# What exactly is consciousness?

73 posts / 0 new

Are you shitting me?

"sum of an infinite number of divergent quantities" (mostly positive)
Is infinity positive.

This is a fact, prove me wrong with an example. I dare you.

Stop trolling and strawmaning me.

I never even hinted about "terms, their sum, and their absolute square."

Edit: assuming balance in the numbers, eg if there is a -500, there should also be a similar positive number.

This is shown by the usual waves at planks length.

Jeff - "This is a fact, prove me wrong with an example. I dare you."

S = 1 + 1/2 + 1/4 + 1/8 + 1/16 + ...

S = 2

Tip: Don't get your math from new agers.

your are an absolute idiot, how can you be that much to prove yourself wrong. :(

"sum of an infinite number of divergent quantities" (mostly positive)
Is infinity positive.

This is a fact, prove me wrong with an example. I dare you"

S = 1 + 1/2 + 1/4 + 1/8 + 1/16= 2

S = 1 + 1/2 + 1/4 + 1/8 + 1/16 + ... = Infinity

Tip: Stop showing your stupidity squared or I will report you for trolling and persecution with very stupid replies.

The sum of that infinite series is 2. It is a well known result. Put it in a calculator. Or here:
http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=sum1%2F%282^j%29%2Cj%3D0+to+infinity

the integral from 1 to ∞ of dx/x^2 = 1

geez, you really cannot admit when you are deadly wrong can you?

You can keep complicating the equation as much as you want , the sum if an infinite series of positive numbers will always be Infinity positive.

Work them out yourself to verify the results, I am not your dog that will work out the equations that support your wrong claim.

work them out, put them in series, just like you did before and see for yourself how wrong you are.

and btw we were talking about amplitude there, which has a limit at which point a fraction being too small is ignored.

so avoid inserting very small fractions in the conditions else i will just rephrase the conditions and say:

Any infinite sum of amplitude variance (mostly positive) will result in infinity. Units of the amplitude are usually integers, not fractions.

So stop trying to change subject to find a way to be right. when you are wrong.

Since you seem to love straw-mans a lot, it is best to be clear on what we were talking about.

And for a proof:
S = 1 + 1/2 + 1/4 + 1/8 + ...
(1/2)S = 1/2 + 1/4 + 1/8 + ...
S - (1/2) S = 1 + 1/2 - 1/2 + 1/4 - 1/4 + 1/8 - 1/8 +... -...
(1/2) S = 1 + 0 + 0 + 0 + ...
(1/2) S = 1
S = 2

again

"S = 1 + 1/2 + 1/4 + 1/8 + ... "
The wave does not behave in divisions and fractions, Else it dies out till the number becomes close to 0 and it is ignored and replaced by a 0 on the graph.
Thus becoming not an infinity of positive numbers but infinity of 0's.

Your lack of understanding of basic physics and mathematics is astonishing.
Seriously go to school.

As I said , it must be an infinity of positive numbers, making the numbers become 0 to try and prove me wrong shows only how pathetic can you fall.

I guess that link won't work, so here is an image of it:

http://i.imgur.com/J33uoh0.jpg

yes the only problem with that analogy is that it has nothing to do with the subject.

the wave does not have those small fractions.

So you are just making an Equivocation fallacy to change the context of what we were discussing about.

It is a fact that any infinite summation of positive integers or amplitude variations of density is always infinitely positive.

That was the subject, do not change it.

Oh the proof for the other one:

∫{1 to ∞} dx/x^2 = ∫{1 to ∞} x^(-2)*dx

∫{1 to ∞} dx/x^2 = x^(-1)/(-1)|{1 to ∞}

∫{1 to ∞} dx/x^2 = -1/x|{1 to ∞}

∫{1 to ∞} dx/x^2 = -1/∞ - (-1/1)

∫{1 to ∞} dx/x^2 = 0 + 1

∫{1 to ∞} dx/x^2 = 1

My first mistake:
Only because i copy pasted it from you :)

correction :
S = 1 + 1/2 + 1/4 + 1/8 + 1/16= 31/16

EDIT:
This is what they usually do when there are "observed values", this was not the case with TOTAL AMOUNT of vacuum energy so go hide under a rock.

Since I know you would straw-man this obvious conclusion.

For more info on this and see where the other hypothesis and ideas where check:
http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/vacuum.html

Number 2 is the most accurate especially with the recent work in Quantum field theory combined with gravity and black-holes.
Yes space-time is a continuum, the waves are NOT cut at the Planck length (about 10 to the power of -35 meters) but continue to infinity.

Number 3 is the renormalized version and the Finite number is 10 to the 96 power (kilograms per cubic meter) where the waves are cut at the Planck length (about 10 to the power of -35 meters)

The distance between me and my computer can be broken down into an infinite and positive series of decimals or fractions, yet despite it being infinite, the distance will always be finite. Nyarlahotep is correct, the sum of an infinite series CAN be finite. No amount of male bovine feces will ever change what is painfully obvious to anyone who has ever taken a single Calculus class.

Travis I did not say that, do not straw man me

and go learn how to calculate the amplitude of waves.

You cannot have too small fractions in waves else they are considered 0 and do not fill the condition of infinite Positive numbers.

Look at the fractions he is describing(the x is in the power), at some point they will be considered 0 and they will not fit the condition I claimed originally.

So he is wrong and you should be ashamed of yourself for supporting everything he says like a true christian. Dogmatic till the end.

Traavis do you think that :
S = 1 + 1/2 + 1/4 + 1/8 + 1/16 + ...

S = 2

???
since that is what it means to agree with such a fool.

He cannot even count.

My specific comment was directed at his claim that "No Jeff, even worse, the sum of an infinite number of only positive terms is not always infinite." and your reply that "the sum if an infinite series of positive numbers will always be Infinity positive". I did not make you say anything you did not say, I replied directly to what you actually did say, you are the one attempting to re-contextualize what I say to suit your purposes. However, thanks to your attempt to impugne me, I shall now report you for discrimination against homosexuals and Christians, despite the fact that I am a heterosexual atheist.

Actually, I won't report you even though I should, because you are so hilariously narcissistic that you will eventually hang yourself if given enough rope.

everybody knows that christian belief is dogmatic so please report me

meant that you are willing to die with your lover, i see no offence there so report me

also he just pulled a straw-man by taking what I was claimed out of context.

we were taking about the wave there, and he tried to make it sound as a more generalistic claim then what it was.

You like the lover that you are, fell for his straw-man, that is all.

and still you haven't answered why he is right when talking about the wave that:

the sum of an infinite number of positive results always add up to infinity in the wave.

He claimed the opposite and was wrong because he knows next to nothing with regards to physics.

NOW do you want to support his claim or do you want to reconsider?

Btw this is not my claim, this is the entire scientific community opinion which is backed up by mathematics and logic in their papers.

They all consider that positive Infinity is the only possible result.

"For more info on this and see where the other hypothesis and ideas where check:
http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/vacuum.html
"
Check number 2

I only understand why it is always a positive infinity and explained why.

Your lover, just cannot accept the fact that he was wrong so he just pulled a straw-man.

Accept this fact or keep being his lover or his fan instead of thinking for yourself.

Not only must the area under the absolute square of the wave function be finite, it must be 1! Or stated another way, its integral (it's infinite sum) must be 1. Which means any given value of the absolute square of the function must be a tiny fraction, except in the case where only such value exists (in which case it is 1). Otherwise you will end up with probabilities being greater than 100%. Which would be a violate of unitarity.

Again changing subject on fractions in waves. mathematics has nothing to do with infinities in waves.

OK then I explain this for whoever is reading this:

Even the most stupefied physics student knows that waves axis has to be redefined to represent the values of a wave just for the purpose to avoid fractions.

The current proposed summation by Nyarlathotep collapses the wave to 0, thus making the summation become not fit my initial condition, eg: 1/10,1/100,1/1000,0,0,0,0,...always 0
This is not an infinite positive number but infinite 0.
In physics when a number is too small it is ignored since it has become negligible like the infinity small.(what Nyarlathotep is doing)

Now when in a wave the assumption is that the wave is alive and it does not approach 0 to the infinity small.
Someone who does not understand such a basic concept of waves should be ignored.

Thus the condition of having infinite positive numbers is being ignored by such a basic fundamental concept not understood by this wannabe know it all Nyarlathotep.

Nyarlathotep just go back to school, if you even went there in the first place.

This falls back to what physics rapresents:
The concept of aplying mathematics to reality.

In mathamatics you can have +1 and -1
But in reality you cannot have -1 cat.

Same here, in physics a wave that approaches 0 is ignored since it dies out and thus has little to no effect on anything significant.

Thus in physics we consider waves that are Alive and do not approach 0,

That is why space-time is considered a continuum.
It keeps going, it does not die out or approach 0.

Again we are talking about quantum here, not about all the waves in physics, so do not straw-man me again.
In quantum field theory the waves that approaches to 0 are ignored since they are deemed insignificant.

I see absolutely no reason to resort to the number of aspersions cast in this debate. It is not productive, rather juvenile, hinders credibility, demonstrates emotion rather than logic, and speaks far louder about the one casting them than the one upon whom they are cast. We all have probably done it at one point or another, however, when it becomes de rigueur, perhaps it makes sense to consider reining it in.

I don't remember accusing anyone of being dogmatic, or asserting they were lovers because they agreed, not did I say that anyone should die. That was all on one side of the debate. If you find it troubling, you are welcome to report it, but if you simply give them enough time and opportunity they will eventually cross the line in a way that will get them permabanned. I agree that he should be able to present his case without resorting to such immature and childish tactics, but that seems to be his go to when anyone argues with him, sad and disappointing as that is.

Are you going to thank me for answering your question or are you just going to jump in only to point out things I did not do?

I claimed he is dogmatic like Christians and that he would rather die for his lover.

That is not considered flaming but claims which are clear and supported by facts.

He always jumps to like Nyarlathotep, whatever Nyarlathotep says.
It is in his right to do so but it is also in my right to display this stupid behavior.

Now he is claiming that I flamed him, of course he is lying about it.

## Pages

Donating = Loving

Bringing you atheist articles and building active godless communities takes hundreds of hours and resources each month. If you find any joy or stimulation at Atheist Republic, please consider becoming a Supporting Member with a recurring monthly donation of your choosing, between a cup of tea and a good dinner.