Each of these studies splits independently from the other because building your study upon another one is very complicated and would confuse many people. But in the end it is inevitably more accurate if you calculate everything using the quark level interactions. Sure the logistics would be nightmarish but I'm not arguing the logistical possibility im arguing the actually truthfulness of the statement. I dont think it can be done by humans but i am saying it is the way the universe operates.

Also freedom can be quite easily preserved in a logical society because if it is your goal to ensure happiness then it would be logical to allow freedom and choice.

Hey man sorry I thumbed you down on accident, I evened it back out though. just saying it wasn't on purpose.

<3

You are right on a daily basis it would be near impossible but on a macro-level of managing global decisions and weighing the outcomes of government policies a quantum computer would no doubt be a boon to ensuring world happiness.

Don't you think there is a reason, that we use chemistry to study chemistry instead of physics?

what about biology? Surely we would rid ourselves of these pointless things along the way, since they are both just lesser forms of math and physics. Yet I'd be hard pressed to say that studying biology through pure math will yield as many good results as we can get currently. There are to many factors to take account of, and far to many possible answers that math can not come up with what will happen, that's why often when biologist, chemist, any scientist thinks, alright this should give me this when dealt with this way- quite a lot of the time they end up saying, huh thats funny, why'd that happen.
Given that and then the addition of having to try to figure out what all of those numbers mean in a real world situation, it would take time and not be as helpful as you would think.

Global trends and the like removes the key fundamental of the individual, you assume that through looking how certain people feel we will be able to benefit everyone, but that's not true, they are different people dealing with different things in their individual area. If you were to monitor everyone in california and texas and new york you would have a lot of people to get data from, but in reality that tells you nothing about how not only those individuals feel but how someone from montana feels or how they would take action.


Instead of pretending that it is possible for some dictatorial big brother to know whats best for us all, why not just let individuals go for what they think is best? Certainly the only one truly capable of understanding what a person wants, is themselves and that even takes time to figure out. If we let them strive for what they want, won't they be happier for it?

Each of these studies splits independently from the other because building your study upon another one is very complicated and would confuse many people. But in the end it is inevitably more accurate if you calculate everything using the quark level interactions. Sure the logistics would be nightmarish but I'm not arguing the logistical possibility im arguing the actually truthfulness of the statement. I dont think it can be done by humans but i am saying it is the way the universe operates.

Also freedom can be quite easily preserved in a logical society because if it is your goal to ensure happiness then it would be logical to allow freedom and choice.

For gods sake just stop talking you autist.
In what way is asking a computer to model the interaction between Quarks going to help make decisions regrding global politics?

You keep throwing around complicated topics when you have absolutley no fucking clue what you're talking about.

I know you wan't to do this whole Mr Spock 'I'm so edgy I use logic and don't feel emotions' thing, but you have to actually have spent some time studying your chosen field. Because currently, it is very fucking obvious that you're just a pre-teen neckbeard.

In what we is it ins't? We are all composed of quarks and we all follow the laws of the universe, so how would it be impossible theoretically speaking to have a computer with infinite processing power calculate the best outcome for every choice by evaluating all possible interactions. Once again this is theoretical Two I am not a preteen neckbeard and if I was that does not make my argument any less true. You would not doubt consider it with less respect but in the end does whoever makes the argument affect the truth of the argument ?

The conversation was on applying logic as opposed to emotion when negating everyday problems, now you're talking about building a computer and simulating the entire universe from a sub-particlular level.

Sometimes you just gotta admit you don't know what the fuck you're talking about, bub.

You claim to favour logic, yet your too fucking stupid to even have a simple discussion. Don't bother replying, I'm worried if I continue reading your comments my IQ is going to start depreciating.

Both are similar actions simulation of good decisions requires a simulation of future results I apologize that the logical leap was to great for you too understand. I will try to working on be concise so even the most unintelligent can understand my arguement.