Feet are for standing, not hands, but that doesn’t keep us from admiring the gymnast.
Insert_Idionym_Here
Karma: 91
Ah, I see. I just don’t think that cryonics significantly improves the chances of actually extending one’s life span, which would be similar to saying that democracy is not significantly better than most other political systems.
Are you saying that cryonics is not perfect, but it is the best alternative?
I’m not sure I understand your point. I’ll read your link a few more times, just to see if I’m missing something, but I don’t quite get it now.
Ah. Wrong referent. It’s hilarious for me, and it may, at some point, be hilarious for them. But it’s mostly funny for me. That would be why I took time to mention that it was also, in fact, asinine.
I think cryonics is a terrible idea, not because I don’t want to preserve my brain until the tech required to recreate it digitally or physically is present, but because I don’t think cryonics will do the job well. Cremation does the job very, very badly, like trying to preserve data on a hard drive by melting it down with thermite.
Oh, hello. I’ve posted a couple of times, in a couple of places, and those of you who have spoken with me probably know that I am one: a novice, and two: a bit of a jerk.
I’m trying to work on that last one.
I think cryonics, in its current form, is a terrible idea, I am a (future) mathematician, and am otherwise divergent from the dominant paradigm here, but I think the rest of that is for me to know, and you to find out.
Bugmaster, I call down hurricanes everyday. It never gets boring. Meteorites are a little harder, but I do those on occasion. They aren’t quite as fun.
But the angry frogs?
The angry frogs?
Those don’t leave a shattered wasteland behind, so you can just terrorize people over and over again with those. Just wonderful.
Note: All of the above is complete bull-honkey. I want this to be absolutely clear. 100%, fertilizer-grade, bull-honkey.
That’s alright. My humor, in real life, is based entirely on the fact that only I know I’m joking at the time, and the other person won’t realize it until three days later, when they spontaneously start laughing for no reason they can safely explain. Is that asinine? Yes. Is it hilarious? Hell, yes. So I apologize. I’ll try not to do that.
I am being somewhat … absurd, and on purpose, at that. But I have enough arrogance lying around in my brain to believe that I can trick the super-intelligence.
You aren’t doublethinking hard enough, then.
Because the million is already there, along with the thousand. Why not get all of it?
I think it is important to make a distinction between what our choice is now, while we are here, sitting at a computer screen, unconfronted by Omega, and our choice when actually confronted by Omega. When actually confronted by Omega, your choice has been determined. Take both boxes, take all the money. Right now, sitting in your comfy chair? Take the million-dollar box. In the comfy chair, the contra-factual nature of the experiment basically gives you an Outcome Pump. So take the million-dollar box, because if you take the million-dollar box, it’s full of a million dollars. But when it actually happens, the situation is different. You aren’t in your comfy chair anymore.
How would reality go about being not normal? Or more specifically, what is normal, if not reality?
Thank you very much.
Okay, so where did those arrows come from? I see how the graph second from the top corresponds to the amount of time a particle, were particles to exist, would take if it bounced, if it could bounce, because it’s not actually a particle, off of a specific point on the mirror. But how does one pull the arrows out of that graph?
I… Er… What. Where did the whole ‘amplitude’ thing come from? I mean, it looks a lot like they are vectors in the complex plane, but why are they two dimensional? Why not three? Or one? I just don’t get the idea of what amplitude is supposed to describe.
Thank you.
I believe I suggested earlier that I don’t know what moral theory I hold, because I am not sure of the terminology. So I may, in fact, be a utilitarian, and not know it, because I have not the vocabulary to say so. I asked “At what point is utilitarianism not completely arbitrary?” because I wanted to know more about utilitarianism. That’s all.
All of the above.