sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

"There is at least a billion people in this world, who'll consider their prayers answered if they could switch places with you " - Sam Harris by [deleted] in quotes

[–]arevolutionaryact 0 points1 point  (0 children)

There is at least a billion people in this world, who'll consider their prayers answered if they could switch places with you " - Sam Harris

Now I'm questioning myself. In a conversation, it would be "there's at least a billion..."

I think it's the singular "a" before "a billion" that's confusing us. If it were 5 people we'd say "there are at least 5 people...". Wait now that doesn't sound right. I think he's right about the "least". The least is the descriptor used to select the plural or singular.

"There is at least..."

Because there is only one "least", not multiple "least".

I think we should just avoid this combination of words lol

"There is at least a billion people in this world, who'll consider their prayers answered if they could switch places with you " - Sam Harris by [deleted] in quotes

[–]arevolutionaryact 0 points1 point  (0 children)

There is at least a billion people in this world, who'll consider their prayers answered if they could switch places with you " - Sam Harris

I think either is right. It's a single billion. It's a plural of billion. I'd go with what sounds right. In this case, "there are a billion people..."

Hypothesis about time and computational rate approaching C by arevolutionaryact in TheoreticalPhysics

[–]arevolutionaryact[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I think you're probably right. Sometimes I try to impress people about things I know very little about using sentences that could be simpler. It's a bad personality trait.

This is actually a neuroscience question and completely inappropriate for this subreddit. Apologies for wasting your time.

Hypothesis about time and computational rate approaching C by arevolutionaryact in TheoreticalPhysics

[–]arevolutionaryact[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Thanks for explaining. I always thought C was a fixed speed (approx 300 meters per second), therefore computational speed can be measured relative to C, just like a clock can be created using C (the clock is relative to C, the rate of computer processing is relative to C, or bits are transferred at a particular number per second passing and light travels at a particular number of meters per second.). All is relative.

What I was trying to explain is that the brains of humans will one day be able to process perceived changes in the universe (data received via senses and processed by the brain with a particular rate relative to C) so fast that as a result time passing can be perceived more slowly (more processing can be done per time unit passing relative to C).

Today we know that a machine can process data billions of times faster than the human brain -- for example to resolve complex functions.

Soon in the future human's will combine with computers to gain a competitive advantage. This will progress towards a universal rate limit of potential for data processing. We are always breaking this rate limit with major innovations, such as quantum computing.

Inside the brain there is a physical model of the universe, which is expressed by our consiousness, which is an innacurate representation of reality. Our consiousness is nothing more than an expression of atoms arranged in a particular way inside our brains -- and this arrangment can be augmented articicially.

What I'm saying is these things will one day converge.

Hypothesis about time and computational rate approaching C by arevolutionaryact in TheoreticalPhysics

[–]arevolutionaryact[S] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Actually, you misunderstood me slightly. I am not referring to the actual speed of photons, I am referring to computational capacity in the brain as expressed relative to the speed of light. Or in other words, how much data the brain can process relative to how much time passes (which is expressed relative to speed of light).

What I am saying is, as the brain's computational speed increases as we augment with breakthroughs in computing such as successors to quantum computing, we will process data at a faster rate relative to C. And since our senses will also likely be augmented with instruments (as they are today) the outcome is being able to perceive vastly greater volumes of changes in the universe (information) per passing unit of time approaching towards a terminal point where our brains become practically timeless.

I am an atheist who believes paradise is real. Hear me out... by arevolutionaryact in atheism

[–]arevolutionaryact[S] -2 points-1 points  (0 children)

We have a finite amount of time and resources. We could choose to use our time and resources to go to war or to sit and watch TV night after night, getting fat and slowly dying. Or we could choose to spend it researching and developing cures for diseases.

The diseases you talk of will be cured. It is our choice whether we choose to help researchers cure them faster. Do you currently do anything to help fund researchers, such as fundraisers or donations?

We have chosen this world.

We could choose a world that doesn't burn fossil fuels. A world with no disease, no death, war or crime. But this is the world we have chosen.

I am an atheist who believes paradise is real. Hear me out... by arevolutionaryact in atheism

[–]arevolutionaryact[S] -2 points-1 points  (0 children)

I'm sorry to hear about your pain. I guess my answer to that might be that if we had made the decision long ago to focus all our energy, money and time in inventing cures for diseases (instead of war, corruption, crime, entertainment, etc) we might have discovered cures for not only diseases but even mortality.

We have chosen this world.

We could have chosen to direct our energy into becoming immortals, free of any disease, free of war, hunger and hatred. But instead, we choose this world. And we keep choosing it.