lambda = magic

    dude, nobody really knows

    i mean, i think we THINK we know, and that may very well be the case but

    if it has 'lambda' in it's name, typically, it's equivalent to 'magic', and only like, 5 people really know what's going on. or think they know whats going on. maybe not. maybe it's all vibrating strings after all. who knows. who the fuck cares. it's not like we'll ever really figure it out. after look at the Sussman findings about tail call elimination. when it comes to anything lambda anymore, i just shut my ears off and pretend i live in a world where things make sense.

    no not this world. after all, this world is the church-turing world. who even knows what the fuck is going on? it's like we're all playing a giant conways game of life.

    and continuations jesus christ. what the fuck. we actually see continuations happening everwhere, have no clue what causes them, and then decide, 'oh man, it must be a FUNDAMENTAL procedure'. as if that makes any fucking sense. as if procedure can be caused naturally. what a fucking joke.

    we don't know anything. what was you're question? i dont even know. i dont even care.

    i think im gonna go back to debugging my code now.

how do ips work

Get out.

That's the point. How can I conjure the spirits of the computer with my spells without the spells?

>>1
maybe it's all vibrating strings after all
No, this is incorrect. String theories/M-theory are macroscopic integrations of an underlying microscopic quantum cellular automata across a two-dimensional Holographic lattice field. This is the current bleeding edge understanding within the physics community. It is now postulated that gravitation is an emergent phenomenon of an underlying fundamental entropic force which is what drives Holographic lattice fields. CERN/LHC has yet to find evidence of the Higgs Boson at the predicted energy levels, and if indeed they cannot find it, it will lend credence to Holography. Many people within the Higgs Boson camp are literally shitting themselves in anxiety over the fact that they haven't found evidence yet.

You need to understand that popular physics, such as what's seen on the Discovery Channel, is a good decade behind of the bleeding edge. String theories/M-theory are just a good way to bundle everything up, communicate ideas, and determine results but have nothing to do with what's really going on.

I suggest you educate yourself on universal quantum computation.

>>5
Oi, crackpot (Wolfram, is that you?)

Holography has lost support in recent experiments, as has string theory. Higgs Boson too, but it's irrelevant. Epiphenominal gravitation is right out.

>>6
And precisely which school of thought do you back?

>>7
The scientific method.

>>6,8
I am a little concerned  hat you yourself are more of a crackpot with your mention of the word ``epiphonominal.'' Are you suggesting that gravitation is not epiphonominal, as in it can be manipulated by human thoughts? Or are you misusing the word?

As for your claims of backing the scientific method, if that were true, then your verdict would still be open.

You should be aware that the dust has not yet settled in the emergent entropic gravitation debate. Many of the original claims attempting to debunk entropic gravity have been shown to be full of holes. The most recent papers attempting to throw out the theory or draw attention to gaps in knowledge have not yet recieved proper replies--not because they are necessarily correct, but because they are only a couple of months old.

As for Holography, it is still the best model to explain what we are seeing in black holes, and it generalizes quite well to the rest of the Universe.

Perhaps you were thinking of Loop Quantum Gravitation? Yes, that was most thoroughly thrown out, but that doesn't mean that all theories of emergent gravitation are to be discarded.

>>6
As a follow up to >>9, I would like to clarify that I now realize what you meant by ``epiphenominal gravitation.'' Emergent entropic gravity is not epiphenominal as it does have a casual effect on reality--why wouldn't it?

I don't know any of that physics stuff but I found OPs thread very enjoyable.

dude you can totally figure it out just gotta jibe with it y'know?


cons := (lambda (x) (lambda (y) (lambda (f) (f x y))))
car := (lambda (x) (lambda (y) x))

>>12
this used to program in scheme, haskell and ALGOL before he had the stroke. Now everything he writes is some bizarre mixture of the three.

I ❤ LAMBDAS!

I thought lambda was just "shorthand" for anonymous function calls?

I think my Asperger's syndrome's inability to comprehend sarcasm is showing...

YHBT. YHL. HAND.

>>15
It is shorthand for ``lambada".

All the original Lisp functions were references to Spanish culture, for instance: lambada, ay caramba, and El Cóndor Pasa.

>>16
>le pedophile sage

>>17
>le pedophile sage