Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]


Groups > sci.physics > #689596

Re: Worshiping Ignorance.

From Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com>
Newsgroups sci.physics, comp.os.linux.advocacy
Subject Re: Worshiping Ignorance.
Date 2018-06-08 19:55 -0700
Message-ID <fo0ttsFcl4oU1@mid.individual.net> (permalink)
References (4 earlier) <Jeff-Relf.Me@Jun.7--2.15pm.Seattle.2018> <nfpSC.143891$wG5.139275@fx02.iad> <Jeff-Relf.Me@Jun.7--11.36pm.Seattle.2018> <iuxSC.158766$R51.149070@fx03.iad> <fo0qhdFbsq2U1@mid.individual.net>

Cross-posted to 2 groups.

Show all headers | View raw


On 6/8/18 6:58 PM, vallor wrote:
> On Fri, 08 Jun 2018 11:42:49 -0400, benj wrote:
> 
>> On 6/8/2018 2:36 AM, Jeff-Relf.Me@. wrote:
>>> You (Ben) wrote:
>>>> IF there are no choices then there is CERTAINLY nothing to aspire to,
>>>> no achievements to be made,
>>>> no credit for accomplishment,
>>>> nothing but death and confusion awaiting you.  Sad.
>>>
>>> You worship ignorance.  How is that any better ?
>>
>> No Rolf, YOU are the one worshiping ignorance. I keep telling you that
>> science is NOT religion but all you do is try to tell me what I
>> "believe" and then repeat your own religious dogma over and over as if
>> that proves something. Thumping your bible proves nothing.
>>
>>> We simply prefer the LeastBad "option",
>>> and we can't change what we prefer.
>>
>> And I say I can choose to do the opposite of what I prefer. And you
>> can't prove me wrong. All you can do is just stand their Screaming you
>> are right like baby Nads.
>>
>>> General Relativity's four dimensional TimeScape is static, eternal,
>>> perfectly causal... it is, at once, everything _and_ nothing.
>>
>> This is wrong from the very start, Rolf. Space-time is NOT static. It
>> can't be static because it warps due to the presence of mass and because
>> mass is not static neither can be space-time (to use that bogus theory).
>>
>> And as for "eternal" You have NO way of knowing that. It is simply your
>> religious belief. Now as for "causal" the theory certainly is causal.
>> But that is no proof that EVERYTHING in the universe is causal. MUCH in
>> the universe and in science is causal. It's what makes science work!
>>
>> A "true" timescape, on the other hand, would be called "time-space" and
>> it would consist of a hyper-dimensional matrix sometimes referred to as
>> the "multiverses". It contains ALL acts it is possible to perpetrate in
>> the universe. One could speculate such a timescape is static, eternal,
>> and perfectly causal. But human experience is none of those things
>> because it is produced by the passage of consciousness in a path through
>> that multi-dimensional timescape. The kicker here is that when those
>> paths are left to their own devices they coast forward according to
>> Newton's laws. That is called the "most probable future", but there is
>> an additional law which says that the path can be altered by a "force"
>> which in this case is will. That deflects the most probable path and
>> changes what one experiences as the "future".
>>
>> You listening, Rolf? I didn't think so.
> 
> One way to deal with the "we don't have free will" folks is to believe
> them.
> 
> Therefore, Jeff is nothing more than a philosophical zombie -- and he
> doesn't even know it, because he doesn't know what it is like to be
> conscious with free will.
> 

How do you know if you have free will?


-- 
Personal attacks from those who troll show their own insecurity. They 
cannot use reason to show the message to be wrong so they try to feel 
somehow superior by attacking the messenger.

They cling to their attacks and ignore the message time and time again.

<https://youtu.be/H4NW-Cqh308>

Back to sci.physics | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread


Thread

Can  quantum measurement be rejected ? will <willscranton@butchersboulevard.commypanprofile> - 2018-06-06 18:07 +0000
  Re: Can quantum measurement be rejected ? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-06-06 18:14 +0000
    Re: Can quantum measurement be rejected ? will <willscranton@butchersboulevard.commypanprofile> - 2018-06-06 22:38 +0000
      Re: Can quantum measurement be rejected ? Alan Folmsbee <omnilobe@gmail.com> - 2018-06-06 17:43 -0700
        Re: Can quantum measurement be rejected ? will <willscranton@butchersboulevard.commypanprofile> - 2018-06-07 22:07 +0000
          Re: Can quantum measurement be rejected ? Alan Folmsbee <omnilobe@gmail.com> - 2018-06-07 17:12 -0700
            Re: Can quantum measurement be rejected ? will <willscranton@butchersboulevard.commypanprofile> - 2018-06-08 14:49 +0000
      Re: Can quantum measurement be rejected ? benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2018-06-06 22:39 -0400
        Re: Can quantum measurement be rejected ? Libor Striz <poutnik4REMOVEnntp@CAPITALSgmail.com> - 2018-06-07 05:19 +0200
          Re: Can quantum measurement be rejected ? benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2018-06-07 05:31 -0400
            Re: Can quantum measurement be rejected ? Libor Striz <poutnik4REMOVEnntp@CAPITALSgmail.com> - 2018-06-07 12:01 +0200
              Re: Can quantum measurement be rejected ? benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2018-06-07 16:32 -0400
                Re: Can quantum measurement be rejected ? will <willscranton@butchersboulevard.commypanprofile> - 2018-06-07 21:58 +0000
                Re: Can quantum measurement be rejected ? Edward Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> - 2018-06-08 04:12 -0700
                Re: Can quantum measurement be rejected ? will <willscranton@butchersboulevard.commypanprofile> - 2018-06-08 14:38 +0000
                Re: Can quantum measurement be rejected ? Libor Striz <poutnik4REMOVEnntp@CAPITALSgmail.com> - 2018-06-08 02:41 +0200
  "Quantum Mechanics" has no cause and effect, just probabilities. Jeff-Relf.Me  @. - 2018-06-06 11:47 -0700
    Re: "Quantum Mechanics" has no cause and effect, just probabilities. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-06-06 19:00 +0000
      We assert useful premises, disregarding the truth. Jeff-Relf.Me  @. - 2018-06-06 12:25 -0700
        Re: We assert useful premises, disregarding the truth. benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2018-06-06 16:35 -0400
          Re: We assert useful premises, disregarding the truth. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-06 17:52 -0700
            Re: We assert useful premises, disregarding the truth. mitchrae3323@gmail.com - 2018-06-06 18:15 -0700
            No truth, Nothing to aspire to ? Jeff-Relf.Me  @. - 2018-06-06 18:21 -0700
              Re: No truth, Nothing to aspire to ? benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2018-06-06 22:47 -0400
                NO TRUTH. Jeff-Relf.Me  @. - 2018-06-06 20:28 -0700
                Re: NO TRUTH. benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2018-06-07 05:32 -0400
                Harp playing, androgynous angels in the clouds ? Jeff-Relf.Me  @. - 2018-06-07 11:18 -0700
                Re: Harp playing, androgynous angels in the clouds ? benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2018-06-07 16:42 -0400
                Ben Jacoby takes _pride_ in his randomness, I don't. Jeff-Relf.Me  @. - 2018-06-07 14:15 -0700
                Re: Ben Jacoby takes _pride_ in his randomness, I don't. benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2018-06-08 02:20 -0400
                Worshiping Ignorance. Jeff-Relf.Me  @. - 2018-06-07 23:36 -0700
                Re: Worshiping Ignorance. benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2018-06-08 11:42 -0400
                " I can choose to do the opposite of what I prefer " -- Ben Jacoby. Jeff-Relf.Me  @. - 2018-06-08 10:17 -0700
                Re: Worshiping Ignorance. vallor <vallor@cultnix.org> - 2018-06-09 01:58 +0000
                Re: Worshiping Ignorance. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-08 19:55 -0700
                Re: Worshiping Ignorance. vallor <vallor@cultnix.org> - 2018-06-09 21:37 +0000
                EINSTEIN's category, far from the Pope. Jeff-Relf.Me  @. - 2018-06-09 14:51 -0700
                Re: EINSTEIN's category, far from the Pope. Melzzzzz <Melzzzzz@zzzzz.com> - 2018-06-09 22:01 +0000
                To a retard, _everything_ is "random". Jeff-Relf.Me  @. - 2018-06-09 15:11 -0700
                Re: EINSTEIN's category, far from the Pope. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-09 15:13 -0700
                Re: EINSTEIN's category, far from the Pope. Edward Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> - 2018-06-10 15:52 -0700
                Re: EINSTEIN's category, far from the Pope. vallor <vallor@cultnix.org> - 2018-06-09 22:54 +0000
                People are forever MisQuoting Einstein; I correct them. Jeff-Relf.Me  @. - 2018-06-09 16:40 -0700
                Re: People are forever MisQuoting Einstein; I correct them. vallor <vallor@cultnix.org> - 2018-06-10 00:15 +0000
                Putting words in Einstein's mouth. Jeff-Relf.Me  @. - 2018-06-09 17:42 -0700
                Re: Putting words in Einstein's mouth. vallor <vallor@cultnix.org> - 2018-06-10 00:59 +0000
                God Doesn't Play Dice, he's not an idiot; nor is he a "he". Jeff-Relf.Me  @. - 2018-06-09 18:28 -0700
                Re: God Doesn't Play Dice, he's not an idiot; nor is he a "he". vallor <vallor@cultnix.org> - 2018-06-10 01:42 +0000
                Mark Twain was a determinist. Jeff-Relf.Me  @. - 2018-06-09 20:16 -0700
                Re: Mark Twain was a determinist. benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2018-06-10 12:48 -0400
                Quantum Mechanics is statistical, not complete. Jeff-Relf.Me  @. - 2018-06-10 10:51 -0700
                Re: Quantum Mechanics is statistical, not complete. benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2018-06-11 11:02 -0400
                Quantum Mechanics is statistical, not complete. Jeff-Relf.Me  @. - 2018-06-11 09:20 -0700
                Re: Quantum Mechanics is statistical, not complete. benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2018-06-11 17:09 -0400
                Bell's theorem is just another "I don't know". Jeff-Relf.Me  @. - 2018-06-11 14:32 -0700
                Re: Bell's theorem is just another "I don't know". Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-11 14:33 -0700
                No one can "prove" ThermoDynamics and/or General Relativity, 100.00000000%. Jeff-Relf.Me  @. - 2018-06-11 15:00 -0700
                Re: No one can "prove" ThermoDynamics and/or General Relativity, 100.00000000%. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-11 15:01 -0700
                We assert _useful_ premises ( and ThermoDynamics is _Very_ useful ). Jeff-Relf.Me  @. - 2018-06-11 15:27 -0700
                Re: Bell's theorem is just another "I don't know". benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2018-06-11 19:57 -0400
                Re: Bell's theorem is just another "I don't know". vallor <vallor@cultnix.org> - 2018-06-12 17:11 +0000
                SuperDeterminism was useful to Einstein, and to me. Jeff-Relf.Me  @. - 2018-06-12 12:03 -0700
                Re: SuperDeterminism was useful to Einstein, and to me. Edward Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> - 2018-06-13 09:03 -0700
                Enjoy your silly hat. Jeff-Relf.Me  @. - 2018-06-13 14:46 -0700
                Re: Enjoy your silly hat. Edward Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> - 2018-06-14 08:20 -0700
                Sex toys/dolls. Jeff-Relf.Me  @. - 2018-06-15 00:44 -0700
                Re: Sex toys/dolls. Edward Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> - 2018-06-15 05:49 -0700
                Re: Sex toys/dolls. benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2018-06-15 11:47 -0400
                MostChristian != BestChristian Jeff-Relf.Me  @. - 2018-06-15 13:46 -0700
                Re: God Doesn't Play Dice, he's not an idiot; nor is he a "he". mitchrae3323@gmail.com - 2018-06-09 19:37 -0700
                Re: God Doesn't Play Dice, he's not an idiot; nor is he a "he". benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2018-06-09 22:59 -0400
                Re: God Doesn't Play Dice, he's not an idiot; nor is he a "he". vallor <vallor@cultnix.org> - 2018-06-10 03:51 +0000
                Re: God Doesn't Play Dice, he's not an idiot; nor is he a "he". benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2018-06-10 12:50 -0400
                Mark Twain, Einstein and Stephen Hawking are revered by nerds Jeff-Relf.Me  @. - 2018-06-10 11:01 -0700
                Re: Mark Twain, Einstein and Stephen Hawking are revered by nerds benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2018-06-11 11:06 -0400
                Asleep, living in a dream. Jeff-Relf.Me  @. - 2018-06-11 10:04 -0700
                Re: Asleep, living in a dream. Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2018-06-11 14:22 -0500
                Re: Asleep, living in a dream. benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2018-06-11 17:21 -0400
                Your house is built on sand. Jeff-Relf.Me  @. - 2018-06-11 14:43 -0700
                Re: Putting words in Einstein's mouth. chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> - 2018-06-11 07:02 -0500
                Quantum Mechanics is _not_ complete. Jeff-Relf.Me  @. - 2018-06-11 09:41 -0700
                Re: Quantum Mechanics is _not_ complete. benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2018-06-11 17:17 -0400
                "statistics is [sic] real" -- Ben Jacoby. Jeff-Relf.Me  @. - 2018-06-11 14:39 -0700
                Re: "statistics is [sic] real" -- Ben Jacoby. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-11 14:53 -0700
                When I hear the word "Quantum", I replace it with the word "BullShit". Jeff-Relf.Me  @. - 2018-06-11 15:09 -0700
                Re: "statistics is [sic] real" -- Ben Jacoby. benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2018-06-11 20:00 -0400
                " I can't know "  -- Bell's Theorem. Jeff-Relf.Me  @. - 2018-06-11 19:29 -0700
                Re: EINSTEIN's category, far from the Pope. benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2018-06-09 22:28 -0400
                Re: Worshiping Ignorance. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-09 14:53 -0700
                Re: Worshiping Ignorance. Steve Carroll <frelwizzen@gmail.com> - 2018-06-09 16:41 -0700
                If the truth is your enemy... Jeff-Relf.Me  @. - 2018-06-09 00:14 -0700
                Re: Worshiping Ignorance. Chris Ahlstrom <OFeem1987@teleworm.us> - 2018-06-09 06:52 -0400
        Re: We assert useful premises, disregarding the truth. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-06-06 21:22 +0000
          I feel rich, very rich. Jeff-Relf.Me  @. - 2018-06-06 14:39 -0700
      Re: "Quantum Mechanics" has no cause and effect, just probabilities. benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2018-06-06 16:32 -0400
    Re: "Quantum Mechanics" has no cause and effect, just probabilities. benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2018-06-06 16:30 -0400

csiph-web