To add comments or start new threads please go to the full version of: Maybe
PhysForum Science, Physics and Technology Discussion Forums > General Sci-Tech Discussions > Puzzling questions

Meem
18th June 2009 - 01:26 PM
QUOTE
Science is in a state of crisis. Where free inquiry, natural curiosity and open-minded discussion and consideration of new ideas should reign, a new orthodoxy has emerged. This 'new inquisition', as it has been called by Robert Anton Wilson (2) consists not of cardinals and popes, but of the editors and reviewers of scientific journals, of leading authorities and self-appointed "skeptics", and last but not least of corporations and governments that have a vested interest in preserving the status quo, and it is just as effective in suppressing unorthodox ideas as the original. The scientists in the editorial boards of journals who decide which research is fit to be published, and which is not, the science bureaucrats at the patent office who decide what feats nature allows human technology to perform, and which ones it does not, and the scientists in governmental agencies who decide what proposals to fund, and not to fund, either truly believe that they are in complete knowledge of all the fundamental laws of nature, or they purposely suppress certain discoveries that threaten the scientific prestige of individuals or institutions, or economic interests. Research that indicates that an accepted theory is incomplete, severely flawed, or completely mistaken, is frequently rejected on the grounds that it "contradicts the laws of nature", and therefore has to be the result of sloppiness or fraud. At the heart of this argument is the incorrect notion that theory overrides evidence.
Meem
18th June 2009 - 01:38 PM
Three men go into court.

Man-C says, man-A killed man-X. Man-B says, "I saw man-A kill man-X."

These three men were the only people at the scene. The only evidence of the murder is man-x's body.

Does this make man-A guilty? Could man-B or C not have done it and decided to blame it on man-A?

(edit) Man-A says, "I am innocent."
flyingbuttressman
18th June 2009 - 01:41 PM
Way to take a page out of "Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed"

The reason why your "unorthodox ideas" are rejected is because they are based on faulty or non-existent research.

If your fortress is a fortress of knowledge and understanding, you can't let just anyone trample through it with their quasi-scientific agendas.

I'm going to take a stab at one of your "unorthodox ideas". Intelligent Design, right?

Why is it that evolution is so hard to accept? Is it really that mind-blowing that the origins of species come from NATURAL causes?
Meem
18th June 2009 - 01:45 PM
Way to take a page out of the "atheist's" cook book, which is also quasi-science.

Who said I didn't believe in evolution? It seems to be a very self intelligent process to me.

Were the Wright brothers "scientists," and did they fly? Take a stab at my 3 man question, be the judge without any evidence and make a ruling, then give your supporting evidence or your judgement.

QUOTE
If your fortress is a fortress of knowledge and understanding, you can't let just anyone trample through it with their quasi-scientific agendas


The spirit of invention is not science, it is "quasi-science." How do people do things, or make things ... that everyone else says they cannot do, or will never work?
flyingbuttressman
18th June 2009 - 01:52 PM
QUOTE (Meem+Jun 18 2009, 01:45 PM)
Way to take a page out of the "atheist's" cook book, which is also quasi-science.

Who said I didn't believe in evolution? It seems to be a very self intelligent process to me.

Were the Wright brothers "scientists," and did they fly?

I stand corrected, your fight is not with evolution. Could you please then explain which theory you would like to be considered in your scientific journals?

Wright brothers? Inventors are not scientists.
Meem
18th June 2009 - 01:56 PM
QUOTE
Wright brothers? Inventors are not scientists.


Still didn't answer the question, did they fly? And who does science give the credit of flight to? Ut oh, problem.

(edit)
QUOTE (->
QUOTE
Wright brothers? Inventors are not scientists.


Still didn't answer the question, did they fly? And who does science give the credit of flight to? Ut oh, problem.

(edit)
Could you please then explain which theory you would like to be considered in your scientific journals?


I would just like to state again, my purpose is not to make any "certain-claims," but to only justify the possibility, because that's all anyone has without proof.

(edit)
QUOTE
If your fortress is a fortress of knowledge and understanding, you can't let just anyone trample through it with their quasi-scientific agendas


I believe that is what I have been saying, about science vs. religion, but it's only being viewed through the aperture of religion vs. science.


flyingbuttressman
18th June 2009 - 02:09 PM
QUOTE (Meem+Jun 18 2009, 01:56 PM)
Still didn't answer the question, did they fly? And who does science give the credit of flight to? Ut oh, problem.

I'm going to guess that your point is: Science has been proven wrong in the past, by the Wright Brothers, so who is to say that it's not wrong again?

So yes, they did fly, to the chagrin of many scientific people who believed it not possible.

Here is the difference between the Wright Brothers and many people now who think that they know better than the scientific community: Research.

The Wright Brothers experimented with many many designs before they got it right. They dedicated their lives to making it work.

The lesson here is: don't go demand respect for your unproven theories from the science community.

The Wright Brothers proved that flight was possible through their own hard work and determination. If you have an idea, go for it, but don't expect respect along the way.

The problem is that most people like that today are trying to get their metaphysical theories recognized, which won't happen until they can present actual concrete proof.
Meem
18th June 2009 - 02:16 PM
QUOTE
The lesson here is: don't go demand respect for your unproven theories from the science community.


Have I presented any "true theories" of my own? The only "theory" I've been trying to push is simple-reason.

flyingbuttressman
18th June 2009 - 02:21 PM
QUOTE (Meem+Jun 18 2009, 02:16 PM)
Have I presented any "true theories" of my own? The only "theory" I've been trying to push is simple-reason.

QUOTE
Research that indicates that an accepted theory is incomplete, severely flawed, or completely mistaken, is frequently rejected on the grounds that it "contradicts the laws of nature", and therefore has to be the result of sloppiness or fraud. At the heart of this argument is the incorrect notion that theory overrides evidence.


You are suggesting that a serious ethical violation has occurred. You need to present examples to have a case.
Meem
18th June 2009 - 02:32 PM
QUOTE
At the heart of this argument is the incorrect notion that theory overrides evidence.



God exists, theory with no evidence.
God does not exist, theory with no evidence.


"Science(tists)" is(are) claiming the later to be true, this is a serious violation. This is where science fails to see it own problems, much like "religious" men failing to see their own problems.
flyingbuttressman
18th June 2009 - 02:42 PM
QUOTE (Meem+Jun 18 2009, 02:32 PM)
God exists, theory with no evidence.
God does not exist, theory with no evidence.

"Science(tists)" is(are) claiming the later to be true, this is a serious violation. This is where science fails to see it own problems, much like "religious" men failing to see their own problems.

Damn it, no-one reads the signatures.

I give you Occam's Razor:

"We are to admit no more causes of natural things than such as are both true and sufficient to explain their appearances."
- Sir Isaac Newton

This means that if god is not needed to explain natural things, then god did not cause them to exist. Ergo, god does not exist.

Even more simply put: Given two equal theories, we should choose the simplest theory.
gmilam
18th June 2009 - 02:44 PM
QUOTE (Meem+Jun 18 2009, 08:38 AM)
Three men go into court.

Man-C says, man-A killed man-X. Man-B says, "I saw man-A kill man-X."

These three men were the only people at the scene.  The only evidence of the murder is man-x's body.

Does this make man-A guilty?  Could man-B or C not have done it and decided to blame it on man-A?

(edit) Man-A says, "I am innocent."

Insufficient information with which to draw a conclusion.

It is two against one, but there could be a plot to frame man A. It could also have been self defense.

What is man A's account of the incident?
gmilam
18th June 2009 - 04:05 PM
QUOTE (Meem+Jun 18 2009, 09:32 AM)


God exists, theory with no evidence.
God does not exist, theory with no evidence.


"Science(tists)" is(are) claiming the later to be true, this is a serious violation. This is where science fails to see it own problems, much like "religious" men failing to see their own problems.

There are also scientists claiming the former is true. Both opinions are irrelevant.

Do you ask your English Literature teacher for information on the Quadratic formula?
buttershug
18th June 2009 - 04:23 PM
QUOTE (Meem+Jun 18 2009, 02:32 PM)


God exists, theory with no evidence.
God does not exist, theory with no evidence.


"Science(tists)" is(are) claiming the later to be true, this is a serious violation. This is where science fails to see it own problems, much like "religious" men failing to see their own problems.

Those are not theories.
Theories require evidence.

Those are conjectures.
Meem
18th June 2009 - 07:28 PM
QUOTE
This means that if god is not needed to explain natural things, then god did not cause them to exist. Ergo, god does not exist.


This is the bending of the rule, and excludes the possibility that God is natural.


Explore this,


"If men are not needed to explain natural things, then men did not cause them to exist, Ergo, men do not exist."

That is what your logic is saying.
Meem
18th June 2009 - 07:31 PM
QUOTE (buttershug+Jun 18 2009, 11:23 AM)
Those are not theories.
Theories require evidence.

Those are conjectures.

What is your theory then, rather than conjecture that God doesn't exist. You've made it clear that is your opinion, where are the "facts" or theoretical proof?
Meem
18th June 2009 - 07:36 PM
QUOTE
Insufficient information with which to draw a conclusion.

It is two against one, but there could be a plot to frame man A. It could also have been self defense.

What is man A's account of the incident?


I cannot speak on man A's behalf. So if we want to know the truth, it seems we will have to find out who all three men are and devise a plan to uncover the truth.
gmilam
18th June 2009 - 07:55 PM
Then it appears you have some studying to do.

Get back with us when you have some facts, won't you.
Meem
18th June 2009 - 08:06 PM
I would then say, you are not interested in learning the truth, but are more concerned with your prejudice of what truth is ... and discriminate against anything that doesn't fit your prejudice.

I am innocent of pushing an idea, you are guilty.

QUOTE
Get back with us when you have some facts, won't you


That's what a man says, and the law says, innocent until prove guilty. You say I am guilty until proven innocent, and that is a violation of the law.
occidental
18th June 2009 - 08:14 PM
QUOTE (Meem+Jun 18 2009, 02:32 PM)


God exists, theory with no evidence.

Thanks for the opinions on God, Meem. Get back to us when you have some evidence.
gmilam
18th June 2009 - 08:17 PM
QUOTE
I would then say, you are not interested in learning the truth, but are more concerned with your prejudice of what truth is ... and discriminate against anything that doesn't fit your prejudice.

I am innocent of pushing an idea, you are guilty.


That's what a man says, and the law says, innocent until prove guilty. You say I am guilty until proven innocent, and that is a violation of the law.

You sure do like to put words into people's mouths don't you.
Meem
18th June 2009 - 08:18 PM
QUOTE
Thanks for the opinions on God, Meem. Get back to us when you have some evidence.


See, you choose to see what you want, I am not telling you what to see. If you were an honest person, or anyone at all interested in truth, you wouldn't bend it to fit your prejudice. That is known as discrimination. And you totally defile science in the process, thus becoming a failed asset to this forum. You assert that you are so different from magpies and billions of years of knowledge in magpies mind ... but I see no ultimate difference.

But I am not the judge with or without prejudice, I am only the man without prejudice.
Meem
18th June 2009 - 08:25 PM
QUOTE (gmilam+Jun 18 2009, 03:17 PM)
You sure do like to put words into people's mouths don't you.

Where are your facts about the man? Understand the "man" to be the variable in the problem.
gmilam
18th June 2009 - 08:30 PM
QUOTE (Meem+Jun 18 2009, 03:25 PM)
Where are your facts about the man? Understand the "man" to be the variable in the problem.

Well, that was pretty damn incoherent.
Meem
18th June 2009 - 08:33 PM
QUOTE (gmilam+Jun 18 2009, 03:30 PM)
Well, that was pretty damn incoherent.

Apparently, you are not coherent enough to follow the idea presented in the OP, that's your incoherency, not mine.

QUOTE
Three men go into court.

Man-C says, man-A killed man-X. Man-B says, "I saw man-A kill man-X."

These three men were the only people at the scene. The only evidence of the murder is man-x's body.

Does this make man-A guilty? Could man-B or C not have done it and decided to blame it on man-A?

(edit) Man-A says, "I am innocent."


buttershug
18th June 2009 - 08:36 PM
QUOTE (Meem+Jun 18 2009, 08:18 PM)

See, you choose to see what you want, I am not telling you what to see. If you were an honest person, or anyone at all interested in truth, you wouldn't bend it to fit your prejudice. That is known as discrimination. And you totally defile science in the process, thus becoming a failed asset to this forum. You assert that you are so different from magpies and billions of years of knowledge in magpies mind ... but I see no ultimate difference.

But I am not the judge with or without prejudice, I am only the man without prejudice.

I don't know.
How am I bending evidence to fit that?

Where is the evidence of God? It's mean of you to keep it to yourself.

There is a huge difference between making up your mind before seeing evidence and making it up after.

Magpies hasn't examined much evidence he understands.
gmilam
18th June 2009 - 08:38 PM
QUOTE (Meem+Jun 18 2009, 03:33 PM)
Apparently, you are not coherent enough to follow the idea presented in the OP, that's your incoherency, not mine.


Pretty damn arrogant too.

I bet that's not the first time you've been told that.
Meem
18th June 2009 - 08:39 PM
and thus far everyone has been very interested in knowing what Man A says, and has failed to see that man C "says"

QUOTE
Man-C says, man-A killed man-X


So, why don't you question what Man C believes rather than A?
I will tell you what man C says, and why.

That should show you your error in seeking what truth is, your in ability to see the full problem.

(edit)
You are or I am?
QUOTE (->
QUOTE
Man-C says, man-A killed man-X


So, why don't you question what Man C believes rather than A?
I will tell you what man C says, and why.

That should show you your error in seeking what truth is, your in ability to see the full problem.

(edit)
You are or I am?
Pretty damn arrogant too.


That's twice you "cussed" me with shaky reasoning skills.
Meem
18th June 2009 - 08:45 PM
I've been "playing" your logic "games" for days now, will anyone not play mine?
occidental
18th June 2009 - 08:48 PM
QUOTE (Meem+Jun 18 2009, 08:18 PM)


But I am not the judge with or without prejudice, I am only the man without prejudice.

Well, you should meet the man with no -ism. You just missed him. Of course, he did get run off as a liar and a fraud. But it was still funny.


QUOTE
I am innocent of pushing an idea
No you arent, youre blatantly pushing the idea of a creator god, and youre outright saying you dont have any evidence of a creator god, except some ramblings about science being unable to explain consciousness.

Come back when you have some evidence.



Meem
18th June 2009 - 08:56 PM
That's what you're pushing on me, not me on you. I have only said is it not possible. You have only said it is not, with no proof. And you're not interested in the logic of the men either, you don't like logic and problems? Then you don't like science, you like what you think science is. Like man C, because man B told you he saw it and you have chosen to believe B over A, because he told you first. So you tell someone else it is so, and accuse man A of being guilty, and that means you're aceepting someone's definition of truth over your own. Science and religion both have these problems.
occidental
18th June 2009 - 08:57 PM
QUOTE (Meem+Jun 18 2009, 08:56 PM)
That's what you're pushing on me, not me on you. I have only said is it not possible. You have only said it is not, with no proof. And you're not interested in the logic of the men either, you don't like logic and problems? Then you don't like science, you like what you think science is. Like man C, because man B told you he saw it and you have chosen to believe B over A, because he told you first. So you tell someone else it is so, and accuse man A of being guilty, and that means you're aceepting someone's definition of truth over your own. Science and religion both have these problems.

Smokescreen.
gmilam
18th June 2009 - 08:59 PM
QUOTE (Meem+Jun 18 2009, 03:39 PM)
That's twice you "cussed" me with shaky reasoning skills.

No, it's the third time I've cussed you. Keep up.

(Unless you're acknowledging that at least one of those times was with good reason.)
Meem
18th June 2009 - 09:00 PM
Who was nil?

You see a smokescreen because you're looking in a mirror.
magpies
18th June 2009 - 09:01 PM
Man C just says man A killed man X thats not the same as man B saying I saw man A kill man X. If I had no more evidence then the two mens word I would have to go with it assuming I dont know man C or B to be liars. I doubt you could convict anyone in america for murder with just two random peoples word on it but I would bet the police would find evidence of some sort even if its just made up evidence they created. And if the judge/jury was corrupt who knows...

I think the main point meem is trying to make if im not wrong on this is... Things arn't always black or white. So with that said how the scientific community can come up with a black answer such as god does not exist is interesting. Altho I wouldn't be amazed if some scientists were believers to some degree and just afraid to talk about it because its looked down upon.

People generaly take the easy way out. So its much easyer to say god does not exist then to actualy look for god. Almost nobody actualy looks for god imo because they are to afraid to ask the important questions. Also the vast majority of people do not understand what learning is to being with so how can they ever actualy learn?
Meem
18th June 2009 - 09:02 PM
QUOTE (gmilam+Jun 18 2009, 03:59 PM)
No, it's the third time I've cussed you. Keep up.

(Unless you're acknowledging that at least one of those times was with good reason.)

In this thread, only twice. I am keeping up ... to date. wink.gif
buttershug
18th June 2009 - 09:07 PM
QUOTE (magpies+Jun 18 2009, 09:01 PM)
I think the main point meem is trying to make if im not wrong on this is... Things arn't always black or white. So with that said how the scientific community can come up with a black answer such as god does not exist is interesting.

Science does not come up with the answer that God does not exist.
Science says when things are not black and white the correct answer is "I don't know".

Science says it is not known that God exists.
Some scientists say that God does not exist but that is only what they say not what science says.

And for all the put downs and complaints about science by spiritual or religious people, they don't have any better answers than science. And they've had thousands of years to come with answers.
flyingbuttressman
18th June 2009 - 09:08 PM
Scientist: God probably doesn't exist.

Meem: You don't know that! You can't say that! God does exist! My brain thingy is separate from my body thingy, and yeah, God.

Scientist: Logic says that god has no reason to exist.

Meem: You're not supposed to have an opinion!

Scientist: I'm not allowed to have opinions?

Meem: You're a scientist, you're only supposed to say things that are scientific!

Scientist: Umm, no, I'm also human.

Meem: Help! I'm being repressed!
Meem
18th June 2009 - 09:08 PM
Magpies, that is one of the more wholy-stable things you have ever said tongue.gif

QUOTE
If I had no more evidence then the two mens word I would have to go with it assuming I dont know man C or B to be liars
Th only thing I would add is, or know them to be truthful either, but maybe if you were to watch them long enough, just observe them (with no evidence of a crime to go on other than opinion) you could figure it out.
Meem
18th June 2009 - 09:15 PM
QUOTE (flyingbuttressman+Jun 18 2009, 04:08 PM)
Scientist: God probably doesn't exist.

Meem: You don't know that! You can't say that! God does exist! My brain thingy is separate from my body thingy, and yeah, God.

Scientist: Logic says that god has no reason to exist.

Meem: You're not supposed to have an opinion!

Scientist: I'm not allowed to have opinions?

Meem: You're a scientist, you're only supposed to say things that are scientific!

Scientist: Umm, no, I'm also human.

Meem: Help! I'm being repressed!

Notice "gang," this is how you put,untrue to the situation of what is being said, words into someone's mouth.


QUOTE
Meem: Help! I'm being repressed!


You will never catch me saying that, because what-ever it is you think my "prison" is, it's in my mind, not yours. I lose more and more respect for what this forum claims to be, with the asinine-stigmatic-dogmatic behavior it seems to endorse by allowing it, but maybe that's the point ... freedom of choice.
magpies
18th June 2009 - 09:15 PM
If I was a wise judge I would already know but I would still have to justifiy my knowledge to other people because people like justifications.
gmilam
18th June 2009 - 09:19 PM
Interestingly, it has NEVER been my science teachers who told me that science "proves" "god" doesn't exist.

In fact my science teachers never mentioned "god" at all.

Nope, it has been religious zealots that have told me that.

Personally, my concept of "god" is quite comfortable with science. If your's is threatened by the facts, then that's your problem.
Meem
18th June 2009 - 09:19 PM
QUOTE (buttershug+Jun 18 2009, 04:07 PM)
Science does not come up with the answer that God does not exist.
Science says when things are not black and white the correct answer is "I don't know". 

Science says it is not known that God exists.
Some scientists say that God does not exist but that is only what they say not what science says.

And for all the put downs and complaints about science by spiritual or religious people, they don't have any better answers than science.  And they've had thousands of years to come with answers.

Very well put, truth without opinion ... for the most part.

because what is said by science against religion for thousands of years has been unable to do the same thing, rather ironic.

(edit)

Could we say science started when man invited the wheel? Or with the first cognitive thought?
magpies
18th June 2009 - 09:22 PM
I'm a spiritual person and I have better answers then what science can come up with smile.gif
flyingbuttressman
18th June 2009 - 09:24 PM
QUOTE (magpies+Jun 18 2009, 09:22 PM)
I'm a spiritual person and I have better answers then what science can come up with smile.gif

How old can you possibly be, 14? How ignorant is it possible to be without being brain-damaged? Only someone so young can have such a titanic ego.
magpies
18th June 2009 - 09:28 PM
yeah im 14.

And my ego is backed up by knowledge do you have any questions for someone with billion+ years of knowledge?? Go ahead try me. See if there is anything I dont know smile.gif
gmilam
18th June 2009 - 09:29 PM
What have I got in my pocket?
flyingbuttressman
18th June 2009 - 09:31 PM
QUOTE (magpies+Jun 18 2009, 09:28 PM)
yeah im 14.

And my ego is backed up by knowledge do you have any questions for someone with billion+ years of knowledge?? Go ahead try me. See if there is anything I dont know smile.gif

Are you seriously 14? That explains everything.
magpies
18th June 2009 - 09:36 PM
You have what you put into your pocket in your pocket even if its just pocket lint. The interesting thing is to question if it was your choice to put it in your pocket and when did you make that choice? If you believe you made the choice when you put the thing in your pocket then perhaps you do not understand what choice is. So my question is what is choice do you know? And I'll just guess that you had a pen in your pocket when you asked. Clearly that is just a guess as I choose not to know every lil thing that happens in the universe.
gmilam
18th June 2009 - 09:38 PM
QUOTE (magpies+Jun 18 2009, 04:36 PM)
You have what you put into your pocket in your pocket even if its just pocket lint. The interesting thing is to question if it was your choice to put it in your pocket and when did you make that choice? If you believe you made the choice when you put the thing in your pocket then perhaps you do not understand what choice is. So my question is what is choice do you know? And I'll just guess that you had a pen in your pocket when you asked. Clearly that is just a guess as I choose not to know every lil thing that happens in the universe.

Wrong on all counts.

I have a hole in my pocket.
magpies
18th June 2009 - 09:41 PM
So what about the choice aspect? Can you state what choice is? Have you given it any thought before?
Meem
18th June 2009 - 09:42 PM
QUOTE
Personally, my concept of "god" is quite comfortable with science. If your's is threatened by the facts, then that's your problem.



When have I demonstrated my concept of "god" to be threatened? I haven't even demonstrated "my" concept. I'm not making my argument for myself.

If I want to find truth about a thing, it's not something I can take from another man and believe, if it is something we could say requires to be "seen" to be believed, like flying. If the Wright brothers allowed some-one's opinion to take from them what they thought might be possible, they would have not realized it because everyone said it wasn't possible. If they gave in, flight would have been realized, but not by them. Much like, one could say if not for "holy-men" seeking to educate people ... or brainwash (since I'm sure that's the more accepted vernacular around here) the steps leading up to the printing press would have not been established when they were, and the press would not have been invited when it was, but that doesn't mean it would have not been invited at all.

Life is more about give then take. What makes a person rich, taking someone else's "money?" (aka value) Does it matter which "bank" (belief system/church)the money is in? Enron was a good "investment?" (Scientology) (we aren't talking about interest rates and investments here) Bernie Madoff (L. Ron Hubbard) promised people 30% returns, and took all of their money. He sold them BS and got rich doing so from other peoples beliefs <--lets call that a scientific term- or greed <-- lets call that a moral term.

(edit)
Choice is freedom. We are all magnets with a choice of polarity? The universe is made of cheese, and string theory says there's all kinds of cheese out there. What kind of cheese do you like?
buttershug
18th June 2009 - 09:45 PM
QUOTE (magpies+Jun 18 2009, 09:36 PM)
You have what you put into your pocket in your pocket even if its just pocket lint. The interesting thing is to question if it was your choice to put it in your pocket and when did you make that choice? If you believe you made the choice when you put the thing in your pocket then perhaps you do not understand what choice is. So my question is what is choice do you know? And I'll just guess that you had a pen in your pocket when you asked. Clearly that is just a guess as I choose not to know every lil thing that happens in the universe.

I have never put lint in my pocket.
And I think well of 90% of what people do is not what I call choice.

There is a wasp that lives in a hole. It will carry food to a certain distance from the hole, then go in and check the hole. If you move the food back while it is in in the hole it will carry the food to the same place and check the hole again.

It just follows it's programed action. I think lots of people operate the same way.
flyingbuttressman
18th June 2009 - 09:46 PM
QUOTE (magpies+Jun 18 2009, 09:41 PM)
So what about the choice aspect? Can you state what choice is? Have you given it any thought before?

Strange... I don't remember being a f%#ktard idiot when I was 14.
Meem
18th June 2009 - 09:47 PM
I made a funny,

String-cheese theory .... it's ok to laugh ... really. Science says it's healthy. rolleyes.gif

(edit) huh.gif
QUOTE
Strange... I don't remember being a f%#ktard idiot when I was 14.

You're probably not very old then. cool.gif
gmilam
18th June 2009 - 09:51 PM
QUOTE (Meem+Jun 18 2009, 04:42 PM)
When have I demonstrated my concept of "god" to be threatened? I haven't even demonstrated "my" concept.  I'm not making my argument for myself.

What makes you think I was talking to you?

As for magpies "choice" question. I thought the concept of free will/determinism over when I was about 8 years old and decided it was an unanswerable question.

Then again, I may not have had a choice in that decision... Who knows? How can you tell?
flyingbuttressman
18th June 2009 - 09:52 PM
QUOTE (Meem+Jun 18 2009, 09:47 PM)
I made a funny,

String-cheese theory .... it's ok to laugh ... really. Science says it's healthy. rolleyes.gif

(edit) huh.gif

You're probably not very old then. cool.gif

FAIL.
magpies
18th June 2009 - 09:53 PM
butterbug you still didnt answer what choice is question. Try it?

gmilam... have you ever tryed to create a thought experiment that can test it?
You should know if you have choice or not its kinda important.
gmilam
18th June 2009 - 09:59 PM
QUOTE (magpies+Jun 18 2009, 04:53 PM)
gmilam...  have you ever tryed to create a thought experiment that can test it?
You should know if you have choice or not its kinda important.

Many times, unfortunately, if we have no choice then the results of the test are already written as is my interpretation of it.

I prefer to live with the illusion that I do have a choice - but then, I may not have a choice in that either. wink.gif

EDIT: There are times I went to the soft drink machine wanting a Dr Pepper, but yet I watched myself push the Pepsi button... Is the universe trying to tell me something?
flyingbuttressman
18th June 2009 - 10:01 PM
QUOTE (magpies+Jun 18 2009, 09:53 PM)
butterbug you still didnt answer what choice is question. Try it?

gmilam... have you ever tryed to create a thought experiment that can test it?
You should know if you have choice or not its kinda important.

Do you know if you have a choice about what your opinion on choice is?

See? Not important at all. You would still be a douche with free will or without it.
magpies
18th June 2009 - 10:02 PM
Seems like your letting you fear of not having a choice rule ya???

As to if I know if I have choice or not... I know I have choice. Anything that exists has choice. To exist is to make a choice. Choice is the most powerful force in the world. Once you make a choice your stuck with having had made it. Life can be seen as a choice made then followed thru with actions. The choice to put my pants on this morning was effectivly made at my birth. The ability to understand what choice is can give us control over it. The man who wields choice the best will always win the race.
Meem
18th June 2009 - 10:08 PM
QUOTE (flyingbuttressman+Jun 18 2009, 04:52 PM)
FAIL.

Spoken like a "child," playing War of Words. WOW ... another funny. tongue.gif You know, like World of Warcraft, that far too many people take way too seriously.
magpies
18th June 2009 - 10:11 PM
Why was that funny meem? ya know they say something about people who find them selfs funny dont ya?
Meem
18th June 2009 - 10:28 PM
Life for them, is always an adventure? You can question your mystery, I'd much rather enjoy mine, and that's the ability to be able to laugh at myself as well as others. It's not like I am slamming my hands on the table, bursting out manically, and screaming, "Now aren't I just the peaches cream?" You're right, that's not funny ... like having billions of years of knowledge in your mind and not being able to use it? But wait ... didn't you make reference to that fact obscurely somewhere? "Believe me, this life is meant to be fun" (or something to the effect). It depends on what one thinks funny is.
magpies
18th June 2009 - 10:31 PM
Oh believe me I can use it. I can use it.
Meem
18th June 2009 - 10:41 PM
I find that funny too. I can "use" it, but can you "create" it or share "it?" You must have taken ... time to acquire this knowledge, and that's what you seem to be forgetting. Time is not taken, it is given. Relativity.
magpies
18th June 2009 - 10:45 PM
Yes but if we do not take time how can we ever have time? As to creating time... I'll go think about 150 trilllion years in the past or future now.

Also the knowledge was always there I just had to be open to it.

A gift can not be given if the receiver never accepts it.
Meem
18th June 2009 - 10:54 PM
Knowledge is not wisdom. If I can take a life, does that mean I have given one in the same instance, no.

You cannot create time. It exists independent of your knowledge of it.
magpies
18th June 2009 - 11:00 PM
Love is knowledge
Peace is knowledge
Fear is knowledge
Anything can be knowledge even wisdom


I agree taking a life does not give one but it would allow for the possiblity of a new one. Is your knowledge of time indipendent of times existance? I create time all the time. I created time to be on physforum today I created time to have lunch without me thouse things would not have existed.
Meem
18th June 2009 - 11:03 PM
QUOTE (magpies+Jun 18 2009, 05:45 PM)
Yes but if we do not take time how can we ever have time?  As to creating time...  I'll go think about 150 trilllion years in the past or future now.

Also the knowledge was always there I just had to be open to it.

A gift can not be given if the receiver never accepts it.

You sound like the Merovingian. Most "philosophers" don't like the Matrix, too much "action" not enough philosophy. I beg to differ.

QUOTE
Merovingian: Aha, here he is at last. Neo, the One himself, right? And the legendary Morpheus. And Trinity of course, si belle qu'elle me fait souffrir. I have heard so much, you honour me. Please, sit, join us. This is my wife, Persephone. Something to eat? Drink? Hmm... of course, such things are contrivances like so much here. For the sake of appearances.

Neo: No, thank you.

Merovingian: Yes, of course, who has time? Who has time? But then if we do not ever take time, how can we ever have time? Chiteau Haut-Brion 1959, magnificent wine, I love French wine, like I love the French language. I have sampled every language, French is my favourite - fantastic language, especially to curse with. Nom de Dieu de putain de bordel de merde de saloperies de connards d'enculis de ta mire. You see, it's like wiping your *** with silk, I love it.

Morpheus: You know why we are here.

Merovingian: Hmph... I am a trafficker of information, I know everything I can. The question is, do you know why you are here?


There are those who "take" time from someone or something else to have time for someone or something else, and there are those who "make" it. You definitely sound like a taker. You can make time for someone/something else by sacrifice of your own time, not someone/something elses time.

(edit)
QUOTE (->
QUOTE
Merovingian: Aha, here he is at last. Neo, the One himself, right? And the legendary Morpheus. And Trinity of course, si belle qu'elle me fait souffrir. I have heard so much, you honour me. Please, sit, join us. This is my wife, Persephone. Something to eat? Drink? Hmm... of course, such things are contrivances like so much here. For the sake of appearances.

Neo: No, thank you.

Merovingian: Yes, of course, who has time? Who has time? But then if we do not ever take time, how can we ever have time? Chiteau Haut-Brion 1959, magnificent wine, I love French wine, like I love the French language. I have sampled every language, French is my favourite - fantastic language, especially to curse with. Nom de Dieu de putain de bordel de merde de saloperies de connards d'enculis de ta mire. You see, it's like wiping your *** with silk, I love it.

Morpheus: You know why we are here.

Merovingian: Hmph... I am a trafficker of information, I know everything I can. The question is, do you know why you are here?


There are those who "take" time from someone or something else to have time for someone or something else, and there are those who "make" it. You definitely sound like a taker. You can make time for someone/something else by sacrifice of your own time, not someone/something elses time.

(edit)
I created time to have lunch without me thouse things would not have existed.

For you, what about everyone else?

You haven't really offended me ... yet, as for some other people, that's a bit different. I have done my best to try and not offended anyone here. Which is why I talk to you, rather than insult you.


magpies
18th June 2009 - 11:05 PM
Sorry if my ability to make choices offends you smile.gif Despite my ability to make time 24 hours is still 24 hours...


Well they have the same power too I suppose.
Meem
18th June 2009 - 11:41 PM
QUOTE (magpies+Jun 18 2009, 06:00 PM)
Love is knowledge
Peace is knowledge
Fear is knowledge
Anything can be knowledge even wisdom


I agree taking a life does not give one but it would allow for the possiblity of a new one.  Is your knowledge of time indipendent of times existance?  I create time all the time.  I created time to be on physforum today I created time to have lunch without me thouse things would not have existed.

Knowledge of love, is knowledge of love.

Knowledge is knowledge, wisdom is understanding how knowledge works, or experience. Knowledge is seems can be confined to a book. It takes time to read the book, and time to understand what the knowledge in the book "means" or how it "works."

Would a person with a photographic memory of every medical book ever written make the "best" doctor? Would you let "shim" (she/him) operate on you if the had never done it before?

This seems to give wisdom the qualities of experience in time, and is not so dependent on knowledge, like knowledge is wisdom.
magpies
18th June 2009 - 11:48 PM
Sure knowledge is knowledge and wisdom is wisdom. But as we grow in knowledge so do we grow in wisdom so knowledge can be thought of as wisdom.
Michael J
19th June 2009 - 12:21 AM
I'm sure some of you guys have probably seen this already, but i find it oh so relevant in this case for the both of you...

User posted image: User posted image
Meem
19th June 2009 - 02:39 AM
QUOTE (Michael J+Jun 18 2009, 07:21 PM)
I'm sure some of you guys have probably seen this already, but i find it oh so relevant in this case for the both of you...

User posted image: <a target='_blank' href='http://i175.photobucket.com/albums/w125/kerpall1/arguing.jpg'>User posted image</a>

Is that like the special olympic bowling that Obama does in the white house?
Way, to get involved in the argument ... retard.
occidental
19th June 2009 - 04:43 AM
QUOTE (Meem+Jun 18 2009, 09:00 PM)
Who was nil? 

You see a smokescreen because you're looking in a mirror.

And maybe youre retarded. Just, oh a though.
Meem
19th June 2009 - 05:20 AM
QUOTE (occidental+Jun 18 2009, 11:43 PM)
And maybe youre retarded. Just, oh a though.

Just, oh a though.

... just oh ... the irony of finger pointing.
flyingbuttressman
20th June 2009 - 04:56 AM
Meem,

You and magpies are two of a kind. Both of you think that people should listen, but neither of you really has anything to say. Magpies thinks that "The Secret" was a really good book, and you think that you are a crusader for the truth, when in fact you have more in common with Don Quixote than any serious scientist. If you want to learn more about science (which is what everyone else is doing here), stick around. Otherwise, buzz off.
PhysOrg scientific forums are totally dedicated to science, physics, and technology. Besides topical forums such as nanotechnology, quantum physics, silicon and III-V technology, applied physics, materials, space and others, you can also join our news and publications discussions. We also provide an off-topic forum category. If you need specific help on a scientific problem or have a question related to physics or technology, visit the PhysOrg Forums. Here you’ll find experts from various fields online every day.
To quit out of "lo-fi" mode and return to the regular forums, please click here.