Hi everyone. Just wanted to see why we study so much other than our own world, if Iam correct.
Teri S died without food or water. And as scientist majors or physics majors, why couldn't we do something or find a way to prolong her life?
There have been many people who have played with death, but we just can't seem to stop death. Wouldn't it be great if we could stop it all together. Of course then we would be out balance..
Scientist study mars and water and human life on mars, but why can't we study the effects and try to solve a promblem concerning death.
I would appreciate your replies.
reisst4@inebraska.com
this isnt exactly a philosophical forum, but everytime someone starts talking about death, id like to slap em in the face first, and ask them
what is life?
what is life?
QUOTE
Teri S died without food or water. And as scientist majors or physics majors, why couldn't we do something or find a way to prolong her life?
We were, people just decided to stop prolonging her life. I personally agree with that decision, but that's probably just because I'm Dutch
and we apparently kill off everthing, including babies.QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Teri S died without food or water. And as scientist majors or physics majors, why couldn't we do something or find a way to prolong her life? |
We were, people just decided to stop prolonging her life. I personally agree with that decision, but that's probably just because I'm Dutch
and we apparently kill off everthing, including babies.Wouldn't it be great if we could stop it all together. Of course then we would be out balance..
You are giving your own answer. Another thing would be the overpopulation.
QUOTE
but why can't we study the effects and try to solve a problem concerning death.
I thought we were; it's called medicine. Or Botox, liposuction, facelifts etc, etc if you're into that.
QUOTE
Hi everyone. Just wanted to see why we study so much other than our own world, if Iam correct.
I think you need to first define what you mean by "world". Otherwise, the obvious answer will be "I don't know what you mean - we are exactly studying our own world, every single aspect of it, both right under our feet, and 50 billion light years away. It all impacts our world, which means we must study it if we are to understand this pile of dirt."As far as letting her live - the question is improper. We were NOT letting her die. We were MAKING her live. The correct question, then is should we have continued to MAKE her live, or let the eventuality finally take place. I wish I had an answer, but I've not met her, nor am I qualified to speculate on her mental capabilities.
As far as everyone living forever, or at least not dying prematurely (and no, this does NOT apply to Terri's situation. It DOES apply to a big pile of others, however) - when we're down to our last breeding pair of idiots, THEN we should worry about protecting them. Until that date, though, they should be free to let Darwin to do his job. Death is a great motivator; the fear of an eminant threat has inspired some of our greatest achievements, only rivaled by our long-term fear of mortality, in general. It also does a great job of making sure we aren't enslaved to a bunch of jerks in power, who refuse to let the society's values evolve. If death had been eliminated in the 50s, we'd still be living like Ozzy and Harriet, Leave It to Beaver, and Happy Days. Racism would be just as visible today as it was back then, and women would not be allowed to have opinions. Why? Because my grandfather would still be alive, along with his views of "social order". I love the guy, but I love my society more without his views.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Hi everyone. Just wanted to see why we study so much other than our own world, if Iam correct. |
I think you need to first define what you mean by "world". Otherwise, the obvious answer will be "I don't know what you mean - we are exactly studying our own world, every single aspect of it, both right under our feet, and 50 billion light years away. It all impacts our world, which means we must study it if we are to understand this pile of dirt."
As far as letting her live - the question is improper. We were NOT letting her die. We were MAKING her live. The correct question, then is should we have continued to MAKE her live, or let the eventuality finally take place. I wish I had an answer, but I've not met her, nor am I qualified to speculate on her mental capabilities.
As far as everyone living forever, or at least not dying prematurely (and no, this does NOT apply to Terri's situation. It DOES apply to a big pile of others, however) - when we're down to our last breeding pair of idiots, THEN we should worry about protecting them. Until that date, though, they should be free to let Darwin to do his job. Death is a great motivator; the fear of an eminant threat has inspired some of our greatest achievements, only rivaled by our long-term fear of mortality, in general. It also does a great job of making sure we aren't enslaved to a bunch of jerks in power, who refuse to let the society's values evolve. If death had been eliminated in the 50s, we'd still be living like Ozzy and Harriet, Leave It to Beaver, and Happy Days. Racism would be just as visible today as it was back then, and women would not be allowed to have opinions. Why? Because my grandfather would still be alive, along with his views of "social order". I love the guy, but I love my society more without his views.
but that's probably just because I'm Dutch and we apparently kill off everthing, including babies.
As far as letting her live - the question is improper. We were NOT letting her die. We were MAKING her live. The correct question, then is should we have continued to MAKE her live, or let the eventuality finally take place. I wish I had an answer, but I've not met her, nor am I qualified to speculate on her mental capabilities.
As far as everyone living forever, or at least not dying prematurely (and no, this does NOT apply to Terri's situation. It DOES apply to a big pile of others, however) - when we're down to our last breeding pair of idiots, THEN we should worry about protecting them. Until that date, though, they should be free to let Darwin to do his job. Death is a great motivator; the fear of an eminant threat has inspired some of our greatest achievements, only rivaled by our long-term fear of mortality, in general. It also does a great job of making sure we aren't enslaved to a bunch of jerks in power, who refuse to let the society's values evolve. If death had been eliminated in the 50s, we'd still be living like Ozzy and Harriet, Leave It to Beaver, and Happy Days. Racism would be just as visible today as it was back then, and women would not be allowed to have opinions. Why? Because my grandfather would still be alive, along with his views of "social order". I love the guy, but I love my society more without his views.
but that's probably just because I'm Dutch and we apparently kill off everthing, including babies.
Careful, Sokkie - if you accidentally start a rivalry, Dubya might invade 
QUOTE
Careful, Sokkie - if you accidentally start a rivalry, Dubya might invade
Yeah, Holland on the Axis of Evil, right beside Iran, Syria and North Korea
All those windmills are actually camouflaged missle silo's filled with WMD's
Actually, it was in the news here some time ago that there is actually a worked out plan how to invade the Netherlands should the need arise; If you know our prime minister, you would be able to imagine him being a threat to anything; he's more of a grown up version of Harry Potter; look him up, J.P. Balkenende, and judge for yourself
I heard a good joke about bush's views regarding miss Schiavo. According to Dubya, brain death is no reason to stop feeding someone; he's just scared they'll cut off his food next
(If this is a breach of this forum's etiquette in some way or form, I'll be happy to remove it, no problem)
QUOTE
Yeah, Holland on the Axis of Evil, right beside Iran, Syria and North Korea
All those windmills are actually camouflaged missle silo's filled with WMD's
All those windmills are actually camouflaged missle silo's filled with WMD's
The so called Cheese Busters...
Who in hell is someone who thinks he should judge over whether to end or prolong a life that is not his own and that he even does not know at all??? This matter is ONLY of interest for the person itself and people who have a personal relationship to her! People should respect that, especially if they have an official government position... No natural death anymore? Welcome to hell. People killing themselves over water, food, social issues, territory, anarchy... everyone gets the world he requests. I prefer to think first about what I sell as soo compassionate and caring view. Prolonging life is an understandable, human, but very selfish view.
I guess this topic has nothing to do with 'applied physics'... but that does not seem to matter to any moderator.
MrSokkie....thank you. That was the best laugh I've had all day
It is interesting, that we discuss death with an assumed familiarity about it when we really have no knowledge of what death is, whatsoever. None.
Our "knowledge" of death is really knowledge about the dying process and the physical entity that is dead after the dying. But, of death itself, we have absolutely no information. In comparison with space research and exploration, in investigating death ... no "probe" has every returned or sent "back" information.
I agree that an intelligent discussion of real death, in a scientific perspective, could be useful. For instance: is there some state of "being" to us when memory is completely removed, when awareness is gone, when the physical attachment is no longer present? Those issues could be called metaphysical. But they are not, if they really investigated scientifically.
Our "knowledge" of death is really knowledge about the dying process and the physical entity that is dead after the dying. But, of death itself, we have absolutely no information. In comparison with space research and exploration, in investigating death ... no "probe" has every returned or sent "back" information.
I agree that an intelligent discussion of real death, in a scientific perspective, could be useful. For instance: is there some state of "being" to us when memory is completely removed, when awareness is gone, when the physical attachment is no longer present? Those issues could be called metaphysical. But they are not, if they really investigated scientifically.
QUOTE
I agree that an intelligent discussion of real death, in a scientific perspective, could be useful. For instance: is there some state of "being" to us when memory is completely removed, when awareness is gone, when the physical attachment is no longer present? Those issues could be called metaphysical. But they are not, if they really investigated scientifically.
Isn't that called dreamless sleep? I'm not sure what you mean with physical attachment though.
The problem with researching what comes after death, you'll have a hard time avoiding assumptions like a soul and spirits and such, and those are things of religion, not science.s Sientifically we'll be set back in time about 10,000 years.
Reference to sleep in the context of death is in reality more of a literary metaphor. Sleep is a state of a living mind.
Refraining from pure research on death because there may be subjective considerations about souls, spirits or religion would regress us to the state of science during medieval times. Fortunately, we are now far past the dark ages of such constrictions. The investigation into death, should employ scientific discipline by people who have accepted that methodology.
As I mentioned above, I agree with Tierss that there should be real research into death. I think that it is appropriate either in continuing this topic or starting a new one here on this forum. The subject actually involves multi disciplines besides physics. But since it does involve physics at all it could be included in our forums here. If others do not want to pursue it here in this topic I'll be glad to introduce it as a new one or participate in the new topic concerning an investigation into death, by someone else.
Research example: Suppose this study is done by a group of participating terminally ill people: each one is given a computer-generated long alphanumeric number which they are asked to completely memorize. Naturally that is done when they are capable of performing that task. Then suppose each person goes through a carefully developed training to have that number reinforced thoroughly in their mind (and I mean thoroughly). Suppose further that only a computer record and that person know that number. After their death research is done on if and where each person's respective number appears anywhere. Their family is interviewed about their knowledge of the whole number or any substantial part of it. Research is done on the Internet to make sure that number does not appear in any information before their death and then if it appears in any information anywhere afterwards. If any person's number appears ... where did that happen. If it does, then we see if where it appeared had any further expression of their characteristics.
Refraining from pure research on death because there may be subjective considerations about souls, spirits or religion would regress us to the state of science during medieval times. Fortunately, we are now far past the dark ages of such constrictions. The investigation into death, should employ scientific discipline by people who have accepted that methodology.
As I mentioned above, I agree with Tierss that there should be real research into death. I think that it is appropriate either in continuing this topic or starting a new one here on this forum. The subject actually involves multi disciplines besides physics. But since it does involve physics at all it could be included in our forums here. If others do not want to pursue it here in this topic I'll be glad to introduce it as a new one or participate in the new topic concerning an investigation into death, by someone else.
Research example: Suppose this study is done by a group of participating terminally ill people: each one is given a computer-generated long alphanumeric number which they are asked to completely memorize. Naturally that is done when they are capable of performing that task. Then suppose each person goes through a carefully developed training to have that number reinforced thoroughly in their mind (and I mean thoroughly). Suppose further that only a computer record and that person know that number. After their death research is done on if and where each person's respective number appears anywhere. Their family is interviewed about their knowledge of the whole number or any substantial part of it. Research is done on the Internet to make sure that number does not appear in any information before their death and then if it appears in any information anywhere afterwards. If any person's number appears ... where did that happen. If it does, then we see if where it appeared had any further expression of their characteristics.
QUOTE (Forester+Apr 2 2005, 07:35 PM)
Reference to sleep in the context of death is in reality more of a literary metaphor. Sleep is a state of a living mind.
Refraining from pure research on death because there may be subjective considerations about souls, spirits or religion would regress us to the state of science during medieval times. Fortunately, we are now far past the dark ages of such constrictions. The investigation into death, should employ scientific discipline by people who have accepted that methodology.
As I mentioned above, I agree with Tierss that there should be real research into death. I think that it is appropriate either in continuing this topic or starting a new one here on this forum. The subject actually involves multi disciplines besides physics. But since it does involve physics at all it could be included in our forums here. If others do not want to pursue it here in this topic I'll be glad to introduce it as a new one or participate in the new topic concerning an investigation into death, by someone else.
Research example: Suppose this study is done by a group of participating terminally ill people: each one is given a computer-generated long alphanumeric number which they are asked to completely memorize. Naturally that is done when they are capable of performing that task. Then suppose each person goes through a carefully developed training to have that number reinforced thoroughly in their mind (and I mean thoroughly). Suppose further that only a computer record and that person know that number. After their death research is done on if and where each person's respective number appears anywhere. Their family is interviewed about their knowledge of the whole number or any substantial part of it. Research is done on the Internet to make sure that number does not appear in any information before their death and then if it appears in any information anywhere afterwards. If any person's number appears ... where did that happen. If it does, then we see if where it appeared had any further expression of their characteristics.
Oh come on, what's there to study about the human mind in death? There is none, since it requires the brain to function which it does not in death. Every professional philosopher in the last 100 years or so accepts the neurological connection between life and consciousness. Fields like thanatology and forensic science explore the physical aspects of death, but there is no viable reason to treat ghosts and such as if they were real. Your thought experiment is not sound realistically because a person couldn't possibly remember a long enough number that wouldn't appear elsewhere in the world. In terms of statisitcs, that long number does not imply life after death, even if the chances of finding it are extremely rare because you haven't proven the probability of life after death. It would have to be greater than the probability of finding that number in order to not be rubbed out using Occam's razor and for any valid conclusion to occur. Otherwise you're just comparing apples to oranges, logically speaking.
Refraining from pure research on death because there may be subjective considerations about souls, spirits or religion would regress us to the state of science during medieval times. Fortunately, we are now far past the dark ages of such constrictions. The investigation into death, should employ scientific discipline by people who have accepted that methodology.
As I mentioned above, I agree with Tierss that there should be real research into death. I think that it is appropriate either in continuing this topic or starting a new one here on this forum. The subject actually involves multi disciplines besides physics. But since it does involve physics at all it could be included in our forums here. If others do not want to pursue it here in this topic I'll be glad to introduce it as a new one or participate in the new topic concerning an investigation into death, by someone else.
Research example: Suppose this study is done by a group of participating terminally ill people: each one is given a computer-generated long alphanumeric number which they are asked to completely memorize. Naturally that is done when they are capable of performing that task. Then suppose each person goes through a carefully developed training to have that number reinforced thoroughly in their mind (and I mean thoroughly). Suppose further that only a computer record and that person know that number. After their death research is done on if and where each person's respective number appears anywhere. Their family is interviewed about their knowledge of the whole number or any substantial part of it. Research is done on the Internet to make sure that number does not appear in any information before their death and then if it appears in any information anywhere afterwards. If any person's number appears ... where did that happen. If it does, then we see if where it appeared had any further expression of their characteristics.
Oh come on, what's there to study about the human mind in death? There is none, since it requires the brain to function which it does not in death. Every professional philosopher in the last 100 years or so accepts the neurological connection between life and consciousness. Fields like thanatology and forensic science explore the physical aspects of death, but there is no viable reason to treat ghosts and such as if they were real. Your thought experiment is not sound realistically because a person couldn't possibly remember a long enough number that wouldn't appear elsewhere in the world. In terms of statisitcs, that long number does not imply life after death, even if the chances of finding it are extremely rare because you haven't proven the probability of life after death. It would have to be greater than the probability of finding that number in order to not be rubbed out using Occam's razor and for any valid conclusion to occur. Otherwise you're just comparing apples to oranges, logically speaking.
You are responding to a context of your own and not mine. I never suggested, to “study the human mind in death”. You state it yourself and then say it is impossible. Well, of course it is. How could we study a dead person’s mind?
Furthermore, once you dismiss the merit of a scientific study of death (not dying), that puts you in a bias position that precludes you from effectively participating in considering the methodology of how that study really should be conducted.
Your reference to Occam's razor is inaccurate too. It refers to two or more explanations, about something already known, i.e. how, it should be explained. In the case of death, we have no information, which needs any explanation, yet.
If there is no interest in such research then I’ll start it as a new topic and refrain from developing the idea further here. Any comments from anyone else, before I do that?
Furthermore, once you dismiss the merit of a scientific study of death (not dying), that puts you in a bias position that precludes you from effectively participating in considering the methodology of how that study really should be conducted.
Your reference to Occam's razor is inaccurate too. It refers to two or more explanations, about something already known, i.e. how, it should be explained. In the case of death, we have no information, which needs any explanation, yet.
If there is no interest in such research then I’ll start it as a new topic and refrain from developing the idea further here. Any comments from anyone else, before I do that?
QUOTE (Forester+Apr 3 2005, 02:20 AM)
You are responding to a context of your own and not mine. I never suggested, to “study the human mind in death”. You state it yourself and then say it is impossible. Well, of course it is. How could we study a dead person’s mind?
Furthermore, once you dismiss the merit of a scientific study of death (not dying), that puts you in a bias position that precludes you from effectively participating in considering the methodology of how that study really should be conducted.
Your reference to Occam's razor is inaccurate too. It refers to two or more explanations, about something already known, i.e. how, it should be explained. In the case of death, we have no information, which needs any explanation, yet.
If there is no interest in such research then I’ll start it as a new topic and refrain from developing the idea further here. Any comments from anyone else, before I do that?
My bias doesn't detract from my argument, at least in this case. Besides, you're clearly more biased since it blinds your reason.
And please read more carefully, I said Occam's razor would discount either the possibility of worldly communication after death or the possibility of coincidence if both were given probabilities. I'm not exactly sure if Occam's Razor was designed to apply to probabilities, though a corollary certainly should, and in any case my reasoning is based on an idea called the "prosecutor's fallacy" which has similar ramifications. Besides, what about the fact that a human mind couldn't remember a long number? To bypass that restriction you'd have to develop some way to enhance memory capacity - something that is just speculation with our current understanding of the brain, and who knows when we'll be able to find a way?
Furthermore, once you dismiss the merit of a scientific study of death (not dying), that puts you in a bias position that precludes you from effectively participating in considering the methodology of how that study really should be conducted.
Your reference to Occam's razor is inaccurate too. It refers to two or more explanations, about something already known, i.e. how, it should be explained. In the case of death, we have no information, which needs any explanation, yet.
If there is no interest in such research then I’ll start it as a new topic and refrain from developing the idea further here. Any comments from anyone else, before I do that?
My bias doesn't detract from my argument, at least in this case. Besides, you're clearly more biased since it blinds your reason.
And please read more carefully, I said Occam's razor would discount either the possibility of worldly communication after death or the possibility of coincidence if both were given probabilities. I'm not exactly sure if Occam's Razor was designed to apply to probabilities, though a corollary certainly should, and in any case my reasoning is based on an idea called the "prosecutor's fallacy" which has similar ramifications. Besides, what about the fact that a human mind couldn't remember a long number? To bypass that restriction you'd have to develop some way to enhance memory capacity - something that is just speculation with our current understanding of the brain, and who knows when we'll be able to find a way?
QUOTE (MrSokkie+Apr 1 2005, 09:28 AM)
.... .. .. J.P. Balkenende,
I heard a good joke about bush's views regarding miss Schiavo. According to Dubya, brain death is no reason to stop feeding someone; he's just scared they'll cut off his food next
Hi there everyone,
I havent laughed so much in a long time. Great posts. Full of real thoughts, enough to launch a lungful of laughter. So good I registered immediately.
I'm also interested in some serious gutsy physics and philosophical rumbling.
Paul
I heard a good joke about bush's views regarding miss Schiavo. According to Dubya, brain death is no reason to stop feeding someone; he's just scared they'll cut off his food next
Hi there everyone,
I havent laughed so much in a long time. Great posts. Full of real thoughts, enough to launch a lungful of laughter. So good I registered immediately.
I'm also interested in some serious gutsy physics and philosophical rumbling.
Paul
Hi to the fun group of the Forum,
This is the first thread of this kind I have seen in a long, long time?
I was wondering if someone can answer this for me, I have wonder about it when I found out the sky was made of sun's, light years away, and they were not just lights in the heavens. And then came Quantum and Classical which gave me so many different perspectives, not including Super Strings, Parallel Worlds, etc.
This creative universe and that might evoke a response, (creative), but let me move on, why if there is one, would He care if we could prove HIM or not. I do not think a GOD has an ego!
Just thinking, HE is secretive I believe, He does not want us to know how He works, and could we understand if He told us? If there is a GOD then why would he bother to leave a number, when he has given us reason, math, science, physics, chemistry, biology, etc.? Like what could He tell us that we would not destroy or take out of context?
I like what I heard one day, so no matter how you see things, did He leave us alone I cannot answer that, are we alone - I can not answer that for you as well and will not try to, it is a requisite to a seeking spirit and the sky as a child when I would look up into night after night wondering? So I take each day, one breath at a time!
Just thinking, HE is secretive I believe, He does not want us to know how He works, and could we understand if He told us? If there is a GOD then why would he bother to leave a number, when he has given us reason, math, science, physics, chemistry, biology, etc.? Like what could He tell us that we would not destroy or take out of context?
I like what I heard one day, so no matter how you see things, did He leave us alone I cannot answer that, are we alone - I can not answer that for you as well and will not try to, it is a requisite to a seeking spirit and the sky as a child when I would look up into night after night wondering? So I take each day, one breath at a time!
"For God's hand may be a human hand, if you reach out in loving kindness, and God's voice your voice, if you but speak the truth."
Hope someone on this fun page can come up with the answer, I would love to know!
Keep having fun,
yquantum
We are told in scripture that we will never know all the works of God. Not because we are not allowed to study - we do - but because we would not have the ability to understand or observe what is needed to understand. I don't see this as a protection on the creators part, but simply a limitation of the physical "machine", much like how a 2D graphics core would have a problem dealing with 3D geometry, when trying to interpret it in 2D.
Has he left? As you say, you need to search. He says he is near to all them searching - if you find, then you can answer.
Regarding death though, it seams very obvious that after death we are nothing. There is no soul/spirit. Think about it, flesh is physical, spirit is spirtual. Ok now, when you do something good or bad, what "part" of you decides that? the flesh or the spirit? Presumable the spirit right, as this is supposedly the inner you.
Now that means there should be a detectable communication path between the spirit and the fleshly body, we needs instructions from the spirit. The body would need to be like an antenna, unless of course you hold that a spirit externally modified space/time at the abosulte position that your brain is sitting, nudging it in a certain direction [free energy anyone?]
That being the case we might wonder why we would have a brain at all, if our control in from the spirit realm. Not really logical and not really supported in scripture.
Bogomil,
You get a special mention for the most tactless post I have even seen. Congratuations.
Anyway, this is also highly debateable:
actually, I beleive even this is in dispute.
especially since she was in this state for 7 years before her husband mentioned that she didn't want to live that way. co incidentally shortly after Terri received a large cash settlement. which during the proceedings for said settlement, Michael said that he would have to care for Terri in this state for the rest of her life.
Since I believe God exists, I think it more accurately sums up the traditional (and incorrect) human concept of what God is or should be.
More importantly though, I find it to be a smart, witty portrayal of the silly debate between atheists and non-atheists (theists?) about whether or not God exists.
And yes, I know Adams was an atheist.
Hi thezman MattWeston,
The Forum pooped up on the screen. I am not into this site, but with all I have seen in the lab not to mention the world, not sure that I would go that far thezman.
Much respect for you both, and I do not have any imperial evidence to support this, but a gut feeling on this, logic dictates to me, if I throw this Rolex up into the air in a million parts, the probability of it coming down into a complete watch and working is not even predictable with any math I know of. And it is just a man made watch, nothing more.
Maybe 10^150 to one.
Just knowing the earth, and it elliptical orbit with precision or it's path around the sun - is astronomical! And that is just one example.
Do not know, but I would not insult the man just up the mountain from me, in the new house being built until I know his his demeanor and size, just to cover my &*%^?
Sorry for the intrusion,
y
Huh? Suppose I decided never to post any messages, but just read and observe would that mean that because I choose not to reveal myself that I do not exist?
In that case, am I glad I posted
Huh? Suppose I decided never to post any messages, but just read and observe would that mean that because I choose not to reveal myself that I do not exist?
In that case, am I glad I posted
egomaniacal meglomaniac
That is your definition of how your would view God's actions. Thats not how I would view him.
You know, people sometimes look like such snobs, jerks, stiffs, j/a's sometimes, until you get to know them. But when you do... well, you realize that is not the case at all.
This is the case with God.
Steve,
Interesting idea of Money being like a time displacement. However as I talked about in my scenario above, the trading would not be tit-for-tat. The time displacement would be absorbed across everyone. The guy who want's shoes would have taken from me a pair of shoes. I would have taken from him twice for house repairs, so there appears to be a defecit? But someone else would have taken shoes from me, and would have in-turn given to the HW guy a pair of goggles. So the balance would constantly be leveling it's self out.
Only problem is when I stop producing.
Steve,
Interesting idea of Money being like a time displacement. However as I talked about in my scenario above, the trading would not be tit-for-tat. The time displacement would be absorbed across everyone. The guy who want's shoes would have taken from me a pair of shoes. I would have taken from him twice for house repairs, so there appears to be a defecit? But someone else would have taken shoes from me, and would have in-turn given to the HW guy a pair of goggles. So the balance would constantly be leveling it's self out.
Only problem is when I stop producing.
So, are you wrong? No, not really - but I'd suggest that you're addressing a (neutral) tool that can be used to facilitate the problem, not the actual problem itself.
Yes, you are right, as WaterBreath corrected me in. Peoples attitudes are the real problem. If everyone used money is a "correct way" then the problems would be eliminated.
Unfortunately humans seams to be devoid of this ability. It's like being on a diet... you need to get rid of food items that are a snare for you. Money is quite often human's snare.
Terry Pratchett has written a discworld novel about this, Small Gods. On the Discworld, gods are dependent on the faith people have in them, and the story is about a God and his last believer. It is also a good parody on what Man can do to an organized religion.
Well, I don't know exactly what you mean by "known matter", but given there is able 6,000,000,000 people on Earth, so if that is true, their mass makes up about 180,000,000% of the universes "known matter".
This is the first thread of this kind I have seen in a long, long time?
I was wondering if someone can answer this for me, I have wonder about it when I found out the sky was made of sun's, light years away, and they were not just lights in the heavens. And then came Quantum and Classical which gave me so many different perspectives, not including Super Strings, Parallel Worlds, etc.
This creative universe and that might evoke a response, (creative), but let me move on, why if there is one, would He care if we could prove HIM or not. I do not think a GOD has an ego!QUOTE
I think, and it is only a thought but I believe Albert Einstein said it best.
The most beautiful emotion we can experience is the mystical. It is the power of all true art and science. He to whom this emotion is a stranger, who can no longer wonder and stand rapt in awe, is as good as dead. To know that what is impenetrable to us really exists, manifesting itself as the highest wisdom and the most radiant beauty, which our dull faculties can comprehend only in their most primitive forms-this knowledge, this feeling, is at the center of true religiousness. In this sense, and in this sense only, I belong to the rank of devoutly religious men. ~A.E.~
The most beautiful emotion we can experience is the mystical. It is the power of all true art and science. He to whom this emotion is a stranger, who can no longer wonder and stand rapt in awe, is as good as dead. To know that what is impenetrable to us really exists, manifesting itself as the highest wisdom and the most radiant beauty, which our dull faculties can comprehend only in their most primitive forms-this knowledge, this feeling, is at the center of true religiousness. In this sense, and in this sense only, I belong to the rank of devoutly religious men. ~A.E.~
Just thinking, HE is secretive I believe, He does not want us to know how He works, and could we understand if He told us? If there is a GOD then why would he bother to leave a number, when he has given us reason, math, science, physics, chemistry, biology, etc.? Like what could He tell us that we would not destroy or take out of context?
I like what I heard one day, so no matter how you see things, did He leave us alone I cannot answer that, are we alone - I can not answer that for you as well and will not try to, it is a requisite to a seeking spirit and the sky as a child when I would look up into night after night wondering?
So I take each day, one breath at a time! QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| I think, and it is only a thought but I believe Albert Einstein said it best. The most beautiful emotion we can experience is the mystical. It is the power of all true art and science. He to whom this emotion is a stranger, who can no longer wonder and stand rapt in awe, is as good as dead. To know that what is impenetrable to us really exists, manifesting itself as the highest wisdom and the most radiant beauty, which our dull faculties can comprehend only in their most primitive forms-this knowledge, this feeling, is at the center of true religiousness. In this sense, and in this sense only, I belong to the rank of devoutly religious men. ~A.E.~ |
Just thinking, HE is secretive I believe, He does not want us to know how He works, and could we understand if He told us? If there is a GOD then why would he bother to leave a number, when he has given us reason, math, science, physics, chemistry, biology, etc.? Like what could He tell us that we would not destroy or take out of context?
I like what I heard one day, so no matter how you see things, did He leave us alone I cannot answer that, are we alone - I can not answer that for you as well and will not try to, it is a requisite to a seeking spirit and the sky as a child when I would look up into night after night wondering?
So I take each day, one breath at a time! "For God's hand may be a human hand, if you reach out in loving kindness, and God's voice your voice, if you but speak the truth."
Hope someone on this fun page can come up with the answer, I would love to know!
Keep having fun,
yquantum
Your own points are in contradictory with each other. One cannot refer to Occam’s Razor which refers to accepting the simpler explanation of complex possibilities and then refer to the Prosecutor’s fallacy (that is a well known fallacy itself), which then takes the same model and says that because the possibility of its plausible explanation is remote, we should not accept it as still true.
My example of using a unique alphanumeric number was a preliminary suggestion to stimulate either that idea’s further development by others or to stimulate other – positive – ideas on the methodology of how the research might be conducted. It was the concept, which I expected to be understood. The concept is, in simple terms (which does use Occam’s Razor to choose one of the simplest techniques to begin the study), to impart some kind of “detectable” uniqueness to each individual … which might be sought for after their death. Your criticism that it would be difficult for a person to remember a long enough number, is an obvious observation.
Also, your observation that just because any imparted data later was detected, it could have other plausible explanations, is also a point that I would have thought was too evident for discussion here. If you look at my suggestion, in the original message here, it states that if a detection occurs “we then we see if where it appeared had any further expression of their characteristics.” Detection is not the conclusive evidence. It only is only a beginning. As it says, we then study where that unique data occurred, to see if any other information is in that data area that has any relationship to that person.
Here is a nice simple idea, that is not so obvious: suppose we first decide the – criteria - that we’ll use to eliminate other explanations of a detection and then decide the method of uniqueness.
My example of using a unique alphanumeric number was a preliminary suggestion to stimulate either that idea’s further development by others or to stimulate other – positive – ideas on the methodology of how the research might be conducted. It was the concept, which I expected to be understood. The concept is, in simple terms (which does use Occam’s Razor to choose one of the simplest techniques to begin the study), to impart some kind of “detectable” uniqueness to each individual … which might be sought for after their death. Your criticism that it would be difficult for a person to remember a long enough number, is an obvious observation.
Also, your observation that just because any imparted data later was detected, it could have other plausible explanations, is also a point that I would have thought was too evident for discussion here. If you look at my suggestion, in the original message here, it states that if a detection occurs “we then we see if where it appeared had any further expression of their characteristics.” Detection is not the conclusive evidence. It only is only a beginning. As it says, we then study where that unique data occurred, to see if any other information is in that data area that has any relationship to that person.
Here is a nice simple idea, that is not so obvious: suppose we first decide the – criteria - that we’ll use to eliminate other explanations of a detection and then decide the method of uniqueness.
hey kids! don't they have some sort of brain chip they are implanting in people right now? Why not implant one of these is some poor dying guy. I have an Idea, stephen hawking. he cant feed himself either. In fact he has a lot in common with teri schaivo. Put a brain chip in him and pull the feeding tube!
QUOTE
Just thinking, HE is secretive I believe, He does not want us to know how He works, and could we understand if He told us? If there is a GOD then why would he bother to leave a number, when he has given us reason, math, science, physics, chemistry, biology, etc.? Like what could He tell us that we would not destroy or take out of context? ph34r.gif
I like what I heard one day, so no matter how you see things, did He leave us alone I cannot answer that, are we alone - I can not answer that for you as well and will not try to, it is a requisite to a seeking spirit and the sky as a child when I would look up into night after night wondering? blink.gif So I take each day, one breath at a time!
I like what I heard one day, so no matter how you see things, did He leave us alone I cannot answer that, are we alone - I can not answer that for you as well and will not try to, it is a requisite to a seeking spirit and the sky as a child when I would look up into night after night wondering? blink.gif So I take each day, one breath at a time!
We are told in scripture that we will never know all the works of God. Not because we are not allowed to study - we do - but because we would not have the ability to understand or observe what is needed to understand. I don't see this as a protection on the creators part, but simply a limitation of the physical "machine", much like how a 2D graphics core would have a problem dealing with 3D geometry, when trying to interpret it in 2D.
Has he left? As you say, you need to search. He says he is near to all them searching - if you find, then you can answer.
Regarding death though, it seams very obvious that after death we are nothing. There is no soul/spirit. Think about it, flesh is physical, spirit is spirtual. Ok now, when you do something good or bad, what "part" of you decides that? the flesh or the spirit? Presumable the spirit right, as this is supposedly the inner you.
Now that means there should be a detectable communication path between the spirit and the fleshly body, we needs instructions from the spirit. The body would need to be like an antenna, unless of course you hold that a spirit externally modified space/time at the abosulte position that your brain is sitting, nudging it in a certain direction [free energy anyone?]
That being the case we might wonder why we would have a brain at all, if our control in from the spirit realm. Not really logical and not really supported in scripture.
Bogomil,
You get a special mention for the most tactless post I have even seen. Congratuations.
QUOTE
Think about it, flesh is physical, spirit is spirtual. Ok now, when you do something good or bad, what "part" of you decides that? the flesh or the spirit? Presumable the spirit right, as this is supposedly the inner you.
Now that means there should be a detectable communication path between the spirit and the fleshly body, we needs instructions from the spirit.
This logic does not seem to add up. If the "spirit" is not physical, it is a big assumption that there would be a detectable, physical connection to the body. The three dimentions may not apply at all, much less physics or biology. Now that means there should be a detectable communication path between the spirit and the fleshly body, we needs instructions from the spirit.
Anyway, this is also highly debateable:
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Think about it, flesh is physical, spirit is spirtual. Ok now, when you do something good or bad, what "part" of you decides that? the flesh or the spirit? Presumable the spirit right, as this is supposedly the inner you. Now that means there should be a detectable communication path between the spirit and the fleshly body, we needs instructions from the spirit. |
This logic does not seem to add up. If the "spirit" is not physical, it is a big assumption that there would be a detectable, physical connection to the body. The three dimentions may not apply at all, much less physics or biology.
Anyway, this is also highly debateable:Not really logical and not really supported in scripture.
Anyway, this is also highly debateable:Not really logical and not really supported in scripture.
People have been arguing about that for centuries.
Hi Insyght. 
As a child, my questions is there something more than this 2 year old. I found it very interesting as I grew older I would think of something at that age. I must have caused much distress with my parents, Sunday School teachers, as well as the system I was indoctrinated in, from school to University, to University.
Starting with Nirvana, Heaven, mythologies originating from Polynesian to Eastern view. Which I believe you would call cult?
Point, yes there is something much greater, but I will state this and move on.
I offer my most humble apology, I always respect those of different views, and I never want to be rude or insulting to a fellow human being! Please except this offering of regret, forgive me for my lack of wisdom! I will leave this matter up to the sages, theologians, and men much wiser than myself!
My best regards,
yquantum
As a child, my questions is there something more than this 2 year old. I found it very interesting as I grew older I would think of something at that age. I must have caused much distress with my parents, Sunday School teachers, as well as the system I was indoctrinated in, from school to University, to University.
Starting with Nirvana, Heaven, mythologies originating from Polynesian to Eastern view. Which I believe you would call cult?
Point, yes there is something much greater, but I will state this and move on.
QUOTE
You get a special mention for the most tactless post I have even seen. Congratulations.
I offer my most humble apology, I always respect those of different views, and I never want to be rude or insulting to a fellow human being! Please except this offering of regret, forgive me for my lack of wisdom! I will leave this matter up to the sages, theologians, and men much wiser than myself!
My best regards,
yquantum
insyte,
you are absolutely right, very tactless and I apologize. I do have a deep respect for professor hawking and picking on him like that is wrong.
you are absolutely right, very tactless and I apologize. I do have a deep respect for professor hawking and picking on him like that is wrong.
QUOTE (Forester+Apr 5 2005, 04:41 AM)
Your own points are in contradictory with each other. One cannot refer to Occam’s Razor which refers to accepting the simpler explanation of complex possibilities and then refer to the Prosecutor’s fallacy (that is a well known fallacy itself), which then takes the same model and says that because the possibility of its plausible explanation is remote, we should not accept it as still true.
My example of using a unique alphanumeric number was a preliminary suggestion to stimulate either that idea’s further development by others or to stimulate other – positive – ideas on the methodology of how the research might be conducted. It was the concept, which I expected to be understood. The concept is, in simple terms (which does use Occam’s Razor to choose one of the simplest techniques to begin the study), to impart some kind of “detectable” uniqueness to each individual … which might be sought for after their death. Your criticism that it would be difficult for a person to remember a long enough number, is an obvious observation.
Also, your observation that just because any imparted data later was detected, it could have other plausible explanations, is also a point that I would have thought was too evident for discussion here. If you look at my suggestion, in the original message here, it states that if a detection occurs “we then we see if where it appeared had any further expression of their characteristics.” Detection is not the conclusive evidence. It only is only a beginning. As it says, we then study where that unique data occurred, to see if any other information is in that data area that has any relationship to that person.
Here is a nice simple idea, that is not so obvious: suppose we first decide the – criteria - that we’ll use to eliminate other explanations of a detection and then decide the method of uniqueness.
I never meant it has to be untrue, because we're still talking in probabilities only, but surely coincidence is a simpler explanation to finding a repeat large number rather than inputting all kinds of theories about ghosts/souls/etc. You'd need more evidence to support your reincarnation (or whatever you want to call it) theory. Though, I don't know what kind of evidence you could possibly get that can't be put off as coincidence. I'll let you explain what other kinds of evidence may be, but using things like similar names, or similar appearences, similar smells, or whatever else I can think of doesn't really work. And to me, I would think no empirical evidence can sufficiently separate the idea of reincarnation from just speculation. Besides large numbers, what other suggestions do you have for low probabilities of reccurence?
My example of using a unique alphanumeric number was a preliminary suggestion to stimulate either that idea’s further development by others or to stimulate other – positive – ideas on the methodology of how the research might be conducted. It was the concept, which I expected to be understood. The concept is, in simple terms (which does use Occam’s Razor to choose one of the simplest techniques to begin the study), to impart some kind of “detectable” uniqueness to each individual … which might be sought for after their death. Your criticism that it would be difficult for a person to remember a long enough number, is an obvious observation.
Also, your observation that just because any imparted data later was detected, it could have other plausible explanations, is also a point that I would have thought was too evident for discussion here. If you look at my suggestion, in the original message here, it states that if a detection occurs “we then we see if where it appeared had any further expression of their characteristics.” Detection is not the conclusive evidence. It only is only a beginning. As it says, we then study where that unique data occurred, to see if any other information is in that data area that has any relationship to that person.
Here is a nice simple idea, that is not so obvious: suppose we first decide the – criteria - that we’ll use to eliminate other explanations of a detection and then decide the method of uniqueness.
I never meant it has to be untrue, because we're still talking in probabilities only, but surely coincidence is a simpler explanation to finding a repeat large number rather than inputting all kinds of theories about ghosts/souls/etc. You'd need more evidence to support your reincarnation (or whatever you want to call it) theory. Though, I don't know what kind of evidence you could possibly get that can't be put off as coincidence. I'll let you explain what other kinds of evidence may be, but using things like similar names, or similar appearences, similar smells, or whatever else I can think of doesn't really work. And to me, I would think no empirical evidence can sufficiently separate the idea of reincarnation from just speculation. Besides large numbers, what other suggestions do you have for low probabilities of reccurence?
Bogomil, yqauntum:
Much respect
Nope. Just a different belief system. I would base much of it on philisophical idea's. It's easy to conceptionalize an interconnected universe where the thoughts of one person, affect another, where everything have energies that interact with each other. Often with these types of beliefs, sedational meditation is a big part, which raises a number of questions in my mind, but that is off topic... A cult is normally kept secretive. It normally excludes the general public from participation and normally is obsessive over ones who join but then want to leave.
MattWeston,
LOL. We could debate over this stuff for just about ever - and even then we would probably debate over what the term "ever" really means.
I have pondered many times over the thought that the spirit resides as it were in other dimensions. Such that our bodies, though only visible in the 3rd dimension, could protrude into another dimension(s).
Ok, but the big problem is that if the spirit is A PART of my physical body just in the nth dimension and my physically body dies, what happens to the part of my body in the nth dimension?
According to standard Christian belief, God would capture that nth part, and preserve it as a self contained being, which now has the ability to enter into heaven or descend it to hell in an immortal state to "burn" forever.
The fire it's self would therefore have to burn in the nth dimension... to affect the part of my body that was not burned in my house fire, which destroyed the body residing in dimensions 1-3.
Where is pain controlled? The brain, which is dim 1-3. Without that, there is no evidence that a spirit can even feel physical pain. Nothing in scripture even states this, except for emotial pain. There would not be much point in burning such an evil doer in fire forever therefore.
Some feel that the sprit represents the energy inside your body that keeps you alive and the soul refers to the body it's self as in the text that the "man became a living soul", that is, not a dead soul, which is in agreement with judgement that man would go back to his ground... dust you are, dust you will become.
Much respect
QUOTE
Starting with Nirvana, Heaven, mythologies originating from Polynesian to Eastern view. Which I believe you would call cult? huh.gif
Nope. Just a different belief system. I would base much of it on philisophical idea's. It's easy to conceptionalize an interconnected universe where the thoughts of one person, affect another, where everything have energies that interact with each other. Often with these types of beliefs, sedational meditation is a big part, which raises a number of questions in my mind, but that is off topic... A cult is normally kept secretive. It normally excludes the general public from participation and normally is obsessive over ones who join but then want to leave.
MattWeston,
LOL. We could debate over this stuff for just about ever - and even then we would probably debate over what the term "ever" really means.
I have pondered many times over the thought that the spirit resides as it were in other dimensions. Such that our bodies, though only visible in the 3rd dimension, could protrude into another dimension(s).
Ok, but the big problem is that if the spirit is A PART of my physical body just in the nth dimension and my physically body dies, what happens to the part of my body in the nth dimension?
According to standard Christian belief, God would capture that nth part, and preserve it as a self contained being, which now has the ability to enter into heaven or descend it to hell in an immortal state to "burn" forever.
The fire it's self would therefore have to burn in the nth dimension... to affect the part of my body that was not burned in my house fire, which destroyed the body residing in dimensions 1-3.
Where is pain controlled? The brain, which is dim 1-3. Without that, there is no evidence that a spirit can even feel physical pain. Nothing in scripture even states this, except for emotial pain. There would not be much point in burning such an evil doer in fire forever therefore.
Some feel that the sprit represents the energy inside your body that keeps you alive and the soul refers to the body it's self as in the text that the "man became a living soul", that is, not a dead soul, which is in agreement with judgement that man would go back to his ground... dust you are, dust you will become.
QUOTE (tireiss+Apr 1 2005, 02:31 AM)
Hi everyone. Just wanted to see why we study so much other than our own world, if Iam correct.
Teri S died without food or water. And as scientist majors or physics majors, why couldn't we do something or find a way to prolong her life?
There have been many people who have played with death, but we just can't seem to stop death. Wouldn't it be great if we could stop it all together. Of course then we would be out balance..
I would appreciate your replies.
reisst4@inebraska.com
You ask if we could have found a way to prolong her life. This is an important question, although perhaps not in the way you intended.
Terri Schiavo died more than a decade ago, when her brain was irretrievably damaged to the extent that it withered from lack of use. While recording the state of her memories from the structures within will have to be left as science fiction for now, her plight is a reminder that we must do more to prevent illness and injury, and that research on the brain must be continued until we know how to repair it when it is damaged, not just cut out parts that don't work.
But the furore over her body's "death" was just sad, and should be a lesson to all of us that it's none of our business if a human being wants to die with dignity.
Teri S died without food or water. And as scientist majors or physics majors, why couldn't we do something or find a way to prolong her life?
There have been many people who have played with death, but we just can't seem to stop death. Wouldn't it be great if we could stop it all together. Of course then we would be out balance..
I would appreciate your replies.
reisst4@inebraska.com
You ask if we could have found a way to prolong her life. This is an important question, although perhaps not in the way you intended.
Terri Schiavo died more than a decade ago, when her brain was irretrievably damaged to the extent that it withered from lack of use. While recording the state of her memories from the structures within will have to be left as science fiction for now, her plight is a reminder that we must do more to prevent illness and injury, and that research on the brain must be continued until we know how to repair it when it is damaged, not just cut out parts that don't work.
But the furore over her body's "death" was just sad, and should be a lesson to all of us that it's none of our business if a human being wants to die with dignity.
Antipaganda.
At the risk of starting a heated topic here, I want to ask you the question: Can you prove she wanted to die?
Yes she said she would not want to live in a disabled state, whilst she was able. People say many things that they later take back. Can you prove for sure that she felt the same way after her sad accident? Can you prove that she could not hear peoples voices and recogize them and feel happy to hear them, even though her response might have just been a blank stare?
The term "don't play God" is quite descriptive if you think about it. God would apparently know such things for sure. We do not and cannot, therefore the 100% reposiblity of society and medical professionals should always be to preserve "life", keep "alive".
The really sad thing I find about this is that the poor girl was allowed to starve to death in a hospital which is meant to help people stay alive. Her poor parents.
I SERIOUSLY question her husbands motives. SERIOUSLY.
At the risk of starting a heated topic here, I want to ask you the question: Can you prove she wanted to die?
Yes she said she would not want to live in a disabled state, whilst she was able. People say many things that they later take back. Can you prove for sure that she felt the same way after her sad accident? Can you prove that she could not hear peoples voices and recogize them and feel happy to hear them, even though her response might have just been a blank stare?
The term "don't play God" is quite descriptive if you think about it. God would apparently know such things for sure. We do not and cannot, therefore the 100% reposiblity of society and medical professionals should always be to preserve "life", keep "alive".
The really sad thing I find about this is that the poor girl was allowed to starve to death in a hospital which is meant to help people stay alive. Her poor parents.
I SERIOUSLY question her husbands motives. SERIOUSLY.
QUOTE
Yes she said she would not want to live in a disabled state
actually, I beleive even this is in dispute.
especially since she was in this state for 7 years before her husband mentioned that she didn't want to live that way. co incidentally shortly after Terri received a large cash settlement. which during the proceedings for said settlement, Michael said that he would have to care for Terri in this state for the rest of her life.
Hi Insyght,
Not knowing your belief system. This is what I meant as, "cult". Then I am going to get out of here at the speed of ©!
'Cult,' I mean nothing derogatory or offensive to anyone or group. The word cult invokes in me as any religious or persuasion which differs significantly in someone or popular as to belief or practice, from the norm in whatever world view one would express in his or her culture.
First of all, I have no right to be here, (confession is good for the soul) - wow you could have fun with that. But I love the energy, and pursuit of knowledge where ever it may lead. Religion and Science will always be a hot topic, this I have been reminded all to many times. - When will I ever learn?- I do know maybe one bit of knowledge, when we die and we will then the truth will be known?!
Maybe today
Best regards,
yquantum
QUOTE
A cult is normally kept secretive. It normally excludes the general public from participation and normally is obsessive over ones who join but then want to leave.
Not knowing your belief system. This is what I meant as, "cult". Then I am going to get out of here at the speed of ©!
'Cult,' I mean nothing derogatory or offensive to anyone or group. The word cult invokes in me as any religious or persuasion which differs significantly in someone or popular as to belief or practice, from the norm in whatever world view one would express in his or her culture.First of all, I have no right to be here, (confession is good for the soul) - wow you could have fun with that. But I love the energy, and pursuit of knowledge where ever it may lead. Religion and Science will always be a hot topic, this I have been reminded all to many times. - When will I ever learn?- I do know maybe one bit of knowledge, when we die and we will then the truth will be known?!
Maybe today
Best regards,
yquantum
Matt,
Exactly. Kinda fishy huh? I can understand the lure. They get money and then he has to just pump it into looking after her. But if she was not around no more, unfortunately he would be left with all that money. I'm no Judge, I don't know the facts, so I'll leave the judging to someone else, but these possible facts leave me with large questions.
yquantum,
Got me looking up the meaning of cult, thx cult : a religion regarded as unorthodox or spurious.
I'm adjusted on my thinking. I just looked at the symptoms that an outsider would see, when they look at an unorthodox religion. I assume to the insiders there would be no problem.
I have similar fun. I love to learn. I love science though never formally triained it in. I cannot do the math, but I can ponder on and grasp some concepts. I love having fun with the evolutionists especially Nothing I have read has weakened my faith in ID, so feel free to jump on in. Enjoy
Exactly. Kinda fishy huh? I can understand the lure. They get money and then he has to just pump it into looking after her. But if she was not around no more, unfortunately he would be left with all that money. I'm no Judge, I don't know the facts, so I'll leave the judging to someone else, but these possible facts leave me with large questions.
yquantum,
Got me looking up the meaning of cult, thx
cult : a religion regarded as unorthodox or spurious.I'm adjusted on my thinking. I just looked at the symptoms that an outsider would see, when they look at an unorthodox religion. I assume to the insiders there would be no problem.
I have similar fun. I love to learn. I love science though never formally triained it in. I cannot do the math, but I can ponder on and grasp some concepts. I love having fun with the evolutionists especially
Nothing I have read has weakened my faith in ID, so feel free to jump on in. Enjoy
Insyght-
FYI-
According to the Bible, everyone (good and bad) will be resurrected and then face one of two judgments. The righteous will eventually wind up on a new Earth, and the evil will be sent to the lake of fire, forever. The key is resurrection (aka you get your body back, by whatever means God could do that).
Anyway, I hope that's not too far off topic. I can probably find a few references if anyone cares to read them.
QUOTE
According to standard Christian belief, God would capture that nth part, and preserve it as a self contained being, which now has the ability to enter into heaven or descend it to hell in an immortal state to "burn" forever.
The fire it's self would therefore have to burn in the nth dimension... to affect the part of my body that was not burned in my house fire, which destroyed the body residing in dimensions 1-3.
Where is pain controlled? The brain, which is dim 1-3. Without that, there is no evidence that a spirit can even feel physical pain. Nothing in scripture even states this, except for emotial pain. There would not be much point in burning such an evil doer in fire forever therefore.
Some feel that the sprit represents the energy inside your body that keeps you alive and the soul refers to the body it's self as in the text that the "man became a living soul", that is, not a dead soul, which is in agreement with judgement that man would go back to his ground... dust you are, dust you will become.
The fire it's self would therefore have to burn in the nth dimension... to affect the part of my body that was not burned in my house fire, which destroyed the body residing in dimensions 1-3.
Where is pain controlled? The brain, which is dim 1-3. Without that, there is no evidence that a spirit can even feel physical pain. Nothing in scripture even states this, except for emotial pain. There would not be much point in burning such an evil doer in fire forever therefore.
Some feel that the sprit represents the energy inside your body that keeps you alive and the soul refers to the body it's self as in the text that the "man became a living soul", that is, not a dead soul, which is in agreement with judgement that man would go back to his ground... dust you are, dust you will become.
FYI-
According to the Bible, everyone (good and bad) will be resurrected and then face one of two judgments. The righteous will eventually wind up on a new Earth, and the evil will be sent to the lake of fire, forever. The key is resurrection (aka you get your body back, by whatever means God could do that).
Anyway, I hope that's not too far off topic. I can probably find a few references if anyone cares to read them.
Hi Insyght and MattWeston,
I just enjoy reading everything on this page, guess I am looking too. You keep up the good work, anyway it reminds me of something someone I admire very much said, and before I quote him it is about (ME) and no one else -- OK? ? Just making sure!
Keep searching & Carpi Diem,
yquantum
I just enjoy reading everything on this page, guess I am looking too. You keep up the good work, anyway it reminds me of something someone I admire very much said, and before I quote him it is about (ME) and no one else -- OK? ? Just making sure!
QUOTE
An expert is a man who has made all the mistakes which can be made in a very narrow field.
~Niels Bohr~
~Niels Bohr~
Keep searching & Carpi Diem,
yquantum
MattWeston,
Would love to reply, but not going off topic agian (LOL). If anyone is interesting in the argument from the scriptures that we do not have a spritual soul and that we die when we die and cease to exist, i'll be happy to place references
Would love to reply, but not going off topic agian (LOL). If anyone is interesting in the argument from the scriptures that we do not have a spritual soul and that we die when we die and cease to exist, i'll be happy to place references
This post began with the question:
Hi everyone. Just wanted to see why we study so much other than our own world, if Iam correct.
Scientist study mars and water and human life on mars, but why can't we study the effects and try to solve a promblem concerning death.
My answer is that studying everything is valuable in it's own right and also most of our advances in defeating death through medical science have come from studying other things beyond medicine.
Pasteur's germ theory of disease came from research into the question of 'anabiosis'.
Bacteria were able to be seen in the microscope as a result of research into optics and lenses.
Anti-biotics came from non-medical research.
Anaesthetics were discovered from research into chemistry.
The sequencing of the human genome was only possible with tools developed for the space program.
We don't know for sure what new discoveries will be made by studying so much other than our world, but the record shows that all abstract knowledge is eventually useful. That's a sufficient justification to study other subjects as well as medicine, although the real reason is that it's fun.
Hi everyone. Just wanted to see why we study so much other than our own world, if Iam correct.
Scientist study mars and water and human life on mars, but why can't we study the effects and try to solve a promblem concerning death.
My answer is that studying everything is valuable in it's own right and also most of our advances in defeating death through medical science have come from studying other things beyond medicine.
Pasteur's germ theory of disease came from research into the question of 'anabiosis'.
Bacteria were able to be seen in the microscope as a result of research into optics and lenses.
Anti-biotics came from non-medical research.
Anaesthetics were discovered from research into chemistry.
The sequencing of the human genome was only possible with tools developed for the space program.
We don't know for sure what new discoveries will be made by studying so much other than our world, but the record shows that all abstract knowledge is eventually useful. That's a sufficient justification to study other subjects as well as medicine, although the real reason is that it's fun.
Inasmuch as the earlier postings for this topic danced a bit with immortality, I will tell you about a fantasy that I read at least, IIRC, about fifty years ago.
The book was "Dr. Arnoldi" and it was written by Tiffany Thayer, an author who was fairly prominent in the 1930s.
In the book, humans suddenly lose the ability to die. Even if someone is put through a meat grinder, there is still some kind on sentience in the resultant scramble of cells. To compound the accumulation of tissue, putrefaction no longer occurs as if bacteria had disappeared. (Hey, I said it was a fantasy.)
The end of the book envisions the earth being covered by a quarter mile or so of human tissue, neither functionally living or actually dead.
Not a pretty picture, certainly, but certainly an offbeat view of a kind of immortality.
The book was "Dr. Arnoldi" and it was written by Tiffany Thayer, an author who was fairly prominent in the 1930s.
In the book, humans suddenly lose the ability to die. Even if someone is put through a meat grinder, there is still some kind on sentience in the resultant scramble of cells. To compound the accumulation of tissue, putrefaction no longer occurs as if bacteria had disappeared. (Hey, I said it was a fantasy.)
The end of the book envisions the earth being covered by a quarter mile or so of human tissue, neither functionally living or actually dead.
Not a pretty picture, certainly, but certainly an offbeat view of a kind of immortality.
Gee, I don't know how I suddenly turned into an unregistered guest. Maybe it's due to a cookie failure. Can anyone, perhaps a monitor, tell me what happenedc?
CactusCritter
I am not a monitor, and maybe they will come in a fix the problem if it is on there side of the system.
If not if you have not said anything that go against the bylaw, I have not read this thread in some time.
Try and registering again and see if that fixes your problem.
And if that does not work, then on the introduction of the Forum there is a location in which to get in contact with them. Best of luck!
Best regards,
y
I am not a monitor, and maybe they will come in a fix the problem if it is on there side of the system.
If not if you have not said anything that go against the bylaw, I have not read this thread in some time.
Try and registering again and see if that fixes your problem.
And if that does not work, then on the introduction of the Forum there is a location in which to get in contact with them. Best of luck!
Best regards,
y
Yeah kinda agree with that post about the 1/4 mile pile of living tissue. Can you imagine finding the solution to death and then being stuck in this problematic earth for eternity and you could not even die to escape it.
Not plesant me thinks.
I think that first off, people should try and sort out the problems we have. Money is one of the most stupid creations we have ever dreamed up. Almost all problems we face could be eliminated if Money did not exist and instead we used a system of mutual trade.
Most people will agree, but no one can do anything about it. We have trapped out selves in a trap we cannot get out of.
Not plesant me thinks.
I think that first off, people should try and sort out the problems we have. Money is one of the most stupid creations we have ever dreamed up. Almost all problems we face could be eliminated if Money did not exist and instead we used a system of mutual trade.
Most people will agree, but no one can do anything about it. We have trapped out selves in a trap we cannot get out of.
I tend to be one that hates to deal with money, but it does seem to have advantages. It would suck to go shopping for groceries and have to haul a ton of junk into the store for trading.
I am becoming convinced, though, that money was invented by governments simply for the purpose of tax/tribute.
I am becoming convinced, though, that money was invented by governments simply for the purpose of tax/tribute.
MattWeston,
Haha, thats funny. I did not picture it working that way, but thanks for the laugh.
I was thinking more along the lines that the governments or those in power, would have on record the "trade" that everyone works..
Everyone would use this record to visit and obtain items.
So like, I need to do some work on my house, I simply visit a guy who specializes in wood etc and get what I need. If he is run out, then he is run out... he does not care. It does not mean he will starve. Infact, I won't pay him at all. He would get his payment by obtaining items from other people. Items that he needs, including food.
Eventually one of the "other people" would obtain something from me so it would be a big circle.
The deal however is that you can only obtain something off someone if you are registered with the government. (I.E. You are actually producing something that others could obtain from you,.. or you are on some special assistance like you are sick or disabled or something).
You swipe the card, you are a confirmed contributor to society and you take away
In the interest of fighting greed, products could be catagorized and restrictions on quantities of items could be created, so that I don't drive around to all the HW places the exist and just take everything.
See how it could work... Oh I wish.
Oh and some say this would kill R&D. I don't think so. Ppl with the desire to learn and create will be able to do so, ever more freely... AND when they do create something, it would be instantly absorbed into society.
Haha, thats funny. I did not picture it working that way, but thanks for the laugh.
I was thinking more along the lines that the governments or those in power, would have on record the "trade" that everyone works..
Everyone would use this record to visit and obtain items.
So like, I need to do some work on my house, I simply visit a guy who specializes in wood etc and get what I need. If he is run out, then he is run out... he does not care. It does not mean he will starve. Infact, I won't pay him at all. He would get his payment by obtaining items from other people. Items that he needs, including food.
Eventually one of the "other people" would obtain something from me so it would be a big circle.
The deal however is that you can only obtain something off someone if you are registered with the government. (I.E. You are actually producing something that others could obtain from you,.. or you are on some special assistance like you are sick or disabled or something).
You swipe the card, you are a confirmed contributor to society and you take away
In the interest of fighting greed, products could be catagorized and restrictions on quantities of items could be created, so that I don't drive around to all the HW places the exist and just take everything.
See how it could work... Oh I wish.
Oh and some say this would kill R&D. I don't think so. Ppl with the desire to learn and create will be able to do so, ever more freely... AND when they do create something, it would be instantly absorbed into society.
Insyght,
While that's an attractive idea, I won't hold my breath for this utopia. It suffers from some of the same problems as socialism does: i.e. some people are lazy, and they will reap rewards not proportional to their contribution, while others are "overachievers" who will contribute more than others but will not benefit proportionally.
There is too much laziness and too much greed/ambition in the world for this to work.
I think it would be quite nice if this could work. But that's because I'm neither particularly lazy nor particularly ambitious.
While that's an attractive idea, I won't hold my breath for this utopia. It suffers from some of the same problems as socialism does: i.e. some people are lazy, and they will reap rewards not proportional to their contribution, while others are "overachievers" who will contribute more than others but will not benefit proportionally.
There is too much laziness and too much greed/ambition in the world for this to work.
I think it would be quite nice if this could work. But that's because I'm neither particularly lazy nor particularly ambitious.
Yeah, guess thats why it works for me too. People have to sort out the person inside first I guess.
Ah well, back to reality.
Ah well, back to reality.
QUOTE (Insyght+Apr 12 2005, 10:32 AM)
Almost all problems we face could be eliminated if Money did not exist and instead we used a system of mutual trade.
Challenge -
Pretend there is no such thing as money. I make shoes, and damned good ones. I need to buy some wood to build my house. I go to the wood-guy, and trade him shoes. I'm all set.
The next day, I need more wood. I go to the wood guy, and offer to trade him more shoes. There's a problem, though - he's already got 5 pair from yesterday. His wife and kids also have enough shoes to last them a decade. He doesn't need anymore - so, my options are...
In its simplest form, Money is little more than an abstraction of time. The time it takes me to create a pair of shoes is translated to some value. Additional time that was previously spent learning how to make better shoes will add value, as well... that "learning time", as it were, is distributed over the time spent actually making the shoes. The result is that I can trade him 50 pairs of shoes, or I can pay him $50 (if my shoes sell for $1 per pair). The two are equivalent.
So, I'd suggest that money is not the cause; its core is merely a portable abstraction of our time. "Mutual trade" would accomplish nothing in this respect, as all it would do is remove the portability. 50 pair of shoes is useless... but with the "time" to make them translated into cash, the $50 can easily be translated back into some other product/service. Time is money, after all. It's not just a cute saying... and I'm hoping someone will factor it into the equations of General Relativity some day. It'd be fun, and the result would probably solve this "gravity" disaster.
More than likely, it'd be some other "factors" that can add value that are creating the problems. Opportunity/Resources (or lack thereof) being one of the biggest; positional wrangling to maintain that opportunity is yet another. Things like these do not go away by switching to a trade/barter system; Microsoft would still be Microsoft, with the monopoly position they currently enjoy, using the same tactics they currently enjoy. They'd simply have an ass-load of shoes.
So, are you wrong? No, not really - but I'd suggest that you're addressing a (neutral) tool that can be used to facilitate the problem, not the actual problem itself.
Challenge -
Pretend there is no such thing as money. I make shoes, and damned good ones. I need to buy some wood to build my house. I go to the wood-guy, and trade him shoes. I'm all set.
The next day, I need more wood. I go to the wood guy, and offer to trade him more shoes. There's a problem, though - he's already got 5 pair from yesterday. His wife and kids also have enough shoes to last them a decade. He doesn't need anymore - so, my options are...
In its simplest form, Money is little more than an abstraction of time. The time it takes me to create a pair of shoes is translated to some value. Additional time that was previously spent learning how to make better shoes will add value, as well... that "learning time", as it were, is distributed over the time spent actually making the shoes. The result is that I can trade him 50 pairs of shoes, or I can pay him $50 (if my shoes sell for $1 per pair). The two are equivalent.
So, I'd suggest that money is not the cause; its core is merely a portable abstraction of our time. "Mutual trade" would accomplish nothing in this respect, as all it would do is remove the portability. 50 pair of shoes is useless... but with the "time" to make them translated into cash, the $50 can easily be translated back into some other product/service. Time is money, after all. It's not just a cute saying... and I'm hoping someone will factor it into the equations of General Relativity some day. It'd be fun, and the result would probably solve this "gravity" disaster.
More than likely, it'd be some other "factors" that can add value that are creating the problems. Opportunity/Resources (or lack thereof) being one of the biggest; positional wrangling to maintain that opportunity is yet another. Things like these do not go away by switching to a trade/barter system; Microsoft would still be Microsoft, with the monopoly position they currently enjoy, using the same tactics they currently enjoy. They'd simply have an ass-load of shoes.
So, are you wrong? No, not really - but I'd suggest that you're addressing a (neutral) tool that can be used to facilitate the problem, not the actual problem itself.
Money is an abstract, it serves three purposes, it serves as a store of value, it provides a common basis for trade and serves as a vehicle to enable trade.
build the barter chain from the shoemaker to the woodsman and all of the intermediaries required to build a house when your only tradable commodity is shoes, or the output of the individual's specialized labour...
sorry, the econ major in me slipped out...
build the barter chain from the shoemaker to the woodsman and all of the intermediaries required to build a house when your only tradable commodity is shoes, or the output of the individual's specialized labour...
sorry, the econ major in me slipped out...
I think Douglas Adams summed up God quite nicely when discussing the babelfish:
QUOTE
Now it is such a bizarrely improbable coincidence that anything that mindbogglingly useful could have evolved purely by chance that some thinkers have chosen to see it as a final and clinching proof of the nonexistence of God. The argument goes something like this: "I refuse to prove that I exist," says God, "for proof denies faith, and without faith I am nothing." "But," says man, "the Babel fish is a dead giveaway, isn´t it? It could not have evolved by chance. It proves you exist, and so therefore, by your own arguments, you don´t. QED." "Oh dear," says God, "I hadn´t thought of that," and promptly vanishes in a puff of logic. "Oh, that was easy," says man, and for an encore goes on to prove that black is white and gets himself killed on the next zebra crossing. Most leading theologians claim that this argument is a load of dingo´s kidneys, but that didn´t stop Oolon Colluphid making a small fortune when he used it as the central theme of his best-selling book, Well That about Wraps It Up for God. Meanwhile, the poor Babel fish, by effectively removing all barriers to communication between different races and cultures, has caused more and bloodier wars than anything else in the history of creation.
QUOTE
I think Douglas Adams summed up God quite nicely
Since I believe God exists, I think it more accurately sums up the traditional (and incorrect) human concept of what God is or should be.
More importantly though, I find it to be a smart, witty portrayal of the silly debate between atheists and non-atheists (theists?) about whether or not God exists.
And yes, I know Adams was an atheist.
What the heck is a bablefish, for those who haven't read his work?
Of anything in the quote, I disagree with this the most:
Of anything in the quote, I disagree with this the most:
QUOTE
and without faith I am nothing.
If there is a god, he would probably not require faith in him to exist.
Hi MW,
I agree. Any god that needs faith, belief, and worship is nothing more than an egomaniacal meglomaniac.
If god does exist he/she/it is the ultimate experimental artist/scientist with the entire universe as the creation/experiment.
Or maybe it's just a kid with an erector set.
Or maybe this universe is just an experimental program running on a giant supercomputer in some higher level reality.
z
I agree. Any god that needs faith, belief, and worship is nothing more than an egomaniacal meglomaniac.
If god does exist he/she/it is the ultimate experimental artist/scientist with the entire universe as the creation/experiment.
Or maybe it's just a kid with an erector set.
Or maybe this universe is just an experimental program running on a giant supercomputer in some higher level reality.
z
thezman...
the matrix is onto you
the matrix is onto you
Hi thezman MattWeston,The Forum pooped up on the screen. I am not into this site, but with all I have seen in the lab not to mention the world, not sure that I would go that far thezman.
Much respect for you both, and I do not have any imperial evidence to support this, but a gut feeling on this, logic dictates to me, if I throw this Rolex up into the air in a million parts, the probability of it coming down into a complete watch and working is not even predictable with any math I know of. And it is just a man made watch, nothing more.
Maybe 10^150 to one.
Just knowing the earth, and it elliptical orbit with precision or it's path around the sun - is astronomical! And that is just one example.
Do not know, but I would not insult the man just up the mountain from me, in the new house being built until I know his his demeanor and size, just to cover my &*%^?
Sorry for the intrusion,
y
QUOTE
and without faith I am nothing.
Huh? Suppose I decided never to post any messages, but just read and observe would that mean that because I choose not to reveal myself that I do not exist?
In that case, am I glad I posted
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| and without faith I am nothing. |
Huh? Suppose I decided never to post any messages, but just read and observe would that mean that because I choose not to reveal myself that I do not exist?
In that case, am I glad I posted
egomaniacal meglomaniac
That is your definition of how your would view God's actions. Thats not how I would view him.
You know, people sometimes look like such snobs, jerks, stiffs, j/a's sometimes, until you get to know them. But when you do... well, you realize that is not the case at all.
This is the case with God.
QUOTE
Challenge -
Steve,
Interesting idea of Money being like a time displacement. However as I talked about in my scenario above, the trading would not be tit-for-tat. The time displacement would be absorbed across everyone. The guy who want's shoes would have taken from me a pair of shoes. I would have taken from him twice for house repairs, so there appears to be a defecit? But someone else would have taken shoes from me, and would have in-turn given to the HW guy a pair of goggles. So the balance would constantly be leveling it's self out.
Only problem is when I stop producing.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Challenge - |
Steve,
Interesting idea of Money being like a time displacement. However as I talked about in my scenario above, the trading would not be tit-for-tat. The time displacement would be absorbed across everyone. The guy who want's shoes would have taken from me a pair of shoes. I would have taken from him twice for house repairs, so there appears to be a defecit? But someone else would have taken shoes from me, and would have in-turn given to the HW guy a pair of goggles. So the balance would constantly be leveling it's self out.
Only problem is when I stop producing.
So, are you wrong? No, not really - but I'd suggest that you're addressing a (neutral) tool that can be used to facilitate the problem, not the actual problem itself.
Yes, you are right, as WaterBreath corrected me in. Peoples attitudes are the real problem. If everyone used money is a "correct way" then the problems would be eliminated.
Unfortunately humans seams to be devoid of this ability. It's like being on a diet... you need to get rid of food items that are a snare for you. Money is quite often human's snare.
simply because humans are taught to want want want, and money is the easiest way to get that want
and no, teaching to not want isnt a good way to go through life, maybe i wont want to breath anymore eh?
and no, teaching to not want isnt a good way to go through life, maybe i wont want to breath anymore eh?
QUOTE (yquantum+Apr 13 2005, 03:41 PM)
Maybe 10^150 to one.
Just knowing the earth, and it elliptical orbit with precision or it's path around the sun - is astronomical! And that is just one example.
YQ - You're suggesting that incredible odds (and complexity) demand some type of devine cause. Be careful with this track - it defeats itself.
I'd submit that the complexity of such a devinity, along the odds of it "happening", are even worse than ours. Especially if sentience is attached to it, as many cultures do. Complexity? Huge. Odds? That's the basis of your argument - which means you can probably finish this statement without my help.
You forget that while a God might have made us all... a man named Sam Colt made us equal. Well, equal in the U.S., that is. The UK is another story "Yea though I walk through the valley <snip>... I shall fear no evil, for I am the meanest summbitch in that valley." Heh.
Just knowing the earth, and it elliptical orbit with precision or it's path around the sun - is astronomical! And that is just one example.
YQ - You're suggesting that incredible odds (and complexity) demand some type of devine cause. Be careful with this track - it defeats itself.
I'd submit that the complexity of such a devinity, along the odds of it "happening", are even worse than ours. Especially if sentience is attached to it, as many cultures do. Complexity? Huge. Odds? That's the basis of your argument - which means you can probably finish this statement without my help.
QUOTE
Do not know, but I would not insult the man just up the mountain from me, in the new house being built until I know his his demeanor and size, just to cover my &*%^?
You forget that while a God might have made us all... a man named Sam Colt made us equal. Well, equal in the U.S., that is. The UK is another story
"Yea though I walk through the valley <snip>... I shall fear no evil, for I am the meanest summbitch in that valley." Heh.
Steve, HI
You need not collapse may wave-packet, remember I deal with the most 'opinionated,' people in the world.
I just know I am 0.03 percent of the known matter in the universe. My thinking is muddled when it comes to this theological and philosophical mumble jumble. I cannot articulate it, or prove it right or wrong.
I am searching just like you, and maybe you are not, (Must be nice!) I do not know. I would like it to be just x y z plus time. But I am not able to do so, I would be out of a job and it pays very well and the people who work for me would ask me to leave I am sure, so I will stick with what works, OK!
I like the Occam's Razor approach I sometimes use it, I know that QM, is a hard pill to digest, but then the cell phone's I use would not work, less alone this computer's.
I think I will just let it go, and you knowledgeable men can politely discuss it. I believe there is something more than myself, but truth be known, I just want to find my way out of the cave on that issue. Have fun. Now I have got to go back to work, much to do.
There goes my tea time again, Steve you have to stop asking questions during lunch!
Maybe you are right, 'creatio ex nihilo.'
B r,
y - I was going to respond to one more, but we both would fall into the trap, and I believe we know better- .
You need not collapse may wave-packet, remember I deal with the most 'opinionated,' people in the world.
I just know I am 0.03 percent of the known matter in the universe. My thinking is muddled when it comes to this theological and philosophical mumble jumble. I cannot articulate it, or prove it right or wrong.
I am searching just like you, and maybe you are not, (Must be nice!) I do not know. I would like it to be just x y z plus time. But I am not able to do so, I would be out of a job and it pays very well and the people who work for me would ask me to leave I am sure, so I will stick with what works, OK!
I like the Occam's Razor approach I sometimes use it, I know that QM, is a hard pill to digest, but then the cell phone's I use would not work, less alone this computer's.
I think I will just let it go, and you knowledgeable men can politely discuss it. I believe there is something more than myself, but truth be known, I just want to find my way out of the cave on that issue. Have fun. Now I have got to go back to work, much to do.
There goes my tea time again, Steve you have to stop asking questions during lunch!
Maybe you are right, 'creatio ex nihilo.'
B r,
y - I was going to respond to one more, but we both would fall into the trap, and I believe we know better- .
YQ, I didn't say you were wrong - just take care using that as a reason.
And for my views on QM - I've never said it wasn't an accurate predictive framework - when I say it's "market research", you appear to react as if that is not an accurate framework. Statistical modelling is actually quite effective when specifics are unknown.
I should know - my wife's a program director of a rock radio station, and there are great parallels between her methods and QM. You cannot predict the behavior of a specific listener. In fact, if you "measure" a specific listener, you screw up the state - people who never listen to you claim they do, and people who always listen to you claim they don't. And no matter who you talk to, they all hate the music.
But oddly enough, when the statistical models are applied (ala QM), the numbers come, exactly as predicted. If you own several stations in a given city - adding one single song to one of your stations will cause a predictable shift in all stations - drawing numbers from some, and pushing numbers toward others, and you can even predict what gender and age the shift will be in.
Quite literally, there are at least three stations in our market that are pawns - they have no audience, and they seemingly play random songs. One of them (a competitor to my wife's station) played Metallica - into Led Zepplin, into some RAP song (and I mean hardcore rap). NOONE can stand to listen to that station - if you love Metallica (white male "rocker", 18 to 35 years old), you hate Led Zepplin (white male "classic rocker", 30 to 54 years old). If you like Led Zepplin, you hate rap (urban male, 12 to 39 years old). Those are the statistics of the population - and yet this Clear Channel station, which is being programmed by some Guru 2500 miles away, is playing exactly songs that will piss off the listeners of the previous song. Care to guess why?
Yep, because that playlist is designed to solidify their Country and Top-40 stations. And it does - the ratings of this pawn station are less than .1% of the market. There are 20 stations, and Arbitron (the ratings company) rates the top 18. This pawn station never even makes it into the top 18. What it does do, though, is shift the probabilities in the market. With it's introduction - and noone is listening to it, we have proof - since it's introduction, both the Country and Top-40 stations have enjoyed a combined 3% increase in male listenership. The 3 "real" (non-pawn) rock stations have (combined) lost 3%. And, I mean it happened overnight, exactly with the introduction of this... pawn.
So, fight back - Citadel introduces a pawn of its own, a sports radio station on the AM band. This station, which has an effective signal radius of about 10 feet, is designed to screw with a Clear Channel "Talk Radio" station. And guess what - this sports pawn beats the ClearChannel pawn, with a .4% share (compared to .1%). They could do "custom" radio broadcasts, personalized "per listener" - and in a week, they'd have done *everybody* who listens. "Today's show is for you, Bob!" And yet, the impact was huge. The talk-station took a dump of almost 4%, and the two "younger oriented" rock stations picked them up, right on cue... my wife got the 3% she wanted, and her competitor got 1%. All the result... of probabilities.
You'll never find a person who likes the playlist of a given radio station - but from if you apply a probability model to "who will like it" (and by "who", I mean segregated right down to age, gender, and income) - you can predict how many of each type will like it, but not who, exactly. Sound familiar?
Your reactions to my jokes about QM "not being real" indicates that you think the listeners, above, have no cause for their behavior - as if each specific listener is truely governed by randomness, probabilities, and "waves". Right? Err... no, each person does *exactly* what they do for *very exact* reasons. You certainly do, you have legitimate cause for every action you take. There is no randomness *at all* in the *choices* they make. It might appear random to an observer because he cannot measure what those choices are based on, but that limitation changes nothing. Their choices are exact, not random, and are deterministic in each one of their eyes.
I mean, how often do you act in a truely random fashion? Ever? No, you have cause for each action you take - even when trying to act random, you'll still have a trail of causality - but only you will know what it is.
So, just like my wife's radio station trying to figure out how to get the most male listeners aged 18 to 34, with a secondary target of males 25-49 - she cannot predict what *each one* will want to listen to. She can model them as a population, though, and get pretty damned close. QM is no different - and just like my wife's technique does not imply true random behavior, QM does not imply true random behavior either.
QM simply implies that we can't predict what the behavior will be in a specific case, because the level of cause is beyond our ability to measure. It does not imply that such level of cause doesn't exist - because if it does, then we as people have no cause for our behaviors, either. After all - I can model us with probabilities, right?
So, hopefully I've clarified my views on QM.
And for my views on QM - I've never said it wasn't an accurate predictive framework - when I say it's "market research", you appear to react as if that is not an accurate framework. Statistical modelling is actually quite effective when specifics are unknown.
I should know - my wife's a program director of a rock radio station, and there are great parallels between her methods and QM. You cannot predict the behavior of a specific listener. In fact, if you "measure" a specific listener, you screw up the state - people who never listen to you claim they do, and people who always listen to you claim they don't. And no matter who you talk to, they all hate the music.
But oddly enough, when the statistical models are applied (ala QM), the numbers come, exactly as predicted. If you own several stations in a given city - adding one single song to one of your stations will cause a predictable shift in all stations - drawing numbers from some, and pushing numbers toward others, and you can even predict what gender and age the shift will be in.
Quite literally, there are at least three stations in our market that are pawns - they have no audience, and they seemingly play random songs. One of them (a competitor to my wife's station) played Metallica - into Led Zepplin, into some RAP song (and I mean hardcore rap). NOONE can stand to listen to that station - if you love Metallica (white male "rocker", 18 to 35 years old), you hate Led Zepplin (white male "classic rocker", 30 to 54 years old). If you like Led Zepplin, you hate rap (urban male, 12 to 39 years old). Those are the statistics of the population - and yet this Clear Channel station, which is being programmed by some Guru 2500 miles away, is playing exactly songs that will piss off the listeners of the previous song. Care to guess why?
Yep, because that playlist is designed to solidify their Country and Top-40 stations. And it does - the ratings of this pawn station are less than .1% of the market. There are 20 stations, and Arbitron (the ratings company) rates the top 18. This pawn station never even makes it into the top 18. What it does do, though, is shift the probabilities in the market. With it's introduction - and noone is listening to it, we have proof - since it's introduction, both the Country and Top-40 stations have enjoyed a combined 3% increase in male listenership. The 3 "real" (non-pawn) rock stations have (combined) lost 3%. And, I mean it happened overnight, exactly with the introduction of this... pawn.
So, fight back - Citadel introduces a pawn of its own, a sports radio station on the AM band. This station, which has an effective signal radius of about 10 feet, is designed to screw with a Clear Channel "Talk Radio" station. And guess what - this sports pawn beats the ClearChannel pawn, with a .4% share (compared to .1%). They could do "custom" radio broadcasts, personalized "per listener" - and in a week, they'd have done *everybody* who listens. "Today's show is for you, Bob!" And yet, the impact was huge. The talk-station took a dump of almost 4%, and the two "younger oriented" rock stations picked them up, right on cue... my wife got the 3% she wanted, and her competitor got 1%. All the result... of probabilities.
You'll never find a person who likes the playlist of a given radio station - but from if you apply a probability model to "who will like it" (and by "who", I mean segregated right down to age, gender, and income) - you can predict how many of each type will like it, but not who, exactly. Sound familiar?
Your reactions to my jokes about QM "not being real" indicates that you think the listeners, above, have no cause for their behavior - as if each specific listener is truely governed by randomness, probabilities, and "waves". Right? Err... no, each person does *exactly* what they do for *very exact* reasons. You certainly do, you have legitimate cause for every action you take. There is no randomness *at all* in the *choices* they make. It might appear random to an observer because he cannot measure what those choices are based on, but that limitation changes nothing. Their choices are exact, not random, and are deterministic in each one of their eyes.
I mean, how often do you act in a truely random fashion? Ever? No, you have cause for each action you take - even when trying to act random, you'll still have a trail of causality - but only you will know what it is.
So, just like my wife's radio station trying to figure out how to get the most male listeners aged 18 to 34, with a secondary target of males 25-49 - she cannot predict what *each one* will want to listen to. She can model them as a population, though, and get pretty damned close. QM is no different - and just like my wife's technique does not imply true random behavior, QM does not imply true random behavior either.
QM simply implies that we can't predict what the behavior will be in a specific case, because the level of cause is beyond our ability to measure. It does not imply that such level of cause doesn't exist - because if it does, then we as people have no cause for our behaviors, either. After all - I can model us with probabilities, right?
So, hopefully I've clarified my views on QM.
QUOTE
and without faith I am nothing.
Terry Pratchett has written a discworld novel about this, Small Gods. On the Discworld, gods are dependent on the faith people have in them, and the story is about a God and his last believer. It is also a good parody on what Man can do to an organized religion.
QUOTE
I just know I am 0.03 percent of the known matter in the universe.
Well, I don't know exactly what you mean by "known matter", but given there is able 6,000,000,000 people on Earth, so if that is true, their mass makes up about 180,000,000% of the universes "known matter".
Why did you respond to a three-year-old post?
The world would be overpopulated within a couple years and a disaster would insue in ten years. This is why people die. 
Simple.
Simple.
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.