Could you give me a minute to think it over? Oh, wait, shit…
As I pondered at what I could possibly ask, I blurted out “Do I get time to think about this or do I have to ask it like… right now?”
OH SHIT FUCK I DIDN’T MEAN TO ASK…
“It doesn’t matter anymore, now you don’t.”
And with that, I realized… I FUCKED UP…
:+
deleted by creator
Have you ever had a dream that you, um, you had, your, you- you could, you’ll do, you- you wants, you, you could do so, you- you’ll do, you could- you, you want, you want him to do you so much you could do anything?
What is the two element set where the first element is the best possible question I could ask and the second element is the answer to that question?
The omnipotent being in question may not enjoy this programmer’s ploy to wish for more wishes.
It’s technically quite clever, but depending on who you’re asking, it could be dangerous route to take.
Q: What is the two element set where the first element is the best possible question I could ask and the second element is the answer to that question?
A: 1 - What is the two element set where the first element is the best possible question I could ask and the second element is the answer to that question?
2 - Q: What is the two element set where the first element is the best possible question I could ask and the second element is the answer to that question?
A: 1 - What is the two element set where the first element is the best possible question I could ask and the second element is the answer to that question?
2 - Q: What is the two element set where the first element is the best possible question I could ask and the second element is the answer to that question?
A: 1 - What is the two element set where the first element is the best possible question I could ask and the second element is the answer to that question?
2 - Q: What is the two element set where the first element is the best possible question I could ask and the second element is the answer to that question?
A: 1 - What is the two element set where the first element is the best possible question I could ask and the second element is the answer to that question?
2 - Q: What is the two element set where the first element is the best possible question I could ask and the second element is the answer to that question?
A: 1 - What is the two element set where the first element is the best possible question I could ask and the second element is the answer to that question?
2 - Q: What is the two element set where the first element is the best possible question I could ask and the second element is the answer to that question?
A: 1 - What is the two element set where the first element is the best possible question I could ask and the second element is the answer to that question?
2 - Q: What is the two element set where the first element is the best possible question I could ask and the second element is the answer to that question?
A: 1 - What is the two element set where the first element is the best possible question I could ask and the second element…
While funny, this answer to the question is useless, thus making the question not actually be good, so the answer would have to be different. The only issue is it could lead to a paradox, where if the answer were to be useful the question would actually be good, possibly the best, which would mean it should’ve been the answer, etc.
I think you would break the machine or deity or whatever with that question xd
Where is the nearest intelligent life outside the solar system?
I’d rephrase and ask "where is the most similarly advanced - relative to humans- intelligent life outside the solar system.
I wanna weed out all the low hanging fruit and find folks we might have a chance of talking to at some point.
At that point, why go for ‘similarly advanced’? Wouldn’t it be more beneficial to target intelligent life that has far outdone our own technologies?
We would probably have a better chance at real communication with them too
Nah, then they could murder us… It’s safer to find one just advanced enough but not too advanced…
The Avatar movie depicts what could happen in a scenario where we find intelligent life, but we’re the more advanced civilization.
Why not “what specifically should scientists focus on to develop functional near or faster than light space travel?” Then people can just go check where the aliens are or are not!
What are next weeks lottery numbers?
Might get stuck with a small payout.
“What are the winning numbers for the next lottery drawing with a payout of over $500 million?”
Not specific enough, what if the next $500 million dollar equivalent payout is in another country and you miss it? Maybe specify the next US Powerball over $500 million?
Why stop there? 1 billion please. It reaches this like 1 to 2 times a year now.
Edit: just for clarification that becomes 477 million lump sum after taxes.
Well in that case, it’s hardly worth it for such a pittance. Chump change at that point.
Does knowing the numbers actually help? Don’t you have to then go find the correct ticket?
Might be different up here in Canada. But up here you can either ask for a random ticket, or you can fill in a card with the numbers that you want (lucky numbers, etc…)
No you can either select the numbers manually or have them chosen randomly.
Who’s a good boy?
All dogs
Not all. There are some bad boys out there.
There are no bad dogs. Only bad trainers. Its a human problem.
I think @CapuccinoCoretto@lemmy.world meant dogs with sunglasses riding motorcycles. Because I think we all agree here that all dogs are indeed very, VERY good dogs.
I sympathise, but the cliché is not strictly true. Nature is all about diversity. Just like humans have a certain ratio of “bad apples” born where someone is hard wired wrong, so do dogs, and likely all animals.
Psychopathology is real. It would be a mistake to deny Nature it’s agency. There are people who belong in an institution. Dogs perhaps moreso.
To your point, yes most problems are attributable to bad trainers, but even here there is something missing. Bad breeders - natural reproduction would select for fitness, and truly bad dogs would be limited to a small fraction of background instances. We have lots of people actively breeding killers with outsized agression and fear and ferocity, with hair triggers, on purpose. I’m not talking about guard dogs where fierce protective instincts are balanced with loyalty and bonding and intelligence. I mean literal psychokillers.
I’m circling around Pit-Bulls and the like, but I need to be clear. The breed is fine. Some of my best friends are pit bulls. Diversity naturally makes most of them good dogs, just more context dependant and trainer demanding. I’m not talking about those. I’m only referring to a small subset that were overbred and the natural background level of freakshow.
If you’ve only known pets from reputable breeders, accidental litters or the shelter rescues, understand that these select for the good dogs. If that’s all you know, you would have reason to doubt that bad dogs are possible.
do all non-trivial roots of the Riemann zeta function have the form 0.5+xi, and why or why not
The ‘why or why not’ makes it 2 questions.
why or why not do all non-trivial roots of the Riemann zeta function have the form 0.5+xi?
fuck yes, mine too
“What will be the official winning numbers, stated as five white-ball numbers in ascending order, followed by the Mega Ball and the Megaplier, for the Mega Millions drawing held on Tuesday, April 21, 2026 at 11:00 p.m. Eastern Time?”
You get the answer - the day after, on Wednesday. I don’t see any time-guarantee in the statement.
I can ask the longest and most complete question ever posed but if the genie is a trickster it’s always going to pan out that way.
Monkey’s paw: You get the numbers but miraculously 10,000 other people also get the winning numbers.
Ha ha this is really a good one, well done!
Does P=NP?
Did it get better?
Is the answer to this question no?
“No, it is not.”
Maybe.
42
Easy: How does subjective conscious experience arise from physical processes in the brain?
“It’s complicated.”
The physical processes themselves are the so-called subjective conscious experience in a way that cannot be better described by an abstraction.
There’s no such thing as a conscious experience without physical processes and no hard-line difference between different physical reactions that would differentiate consciousness and non-consciousness.By consciousness I mean the fact of experience - that it feels like something to be. That things have qualia.
It’s perfectly conceivable to imagine a human-like creature acting just like us and having a brain processing all that information, but it doesn’t feel like anything to be that creature. A philosophical zombie, so to speak.
That’s what’s utterly mystical to me. How can physical processes inside the brain give rise to subjective experiences i.e. consciousness?
What I imagine to be the “true” answer to the question is that “consciousness” isn’t really real, but if it’s thought of as a result of physical/chemical properties, then there’s no dividing line between what reactions count as consciousness (ie, a waterfall or tectonic plate could also be conscious).
You can’t prove that you experience that sort of intangible experience and it can’t be measured or well-defined, so I’m personally inclined to not really believe in it at all.
OR if we do accept that it’s a result of chemical reactions and we want to define it in terms of those, then there’s not a strong reason to differentiate a human experience from rocks or computers or waterfalls.
I think people are inclined to think that such a thing exists because we have the abilities of memory and communication, but the concept itself I think is not very useful. Which is why I suspect that a magically True answer would say that the physicality of the brain itself is as close as you can get to that idea.Well, there’s zero doubt whether I’m conscious myself. It’s the only thing in the entire universe that I’m absolutely sure cannot be an illusion, because the fact that it is like something to be me (whatever “me” is) is undeniable from my subjective perspective.
But you’re right that I can’t make absolute statements about the conscious states of other people, animals, or even inanimate objects like rocks. I’m fairly certain that other humans are conscious too. This applies to animals as well, and it’s probably like something to be an insect. A rock, however? I’m not going to claim with absolute certainty that it’s not like anything to be a rock, but the thought of that is so incomprehensible that I don’t really waste much time even thinking about it.
somebody will argue that consciousness was there first and the whole body + brain is actually kind of a dream …
(not how i view it though. i have a different answer)
my answer is that consciousness does not emanate from the brain at all, but from the fact that we are alive. in other words, i believe that consciousness is a property that many or all forms of life have evolved to have because/as long as it is advantageous to them. this view is called “existentialism” btw. things derive from the fact that we exist (as living beings).
I don’t think that’s existentialism. Existentialism is about the meaning of human existence, freedom, and authenticity - not about whether consciousness emerges from the brain or from being alive. Your view sounds more like a some form of panpsychism.
