S. Hawking's Final Book: There is NO God.

[TimeSeeker]

That doesn't look much like a link to a dictionary. Not one of your deviant porn sites is it?

It's a dictionary. Your paranoia is on over-drive.

[QuantumT]

Of course there is NO God! It's a truth so profound that you have to be brainwashed or a scientific ignorant not to realize it!

There is however the fine-structure (Sommerfeld's) constant. The magic 1/137.036. That is not random if our universe is alone!

[Atla]

In your head maybe. I think you forgot to tell us. Point me to your answer before I call you a liar.

Again: how two M letters slightly differ or not, and how their position in spacetime is different, is not about abstract vs concrete.
You lie in almost every comment you write so I'll survive if you fallaciously call me a liar.

It's not a fallacy. Information is as measurable as gravity. Information is as concrete as The Universe.
So one could be forgiven for interpreting your use of the word 'religion' as a pejorative.

I like my religion. It works really well for understanding the world

Again: it's a major fallacy. Information is abstract, not concrete and measurable like gravity or the universe, and you know it.
You preach bullshit, and it is a defective way of understanding the world. You are an idiot.

You say that like brushing errors under carpets it's acceptable. Maybe in your field you have low moral standards? In applied ethics that kind of crap doesn't fly

People like you aren't let anywhere near applied ethics.

[Age]

Case in point (twice)

EXACTLY as I predicted. And, i could prove it over and over again with you thousands of more times.

now three times

You have obviously not processed the context properly. Does that mean you did not learn how to process context correctly?

Or, does that just mean what is already absolutely obvious, which is it is impossible to KNOW, for sure, what the context of another person's message IS without gaining clarification first?

In saying that OF COURSE a person can GUESS correctly what the context of another person's message IS. But to be KNOW 100% SURE, clarification is needed first.

Surely you can understand this by now. Or, are you still unable to process the context of this message, correctly?

[Age]

I wasn't talking to you.

I wrote something.
You directly responded to it.
I directly responded back to you, then
You wrote the above.

Why did you write this?

You are both so tedious I thought you were the same person.

Acknowledged.

I'm also not sure why either of you is writing anything because according to both of you, word meanings mean nothing (or anything you want them to mean). You could be talking about the weather for all I know (or care).

If you are not sure why I am writing, then you have misunderstood what I have written. Word meanings do NOT mean nothing to me, (nor anything that i want them to mean).

I started writing in this post because the meaning of words IS the very thing I am questioning. If people are going to insist that There is NO God, OR, That God exists, then I want to KNOW what is the meaning/definition that they have given to the word 'God'. If any person is going to try to argue for, or against, some thing, then, I want to know the meaning that they have given to the words that they are using.

Earlier you accused me of believing in some thing. I asked you to show the reason WHY you believed that was the case. I am still waiting. Until you provide that then i do not know if you have taken out of context what i have written, or, you have just mistaken the meaning to the words i use.

If you are not going to provide the quote that i wrote, which led you to believe some thing that may or may not be true, then i could take that as you have re-read what i wrote, and then have seen what the actual truth is. Thus no need for to provide the "proof".

[Veritas Aequitas]

As can be noticed here select groups of people try and hijack words and phrases for their own underlying reasons.

I agree the ideal should be ALL human beings.
But at present we have to be pragmatic and rely on what is active at present, i.e. the conventional group of people and work from that basis towards the ideal.

Are you really that blinded by your own elitist views? Can you not see how using words like 'present', 'pragmatic', 'active at present', 'conventional group of people', are ALL words that just conveniently coincide with YOU, who is living in this particular present time and WHO is wanting to hang around with a particular group, and do things in a particular. Those words ALL fit in perfectly with YOU and the way that you want to live now. There is absolutely NO objectivity at all on your part. Every thing is absolutely subjective and specifically relative to YOU.

I find your views very constipated and very stupid.
You simply condemn without understanding the whole context.

The point how we can strive for improvements if we do not understand our current status [objectively] in relation to some ideal standards [to be worked upon] which must be objective.

Didn't you read my point 'towards an ideal'?

Do NOT forget the 'general understanding' is NOT the one you want to choose and pick from. To obtain the ideal 'general understanding' of any thing comes from ALL people. NOT just from a pre-selected group of people nor persons. You continually try to argue your point from the actual point of view you are looking from, which is the very opposite of being open entails. To be able to argue a point correctly you have to be able to look from a truly objective point of view, and NOT from the truly subjective viewpoint that you see from.

I find this view VERY stupid.

I agreed the ideal basis must be from ALL people but we have to be pragmatic.
In practice at [present or even the future] how can you get the views of ALL humans on Earth to arrive at your desired results.

Btw, have ever written a thesis at all and understood the very critical necessity of proper sampling?

Where did you get the idea I am drunk and blind "subjectivity."
Note in the Ethics Section, I argued we need absolute objective moral principles as grounds to ensure an effective Framework and System of Morality and System which must by reason must encompass ALL of humans.

You are also very stupid in denouncing any one who quote from other sources.
Re the Russell's quote I stated very clearly that I do not accept it wholesale but we can refer to its various elements and improve on it. Read my post again and thoroughly.

Whilst I would not accept the above on a wholesale basis, I believe there are very relevant elements within the quoted above that is very useful for the purpose.
viewtopic.php?p=379547#p379547

I don't think you read the above at all!
From the way you responds to my posts, it is obvious there is some thing is wrong with you.

[Veritas Aequitas]

You say that like brushing errors under carpets it's acceptable. Maybe in your field you have low moral standards? In applied ethics that kind of crap doesn't fly

People like you aren't let anywhere near applied ethics.

This is TimeSeeker's applied ethics against a woman.

...

If you ever try to play grammar nazi with me in real life I'd probably punch you in the face. Your inability to adapt is not other people's problem...

TimeSeeker,
We discussed inherent psychopathic tendencies in some other posts.

[TimeSeeker]

Again: how two M letters slightly differ or not, and how their position in spacetime is different, is not about abstract vs concrete.

It's precisely about the abstract vs concrete. The difference is not about spacetime either
It is about the INFORMATION they contain. It is right in front of you, but because you only rely on your eyes to compare them - you have absolutely no idea how to extract the 1 to 6 BYTES of information out of those letter. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UTF-8

The point being made: just because two things LOOK the same they are NOT the same. Which is why the label 'rock' is an convenient abstraction

Again: it's a major fallacy. Information is abstract, not concrete and measurable like gravity or the universe, and you know it.

And yet I measure it. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bekenstein_bound
And yet I measure the information in two letters: M and М and by doing so i can tell you if they are THE SAME or if they are DIFFERENT.

YOU CAN'T!

You preach bullshit, and it is a defective way of understanding the world. You are an idiot.

Yet you fail to point out ANY defects. You have identified the fact that I am an 'idiot', but you refuse to teach me a better way to understand the world.

You are an asshole then?

Because I actually see that you are ignorant, and I do want to teach you HOW to do what you can't do (e.g HOW to measure information), here is knowledge: https://www.khanacademy.org/computing/c ... oins-10-12

People like you aren't let anywhere near applied ethics.

Is that a fact? You don't really have enough INFORMATION to make such an assertion.

I think your over-zealous use of the word 'bullshit' should hint what's going on here. And it's not a river in Africa

[TimeSeeker]

We discussed inherent psychopathic tendencies in some other posts.

We also discussed you your inability to make DECISIONS (which you failed to address, as I expected).

Which necessarily puts you at a predicament. Because there are two possible hypotheses to DECIDE from
A. I am a psychopath
B. I am PRETENDING to be a psychopath (which also begs a WHY question)

Sucks to be you. Unable to make DECISIONS.

It's not the end of the world - other people will make those DECISIONS for you, but if philosophy is "love of wisdom" you sure don't love thinking for yourself

[Veritas Aequitas]

Again: how two M letters slightly differ or not, and how their position in spacetime is different, is not about abstract vs concrete.

It's precisely about the abstract vs concrete. The difference is not about spacetime either
It is about the INFORMATION they contain. It is right in front of you, but because you only rely on your eyes to compare them - you have absolutely no idea how to extract the 1 to 6 BYTES of information out of those letter. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UTF-8

Again: it's a major fallacy. Information is abstract, not concrete and measurable like gravity or the universe, and you know it.

And yet I measure it. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bekenstein_bound
And yet I measure the information in two letters: M and М and by doing so i can tell you if they are THE SAME or if they are DIFFERENT.

YOU CAN'T!

You preach bullshit, and it is a defective way of understanding the world. You are an idiot.

Yet you fail to point out ANY defects. You have identified the fact that I am an 'idiot', but you refuse to teach me a better way to understand the world.

You are an asshole then?

Because I actually see that you are ignorant, and I do want to teach you HOW to do what you can't do (e.g HOW to measure information), here is knowledge: https://www.khanacademy.org/computing/c ... oins-10-12

People like you aren't let anywhere near applied ethics.

Is that a fact? You don't really have enough INFORMATION to make such an assertion.

I think your over-zealous use of the word 'bullshit' should hint what's going on here. And it's not a river in Africa

INFORMATION??

Note inFORMation.
The term itself informs us it has nothing to do with essence [empirical] but rather merely deal with the FORM. Note substance over forms.
Thus no matter how much you crank and dig [within computing or Physics] the most you get to is 'the map is not the territory' in its subtlest interpretation.

[TimeSeeker]

Note inFORMation.

*YAAAAAAAAAWN*

let me DEFINE it for you.

Entropy:

entropy.png (9.16 KiB) Viewed 2656 times

Information:

information.png (11.56 KiB) Viewed 2656 times

The term itself informs us it has nothing to do with essence [empirical] but rather merely deal with the FORM. Note substance over forms.
Thus no matter how much you crank and dig [within computing or Physics] the most you get to is 'the map is not the territory' in its subtlest interpretation.

Non-sequitur given my correction to your misconception. Interpretation is a function of information.

Not to mention that my feelings and emotions are also information. So your 'map/territory' distinction is somewhat misplaced.

Let me DEFINE it for you in a way that you can understand.

1 bit of in formation answers one yes/no question.

Am I hungry? I don't know. <--- 0 bits of information!

How can I not know if I am hungry or not?!?!? The answer is either yes or no!

To answer "Am I hungry?" what I am really asking is: "This FEELING within me, this EXPERIENCE that I call 'hunger', is it present or absent? Am I EXPERIENCING hunger right now?".

No, I am not experiencing hunger. 1 bit of information. That is substance! ABOUT MYSELF! This very thing you call EMPIRICISM!

[TimeSeeker]

This is TimeSeeker's applied ethics against a woman.

Also...

1. I didn't know Atla is a woman right until your pointed it out above.
2. Are you suggesting that that I should apply my ethics differently when interacting with Atla just because she is a woman? We have a word for that in English

Note sEXIST. It talks about Existentialism

I totally pulled that last bit out of my ass, but it's par for the course.

Note inFORMation.

[Atla]

You say that like brushing errors under carpets it's acceptable. Maybe in your field you have low moral standards? In applied ethics that kind of crap doesn't fly

People like you aren't let anywhere near applied ethics.

This is TimeSeeker's applied ethics against a woman.

...

If you ever try to play grammar nazi with me in real life I'd probably punch you in the face. Your inability to adapt is not other people's problem...

TimeSeeker,
We discussed inherent psychopathic tendencies in some other posts.

Yep. There have been many morons on this forum, but physically threatening people is new. He also bragged about how he would win a gunfight.

(To TimeSeeker: no I'm not the said woman, learn to read.)

[TimeSeeker]

Yep. There have been many morons on this forum, but physically threatening people is new. He also bragged about how he would win a gunfight.

(To TimeSeeker: no I'm not the said woman, learn to read.)

My reading skills are just fine. It is interpretation that I struggle with. Because I see more INFORMATION than you do Colloquially: I am more observant.

For somebody who claims to be good at "reading" you sure can't tell the difference between a threat and a HYPOTHETICAL.

A hypothetical example is a fictional example that can be used when a speaker is explaining a complicated topic that makes the most sense when it is put into more realistic or relatable terms.

So, take your own advice maybe? Learn to read! There was that magical phrase IF at the beginning of my sentence which your brain clearly failed to parse. That is all the INFORMATION you need to deduce that I am, in fact speaking in hypothetical terms.

Yet, your default response continues to be character assassination. Good thing I don't falter to such lame tactics. Liar!

Refer to this post for the value of hypotheticals in real-world decision-making:

(...)

[Veritas Aequitas]

Yep. There have been many morons on this forum, but physically threatening people is new. He also bragged about how he would win a gunfight.

(To TimeSeeker: no I'm not the said woman, learn to read.)

My reading skills are just fine. It is interpretation that I struggle with. Because I see more INFORMATION than you do Colloquially: I am more observant.

Read through the posts again and this time be much more observant.