[BenignDesign]

Girl has teh eggs.

Boy has teh swimmers.

New human doesn't come to be.

It must be assembled - be it through traditional methods or in a test tube - by someone somewhere successfully combining the egg with the swimmer. This is the most basic level of reproduction, people. If you haven't figured this part out yet....

well... nevermind. This is a computer programming forum... sex continues to elude some of us...

This post has been edited by BenignDesign: 09 January 2011 - 09:35 AM

[Scottm]

Maybe I didn't make myself clear, or that post wasn't directed towards me...
I was talking about creation of life via combination of naturally occurring amino acids to form proteins.

EDIT:: "that's a horrible idea. life didn't come to be, it were assembled. you give the pieces to someone and have them assemble it."

I guess that could have been a better response.

This post has been edited by Scottm: 09 January 2011 - 09:58 AM

[bronze]

Write windows 8 with it.

[CTphpnwb]

BenignDesign, on 09 January 2011 - 11:34 AM, said:

Girl has teh eggs.

Boy has teh swimmers.

New human doesn't come to be.

It must be assembled

That's a theory. The problem is that if you go back far enough in time then some material that was not life had to form into something that was life through some process that was not an act of assembling by life.

[ishkabible]

strange i read that correctly the first time, i got really confused when we jumped from the first amino acids to the birds and the bees. i was starting to question my sanity there for a bit.

as for writing windows 8 that make's me feel like windows should die, i hate anything with a uninterrupted legacy that long. putting a number on it make's it seem like they have been around as long as they have. putting a name to it like 'vista' or 'xp' hides the fact that it's number 5 or 6. linux distros are better becuase 1) there are so many of them and 2) they branch off of each other like Ubuntu from Debian.

other ideas: use a neural network to find out what about people like Einstein and Newton make's them see things that others don't.

in response to ButchDean i would say yes it would be impossible to prove it but say you did something constructive in trying to see where some limit was. say we attempt to map the universe in memory, if we never found a limit then who cares we mapped the universe

This post has been edited by ishkabible: 09 January 2011 - 10:28 AM

[bronze]

ishkabible, on 09 January 2011 - 11:15 AM, said:

strange i read that correctly the first, i got really confused when we jumped from the first amino acids to the birds and the bees. i was starting to question my sanity there for a bit.

as for writing windows 8 that make's me feel like windows should die, i hate anything with a legacy that long. putting a number on it make's it seem like they have been around as long as they have. putting a name to it like 'vista' or 'xp' hides the fact that it's number 5 or 6.

I have my doubts that Windows will disappear any time soon, so it looks like we'll just have to deal with it

[supersloth]

Scottm, on 09 January 2011 - 08:19 AM, said:

supersloth, on 09 January 2011 - 01:11 AM, said:

that's a horrible example. the watch didn't come to be, it was assembled. you give the pieces to someone and have them assemble it.

"that's a horrible idea. humans didn't come to be, they were assembled. you give the pieces to someone and have them assemble it."

nope, still retarded. if you were able to create the same set of environmental variables you could add all the 'stuff' and wait a long time and eventually you'd get life and eventually you might get humans assuming everything plays out exactly the same way, or maybe something different.

the set of environmental variables for a watch is that someone fucking made it.

[Scottm]

Okay, let me break this down for you...
Technically everything that is put together and taken apart, could be put back together by chance if shaken, correct?
There is a finite number of possibilities it could go back together.
Thus, we have a watch. Take it apart, put it in a bag. Shake it a number of times, and there is a chance it could be put back together with one shake.

Take life.

there is a finite number of combination and collisions it takes to make a protein. By luck, it could happen in a second, or it could happen in a billion years...

[CTphpnwb]

bronze, on 09 January 2011 - 12:17 PM, said:

ishkabible, on 09 January 2011 - 11:15 AM, said:

strange i read that correctly the first, i got really confused when we jumped from the first amino acids to the birds and the bees. i was starting to question my sanity there for a bit.

as for writing windows 8 that make's me feel like windows should die, i hate anything with a legacy that long. putting a number on it make's it seem like they have been around as long as they have. putting a name to it like 'vista' or 'xp' hides the fact that it's number 5 or 6.

I have my doubts that Windows will disappear any time soon, so it looks like we'll just have to deal with it

I deal with Windows by keeping it in a sandbox called Parallels.

MS seems to have drawn nothing but yawns at this year's CES, where many companies have announced products that don't use MS software. Implosions are often sudden and without a great deal of warning, so while it's likely that it will be around for a while, I still wouldn't be the ranch on it.

Now back to Life:

If what Scottm is saying is correct, then we're all just a bunch of biological computers that have no free will, so none of this matters anyway!

This post has been edited by CTphpnwb: 09 January 2011 - 11:02 AM

[Scottm]

CTphpnwb, on 09 January 2011 - 10:01 AM, said:

bronze, on 09 January 2011 - 12:17 PM, said:

ishkabible, on 09 January 2011 - 11:15 AM, said:

strange i read that correctly the first, i got really confused when we jumped from the first amino acids to the birds and the bees. i was starting to question my sanity there for a bit.

as for writing windows 8 that make's me feel like windows should die, i hate anything with a legacy that long. putting a number on it make's it seem like they have been around as long as they have. putting a name to it like 'vista' or 'xp' hides the fact that it's number 5 or 6.

I have my doubts that Windows will disappear any time soon, so it looks like we'll just have to deal with it

I deal with Windows by keeping it in a sandbox called Parallels.

MS seems to have drawn nothing but yawns at this year's CES, where many companies have announced products that don't use MS software. Implosions are often sudden and without a great deal of warning, so while it's likely that it will be around for a while, I still wouldn't be the ranch on it.

Now back to Life:

If what Scottm is saying is correct, then we're all just a bunch of biological computers that have no free will, so none of this matters anyway!

How is that anything like what I am saying? Saying that life could have evolved from the combination of amino acids?

[LaFayette]

Scottm couldn't simulate a single electron accurately even if he had an infinitely powerful computer because the domain of the problem isn't well enough understood.

If I had the spoken of computer the first thing I would do is to find a few large primes and sell them.

[CTphpnwb]

Scottm, on 09 January 2011 - 01:10 PM, said:

How is that anything like what I am saying? Saying that life could have evolved from the combination of amino acids?

Life may have evolved from combinations amino acids, but that may just be the tool life used to gain a foothold in the physical world we see around us. If on the other hand, life simply evolved from random physical events then we're all just machines. Nobody really knows. Least of all, those who claim to know!

[Scottm]

CTphpnwb, on 09 January 2011 - 10:26 AM, said:

Scottm, on 09 January 2011 - 01:10 PM, said:

How is that anything like what I am saying? Saying that life could have evolved from the combination of amino acids?

Life may have evolved from combinations amino acids, but that may just be the tool life used to gain a foothold in the physical world we see around us. If on the other hand, life simply evolved from random physical events then we're all just machines. Nobody really knows. Least of all, those who claim to know!

I never brought up anything containing the world we see around us.

All I said was that life could have been made from the combination of amino acids. And you guys felt the need to change my words, and not think outside the box.

[CTphpnwb]

Scottm, on 09 January 2011 - 01:30 PM, said:

I never brought up anything containing the world we see around us.

Actually, you did:

Scottm, on 09 January 2011 - 12:45 PM, said:

There is a finite number of possibilities it could go back together.
....
Take life.

there is a finite number of combination and collisions it takes to make a protein. By luck, it could happen in a second, or it could happen in a billion years...

There are a finite number of combinations in the 3 dimensional physical world we see around us. We know there are more dimensions, but we don't even know how many or much about their rules/physics. We therefore can't know anything about the number of combinations of whatever their basic building blocks are.

So it comes down to the fact that we just don't know what this infinitely powerful computer would be able to do.

[Scottm]

CTphpnwb, on 09 January 2011 - 10:59 AM, said:

Scottm, on 09 January 2011 - 01:30 PM, said:

I never brought up anything containing the world we see around us.

Actually, you did:

Scottm, on 09 January 2011 - 12:45 PM, said:

There is a finite number of possibilities it could go back together.
....
Take life.

there is a finite number of combination and collisions it takes to make a protein. By luck, it could happen in a second, or it could happen in a billion years...

There are a finite number of combinations in the 3 dimensional physical world we see around us. We know there are more dimensions, but we don't even know how many or much about their rules/physics. We therefore can't know anything about the number of combinations of whatever their basic building blocks are.

So it comes down to the fact that we just don't know what this infinitely powerful computer would be able to do.

This was a hypothetical thread, asking what would you do with an infinitely powerful computer. I gave my opinion on what I would like to do.
This wasn't a thread called "what would you do with an infinitely powerful computer, that which we have no idea about it, and every idea you give is going to get bashed.", now was it?