PDA

View Full Version : Hey Let's try to have an intelligent conversation!



Moo2u
Jan 27, 2009, 07:31 PM
....ok.....GO!

Alnet
Jan 27, 2009, 07:35 PM
E = MC^2

Vanzazikon
Jan 27, 2009, 07:36 PM
2+2=4 :wacko:

Moo2u
Jan 27, 2009, 07:36 PM
That's not a conversation, that's a formula!

F minus minus, try harder next time.

Randomness
Jan 27, 2009, 08:03 PM
*hits reset button on thread*

Discuss the ramifications of time travel. Go.

Moo2u
Jan 27, 2009, 08:06 PM
Some theories, most notably special and general relativity, suggest that suitable geometries of spacetime, or specific types of motion in space, might allow time travel into the past and future if these geometries or motions are possible.

Shadowpawn
Jan 27, 2009, 08:14 PM
A finite state machine (FSM) or finite state automaton (plural: automata) or simply a state machine, is a model of behavior composed of a finite number of states (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_%28computer_science%29), transitions between those states, and actions. A finite state machine is an abstract model of a machine with a primitive internal memory.

A current state is determined by past states of the system. As such, it can be said to record information about the past, i.e. it reflects the input changes from the system start to the present moment. A transition indicates a state change and is described by a condition that would need to be fulfilled to enable the transition. An action is a description of an activity that is to be performed at a given moment. There are several action types:
Entry actionwhich is performed when entering the stateExit actionwhich is performed when exiting the stateInput actionwhich is performed depending on present state and input conditionsTransition actionwhich is performed when performing a certain transition An FSM can be represented using a state diagram (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_diagram) (or state transition diagram) as in figure 1 above. Besides this, several state transition table (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_transition_table) types are used. The most common representation is shown below: the combination of current state (B) and condition (Y) shows the next state (C). The complete actions information can be added only using footnotes. An FSM definition including the full actions information is possible using state tables (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virtual_finite_state_machine#State_Table) (see also VFSM (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/VFSM)).


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eUXgfnC9Tao&fmt=18
(http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eUXgfnC9Tao)

Shadowpawn
Jan 27, 2009, 08:18 PM
Some theories, most notably special and general relativity, suggest that suitable geometries of spacetime, or specific types of motion in space, might allow time travel into the past and future if these geometries or motions are possible.


This may be true but scientist have yet to find a way around "gravity crushing all objects into a infinitely small finite point in space and time" problem. If this problem is overcome then there will be much rejoicing!

W0LB0T
Jan 27, 2009, 08:51 PM
I liek Pie

Nitro Vordex
Jan 27, 2009, 08:55 PM
Is saying something is bad an opinion no matter what?

EG: Killing someone is bad.

Randomness
Jan 27, 2009, 09:11 PM
Technically, morals are purely abstractions, with no physical counterpart or correlation. Thus, while society as a collective defines some things as wrong, this is simply a mass opinion, which an individual may or may not agree with, and is subject to change.

In short, yes, even if 100% of people believe it.

HUnewearl_Meira
Jan 27, 2009, 09:11 PM
Some theories, most notably special and general relativity, suggest that suitable geometries of spacetime, or specific types of motion in space, might allow time travel into the past and future if these geometries or motions are possible.

In fact, General Relativity is silent on the matter of time travel, and Special Relativity, suggests the possibility of forward travel in time via time dilation, a temporal effect created by gravity, and by extension, possibly by velocity (i.e., an object approaching light speed grows in mass, therefore producing more gravity, thus altering its progression through time, and the specific reason why faster-than-light travel is impossible, according to modern physics). You see, more gravity results in the slower passage of time. This has been observed with satellites in orbit around Earth, as their on-board clocks must adjust to stay current with those on the ground. The effects of Time Dilation between Earth and Earth-orbit are significant enough, that GPS satellites (which return their values based on their current position in orbit) must compensate, to produce accurate results.

It follows, that if you want to advance more slowly through time, you must find deeper gravity. Because some situation of absolute gravity will stop time altogether, thus, becoming the slowest rate at which time travel can occur, gravitational time dilation cannot facilitate backward travel in time, rather, only enhancing (adding options to?) forward travel through time.

SpikeOtacon
Jan 27, 2009, 09:16 PM
Intelligent Conversation? (http://fkl.wikidot.com/intelligent-conversation)

Solstis
Jan 27, 2009, 09:37 PM
Quantum Tunneling sounds like a one-way trip.

Southwest Airlines has pretty good seats. Way better than Air Tran and Ted, anyway. Maybe even better than Jet Blue?

Randomness
Jan 27, 2009, 09:53 PM
Something I've always wondered. Can you perform quantum entanglement on two atoms, move them an arbitrary distance apart, and then alter one in any way without breaking entanglement?

Dhylec
Jan 27, 2009, 11:00 PM
I like π
that's better ;o

CrimsomWolf
Jan 28, 2009, 03:05 AM
Life cannot be meaningless.

If you claim that it's meaningless, then it already has a meaning (strictly speaking).
Similary, "it" cannot come from "not it" though "not it" can, and must come from "it".

*Edit* Now it's math time!

Probability that Outrider will annoy us is at 25%. Probability that he'll berate Raiko in matter of love is at 36%.

What is the probability that:

* He'll annoy and berate Raiko.
* Berate Raiko or annoy us.

Another one:

There're 25 FKL'ers in total.
13 dig KOS-MOS
14 dig catgirls
1 doesn't have a preferance.

Draw a Venn diagram and answer:

How man dig both KOS-MOS and catgirls.
How many dig KOS-MOS.
How many dig catgirls, knowing that they dig KOS-MOS.

Solstis
Jan 28, 2009, 08:01 PM
Gurgle Burgle Gurble

What?

Outrider
Jan 28, 2009, 08:12 PM
What?

I believe the question was: How cool is Outrider?

I'd answer, but I'd feel that voting would be unfair on my part.

EDIT:


Intelligent Conversation? (http://fkl.wikidot.com/intelligent-conversation)

Holy crap, Spike. How long has that been around?

SpikeOtacon
Jan 28, 2009, 08:26 PM
I believe the question was: How cool is Outrider?

I'd answer, but I'd feel that voting would be unfair on my part.

EDIT:



Holy crap, Spike. How long has that been around?

I just made that page for this thread, but the FKL wiki has been up since the middle of last year. Sord and Tact worked on it and we've been kinda slowly filling it up since.

Tact
Jan 28, 2009, 08:37 PM
Slowly, meaning at the rate of about a page per month. We need to be less lazy and work on it some more. :wacko:

Kard
Jan 28, 2009, 08:48 PM
Tact is probably too busy catting to spend more time on it~

Tact
Jan 28, 2009, 08:49 PM
Um, yeah, okay. If "catting" means "studying and working on stuff all day" then sure.

Kard
Jan 28, 2009, 08:58 PM
If that's what you kids're calling it now, sure~

Tact
Jan 28, 2009, 09:17 PM
You do know that makes you sound pretty old, right? :disapprove:

Randomness
Jan 28, 2009, 09:32 PM
I think his intelligence turns off at the sight of the word cat

Moo2u
Jan 28, 2009, 10:05 PM
Well...we went longer then I thought we would...

Randomness
Jan 28, 2009, 10:17 PM
I can hit reset again.

Shadowpawn
Jan 28, 2009, 10:20 PM
Conway was interested in a problem presented in the 1940s by renowned mathematician John von Neumann (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_von_Neumann), who tried to find a hypothetical machine that could build copies of itself and succeeded when he found a mathematical model for such a machine with very complicated rules on a rectangular grid. The Game of Life emerged as Conway's successful attempt to simplify von Neumann's ideas. The game made its first public appearance in the October 1970 issue of Scientific American (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_American), in Martin Gardner (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martin_Gardner)'s "Mathematical Games (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mathematical_Games)" column. From a theoretical point of view, it is interesting because it has the power of a universal Turing machine (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal_Turing_machine): that is, anything that can be computed algorithmically (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Algorithm) can be computed within Conway's Game of Life. Gardner wrote:

The game made Conway instantly famous, but it also opened up a whole new field of mathematical research, the field of cellular automata (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cellular_automata) ... Because of Life's analogies with the rise, fall and alterations of a society of living organisms, it belongs to a growing class of what are called 'simulation games' (games that resemble real life processes)
Ever since its publication, Conway's Game of Life has attracted much interest because of the surprising ways in which the patterns can evolve. Life is an example of emergence (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emergence) and self-organization (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-organization). It is interesting for physicists (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Physics), biologists (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biology), economists (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economics), mathematicians (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mathematics), philosophers (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophy), generative scientists (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Generative_sciences) and others to observe the way that complex patterns can emerge from the implementation of very simple rules. The game can also serve as a didactic analogy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Analogy), used to convey the somewhat counterintuitive notion that "design" and "organization" can spontaneously emerge in the absence of a designer. For example, philosopher and cognitive scientist Daniel C. Dennett (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daniel_C._Dennett) has used the analog of Conway's Life "universe" extensively to illustrate the possible evolution of complex philosophical constructs, such as consciousness (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consciousness) and free will (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_will), from the relatively simple set of deterministic physical laws governing our own universe.[1] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conway%27s_Game_of_Life#cite_note-0)[2] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conway%27s_Game_of_Life#cite_note-1)[3] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conway%27s_Game_of_Life#cite_note-2)
The popularity of Conway's Life was helped by its coming into being just in time for a new generation of inexpensive minicomputers (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minicomputer) which were being released into the market, meaning that the game could be run for hours on these machines which were otherwise unused at night. In this respect it foreshadowed the later popularity of computer-generated fractals (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fractals). For many, Life was simply a programming challenge, a fun way to waste CPU (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Central_processing_unit) cycles. For some, however, Life had more philosophical connotations. It developed a cult following through the 1970s and beyond; current developments have gone so far as to create theoretic emulations of computer systems within the confines of a Life board.
Conway chose his rules carefully, after considerable experimentation, to meet three criteria:


There should be no initial pattern for which there is a simple proof that the population can grow without limit.
There should be initial patterns that apparently do grow without limit.
There should be simple initial patterns that grow and change for a considerable period of time before coming to an end in the following possible ways:

Fading away completely (from overcrowding or from becoming too sparse); or
Settling into a stable configuration that remains unchanged thereafter, or entering an oscillating phase in which they repeat an endless cycle of two or more periods.

Randomness
Jan 28, 2009, 10:57 PM
Of course, there are configurations that grow without bound.

Kard
Jan 29, 2009, 12:01 AM
Let's Meowing~! http://i.ehow.com/images/GlobalPhoto/Articles/2161376/meow-main_Full.jpg

CrimsomWolf
Jan 29, 2009, 08:22 AM
http://i207.photobucket.com/albums/bb161/Mwarriorjsj7/catgirl.jpg

http://i305.photobucket.com/albums/nn201/andeby01/catears.jpg


*MEEEEOOOOWWWWWW~*

Smidge204
Jan 29, 2009, 08:57 AM
The reason why I refuse to take existentialism as just another French fashion or historical curiosity is that I think it has something very important to offer us... I'm afraid were losing the real virtues of living life passionately in the sense of taking responsibility for who you are, the ability to make something of yourself, and feel good about life. Existentialism is often discussed as if it were a philosophy of despair, but I think the truth is just the opposite. Sartre, once interviewed, said he never felt a minute of despair in his life.

One thing that comes out from reading these guys is not a sense of anguish about life so much as a real kind of exuberance, of feeling on top of it. It's like your life is yours to create. I've read the post modernists with some interest, even admiration, but when I read them I always have this awful, nagging feeling that something absolutely essential is getting left out. The more you talk about a person as a social construction, or as a confluence of forces, or as being fragmented or marginalized, what you do is you open up a whole new world of excuses. When Sartre talks about responsibility, he's not talking about something abstract. He's not talking about the kind of self or souls that theologians would talk about. He's talking about you and me, making decisions, doing things, and taking the consequences.

It might be true that there are six point seven billion people in this world, and counting, but nevertheless what you do makes a difference. It makes a difference, first of all, in material terms, it makes a difference to other people, and it sets an example. In short, I think the message here is that we should never write ourselves off or see each other as a victim of various forces. It's always our decision who we are.

Outrider
Jan 29, 2009, 09:29 AM
So my question is - how many of the posts from this thread are simply quotes from other sources?

Smidge204
Jan 29, 2009, 10:13 AM
Counting mine? At least one (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0243017/) :D

=Smidge=