01 | 02 | 03 | 04 | 05 | 06 | 07 | 08 | 09 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | 25 | 26 | 27 | 28 | 29 | 30 | 31 | 32 | 33 | 34 | 35 | 36 | 37 | 38 | 39 | 40 | 41 | 42 | 43 | 44 | 45 | 46 | 47 | 48 | 49 | 50 | 51 | 52 | 53 | 54 | 55 | 56 | 57 | 58 | 59 | 60 |
61 | 62 | 63 | 64 | 65 | 66 | 67 | 68 | 69 | 70 | 71 | 72 | 73 | 74 | 75 | 76 | 77 | 78 | 79 | 80 | 81 | 82 | 83 | 84 | 85 | 86 | 87 | 88 | 89 | 90 | 91 | 92 | 93 | 94 | 95 | 96 | 97 | 98 | 99 | 100 | 101 | 102 | 103 | 104 | 105 | 106 | 107 | 108 | 109 | 110 | 111 | 112 | 113 | 114 | 115 | 116 | 117 | 118 | 119 | 120 |
121 | 122 | 123 | 124 | 125 | 126 | 127 | 128 | 129 | 130 | 131 | 132 | 133 | 134 | 135 | 136 | 137 | 138 | 139 | 140 | 141 | 142 | 143 | 144 | 145 | 146 | 147 | 148 | 149 | 150 | 151 | 152 | 153 | 154 | 155 | 156 | 157 | 158 | 159 | 160 | 161 | 162 | 163 | 164 | 165 | 166 | 167 | 168 | 169 | 170 | 171 | 172 | 173 | 174 | 175 | 176 | 177 | 178 | 179 | 180 |
<= [471][472][473][474][475][476][477][478][479][480] => |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1217 |
So his »Arrow of Time« is merely an »Error of Mind«. **
The idea that all things fall to entropy is an exaggeration and certainly not fundamental to physics or the universe. **
1218 |
1219 |
The population is no where near as exponential as the technology growth behind closed doors. The population rate in the USA is less than 1% and has been declining for decades. **
Country | Birthrates | Fertility rates | Year |
Bosnia | 9 | 1.2 | 2010 |
Burkina Faso | 44 | 6.0 | 2010 |
Burundi | 47 | 6.8 | 2010 |
Chad | 45 | 6.2 | 2010 |
China | 12 | 1.7 | 2010 |
Germany | 9 | 1.4 | 2010 |
Guinea-Bissau | 50 | 7.1 | 2010 |
Italy | 9 | 1.3 | 2010 |
Japan | 9 | 1.3 | 2010 |
Kenya | 39 | 5.0 | 2010 |
Mali | 48 | 6.5 | 2010 |
Mexico | 19 | 2.1 | 2010 |
Uganda | 47 | 6.7 | 2010 |
World | 20 | 2,5 | 2010 |
1220 |
Arminius wrote:
»To you there is no end of the universe. And what about the time? Can you imagine that there is a backward running time?« ** **
No.
I would have to think about it more, but I'm pretty certain that there is no combination of changes that you could make that would cause a given state of the universe to roll backwards in time, even a small limited universe.
It is kind of an interesting problem, part of which would involve reversing the following;
To reverse that occurrence, one would have to reverse the vector of the photon and also reverse absolute infinity with absolute zero. The vacuum of space would become solid and mass would be a hole in that solid. And also if you did that, »2+2« would equal »0« and »2-2« would equal »4«. And that wouldn't be a problem except for the fact that it would reverse distance addition. If you added the distance between A and B twice, you would have less distance than what is between A and B. And that would then require that you defy logic itself such that »A = !A«. And by making »A = !A«, the photon is everything but the photon. If the photon is everything but the photon, then the photon isn't running backwards. But that is okay because running backwards is not running backwards (A=!A).
So in the long run, I suspect that an attempt to reverse time would reverse the attempt to reverse time and yield nothing.
Thus, no, I don't believe that there can ever be any region of space wherein time is reversed. Logic cannot be used against itself (else it wasn't logic to begin with). What we experience as the »real laws of physics« is the only possible way it can ever be anywhere at any time.
What is being called »The Arrow of Time« (whoever labeled it) is merely the effect of logic itself and can never be altered. But that is a slightly different issue than entropy reversal.
So I guess that means;
4.) our thoughts - is the problem. Once logic is fleshed out concerning physical existence, there is a total lack of alternatives. No universe can be any other way (except its current state, which must always be different). **
1221 |
Blacks are no more fertile than whites. It has more to do with wealth than colour.
And, btw. The graphs you are posting are projections, not reality. **
1222 |
Kind of makes you wonder why that would be, doesn't it. **
1223 |
I've been to Africa. **
It it not relevant that they are black, but that they are poor. **
1224 |
As the date is not yet 2050 as posted on the graph, the situation IS not yet the case. **
1225 |
People in third world countries have less economic opportunities, unemployment is soaring, and men tend to be at a loss as to what to do from day to day. They have a lot of time on their hands, and they usually spend a LOT more time in the sack, making love with their women. If they hd more viable occupations, to occupy their minds, they would not be constantly churning out more and more populations. **
1226 |
Arminius wrote:
»Interesting, James. But if our thoughts are merely the problem, then it is difficult to say, that our laws of physics and especially our laws of mathematics are no problem because laws of physics and laws of mathematics are products of our thoughts, and we really don't know with safety whether the laws of physics and the laws of mathematics reflect the realitiy or not and whether the reality is really real or not.
We have the subject-object-dualism. In order to overcome the subject-object-dualism Martin Heidegger (1889-1976) established his existence-philosophical concept In-der-Welt-Sein (To-Be-in-the-World) as an existential of human beings' Dasein, as an human existence in the world. (**).« ** **
Sounds like a good reason to get »our thoughts« in order, doesn't it?
If you get the thoughts straight (form a consistent, comprehensive, and relevant ontology), the proposed laws of logic, mathematics, and physics will be the accurate laws of logic, mathematics, and physics, right? But if you merely got the laws of physics right, how would you know if your thoughts are still eschewed? And the thoughts being eschewed leaves you with not even knowing whether the laws were right. You end up searching past what you were looking for.
Heidegger was a serious thinker (despite looking like a demonic psychiatrist). I'll give him that credit along with many of that era, but with a little perspective, you have to realize that they were »breaking ground« and not entirely coherent yet in their thoughts. The object/subject dualism is not really a very complicated issue to resolve and is actually a bit irrelevant other than removing potential confusion concerning what is really going on. Once one gets his thoughts straight on what the conscious mind is and fundamentally how it works, it becomes sort of an »Oh okay, no big deal«. The fantasies of days past fade into memories of youthful, misguided musings, (»womanly«).
For example, Einstein described time as »how fast one clock turns relative to another«. That is more or less right but can be a little misleading. Time doesn't really have anything to do with what clocks do or don't do. He could have said that »time is the measure of relative change«. That is a more fundamental and universal truth. But no doubt, the question was relatively new to him and his response was understandable and not really wrong, just not totally precise - yet.
It seems that the world wants to stop all thought at the »enlightenment era« as though all truth to be found was found and is irrefutable, »YOU can't know anything THEY didn't already know!!«. Well sorry, but »Homey don't play that game«. They were in an »Enlighten-ing Era« but never really woke up before wandering off into dreams and fantasies of world conquest and are now dreaming of their glory - "day-dreaming" as the evening fades to night.
Get the thoughts straight (a proper ontology) and everything gets straight (and pretty quickly).
1227 |
1228 |
Arminius wrote:
»Lev Muishkin wrote:
As the date is not yet 2050 as posted on the graph, the situation 'IS' not yet the case. **
Again your nonsense and your communistic lies.« ** **
Take the trouble to what the links i posted.
If you prefer to stay in ignorance and just respond with your childish prejudices then keep your eyes shut. **
1229 |
1230 |
|
1231 |
1232 |
Besides cultural (cp. e.g. decadence and so on), economical (cp. e.g. welfare, debt, terror of consumption and so on) and other reasons there are also techn(olog)ical reasons (cp. e.g. machines and so on) for the decline of the so called developed population, the white population (and their »branches«). Cultural reasons lead - via economical reasons - to techn(olog)ical reasons, and the last ones make the decline complete by mechanical replacing. Machines are the modern »crown of creation«. ** **
1233 |
1234 |
Is the end of history where humanity destroys itself? **
1235 |
All examples you used being very probable. **
Modern technological industrial society worldwide will eventually collapse. Things in motion now are speeding up that process. It's an inevitability.
However out of the ashes of this collapsed civilization globally lies opportunities for the creation of entirely new cultures, societies, and civilizations.
A new history can emerge even upon the destruction of the older variation. **
1236 |
1237 |
All I know is that whatever happens I look forward to the day when the establishment collapses completely and seeing once kings become the new vagabonds.
If there is anything I enjoy it is seeing the once mighty being brought down low underfoot.
I like watching people from high places fall. **
1238 |
This thread in all seriousness started so well. Now i have a twist on the intent and outcome. I ask Arminius to post a 4th table with breakdowns, before the quality of the forum goes into self destruct.
One thing though, if mankind can resemble analogous silly derivatives , and if this forum may be supposed to be representative of mankind's overall thinking about the role mechanization will play in the future,(after all this is a philosophy forum), then surely Sal type machines can not be afforded the role of taking over man's job of cognitive assignment, since it will shift immediately into dissonance, disarray, with Sal taking over and making humans into subservient slaves. Sal would think, these silly creatures are delusional in thinking they can run any kind of show here, they are fooling themselves. Therefore, very, very smart machines, should not be designed to trump man, man would surely become another endangered species. End of story. I am staying the course, in the indeterminate, column #3. Thank You. **
1239 |
I certainly hope so. I'd worship a machine that worked on taking out humanity; it'd be more worthy of praise than any God than created life. **
1240 |
1241 |
Arminius wrote:
»How can we and especially each of us ever experience whether the subjective or the objective side is the truth?
What makes me sure that I and the experiences I make with myself really exist, or the world and the experiences I make with it really exist? And especially: Which of both sides is true, or are both true? Which? (1.) The subjective one? (2.) The objective one? (3.) Both?
Do I think, or does the world think in me, or are both sides true? Is the world my will and my representation / idea (cp. Arthur Schopenhauer, Die Welt als Wille und Vorstellung [The World as Will and Representation], 1818), or merely nothing but my thoughts, or both?« ** **
Well, I'm glad that you explained that, because I would not have guessed that to be a serious »problem« for you. **
But I would have guessed that you believe in an objective reality; a reality distinct from whatever you might think of it. Is that right? **
1242 |
In the case of the electron, it has been shown that an electron will not actually respond to the removal of a nearby charged particle until enough time is given for the field of that remote charge to also fade away. After the field immediately surrounding the electron has changed, the electron will respond accordingly. This indicates that such particles are not actually aware of the remote particle, but rather aware of the field immediately surrounding them.
But also there is strong evidence that an electron cannot distinguish any one charged particle from another as long as the charge field is the same. In fact, as long as the field surrounding the electron is the same, no remote particle need be involved. The electron reacts merely to the field itself regardless of source. There appears to be no evidence that an electron is attempting to recognize anything. **
It has been long argued that the universe itself is a conscious entity regardless of any people or living creatures within it. The universe is certainly an entity that reacts to stimulation. It can be argued that the universe is made of nothing but such reactions. So is the universe conscious? **
It ... can be concluded that the universe itself is not conscious. **
1243 |
1244 |
Here's the video:
Https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ibEwCB7bGIw,
Http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x1xcov ... mbediframeHere's the page on Humanarchy:
This may put the Snowden narrative in a different light. **
1245 |
For exactly the same reason citizens should not be allowed to freely use hard drugs (Heroin, Opium, Cocaine,...), governments should not be allowed to use Technology.
And what happens when you try to take a drug away from a drug addict?
- The same thing that happens when you even hint at taking technology (especially surveillance) away from a government. **
|
1246 |
Examples | Finland | Germany | USA | Brazil | WORLD | |
Richest 20% | about 35% | about 40% | about 47% | about 65% | about 85% | |
Rest (80%) | about 65% | about 60% | about 53% | about 35% | about 15% |
1247 |
As a Pagan I find the following campaign quite interesting, though I don't necessarily agree with every single point. The basic proposal is that the state should be run by an order of priestesses. There's a democratic element too, but subject to veto by the priestesses, and a form of conscription for everyone under 25.
Http://sovereignmercia.webs.com/ **
In Hindu and Buddhist doctrine, reincarnation is a curse, dooming us to play out endless lives of misery, subject to the law of karma.
Pagans see reincarnation in a very different light. The earth is our paradise, to make of what we will. Coming back again and again, sharing our lives with our loved ones each time round, in different relationships, is a great joy.
That's the view among many Pagans, anyway. Others have different views. **
1248 |
The thesis was demanding a distinction between direct physical response (awareness) and remote recognition (consciousness). Inanimate objects, such as that electron, have direct physical awareness in that they respond to their environment. But inanimate objects do not recognize anything at any distance away from themselves and respond only by simple, one-to-one contact, thus do not have cognitive awareness, involving memory references and recognition, nor what we normally refer to as »consciousness«.
Consciousness = Remote Recognition. **
Arminius wrote:
»Why are in that text often used words (e.g.: respond, aware, distinguish, reacts, attempting, recognize, attempt, reaction) which suggest or advise consciousness or at least awareness of particles and of the whole universe by itself?« ** **
Because in the past people have not distinguished between a simple response and remote recognition response, thus their languages do not reflect the distinction. The difference in those is very relevant in distinguishing conscious vs non-conscious and a living entity and non-living entity (although it is not the definitive distinction for »life«). Without making that distinction, philosophers can run around endlessly speculating about what is conscious and what isn't as well as what is live and what isn't. **
The reason this helps to resolve the object/subject issue is because of what it takes for remote recognition to work. For remote recognition to function at all, an ontology must be formed within the entity. That ontology is a »map of relevant existence for the entity« with which is attempts to discern objective reality in a relevant way. And we define »True« as the condition of the ontology when it is a reasonably accurate representation of the objective reality.
The conscious creature's mind functions entirely via his ontological map.
This is a diagram that I hadn't posted because it isn't really showing what I was after, but is still relevant to this discussion;
The left image is an ontological »truth« for literally any and everything we call a »body«. The outside circle, »Entropic Ambience« is referring to the objective world »out there«, outside of the body, in all of its chaos. The inside circle represents a bonding mechanism that works against entropy such as to retard entropy, yielding a suspension in time. And the light brown circle between them is the Anentropic Interface (or what in other posts, I have referred to as the »Entropic Shell«) that keeps the inside distinct from the outside.The Anentropic Interface is possibly the most relevant issue in all thought. It is what separates the »good and bad« or the »positive and negative«. It distinguishes angels from devils, Ego and superego from Id, nutrient from toxin, rational from irrational, and »Us from Them«. It is the Media and Border Patrol between any entity and its surroundings and thus is used in every attempt to control or modify the entity through modifying the entities ability to filter what is to be considered good/positive or bad/negative. It is the source of all laws and thoughts other than the one law that forms the entire universe.
But that is merely »a body«.
The diagram to the right is »a body with a mind«. A mind is an ontological type of body, the functioning of a neurological system. It has the same circles of relevance except that the outer circle, the ambience, is the physical body that it hosts. The neuro-physiology of the body is the ambience of the mind. And the inner circle of the mind is formed by a similar anti-entropic bonding that retards entropy of thought such as to yield greater permanence, known as »memory«.
What all of this has to do with Objective vs. Subjective is that first, such a distinction between a mere body and a body with a mind, is necessary for an understanding of what »subjective« actually means. The concept of »subjective« is itself a portion of the ontological map within the mind. »Subjective« is not itself an objective entity, but an ontological distinction or a declaration of a »reference frame«: »With respect to John, X is good and Y is bad«. Thus subjectivity is entirely an ontological construct that applies only within minded bodies. Subjectivity is not a part of the physical universe, but rather a part of an understanding, ontological map, pertaining to the physical universe.When one asks whether he is in a dream, he is asking of the accuracy of his ontological construct. He is asking, »Is this image that I am seeing true?« Since every image he sees is merely an ontological map constructed by his mental mechanisms that is possibly flawed, it is a valid question. So he isn't actually asking about objective reality as much as asking about »Truth«.
How do you know when an ontology is True?
1) Is it consistent throughout the ontology?
2) Is it comprehensive in every relevant detail?
3) Is it relevant to my subjective concerns?
And that requires detailed analysis. How do you know when the media is lying to you? - Detailed analysis of those »Three Angels of Truth«.Many distinct ontologies can be all true and yet due to not making a distinction in the languages they use, people assume a common ontology referred to as »The Truth«. In reality what is positive or good for John might well be different than what is positive or good for Mary. But when they communicate, they don't make that subjective reference distinction and thus conflate not only the subjective concerns of good, but also any objective concerns of good. Their language reveals their lack of understanding that everyone has his own ontology. And even though a common ontology for all can be developed ( such as Affectance Ontology), the struggles to dominate prevent a coherent and complete ontology from being known to the populous.
Once a True ontology is the common ontology, much like English being the common language, objective and subjective references and understandings will become so inherent that people wouldn't even understand how they could have ever been confused.
So to sum it up;
Everyone has their own eschewed subjective/relative ontology and tend to use common words when communicating and thus intending to be saying one thing while being interpreted as saying something at least slightly different. They have to use their own remote recognition mechanism, their consciousness, in order to live. And they do not currently have a common True ontology such as to be able to have a common reference of Truth to represent objective reality (spoken of in scriptures).The way to discern truth from fiction is to carefully examine for;
1) Inconsistencies
2) Lack of details
3) IrrelevanceAnd that relates to how one can know that the Theory of Relativity and Quantum Physics, although useful, are not actually True. Detailed analysis reveals inconsistency (and especially throughout the Mainstream Media). **
1249 |
I think Christianity is probably a lot less burtal than ancient Greek religion for example. Not all ancient religions were nice. Some of it was worse. **
1250 |
1251 |
Arminius wrote:
»Nonetheless the overcome of the subject/object dualism is probably not possible.« ** **
?? What do you mean by »"the overcome« of it??? Individually, or throughout society? **
If the average IQ of the homosapian had been just a little bit higher, none of it would have been a problem to begin with. The past 10,000 years would have been extremely different. Technology would probably have been developed by someone like the ancient Sumerians. **
1252 |
Arminius wrote:
»Nonetheless the overcome of the subject/object dualism is probably not possible.« ** **
What in my post did you disagree with or not understand? **
1253 |
What's progress? **
To answer this question of what progressivism is one must first define what progress is. **
Arminius wrote:
»Progress« is a rhetorical word. The ideological / secularly religious system of this rhetorical word is »progressivism«. ** **
1254
Arminius wrote:
»How much percent of the gross national product ends up as income after taxes and social transfers?
Examples Finland Germany USA Brazil WORLD Richest 20% * about 35% about 40% about 47% about 65% about 85% Rest (80%) about 65% about 60% about 53% about 35% about 15% The trend is the Brazilization of the World, and the machines contribute much!
And when the Brazilization of the World will be reached, the next trend will be 80/20 (80% to the richest 20% and 20% to the rest, thus 80%).
Guess what the goal is.
And the machines contribute much.« ** **
A plus for the »a« column, of yesses. **
According to a prestigious British Journal of armaments, every country in the world will possess ARMED drones, within 10 years. **
1255 |
40% of the aircraft involved in USA Middle East conflicts are drones. **
1256 |
1257 |
For the most part I believe in an objective reality - like a scientist. But I am also sceptic. I partly believe like a scientist and partly like a philosopher; in other words: I believe like a sceptic thinker, a sceptician, who believes scientifically and philosophically in a sceptic way. To me scientists have always to be sceptic because if they do not be sceptic, they will sooner or later be corrupt. to me philosophers do not have to be, but should be sceptic. ** **
1258
1259 |
Arminius wrote:
»For the most part I believe in an objective reality - like a scientist. But I am also sceptic. I partly believe like a scientist and partly like a philosopher; in other words: I believe like a sceptic thinker, a sceptician, who believes scientifically and philosophically in a sceptic way. To me scientists hae always to be sceptic because if they do not be sceptic, they will sooner or later be corrupt. to me philosophers do not have to be, but should be sceptic.« (**|**) ** **
1260 |
|
1261 |
Can you know with certainty what you think?
When you say or think »box«, do you know for with absolute certainty what it is that you are talking or thinking about? And I am not asking if the box exists. I am only asking if you know your intended concept.And also, can you know with certainty that »A is A«? **
1262 |
Arminius wrote:
»James S. Saint wrote:
40% of the aircraft involved in USA Middle East conflicts are drones. **
Tendency: 100% of the aircraft purely mechanical.« ** **
Yep. or maybe 99%, why not?
Unless people become even cheaper to throw into dangerous situations. Why risk wasting a good drone when you have people to use instead? **
1263 |
Diethert wrote:
»What are your thoughts on local communities?
YES!!.. and very small; 100 or less people in each (for a precise reason).
Diethert wrote:
»Are they too deal in theory?
1264 |
1265 |
Drones do not use human pilots, therefore, less loss of life. **
1266 |
Then I guess it all goes back to my question of whether you meant whether a single individual can know or people throughout society can know. **
Those who don't find out how to know will never know whether anyone else ever found out how to know and thus remain in their doubt and dream until someone wakes them up. Some people just don't care enough to find out. No one is more blind that he who wills to not see. **
1267 |
1268 |
1269 |
Arminius wrote:
»Tyler Durden wrote:
What's progress? **
This beautiful question reminds me of this question:
Tyler Durden wrote:
To answer this question of what progressivism is one must first define what progress is. **
And here comes my answer:
»Arminius wrote:
'Progress' is a rhetorical word. The ideological / secularly religious system of this rhetorical word is 'progressivism'. (**|**) ** **
With that post we are in firm agreement. **
1270 |
![]() |
And just as entropy is not universal in that it can be and often is defeated (by every subatomic particle), the Second »Law« of Thermodynamics isn't a universal »Law«, merely a tendency and most common occurrence.
Photon = an amount of radiant electromagnetic radiation.
Photon Path = the sequence of spatial locations through time of a photon.
Affectance Gradient = a variation in affectance field density, »a gravity field«.
Infinite Mass = maximum density of changing affects, maximum affectance density (although never actually infinite).
Light Fall = the path of a photon as affected by an affectance gradient, gravity.The anime is an emulation of a photon's reaction to a gravity field immediately surrounding it associated with an immensely strong concentration of »mass« (location of high affectance density). Note that the light, the photon, does not maintain a straight path (as noted in astrophysics, »the lensing effect«). Note that the speed of the light is also affected such as to come to nearly a complete stop (would be a complete stop if the mass were truly infinite).
The direction and speed of light is not constant in a gravity field. And then because a gravity gradient cannot be reversed, the path traveled cannot be reversed. **
1271
1272 |
|
1273 |
1274 |
Yet you keep expressing a »maybe«. **
1275 |
1276 |
Arminius wrote:
»Like I said:
More drones, more loss of live because more and more drones will be used and more frequently used, so more and more human beings will be killed by more and more drones, more frequently, and by more wars as consequences of that killing by drones.« (**|**) ** **
Yes, ... until there are no more humans to kill.
The »last man standing« is an android. **
1277 |
The scientist who refuses certainty of what he has done (properly) can never understand the complexities of reality. Understanding is built up from one certainty to another to another. The questions should always be at the top of a mountain of certainties, else the top of the uncertainties will be nothing but so uncertain as to be not worthy of building upon. Clouds just produce more clouds, not mountains. But a scientist is not a philosopher, merely a technician.
If you have a confidence level of 80% for each of 20 dependent issues, what is your confidence of the conclusion concerning the issue?
0.80^20 = 0.011529% probability of being right.
If one is not willing to find certainty and build upon it, one never finds confidence nor courage.
And if one builds upon mere probability of being right, one will be very probably wrong before long.
Slaves are made out of the doubtful. **
1278 |
|
1279 |
1280 |
Secularization of Society. **
1281 |
Arminius wrote:
»Do you say with absolute certainty that all human beings will be replaced by machines?« ** **
Nope. Not me ..., just a high probability. **
1282 |
1283 |
If one only looks for economical reasons for having children, then one will only find a ¼-solution.
There are 4 main reasons:
1.) Biological reasons.
2.) Cultural reasons.
3.) Economical reasons.
4.) Techn(olog)ical reasons.The reason, why decadent people always think the reasons for having children are always and exclusively economical ones, is the fact that they themselves always think (decadently) the reasons for having children would be always and exclusively economical ones. ** **
1284 |
1285 |
1286 |
What you are proposing is contrary to one of the principles of physics - which is: We do not occupy a privileged position in the universe. **
1287 |
1288 |
|
1289 |
Well, a photon isn't an object, but rather an amount. Normal photons get produced by a specific means (electron orbital decay) that always yields specific amounts. But in the case of extreme disintegration, you could not expect all photons to be of such quantum amounts.
And what that theory seems to be missing is the concept of dark matter/energy. High concentrations of affectance (EMR, including photons of every size) aggregate into dense clouds. If the cloud becomes dense enough, it forms a new black hole. Between all of the black holes, the affectance field keeps gravity functioning such as to draw the black holes together. As they collide, they stand a chance of reproducing our more commonly observed »universe« of stars and planets. Because the universe is actually infinite, there can never be a time when a black hole isn't headed toward another. Once two extremely large black-holes collide, a new "local universe" is born.
So there cannot really be any time when there are no photons and even the loss of matter is only temporary. **
1290 |
Arminius wrote:
»James, you should send on or add to you or for you, because the current mainstream physicists have a different theory. According to their theory a photon is a particle, a exchange particle for the electromagnetic force. According to your theory a photon isn't an object, but rather an amount.« ** **
Well, it isn't an issue of »theory« but of ontology. Some people might refer to other people as »objects« (the materialist's perspective). Others would claim that they are not objects, but rather living beings. The language and associated concepts are the only difference. **
Current religious physics requires that »particles« be involved in all exchanges of anything (monetizing or quantizing all exchanges). So no matter what is really happening, seemingly out of a fear of »infinity«, they refer to all exchanges of gravity, momentum, energy, or whatever as being »carried by particles«, as though there were discreet objects involved, which is actually silly. But that is their ontology and easy to prove it to be untrue unless you just define a »particle« as »any small amount«. **
I am not afraid of infinity, so I have no problem with accepting that exchanges occur in indiscreet amounts that I refer to as "afflates" (Affectance Oblates). And with that ontology, I can explain everything they explain as well as things they cannot explain. **
Arminius wrote:
»Do you agree with someone saying that even the black holes will disappear sometime between 10^80 and 10^130 years, with the utmost probability after 10^130 years«? ** **
No.
It would be extremely, extremely, extremely difficult to cause a black hole to dissipate into space before anything else re-fed it or it ran into another black hole. **
And even if a black hole actually did manage to totally disintegrate down to a single particle, nearly impossible to get rid of, at that same moment, other black holes would be forming. **
But for a black hole to actually dissipate would require an unimaginable amount of space void of anything else whatsoever. Each glaxay has its own black hole (so they say). There is a HUGE amount of space between those galaxies, yet the stars and planets are all falling INTO the black holes, not radiating out into the extreme open space. If you were to disintegrate ALL of the stars and planets in a galaxy, an extreme "dark matter" cloud would be the result. And as they already have decided, such »dark energy/matter« acts as gravity, thus drawing and holding energy in, resisting the open expanse. **
If the open expanse around a black hole was extreme enough that the black hole began dissipating (probably requiring the entirety of the known universe for each black hole), as it lost mass, it would accelerate even faster toward another black hole far away. And the closer it got to another black hole, the slower it could dissipate.
The universe just can't get rid of the buggers. **
1291 |
Toy robot detours traffic near Coors Field.
Is this the first sign of the end of the world? Don't worry about us, we're just a large, unstoppable army of friendly machines. On Wednesday afternoon, an innocent citizen was walking along a foot bridge, near Coors Field in Denver, when he spotted an innocent looking toy robot, mysteriously cemented to the floor X. Being a concerned and caring citizen who has watched enough Sci-fi films and terrorist news reports, he immediately considered the possibility that is was either; a bomb cleverly disguised as a toy robot, mysteriously cemented to the floor, or part of an evil robot plot to take over the world disguised as an innocent toy robot, mysteriously cemented to the floor. He immediately called the police to report it. This resulted in a stand-off between police and the toy robot as rush-hour traffic piled up around the area. After hours of the robot refusing to make a move, stand down or surrender, the bomb squad was moved in to assess the situation. Unable to safely determine the threat level posed by the toy robot, the experts decided to remotely detonate it. Examining the pieces of the robot afterwards, they determined it was not in any way a terrorist threat. They, however, still have no idea who put the robot there and why it was mysteriously cemented to the floor.
Stuff-about.coms Institute of Far Out Practical Jokes and Robotic World Domination has been working feverishly around the clock to find an answer to this mystery. They have concluded there is only one possible explanation. The innocent looking toy robot was sent by not so innocent looking robots as the first step in a world domination plan. They are either really angry that their toy was so heartlessly destroyed, and will be detonating a small city as pay back, or do not care, in which case they may be more dangerous than we thought. Alternatively they may have expected the robot to be blown up and taken into custody. In this case it is most likely programmed to reassemble itself once it has successfully infiltrated the Denver police headquarters.
From this point, it will be easy for the robots to gain control and begin taking over the world.
Stuff-about.com is of the opinion that it would be a huge mistake to dismiss this as a rather clever and highly successful practical joke.
See original story here. **
1292 |
I blame Hitler's dietician.
All that vegetarian shit probably pushed him over the edge.
Stalin became the way he was because he was never accepted into church choir with his beautiful Russian singing voice. **
1293 |
|
1294 |
1295 |
Tyler Durden wrote:
»Is the end of history where humanity destroys itself? Curious people want to know.« **
Probably - it will be where we had gradually but surely destroyed the Earth - if we don't wake up! Then, poof, we will go the way of Venus. **
If humans destroy themselves, then it means the end of human evolution:
If humans destroy history or historical existentials / historical cultures, then it means the end of history.Perhaps the humans only start to destroy and the machines will bring it to the end and destroy all humans: the end of human evolution.
Perhaps the humans only start to destroy and the machines will fail, so that some humans will survive without any history: the end of history. ** **
According to Ernst Nolte there are especially the following »historical existentials«:
Religion (God/Gods, a.s.o); Rule (leadership, a.s.o.); Nobleness (nobility, a.s.o.); Classes; State; Great War; City and country as contrast; Education, especially in schools and universities; Science; Order of sexulality / demographics, economics; Historiography / awareness of history! Ernst Nolte wrote (ibid, p. 10):
»Es wird also für möglich gehalten, daß bestimmte grundlegende Kennzeichen - oder Kategorien oder Existenzialien - der historischen Existenz tatsächlich nur für das sechstausendjährige Zwischenspiel der eigentlichen Geschichte bestimmend waren und heute als solche verschwinden oder bereits verschwunden sind, während andere weiterhin in Geltung bleiben, obwohl auch sie einer tiefgreifenden Wandlung unterliegen. Die Analyse solcher Existenzialien im Rahmen eines Schemas der historischen Existenz ist das Hauptziel dieses Buches.
My translation:
»Thus, it is thought possible that certain fundamental characteristic - or categories or existentials - of the historical existence have been decisively only for the six thousand years lasting interlude of the actual history and now are disappearing as such or have already disappeared, while others continued to remain in validity, although they are also subjected to a profound transformation. The analysis of such existentials within the framework of a scheme of historical existenceis the main goal of this book.Ernst Nolte wrote (ibid, p. 672):
»Befinden wir Menschen ... uns bereits in der Nachgeschichte, wie wir den Zustand in Ermangelung eines besseren Terminus nennen wollen, oder doch mindestens im Übergang dazu?«
My translation:
»Are we people ... already in the post-history as we like to call the state for lack of a better term, or at least in the transition to that?«Ernst Nolte wrote (ibid, p. 682):
»Alle historischen Existenzialien ... haben ... grundlegende Änderungen erfahren, und einige, wie der Adel und der große Krieg, sind nicht mehr wahrzunehmen. Aber selbst diese haben sich eher verwandelt, als daß sie ganz verschwunden wären: Der große Krieg bleibt als dunkle Drohung bestehen, und der Adel überlebt in gewisser Weise als Pluralität der Eliten.«
My translation:
»All historical existentialia ... have ... been changed fundamentally, and some, like the nobleness and the Great War, are no longer perceivable. But even these have been transformed rather than that they were all gone: the great war remains as a dark threat, and the nobility survived in some ways as pluralism of elites.«That are some sentences Nolte wrote in his bulky book, which was published in 1998: »Historische Existenz« (»Historical Existence«). ** **
|
1296 |
But all photons can never disappear. **
Sometime between 10^80 and 10^130 years, with the utmost probability after 10^130 years, there will be nothing left except neutrinos and photons in the form of extremely long wavelength electromagnetic radiation in an extremely cold, empty universe. « ** **
Do you agree with someone saying that even the black holes will disappear »sometime between 10^80 and 10^130 years, with the utmost probability after 10^130 years«? ** **
1297
1298 |
Economic localism or regionalism is certainly a better alternative to globalism. **
1299 |
Http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wVY1sAKSIzk[/youtube **
1300 |
Freud built his conclusion that religion is a neurosis. **
1301 |
Well, I agree that the end of history doesn't necessitate the end of Man, but I don't see how the end of Man couldn't also mean the end of history. **
1302 |
| Religion (God/Gods, a.s.o); |
| Rule (leadership, a.s.o.); |
| Nobleness (nobility, a.s.o.); |
| Classes; |
| State; |
| Great War; |
| City and country as contrast; |
| Education, especially in schools and universities; |
| Science; |
| Order of sexulality / demographics, economics; |
| Historiography / awareness of history! |
1303 |
I haven't read Herr Nolte's book but from what I've gleaned from the included quotes, haven't these ideas, though more contemporary, already been expounded in principal by both Nietzsche and Spengler? The term End of History somewhat misleadingly is often used as defining the end of an epoch and not something relating to an actual end as in the Martian Chronicles where Earthlings redefine themselves as Martians because the earth no longer exists as habitable after a nuclear war.
Also, I appreciate the inclusion of the original German. The source is always best! **
The first one who declared the end of history by implying it was Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel. He thought that the movement of the »Enlightenment« (»Aufklärung) had done its work, had accomplished the history, thus had been the last age of history.
Georg
Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel was the first one who came to that conclusion, which became
a »starting signal« for many people, e.g.: | ||
| Karl Marx with his concept of the paradise after the dictatorship of the proletariat - a Left-Hegelian ideology, thus a reference to Hegel; | |
| Friedrich Wilhelm Nietzsche with his concept of the last men; | |
| Oswald A. G. Spengler with his reference to Goethe and Nietzsche, especially with his concept of the decline of culture and the assumption that with the utmost probability there will be no more culture after the decline of the occidental culture; | |
| Martin Heidegger with his reference to Hegel and Nietzsche; | |
| Ernst Jünger with his reference to Spengler (Nietzsche, Goethe); | |
| Alexandre Kojève (Alexandr Koschewnikov) with his his reference to Hegel; | |
| Ernst Nolte with his reference to Hegel and Nietzsche; | |
| Peter Sloterdijk with his reference to Hegel and Nietzsche; | |
| Francis Fukuyama with his reference to Hegel and Nietzsche. |
There have been many more, and I think that they all have been either Hegelians or Nietzscheans (incl. Spenglerians and Heideggerians).
My questions:
What do you think? ** **
1304
As a heathen, I think it would be odd for me to tell heathens how they should live, which a statement of how a heathen should live is a basic form of. Apart from the category issue - »as a non-dualist here's how people who are non-dualists should live« (or pick some other category beginning with non- and encompassing many different types of groups - it's more of an Abrahamic way of thinking, at least from this heathen's perspective. There are some heathen, clearly, who think they know how everyone should live. **
1305 |
1306 |
As machines become less controlled it may have the effect of forcing humans to become smarter .... **
As machines become less controlled it may have the effect of forcing humans to become smarter, maybe more human .... **
As machines become less controlled it may have the effect of forcing humans to become smarter, maybe more human, perhaps less machine like .... **
1307 |
I think Oswald Spengler did a brilliant job articulating the end of Western civilization.
Arminius if you haven't yet read his book Man And Technics. Brilliant articulations to be found there. **
1308 |
Superb writer.
1309 |
Arminius wrote:
What do you think? ** **
Let's get practical. Regardless of all the brilliant intellectuals declaiming on the matter, there is no »end of history« if we have to keep on asking the question. The words »End of History« is fallacious if it only sums up the end of an epoch. It's like saying at the end of Götterdämmerung no one is left alive when it's only the Gods who have left the scene whilst humans are forced to continue. The way EOH is here applied amounts to nothing more than a paragraph within history as a whole. **
1310 |
I have read Spengler, yes. The issue here is the end of Western history and civilization .... **
|
1311 |
Anyways this argument »the average IQ of the world population is sinking« is completely misleading. **
This incessant question as to what Human really is or means puts philosophy itself on the IQ casuality list. **
That's the nature of intelligence which is always half blind walking into the future. How can it be otherwise? **
Do you have any evidence to support that statement? **
1312 |
To ask how a heathen should live seems to have the kind of universal, rigid morality I associate more with Abrahamic religions. **
1313 |
Obe wrote:
»So i gather, Monad is in the indeterminate column?, as well?« **
What does »indeterminate« mean? **
1314 |
I think you meant to say »Without statistics no one can say...«. **
How long does it take to research »Human« linguistically or philosophically before a host of meanings and definitions become clear? How often do we have to reinvent the wheel before the meaning behind the word human reveals itself. It's as tedious as that typical and perennial question, »What is the meaning of life?« The definition of Human is NOT described through metaphysics where virtually anything goes. It does not amount to a God variable incessantly probed but never yielding to any conclusion. Haven't we been here long enough and considered that question to gain some comprehension of what it means to be human? **
1315 |
1316 |
You who have read so many books .... **
I merely countered your argument with my own which of course, you are not in favor of so I have no argument...the perennial response to any opposing view. As for »evidence« if such were even applicable to this subject - which it is not - why didn't YOU supply any in your favor? What is Evidence and how is it to be established in this case? Do you think there can ever be any definitive evidence on what it means to be human based on philosophical or linguistic approaches? Do any of your guide books lead you to believe that there can be such a solution? **
As to »Why are you against linguistical and/or philosophical approaches or perhaps solutions?« is an absolutely ludicrous question! **
I for one, don't find it useful to regurgitate the same questions and responses to them over and over again. **
It seems the more books you read the more uncertain you are about the qualities which uniquely denote humans. **
I know you don't agree but the mystery is not as great as you make it out to be. **
1317 |
»Human« literally means »the hue of, or most basic element of Man«.
So using that definition, they will eventually be able to say that androids are human.
They love to be able to play word games on simple minded people. **
1318 |
Will machines completely replace all human beings? ** ** | |||
Yes
(by trend) | No (by trend) | Abstention | |
Arminius, | Dan, Mr. Reasonable, Fuse, Esperanto, Only Humean, Gib, Uccisore, Zinnat, Barbarianhorde, Ivory Man, Moreno. | Obe, Kriswest, Mithus, Nano-Bug, Lizbethrose, Cassie, Eric The Pipe, Backspace Losophy, Monad. | |
Sum: | 5 | 11 | 9 |
1319 |
Your are clearly free to think what you want. I made my arguments and reasons for them. **
That's the best I can do especially on philosophy forums where there are NO solutions only discussions of problems which is why the same ones get mentioned over and over again with never a solution in sight. **
Opinions, including mine, do not constitute solutions or proof. **
==>
|