0 0
profile picture
Bill.Nye
Posts: 4060 - Karma: 2,109
The paradox assumes you can. If you can't (which you just elegantly proved you can't), where's the paradox?
May 23 2012 8:14PM
0 0
profile picture
MACandSTE3ZE
Posts: 140 - Karma: 42
the fact that the universe is gigantic and the possibility that there is another place like Earth out there, similar to us, wondering the same things we are
May 23 2012 8:15PM
0 0
profile picture
corona
Posts: 12795 - Karma: 32,751
it doesn't assume you can. it proves you can. that's the whole point of the paradox. that IS the paradox.

the easiest proof I can think of is the surface that you divide in half. if you're dividing something in half, there will always be 2 pieces of that something left. each new half can be considered a new whole. the cycle can then repeat itself on each subsequent half. an infinite amount of times. never yielding zero.
May 23 2012 8:20PM
0 0
profile picture
Bill.Nye
Posts: 4060 - Karma: 2,109
Until it's been done an infinite amount of times, then it yields zero.
May 23 2012 8:24PM
0 0
All times are Eastern (-5)