TheGeckomancer

Lying is a sign of intelligence. Lying is the act of using your imagination to construct a false reality close enough to the original to be believable, for self gain, it's one of the highest standards of intellect. Sociopaths, and high IQ people both are generally shown to be better liars. Additionally, kids who lie younger tend to be more successful in life. Speaking only truth just makes you a computer, capable of reciting information. Lying shows comprehension and the ability to mix information in different ways. Frankly, a person who could speak only truth would be very handicapped in society and would definitely be suffering from some brain defects. Whether or not you consider those defects a bad thing is subjective but I bet they would also have problems with imagination and maybe critical thinking. There aren't any advantages I can think of. I can always choose to tell the truth, and choose to lie. I can't see any advantage to giving up one of those options. I try to lie as little as possible for several reasons; it takes more mental energy, you have to commit memory if it's an ongoing lie, it makes me feel worse, and the more often you do it the less credible you are (I prefer my lies to be rare and believed). But using it rarely is not the same as never. Even choosing to never lie is not the same as not being able to.

Maybe you can. I cannot approach nothingness rationally. I can dance around it with logic and reason, but I can't actually visualize real nothingness. I guess a better way of saying this is what concepts do you have trouble wrapping your mind around.

My problem with this is there is not VOID between things. Space is a thing. And space cannot just be the distance between things because it has a fabric that can be warped by gravity.

Thank you. Those answers were very informative. For point 2, I kind of figured there would not be a net gain. Point 3, I am not sure I fully understand the relevance to my question, I am asking about space, I just used the time thought experiment as an example. Point 4, space is the place things can exist and move through, when I try to imagine nothingness I usually imagine no space or time, well try to imagine anyway. MigL on point 1 I do remember you talking about this somewhat. I didn't realize my questions would roll back into that, I didn't even know about the isotropic principle. I just know information disconnects seem fundamentally paradoxical and wrong, seriously it upsets me to try to imagine a universe like that. With that kind of a universe you could have huge sections of the universe where magic is the physics and unicorn blood powers starships..... It actually really bothers me to think about that lol. It would also mean everything we know about the universe is fundamentally wrong and only locally right. Which is also really upsetting. And we would NEVER BE ABLE to know what is fundamentally right. But it would be a nice omniverse in universe concept.

TJ You forget most people start off religious. We don't get a choice. Born into religious families raised religious. We have seen both viewpoints, I know I have. I USED TO THINK there was something majestic, or secret or unique about the way I looked at the world because of my beliefs. Then my beliefs changed, and I found nothing else did. I am speaking from personal experience and embarrassment when I say your view point offers you nothing unique, and it's not brilliantly insightful. It's close-minded in a self praising egoistic way. Religion affords you the ability to be humble before God but arrogant before all other men without knowing any more.

Garnish better please, you could have added "synergized the paradigm" ANYWHERE to this sentence and it would have been fine.

So we know how sensationalized articles get. I am NOT SAYING that this is not aliens (I hope so to) but here is an interesting counter point. https://briankoberlein.com/2015/04/02/messages-from-home/ also http://phenomena.nationalgeographic.com/2015/04/02/mathematical-pattern-found-in-enigmatic-radio-bursts-but-its-not-e-t/

Are there NON-HUMAN concepts, that cannot be approached rationally? Some come to mind, nothingness being the big one.

Forewarning, some of what I am going to say is speculative, but I am not postulating any of it's true, it's for the purposes of my questions. Regardless, if I rant too much feel free to move this thread. 1. Does anyone else have a problem with sharing "space" mentally between the concepts of locality and infinity? To me, the two ideas seem almost mutually exclusive. In an infinite universe the theory of locality implies that there are flat out information disconnects throughout the universe, because you can have empty regions of space so large, the expansion rate is faster than light and no information enters the region or leaves. Places where no information is or ever will be exchanged, and technically everywhere is one of those points to a ton of places. But this creates crap-ton of problems to me. For one, it means we would never actually be able to know if the universe was consistent, only the parts we observe. It would also imply there are things, that exist, that we cannot ever know about. I hope this idea made enough sense to follow, I actually thought about this question all day and couldn't think of a good way to express my thoughts on it. I hope this worked. 2. So, I posted on a topic recently explaining to someone else about vacuum energy, or one facet of it anyway. Specifically the pairs of virtual particles that come into existence and annihilate. I have been wondering, couldn't a space be created of intense vacuum pressure, designed to coax these pairs into existence, with electromagnetic shunts basically that funnel them away from each other to prevent annihilation. If so, could work be extracted from this at any point in any meaningful way. As soon as I went to pose this question, I decided to google search first and found a ton of people talking about this, guess some refer to it as zero point energy. I feel I have a pretty solid grasp of physics. To me this idea is sound. HOWEVER, I also know the implications of what this means if it's true. My bet is I am overlooking something, if it seems too good to be true it probably is. It also occurred to me that it may be possible without actually being practical, such as the energy required to operate the system being greater than energy extracted. I would love to hear some people more knowledgeable about this, and if anyone has any some links to credible sources. This is in the perpetual energy category which means I KNOW google searches will just yield quackery which is why I didn't dig too deep. 3. I read a really interesting thought experiment posed by someone, not sure if it was on this forum a couple months ago. And it's been swirling around in my head. It was a way of proving there is no minimum unit of time. The idea was you find the minimum unit of time called T, you create a device that can accelerate to .9C in one T, and you have a person outside the device time your travel for one T, at the end of which you are supposed to come to a complete stop. The values won't line up, you will always end out of time with each other. He explained it a lot better than me, and if anyone cares I will TRY to find it, no guarantees. I was wondering if any similar thought experiment could be constructed to establish if there is, or is not, can, or cannot be a minimum value of space. This is a question I think about a lot. Because to me it's an interesting indicator on if we are a computer simulation or not. If we can find the pixel, as it were. The problem is from a programming perspective, I know you could always design the largest interactive pieces of a world to be too large to observe the smallest components. But IF the universe is a simulation then space IS quantized at some point, whether we can ever observe that point is a totally different question. I think the idea that there is no minimum time value has interesting implications for space, but I don't fully understand them, and if someone else wants to take a crack at it I would not object. 4. This question is somewhat related to the third. I have trouble with certain properties of space. The biggest one being, it is SOMETHING, it's not nothing, but what is it? I have read some articles suggesting it may be a fluid or sorts, but these articles were very dubiously sourced. Also, does space have friction as an inherent property? I know it would have to be CLOSE to 0 but is it ACTUALLY 0 and do we have a way to tell? And is space MADE of something? I sincerely doubt it has smaller components, but as far as I can tell it doesn't have larger components either, but it can also grow. I hope other people find this confusing too... Also, if space is matter then how can other things occupy it at the same time or nothing? Can other things have any of the same properties as space? I have a couple other questions I will post in separate threads because they DEFINITELY fall outside of physics, these questions totally stretch the topic as it is.

I do not understand what your argument is anymore. You agree with me but dont? And policy makers do not agree with you. They have their own agendas for restricting weapons that have nothing to do with public safety.I don't care about guns one way or another but it's obvious the American population is unhappy and the us government would rather "control" the population than deal with the problems that are causing this. They just feed you a line about safety and you decide another right is worth losing. You addressed NONE of my points. Not the lethality of newly developed weapons, the ease of making guns, none of it. Benjamin Franklin. “Those who surrender freedom for security will not have, nor do they deserve, either one.” And I agree with that statement with every fiber of my being. Especially the DESERVE part. Like I said, guns have been more common in the US than cars for over a hundred years. When did we become such a spineless shit of a nation. One very basic fact of life. No one at all is looking out for or cares about your well being. If anyone is doing ANYTHING that you think benefits you, it's for their own agenda. Altruism doesn't exist. You should really look and people's motivations for agreeing with you before deciding to jump into bed with anyone that you think is pushing your agenda. If some gun nut hopped on here and started piggybacking off of my arguments but adding little seeds of insanity along the way I would make it very clear I do NOT agree with them, even if out viewpoints coincide in the end. One final thing to be clear about gilga, you and strange arguing the way you have is not doing your cause any justice. You are proving my point that this is a topic people refuse to act rationally about. ACCEPT THE FACT THAT LIFE IS A GAMBLE AND YOU CAN DIE AT ANY MOMENT. When you do, people having guns stops mattering entirely. Oh and I don't live in a nice urban white community I live in Las Vegas, and have my whole life, and have had guns fired at me as a child by wanna be gangsters. I have been exposed to more gun violence than you ever will. I am telling you guns do not matter. Maybe I am not getting something. I am going to sum up the argument both you and Strange are making, when factoring in my points. "I understand that banning guns will do nothing to reduce the availability, or lethality of guns. I also know that this is an illusion, damaging to society and myself. But in spite of this we have to take actions that cause a lot of harm to no benefit." This is literally what you guys are saying when I read your writing.

Not a high end computer tech. I am a certified computer technician but just A+ Net+, frankly most places DO NOT CARE AT ALL about college degrees for any technical field. You build your degree in the form of your portfolio. There was a really complex math problem posted online on google's home page for a while, this was like a decade ago, if you SOLVED the problem it actually led you to another web page where google would offer you a job. No one cares about a piece of paper anymore. Formal education is still incredibly useful, self taught is usually gappy and it's hard to stay motivated, but just know that you can't rest on a heavily engraved piece of parchment, no one cares, you need a portfolio, people want to see what you can do. That's all that matters. In case you care about the math problem, and how it worked, http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=3916173

No. People play songs backwards all the time, symmetrical would have the same sound played forwards and backwards.

And this is really the crux of my argument. The odds the message is entirely mundane are literally infinity to 1. Even assuming you get a message of exotic nature, the odds of you being able to comprehend and USE the message are again approaching infinity to 1.

This really feels like I just stepped in on the punchline for a really elaborate joke or anecdote. Otherwise I have no idea what you are talking about. And the comparisons make no sense. Everywhere you are going at all times you have an objective for doing it.

Wait to see if tj mccaustland has anything left before locking. But it looks like it.

My knowledge of chemistry is far below everyone in this conversation. But I know about fluoroantimonic acids...... This is a REALLY bad idea. I do know there is almost no actual lab research even being done with this stuff because it's just too unsafe.

This will simply come down to if you love it or not. You will only be able to make the decision when the time comes. Anything before that is pure speculation. Learn it as long as you can and choose when you must choose. Don't overthink things like this. It doesn't help. You will go back and forth about this a thousand times, and all that will do is hinder your studies and give you unneeded angst. The simple truth is your life is your own. Not your parent's, your governments, or your potential future kids, just as THEIR life will be their own.... When it comes to who to date, parents CAN (not always) know best. When it comes to what to do with your life NO ONE AT ALL has any clue but you. Happiness is an ENTIRELY personal pursuit.

So someone did the leg work for you on this one. Enjoy. It comes full circle. www.darthjarjar.com It's VERY convincing.

Flat out, different study tactics will work differently for different people. I am FASCINATED by the topic of maximizing learning, for a lot of reasons, this is the only topic on the forums I will claim more than passing knowledge in. If anyone wants to have an in-depth conversation with me about this topic I would LOVE it. Couple of universal rules to help with maximizing comprehension (which becomes as important as retention as you go up in school). 1. Find what about the topic fascinates you. If you don't see anything, dig deeper, you are not looking hard enough, everything is fascinating. This will do more for your retention than ANYTHING else will. 2. There is a reason why rule number 1 is rule number 1. 3. Find what mediums of entertainment you expose yourself to and work these things into it, this works ESPECIALLY WELL if you are fascinated by it. There are informationally accurate resources on every conceivable topic in every conceivable medium these days. We have amazing edutainment saturation, good to use it. 4. Don't just seek to take in information, pose real compelling questions. Most people when they are learning a topic, they ask these questions without realizing it, and then when they realize the question does not have a simple answer drop it. Pursuit of your answer will BURN the knowledge into your head. Couple of tips to help out with retention for the actually pointless stuff in school like dates, and a countries national bird and whatever...... 1. Mnemonics. Look it up. Get a book or 2 on it. Take a class if you can. Seriously, this is how you overcome the dumb shit in school, like memorizing medical terminology. 2. Find what type of learner you are and build a study method around it. This takes experimentation. There is no best that works for everyone. For me personally, I have found writing helps me retain, so I will hand copy my notes several times. It's a pain but when I am serious about a test I have never gotten less than 100%. 3. Find additional information on the topic, especially if it's interesting. This is not about comprehension it's about retention. Having a more complete knowledge of a topic, especially if there are more interesting parts, helps you retain the whole story. For example there is this podcaster I follow named Dan Carlin. Brilliant guy, does both a political and history podcast, the shows are VERY NARROW in topic. Which is REALLY GOOD for study purposes. And he cites sources INSANE. Plus he is a fantastic story teller. 4. Study partners only help if they are ALSO INTERESTED IN THE TOPIC AND CAN HAVE A STIMULATING CONVERSATION ABOUT IT. You will not make someone else care if they do not make themselves, do not pick up dead weight study partners because they will waste your time. 5. In general study partners are a bad idea, unless they are flat out smarter than you and you know it, AND they are the helpful type. On a final note. It will not help you with any higher math's overall BUT it will help with solving, I am living proof of that. But still pick up a good book on mental math. It makes a world of difference. I recommend Secrets of Mental Math by Arthur Benjamin and Michael Shermer. ALSO, IF ANYONE HAS HAD ACTUAL SUCCESS WITH A SPEED READING TECHNIQUE PLEASE TELL ME WHAT IT WAS. In the same vein, anything that helps with photographic memory development. I average a page every 40 to 50 seconds. Sometimes as low as 20 seconds and as high as 1 minute 30 depending on density and complexity. And anything for languages. Rosetta stone works well for retention but not for comprehension or conversational speech, which I know is a lot to ask. Oh and the amount of time you study before you can't benefit anymore varies from person to person. Basically, be very aware of how you feel. When you are "done" studying you will know it. That's when you stop. I know that's vague but if you are not focused on it whats the point. You should know that better than anyone. If you are not done studying too bad. Burning out is worse, you will retain less and interest will go down. Usually a 2 to 4 hour break is more than enough for a fresh session.

86 hours. I was awake longer than this but this was the work shift. It was a straight shift. I was doing RF engineering for ATT. Totally illegal but when you work with NO ONE face to face and they keep passing you off to remote technicians to supervise you can work for a week straight without anyone noticing. I started having legitimate visual hallucinations, only time in my life I have. They were actually pretty mild. It was mostly what LOOKED LIKE troll dolls dancing and melting and reshaping in the corners of my vision, couldn't look at them directly.

I can imagine some naming issues with that after the first thing you name. And 3 days is fine, only worry if you start losing time and getting random nosebleeds. That's when I know I need to sleep or eat. I have a hard time figuring out which one my body wants.

No. On this one thing he has a point. Computers SUCK at complex pattern recognition. Even ones meant to just do that. But again, like I said, I can literally show you dozens of images you can do this with. And many more that actually HAVE messages, they are just meaningless, or put there for funzies, or require context. So you have eaten a lot of flack here about this topic and have stayed completely focused on coming up with what you think is an answer. I am not being insulting I am genuinely trying to understand. What do you think this will accomplish? Do you have a specific expectation for this message? What will you do if there isn't one? Look forever? And if there is and you decode it to find out it says "1337 h@x0r 4 L1F3" or something? Or what if the message is even more mundane than that and requires context. What if it says "Wear the red hat" or something? I like to step back and look at potential outcomes before even starting problems. It seems like a good way to manage my time and focus. I don't see a lot of potential gratification to this problem. Even if you happened to stumble across some secret super important message it will almost certainly not matter. If I KNEW beyond any shadow of a doubt that the US Government was responsible for 9/11 nothing actually changes. There are an INFINITUDE of meaningless messages for every single one that has meaning, and of those there are an INFINITUDE that you couldn't do anything with even if you decoded and it was useful.

First of all this isn't a law, it's an observation that usually holds true. Secondly. You are applying right and wrong arbitrarily. In the case of schrondingers cat the experiment going wrong would the cat simply not being there when you opened the box, alive or dead. Thirdly, it's not even a very solid observation because it generates INSANE amounts of confirmation bias. If you are looking for the things that go wrong you will find them. And the ability to make a positive from a negative does not make the initial thing positive. It just makes you resilient in the face of setbacks.

You avoided my questions and sort of answered the first one. It seems your view is incompatible with the faith based god how do you reconcile that? Also, did you ever stop and think that we are in a computer simulation? Our universe obeys all the rules, is in fact indistinguishable from a simulation. Are we God's computer program or an alien's? Seems like a very ungodly thing to do, omnipotent entity and just runs us on a computer instead of making the real thing. We could just be a reality TV show. Or a TINY TINY TINY part in a much bigger calculation. Beyond that, some mathematicians have started working on an interesting theory of nothing. It explains that the universe still is nothing, all matter and energy is illusory. Since I just woke up and I don't think you'd care about the article anyway, I am going to give you my super dumbed down interpretation. Do you know about vacuum energy? Nature abhors a vacuum, in the emptiness of space particles come into existence all the time. They ALWAYS come into existence as a pair of particles that annihilate each other, unless their paths don't intercept, in which case they continue existing. Now this WOULD violate the law of thermodynamics I mentioned earlier in this discussion, but the TOTAL energy in the universe is still unchanged, since you basically have a unit of positive energy and unit of negative energy that cancel each other out. It's kind of like an algebra problem, you can add or subtract whatever you want so long as you do it evenly from both sides and don't change the total. Basically it's possible our entire universe is just a really complex and elegant arrangement of nothing. What then, what if there simply is no matter or energy and this is just a bizarre state of nothingness? You keep saying religion helps you, but I think it seriously limits your vision. Like I said before, most real scientists do not rule out the existence of god, but you rule out the lack of existence of god. Who is purposefully blinding themselves?

Tjmccaustlin I have a couple questions for you. first, could god create a logically consistent universe that doesn't require his intervention to run? I think you will answer yes. Second question, if God can do this, did he? Third question, if yes then doesn't that invalidate the requirement for God for things to function? Fourth, If God chose to create a universe that requires his intervention doesn't that undermine the need for faith?