Comments by "Kristopher Driver" (@paxdriver) on "World Science Festival" channel.

  1. Henrik buitenhuis it's just as likely that is the case as not :) lol
    2
  2. jetpaq i know.... despite my inner philosopher's pride being roshambo'ed lol But it doesn't have to be like that! He can just ... not speak while there's a panel of intelligent people in front of him. Less is more, and that's something even a philosopher should be able to ponder quietly in the corner lol
    2
  3. Especially the philosophically math ones
    2
  4. 1 hour is nowhere near long enough for 5 panel members imho. Love the work, appreciate the longer long form of yore, though
    2
  5. Wow, and you're not sponsored by metformin, GNC grifters, or aunt Jenny's Parlour Shoppe at all? You just happened to stumble across 4 prominent scientists who like to practise and legitimize the age old craft of hocking l'huile du serpent? This episode made me uncomfortable with the scientists saying, "I choose to do X aith this dose at this frequency.. but it's not researched at all so you shouldn't do it too... But trust me on this other thing, I'm an expert scientist otherwise." It came across as a bit sleezy tbh. Long time fan, watched every video at least once. I'm no troll or hater, but if I were publishing content I'd want to know the opinions of the people who give them tons of views more than a click through. Just saying
    2
  6. The intro piano is soooo nice, great choice in production
    2
  7. who's there? Interrupting cow. Interrupting cow wh- MOOO!!! It was also a joke made by one of the other moderators of another IQ2 debate. Anyway, I called her a cow because she was interrupting, it was a joke, not an insult.
    1
  8. Thanks for prodding for clarity, I have no idea how many people may have misunderstood my failed attempt at humor lol
    1
  9. Nerdiness is an echo chamber lol
    1
  10. Brilliant, great stuff thanks
    1
  11. Louise Vanderbilt not sure but I hope to see more of her on WSF. Credit where it's due :)
    1
  12. ***** thanks for your input, you're clearly a lot more knowledgeable in the matter than I am. To clarify, if-then's are a form of logic gate, that's what I was referring to but I'm sure my comprehension is superficial. The holographic principle as I understand it is akin to penterac and other similar representations of higher dimensional objects. Information wouldn't be lost if it leaked by way of radiation, got compressed into the singularity, and/or bleeds into another dimension. The information would be lost to us because we're confined to a linear frame of reference in time. If time could be manipulated it wouldn't be lost though.
    1
  13. I love silence in a woman.... jk I figured it would go without saying that someone watching intellectual discussions in their free time would want a woman that's mentally stimulating. The satire is all mine my friends.
    1
  14. well, that's completely false. it's proven because of data lol they detected the boson exactly within the range it was forecast based on the day's current theories. like eintein's relativity theory, wormholes aren't proven, but data on time dilation (which is proven, GPS being an easy example), black hole radiation, light speed cap, the cosmological constant, dark matter, dark energy, gravitational waves, neutrinos, etc etc etc. are all based on several data points like CERN produces and the higgs boson is still irrefutably accurate. not quite sure what you're skeptical of. measure it yourself, you won't find another result. or are you saying "proof" with arbitrary air quotes?
    1
  15. they reported that neutrinos moved faster than light because they couldn't figure out where there error was after many months of trying to disprove it. it was disproven by the scientific community thanks to their report. that was the point of reporting it, to encourage the community to figure out where their mistake was. it was that neutrinos transmutate into other forms of neutrinos FYI and it was verifiably proven several times since then thanks to the SNO project in Ontario's nickel belt
    1
  16. ***** thanks much, i'll have to look into it again. not quite sure if it was a comprehension issue on my end or misinformation.
    1
  17. He's my favorite physicist ever. Better than Feynman, Planck and Einstein and combined
    1
  18. Stuffywhiteguysayswhat?
    1
  19. There are assumptions, that's why models aren't exact atom by atom, but to say pure speculation you'd have to take a fractal of uncertainty and weight it more heavily than experimentation and repeated calculation. You're right that it's possible, just 0.000001^nth unlikely. Impossible to disprove, that's why big bang will always be called a theory 👍
    1
  20. mi z never said it did, was merely pointing out that the original comment to which i replied was not technically impossible.
    1
  21. Pretty good job guys, thanks much
    1
  22. Absolutely fantastic! Thanks for keeping a lot of the wolf stories of Yellowstone, really really fascinating stuff
    1
  23. Pa Pinkelman I don't know what that is lol
    1
  24. Pa Pinkelman lol ooooh damn, now I wish I just looked it up so I didn't kill your joke. sorry dude lol
    1
  25. Phenomenal! Wsf you've outdone yourselves
    1
  26. Raumance lol oh god i'd be on the floor
    1
  27. Lol totally
    1
  28. Yeah, I use tons of plastic bags, but when they get recycled back into plastic bags it's carbon neutral, essentially. Single use plastic is the only thing that shouldn't be used. Example : sealed toothpicks
    1
  29. Bring back Colin mcginn!
    1
  30. That dude is definitely a reformed Canadian lol! Sooo many mores subtly violated :p Great job WSF
    1
  31. What a bitch.
    1
  32.  @Ernieshaus  lol I'm offended by the impression he gives to other Christians because he fits the stereotype of never having thought outside the bubble of doctrine to recognize symbolism as separate from science. Doctrine is only taught as immovable fixed reality, not that Christianity requires it. It's simple minded and not helpful. Me from 5 years ago should've chosen a better word than "offended" lol. For a "world science festival" I just expect more from speakers in the way of thoughtfulness, that's all. If he doesn't grasp abstractions for their conceptual values then he shouldn't be there in a forum teaching people imho. He should be in the crowd or watching on YouTube :p
    1
  33. iamking132 that's what star wars was about lol
    1
  34. Truth is a philosophical question not well tailored to science. The universe isn't constrained by rules that we identify, the rules are to help us understand it. If natural laws had an expiry date because of force carrying particle decay that was never observed before because we've never watched a boson for extended periods of time, truth is what nature does. Science describes nature, not truth. It describes what's already happened and what should happen, but it's not the law, the forces are beholden to their own laws, which we're still trying to understand.
    1
  35. John doesn't usually talk this much, bit much for me but overall another bang up job by wsf and participants. Top notch thank you
    1
  36.  @ashleypearson9044  ya, Ur so 1337 I quake 3d lol
    1
  37. "why am I me and not someone or something else?" is the argument to put the onus on the one arguing in favor of people as biological machines. I think the concept of consciousness would never arise in an artificial intelligence. The concept came to being because we're different from machines.
    1
  38. God can't roll dice if he has the capacity to invent random, physics, time and energy lol
    1
  39. You mean intergalactic planetary? ;p
    1
  40. Life is entropy, just order slowly shifting to disorder like Buddha gleaned oh so many years ago
    1
  41. If you believe you're conscious, free will necessarily exists or is unknown; it can't not be if you're conscious. Conscious is the free will of the mind, the purest free will that we're able to be conscious of. Any freer and will would be unchanged, so our mind epitomize freedom, and thus free will exists by virtue of it being contemplated.
    1
  42. All you guys are arguing is whether or not you believe you're truly conscious. If you're conscious and contemplate free will, even if it's a natural chemical mechanism, it exists in your mind's creation of it. Presumably a rock doesn't create it's sense of self and ergo does not have free will. The limits to our freedom are natural physical laws of nature, but free will is required to consider it is even possibly true. Animals, even conscious ones, are functioning on instinct. Humans will contemplate their own existence as an optional choice made available to them through biology.  In other words, free will is limited by our brains but it exists inherently by our creation of it via contemplation. If we weren't free to at least minute degree, we would be incapable and unable to fathom the concept to begin with.
    1
  43. ***** lol i hear you. i mean, there's always an existential defense for consciousness since life begets life, but it's by no means the most logical approach to the subject, it's just stretching open a pinhole. Occam's Razor suggests our line of reasoning to be the lasting and most reasonable one.
    1
  44. Adam Sujkowski first off, acting conscious and being conscious are different things. that's what the word simulation means. secondly, conscious life can create conscious life, so babies would be a better example of creating consciousness. although free will is limited because of epigenetics, the intrinsic quality of freedom itself is only perceptible by a free-thinking source, to whatever degree that source is free it needs to be for the concept to arise. that's why animals and rocks aren't free, they can't fathom the concept. 
    1
  45. Adam Sujkowski logic and reasoning are the basis of science. the scientific argument is that by being able to discuss the matter a degree of freedom is necessarily present.
    1
  46. Adam Sujkowski such is the nature of all matter and all sciences. Heisenberg's uncertainty principle in particle physics suggests the same for anything with energy/mass. That's why I mentioned Occam's Razor, the logical conclusion with the least assumptions is the most likely to be accurate.
    1
  47. Adam Sujkowski that's just asking how consciousness works. if you believe you're conscious you have to believe you have a measure of free because one precludes the other. logic and reason are considered scientific evidence, the only thing lacking is experiment but a test can't really be done on existential matters any more than it can be done on quantum mechanical scales. your question is akin to asking for evidence of the mechanism of energy. it's unknown but by rational deduction and logic we can say with utmost certainty that energy is real for all intents and purposes. same goes for free will, some has to exist for us to have the concept of it just like energy has to exist for matter to exist, and consciousness must exist for consciousness to be questioned.
    1
  48. Adam Sujkowski the thing that makes us better IS the special and magical thing we're talking about. our difference in opinion is just the significance and abstraction
    1
  49. Adam Sujkowski we still can't create life by rubbing amino acids together though, that's the special part. the fact that our brains process AND are alive is what's fascinating to me :)
    1
  50. Adam Sujkowski computers can't spontaneously come into existence, they require intervention. some people think life needed intervention to, but either way there is a distinct difference between life and computation. secondly, computation is based on algorithms moreso than natural law
    1