ConwayLife.com

goldenratio wrote: September 21st, 2020, 11:19 pm Chromebooks are bad

Fun fact: nobody in the forums ever wrote "chromebook" as a word until now

Also how is the VesselLife topic still my most active topic? How much did I possibly contribute?

Moosey wrote: September 21st, 2020, 12:00 pm python fans might appreciate this:
monty camel.PNG

,.Ajax,.Puck,.Act I:.Scene I:.[Exeunt][Enter Ajax and Puck]
Ajax:You is the sum ofthe cube ofa big big cat a cat.Speak thy.Let usAct I.

goldenratio wrote: September 25th, 2020, 11:55 pm New York City is closer to Greenland than California.
St. Petersburg is closer to Boston than the other side of Russia.
Houston is closer to the Hudson Bay than Puerto Rico.
West Africa is closer to Florida than the other side of Africa.
And guess which European country is closest to the US? Iceland.

(sorry I have a new interest in geography)
Also random posts is now my most active topic

x = 79, y = 100, rule = Immigration
75.A$73.3A$35.2A11.A6.2A15.A$35.2A10.A.A4.A2.A14.2A$47.A.A3.A.3A2.2A$
46.2A.2A.A.A6.A$50.A.A3.2A3.A.A$46.2A.A2.4A.A4.2A$46.2A.A.A3.A$50.A.A
3.A$51.A.A3.A$52.A3.2A14.A$71.A.A$72.A2$43.2A11.B$43.2A9.3B$28.2A24.B
.B$27.A2.A23.B$26.A.2A42.2A$26.A45.2A$25.2A$40.2A$40.A$41.3A$43.A5.2A
$48.A.A$48.A$47.2A$25.2B$24.B.B$26.B44.2A$49.A3.2A16.A.A$49.A5.A17.A$
49.A.A3.A17.2A$50.2A.2A4.2A$50.3A6.A.A$50.3A8.A$61.2A$3.2A$4.A$2.A$2.
5A14.2A46.B$7.A13.A45.3B$4.3A12.A.A44.B$3.A15.2A45.2B$3.4A$.2A3.A3.2A
$A2.3A4.2A62.2B$2A.A71.B$3.A71.B.2B$3.2A62.2B4.3B2.B$67.2B3.B3.2B$72.
4B$11.2A45.2B15.B$12.A44.B.B12.3B$9.3A45.B13.B$9.A46.2B14.5B$76.B$74.
B$74.2B$16.2B$17.B8.3B$17.B.B6.3B$18.2B4.2B.2B$4.2B17.B3.B.B$5.B17.B5.
B$5.B.B16.2B3.B$6.2B44.A$52.A.A$52.2A$30.2B$30.B$28.B.B$28.2B5.B$35.3B
$38.B$37.2B$52.2B$5.2B45.B$5.2B42.2B.B$24.A23.B2.B$22.A.A24.2B$22.3A9.
2B$22.A11.2B2$6.B$5.B.B$6.B14.2B3.B$21.B3.B.B$22.B3.B.B$23.B3.B.B.2B$
15.2B4.B.4B2.B.2B$15.B.B3.2B3.B.B$17.B6.B.B.2B.2B$17.2B2.3B.B3.B.B$5.
2B14.B2.B4.B.B10.2B$6.B15.2B6.B11.2B$3.3B$3.B!

Moosey wrote: September 21st, 2020, 12:00 pmpython fans might appreciate this:
monty camel.PNG

goldenratio wrote: September 24th, 2020, 8:55 pmx0_thismakesaglider

MathAndCode wrote: September 27th, 2020, 9:08 pm For any discipline, people cannot make new discoveries until they have learned (or taught themselves) a certain baseline of facts that all new discoveries must be based on. If they try to discover right away, then they will simply be rediscovering what is already known.
It will take any individual a nonzero amount of time to learn all of these baseline facts.
As each generation discovers more facts, this baseline becomes ever-higher, so it will take each generation longer to reach the edge of the current body of knowledge and be able to go beyond that, i.e. discover new things.
Humans have a finite lifespan before they die.
Therefore, each discipline has a knowledge cap above which humans cannot discover new things because they will not have enough time in their lives to learn everything below that.

A for awesome wrote: September 27th, 2020, 11:52 pm

MathAndCode wrote: September 27th, 2020, 9:08 pm For any discipline, people cannot make new discoveries until they have learned (or taught themselves) a certain baseline of facts that all new discoveries must be based on. If they try to discover right away, then they will simply be rediscovering what is already known.
It will take any individual a nonzero amount of time to learn all of these baseline facts.
As each generation discovers more facts, this baseline becomes ever-higher, so it will take each generation longer to reach the edge of the current body of knowledge and be able to go beyond that, i.e. discover new things.
Humans have a finite lifespan before they die.
Therefore, each discipline has a knowledge cap above which humans cannot discover new things because they will not have enough time in their lives to learn everything below that.

The key assumption there is that humans have a finite lifespan bounded at all times by some constant value — if humans' maximum lifespan is continually increasing as humanity's knowledge level does (which may well be plausible, depending on how medical knowledge specifically advances), even if no individual human has an infinite lifespan the body of all human knowledge may not necessarily have a maximum size, or at least governed by lifespan. (Although at some point I would imagine a human brain couldn't store enough knowledge to make advances... but I suspect transhumanism would ruin my argument long before that would..)

A for awesome wrote: September 27th, 2020, 11:52 pm

MathAndCode wrote: September 27th, 2020, 9:08 pm For any discipline, people cannot make new discoveries until they have learned (or taught themselves) a certain baseline of facts that all new discoveries must be based on. If they try to discover right away, then they will simply be rediscovering what is already known.
It will take any individual a nonzero amount of time to learn all of these baseline facts.
As each generation discovers more facts, this baseline becomes ever-higher, so it will take each generation longer to reach the edge of the current body of knowledge and be able to go beyond that, i.e. discover new things.
Humans have a finite lifespan before they die.
Therefore, each discipline has a knowledge cap above which humans cannot discover new things because they will not have enough time in their lives to learn everything below that.

The key assumption there is that humans have a finite lifespan bounded at all times by some constant value — if humans' maximum lifespan is continually increasing as humanity's knowledge level does (which may well be plausible, depending on how medical knowledge specifically advances), even if no individual human has an infinite lifespan the body of all human knowledge may not necessarily have a maximum size, or at least governed by lifespan. (Although at some point I would imagine a human brain couldn't store enough knowledge to make advances... but I suspect transhumanism would ruin my argument long before that would..)

A for awesome wrote: September 27th, 2020, 11:52 pmThe key assumption there is that humans have a finite lifespan bounded at all times by some constant value — if humans' maximum lifespan is continually increasing as humanity's knowledge level does (which may well be plausible, depending on how medical knowledge specifically advances), even if no individual human has an infinite lifespan the body of all human knowledge may not necessarily have a maximum size, or at least governed by lifespan. (Although at some point I would imagine a human brain couldn't store enough knowledge to make advances... but I suspect transhumanism would ruin my argument long before that would..)

PC101 wrote: September 28th, 2020, 12:38 amEven if a human's maximum lifespan is continually increasing, if the rate of the increase is slower than the rate of discovery then we will still reach and possible surpass the point where lifespan < amount of knowledge in a particular subject, but it will just take a little longer relatively speaking to reach that limit.

PC101 wrote: September 28th, 2020, 12:38 amAlso, we don't know if we know all there is to know. If we could accurately predict the future we could determine how many discoveries are left for us. If there aren't that many discoveries left in the future (relatively speaking), and if we discover all there is to discover, and we finally know that we know everything there is to know before we reach that limit, then we wouldn't have to worry about that limit. We would probably only need to worry about increasing the maximum lifespan of a human to increase the amount of time they have that isn't learning about previous discoveries.

PC101 wrote: September 28th, 2020, 12:38 amWe would also have to worry about preserving history and the knowledge of the discoveries themselves. We have already invented technology that can preserve knowledge for thousands of years, and maybe more. But if knowledge is lost to a certain degree, we won't be able to know if we already discovered something or not, and if we haven't we would hesitate to do so because we don't know if someone else has already done it. The burning of the Library of Alexandria is an example of knowledge we can't find or discover/re-discover because records the knowledge itself is lost to history. IMO, we have to make sure that in the future something like the burning of the Library of Alexandria doesn't happen if we don't want to slow or even halt the rate of discovery.

Layz Boi wrote: September 28th, 2020, 12:47 pm You wouldn't have to extend ones life span nearly as much if they could simply learn at a much faster rate. You could also teach some individuals more in less time, if lessons were tailored for them, instead of the lowest-common denominator.