Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > sci.physics > #689172 > unrolled thread
| Started by | will <willscranton@butchersboulevard.commypanprofile> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2018-06-06 18:07 +0000 |
| Last post | 2018-06-06 16:30 -0400 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 96 — 15 participants |
Back to article view | Back to sci.physics
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
Page 4 of 5 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 [4] 5 Next page →
| From | vallor <vallor@cultnix.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-06-12 17:11 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: Bell's theorem is just another "I don't know". |
| Message-ID | <foad54F6f3uU2@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #690133 |
On Mon, 11 Jun 2018 19:57:27 -0400, benj wrote: > On 6/11/2018 5:32 PM, Jeff-Relf.Me@. wrote: >> You don't have to be an Einstein ( and you sure aren't ) >> to realize that Quantum Mechanics isn't complete. >> >> Bell's theorem is just another "I don't know". >> >> All of history, every lesson ever, every advance, tells _me_: >> >> Randomness is ignorance, nothing more; >> otherwise, there'd be NO TRUTH, nothing for _me_ to aspire to. >> > Just keep preaching Rev. Say it enough an it becomes true science! If I understand the Rev. correctly, he's a proponent of superdeterminism. I'm not sure that superdeterminism is a testable hypothesis. Is it science? I think there was once a scientist of some renown that said that he was fascinated that the universe was knowable. I'll try to remember who that was, hopefully someone can jog my memory. -- -v
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Jeff-Relf.Me @. |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-06-12 12:03 -0700 |
| Subject | SuperDeterminism was useful to Einstein, and to me. |
| Message-ID | <Jeff-Relf.Me@Jun.12--0.03pm.Seattle.2018> |
| In reply to | #690237 |
You (Scott) wrote: > If I understand [Jeff] correctly, he's a proponent of superdeterminism. SuperDeterminism was useful to Einstein, and to me; it is _not_ useful to The Pope, nor to you. > I'm not sure that superdeterminism is a testable hypothesis. > Is it science? You can't prove anything, not ThermoDynamics ( Entropy and eXergy ), nor General Relativity; in fact, they _contradict_ each other. The best you can do is: - Find it useful ( in its domain ). - Try to Falsify it ( in its domain ). > I think there was once a scientist of some renown > that said that he was fascinated that the universe was knowable. > hopefully someone can jog my memory. It was Adam, when he left "dad's house" ( the Garden of Eden ). "The Universe is knowable" - Neil deGrasse Tyson, on YouTube. P.S. The biggest "loophole" in Bell's Theorem is: It's an _Ensemble_ of tests, a series, not just one test, like a pollster, asking _10_ people if they'll vote for Hillary or not; it's incomplete, SemiRandom -- intrinsically, it's misleading.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Edward Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-06-13 09:03 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: SuperDeterminism was useful to Einstein, and to me. |
| Message-ID | <abb07276-78f6-4088-837b-3f62857a81ef@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #690264 |
On Tuesday, June 12, 2018 at 3:04:03 PM UTC-4, Jeff-Relf.Me wrote: > You (Scott) wrote: > > If I understand [Jeff] correctly, he's a proponent of superdeterminism. > > SuperDeterminism was useful to Einstein, and to me; > it is _not_ useful to The Pope, nor to you. > > > I'm not sure that superdeterminism is a testable hypothesis. > > Is it science? > > You can't prove anything, not ThermoDynamics ( Entropy and eXergy ), > nor General Relativity; in fact, they _contradict_ each other. > > The best you can do is: > > - Find it useful ( in its domain ). > - Try to Falsify it ( in its domain ). Something useful out of you. Congratulations! > > > I think there was once a scientist of some renown > > that said that he was fascinated that the universe was knowable. > > hopefully someone can jog my memory. > > It was Adam, when he left "dad's house" ( the Garden of Eden ). > > "The Universe is knowable" - Neil deGrasse Tyson, on YouTube. Albert Einstein. "The most incomprehensible thing about the universe is that it is comprehensible" from "Physics and Reality"(1936) > > P.S. The biggest "loophole" in Bell's Theorem is: > > It's an _Ensemble_ of tests, a series, not just one test, > like a pollster, asking _10_ people if they'll vote for Hillary or not; > it's incomplete, SemiRandom -- intrinsically, it's misleading. All scientific theories are supported by "an _Ensemble_ of tests, a series, not just one test". Bell's theorem meets your own criteria. Physicists "Find it useful ( in its domain )." where the domain is particle physics. And it has not been falsified (yet). So rant about indeterminism all you want. Those rants will not prove the universe is deterministic. And assuming determinism at the quantum level is not useful. Ed
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Jeff-Relf.Me @. |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-06-13 14:46 -0700 |
| Subject | Enjoy your silly hat. |
| Message-ID | <Jeff-Relf.Me@Jun.13--2.46pm.Seattle.2018> |
| In reply to | #690426 |
You ( Ed Prochak ) replied ( to me ):
> > You can't prove anything, not ThermoDynamics ( Entropy and eXergy ),
> > nor General Relativity; in fact, they _contradict_ each other.
> >
> > The best you can do is:
> >
> > - Find it useful ( in its domain ).
> > - Try to Falsify it ( in its domain ).
>
> Rant about indeterminism all you want.
> Those rants will not prove the universe is deterministic.
Who's trying to "prove" it ? not me.
> > SuperDeterminism was useful to Einstein and me;
> > it is _not_ useful to you and The Pope.
>
> Assuming determinism at the quantum level is not useful.
Fine, you're on Team Pope, not Team Einstein.
Enjoy your silly hat.
> > P.S. The biggest "loophole" in Bell's Theorem is:
> >
> > It's an _Ensemble_ of tests, a series, not just one test,
> > like a pollster, asking _10_ people if they'll vote for Hillary or not;
> > it's incomplete, SemiRandom -- intrinsically, it's misleading.
>
> All scientific theories are supported by
> "an _Ensemble_ of tests, a series, not just one test".
General Relativity is _not_ incomplete, SemiRandom
-- intrinsically misleading. The 4-D TimeScape is static,
both everything _and_ nothing.
> > " The Universe is knowable " - Neil deGrasse Tyson, on YouTube.
>
> << One may say
> " the eternal mystery of the world is its comprehensibility " >>
>
> -- Albert Einstein, 1936, in " Physics and Reality ".
" One may say "...
As his next sentence, Einstein wrote:
It is one of the great realizations of Immanuel Kant that
the setting up of a real external world would be senseless
without this comprehensibility.
-- Albert Einstein, 1936, in " Physics and Reality ".
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Edward Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-06-14 08:20 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: Enjoy your silly hat. |
| Message-ID | <8f68bddf-3f06-4950-8b02-64056efc498e@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #690483 |
On Wednesday, June 13, 2018 at 5:46:58 PM UTC-4, Jeff-Relf.Me wrote: > You ( Ed Prochak ) replied ( to me ): > > > You can't prove anything, not ThermoDynamics ( Entropy and eXergy ), > > > nor General Relativity; in fact, they _contradict_ each other. > > > > > > The best you can do is: > > > > > > - Find it useful ( in its domain ). > > > - Try to Falsify it ( in its domain ). > > > > Rant about indeterminism all you want. > > Those rants will not prove the universe is deterministic. > > Who's trying to "prove" it ? not me. Then what is your purpose to repeating that randomness is ignorance? That there is "SuperDeterminism" > > > > SuperDeterminism was useful to Einstein and me; > > > it is _not_ useful to you and The Pope. > > > > Assuming determinism at the quantum level is not useful. > > Fine, you're on Team Pope, not Team Einstein. > Enjoy your silly hat. I do wear silly hats at times. and BTW, I am on team Pope and team Einstein. They play not just different leagues, but in different sports! > > > > P.S. The biggest "loophole" in Bell's Theorem is: > > > > > > It's an _Ensemble_ of tests, a series, not just one test, > > > like a pollster, asking _10_ people if they'll vote for Hillary or not; > > > it's incomplete, SemiRandom -- intrinsically, it's misleading. > > > > All scientific theories are supported by > > "an _Ensemble_ of tests, a series, not just one test". > > General Relativity is _not_ incomplete, SemiRandom > -- intrinsically misleading. The 4-D TimeScape is static, > both everything _and_ nothing. Conjecture. It is one view of relativity. and not uncommon. > > > > " The Universe is knowable " - Neil deGrasse Tyson, on YouTube. > > > > << One may say > > " the eternal mystery of the world is its comprehensibility " >> > > > > -- Albert Einstein, 1936, in " Physics and Reality ". > > " One may say "... > > As his next sentence, Einstein wrote: > > It is one of the great realizations of Immanuel Kant that > the setting up of a real external world would be senseless > without this comprehensibility. > > -- Albert Einstein, 1936, in " Physics and Reality ". Well even the great Albert can fall into a tauntology on occasion. But we are slowly coming to realize that there can be a real external world out there, but that does not mean or guarantee that it has to be compresensible. Enjoy. Ed
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Jeff-Relf.Me @. |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-06-15 00:44 -0700 |
| Subject | Sex toys/dolls. |
| Message-ID | <Jeff-Relf.Me@Jun.15--0.44am.Seattle.2018> |
| In reply to | #690597 |
You (Ed) replied:
> > " It is one of the great realizations of Immanuel Kant that
> > the setting up of a real external world would be senseless
> > without this comprehensibility. " -- Einstein.
>
> even Albert can fall into a tauntology [sic], on occasion.
This, "The Anthropic Principle", is a _useful_ tautology.
> But we are slowly coming to realize that there can be
> a real external world out there, but that does not mean
> or guarantee that it has to be compresensible.
SuperDeterminism is a better religion;
"God" is nature, nothing more, nothing less.
" The Universe is knowable " - Neil deGrasse Tyson:
YouTube.COM/watch?v=3sAav37h4os
> > Who's trying to "prove" SuperDeterminism ? not me.
>
> [ Why do you assert SuperDeterminism so much ? ]
Because everyone, from the serial killer to his executer,
are best viewed under this light (SuperDeterminism),
instead of assuming free will, à la Christianity.
We simply prefer the LeastBad "option",
and we can't change what we prefer.
Ted Bundy wanted (female) sex dolls;
Jeffrey Dahmer wanted (male) sex dolls;
the killing was incidental.
Learning that, knowing that, is better than assuming
that Satan got to them, and that they needed Christ.
Today, Mildred, one can _buy_ sex toys/dolls.
The only difference between us and "stars/cars/monkeys"
is how and what we consume... our nitch.
> > You're on Team Pope, not Team Einstein. Enjoy your silly hat.
>
> I'm on team Pope and team Einstein.
> They play not just different leagues, but in different sports!
The most "Christian" person I've ever met
was a violent, alcoholic, thieving junkie;
so, yeah, one _can_ play on both sides of the field at once.
> > General Relativity is _not_ incomplete, SemiRandom
> > -- intrinsically misleading. The 4-D TimeScape is static,
> > both everything _and_ nothing.
>
> Conjecture. It is one view of relativity, and not uncommon.
At the start, there was no entropy, just infinite eXergy/density.
[ eXergy is a type of energy that can do physical work, force * distance ]
And, because " Time == Entropy ", there was no time on the clock then.
Eventually, this eXergy will be consumed away, replaced with entropy;
leaving us with a uniform heat bath that has all of the energy
but none of the eXergy. Gravity is the "memory" of where the stuff was.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Edward Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-06-15 05:49 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: Sex toys/dolls. |
| Message-ID | <4c0e1cfd-a19d-4bde-a977-edbdbadb0cf9@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #690691 |
On Friday, June 15, 2018 at 3:44:26 AM UTC-4, Jeff-Relf.Me wrote: > You (Ed) replied: > > I'm on team Pope and team Einstein. > > They play not just different leagues, but in different sports! > > The most "Christian" person I've ever met > was a violent, alcoholic, thieving junkie; > so, yeah, one _can_ play on both sides of the field at once. You had a very poor life if that was the best Christian you ever met. Ed
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | benj <benj@nobody.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-06-15 11:47 -0400 |
| Subject | Re: Sex toys/dolls. |
| Message-ID | <mcRUC.163930$wG5.126207@fx02.iad> |
| In reply to | #690706 |
On 6/15/2018 8:49 AM, Edward Prochak wrote: > On Friday, June 15, 2018 at 3:44:26 AM UTC-4, Jeff-Relf.Me wrote: >> You (Ed) replied: >>> I'm on team Pope and team Einstein. >>> They play not just different leagues, but in different sports! >> >> The most "Christian" person I've ever met >> was a violent, alcoholic, thieving junkie; >> so, yeah, one _can_ play on both sides of the field at once. > > You had a very poor life if that was the best Christian you ever met. > > Ed > Let's just say that in Rolf's world he has a hard time finding "friends".
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Jeff-Relf.Me @. |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-06-15 13:46 -0700 |
| Subject | MostChristian != BestChristian |
| Message-ID | <Jeff-Relf.Me@Jun.15--1.46pm.Seattle.2018> |
| In reply to | #690706 |
> > The most "Christian" person I've ever met > > was a violent, alcoholic, thieving junkie; > > so, yeah, one _can_ play on both sides of the field at once. > > You had a very poor life if that was the best Christian you ever met. MostChristian != BestChristian
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | mitchrae3323@gmail.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-06-09 19:37 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: God Doesn't Play Dice, he's not an idiot; nor is he a "he". |
| Message-ID | <b3860b54-4599-4d8c-b8e1-5ac71ab46113@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #689821 |
On Saturday, June 9, 2018 at 6:28:13 PM UTC-7, Jeff-Relf.Me wrote: > Scott... Scott... Scott... Scott... Scott ! ! ! > > I know Einstein. > Like most people, you do not; but that's OK. > > Einstein's "God/Religion" was Mother Nature. > "God" is nature, nothing more, nothing less. He said the atheists were his problem on his death bed. He also said the Nazarene was beautiful. There was more to Einstein's God than atheists care to admit. Mitchell Raemsch; God creates gravity > And nature is _not_ a person; Einstein made this abundently clear. > > > > I don't share your obsession with the 19th century. > > > GrecoRoman Diodorus Cronus, circa 300 BCE, > > > (rightly) noted that the future is just as fixed as the past. > > > > Begging the claim. > > I can take it back father, if you'd rather, to China and India, > but the record is less clear, so long ago. > > > > Einstein spent decades arguing _against_ the Copenhagen bullshit. > > > He subscribed to "The Ensemble Interpretation" which says, basically, > > > that Quantum Mechanics is merely statistical, not complete ( " > > > correlation does not imply causation " ). > > > > If you'd pull your head out of your posterior for a second, you'd realize > > that Einstein's verified quote (supplied below) supports his TREPIDATION > > about the Copenhagen interpretation. ["God Doesn't Play Dice"] > > Yes, you're right, this time. > God Doesn't Play Dice, he's not an idiot; nor is he a "he". > > Before, you said he " had to admit that the Copenhagen interpretation > was MORE ACCURATE than he was comfortable with ". > He _never_ did that, far from it ( see above ). > > > Apologize or not -- makes no difference, except to show what kind of person you are. > > Indeed, one even say that the courage to apologize involves bucking the > > "leastbad" option that you claim is how we work. Can you do it? > > _You_ made the mistake; _you_ don't know Einsein; I do. > I'm the one correcting you, not vice versa. > > I don't want an apology from you, > because I know you simply don't care about this topic, > not like I do.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | benj <benj@nobody.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-06-09 22:59 -0400 |
| Subject | Re: God Doesn't Play Dice, he's not an idiot; nor is he a "he". |
| Message-ID | <Hu0TC.216580$o43.15533@fx33.iad> |
| In reply to | #689821 |
On 6/9/2018 9:28 PM, Jeff-Relf.Me@. wrote: > Scott... Scott... Scott... Scott... Scott ! ! ! > > I know Einstein. > Like most people, you do not; but that's OK. > > Einstein's "God/Religion" was Mother Nature. > "God" is nature, nothing more, nothing less. > And nature is _not_ a person; Einstein made this abundently clear. > >>> I don't share your obsession with the 19th century. >>> GrecoRoman Diodorus Cronus, circa 300 BCE, >>> (rightly) noted that the future is just as fixed as the past. >> >> Begging the claim. > > I can take it back father, if you'd rather, to China and India, > but the record is less clear, so long ago. > >>> Einstein spent decades arguing _against_ the Copenhagen bullshit. >>> He subscribed to "The Ensemble Interpretation" which says, basically, >>> that Quantum Mechanics is merely statistical, not complete ( " >>> correlation does not imply causation " ). >> >> If you'd pull your head out of your posterior for a second, you'd realize >> that Einstein's verified quote (supplied below) supports his TREPIDATION >> about the Copenhagen interpretation. ["God Doesn't Play Dice"] > > Yes, you're right, this time. > God Doesn't Play Dice, he's not an idiot; nor is he a "he". > > Before, you said he " had to admit that the Copenhagen interpretation > was MORE ACCURATE than he was comfortable with ". > He _never_ did that, far from it ( see above ). > >> Apologize or not -- makes no difference, except to show what kind of person you are. >> Indeed, one even say that the courage to apologize involves bucking the >> "leastbad" option that you claim is how we work. Can you do it? > > _You_ made the mistake; _you_ don't know Einsein; I do. > I'm the one correcting you, not vice versa. > > I don't want an apology from you, > because I know you simply don't care about this topic, > not like I do. > You are beaten Vallor! My Care Meter show that Nobody cares about QM and causality like Rolf Does. Vallor you are an uncaring knuckle-dragger and that means Rolf wins and you lose!
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | vallor <vallor@cultnix.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-06-10 03:51 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: God Doesn't Play Dice, he's not an idiot; nor is he a "he". |
| Message-ID | <fo3lipFr1ppU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #689837 |
On Sat, 09 Jun 2018 22:59:52 -0400, benj wrote: > On 6/9/2018 9:28 PM, Jeff-Relf.Me@. wrote: >> Scott... Scott... Scott... Scott... Scott ! ! ! >> >> I know Einstein. >> Like most people, you do not; but that's OK. >> >> Einstein's "God/Religion" was Mother Nature. >> "God" is nature, nothing more, nothing less. >> And nature is _not_ a person; Einstein made this abundently clear. >> >>>> I don't share your obsession with the 19th century. >>>> GrecoRoman Diodorus Cronus, circa 300 BCE, >>>> (rightly) noted that the future is just as fixed as the past. >>> >>> Begging the claim. >> >> I can take it back father, if you'd rather, to China and India, >> but the record is less clear, so long ago. >> >>>> Einstein spent decades arguing _against_ the Copenhagen bullshit. >>>> He subscribed to "The Ensemble Interpretation" which says, basically, >>>> that Quantum Mechanics is merely statistical, not complete ( " >>>> correlation does not imply causation " ). >>> >>> If you'd pull your head out of your posterior for a second, you'd >>> realize that Einstein's verified quote (supplied below) supports his >>> TREPIDATION about the Copenhagen interpretation. ["God Doesn't Play >>> Dice"] >> >> Yes, you're right, this time. >> God Doesn't Play Dice, he's not an idiot; nor is he a "he". >> >> Before, you said he " had to admit that the Copenhagen interpretation >> was MORE ACCURATE than he was comfortable with ". >> He _never_ did that, far from it ( see above ). >> >>> Apologize or not -- makes no difference, except to show what kind of >>> person you are. >>> Indeed, one even say that the courage to apologize involves bucking >>> the "leastbad" option that you claim is how we work. Can you do it? >> >> _You_ made the mistake; _you_ don't know Einsein; I do. >> I'm the one correcting you, not vice versa. >> >> I don't want an apology from you, >> because I know you simply don't care about this topic, >> not like I do. >> > You are beaten Vallor! My Care Meter show that Nobody cares about QM > and causality like Rolf Does. Vallor you are an uncaring knuckle-dragger > and that means Rolf wins and you lose! Yeah yeah, there is no God but Spinoza, and Einstein is his prophet, yadda yadda. -- -v
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | benj <benj@nobody.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-06-10 12:50 -0400 |
| Subject | Re: God Doesn't Play Dice, he's not an idiot; nor is he a "he". |
| Message-ID | <MFcTC.339801$DS3.321327@fx42.iad> |
| In reply to | #689846 |
On 6/9/2018 11:51 PM, vallor wrote: > On Sat, 09 Jun 2018 22:59:52 -0400, benj wrote: > >> On 6/9/2018 9:28 PM, Jeff-Relf.Me@. wrote: >>> Scott... Scott... Scott... Scott... Scott ! ! ! >>> >>> I know Einstein. >>> Like most people, you do not; but that's OK. >>> >>> Einstein's "God/Religion" was Mother Nature. >>> "God" is nature, nothing more, nothing less. >>> And nature is _not_ a person; Einstein made this abundently clear. >>> >>>>> I don't share your obsession with the 19th century. >>>>> GrecoRoman Diodorus Cronus, circa 300 BCE, >>>>> (rightly) noted that the future is just as fixed as the past. >>>> >>>> Begging the claim. >>> >>> I can take it back father, if you'd rather, to China and India, >>> but the record is less clear, so long ago. >>> >>>>> Einstein spent decades arguing _against_ the Copenhagen bullshit. >>>>> He subscribed to "The Ensemble Interpretation" which says, basically, >>>>> that Quantum Mechanics is merely statistical, not complete ( " >>>>> correlation does not imply causation " ). >>>> >>>> If you'd pull your head out of your posterior for a second, you'd >>>> realize that Einstein's verified quote (supplied below) supports his >>>> TREPIDATION about the Copenhagen interpretation. ["God Doesn't Play >>>> Dice"] >>> >>> Yes, you're right, this time. >>> God Doesn't Play Dice, he's not an idiot; nor is he a "he". >>> >>> Before, you said he " had to admit that the Copenhagen interpretation >>> was MORE ACCURATE than he was comfortable with ". >>> He _never_ did that, far from it ( see above ). >>> >>>> Apologize or not -- makes no difference, except to show what kind of >>>> person you are. >>>> Indeed, one even say that the courage to apologize involves bucking >>>> the "leastbad" option that you claim is how we work. Can you do it? >>> >>> _You_ made the mistake; _you_ don't know Einsein; I do. >>> I'm the one correcting you, not vice versa. >>> >>> I don't want an apology from you, >>> because I know you simply don't care about this topic, >>> not like I do. >>> >> You are beaten Vallor! My Care Meter show that Nobody cares about QM >> and causality like Rolf Does. Vallor you are an uncaring knuckle-dragger >> and that means Rolf wins and you lose! > > Yeah yeah, there is no God but Spinoza, and Einstein is his prophet, > yadda yadda. > See? You just don't care like Rolf does! QED.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Jeff-Relf.Me @. |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-06-10 11:01 -0700 |
| Subject | Mark Twain, Einstein and Stephen Hawking are revered by nerds |
| Message-ID | <Jeff-Relf.Me@Jun.10--11.01am.Seattle.2018> |
| In reply to | #689880 |
You ( Ben and Scott ) wrote: > > Yeah yeah, there is no God but Spinoza, and Einstein is his prophet, > > yadda yadda. > > See? You just don't care like Rolf does! QED. Right, most people don't care; they're asleep, they can't appreciate "life and death"... not like I do. Mark Twain, Einstein and Stephen Hawking are revered by nerds for being "woke" enough to know that we're no better than machines, no better than fungi. In "The Grand Design", 2010, Stephen Hawking said: it seems that we are no more than biological machines and that free will is just an illusion.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | benj <benj@nobody.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-06-11 11:06 -0400 |
| Subject | Re: Mark Twain, Einstein and Stephen Hawking are revered by nerds |
| Message-ID | <9ewTC.126583$pK.102851@fx13.iad> |
| In reply to | #689892 |
On 6/10/2018 2:01 PM, Jeff-Relf.Me@. wrote: > You ( Ben and Scott ) wrote: >>> Yeah yeah, there is no God but Spinoza, and Einstein is his prophet, >>> yadda yadda. >> >> See? You just don't care like Rolf does! QED. > > Right, most people don't care; they're asleep, > they can't appreciate "life and death"... not like I do. Right Rolf. You ar SUCH a caring Left coast Lib. That's why you are such a hero out their among the fruits and nuts. > Mark Twain, Einstein and Stephen Hawking are revered by nerds > for being "woke" enough to know that we're no better than machines, > no better than fungi. Your religious beliefs are NOT proved because someone else believes the same crap you do! > In "The Grand Design", 2010, Stephen Hawking said: > > it seems that we are no more than biological machines > and that free will is just an illusion. Hawking is an idiot too! His babbling in his later books proves it. Maybe you need to quote "GOD" to really "prove" your theories! Nutjob.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Jeff-Relf.Me @. |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-06-11 10:04 -0700 |
| Subject | Asleep, living in a dream. |
| Message-ID | <Jeff-Relf.Me@Jun.11--10.04am.Seattle.2018> |
| In reply to | #689998 |
You ( Ben ) told me: > Maybe you need to quote "GOD" to really "prove" your theories! > Nutjob. Who's your God, and what's your theory ? It's the Bible, right ? if not, you haven't expressed it, nor can you, when asked. You're asleep, living in a dream. Jeff-Relf.Me/TodaysBible.JPG
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-06-11 14:22 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: Asleep, living in a dream. |
| Message-ID | <pfmi6e$1d5o$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #690027 |
On 6/11/2018 12:04 PM, Jeff-Relf.Me@. wrote: > You ( Ben ) told me: >> Maybe you need to quote "GOD" to really "prove" your theories! >> Nutjob. > > Who's your God, and what's your theory ? > > It's the Bible, right ? if not, you haven't expressed it, > nor can you, when asked. You're asleep, living in a dream. > > Jeff-Relf.Me/TodaysBible.JPG > Choose Trump as your God. He will be your Leader.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | benj <benj@nobody.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-06-11 17:21 -0400 |
| Subject | Re: Asleep, living in a dream. |
| Message-ID | <jJBTC.220839$o43.75944@fx33.iad> |
| In reply to | #690027 |
On 6/11/2018 1:04 PM, Jeff-Relf.Me@. wrote: > You ( Ben ) told me: >> Maybe you need to quote "GOD" to really "prove" your theories! >> Nutjob. > > Who's your God, and what's your theory ? > > It's the Bible, right ? if not, you haven't expressed it, > nor can you, when asked. You're asleep, living in a dream. > > Jeff-Relf.Me/TodaysBible.JPG > I"ve told you time and again that "belief" has no place in science, yet you persist in your religious beliefs and encen worse life this fantasy life where you make uyp what other people believe so you can then use that fantasy to "prove" that your religion is correct ant theirs is "wrong". This is druoling lib, nonsense. You have NO idea what I might or might not believe. All you clowns are alike in beating this strawman over and over. Give it up Rolf.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Jeff-Relf.Me @. |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-06-11 14:43 -0700 |
| Subject | Your house is built on sand. |
| Message-ID | <Jeff-Relf.Me@Jun.11--2.43pm.Seattle.2018> |
| In reply to | #690088 |
Looking in the mirror, you (Ben) wrote: > You have NO idea what I might or might not believe. Exactly, your house is built on sand.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-06-11 07:02 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: Putting words in Einstein's mouth. |
| Message-ID | <2soshd5m7hhth6ihlvql1f21brp3ijhnoq@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #689815 |
vallor wrote: > Jeff-Relf.Me wrote: >> >> It's _very_ annoying; ShitHeads, like you, are making me work hard. Relf, you should be nice, to anyone who is willing to talk to you. >Tut tut -- it must be really annoying when the "ShitHeads" turn out to be >right, eh? Lul. It's always been funny, when a troll like "Hadron" or "Ezekiel" would call advocates "morons" or whatever. Occasionally I would retort with "So, you're saying that a 'moron' is able to hand you your ass, every time you go up against him?" -- 'common sense and a balanced view of things have no place in the world of COLA Linux "advocacy".' - Hadron Quark, lying shamelessly
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 4 of 5 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 [4] 5 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | sci.physics
csiph-web