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 2 of 5 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3 4 5 Next page →
| From | Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-06-06 17:52 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: We assert useful premises, disregarding the truth. |
| Message-ID | <fnrdv8FbpqgU59@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #689218 |
On 6/6/18 1:35 PM, benj wrote:
> On 6/6/2018 3:25 PM, Jeff-Relf.Me@. wrote:
>> You ("Odd" [sic]) replied ( to me ):
>>>> "Quantum Mechanics" has no cause and effect, just probabilities;
>>>> it tells you the likelihood of something you might bet on,
>>>> like a poker game; the details, the real cause, is unknown.
>>>
>>> Cause and effect is fully supported in QM.
>>> I think you’re confusing determinism with causality.
>>
>> No, it's SemiRandom, like a poker game... place your bets.
>>
>> _Everyone_ is enslaved, there is no free will.
>> We simply prefer the LeastBad "option",
>> and we can't change what we prefer.
>>
>> We assert useful premises, disregarding the truth.
>> How and What we consume is what makes us different.
>>
> Rolf, your universe as a mechanical device theory is totally bogus.
> One may have a preference but even if it is predetermined you don't have
> to follow it.
It may be predetermined that you will not.
Really, we cannot know... how would we even test the idea of
pre-determination? We cannot know.
--
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>
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | mitchrae3323@gmail.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-06-06 18:15 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: We assert useful premises, disregarding the truth. |
| Message-ID | <3948932a-ecb9-4b58-a098-447c5cb11ff4@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #689262 |
On Wednesday, June 6, 2018 at 5:52:59 PM UTC-7, Snit wrote:
> On 6/6/18 1:35 PM, benj wrote:
> > On 6/6/2018 3:25 PM, Jeff-Relf.Me@. wrote:
> >> You ("Odd" [sic]) replied ( to me ):
> >>>> "Quantum Mechanics" has no cause and effect, just probabilities;
> >>>> it tells you the likelihood of something you might bet on,
> >>>> like a poker game; the details, the real cause, is unknown.
> >>>
> >>> Cause and effect is fully supported in QM.
> >>> I think you’re confusing determinism with causality.
> >>
> >> No, it's SemiRandom, like a poker game... place your bets.
> >>
> >> _Everyone_ is enslaved, there is no free will.
> >> We simply prefer the LeastBad "option",
> >> and we can't change what we prefer.
> >>
> >> We assert useful premises, disregarding the truth.
> >> How and What we consume is what makes us different.
> >>
> > Rolf, your universe as a mechanical device theory is totally bogus.
> > One may have a preference but even if it is predetermined you don't have
> > to follow it.
>
> It may be predetermined that you will not.
>
> Really, we cannot know... how would we even test the idea of
> pre-determination? We cannot know.
>
> --
> 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>
How does an atomic clock press the button to initiate
its measurement? Then how does it press the button to
end it? This makes that clocks measurement Quantum Mechanically
inexact.
Inbetween how is a vibration or radiation detected?
Mitchell Raemsch
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Jeff-Relf.Me @. |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-06-06 18:21 -0700 |
| Subject | No truth, Nothing to aspire to ? |
| Message-ID | <Jeff-Relf.Me@Jun.6--6.21pm.Seattle.2018> |
| In reply to | #689262 |
> how would we even test the idea of pre-determination ? We cannot know. All of history, every lesson ever, every advance, tells us: Randomness is ignorance, nothing more; otherwise, there'd be no truth, nothing to aspire to. _Everyone_ is enslaved, there is no free will. We simply prefer the LeastBad "option", and we can't change what we prefer. General Relativity's four dimensional TimeScape is static, eternal, perfectly causal... it is, at once, everything _and_ nothing. We assert useful premises, disregarding the truth. How and What we consume is what makes us different.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | benj <benj@nobody.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-06-06 22:47 -0400 |
| Subject | Re: No truth, Nothing to aspire to ? |
| Message-ID | <n11SC.81859$Kp4.69527@fx43.iad> |
| In reply to | #689270 |
On 6/6/2018 9:21 PM, Jeff-Relf.Me@. wrote: >> how would we even test the idea of pre-determination ? We cannot know. > > All of history, every lesson ever, every advance, tells us: > > Randomness is ignorance, nothing more; > otherwise, there'd be no truth, nothing to aspire to. > > _Everyone_ is enslaved, there is no free will. > We simply prefer the LeastBad "option", > and we can't change what we prefer. > > General Relativity's four dimensional TimeScape is static, eternal, > perfectly causal... it is, at once, everything _and_ nothing. > > We assert useful premises, disregarding the truth. > How and What we consume is what makes us different. > And the way you know that everything is predetermined is? There is NO way. You are just flapping your gums to give your religious opinion. I can say that tomorrow I will make a decision NOT predetermined by all previous experience (or some set mechanical future) and will choose the opposite of what I was inclined to do, and then you will say but even your idea to decide the opposite way was preordained by everything that happened to that point. So who is correct? Nobody can tell, which is why you are just selling your religious beliefs here and calling ti science.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Jeff-Relf.Me @. |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-06-06 20:28 -0700 |
| Subject | NO TRUTH. |
| Message-ID | <Jeff-Relf.Me@Jun.6--8.28pm.Seattle.2018> |
| In reply to | #689277 |
> tomorrow I will choose the opposite of what I was inclined to do,
Out of sheer ignorance, no doubt; still:
All of history, every lesson ever, every advance, tells us:
Randomness is ignorance, nothing more;
otherwise, there'd be NO TRUTH, nothing to aspire to.
_Everyone_ is enslaved, there is no free will.
We simply prefer the LeastBad "option",
and we can't change what we prefer.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | benj <benj@nobody.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-06-07 05:32 -0400 |
| Subject | Re: NO TRUTH. |
| Message-ID | <cZ6SC.264825$Hv4.229788@fx39.iad> |
| In reply to | #689280 |
On 6/6/2018 11:28 PM, Jeff-Relf.Me@. wrote: >> tomorrow I will choose the opposite of what I was inclined to do, > > Out of sheer ignorance, no doubt; still: > > All of history, every lesson ever, every advance, tells us: > > Randomness is ignorance, nothing more; > otherwise, there'd be NO TRUTH, nothing to aspire to. > > _Everyone_ is enslaved, there is no free will. > We simply prefer the LeastBad "option", > and we can't change what we prefer. > Preach it, Rev! Preach it!
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Jeff-Relf.Me @. |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-06-07 11:18 -0700 |
| Subject | Harp playing, androgynous angels in the clouds ? |
| Message-ID | <Jeff-Relf.Me@Jun.7--11.18am.Seattle.2018> |
| In reply to | #689293 |
You (Ben) replied ( to me ): > > Randomness is ignorance, nothing more; > > otherwise, there'd be NO TRUTH, nothing to aspire to. > > Preach it, Rev! Preach it! And your "gospel" is what ? harp playing, androgynous angels in the clouds ?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | benj <benj@nobody.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-06-07 16:42 -0400 |
| Subject | Re: Harp playing, androgynous angels in the clouds ? |
| Message-ID | <1NgSC.215303$o43.200375@fx33.iad> |
| In reply to | #689330 |
On 6/7/2018 2:18 PM, Jeff-Relf.Me@. wrote: > You (Ben) replied ( to me ): >>> Randomness is ignorance, nothing more; >>> otherwise, there'd be NO TRUTH, nothing to aspire to. >> >> Preach it, Rev! Preach it! > > And your "gospel" is what ? > harp playing, androgynous angels in the clouds ? > When we are talking science, Rolf, my religious beliefs are totally irrelevant as are yours. This is clearly a lesson you have never learned.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Jeff-Relf.Me @. |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-06-07 14:15 -0700 |
| Subject | Ben Jacoby takes _pride_ in his randomness, I don't. |
| Message-ID | <Jeff-Relf.Me@Jun.7--2.15pm.Seattle.2018> |
| In reply to | #689369 |
You (Ben) replied ( to me ): > > And your "gospel" is what ? > > harp playing, androgynous angels in the clouds ? > > my religious beliefs are totally irrelevant Truer words have never been spoken. You take _pride_ in your randomness, I don't. Randomness is ignorance, nothing more; otherwise, there'd be NO TRUTH, nothing to aspire to.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | benj <benj@nobody.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-06-08 02:20 -0400 |
| Subject | Re: Ben Jacoby takes _pride_ in his randomness, I don't. |
| Message-ID | <nfpSC.143891$wG5.139275@fx02.iad> |
| In reply to | #689377 |
On 6/7/2018 5:15 PM, Jeff-Relf.Me@. wrote: > You (Ben) replied ( to me ): >>> And your "gospel" is what ? >>> harp playing, androgynous angels in the clouds ? >> >> my religious beliefs are totally irrelevant > > Truer words have never been spoken. > > You take _pride_ in your randomness, I don't. > Randomness is ignorance, nothing more; > otherwise, there'd be NO TRUTH, nothing to aspire to. > Pride? Really? Rolf you are still a moron! If it's all a machine, why bother? Your religion is utter hopelessness! It's you who have it wrong. 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.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Jeff-Relf.Me @. |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-06-07 23:36 -0700 |
| Subject | Worshiping Ignorance. |
| Message-ID | <Jeff-Relf.Me@Jun.7--11.36pm.Seattle.2018> |
| In reply to | #689431 |
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 ? We simply prefer the LeastBad "option", and we can't change what we prefer. General Relativity's four dimensional TimeScape is static, eternal, perfectly causal... it is, at once, everything _and_ nothing.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | benj <benj@nobody.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-06-08 11:42 -0400 |
| Subject | Re: Worshiping Ignorance. |
| Message-ID | <iuxSC.158766$R51.149070@fx03.iad> |
| In reply to | #689435 |
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.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Jeff-Relf.Me @. |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-06-08 10:17 -0700 |
| Subject | " I can choose to do the opposite of what I prefer " -- Ben Jacoby. |
| Message-ID | <Jeff-Relf.Me@Jun.8--10.17am.Seattle.2018> |
| In reply to | #689482 |
You (Ben) wrote: > I can choose to do the opposite of what I prefer. Please haul your brain down to the nearest mechanic, it's sprung a leak. > > 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. There is no Time dimension outside of (4-D) SpaceTime. You can ( and do ) invent dimensions all day long, -- for cuteness, gender, skin color, autism, etc.; but none of them have anything to do with physical reality. You (Ben) worship ignorance, a.k.a. the "multiverse".
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | vallor <vallor@cultnix.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-06-09 01:58 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: Worshiping Ignorance. |
| Message-ID | <fo0qhdFbsq2U1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #689482 |
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. -- -v
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-06-08 19:55 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: Worshiping Ignorance. |
| Message-ID | <fo0ttsFcl4oU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #689593 |
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>
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | vallor <vallor@cultnix.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-06-09 21:37 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: Worshiping Ignorance. |
| Message-ID | <fo2vkbFochoU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #689596 |
On Fri, 08 Jun 2018 19:55:56 -0700, Snit wrote: > 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? If you have to ask that question, then you don't have it. I would leave it at that, but perhaps you are making a serious inquiry. In that case, I suggest you consider points made by some modern philosophers. This is very much wrapped up in the "hard" problem of consciousness, and without an appreciation of that, you can find yourself stuck in long- refuted 19th century determinism. One point is that the universe has already demonstrated it has non- deterministic processes, so there is the very real possibility that consciousness is also non-deterministic. Another one is that if free will is an illusion[*], it's very hard to shake off. If these ideas truly interest you, I suggest watching Dr. Searle's Google talk, found here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vCyKNtocdZE Good luck, and may the force be with you. -- -v [*] This is, of course, assuming you experience free will. If you don't experience your will as being free, then you belong in Jeff's category.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Jeff-Relf.Me @. |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-06-09 14:51 -0700 |
| Subject | EINSTEIN's category, far from the Pope. |
| Message-ID | <Jeff-Relf.Me@Jun.9--2.51pm.Seattle.2018> |
| In reply to | #689728 |
Scott replied ( to Mike ): > > How do you know if you have free will ? > > This is very much wrapped up in the "hard" problem of consciousness, > and without an appreciation of that, you can find yourself stuck in > long-refuted 19th century determinism. "refuted" by whom, the Pope ? Everyone avoids the truth, to some extent; we assert _useful_ premises, irregardless of the truth; hence ego, online gaming and religion. Einstein, on the other hand, loved the truth, more than most. To his death, he kept telling us: free will is an illusion. > One point is that the universe has already demonstrated it has non- > deterministic processes, so there is the very real possibility that > consciousness is also non-deterministic. All of history, every lesson ever, every advance, tells me ( not you ): Randomness is ignorance, nothing more; otherwise, there'd be NO TRUTH, nothing for me to aspire to. > If you don't experience your will as being free, > then you belong in [ EINSTEIN's ] category [ far from the Pope ]. _Everyone_ is enslaved, there is no free will. We simply prefer the LeastBad "option", and we can't change what we prefer. How and What we consume is what makes us different. 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. General Relativity's four dimensional TimeScape is static, eternal, perfectly causal... it is, at once, everything _and_ nothing.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Melzzzzz <Melzzzzz@zzzzz.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-06-09 22:01 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: EINSTEIN's category, far from the Pope. |
| Message-ID | <37YSC.337230$EL2.232858@fx37.am4> |
| In reply to | #689746 |
On 2018-06-09, Jeff-Relf.Me @. <Jeff-Relf.Me@> wrote: > Scott replied ( to Mike ): >> > How do you know if you have free will ? >> >> This is very much wrapped up in the "hard" problem of consciousness, >> and without an appreciation of that, you can find yourself stuck in >> long-refuted 19th century determinism. > > "refuted" by whom, the Pope ? > > Everyone avoids the truth, to some extent; > we assert _useful_ premises, irregardless of the truth; > hence ego, online gaming and religion. > > Einstein, on the other hand, loved the truth, more than most. > To his death, he kept telling us: free will is an illusion. I remember one study they tried to predict direction of fly, they couldn't. Even fly is unpredictable. -- press any key to continue or any other to quit...
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Jeff-Relf.Me @. |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-06-09 15:11 -0700 |
| Subject | To a retard, _everything_ is "random". |
| Message-ID | <Jeff-Relf.Me@Jun.9--3.11pm.Seattle.2018> |
| In reply to | #689753 |
You (Branimir) replied ( to me ): > > Everyone avoids the truth, to some extent; > > we assert _useful_ premises, irregardless of the truth; > > hence ego, online gaming and religion. > > > > Einstein, on the other hand, loved the truth, more than most. > > To his death, he kept telling us: free will is an illusion. > > I remember one study they tried to predict direction of a fly, > they couldn't. Even flies are [ SemiRandom ]. To a retard, _everything_ is "random". All of history, every lesson ever, every advance, tells _me_ ( not you ): Randomness is ignorance, nothing more; otherwise, there'd be NO TRUTH, nothing for me to aspire to.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-06-09 15:13 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: EINSTEIN's category, far from the Pope. |
| Message-ID | <fo31neFoterU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #689753 |
On 6/9/18 3:01 PM, Melzzzzz wrote: > On 2018-06-09, Jeff-Relf.Me @. <Jeff-Relf.Me@> wrote: >> Scott replied ( to Mike ): >>>> How do you know if you have free will ? >>> >>> This is very much wrapped up in the "hard" problem of consciousness, >>> and without an appreciation of that, you can find yourself stuck in >>> long-refuted 19th century determinism. >> >> "refuted" by whom, the Pope ? >> >> Everyone avoids the truth, to some extent; >> we assert _useful_ premises, irregardless of the truth; >> hence ego, online gaming and religion. >> >> Einstein, on the other hand, loved the truth, more than most. >> To his death, he kept telling us: free will is an illusion. > > I remember one study they tried to predict direction of fly, they > couldn't. Even fly is unpredictable. > Unable to be predicted is not the same as random. I share the intuition that there is no randomness... but I absolutely agree it is merely an intuition and unsupportable. -- 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>
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 2 of 5 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3 4 5 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | sci.physics
csiph-web