quantum

How does science work? And what's all this about quantum mechanics?

Moderators: AMod, iMod

Age
Posts: 20043
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

Re: quantum

Post by Age »

attofishpi wrote: Sun Nov 22, 2020 10:37 pm
uwot wrote: Sun Nov 22, 2020 2:24 pm Well 'they' is a sweeping term but while not all physicists are rocket scientists, most will concede that if predictions aren't matched by observations, something is wrong with the theory - at least something about it is not true. That doesn't stop it being true enough for some purpose.

*Christianity answers these with: god the father, god the son and god the holy ghost - the anthropomorphism of creation, matter and energy. As such genesis, like most creation myths explains where the world came from, what it is made of and how it works - as in Why does it do that? There's very little detail on what the world actually does, which is why religion and science have nothing to do with each other.
I'm sure we can both agree that Christianity answers nothing. What I do like about it is the questions that it raises. One can do science and have an open mind to the concept, or one can do science and have a closed mind to the concept...I know which POV I'd prefer.

The start of Genesis is bloody brilliant. IF there is a God (there is), then I am certain this entity would insist within our reality that 'HIS' book kicks off with what 'HE' wanted it to state at the outset..

And God said, “Let there be light,” and there was light.

Total obvious bull right there, it is a ridiculous notion to consider such an entity would use words to do something. So at the outset an inquisitive mind should consider Y? ...indeed, Y such an entity would allow THE Earth common protocol language to have 'bible' as a homophone to buy_bull.
Does IT want us to just accept? Or question? ...the contents of the book.

Interesting wording "LET" there be light:- sounds like GOD is asking some entity to allow it.
The word 'light' above is in relation to en-lighten-ment.

When one 'lets' the Truly OPEN Mind LOOK AT and SEE things, then things become CRYSTAL CLEAR, or CLEAR as LIGHT, and then that one can and does become Truly en-lighten-ed.

The way words are written they can be used to 'deceive', or hide hidden messages, but when LOOKED AT again, from a Truly OPEN perspective, the ACTUAL message/s can be CLEARLY SEEN, as CLEAR as LIGHT.

When 'you', human beings, LET the 'light' in, then 'you' can SEE 'things' CLEARLY.
attofishpi wrote: Sun Nov 22, 2020 10:37 pm From the outset this GOD entity wants us to conceive of something being 'switched' on - the light - boom!
We have electricity now and an electric light bulb - boom!

We have A.I. in development - we can now conceive of an entity KNOWING EVERYTHING - boom!
'You' can also VERY EASILY 'conceive' of an ALREADY ALL KNOWING Entity, this Entity after all is ALREADY KNOWN as 'God', Itself.
attofishpi wrote: Sun Nov 22, 2020 10:37 pm Asimovs 'The Last Question' does a pretty good job of getting our philosophical thoughts back to the BEGINNING.
https://templatetraining.princeton.edu/ ... asimov.pdf

Jesus, I am starting to sound like Basil Brush! :D
Skepdick
Posts: 14347
Joined: Fri Jun 14, 2019 11:16 am

Re: quantum

Post by Skepdick »

Age wrote: Sun Dec 13, 2020 12:18 pm This is VERY BIG CLAIM you make here.

Now, are you able to back up and support YOUR CLAIM here?
I am not making a claim.
I am simply reporting what I am observing - I am just looking AT what IS, actually True.

Isn't that what you wanted me to do?
Age wrote: Sun Dec 13, 2020 12:18 pm If yes, then what do you propose are the 'whole lot' of 'my biases', in this post?
I don't have to propose anything - there are there!

For EVERYONE to SEE.
Age wrote: Sun Dec 13, 2020 12:18 pm Only after you have provided them, are we then able to LOOK AT them AND be able to discuss them.
You seem to be confused. How can I possibly provide YOUR biases?

You have already provided your biases (they are on display for EVERYONE to SEE!) - now we simply have to discuss them!
Age wrote: Sun Dec 13, 2020 12:18 pm Until then what you say here is just a completely unsubstantiated claim.
That's not true. There are no claims here whatsoever.

Just observations.
Age
Posts: 20043
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

Re: quantum

Post by Age »

Skepdick wrote: Sun Dec 13, 2020 12:42 pm
Age wrote: Sun Dec 13, 2020 12:18 pm This is VERY BIG CLAIM you make here.

Now, are you able to back up and support YOUR CLAIM here?
I am not making a claim.
I am simply reporting what I am observing - I am just looking AT what IS, actually True.

Isn't that what you wanted me to do?
I do NOT want you to do ANY thing other than what you want to do.

I also suggest that if you want to state your observations as though they are true, right, and/or correct, that is; A claim, then you also be able to back up and support YOUR observation/s and claim/s.

However, you are COMPLETELY FREE to choose to not do this.

But you would have to have some very good reasons to not do so.
Skepdick wrote: Sun Dec 13, 2020 12:42 pm
Age wrote: Sun Dec 13, 2020 12:18 pm If yes, then what do you propose are the 'whole lot' of 'my biases', in this post?
I don't have to propose anything - there are there!

For EVERYONE to SEE.
LOL. Obviously you do not 'have to'. But if you CAN NOT or WILL NOT propose ANY, then that would be for reasons.

And, if you will not propose ANY thing, then do not be to surprised if NO one else can SEE what you, allegedly can see.

For all we know what you claim to 'be there' could all of your OWN complete ILLUSION.
Skepdick wrote: Sun Dec 13, 2020 12:42 pm
Age wrote: Sun Dec 13, 2020 12:18 pm Only after you have provided them, are we then able to LOOK AT them AND be able to discuss them.
You seem to be confused. How can I possibly provide YOUR biases?
HOW?

By just expressing what you have, allegedly, observed.
Skepdick wrote: Sun Dec 13, 2020 12:42 pm You have already provided your biases (they are on display for EVERYONE to SEE!) - now we simply have to discuss them!
What a joke.

WHY are you SO AFRAID you just express/expose YOUR OWN OBSERVATIONS?
Skepdick wrote: Sun Dec 13, 2020 12:42 pm
Age wrote: Sun Dec 13, 2020 12:18 pm Until then what you say here is just a completely unsubstantiated claim.
That's not true. There are no claims here whatsoever.

Just observations.
What you call 'observations' I call 'claims' here. For example, to me the words; You have confirmed a whole lot of your biases in this post. is A CLAIM. Which, by the way, you have FAILED MISERABLY in supporting as being true.

Also, what you say here that you have observed is just an allegation, until PROVEN otherwise.

Without ANY actual CLARIFICATION how do you EXPECT "others" to KNOW what you have, supposedly, 'observed', (and claim is true)?
Skepdick
Posts: 14347
Joined: Fri Jun 14, 2019 11:16 am

Re: quantum

Post by Skepdick »

Age wrote: Sun Dec 13, 2020 1:31 pm I also suggest that if you want to state your observations as though they are true, right, and/or correct, that is; A claim, then you also be able to back up and support YOUR observation/s and claim/s.
Observations require no support.

They require looking.
Age wrote: Sun Dec 13, 2020 1:31 pm LOL. Obviously you do not 'have to'. But if you CAN NOT or WILL NOT propose ANY, then that would be for reasons.

And, if you will not propose ANY thing, then do not be to surprised if NO one else can SEE what you, allegedly can see.
Try looking better.
Age wrote: Sun Dec 13, 2020 1:31 pm For all we know what you claim to 'be there' could all of your OWN complete ILLUSION.
Indeed, YOU are imagining things. I haven't made any claims.
Age wrote: Sun Dec 13, 2020 1:31 pm By just expressing what you have, allegedly, observed.
That is what I did!

I observed your biases! <---- This is me expressing it.
Age wrote: Sun Dec 13, 2020 1:31 pm WHY are you SO AFRAID you just express/expose YOUR OWN OBSERVATIONS?
I am not afraid. I AM expressing it. Let me express my observations for you again... in 3...2..1

I observed your biases!
Age wrote: Sun Dec 13, 2020 1:31 pm What you call 'observations' I call 'claims' here.
What a stupid word! I call them observations because I observed them.

Why do you call them claims?
Age wrote: Sun Dec 13, 2020 1:31 pm For example, to me the words; You have confirmed a whole lot of your biases in this post. is A CLAIM. Which, by the way, you have FAILED MISERABLY in supporting as being true.
Supporting my observations?!? What an idiotic notion!

What would you like me to do? Observe again?

Age wrote: Sun Dec 13, 2020 1:31 pm Also, what you say here that you have observed is just an allegation, until PROVEN otherwise.
Proving observations??!?! What a fucking idiotic notion!

Prove to me that you are speaking English right now!
Age wrote: Sun Dec 13, 2020 1:31 pm Without ANY actual CLARIFICATION how do you EXPECT "others" to KNOW what you have, supposedly, 'observed', (and claim is true)?
I don't expect any such thing from others. I expect you to just LOOK AT what IS alone.
Age
Posts: 20043
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

Re: quantum

Post by Age »

Skepdick wrote: Sun Dec 13, 2020 1:45 pm
Age wrote: Sun Dec 13, 2020 1:31 pm I also suggest that if you want to state your observations as though they are true, right, and/or correct, that is; A claim, then you also be able to back up and support YOUR observation/s and claim/s.
Observations require no support.

They require looking.
But, if you want to express your "observations" and expect them to be accepted, then you need to be able to back them up and support them with actual evidence and/or proof.

OBVIOUSLY, you are completely INCAPABLE of doing this. So, either you FEAR the outcome, or, your "observations' were FALSE from the outset.
Skepdick wrote: Sun Dec 13, 2020 1:45 pm
Age wrote: Sun Dec 13, 2020 1:31 pm LOL. Obviously you do not 'have to'. But if you CAN NOT or WILL NOT propose ANY, then that would be for reasons.

And, if you will not propose ANY thing, then do not be to surprised if NO one else can SEE what you, allegedly can see.
Try looking better.
This is the WORST attempt at "justifying" your NON ACTIONS that I have ever OBSERVED.
Skepdick wrote: Sun Dec 13, 2020 1:45 pm
Age wrote: Sun Dec 13, 2020 1:31 pm For all we know what you claim to 'be there' could all of your OWN complete ILLUSION.
Indeed, YOU are imagining things. I haven't made any claims.
Yes you have when you made the CLAIM that you had OBSERVED that I have confirmed a whole lot of your biases in this post.

You CLAIM that you can SEE a "whole lot of biases of mine". You even CLAIM that these "biases" have been CONFIRMED.

But your complete INABILITY to SHOW absolutely ANY evidence at all for this OBSERVATION of YOURS just PROVES that 'you' are LYING, being DECEIVED or DECEITFUL, and/or are IMAGINING things, which are NOT THERE AT ALL.

Your lack of providing ANY thing at all is just PROVING me MORE CORRECT the longer this keeps going on for.

So, please FEEL FREE to NOT provide ANY thing at all to back up and support, what 'you' call, YOUR OBSERVATIONS.
Age wrote: Sun Dec 13, 2020 1:31 pm By just expressing what you have, allegedly, observed.
That is what I did!

I observed your biases! <---- This is me expressing it.[/quote]

That is just 'you' expressing what you said YOU OBSERVED.

But because you have FAILED COMPLETELY in providing absolutely ANY evidence at all what you say (or claim) you have observed here could be just one of YOUR BIGGEST LIES or DECEITS that you have attempted to make here in this forum. But which I am EXPOSING now.
Skepdick wrote: Sun Dec 13, 2020 1:45 pm
Age wrote: Sun Dec 13, 2020 1:31 pm WHY are you SO AFRAID you just express/expose YOUR OWN OBSERVATIONS?
I am not afraid. I AM expressing it. Let me express my observations for you again... in 3...2..1

I observed your biases!
Okay. If you say so, then is MUST BE so, correct?

And, this my friends is ANOTHER PRIME EXAMPLE of just how CONFIRMATION BIASES can so EASILY FOOL and DECEIVE the recipient.

This person known here as "skepdick" actually BELIEVES wholeheartedly that they have "observed" some 'thing' but they actually have ABSOLUTELY NO 'thing' at all which could back up and support this BELIEF. This person is ACTUALLY SEEING 'things' which are NOT actually 'there' solely because of pre-existing 'confirmation biases'.
Skepdick wrote: Sun Dec 13, 2020 1:45 pm
Age wrote: Sun Dec 13, 2020 1:31 pm What you call 'observations' I call 'claims' here.
What a stupid word! I call them observations because I observed them.

Why do you call them claims?
BECAUSE 'you', "skepdick", made the CLAIM that "I have confirmed a whole lot of I biases in this post."

Which, do NOT forget, you have FAILED WHOLEHEARTEDLY in backing up and supporting.

Remember we are in a PHILOSOPHY FORUM. So, if you want to say that you have "observed" things but CAN NOT or WILL NOT provide absolutely ANY evidence NOR proof for what you SAY you have observed, then that is all well and good. But I would suggest that you NEVER expect ANY one to accept what you say is actually true at all. This is because if you WILL NOT provide ANY supporting evidence for your "observations", then there is a VERY GOOD REASON for this. Which, I will add, becomes MORE CLEARER and MORE OBVIOUS the more 'you' 'try to' HIDE.
Skepdick wrote: Sun Dec 13, 2020 1:45 pm
Age wrote: Sun Dec 13, 2020 1:31 pm For example, to me the words; You have confirmed a whole lot of your biases in this post. is A CLAIM. Which, by the way, you have FAILED MISERABLY in supporting as being true.
Supporting my observations?!? What an idiotic notion!
'You' can 'try' absolutely ANY and EVERY 'tactic' as you like to 'try to' DEFLECT away from YOUR COMPLETE INABILITY to PROVIDE EVIDENCE. But they do NOT work on 'me'.

YOUR LIES and DECEITS are GLARINGLY OBVIOUS, and will REMAIN SO.
Skepdick wrote: Sun Dec 13, 2020 1:45 pm What would you like me to do? Observe again?
Considering, especially, that we are in a 'philosophy forum' what I would like 'you' to do is just provide EVIDENCE of what you CLAIM you have OBSERVED. JUST LIKE a person on a 'science forum' would HAVE TO provide EVIDENCE of what they have CLAIMED to have OBSERVED. Otherwise ANY one could say that they have "observed" ANY thing, in the hope that this will somehow PROVE what they ALREADY BELIEVE and ACCEPT is true.

People can NOT just go around saying things like; "Actually the earth revolves around the sun", and expect this to be accepted by "others" without providing absolutely ANY evidence at all.

If people WANT "others" to ACCEPT that what they say [claim] that they have OBSERVED is true, then they NEED TO back up AND support this with actual EVIDENCE and/or PROOF. Which is something that you have FAILED doing here, COMPLETELY.
Skepdick wrote: Sun Dec 13, 2020 1:45 pm
Age wrote: Sun Dec 13, 2020 1:31 pm Also, what you say here that you have observed is just an allegation, until PROVEN otherwise.
Proving observations??!?! What a fucking idiotic notion!
If you say and BELIEVE so.

This BELIEF of YOURS will ALLOW you to SAY and CLAIM that you have "observed" absolutely ANY thing you like, and that that is ALL 'you' NEED to do. But I will AGAIN suggest to 'you' that 'you' do NOT expect that what you CLAIM to have "observed" to be accepted, by ANY one.
Skepdick wrote: Sun Dec 13, 2020 1:45 pm Prove to me that you are speaking English right now!
WHY?

What for?

Your BELIEFS about, so called, "philosophers", and about 'philosophy' itself, and the CONFIRMATION BIASES associated with this BELIEF of YOURS is leading 'you' completely astray. You are confirming YOUR CONFIRMATION BIASES more and more the further we keep going on with this.

By the way, I am WRITING. And, I am WRITING in a 'language' whatever one CHOOSES to call 'it'.

OBVIOUSLY, NOT EVERY one calls the language, which you call "english", 'english'. And, if you CHOOSE to call the language before your eyes RIGHT NOW 'english' or not is completely up to you, and is YOUR CHOICE ALONE.

Also, if you were to inform me of how 'you' define the word 'english', then I COULD PROVE, to 'you', whether one is speaking, or writing, in 'english' or not.

Do you call these words in front of 'you' NOW 'english'?

If yes, then this is ALREADY self-PROVEN.

However, if no, then okay.
Skepdick wrote: Sun Dec 13, 2020 1:45 pm
Age wrote: Sun Dec 13, 2020 1:31 pm Without ANY actual CLARIFICATION how do you EXPECT "others" to KNOW what you have, supposedly, 'observed', (and claim is true)?
I don't expect any such thing from others. I expect you to just LOOK AT what IS alone.
I am doing this.

As EVIDENCED and PROVEN above.
Skepdick
Posts: 14347
Joined: Fri Jun 14, 2019 11:16 am

Re: quantum

Post by Skepdick »

Age wrote: Sun Dec 13, 2020 9:06 pm But, if you want to express your "observations" and expect them to be accepted, then you need to be able to back them up and support them with actual evidence and/or proof.
Age, what planet are you from? Observations ARE evidence!

Meanwhile "proofs" are for Mathematics.

I cannot PROVE that you are an idiot.

I can only acquire EVIDENCE (in the form of observation) THAT you are an idiot.
Age
Posts: 20043
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

Re: quantum

Post by Age »

Skepdick wrote: Mon Dec 14, 2020 11:34 am
Age wrote: Sun Dec 13, 2020 9:06 pm But, if you want to express your "observations" and expect them to be accepted, then you need to be able to back them up and support them with actual evidence and/or proof.
Age, what planet are you from? Observations ARE evidence!
LOL Okay.

Observations ARE evidence.
I have observed that 'you', "skepdick" have been continually LYING.
Therefore, based on these 'observations', which ARE 'evidence', it IS concluded that the one known as "skepdick" CONTINUALLY LIES.

And, NOTHING MORE needs to be said. Agreed?
Skepdick wrote: Mon Dec 14, 2020 11:34 am Meanwhile "proofs" are for Mathematics.
How narrowed and short sighted a view can one have?
Skepdick wrote: Mon Dec 14, 2020 11:34 am I cannot PROVE that you are an idiot.

I can only acquire EVIDENCE (in the form of observation) THAT you are an idiot.

LOL Okay.

The sun is OBSERVED revolving around the earth EVERY day.
Therefore, this is EVIDENCE that the sun revolves around the earth.

The absurdity AND idiocy of this speaks for ITSELF.


Observations ARE observations. Just like,
Evidence IS evidence.

Observations, themselves, are NOT evidence. Observations ARE just what is observed. And, OBVIOUSLY, what is observed is NOT necessarily what IS.

For example, If I were to say, I have observed that you have confirmed a whole lot of your biases in this post. Then, according to "skepdick's", so called, "logic", then this WOULD BE ACTUAL EVIDENCE that "skepdick" has CONFIRMED A WHOLE LOT OF "skepdick's" BIASES IN THAT POST, correct?

You OBVIOUSLY can NOT answer any thing else but, "Yes that is correct", without completely CONTRADICTING "yourself".

Therefore, this MEANS that I have ACTUAL EVIDENCE, just because I have observed what I said I have observed.

The ridiculousness AND absurdity of this IS BLINDING.

By the way, WHY can 'you' NOT prove that 'I' am idiot? Do you NOT YET KNOW what an 'idiot' IS? Because if you did, and to 'you', 'I' am what an 'idiot' IS, then 'you' could PROVE and SAY VERY EASILY and VERY SIMPLY; 'I' am an 'idiot'.

Some are even suggesting now that if one could NOT prove such an EXTREMELY simple AND easy thing to prove, then they might be an 'idiot', them self.
Age
Posts: 20043
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

Re: quantum

Post by Age »

Skepdick wrote: Mon Dec 14, 2020 11:34 am
Age wrote: Sun Dec 13, 2020 9:06 pm But, if you want to express your "observations" and expect them to be accepted, then you need to be able to back them up and support them with actual evidence and/or proof.
Age, what planet are you from?
Irrelevant.
Skepdick wrote: Mon Dec 14, 2020 11:34 am Observations ARE evidence!
Observations ARE observations. And, as I ALREADY said, evidence IS evidence.
Skepdick wrote: Mon Dec 14, 2020 11:34 am Meanwhile "proofs" are for Mathematics.
'Proofs' are for human beings.

'Mathematics' is a subject, for human beings.
Skepdick wrote: Mon Dec 14, 2020 11:34 am I cannot PROVE that you are an idiot.
'You' could, IF you KNEW HOW.
Skepdick wrote: Mon Dec 14, 2020 11:34 am I can only acquire EVIDENCE (in the form of observation) THAT you are an idiot.
However, if you say that you have acquired EVIDENCE, but you can NOT PROVE this, then there is ABSOLUTELY NO USE at all in even saying that you have acquired evidence.

For example, if you CLAIM that you have "acquired EVIDENCE" (in the form of observation) THAT 'I' am an 'idiot', but you have ABSOLUTELY NOTHING AT ALL to back up and support this CLAIM of YOURS, then WHY even say it?

What would be the ACTUAL PURPOSE of saying and stating such a thing?

Is there any other PURPOSE, stating such a thing, other than to just make you feel 'good', or somewhat 'better'?
Skepdick
Posts: 14347
Joined: Fri Jun 14, 2019 11:16 am

Re: quantum

Post by Skepdick »

Age wrote: Mon Dec 14, 2020 12:05 pm
Skepdick wrote: Mon Dec 14, 2020 11:34 am
Age wrote: Sun Dec 13, 2020 9:06 pm But, if you want to express your "observations" and expect them to be accepted, then you need to be able to back them up and support them with actual evidence and/or proof.
Age, what planet are you from?
Irrelevant.
Skepdick wrote: Mon Dec 14, 2020 11:34 am Observations ARE evidence!
Observations ARE observations. And, as I ALREADY said, evidence IS evidence.
Skepdick wrote: Mon Dec 14, 2020 11:34 am Meanwhile "proofs" are for Mathematics.
'Proofs' are for human beings.

'Mathematics' is a subject, for human beings.
Skepdick wrote: Mon Dec 14, 2020 11:34 am I cannot PROVE that you are an idiot.
'You' could, IF you KNEW HOW.
Skepdick wrote: Mon Dec 14, 2020 11:34 am I can only acquire EVIDENCE (in the form of observation) THAT you are an idiot.
However, if you say that you have acquired EVIDENCE, but you can NOT PROVE this, then there is ABSOLUTELY NO USE at all in even saying that you have acquired evidence.

For example, if you CLAIM that you have "acquired EVIDENCE" (in the form of observation) THAT 'I' am an 'idiot', but you have ABSOLUTELY NOTHING AT ALL to back up and support this CLAIM of YOURS, then WHY even say it?

What would be the ACTUAL PURPOSE of saying and stating such a thing?

Is there any other PURPOSE, stating such a thing, other than to just make you feel 'good', or somewhat 'better'?
Further observation confirms the hypothesis that Age is an idiot.

I have no idea how to PROVE things outside of Mathematics. Evidently you do, so I guess you'll show me.

Please PROVE that you are observing red.
download (1).jpeg
download (1).jpeg (1.25 KiB) Viewed 2424 times
Age
Posts: 20043
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

Re: quantum

Post by Age »

Skepdick wrote: Mon Dec 14, 2020 12:22 pm
Age wrote: Mon Dec 14, 2020 12:05 pm
Skepdick wrote: Mon Dec 14, 2020 11:34 am
Age, what planet are you from?
Irrelevant.
Skepdick wrote: Mon Dec 14, 2020 11:34 am Observations ARE evidence!
Observations ARE observations. And, as I ALREADY said, evidence IS evidence.
Skepdick wrote: Mon Dec 14, 2020 11:34 am Meanwhile "proofs" are for Mathematics.
'Proofs' are for human beings.

'Mathematics' is a subject, for human beings.
Skepdick wrote: Mon Dec 14, 2020 11:34 am I cannot PROVE that you are an idiot.
'You' could, IF you KNEW HOW.
Skepdick wrote: Mon Dec 14, 2020 11:34 am I can only acquire EVIDENCE (in the form of observation) THAT you are an idiot.
However, if you say that you have acquired EVIDENCE, but you can NOT PROVE this, then there is ABSOLUTELY NO USE at all in even saying that you have acquired evidence.

For example, if you CLAIM that you have "acquired EVIDENCE" (in the form of observation) THAT 'I' am an 'idiot', but you have ABSOLUTELY NOTHING AT ALL to back up and support this CLAIM of YOURS, then WHY even say it?

What would be the ACTUAL PURPOSE of saying and stating such a thing?

Is there any other PURPOSE, stating such a thing, other than to just make you feel 'good', or somewhat 'better'?
Further observation confirms the hypothesis that Age is an idiot.

I have no idea how to PROVE things outside of Mathematics. Evidently you do, so I guess you'll show me.

Please PROVE that you are observing red.

download (1).jpeg
There are so many COMPLETELY UNNECESSARY issues arising here now.

1. A 'hypothesis' is NOT necessarily what is ACTUALLY True NOR what is necessarily even CLOSE to be True.

2. The above is just YOUR 'hypothesis' here, which is just a guess or an assumption of YOURS after all.

3. Now, because you would LOVE this presumption of YOURS to be ABSOLUTELY True, you will tend to only look for 'THAT', which backs up AND supports YOUR OWN 'hypothesis'.

4. Then absolutely ANY further observations you make, which you think or BELIEVE back up AND support your OWN, ALREADY made up, 'hypothesis', then you will OBVIOUSLY start BELIEVING MORE that your OWN 'hypothesis' is ACTUALLY or ABSOLUTELY True.

5. Unfortunately though, and this brings us directly back to my first reply to you in this thread where I said:
Instead of just LOOKING AT what IS alone, most of 'you' tend to LOOK FOR what you guess/assume is correct, and/or hope is true.

WHICH IS EXACTLY; what 'you', "skepdick", are doing and PROVING here. Which is what I have been POINTING OUT and SAYING, all along

6. Now because the BElIEF-system is a self-supporting system, you start SEEING only 'that', which backs up AND supports your ALREADY HELD ONTO ASSUMPTIONS and BELIEFS.

7.And then when you start SEEING MORE of what you BELIEVE supports your ALREADY held VIEWS, then it is just a complete downhill spiral from there. Which thanks to 'you', "skepdick", are EVIDENCING and PROVING here-now FULLY, for me.

8. Therefore, if you are ACTUALLY "seeing" and "observing" that 'I' am an "idiot", then this is because that brain, with its ALREADY held onto BELIEFS and the BELIEF- system itself, will only allow 'you' to SEE what 'you' ALREADY BELIEVE is True.

9.Thus, "confirming" a self-refering LOOP, to you ALONE.

And these nine are just from your first CLAIM that;
I can ONLY acquire EVIDENCE (in the form of observation) THAT you are an idiot.

If that is True that you can ONLY 'acquire' this, then I have just EXPLAINED the very reason WHY.

The rest of your comments, and CLAIMS, I may return to later.
User avatar
attofishpi
Posts: 9939
Joined: Tue Aug 16, 2011 8:10 am
Location: Orion Spur
Contact:

Re: quantum

Post by attofishpi »

Age wrote: Sun Dec 13, 2020 12:28 pm
attofishpi wrote: Sun Nov 22, 2020 10:37 pm
uwot wrote: Sun Nov 22, 2020 2:24 pm Well 'they' is a sweeping term but while not all physicists are rocket scientists, most will concede that if predictions aren't matched by observations, something is wrong with the theory - at least something about it is not true. That doesn't stop it being true enough for some purpose.

*Christianity answers these with: god the father, god the son and god the holy ghost - the anthropomorphism of creation, matter and energy. As such genesis, like most creation myths explains where the world came from, what it is made of and how it works - as in Why does it do that? There's very little detail on what the world actually does, which is why religion and science have nothing to do with each other.
I'm sure we can both agree that Christianity answers nothing. What I do like about it is the questions that it raises. One can do science and have an open mind to the concept, or one can do science and have a closed mind to the concept...I know which POV I'd prefer.

The start of Genesis is bloody brilliant. IF there is a God (there is), then I am certain this entity would insist within our reality that 'HIS' book kicks off with what 'HE' wanted it to state at the outset..

And God said, “Let there be light,” and there was light.

Total obvious bull right there, it is a ridiculous notion to consider such an entity would use words to do something. So at the outset an inquisitive mind should consider Y? ...indeed, Y such an entity would allow THE Earth common protocol language to have 'bible' as a homophone to buy_bull.
Does IT want us to just accept? Or question? ...the contents of the book.

Interesting wording "LET" there be light:- sounds like GOD is asking some entity to allow it.
The word 'light' above is in relation to en-lighten-ment.

When one 'lets' the Truly OPEN Mind LOOK AT and SEE things, then things become CRYSTAL CLEAR, or CLEAR as LIGHT, and then that one can and does become Truly en-lighten-ed.

The way words are written they can be used to 'deceive', or hide hidden messages, but when LOOKED AT again, from a Truly OPEN perspective, the ACTUAL message/s can be CLEARLY SEEN, as CLEAR as LIGHT.

When 'you', human beings, LET the 'light' in, then 'you' can SEE 'things' CLEARLY.
attofishpi wrote: Sun Nov 22, 2020 10:37 pm From the outset this GOD entity wants us to conceive of something being 'switched' on - the light - boom!
We have electricity now and an electric light bulb - boom!

We have A.I. in development - we can now conceive of an entity KNOWING EVERYTHING - boom!
'You' can also VERY EASILY 'conceive' of an ALREADY ALL KNOWING Entity, this Entity after all is ALREADY KNOWN as 'God', Itself.
attofishpi wrote: Sun Nov 22, 2020 10:37 pm Asimovs 'The Last Question' does a pretty good job of getting our philosophical thoughts back to the BEGINNING.
https://templatetraining.princeton.edu/ ... asimov.pdf

Jesus, I am starting to sound like Basil Brush! :D
Hey, let me be as succinct as I can.. U R A WANKER.
Age
Posts: 20043
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

Re: quantum

Post by Age »

attofishpi wrote: Tue Dec 15, 2020 10:19 am
Age wrote: Sun Dec 13, 2020 12:28 pm
attofishpi wrote: Sun Nov 22, 2020 10:37 pm

I'm sure we can both agree that Christianity answers nothing. What I do like about it is the questions that it raises. One can do science and have an open mind to the concept, or one can do science and have a closed mind to the concept...I know which POV I'd prefer.

The start of Genesis is bloody brilliant. IF there is a God (there is), then I am certain this entity would insist within our reality that 'HIS' book kicks off with what 'HE' wanted it to state at the outset..

And God said, “Let there be light,” and there was light.

Total obvious bull right there, it is a ridiculous notion to consider such an entity would use words to do something. So at the outset an inquisitive mind should consider Y? ...indeed, Y such an entity would allow THE Earth common protocol language to have 'bible' as a homophone to buy_bull.
Does IT want us to just accept? Or question? ...the contents of the book.

Interesting wording "LET" there be light:- sounds like GOD is asking some entity to allow it.
The word 'light' above is in relation to en-lighten-ment.

When one 'lets' the Truly OPEN Mind LOOK AT and SEE things, then things become CRYSTAL CLEAR, or CLEAR as LIGHT, and then that one can and does become Truly en-lighten-ed.

The way words are written they can be used to 'deceive', or hide hidden messages, but when LOOKED AT again, from a Truly OPEN perspective, the ACTUAL message/s can be CLEARLY SEEN, as CLEAR as LIGHT.

When 'you', human beings, LET the 'light' in, then 'you' can SEE 'things' CLEARLY.
attofishpi wrote: Sun Nov 22, 2020 10:37 pm From the outset this GOD entity wants us to conceive of something being 'switched' on - the light - boom!
We have electricity now and an electric light bulb - boom!

We have A.I. in development - we can now conceive of an entity KNOWING EVERYTHING - boom!
'You' can also VERY EASILY 'conceive' of an ALREADY ALL KNOWING Entity, this Entity after all is ALREADY KNOWN as 'God', Itself.
attofishpi wrote: Sun Nov 22, 2020 10:37 pm Asimovs 'The Last Question' does a pretty good job of getting our philosophical thoughts back to the BEGINNING.
https://templatetraining.princeton.edu/ ... asimov.pdf

Jesus, I am starting to sound like Basil Brush! :D
Hey, let me be as succinct as I can.. U R A WANKER.
Okay.
Post Reply