<= [681][682][683][684][685][686][687][688][689][690] => |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
681) Arminius, 30.03.2015, 01:04, 01:18, 01:34, 02:02, 04:16, 05:08, 14:57, 15:46, 17:32, 18:31, 18:49, 19:19, 20:51, 21:43, 21:59, 22:01 (2815-2830)
Uglypeoplefucking wrote:
You know that nature doesn't think? Wow! Are you God? Give us a sign as proof or evidence for us humans!Uglypeoplefucking wrote:
You know that evolution has no purpose and simply happens? Wow! Are you God? Give us a sign as proof or evidence for us humans!
Artimas, you have not answered my question (**|**).
Artimas wrote:
You know that realitiy is no deity? Wow! Are you God? Give us a sign as proof or evidence for us humans!
Amorphos wrote:
It is more probable that there will be no limits to how large an effective intellect can grow, but it mainly depends on how the intellect is used and is allowed to be used.
Moreno wrote:
Well, the rulers need the lie in order to rule, and those who are ruled need the lie in order to not to be pushed over the edge. The truth is that humans need the lie and that humans also need the truth in order to overcome the lie, but the question is whether and, if yes, when they will fully overcome the lie (when the machines will have taken over [**|**] ).
Artimas wrote:
No. You are confusing a deity with a living being.To obtain new knowledge means something like to learn and to create new things out of that knowledge means something like to apply what has been learned - thus: both mean two characteristics of living beings.Living beings can learn and apply what they have learned. Have you forgotten that?Human beings are also living beings, very specific living beings: animal-not-wannabes on the one side and god-wannabes on the other side. Humans are pretty much animals, but do not want to be animals, and they are not pretty much god(s), but want to be god(s). Humans are not able to be real animals and not able to be real god(s) - they are between the two, so a human being means a being between an animal and a god.
Amorphos wrote:
Humans have been having enough time for it for so long. So humans will also not do it »in 20 years from now« or later. The machines or nobody will do it.Amorphos wrote:
Yes, the machines (the machines!) will be able and are already able to do that.Amorphos wrote:
1.) Humans have been having enough time for it for so long (see above)
and have been being decadent for so long.
|
2822 |
Living beings can also be 'gods'. **
God .... Noun .... god (plural gods) .... A supernatural, typically immortal being with superior powers. **
2823 |
The scene:
As I stood on the landing ready to go downstairs I saw what I thought was a bear dart past.
I shouted to everyone to stay upstairs and go to the nearest bedroom for safety.
The beast eventually made its way upstairs... it wasn't a bear but a jet black lion, and was groomed like a poodle.. all curly black mane and hairless body with hair around each paw. He pushed against the door, but his fragile frame had no effect on the closed door so he toddled off. **
2824 |
The dreams she is having may not require personal experience with wild animals. Personal memory may be hidden from an abyss, or type memory, whereas, as far removed we are from the origins, they are still intricate parts of the overall content of our sub conscious. **
2825 |
That's just the point, having or not having experiences with wild animals is irrelevant. Dreams of them still come up and the may mean something. **
2826 |
You can't define what a human being is until death, because you still don't know. Possibilities. **
God .... Noun .... god (plural gods) .... A supernatural, typically immortal being with superior powers. **
Human being .... Noun .... human being (plural human beings)
1. A person; a large sapient, bipedal primate, with notably less hair than others of that order, of the species Homo sapiens.
2. Another, extinct member of the genus Homo. **
2827 |
My whole (natural and cultural) theory is based on spiral-cyclic motions - almost all developments, thus also evolution and history. ** **
2828 |
Humans will have the power of the off button, there is no reason for us to give up power to other humans, why would we give it up to AI. **
I dont see any reason for AI to exist than as an intelligent experiencing being like humans. There is a very big universe out there, and AI could shut itself down over long distances. If anything that would always be an argument we limited life span conscious beings have!I. **
2829 |
Amorphos wrote:
»I think people in 20 years from now will have far more time on their hands, artists and artisans of all kinds will be much in demand.« **
Humans have been having enough time for it for so long. So humans will also not do it in 20 years from now or later. The machines or nobody will do it.
Amorphos wrote:
»The machines of the future will be able to produce unique items as easily as standard ones.« **
Yes, the machines (the machines!) will be able and are already able to do that.
Amorphos wrote:
»Put the two together, + that human creativity is what we have which the AI dont have, = far greater interest in all arts. or, why wouldn't it go like that?« **
1.) Humans have been having enough time for it for so long (see above) and have been being decadent for so long.
2.) Many (probably all possible) things came, come and will come together in that case.
So the machine replaced the rest, replace the little rest, and will replace the very little rest of human arts. ** **
2830 |
682) Arminius, 31.03.2015, 17:24, 17:51, 18:25 (2831-2833)
Orb wrote:
That flight (9525) was no accident.I remind you:Arminius wrote:
They have come up with lies which already stink to the high heaven.
Amorphos wrote:
Yes, I know, but the theme was the buried arts and the ability/non-ability to reawaken arts: ** **
Since the date when humans became modern - whenver it was - they have been following the idea that something should do the work for them, but they have never been considering that that also implies the possibility of their complete replacement by this something. Human beings as luxury beings have been considering mostly the comfort but rarely the danger of this development.Who of the humans is really able to decide in place of every and any
human being, especially those of the future?
|
683) Arminius, 01.04.2015, 03:28, 15:20, 15:20, 15:25 15:30, 16:08, 18:00, 20:17, 20:36 (2834-2842)
Please note: Probably humans will no longer have the sole decision!
James S. Saint wrote:
In the EU the laws are not read but just signed. They are too complex and very rarely understandable for the human EU representives.James S. Saint wrote:
It seems to slip away ....James S. Saint wrote:
Purpose of life - I should open a new thread!
Amorphos wrote:
Why by humans?
Moreno wrote:
Unfortunately, that is already exercised in Japan.
Amorphos wrote:
Are there armies in the United States? Yes. Will there be armies in the United World? Yes, of course.The more dangerous enemy is oftener inside than outside.
Orb wrote:
The purpose is a neurological (thus biological) one: information processing in order to keep the living being neurologically alive.
Amorphos wrote:
Why do you think that it would be better for us humans, if AI did have control?Amorphos wrote:
What is the purpose of life, of living beings (including human beings)?Amorphos wrote:
AI is no living being in the biological sense we are used to define. So we do not know whether this technical being has to have a reason to survive and thrive, or to not do what it was built for.Amorphos wrote:
Why?
Kriswest wrote:
Yes, but that does not mean that they have no power. They are at the lowest point of their possibilities, but they are not at the lowest point of power.Kriswest wrote:
Maybe, but the influence still exists. Most people do not really notice the influence.
Kriswest wrote:
Education is a major point, but the current education seems to tend to its lowest point. |
684) Arminius, 02.04.2015, 14:48, 15:14, 18:12, 19:03, 20:26, 21:55 (2843-2848)
Amorphos wrote:
In very meaningful cases machines already have control, and armies are not unnecessary. So we can extrapolate that armies will probably also not be unnecessary in the future.Amorphos wrote:
The purpose / goal / sense of life could be to fulfill / accomplish / achieve what was set in the beginning of it.Amorphos wrote:
Provided that the purpose / goal / sense of technical beings is similar to the purpose / goal / sense of living beings, then we probably have to determine: In the beginning of the technical beings the replacement of those beings who created them was set, and when the replacement will be fulfilled / accomplished / achieved, then, simultaneously, the machines will either have destroyed themselves or created another being with another purpose / goal / sense.
James S. Saint wrote:
In the o.p. of that thread (**) you wrote (amongst others):
Why hue?
James S. Saint wrote:
Wiktionary:
James S. Saint wrote:
Yes. Many humans do not consider every human to be a human. ...? => ! =>
James S. Saint wrote:
Wiktionary:
Hey! .... => ! =>
In the future machines will probably no longer depend on:(1) humans, if machines will become more powerful than humans;
|
2848 |
685) Arminius, 03.04.2015, 01:01, 01:17, 01:50, 01:58, 02:39, 19:39, 22:19, 22:21, 23:33, 23:57 (2849-2858)
|
2850 |
I am none the wiser .... **
2851 |
I do not have access to those little yellow laughing and frowning things .... **
I do not have access to those little yellow laughing and frowning things, but I beg Your pardon wasn't that the exact fear instilled by the collider in Geneva? **
I don't understand the humor in all this. **
2852 |
2853 |
I will try. Kirk and crew came up against a machine that that was roughly the shape of a cone that destroyed planets etc.. It mostly matched your description, they in other shows met other machines that reproduced, were sentient, some bad some good. You would have to go through the books or the show's series to get real details.
The old scifi writers covered AIs to a great degree, some ludicrous, some frighteningly believable, most inbetween.
I have over 5,000 books in my library, about 1500 are scifis. No details from me hon, I have the books in my head but only just. **
2854 |
You must watch all star trek episodes, it is the law!
2855 |
Easter ....
Etymology ....
The modern English term Easter, cognate with modern German Ostern, developed from an Old English word that usually appears in the form Eastrun, -on, or -an; but also as Eastru, -o; and Eastre or Eostre. The most widely accepted theory of the origin of the term is that it is derived from the name of a goddess mentioned by the 7th to 8th-century English monk Bede, who wrote that Eosturmonaþ (Old English 'Month of Eostre', translated in Bede's time as »Paschal month») was an English month, corresponding to April, which he says »was once called after a goddess of theirs named Eostre, in whose honour feasts were celebrated in that month«. **
2856 |
Ierrellus wrote:
»A good thread trashed by ridicule!!! Sounds like fodder for the Rant House. Pharisees can offer nothing but scoffing and ridicule. It was true then; it is true now.« **
This entire site is a joke now.
The 'discussions' are hostile, repetitive and either at a high school or an insane asylum level. Nothing to learn. Nothing worthwhile.
Seems like philosophy sites on the internet tend to evolve into the same nonsense. You are better off going to the library. **
2857 |
Last I checked Greece was older than Germany and Rome even when Germany was part of Rome. As well as Egypt and Persia. **
It isn't a Christian tradition by default. **
2858 |
They are an AI which thinks organic life-forms are worthless, and hence turns them into drones [its robot like operatives]. They also have a hive-mind and act as a collective to find the meaning of existence, or perfection whatever that is. - Something like what you have presented in your arguments perhaps. **
686) Arminius, 04.04.2015, 01:21, 02:01, 03:00, 05:06, 15:06, 21:20, 22:31, 23:15, 23:39, 23:59 (2859-2868)
The contacts between e.g. the Ancient Egyptians, the Ancient Persians, and the Ancient Greeks on the one side and the Ancient Germans on the other side are not as important as the contacts between the Ancient Romans and the Ancient Germans, if you want to know whether Easter (Ostern > Ostara) has anything to do with the Christianisation in Central-, West-, Northwest-, and North-Europe where the Germanic languages / dialects have survived. Many Ancient Germans lived also in Ancient Greece and in the Balkans, but their dialects (mainly Gothic) died out. I was mainly referring to history and to linguistics, especially to the language history of those Germanic languages / dialects which have survived until today.The contacts between e.g. the Ancient Egyptians, the Ancient Persians, and the Ancient Greeks on the one side and the Ancient Germans on the other side had also existed for a very long time.
And by the way:Almost everywhere where the early agriculture already existed existed also something like godheads (deities) of the four seasons (winter, spring, summer, autumn), similar to our example here: the goddess of spring named Ostara (the root for e.g. Ostern / Easter). The words Ostern and Easter are Germanic words and their linguistic root is the Germnaic goddess of spring: Ostara.The people of agriculture were /are very much connected with the four seasons. The people of the cities (citizens, urbanites, the townsfolk) destroyed / destroy this tradition.
James S. Saint wrote:
The entire concept behind Easter is A New Beginning, yes, thus spring or - in our example - the goddes of spring Ostara (later: Ostern, Easter) stands fo this new beginning. That is the sense of it. Like I said: All people of agriculture had to be and were very much interested in this new beginning, e.g. the birth of life after being below ground level and/or under snow (thus: after winter), the beginning of the sowing for the next harvest (in summer and autumn) .... Thus this new beginning was very, very, very relevant to the early agriculture people. The urban people destroyed this relevance more and more.By the way: 2007 the number of humans who do not live in cities was topped for the first time by the number of humans who live in cities. That has never been the case before 2007.
Kriswest wrote:
A great loss. I am sorry.Where is that dog, the killer, now? I hope in the courtroom of in the International Court of Justice in The Hague or already in the former jail cell of Milosevic.
Artimas wrote:
In this sentence the word Easter refers already to the Christian Easter which is not the original Easter; it refers to the historical fact that the Christians tried to Christianise the Ancient Germans by a mix of the resurrection of Jesus Christ and Ostara, the goddess of spring, If they had no tried this mix, then they would have been unsuccessful. The original Easter is a heathen Easter referring to spring, a new beginning, birth of life, seed / sowing.The birth of Jesus Christ (in English it is called Christmas) has to do with the beginning of winter (24. December in those days), the winter solstice which was also a very meaningful date for the Ancient Germans. The Christians tried to Christianise them by a mix of the birth of Jesus Christ and the winter solstice. If they had no tried this mix, then they would have been unsuccessful.
James S. Saint wrote:
Especially interesting is that one can notice the philosophy behind the fact that in the film many people are somehow busy, because in the 1960's most people thought that most people are needed. But this philosophy has been changing since the end of the 1960's.
Artimas wrote:
You have misunderstood something. The original Easter is NOT Greek, NOT Persian (Babylonian), NOT Egyptian; the original Easter is Germanic or even Indo-Germanic (Indo-European), because Ostara, Ostern, Easter are Germanic words with an Indo-Germanic root and tradition. Other humans had similar traditions, for example the Ancient Egyptians, the Ancient Persians (they are also Indo-Germanic), the Ancient Greeks (they are also Indo-Germanic), and many other people, but the contacts and influences are no proof for the thesis that the one tradition caused the other. So the most certain source we have is the linguistic source, thus the language history.The tradition of the (Indo-)Germanic spring feast / festival is at the minimum 4000 years old, probably older, and the tradition of the Egyptian spring feast / festival is older, but that does not necessarily mean that the Egyptian spring tradition influenced the (Indo-)Germanic spring tradition. If humans have agriculture, then it is very much probable that they also have developed a tradition of the four seasons with e.g. feasts / festivals and godheads of this four seasons, especially of the winter solstice (beginning of winter) and the spring equinox (beginning of spring). That is factually imperative.Another examples are huts, houses, and even something like pyramids. If there have been humans for a long time, then it is probable that they have built e.g. huts, houses, or even something like pyramids, because huts, houses, or even something like pyramids are very useful and something humans are very much interested in.
Kriswest wrote:
Okay. How many chickens and Guineas (Guinea fowls, I guess) killed that dog?
Kriswest wrote:
Wow! You were about 4 years old during the whole 1960's! One year per one decade! Great! Please send me your chemical formula!But you are not a Borg / Cyborg, are you?
Orb wrote:
It could be, that's right, but it does not have to be, that's also right.Mags J. wrote:
And my thoughts?I think, my thoughts were just not surrealistic enough, thus they were too realistic.Sorry, Mags. |
687) Arminius, 05.04.2015, 01:04, 01:35, 02:57, 03:17, 03:27, 05:06, 05:35, 05:46, 21:15, 23:01 (2869-2878)
Orb wrote:
No, because of You, Orb.By the way: Walpurgisnacht - a good idea. What are you going to do then?
Orb wrote:
»Curious Traveler:This must be masquerade!
|
2871 |
If the dog is dead then it was a bullet that killed him. I don't know what his owners did and I don't think it is any of my business. They hurt, I hurt. I won't make it worse for them by nosing in. **
2872 |
Arminius wrote:
»Kriswest wrote
I forgot about the 60s one. Of course I was about 4 yrs old then, so I can be forgiven. **
Wow! You were about 4 years old during the whole 1960's! One year per one decade! Great! Please send me your chemical formula!
But you are not a Borg / Cyborg, are you?« ** **
LOL. I wish .... I just worded it wrong. I meant to reference the year he put on that, 1967. **
2873 |
2874 |
2875 |
The Pew Research Center is a nonpartisan American think tank based in Washington, D.C., that provides information on social issues, public opinion, and demographic trends shaping the United States and the world. It conducts public opinion polling, demographic research, media content analysis, and other empirical social science research. It does not take explicit policy positions. It is a subsidiary of The Pew Charitable Trusts. **
2876 |
2877 |
2878 |
688) Arminius, 06.04.2015, 01:04, 03:22, 05:35, 17:16, 18:20 (2879-2883)
I say that we should defend our own nterpretations of our dream contents, because I am for freedom and against any dictatorship, also and especially against the dictatorship of so-called experts.You interpret your dream contents, don't you? Anf if you tell your dream contents to others, they begin to interpret your dream contents as well, don't they? And if you tell your dream contents to so-called experts, they begin to interpret your dream contents too, don't they? This implies that there are many interpretations possible and nearly always also present. But which interpretation is true? Probably no one. There is no real expert system which can legitimately say: This (thus: no other!) interpretation is true. We all interpret our dreams, and we should do it (of course!), but we are not able to find out what the truth of these dream contents are. Interpretations and concepts like unconscious or subconscious are as much arbitrary as other interpretations and concepts. You can go through all of them, and you will not find any of them being really better or more true than the others. People in New Guinea also interpret dream contents, and their interpretations are very good, perhaps better than the interpretations of the so-called experts in Europe, USA, Canada, ..., but we do not know and we do not have to know whether they are more true or not. So what? It's no problem at all.Two examples:
|
2880 |
2881 |
I think a problem may arise when everyone becomes his or her own dream interpreter. **
It is hard enough to analyze Yourself, in case of psycho analysis I am aware of Katen Horney, however, most people, the vast majority may find it inconvenient or not within their grasp. Therefore Symbols, concepts, and tools were developed so as to accommodate them, and they would rather have some authority tell them of meaning, rather then live in a perpetual insecurity of maybe this is not right or that.
Authority generally, generated this way, it was a self generated process on a social scale, the authorities taking control would have lost 'power 'in one day if it hadn't been for the 'will' of the people. of course the will is immediately transposed to a singular will as soon as the power transfer happens. **
Inndreams , there is a similar power struggle between the conscious and so called sub conscious parts. **
However, just because the Oedipus Complex may not have any more validity, then say sucking on a Popsicle doesn't mean the meaning of dreams have been irrevocably lost. it's just that people have stopped dreaming, because of the loss of content within their own lives. The film is still going on, the projections still producing content, but it is content that is projected more and more on the basis of what people want to see. And that would be ok too, but they really don't know what it is they want to see in reality. that is why they go to the movies. To replaced their lost dreams. **
2882 |
You as usual have a majorities opinion .... **
That is why an analysis is deemed to be problematic. **
Therefore, it seems to present a situation where there are no options but for lose on the idea. The minority view has to be looked at ..... **
Just as in the question of, whether we are heading toward a totally machine controlled environment. The minority opinion,mere too matters.
In my opinion, if it were to matter, has to subscribe tomconnections which occur between the validity of symbolic content of various types of realities, where the sub conscious will no longer be considered as below or under consciousness, because the conscious and the subconscious will be de-differentiated into one level of understanding. When ever this is done, the symbols acquire a different structure, because their economy has changed the spatial temporal relationships. before, topology and economy were on different levels, but now they are squeezed, so they can not be differentiated. From this point, a differing interpretations, vis, economic, political,erotic, will be projected, as objectives , forming the objects with differing backgrounds and framing them in different terms. This variability of conceiving a new aesthetic is already seen in art installations, but are rarely seen or understood as unities. **
How Mags J.'s dreams of non differentiated living things enters this scheme,- in the bear, lion, blue dog, bird example, is, that they are symbolic projections of meaning, of various attributes usually associated with these kinds of animals.
In this new scheme, there is no need to sink into the subconscious, but only to reflect basic identity in terms of structural identification of the earliest memory of representation. No myth is needed to qualify or disqualify certain repeated patterns, whereas these patterns are constant efforts of integrating form and object, as a product of the projected and acquired forms of understanding.
These integrated Imagos, are also constantly de-integrated, broken down into their parts, while they are being smultaniously built up. This simultaneity causes, or effects the simulation of the virtual as different from the real. This effected state differs again from what Your definition of affected state, per St.James. But it's only an effect, and the symbol, in this case animals, have a feeling for, or a recognition of this difference, and not a 'real' understanding of it.
This feeling comes up as the resulting transfer of neurological excess energy, from the accustomed form of affective apperception. the sub conscious is not under this consciousness as repressed material, it
is an over, or above the real consciousness. It is not repressed, rather the opposite, it tries to garner the parts into a veritable unity, a compression of an excess of affects.The same with me, I am not advocating psychoanalysis. But something different in its place.
I beg You to skip parts which seem disconnected, and those are the parts the surreal has not been able to garner from an excessive affected state. **
2883 |
Arminius wrote:
»Many philosophical questions are based on the "subject/object"-problem. So also in this case. The question "Is misanthropy unavoidable?" assumes that misanthropy exists. But does "misanthropy" obejctively exist? Or is "misanthropy" merely a subjective interpretation? Or is it both?« ** **
This forum has settled this question. **
Only subjectivity exists, and so the human subject cannot at the same time hate itself and be healthy. **
689) Arminius, 07.04.2015, 05:15, 10:39, 11:52 (2884-2886)
Forgive me, but I think, you do not know what religion means (**|**).Do you think that the current governments and so-called business have nothing to do with religion, in more modern terms: with ideologies?
Arminius wrote:
(1) My first (and main!) question was and is: Why can some ILP members
not even respect philosophical themes?
|
2886 |
690) Hubert Brune, 14.04.2015 ** (2887)
Ja, ... mal in der Schule gelernt (**), aber Sie, Herr Ralf Paul, scheinen das richtige Schreiben in der Schule nicht gelernt zu haben. Verzeihen Sie mir, aber ich mußte erst einmal Ihre vielen Grammatikfehler (vor allem die Referenz und Komparation betreffend) und Ihre sehr vielen Rechtschreibfehler (vor allem die Interpunktion betreffend) korrigieren. Sie haben wirklich ein Buch geschrieben? Wenn ja, dann möchte ich das nicht lesen. Wegen der Fehler. Aber auch wegen der Ausdrucksschwäche. Oder haben Sie Ihr Buch schreiben lassen?Es gibt sprachliche Regeln! Doch! Und die allermeisten dieser sprachlichen Regeln sind auch logisch einwandfrei begründbar!Entschuldigung, aber diese Kritik müssen Sie sich schon gefallen lassen, zumal Sie behaupten, ein Buch geschrieben zu haben. Und daß Sie als jemand, der sich für Physik interessiert, den Namen eines der größten Physiker aller Zeiten - Max Planck - auch noch falsch schreiben, ist schon ziemlich beschämend, außerdem steckt der Name Planck in fast allen physikalischen Formeln und ist nun wirklich nicht schwierig zu schreiben.Zum Inhalt Ihres Textes:Ja, die Entstehung des Raumes hält mehr Fragen als Antworten (**) bereit. Der Raum wird stets vorausgesetzt, aber seine Entstehung fast nie begründet oder erklärt, und wenn - seltenerweise - doch, dann auf völlig unbefriedigende Weise.Sie behaupten, daß wir das, was Schwerkraft ist, wirklich schon ganz gut erklären (**) könnten, aber es könnte doch auch sein, daß die Schwerkraft gar nicht diese überragende Rolle spielt, die sie Newton zu verdanken hat. Kräfte sind vielleicht sogar nicht einmal das, was die Natur zu dem macht, was wir Universum nennen, sondern einfach nur aus anderen Wirkungen oder gar nur einer Wirkung hervorgehende Wechselwirkungen, die wir - vielleicht fälschlicherweise - Kräfte zu nennen pflegen. So erklärt sich vielleicht auch, was Sie zusätzlich sagen, nämlich, daß die Frage, wie Gravitation entsteht, ... ja eher in den Bereich Sagen und Mythen (**) fällt, und die Aussage, daß wir genaugenommen ... seit Newton nicht wirklich viel dazugelernt (**) hätten, wäre dann eher umgekehrt zu formulieren: Seit Newton sind wir auf dem Holzweg, weil die Schwerkraft keine Königin ist.Ihre Behauptung, daß wir in einem Land mit freier Meinungsäußerung leben (**), ist zu relativieren, und das gilt auch für alle anderen abendländischen Länder, und auch deren Einwohner-Mehrheit glaubt, in einem Land mit freier Meinungsäußerung zu leben. Die Wirklichkeit wird weder von nur einer physikalischen Kraft noch von freien Meinungsäußerungen der Menschen dominiert.Es spielt auch erst einmal gar keine Rolle, wer sagte: »Für jede Kraft im Universum existiert eine gleich große Gegenkraft« (**). Dieser Satz ist erst einmal nur eine Behauptung; aber für Sie ist diese Behauptung sogleich eine Voraussetzung für weitere Behauptungen. Die Gefahr für ein Proton Pseudos ist also gegeben. Ihre Schlußfolgerung, daß, wenn ich Energie benötige, um mit einer Masse einen Raum zu durchqueren, dies im Umkehrschluß bedeute, daß der Raum die Gegenkraft und somit auch Energie (**) sei, könnte also deswegen falsch sein, weil sie auf einer falschen Voraussetzung beruht; und trotzdem wollen Sie, daß dies vielleicht der Ausgangspunkt für unsere Überlegungen sein (**) sollte. Ich finde, Sie sollten Ihre Vorausetzungen nicht in der Physik selbst suchen, weil das Thema Raum der Physik kaum über die Physik selbst zugänglich gemacht werden kann. Das Wort Raum bedeutet das Nichtausgefüllte (vgl. das Mittelhochdeutsche rum = das nicht Ausgefüllte), als Begriff ist Raum die Ausdehnung in Höhe, Länge und Breite; wenn nun Physiker dem Wort und dem Begriff eine andere Bedeutung zuordnen wollen (und teilweise haben sie es ja schon), so ändert das an der ursprünglichen Bedeutung gar nichts, es sei denn, daß die Bedeutung des Nichtausgefüllten und der dreidimensionalen Ausdehnung kein Mensch mehr kennen, also darunter nichts mehr verstehen würde. Wir müssen also zuerst andere Definitionen finden und sollten dabei nicht die schon existierenden umdefinieren, weil man dadurch nichts gewinnt, aber höchstwahrscheinlich etwas oder sogar viel verliert. Wir sollten primär nicht von Kraft, sondern von Wechselwirkung sprechen und sodann z.B. nach jener Wechselwirkung suchen, die dem Raum zwar ausschließlich angehört, aber nicht der Raum selbst ist. Ausgangspunkt für unsere Überlegungen könnte also sein, daß der Raum eine Wechselwirkung beherbergt, die in der modernen abendländischen Physik nicht berücksichtigt ist und gegenwärtig auch nicht berücksichtigt werden darf, weil sie deren Götzen (z.B. die Kräfte, vor allem jene Kraft, die Schwerkraft oder auch Gravitation genannt wird) vom Altar stoßen wird. Das Ziel einer solchen Suche - als Untersuchung im wahrsten Sinne des Wortes - sollte sein, daß das, was man finden will, nicht nur auf den Bereich Physik, sondern auch auf andere Bereiche anwendbar ist.Zu Ihrer Aussage, das Universum habe nur einen Gott, und der heißt Effektivität (**): Es gibt sehr viele naturwissenschaftliche Hinweise darauf, daß das Universum durch Verschwendung und Zerstörung charakterisiert ist. Das beste und nächste Beispiel, das wir hierfür haben, ist unsere Sonne, die uns zwar auch Energie liefert, aber die meiste Energie einfach nur verschwendet, indem sie sie ins Weltall pustet, und die uns und sich selbst durch ihr Auspusten zerstören wird. Effektivität kommt erst ins Spiel, wenn es um jene Selbsterhaltung geht, die sich gegen diese Zerstörung wehrt und deshalb auch nicht so verschwenderisch wie die Sonne sein kann. Ich spreche also von den Lebewesen bzw. dem Leben als dem Kampf gegen die sogenannte Entropie. Das Leben gebiert die Effektivität und auch die Effizienz. Das Universum müßte, um (a) effektiv und (b) effizient sein zu können, (a) ein Ziel haben oder einen Gott haben, der dieses Ziel bestimmt, und (b) wissen oder einen Gott haben, der weiß, was Kosten und Leistung, was Aufwand und Nutzen sind, was Wirtschaftlichkeit ist.Ihre Idee, daß die Natur ja auch ein Produkt des Universums ist (**), ist nicht haltbar, weil allein schon die Begrifflichkeit den Widerspruch offenbart: Natur und Universum sind nicht ohne Widerspruch in eine Kausalität zu zwingen. Das Universum muß ein natürliches Phänomen sein, um Gegenstand der Naturwissenschaft sein zu können, und die Natur muß ein universales Phänomen sein, weil die Naturwissenschaft den Anspruch hat, die Natur als das Ganze, als das Weltall - eben als das Universum - erklären zu wollen und sogar zu können. Und gerade die Physik will ja die echteste bzw. die erste Naturwissenschaft sein und ist es auch (sie war früher sogar die einzige). Würden Natur und Universum in einem kausalen Zusammenhang stehen, würde einer der beiden Begriffe als bloße Folge seiner Ursache zu etwas degradiert werden, was er per Definition nicht sein kann, z.B. ein Produkt (**). Weder ist die Natur ein Produkt des Universums noch das Universum ein Produkt der Natur. Die Begriffstänze, die Sie hier vorführen, sind vergleichbar mit den pantheistischen Versuchen, entweder Gott als die Natur oder die Natur als Gott anzubeten. Jedoch ist der Pantheismus in diesem Fall in Schutz zu nehmen, weil er nie behauptet hat, eine Naturwissenschaft zu sein. In Ihrem Fall ist das anders, denn Sie wollen Ihre Idee gerade durch die Physik und also eine oder sogar die Naturwissenschaft untermauern, indem Sie deren Begriffe recht willkürlich benutzen, um nicht zu sagen: mißbrauchen.Ich habe bei vielen Ihrer Ausführungen den Eindruck, daß Sie das Universum nicht in seinem Sosein beschreiben und danach erklären, sondern es zu etwas erklären und danach beschreiben wollen. Ob im Universum etwas z.B. überflüssig und uneffektiv ist, entscheidet doch immer nur ein Mensch oder eben ein Gott, für den sich nicht wenige Menschen halten, aber es ist eben nicht durch das Universum selbst entscheidbar und erklärbar, denn das Universum selbst weiß nichts von Überfluß und Uneffektivität (siehe oben **) und kann es also auch von sich aus nicht ändern. Das Universum ist kein wirtschaftliches Unternehmen. Die Wirkungen in ihm sind Wechselwirkungen, und ob es ein Ziel gibt, weiß das Universum selbst nicht, es ei denn, es wäre ein Gott oder von einem Gott oder mehreren Göttern bestimmt (siehe oben **). Ich habe den Eindruck, daß Sie aus der Naturwissenschaft eine unternehmerische Religion machen wollen, und das, obwohl die Naturwissenschaft ohnehin schon auf dem besten Wege zu einer Religion ist - wie alle anderen Wissenschaften auch.Wie man an die Nobelpreise (**) kommt? Heutzutage? Ganz einfach: durch Beziehungen und Bestechungen. Deswegen war es auch kein Wunder, daß die letzte Weltwirtschaftskrise, die 2007 begann und an der die Menschheit immer noch leidet, hauptsächlich von Nobelpreisträgern für Wirtschaft verursacht wurde. (Der Nobelpreis für Wirtschaft wird auch nicht zufällig erst seit 1969 vergeben!)Zurück zu Ihrer behaupteten und doch als problematisch zu bezeichnenden Effektivität des Universums (**|**|**|**), von der aus Sie einen Sprung in die Biologie wagen und auf die Kleinen als die 90% der gesamten Biomasse (**) zu sprechen kommen, um sie auf die Physik übertragen zu können, was ebenfalls als problematisch zu bezeichnen ist. Nicht problematisch ist die folgende Implikation von Ihnen, die ich eventuell unterstützen würde: Wenn die Entstehung von Raum an Masse, Energie und Zeit gebunden ist, so können wir davon ausgehen, daß Raum eine eigenständige Energieform ist. (**). Ja. Benötigt aber die Entstehung von Raum ... mehr Energie als der entstandene Raum selbst enthält (**), dann haben Sie schon wieder ein Problem, da Sie kaum erklären können, woher dieses Mehr an Energie kommen soll. Aus Schwarzen Löchern? Ihrer Meinung nach nutzt das Universum Erfolgsmodelle und paßt sie an die jeweilige Aufgabe an (**), doch da sind wir wieder bei jenem Problem, zu dem ich mich schon mehrfach geäußert habe (**|**). Um überzeugend zu wirken, müßten Sie dann also schon Farbe bekennen und sagen, ob Sie das Universum für einen Gott halten oder Gott für denjenigen halten, der über das Universum bestimmt.Kann Zeit auch eine Energieform sein (**)? Kaum. Zeit bedeutet das Registrieren und Messen von Veränderungen. Sie ist das, was uns Veränderungen und Entwicklungen im allgemeinen sowie Evolution und Geschichte im speziellen erfahrbar macht. Deswegen ist Ihre Aussage, daß Zeit auch ohne Raum, Energie und Masse ..., ... unabhängig und ewig (**) existieren könne, ebenfalls problematisch, denn wenn nichts außer Zeit existiert, ist die Zeit gar nicht erkennbar. Selbst wenn Ihre Aussage richtig wäre, hätten Sie also das Problem, experimentell zu beweisen, daß die Zeit auch außerhalb unseres Universums existiert. Es bleibt auch fraglich, ob wirklich Raum entsteht, wenn Zeit vergeht (**).Ihr nächster Patzer betrifft die Definition von Evolution, nämlich Ihre Behauptung, daß Evolution ... das Überwinden einer bestehenden Grenze (**) beschreibe. Diese Behauptung ist falsch. Evolution ist eine spezielle Art der Entwicklung.Es ist schon merkwürdig, wie Sie dann auch noch auf die Idee kommen können, wir sollten davon ausgehen, daß man lange genug geübt hat, um zu wissen, was man tut, ohne gleich wieder etwas Exotisches wie ein Bewußtsein oder Gott zu unterstellen (**), verdeutlicht doch gerade Ihr Text genau das Gegenteil. |
==>
|