The new /sci/ wikihttps://4chan-science.fandom.com/wiki//sci/_Wiki(More resources in replies)
Reminder: /sci/ is for discussing topics pertaining to science and mathematics, not for helping you with your homework or helping you figure out your career path.If you want advice regarding college/university or your career path, go to /adv/ - Advice.If you want help with your homework, go to /wsr/ - Worksafe Requests
>(AI) If X is a positive property, then the opposite (logical negation) of X, is not positive>X ⊆ Y stands for (∀u)(X(u) -> Y (u))>(AII) If X is a positive property, and in every possible universe, for every object, u, if X is a property for u, then Y is a property for u: then Y is a positive property>(AIII) Being is God-like if and only if:>if the being has a property in every possible universe, the property is positive.>if a property is positive, then the being has said property in every possible universe.>Therefore God exists, and only one such God exists.What did he mean by this?
>>16146607bump
>>16146607God does not exist and has no relevance to modern science. Now go back to your containment board, ince;l.
>>16146754>God does not exist and has no relevance to modern science.>/sci/ = science and mathCope and seethe. You have yet to show how this argument fails.
Evolutionary speaking, what's the purpose of a high IQ?Is a high IQ useless beyond a certain threshold?
>>16146252you sound low IQ. but im sure you get that all the time
>>16146289Not really, no. /sci/ convinced me to take an IQ test and I got 130, I am good at puzzles and stuff like that. No one really comments on my IQ one way or another irl thoughever.
>>16146244Your graph doesn't have anything to do with IQ. There's high and low IQ people in all of those professions. Women don't usually care about IQ one way or another. Most of them select their mates based on their mates' EQ. A competent doctor, lawyer, or financial advisor TYPICALLY has a higher EQ than a competent engineer or scientist. >Is a high IQ useless beyond a certain threshold?The concept of usefulness is entirely man-made. Evolution isn't a form of consciousness with an agenda like this. You've anthropomorphized the blind process of biological change regulated via power dynamics.
>>16146244>women hate scienceWhy is it every fucking thing I learn about women makes me convinced easily 99% of them are barriers to any kind of constructive and civilised society?Not to say most men shouldn't also be thrown into a woodchipper and make the world a better place, but at least men seem to have more of an appreciation for things of value. Women have the same appreciation for knowledge and exploration as niggers (i.e. none). Woman is the nigger of gender.
>>16146733Everyone has to mature and learn to appreciate things of value. Men are more reason-based, so they default to appreciating things with some kind of structural value, but they don't naturally appreciate things of value which aren't related to structure. Women do, while they don't naturally appreciate things of structural value. Life needs both, and to claim otherwise means you're still a little immature.
Does fine tuning imply multiverses with different physics?
>>16143061Depends on your definition of a multiverse. If every other universe is "identical" to ours then no, all physics would still be the same. However, if every universe is "all encompassing" then yes, there will be "infinite" universes in which there will be an "infinite" amount of different variations of physics.
>>16144273The existence of simulators/creators still begs for explanations. You need special pleading to ignore that. Boltzmann brains are formed randomly so there's still a question of "Why this? And why does it persist?" And you're back to some version of anthropic principle again.
>>16143061Why? If this universe was not 'fine-tuned' then you wouldn't be making this post. But here we are, so it must be.
>>16145979
>>16143074Why? There is a universe and it fits the criteria for humans to observe it. It doesn't matter how it arose, if it had any other form we wouldn't observe it./sci/entists sometimes seem to get lost in probabilities and forget that the probability of something that has already happened is 1. By the same logic the probability of a person with the exact same genetic makeup as you being born again is practically null, so you must not exist.Anthropic principle doesn't say "if you generate infinite universes, at least one of them must be able to contain humans", it says "you cannot observe a universe that cannot contain humans", and thus all universal parameters must allow human life regardless of what mechanism gives them their values.
Is being gay definitely natural?>it's been observed in other animals!Never in my life have I seen gay dogs or cats. Do I really trust "papers" published in the past century?>kids from good non-abusing families can grow up to be gay!Yes so that means something else caused it.>there's no such thing as a gay gene!Exactly
>>16146722Yep, they’re a net negative for society overall, I’d say
>>16144939that was the gayest bullshit I've ever read
>>16144932kek>>16146701fuckin retard
>>16145140>it's not a thing you are born with or that you can inheritlegit question then, how does the environment make you gay?also consider that they found the sexual neural network in rat brains. if they stimulate it a certain way the mice turn homosexual. couldn't there be some misfiring issues in the brain of a homosexual? and what is the scientific freedom of working on such research considering politics and all that?
>>16144939>>16144926Its unnatural since its against the purpose of the organs, the intestines are not a sexual organ.The consequences is that gays while being a tiny minority are 83% of syphilis cases, most of hiv, 99% of monkeypox, most of anal cancer, and it goes on and on. Its a biohazard, bad for societies, which is why it was always a shunned behavior.Also no one is born intestine attracted, on the contrary, by default everyone is disgusted by all things intestine related. Perversions are spread through exposure. For example, constant exposure through porn made men want to sodomise their women. Sexuality/sex is that which drives the union of the male and female gametes, everything else is paraphilia/perversion.
is this true
>>16146736Cup my fart faggot
>>16146736>He doesn't research topics before speaking on themNGMI
>>16079731> See pic relatedFuck off you coprophage zog bot. Your sources have no credibility at all, you imbecile moron.
>>16146737Kill yourself to save the planet, nobody needs demonic parasites like you.
>>16146739> Visit globohomo.org to know why is not a scam.LMAO
is evolution /sci/entific?
>>16146711>God is just a human given name for the creator, what actually created life from a human understanding is presently unknown.It's not a given that the universe was "created." Creation is a man-made concept, since the "I" is man-made.>We don't know if we have souls or not. We know that we do not have an immortal soul.>The only ones outdated are Judaism and Islam.All religions which originated prior to the 19th century are outdated.
>>16146729And man makes good things sometimes. How can you claim to be intelligent if you put no worth on your own thoughts?
>>16146729>We know that we do not have an immortal soul.There's more evidence for a soul than against it, and certainly no evidence that negates the possibility entirely.
>>16146731>How can you claim to be intelligent if you put no worth on your own thoughts?I put worth into my own thoughts. I just don't blow them out of proportion and anthropomorphize the universe.>>16146742The "I" is a man-made concept, and consciousness is part of evolution — it's gradual and iterative like all biology. So, what exactly is the soul then, especially an "immortal" one?
>>16146729>We know that we do not have an immortal soul.to be fair...here. if we consider the soul as the information encoded by our brains, which makes the matter we're made out of to manifest (Us), then yes, that soul is "mortal" but only here and now. from its perspective things may be different. it could be immortal. or is immortal in nature
>Last September, astronomers in Japan detected a series of objects in the Kuiper Belt – described by the BBC as a "doughnut shaped region of icy bodies" beyond the orbit of Neptune – that had unusually warped orbits around the Sun. Researchers Michael Brown and Konstantin Batygin, from the California Institute of Technology (Caltech) in Pasadena, speculated that only a massive planet's gravitational pull could explain these "orbital anomalies", said Live Science.>Then in February, scientists narrowed down the "likely hiding" place of the "elusive" planet after they "whittled away" 78% of the "hypothetical world's suspected orbital pathway", said Philip Plait in Scientific American.https://theweek.com/science/the-hunt-for-planet-nine>If things go at this rate, it might take about a decade [to find].Quote from 4.5 years agohttps://youtu.be/pe83T9hISoY
>>16146010it would be nice if planet 9 turned out to be a rocky planet but we all know it's going to be a frozen neptune-like slush ball
>>16146628I hope it’s a black hole, if it was, we could use it to slingshot to nearby solar systems with out needing technology too much better than what we have now for space flight.Secondly, it might spawn a second space race, wether it’s a black hole or a rocky planet with a thick atmosphere that is potentially habitable
>>16139554>Planet 9 close to being foundPluto was discovered almost 100 years ago, retard.
>>16146707if we need a blackhole it will be a blackhole. if we need it the universe provides
>>16146707a black hole would be cool if only for all the rich tards who will try to enter it thinking it's a gateway to another universe or a way to become immortal.
With few exceptions academia wholeheartedly refuses to talk about this subject and racial supremacists aren't exactly objective. Obviously we can be diverse in physical size and appearance. I'm more interested in IQ and temperament which have been proven to be at least partly influenced by genes.
>>16146254is that a map from the 20th century?theres wolves all over Washington & Oregon, they're in northern Cali and Nevada too.
>wolves and coyotes are different speciesBecause taxonomists haven't revised their classification yet. They aren't in actuality, nor will they be taxonomically forever.
>>161462831944 and 2005
>>16146253>The real question is whether we're all the same. That has already been answered and it’s “no”.>we can let biologists draw borders on their maps, they're good for that.That’s why PCA maps exist.
>>16145875>the best thing to everAbsolutely false. The Industrial Revolution shattered humanity. We are forever closer and closer to playing God. The technology we have will lead the Earth to ruin. Not by climate, but by consumption. We have finite resources. The Industrial Revolution and its consequences have been a disaster for the human race. They have greatly increased the life-expectancy of those of us who live in “advanced” countries, but they have destabilized society, have made life unfulfilling, have subjected human beings to indignities, have led to widespread psychological suffering (in the Third World to physical suffering as well) and have inflicted severe damage on the natural world. The continued development of technology will worsen the situation. It will certainly subject human beings to greater indignities and inflict greater damage on the natural world, it will probably lead to greater social disruption and psychological suffering, and it may lead to increased physical suffering even in “advanced” countries.
Could someone explain to me how the second choice isn't the correct one?
>>16146618>>16146618>>16146624Except if you read the op closely you'll see a parenthetical remark that explicitly tells you my interpretation is the correct one. >You are given an urn>[Rest is irrelevant, you have an urn with predefined red and green]>You take a random ball out of the urn—its red—and discard it>The next ball you pick (out of the 99 remaining) is...If you're insistent on the bertrand box analogy, the silver -silver box doesn't exist and has been completely eliminated from the situation because you picked a gold. So the question becomes>You discard the gold coin>The next coin you pick (out of the remaining one coin) is...
>>16146630>In what context?Well, certainly in Bertrand's Box, as I'm sure you'll agree, which is what we were talking about here. But also in the OP problem, which is analogous to it.>>16146634>If you're insistent on the bertrand box analogy, the silver -silver box doesn't exist and has been completely eliminated from the situation because you picked a gold.This is the classic mistake to make with Bertrand's Box, too.I've changed my mind. You are unambiguously wrong, and I've realised your mistake. You might be correct if all you know about the urn is that it has some amount of green and some amount of red. In that case, indeed, the most you can say is that green has now become a fraction more likely, unless there was no green to begin with. But because you know how the urn was prepared, you have more information, and this information renders it precisely analogous to Bertrand's Box. Because being given an urn that is randomly prepared as described is functionally identical to picking one random urn from 101 urns which together contain every possible combination of 100 red and green balls. And this means you can (and indeed, must) take into account the probability of having selected red in the first place - and thus, the infinitesmal gain in likelihood of picking green is offset by the overwhelming likelihood that the urn you have has more red in it to begin with. We do not know which of the 101 possible urns we have, but we do know the likelihood of each one. Unambiguously, then, we can state that the odds of drawing a red ball next are greater than the odds of drawing green.
>>16142479Really nice way of solving the problem. Finally a good post on this board, thanks anon.
>>16141656(1 + 1)/(1 + 0 + 2) = 66% red
>>16146634>The next coin you pick (out of the remaining one coin) is...... more likely to be gold, duh. Everyone knows this.
Look at this sexy goddamn chad. Look at him. Props to youngblood here on heading south like a fine viral young stud, away from the vestige of the tranny and the liberal cuckoo heads.
>>16146654KEK... LAWL.
>>16146654>>16146655Harvard us purely race based, it literally doesn't even accept grades or test scores.Are you an old boomer who applied there in the 70s or something? Did you miss the entire Supreme court ruling against them?
>>16146677KEKLOL
>>16146679>Harvard first announced a shift to test-optional admissions in June 2020, removing the requirement for applicants to the Class of 2025 to submit standardized test scores amidst the Covid-19 pandemic, before it extended the policy to the Class of 2026.Dumb capital poster.
>>16146677>Harvard us purely race basednice cope
Who (please be specific with named individuals) are powerful enough to have this mass censored from Biology 101 classes?
>>16145448>an argumentWhether or not you are an idiot isn't up for debate. You're an idiot.Putting forward an argument would legitimize the idea you aren't an idiot as potentially on the same mental level as your average human, or even dog, and that shouldn't be done.Obviously I could explain why you're an idiot, but you've done a better job of that than I ever could. I have nothing more persuasive to add.
>>16134973>blacks can't speak englishThey can't. They can imitate it, but they can't speak it. Ebonics is their native tongue.>african banjoKek. You know who made that claim? Dena Epstein. One person made this claim with very little evidence. She was a zionist and did what she could to disparage white culture.>blacks can't readThe only ones that can have some white in them.>blacks can't writeSee above>blacks can't beat us in booxingHad to beat a retired boxer that hadn't fought in 6 years and lose a ton of weight, and the canadian that was sick. Kek.>negro leagues joined baseball, not took overBest baseball player of all time is the Babe. The best baseball players of all time are white or mestizo. >tiger woodsHalf chinese>simone bilesFucking kek>arthur asheLegitimately good, but everyone has a little white in them>blacks can't do scienceComment too long. Click here to view the full text.
>>16145680>They can imitate it, but they can't speak it. Ebonics is their native tongue.Going by this logic, Americans in general can't speak English either, since the language you faggots speak doesn't sound anything like what Bongs speak.
>>16138059>oy vey japan need immigration because i made up a fake catastrophe that won't happen for another 50 years so you can't prove me wrong
>>16145847Difference is we aren't imitating the English language, we just improved it. Meanwhile I know some Britons that speak "English" and I can't understand a fucking word. Language evolves, but blacks devolved it.
>6 month old Liam received 5 vaccines (Hep.B, DTaP, Polio, Rotavirus, Pneumococcal) died within hours of vaccinationNice job, science, way to go
>>16146456Sounds more like the system tried to shut him down and now you niggers are here to spread bullshit. My guess is you are the same department that was posting "hurr durr Malone doesn't have patents" four years ago.
Will /sci/ ever recover from the covid pandemic and the tourists it brought?
>>16144637>LiamNot a great loss to humanity desu.Also what a weak ass kid to die from a vaccine when 99.999% of kids don’t experience any harmful side effects outside of a little fever.
>>16144637>receiving all of that shit at onceWTF?
>>16146498>outside of a little fever>not harmfulIf the fevers get too high the result literally gives toddlers brain damage.
>NASA says atmospheric CO2 would have to go to over 3500ppm before it would make a noticeable difference in the climate Whats the absorption limit of CO2, how does that work? Does anyone here know?
>>16146558That's not what that says. How can you be so illiterate that you end up with that statement?
>>16146558Post source and wider context. Physicists had a good understanding of CO2's effects back in the 1950s.
where did the lie that CO2 is bad for the planet come from?
>>16145865Nope. It's humans.https://www.nasa.gov/centers-and-facilities/ames/human-activity-in-china-and-india-dominates-the-greening-of-earth-nasa-study-shows/
>>16145340The atmosphere of Venus isn't gas, most of the CO2 on Venus is supercritical, which means that the standard physics 101 equations you're familiar with don't apply
>>16146211That article just says its "mostly" humans. It doesn't deny that higher CO2 is contributing.
>>16123798Legitimate question. Trees absorb CO2 and emit oxygen. Deforestation reduces trees. Less CO2 absorption. So more CO2 in the air. How much of the increased CO2 is due to deforestation?
>>16146659Are you illiterate? Driving does not mean mostly. It's all humans driving the greening. It's mostly China and India putting in the work.
