[MrRubix]

Originally Posted by Frozen Beat

When you mentioned robots->viruses, I couldn't help but remember, and now mention that computer viruses might potentially become as deadly as real viruses.

As Michio Kaku said, maybe we should fear AI once it gains the intelligence of a monkey.

That's a far ways off, and I have no idea what will happen.

I find it annoying when people post specific dates for when the big bang happened. I've heard 16.5 billion, 15 billion, 14 billion, 18 billion (all from credible scientists, not lunatics), a heck load of numbers, and in reality, they're huge gaps apart from eachother. I got no idea what to think of it.

M-theory, although in its infancy, might have to potential to explain the big bang. This is what they've got so far: strings (which are theoretical themselves) can stretch to perhaps even the size of our universe. Maybe our universe is a 3 dimensional membrane floating in a higher dimensional surface. Perhaps a collision with another membrane is what has cause the big bang.

Of course, this is all speculative. As Steven Weinberg has said, "M-theory could prove to be a tragic failure, but I can't imagine why nature would waste all that mathematical elegance."

Axioms annoy me actually, if anybody knows, please clarify how they proved 1+1=2.

I find English, in a sense, to be a failed language. The sense that I'm talking about, is that it fails to truly define things. I mean like, shoot for example, define: consciousness. Define: Existance. Define: Purpose. We really can't pin anything down, rather, I think we should make classifications.

Reasoning is really all ad hoc, but at least it's decent.

Who the hell is quoting numbers like that? The age of the universe is around 13.75 billion years old. It doesn't venture far from this.

"Axioms annoy me actually, if anybody knows, please clarify how they proved 1+1=2."
Luckily for us, mathematics is a language that we, as humans, have fully defined. 1+1=2 because we say it is.

BTW I can define consciousness and purpose pretty easily. Existence is a bit tougher. Language doesn't break down here.

The English language only really breaks down when we approach things like quantum mechanics, for instance. This is why we use math to describe quantum physics to a greater degree of precision. The wave/particle duality doesn't really exist. But it doesn't make sense for us to call things "wavicles," either. We call some things particles on the macro scale because they exhibit particle-like qualities and some things waves on the macro scale because they exhibit wave-like qualities. But it doesn't make sense when we try to extrapolate this to the quantum levels, where things make take some properties of one category and other properties of another, etc. Thankfully, math is a sort of language that has much use to us.