randomness
-
- Posts: 2343
- Joined: Mon Jul 30, 2007 11:49 am
- Location: Island of Lugaru
Re: randomness
wat
I don't ..
H-How? I mean..
wat
I don't ..
H-How? I mean..
wat
-
- Posts: 2406
- Joined: Sun Sep 12, 2010 1:06 am
- Location: In Zulway's foot palace.
- Contact:
Re: randomness
Goddammit science! You're supposed to make sense!
-
- Posts: 1788
- Joined: Wed Jul 02, 2008 2:44 pm
Re: randomness
How delightfully Douglas Adams.
-
- Posts: 2406
- Joined: Sun Sep 12, 2010 1:06 am
- Location: In Zulway's foot palace.
- Contact:
Re: randomness
Yes, the only logical next step is Bistromathics.
Re: randomness
Science you say?
-
- Posts: 2109
- Joined: Tue Jun 16, 2009 9:06 pm
- Location: U.S.
Re: randomness
Old news.
The idea of instantaneous computing is very cool though
If the output proceeds the input, I could process the most complex finite formulas and always get an answer.
So if I wanted to optimize, say, a car. As long as I could define the parameters in which that car would be successful (ergonomics, gas mileage, applicable to physical constants) I could instantly come up with the perfect design for a car instantaneously. Perfect.
This is getting pretty damn close to information time travel.
I'm sure these people are being funded by some pretty high level people.
-
- Posts: 2406
- Joined: Sun Sep 12, 2010 1:06 am
- Location: In Zulway's foot palace.
- Contact:
Re: randomness
Now here's one thing I don't get: If the output does precede the input, and you can define the parameters of said output, doesn't the output then become the input? It seems like this whole retrocausality thing just doesn't make logical sense.Assaultman67 wrote:Old news.
The idea of instantaneous computing is very cool though
If the output proceeds the input, I could process the most complex finite formulas and always get an answer.
So if I wanted to optimize, say, a car. As long as I could define the parameters in which that car would be successful (ergonomics, gas mileage, applicable to physical constants) I could instantly come up with the perfect design for a car instantaneously. Perfect.
This is getting pretty damn close to information time travel.
I'm sure these people are being funded by some pretty high level people.
Re: randomness
Quantum Mechanics.Jacktheawesome wrote:It seems like this whole retrocausality thing just doesn't make logical sense.
Don't bother wasting time on it.
Last edited by Zelron on Mon May 28, 2012 2:36 am, edited 1 time in total.
-
- Posts: 2406
- Joined: Sun Sep 12, 2010 1:06 am
- Location: In Zulway's foot palace.
- Contact:
Re: randomness
Well, ok, let me phrase it a different way. I can accept that the output arrives before the input. What I was wondering about is that if you tamper with the output to affect the input, it seems like the the output becomes the input.
Re: randomness
Logic dictates that something goes in, something comes out. It just doesn't make sense for something to come out before you've put anything in. But that's where Quantum Mechanics fits in.
My understanding of Quantum Mechanics is basicly that Quantum Mechanics is the thoery that random things happen. So this kind of non-logic totally flys because Quantum Mechanics says you don't even need a bloody reason for something to happen, it just does.
That's why I say don't bother with it, because how can you understand something that says that things happen you can't understand?
While thinking of how to write this I somehow managed to have a 15 minute rant to myself outloud about the concept of time...
New topic!
My understanding of Quantum Mechanics is basicly that Quantum Mechanics is the thoery that random things happen. So this kind of non-logic totally flys because Quantum Mechanics says you don't even need a bloody reason for something to happen, it just does.
That's why I say don't bother with it, because how can you understand something that says that things happen you can't understand?
While thinking of how to write this I somehow managed to have a 15 minute rant to myself outloud about the concept of time...
New topic!
-
- Posts: 2406
- Joined: Sun Sep 12, 2010 1:06 am
- Location: In Zulway's foot palace.
- Contact:
Re: randomness
No no, I still don't think you see. See, my question really didn't have anything to do with the actual science of it; that is something which I've accepted I can only understand to a certain degree, so I, as you say, don't bother with it. My question was much more pedantic. Isn't input defined as the variable you tamper with, the x to a function's y, thus making the idea of changing the output to create an input not only scientifically boggling but literally impossible as defined by grammar, logic, and all that is holy?
Re: randomness
Yes, and that is why grammar, logic, and all that is holy sucks.
-
- Posts: 2406
- Joined: Sun Sep 12, 2010 1:06 am
- Location: In Zulway's foot palace.
- Contact:
Re: randomness
Basically my point was that Bryan is WRONG and should have his science license revoked.
But that works too.
But that works too.
Re: randomness
I'm feeling a little rant-y right now so I may have not maybe my point clear.
Input is what you give, output is what you get. They are saying they get something before they give something. So output before input.
Logically, that's just nonsense. But not if you apply the magic of Quantum Mec-! Know what, never mind, you get the picture already.
Input is what you give, output is what you get. They are saying they get something before they give something. So output before input.
Logically, that's just nonsense. But not if you apply the magic of Quantum Mec-! Know what, never mind, you get the picture already.