Comments by "\/" (@joebazooks) on "TED-Ed" channel.

  1. 3:06 face in the noise :)
    1
  2. this is just absolutely flawed...
    1
  3. +Jurij Fedorov because exploring 3/4 pathways wouldn't work. that was my initial response, but it wouldn't always work
    1
  4. that is a naive thought. so what contains the universe? where are the edges or the boundaries of the universe?
    1
  5. 1965ace just wait until our technology advances even further, everything you now know and consider to be true shall be proven false, despite whether or not your mind has a hard time comprehending this...
    1
  6. 1965ace that's simply an appeal to popular opinion. just because a lot of people once thought that the earth was flat did not and does not make the earth flat. use your head.
    1
  7. 1965ace it's not spacetime that is limited but our technology and understanding.
    1
  8. 1965ace Where is the scientific research and experiments, Old Man, that validates beyond a shadow of a doubt the finite nature of space-time?
    1
  9. 1965ace i'm sorry but some of your claims are absurd. perhaps your use of the english language is lax or your diction is poor. you're just some guy who read something in an article or in a book and are now regurgitating it, just like religious folk. you make random statements without providing context. there are logical fallacies in pretty much every comment you've made thus far. "GPS calculations are based on the age of the universe"? good one!
    1
  10. columbus8myhw just because, not only is he a moron but, he was being an asshat the entire time. i never once contested the fact that GPS calculations account for time dilation. i'm not even sure why he brought that up. i'm pretty sure he thinks that tidbit somehow supports the idea that the universe is finite.
    1
  11. 1965ace ah, so you suppose that the universe is finite because anything that is infinite cannot expand? lol
    1
  12. iamihop finally, some common sense!
    1
  13. iamihop 1965ace is right and everybody else is wrong. for christ's sake, why won't you accept that?
    1
  14. iamihop all hail 1965ace, the omniscient god.
    1
  15. sounds the trumpets
    1
  16. 1965ace do you own a mirror? yeah, i didn't think so.
    1
  17. 1965ace no offence, but do you know how to read? you misconstrue pretty much everything that anybody says...
    1
  18. 1965ace do you even know what that word means?
    1
  19. ***** i agree with one or maybe two things, though not sure about the rest of it :P
    1
  20. 1965ace what you continually succeed in overlooking is the fact that the big bang theory is the best working model to date. this model and its explanatory power will be usurped by a superior model at some point or another
    1
  21. 1965ace it is you that is speculating... the big bang theory is a cosmological model. is that so hard to wrap your head around? the epitome of ignorance would be to assume that such a model is the be all and end all. matter as we know it may have had a beginning, but space and "time" (or rather space and change) are infinite and eternal respectively. time is merely a set of arbitrary coordinates that we use to measure change and discern difference and or location.
    1
  22. 1965ace of course don't get me wrong, the big bang theory is probably the best speculation yet in that respect, but it is speculation nonetheless. you otherwise wouldn't have some of the brightest minds worldwide attempting to revise the big bang theory or devise new models. it's really that simple.
    1
  23. synchronistically i just stumbled upon a video that you might really benefit from watching: https://www.youtube.com/watch?annotation_id=annotation_3156067763&feature=iv&src_vid=qflJblUEwjo&v=pgGg1OO6C6U
    1
  24. 1965ace you're borderline moronic, dude, honestly.
    1
  25. 1965ace "I'm merely saying there are people who believe in a deity , there are people who believe there is no deity and there are Agnostics who hold that there may be, or may not be a deity ." For once I find myself agreeing with you. That's one of few sensible things you've said thus far.
    1
  26. iamihop atheists are still affirming a belief/claim that the theist's belief/claim is false/unfounded.
    1
  27. iamihop right, so what defines an atheist is that "they don't believe in [a] god." why even have a word for that then? i mean, why have an entire institution, if you'd call it that, dedicated to the lack of belief in something that doesn't have enough evidence to warrant a belief in its existence? lol tbh, that seems pretty nonsensical to me. hey, everybody, i'm an adsjkfadfkl, which means i don't believe in adfiojzfckomnzv lol
    1
  28. iamihop lol
    1
  29. it's not just that but the fact that you can't have quantities of infinity. you can't have one group of infinity, another group of infinity, and yet another, otherwise you would be quantifying infinity. an infinite amount of anything necessitates an infinity for everything else.
    1
  30. surely a countable infinity is not infinity, hence the linquistic distinction...
    1
  31. MultiGoban infinity can neither be quantified nor counted because infinity is not a number. you're not counting infinity, you're counting numbers... types of infinity? lol
    1
  32. MultiGoban if you had a machine that counted numbers for eternity, it still would be just an approximation of infinity. infinity has no limits and, therefore, cannot be represented concretely.
    1
  33. +Alex Thomson that was my initial response but it wouldn't always work because a distribution like this, OOO, XOO, XOO, could return the same results as a distribution like this, OOO, OOO, XXO.
    1
  34. +Alex Turbatu "if you have only one group that is inconsistent you know that all the liars are in that group" not true because the deceivers won't always lie, so if you guys had one inconsistent group you wouldn't know whether the spread was OOO, OOX, OOX, or OOO, OOO, OXX
    1
  35. Alex Thomson you're wrong. think about my answer a bit longer. maybe write it down on paper, that might help
    1
  36. Alex Thomson it doesn't work. you're mistaking the real issue. the detail that causes that technique or method to fail is that the deceivers don't always lie and may sometimes tell the truth. hence, if you end up with only one group that disagrees with one another, there is no way to determine whether that group is OOX or XXO, in which case you can't be sure whether or not the majority can indeed be trusted.
    1
  37. Alex Gregory yeah but so many ppl have brought up a great point, why would anybody trust the one person to go alone when s/he her/himself could be cursed
    1
  38. Alex Gregory does it explicitly say that?
    1
  39. speedy01247 yes, that would fly and it SHOULD help them to realize the truth. but, i mean, if you're stupid enough to notice that 98 other individuals all have green eyes, and then think you have brown/blue/whatever eyes...
    1
  40. Chikenuget1 it isn't new. the induction is new, but it's still based upon an assumption: (1) that the observer's statement is true for everybody.
    1
  41. mathematics is a representational language of abstractions.
    1
  42. +Komqua amen
    1
  43. +Komqua ...an illusion that we've constructed at that.
    1
  44. +AZ N +CaptainObvious0000 is right. And this perspective makes even more sense if one considers the possibility of sexes of the entire set, whereby one value is known and the other two are variables: (1) MX | X (2) MX | Y (3) MY | X (4) MY | Y In other words... (1) MM | M (2) MM | F (3) MF | M (4) MF | F It's still 50/50 because this ratio was established as a condition in the beginning. You CANNOT discount the 3rd frog, which is on its own; The 3rd Frog is STILL information that has to be accounted for, even though it's a variable, and even though you choose not to go in that direction in order to lick it. If you consider MF | M and FM | M as unique conditions, then you must also consider MM | F and MM | M as unique conditions. You cannot exclude the 3rd frog because the ratio of 50:50 is true for ALL frogs, including just the frogs you choose lick.*
    1
  45. Aleksey Z. 12.5 sets of each possibility would only account for 100 sets, which is only 300 frogs and not 900. but i see, you mean 12.5% chance. That's wrong, though, because MFM and FMM are not unique outcomes. If you consider MFM and FMM unique outcomes, you must also consider MaMbMc and MbMcMa and McMaMb all as unique outcomes. But these are meaningless distinctions in this particular situation because it does not matter which frog is male and which frog is female. Whether [ FrogA is male and FrogB is female ] or [ FrogA is female and FrogB is male ] does not matter--this does not change the outcome and therefore it is irrational to consider it as a possibility that does indeed change the outcome.
    1
  46. Aleksey Z. Below is a grid to help you understand the true probabilities. I'm simplifying this thought experiment for the sake of your understanding. 66.6% likely sample/scenario: MMF (from MMFF, which is more likely since M is already exposed and therefore F was more likely to be removed when forming the set from an equally distributed pool) 100% M M _ 50% M _ _ 0% F _ _ F M _ F M M 33.3% likely sample/scenario: FFM (from MMFF, which is less likely because we already know 1/3 or one member of the set is M) 100% M _ _ M F _ 50% F _ _ 0% F F _ F F M
    1
  47. Aleksey Z. refer to my last comment. a set was used in the actual video, which is why i'm also using a set. the quantity of individuals of the given species of frogs is unknown, but for the sake of clarity i've simplified the whole thing by using only 4.
    1
  48. Aleksey Z. I'm not creating a constant from a "random variable". It is a FACT that 50% of that clearing group is male. In other words, 50% of the 2 frogs in clearing is in fact male! This is an important detail, yet what is NOT important is WHICH frog is male. That's a great experiment, but the analogy breaks down because one of the two cards on the left MUST be black (or red--this doesn't really matter). And just because one card is black does not increase the likelihood of the other card being red, not consequentially at least.
    1
  49. M _ _ (this outcome) is no different than _ M _, though you can pretend that it is, and that it matters all you like, but it's simply not.
    1
  50. Eddie You're the one not listening (and or understanding). I'd suggest rereading my comment very slowly. I totally agree that: MM = 25% FF = 25% MF = 25% FM = 25% BUTTTTTT in this particular scenario the consideration that the distinction between MF and FM as unique possibilities with different effectual outcomes is simply false. If you can't understand that, I feel sorry for you; and I can infer from this that this convo will not go anywhere. P.S. I've made hundreds of thousands of dollars playing poker, so it could be said that understanding probability is my job...
    1