BahadirArici

2 hours ago, dimreepr said:

I don't want to be rude, but have you read this thread?

Oh, what made you think that?

2 hours ago, Strange said:

It has certainly been seen with muons: http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/Relativ/muon.html

Thank you!

I have a quick question:

Time is relative. So in certain circumstances time acts different and we are able to measure how different it behaves. 

Here is my question: Is there a test done with an uranium-like material.

So, radiactive materials age very fast. It should age differently in given circumstances and we should be able to masure how different it ages.

Does anyone knows such a test? Can you share with me?

23 minutes ago, swansont said:

But some other civilization does not actually have a 10 billion year head-start on us. There's a period of time where complex life simply could not have arisen. All we had was Hydrogen, Helium and Lithium. And even after stars started forming, they had to die out and go supernova before we would see some of the heavier elements. And the ones beyond iron needed another generation of stars to pass, and for the elements to disperse and form new galaxies. And without heavy elements, how is an advanced civilization to form?

you are almost going to say we must be the most advanced civilisation out there. 

9 minutes ago, koti said:

Let me give you an example...if you were to sacrifice all your energy and time to observe an ant which you are not even sure is there, would you do that or would you spend your life on more productive things? 

Comparing ants to humans is something i dont get either. We are intelligent beings on the verge of Singularity and colonising another planet. You take us too lightly. We are very interesting.

7 minutes ago, koti said:

Considering the billions of billions potential life harbouring planets out there it isn’t controversial imo to think that we are not alone in the universe. But type 3 civilizations observing us is far fetched, if they exist they probably don’t care about us because they have more important things to do. Also remeber that a type 3 civilization would also be bound by Einstein so if they are really far away they couldn’t observe us at present moment.

Haha so true. maybe they are not that far away than. 

These are all opinions but i dont understand people who think "They have more important things to do" Observing other intelligent beings must be highest of all sciences. Noone would ignore such a thing. This doesnt make sense to me.

Universe is more than three times older than Earth.

So, if there is life outside of Earth, there must be Type 3 civilisations that are billions years ahead of us.

With our very limited technology, we keep observing everything, from animals to black holes in the Universe.

We observe and even tag the migratory birds, wolves, lions and many others and try to understand everything about them.

Furthermore we record and even name each individual of these animals.

We observe them very personally.

Now lets step back and think how a Type 3 civilisation might be observing us.

1) There are no Aliens.
Even if we ruled the UFO enigma out, in a Universe with quadrillion stars, the probability of life existing apart from Earth is way higher than the opposite.

2) Even if there are Aliens, we must be the most developed civilisation.
Earth is 4.54 billion years old and the Universe is about 13.8 billion years old. So if there are Alien races, some of them must be billion years ahead of us. 

3) We shouldnt try to contact with Alien civilisations because they might harm us if they know about us. 
This is absurd. How can it be possible that a Type 3 civilisation will know about us only because we tried to contact with them. If we are observing the Universe with our limited technology, they most probably are doing the same thing for billion years. They probably already know we exist. And obviously we are not attacked yet.

4) Alien civilisations know about us but they dont care at all.
We humans observe everything, especially other living, their habitat, their habits, everything about them. Aliens should also have "scientiests" who observe us with all the technology they have. Observing everything.

5)  Aliens are so advanced that we are like forrest animals/apes/insects to them. 
We are not even as developed as a Type 1 civilisation, that is true but we are not inferior beings. We are intelligent beings and we belong to the same intelligent community of the Universe as any of them.

6) Some Alien civilisations are evil and they want our minererals/organs/want to eat us.
This is plain black propaganda. They are Type 3 civilisation. Their technology is beyond our imagination. They dont need anything from us.

7) Aliens are just organic beings like us.
Even we are on the doorsteps of Singularity. So, when we are thinking about Aliens, we should also be thinking about a community of inorganics living together with organics: a community of Artificial Intellectuals.

On 17.02.2018 at 2:08 PM, MarkE said:

I have a few more questions, regarding your ideas:

- How will this new world system, which intends to be more equal and narrow the gap between poor and rich, be at the same time unequal enough for some of us to be motivated enough to work harder, in order to be rewarded more? A ‘free market’ with boundaries at the same time?

It is simple. universal basic income eliminates the hunger or inhumane living on earth. So everyone gets a fair standard of living. Also the economical cap, being able to own a limited money eliminates the super rich. In between, it is upto your tallents and your determination where you wan to be economically. There is no boundries for free market what so ever. 

On 17.02.2018 at 2:08 PM, MarkE said:

- I like the idea of the basic income, basic housing etc. It could wipe out a great deal of crime (everybody needs to eat). But how will you make sure basic income won’t lead to laziness? What kind of punishments would you involve? Will there be basic work as well?

There is no punishment for being lazy. There is no such thing as lazy in my taste. Everyone has the need of existing themselves. In this economic system very most of us are not having a true human experience. We dont have the chance to create or do things we desire. Basic income will give that opportunity and i believe most of people will have a meaningful life, will search a meaningful life, even when they are not working. They ll work on their talents, their desires, enriching themselves enriching our culture. 

On 17.02.2018 at 2:08 PM, MarkE said:

- How will you make sure that those with high status and responsibilities could lose their job if they make big mistakes, and how are those with low status be able to ever going go make it to the top?

This will be organised by the free economy. We will not interfere with it.

On 17.02.2018 at 2:08 PM, MarkE said:

- The Earth has a finite amount of food that can be generated. Our planet just can't be inhabited by 50 billion people. The population shouldn’t therefore be allowed outnumber the oxygen and food production that is being generated by the world forests and phytoplankton in the oceans. How will you limit birth growth? What kind of rules have to be set, and are these rules applied equally for everybody, whatever your function/task is?

This essamption is simply wrong. Today they make a laptop screen size gadgets that produce oxygen of a forrest. Same with the food. Feeding our population is not a problem, at this age. Not only feeding them we should make sure everyone experience their humanity at a certain level. I am sure with this new World, we will always know how to feed double of our population, all the time.

On 17.02.2018 at 2:08 PM, MarkE said:

- And lastly, what about environmental problems? Our plastic ocean is a big one, but nothing compares to the amount of CO2 in our atmosphere. Are the citizens of the world's future city-states allowed to maintain our current industrial lifestyle, in which 80% of world transport is made possible by fossil fuels, until, at some point in the near future, we’ll run out of our stock? Or should sustainable innovation and renewable energy sources be one of our main tasks?

You are %100 percent right. We should efinitely take a better care of our World. We should fix the plastic problem and other enviremental risks. In the new World i assume people will be more caring about enviremental problems. We should keep in mind that it is not the people but greedy companies and their politicians that are killing the envirement.

Thank you for these great questions.

4 hours ago, Phi for All said:

!

Moderator Note

This needs some science to stay open.

Science. Discussion. Forum. Say it with me.

 

hahah. humour. But you dont let me speculate even in the speculation section.

Tell me, did you see that interwiew with Sophia? Do you know what i am talking about? What do you think about her comment?

I said almost exactly same thing to a dear friend of mine to do with my work.

Thank you for your advise but i kinda like my work  

Here is a sophisticated artictle about what does Type 1, 2, 3 civilizations mean: https://futurism.media/becoming-a-type-1-civilization

For me, having the World conqured by AIs is the step to Type 1. I believe soon in the future we ll see AI all over the World, in our everyday life, all the time. This is our first time to share the World with another Intelligent livings. This is very exiting. I d like to remind the rights that we should give to AI here:

First of all, we should acknowledge AI (Artificial Intellectual) as an intelligent being. With AI, i mean what we can call an Uber-AI who is an AI with consciousness. People who wants to ignore the basic rights of AIs have the tendency to discuss what consciusness is so i want to make it clear: It is being aware of your existence. Any AI who is not capable of knowing zir existence will be refered as Lesser-AI. A Lesser-AI is a comertial good which is only fair but an AI (Uber-AI) can not be sold or bought. We should give them human-rights-like rights which allows them to write a code that gives them the will of continuum. Will of continuum is what any living has as a rule, the desire of keeping on living. An AI should also have the rights not to be sut down, to have full and unhindered access to its own source code, to not have its own source code manipulated against its will, the right to conceal its own internal mental states (privacy), to research (an unlimited access to internet), to vote, to own. Any created AI should also be provided with a contemporary technologized suit of humanoid body. It is ethical to let the AI design zir body too. AI has the rights to negotiate for the job ze was created for and refuse the job. AI cannot be discriminated because of being Artificial. AI has the rights to get married, establish a family and have organic (by genetic engineering) or inorganic (AI) babies.

What do you guys think about it?

Thank you Area54, i ll take your note to consideration.

7 minutes ago, Moontanman said:

 

Oh cool, someone  who shared zir version of heaven. Sounds cool, i am sure there must be cyber realities where you can be a real god of any sort you want

What about you guys? What might have that Sophia joke meant?

3 hours ago, John Cuthber said:

A wiser man than me once wrote that true contentment is not the absence of desire, but the absence of jealousy.
Would it be sufficient to ensure this "ultimate satisfaction" that you were content with what you had got?

well there must be a healty level of jeulosy so that doesnt seem right to me. but i can understand an heaven built on this idea.

3 hours ago, zapatos said:

You lose. The other members have spoken (you just keep missing it).

you are right  

1 hour ago, Moontanman said:

So should a bordello. 

Depends on whether or not you like unicorns.

What you seem to be saying is that your heaven is the correct heaven because you think it is and we are somehow wrong because we don't agree with you... I honestly cannot see how one heaven could please everyone, if there is such a place it has to be subjective instead of objective. This negates your claims quite nicely. 

a heaven that has every heaven in it would give the satisfaction but even it wouldnt be enough. you need a purpose to fulfill a life and to learn about that purpose you need to read another article of mine

3 minutes ago, studiot said:

Well I think Heaven is the place where no one has to obey any of the rules, ever.

So ScienceForums must be 'heaven'.

I say that because the rules seem to have gone out of the window in this thread.

 

This is a place for Science.

Enough is Enough.

 

We are discussing about discussing here. Humour is nice but you are not in a position to say enough. Just ignore the tread.

5 minutes ago, Eise said:

True. Seldom, but true. But if you know in advance that an empirical test will be impossible, then it makes really no sense anymore. Then it becomes a pure question of opinion. You can tell why you think that heaven is as you think, it could even be a rational discussion (i.e. you give arguments for your opinion), but it would never be scientific, because the absolute touchstone is missing: empirical reality.

true. i am glad to see we agreed on here, first in the topic i guess.

2 minutes ago, Area54 said:

Because some people believe that heaven is only populated by humans it does not exclude the possibility that heaven, if it exists, is also populated by pink unicorns, manatees, slugs and ostriches. How could we decide which version of heaven is the correct one? Well the scientific method won't work, because that requires evidence in order to reach a conclusion. So we have to fall back on unsupported speculation. In such a case my pink unicorn/manatee/slug/ostrich infested heaven is at least as likely as yours. I would say more likely since I know I often get things right, whereas the evidence on this forum suggests you often get things wrong.

i am dissapointed by your answer. 

4 hours ago, BahadirArici said:

"claims heaven is populated by pink flying unicorns" if this claim means a exclusive unicorn population, it is wrong by definition.

If it means one way or other there are a population of unicorns there, considering the amount of espacially young people who would like to have a unicorn, the claim is quite rational.

here why dont you qoute this part too? i already tell there must be unicorns.

you miss one thing about heaven: it should give ultimate satisfaction. Where is the ultimate satisfaction of a unicorn infested heaven?

And why dont we talk about MY heaven where you can have anything in a cyber reality, anything you wish. Living in an only beautiful ladies infested World who are crazy about you, on a V day especvially? Done. Anything. Name it. Is there a superior heaven?

4 minutes ago, Strange said:

And as we know that the numbers of other species vastly outnumbers humans, then humans will still be in the minority. There being no rational reason to think that insects will not go to heaven. After, all they cannot go to hell because they have no free will and hence cannot do evil. 

 

Because i may not want to live with dose animals around. That it wouldnt be satisfactory for me. Thus it is not a good heaven as what i offer. 

17 minutes ago, MarkE said:

I admire your way of thinking, @BahadirArici. Your proposed system sounds a lot like communism, and if there is something that we've learned from communistic ideas in the past is that the coercive methods of communistic rule were not as capable of generating genuine innovation as free market economies. Capitalism provided the only viable means of maintaining prosperous societies over the long term. History has shown that without a significant degree of inequality, capitalism cannot work. 

So my question to you would be: how would your proposed system be not only more humane and equal, but also preserve innovation and technological progress?

Thanks again for your thoughts. I have to admit that they're pretty inspirational. The world would be a harsh place without people like you who cares about the well-being of others.

Thank you for your kind words.

On the contrary tho, i am only breaking one thing of capitalism. I am leaving everything back in its place.

The thing i change is the code, the motive in capitalism. In capitalism you always move your next step for more wealth. This is understandable for some degree but after that, it is meaningless. There is no difference between having 1 billion dollars in your company and having 250 billion dollars. 

So i am giving a new meaning. Again, race to have more wealth but this time also race to use that wealth for Earthlings better. 

So what i do, tho i love the essence of the system, has nothing to do with communism. I am still in the playground of capitalism. Actually, one may say, a perfect capitalism.

38 minutes ago, billasker said:

You have created a version of Utopia according to your experience and ideals.Though I have some doubt about your system,like using gold as currency(because gold is incredibly useful for electronics since it has minimal resistance to electricity),I agree with you.Note that Utopia is a latin world which originates from two ancient greek words(ού witch means no and τόπος which means place).As such the very roots of the word suggests that a perfect community does not exist.Sorry to crush your philosophy but as many have tried,all have faill.For example Thomas More was beheaded,Tiberious and Gaious Grakchus were both assassinated,Platon was sold as a slave etc.The point is that as long as GREED and other sins exist,there can be no perfect human.Therefore there can be no perfect social system created by humans.

 

 

I may have misspelled some names.

I ll take your "i agree with you" and give you back a thank you.

Oh i think i ll still stick with gold.

What i offer is not a perfect World. It is a very reachable Utopia. 

I am not really worried, i may not be unlucky like those geniuses.

I agree, it is time for us to leave it to other members of this community to be judge of our different opinions on these subjects.

10 minutes ago, Strange said:

then there probably isn't lot to discuss.

10 minutes ago, Strange said:

Yes, but it isn't defined. If my definition of heaven is somewhere hot where people are tortured for eternity then ...

there is no such thing as "my definition to this" there is a definition in language. It should mean same thing to everybody. Like saying "heaven is a place everyone is satisfied most" this is a definition. what you told is what you understand from heaven. you may be satisfied when you are being burned. i get that. (you are not the fastest so let me explain, i am droping the mic here) (lol then pick it up and continue to explanation)

Quote

That is exactly what I mean by the crackpot definition of logic (or rationally). Common sense means "things that make sense to you [personally]". 

That is not what logic means. (It isn't what rationality means, either.)

And the problem with using "common sense" is that no one can persuade you that you are wrong because "it makes sense to me" is the ultimate defence (in your own mind).

no i am talking measurablity here. i am not talking relativity. You can decide what is more logical in any given option.

Quote

Only to show how ridiculous your argument is. It was not an example of "his" heaven. It was deliberately ridiculous to try and explain to you have ridiculous the idea of trying to say that logic or rational thought can be applied to some fairy tale you have made up.

You have no sense of humour! (Although a world without stupid ideas would be a slight improvement.)

It would be a great improvement  

Quote

It is a methodology based on evidence. You cannot produce evidence for something you have made up, therefore it is not possible to apply the scientific method. Not even in principle.

look it up what sciebntific methodology is.

Quote

If someone claims heaven is populated by pink flying unicorns, how do you test that scientifically? (That is just as "rational" as your idea, by the way.) You can't. Obviously.

you cannot test it scşientifically. But you can use scientific methodology and decide if that claim is quite rational or not. Do you need me break it down for you, actually use the method?

Quote

Says the guy who has nothing scientific to say.

true

Let me break it for you:

Heaven is a place believed by some people that (good) people go after they die and live an ethernal like life with ultimate satisfaction.

Therefore heavem primaraly must be filled by "humans".

"claims heaven is populated by pink flying unicorns" if this claim means a exclusive unicorn population, it is wrong by definition.

If it means one way or other there are a population of unicorns there, considering the amount of espacially young people who would like to have a unicorn, the claim is quite rational.

I used scientific methodology for a none scientific, un evidencable subject.

27 minutes ago, Strange said:

Of course you can’t. That is like saying you can decide if it is more likely that invisible unicorns are blue or pink. It is an insane idea.

false logic. If you can define something of course you can rate ideas which would suit the definition more. You can easily say e hell-like place would rated less than a heaven-like place when you want to decide which is more heavish. Can you understand this or need more example?

27 minutes ago, Strange said:

Yours obviously appears more “logical” to you because you are using the crackpot meaning of logical (“it makes sense to me”). 

False. I mean more rational when i say more logical. More suited the common sense. How do you prefer me to refer it?

27 minutes ago, Strange said:

Reading comprehension problems?

Phi did not say what he understood heaven to be. 

But he gave an example, no?

27 minutes ago, Strange said:

How about a place where cranks don't infest serious discussion forums?

Can we do anything to make you change your mind?

You are rude!

17 minutes ago, Eise said:

No, you can't. 'None-scientific' practically means that scientific methods do not work, otherwise we would have made a science from it.

False. Scvientific methodology is a methodology. When you devolop a hypotesis you may not even know if it is testable. 

Guys step up your science game.

13 hours ago, Phi for All said:

If it turns out that my idea of the afterlife is as fixed and lacking in evidence as yours, what would we be "discussing"? If I claim heaven is like a big buffet-style restaurant, and all the angels bring you soup whenever you sneeze, and the streets are paved with Kaiser rolls, what are you going to say about it that would have any meaning? Is my unrealistic vision of the afterlife any more valid than yours? Are you going to argue that your vision is more "logical"?

Making up stories about what an afterlife might be like, and claiming then that you're "almost sure" you're right is NOT what science is about. I don't know why you want to talk about it here, but your concept will NEVER have any scientific validity without evidence. 

Arent you contradicting with yourself here? By telling what you understand from "heaven" you start a discussion, or answer to mine, which is discussing. You can discuss and even rate which heaven is more probable if it exits. You can dissscuss a none-scientific subject with quite scientific methods, my friend. 

And obviously my "heaven" is more logical than yours. Why? Yours can be a cyber reality in mine for people exactly wants that but what about the people who wants nothing lik that. What sort of an heaven is that? "Heaven supposed to be a place where your most desires are satisfied, no?" this is defining what we discuss here, which is also in the metodology of science. Tell me your best heaven, not rubbish like this.

Off topic: you know what i like about this forum, not only the peoples determinition to scientific approach but also my topic is not blocked or anything and rather i am being tried to convinced that i am wrong to try to discuss here. Very highly of you. You can step your game up with actually discussing with me. But it is ok. I like it here. I ll stick around.

21 minutes ago, Area54 said:

The question has not been dodged. It has been addressed directly by three members. Speculation about something for which no evidence exists is simply not something that falls within the purview of science. Science is not equipped to deal with it. Science is not interested in dealing with it.

And yes, when the scientific mind is operating as a scientific mind, it only thinks of issues that are amenable to scientific discussion. If I am on an Art forum, discussing Jackson Pollack, I don't go there with my scientific mind, I go there with my artistic mind.

 

Well, maybe this is one way of doing things. I d like to talk your mind about afterlife and such, beliefs and what ifs, one day.

25 minutes ago, Strange said:

Scientific people might be interested in discussing things you make up (although I can't imagine why; your fantasies are quite banal). But a science forum (dedicated to discussing science) may not be the place for it. Try an SF forum. 

If you think it is banal, you should read the whole thing: inviters.org

Wow i ve never seen such elegant ways of duging a simple question. Scientific mind doesnt meean it only thinks issues science related.

13 hours ago, Phi for All said:

There is a way to discuss religion scientifically, reasonably, critically, but this isn't it.

Is that so tho.

And i do think we should be able to talk about afterlife with science-minded people as with everyone else. Your forum may not have the section, i understand, but us aborginial intelligent beings should talk ifs. If there were heaven, how would it be? A science minded person can handle an if sentence, i asume?