Jump to content

Edtharan

Senior Members
  • Content Count

    1623
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Edtharan

  1. I agree with this. Have you ever heard of a Post Scarcity Economy (I have talked bout it in other posts here). When you look at capitalism (especially when combined with mass production) it drives the economy towards a Post Scarcity Economy. You are getting caught up in thinking that money is the fundamental unit of an economy here. Ignore money and think how is the person not actively involved in production adding value. If a person was just leaching off the productivity of the produces without adding value themselves, they effectively reduce the value of any transaction they ar
  2. It is all about regulation. The state, in a democracy, is answerable to the people. When legalised, the state becomes responsible for the welfare of the prostitutes and thus the need regulation. With illegal prostitution, the pimps are not answerable to anyone but themselves and there is no regulation. Think of this analogy: Imagine if owning a TV was considered illegal. If you wanted to buy a TV you would have to go to an unregulated market where you could not be guaranteed a fair deal, or even that the TV would world. IF you bought it and then found that it had a problem, you co
  3. The problem you have is with treating money as the fundamental unit of an economy. Money is only a representing the unit (which is value) and not the fundamental unit itself. In the example, you find it hard to understand how the economy could grow because all that is happening is good and money are being moved around. If someone can more trick others into paying more than what something is worth, then those people get the money and the other loose out. Because money is a finite resource, it ends up being a zero sum system, and in a zero sum system, if someone is able to improve their
  4. I understand that many (probably the vast majority) see it this way. However, I have always thought that even with globalisation and the fast communication that the Internet brings won't actually eliminate cultural diversity. Take a look at biology. Many bacteria can pass genes from one bacteria to the other (horizontal gene transfer), even between species. However, even among these bacteria, there is still different species. At first, you might think "How could this happen?". Because if each bacteria can give out and take in genes from other bacteria, then evolution should select the
  5. One of the interesting things to note is that were prostitution is legal, the sex workers (both men and women - don't forget that there are male prostitutes just as there are males involved in pornography too) tend to have better conditions, higher wages, better health, less violence against them, better health, and many other benefits (including being able to leave if they want to). It becomes regulated and is beholden to the society's basic human rights. Instead of prostitution being a criminal activity, and thus being controlled by organised crime, it becomes a job, something that t
  6. Yes, but the scale of this change would not be as large as we have already experienced with GW. In other words, the scale of the change we have already experienced exceeds the scales that this kind of fluctuation could have created. This means that even if this was involved, it can not be the only thing involved. There is some other factor, and that brings us back to greenhous gasses. However, there is only one source of the energy coming into the Earth (the Sun), and only one way for it to leave (Radiation). Not only that, we can measure the albedo of Earth with satellites and do so ver
  7. There is a problem with singularities: Maths dons't work with them. A Singularity has not size or shape and is infinitely dense. This means that the maths we use to work out what would happen in them gives results that are either infinite or zero. They don't allow us to make any meaningful predictions about what would occur. However, we know that according to quantum theory, the more precise you know something (say the position of a particle) the less precise you know other aspects of it (say the energy of the particle). When you get to a distance known as the Planck Length ( http://en
  8. It sounds a bit like a Ponzi scheme ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ponzi_scheme ) or perhaps a Pyramid Scheme ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pyramid_scheme ). I think the problem lies in the fact that many people conflate money to value. Although money has value, it is different from value itself. Money is an abstract potential of value. It is abstract because although it is not value, it does represent it, and it is a potential because it can be used to exchange for things of value (it has the potential to be traded for things of value). What this means is that money can not be se
  9. The solution is the Post Scarcity Economy. In such an economy, the market is not driven by supply and demand, as supply is as close to infinite as possible (or at least exactly equals demand). This kind of economy is a staple of many sci-fi stories (see Star Trek as the most famous example). However, what they all seem to get wrong is that even in a Post Scarcity Economy money is important (and thus will still exist). This is because Money is only representative of value, not value itself (and an economy works of value not money) and even in post scarcity economies, things can still ha
  10. I think what most people forget capitalism is about, is "Value" not "Money". Take fro example a simple trade: If I have Widget A and you have Widget B and we wish to trade, then 4 values come into it: The Value I place in Widget A The Value I place in Widget B The Value You place in Widget A The Value You place in Widget B If the value I place in Widget B is greater (or equal to) the Value I place in Widget A, then I am willing to trade. If the value you place in Widget A is greater (or equal to) the Value you place in Widget B, then you are willing to trade. If we a
  11. There are many reasons. One is understanding. Although as an atheist I don't believe in any Gods, I do want to understand the people who do believe in them. Partly because I interact with them, and also I am a bit of a history buff and want to understand how these societies worked and what those people were like. You can turn the question around: Why do believers ask why atheists don't believe in gods? It is the same reason: Understanding. Another in fantasising. I might not believe in Hobbits, but does that stop me imagining if they were real, or discussing with people what th
  12. Edtharan

    God exists

    I agree. Amoral does not mean negative morals. It just means absence of morality in any direction (good or evil). Just like Atheist means no gods. So, yes, science is amoral. But, I don't think this means it can't have something to say about them. Take for example game theory and Social sciences (anthropology, psychology, networking theory and such). Game theory is a mathematical branch which deals with how decisions are made and the best decision to make in a particular circumstance. If you combine this with the social sciences like anthropology and psychology and networking theory, y
  13. There is the saying that "it takes money to make money". In financial terms, this is called "Leverage". Take, for example: The case where you want to build and then sell houses. If you only had a small amount of money, you could never afford to do this. However, if you borrow some money, enough to build the house, then you can make back the money when you sell it. Another is student loans. When a student takes out a loan for education, they are investing in an activity that will allow them to increase their wages. If they didn't get the education, they might never be able to land a hig
  14. The problem lies in that the energy of the ball falling is used to push the liquid weight up. All of the balls energy must be use to do this so none of it can be used to turn the machine. If the ball can push up more liquid weight than it weighs, then this would require more energy than the ball had originally. This is where you are producing energy from "nothing". Because you have not taken this into account, it appears that the machine produces more energy than it uses (or at least as much). However, what has occurred is that because you haven't taken this into account, the sums are unb
  15. IIRC it is closer to 7 billion now. But yes, if there were 6 billion in the past, and there are now 7 billion, then new consciousnesses must have formed. The fact that the population of the Earth is increasing means that the OP's premise is invalidated.
  16. So one one hand you are trying to say that the Aether does not interact with matter at all (as in the replies of my posts), and on the other hand you are trying to say that it doers interact with matter. Sorry, you can't have both. Either it doesn't interact with matter and therefore matter objects won't experience friction, or it interacts with matter and thus causes friction. You have categorically stated that the Aether does not casue friction in past posts. So this experiement either has no bearing on your proposal and so is meaningless to it, or it disproves your proposal (because
  17. Of course, if something is show to be real, then it would no longer be called supernatural. It is redefined to become natural, rather than supernatural. So evidecne could be gathered that would prove the existence of something we currently call supernatural. It would then cease to be supernatural and become natural. So it is not the case that "no amount of evidence can ever establish the existence of the supernatural", but that once proven to exist, it is no longer called supernatural. The plural of anecdote is not evidence. Scientific evidence has to pass a set of criteria (one
  18. There is a branch of mathematics that deals with choices called "Game Theory". Game theory shows that there are certain behaviours that are detrimental to groups. For instance: Is murder good for the group? Well, if a group were free to murder any other member of its group, then the group could quickly and severely be reduced in number. If we then apply evolution and biology to this: In species like humans, large groups have a survival advantage over smaller groups because of several reasons; 1) In large groups that share (sharing can also be shown by game theory to be ben
  19. Did you read all the article? Because near the bottom is this (bold by me to point out the important bits): In other words, this is the exact effect I stated would occur. The article supports my argument and disproves yours . Are you sure that was what you intended by linking to the article?
  20. It may be proof that something happened, but not necessarily what they though was happening. As you said, it is "something undefined", so this could just be two people pulling a prank, a glimpse of someone who then moved off not even aware that they had caused a problem, pareidolia (seeing faces in inanimate objects - there is a whole suit of optical illusions that use this effect, it is well known and well documented), and many other explanations too. Just because something "undefined" occurred, does not mean it is supernatural.
  21. I would say it is the exact opposite. Scientists want desperately to overturn what is currently "known". A scientists that spends their career just saying "There is nothing new to be discovered" is a bit like a newspaper printing a single page saying "No News Today". Both would not last long. The scientific method works on "disproof". That is scientists take we we think of as being true , and then dries to disprove it. In other words, they are constantly trying to "rock the boat" and it is only through rocking the boat that scientists get employed. Of course, there is popular media
  22. What is the density of Aether? How "stiff" is it? Does it interact with itself? Does it have mass? Does it have a charge? Does it interact with the strong force? Does it interact with the Weak force? Does it obey the Pauli exclusion principal? And many more questions remain unanswered by your "Aether". The way you describe it, the Aether is displaced by the entire volume of the atom, including the empty space in it (as you say: "Aether exists between the molecules"). But, when molecules form a solid, they overlap, so there would not be any "between the molecules" as this would be taken
  23. Also, Helium 3 is good for fusion power plants, but they don't actually have one that can currently produce more power than it consumes (but they are real close - so close it is possible that they have done it now but I haven't heard yet).
  24. This amounts to an argument from popularity: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argumentum_ad_populum They are trying to use evolution to conclude that because a belief is popular it must be true. This is not the case. It is possible for a population to have negative traits, and yet still be successful, if their positive traits still make them fit for survival despite their negative traits. Now, belief itself can be a positive trait even if it is possible for a specific belief to cause negative effects. For example, if, of the savannah, someone from your group yells out that there is a lion
  25. If your Ether has mass, and is displaced by matter, then I can created a device that would enable me to move without seeming to use any fuel. As matter displaces the Ether, then I would use a one way valve system on both ends of a chamber (to create a single direction that the Ether can flow through the chamber). This chamber can be expanded and contracted. I would open Valve A (on the forward side of the chamber) and then expand the chamber to its maximum size. Then I would close valve A and open Valve B (on the trailing side). Finally I would compress the chamber to its minimum size.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.