Edtharan

The irony of capitalism is that when an economy grows in terms of real productivity, efficiency, etc. goods and services become more abundant. The consequence of abundance and efficiency of production is that supply-side competition drives the price very low. This means there is enough for everyone to go around and everyone can afford the good(s) because the price has dropped low enough for them to afford it, yet businesses profit less which means lower wages, smaller dividends/profits, etc.

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.

And this would cause capitalism to be an amazing economic system if people didn't figure out that they can get by with producing less by investing in someone else's meat and vegetables so that they can consume them without having to put in the labor of producing them. However, most people do not perform direct productive labor but rather do something to make money that allows them to consume what others produce while keeping them from reaching a level of independence where they no longer have to perform such work if they choose not to. In such an economy, it becomes a zero-sum game because people are trying to extract maximum value out of minimum amount of productivity.

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 are involved with. However, if their involvement adds to the value, then all parties in the transaction can gain value.

For instance. Someone who just manages the logistics of distribution (eg: a shop keeper) adds to the value, but does not contribute to production because they free up other people to peruse other activities that can add even more value to the system.

It effectivly means that people are involved in the production of Value, not necessarily the production of goods. Services and managers are all still involved in the production of value, even though they are not producing any "thing".

We are importing more than we export, and that means our wealth is leaving, and buying more importers, included imported oil is going to improve our economy.

Again, this is thinking in terms of money as the fundamental unit of an economy. When importing, what you are importing can add value to your economy, even if it costs you more money than you get from export.

Imagine that you import farming equipment so that you can increase the amount of productivity of your farm. Now, this might, at first cost you more than you export, but because of your increased productivity, you can divert some of that into other activities that can further increase the value of your society, and thus increase the amount you export.

Remember, money represents value, so as the money is exchanged back and forth, it carries with it the value the economy has given it, and the stronger the economy it is coming from the more value it has.

I've heard these arguments for legalizing prostitution or drugs many times. My question becomes why it is better for the state to become the pimp or dealer, instead of anyone else? Isn't the basic exploitation involved with selling and profiting off of addictive-pleasure the same, however it is regulated or taxed?

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 could not go to a consumer commission and demand that the seller have legal action taken against them.

Or if you sold the TV, and someone came into your store and smashed the place up because you wouldn't give them all your profits, then you would have no legal defence.

The point of this is to show that be making something, even as mundane as TV illegal, then the unregulated nature and inability of someone to get legal defence is what makes what happens bad. When you look at it, it is not the act that is bad, but the things that go on around it (reliance on drugs, virtual slavery, etc) because of the unregulated nature and connections to organised crime.

Now, government regulation is not a "Nanny State". Regulation is because the government is accountable to the people and thus the people requier this of the government (so basically regulation is a Nanny to the state, and not from the state). A Nanny state is where the government says that you can't do something (like have legalised prostitution) because a small groups within the society. It would be like the government saying that TV is illegal because some people think it could be slightly harmful (and think of this: Watching too much TV can be bad for you because it reduces the amount of exercise you could be doing, and you are exploited by the TV stations as the force feed you ads that try to convince you to buy things you don't need - and there could be programs on there that you morally object to, for example violent movies, or pornography - and if it is on payTV then would that be similar to prostitution?).

As you can see from the above. If you apply your arguments to something like TV it becomes an immoral activity. Does this mean that TV is immoral, or that your arguments are somehow incorrect? As your arguments are based on an emotional reaction programmed into you by the beliefs of the society you grew up in, rather than on evidence (the evidence is that legalised prostitution is better for the sex workers and their clients), then I can say that your arguments are wrong.

And, if you want to use the emotional arguments: Is it more morally objectionable to allow organised crime and virtual slavery to operate and without any safety for those that do choose to participate (or are forced to), or to allow those people in the society who which to engage in prostitution (both the clients and the workers) and the right to do so safely.

Because there is a measurable increase in the welfare, quality of life and the freedoms of legal sex workers as compared to the illegal sex workers, then to state that you think prostitution shold be illegal is to advocate for the suffering caused by illegal prostitution and the organised crime that goes with it.

Rremember, you (or the position you are arguing for) might object morally to prostitution for cultural reasons, but you must remember, other people don't. They see sex between consenting adults (for fun or profit) as morally unobjectionable.

The problem is that when you make prostitution illegal, because of the control the pimps have over their prostitutes (through threat of violence, poverty, drugs, etc), those prostitutes are not exactly consenting (they may say "yes", but that is only though coercion and threat and to me that is just as bad as rape).

So, looking at it like this, it is far more morally objectionable for the continued illegalisation of prostitution as opposed to legalised prostitution.

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 position then someone (or some others) have to loose out by an equal amount.

But, for an economy to grow, it can not be a zero sum system (you can't get growth out of a zero sum system, except by external inputs). However, by looking at what goes on in even a simple trade, you can see that trades are not zero sum systems.

Just say I have a Spider-man comic and you have a Batman comic. Each comic has a value to its owner and the comic the other person has also has a value.

this means there are 4 values:

1) The value I place on my Spider Man comic

2) The value you place of your Batman comic

3) The value I place on your Batman comic

4) The value you place on my Spider-man comic

Now, if I place more value on your Batman comic than I do on my Spider-man comic (maybe because I haven't read your Batman Comic), then I could end up ahead by trading my comic for for your comic.

If you place more value on my Spider-man comic than you place on your Batman comic (again, maybe because you haven't read it), then you could end up ahead by trading your comic for mine.

If we both end up ahead by trading, then this is not a zero sum system, and it means that after the trade, the total value of the system goes up. The economy has grown.

Ok, now that was trivial, but it is a good way to explain it.But as a more realistic version more in line with the OP's model:

If I am operating the vegetable section of the store and you are operating the meat section of the store, then just eating only what we have, although would fill us up, is not as good as if we had both meat and vegetables in out diets. SO we could both get improvements if we trade meat for vegetables.

The value I place on your meat is greater than the value I place on my excess of vegetables, and the value you place on my excess vegetables is greater than the value you place on your excess meat.

Because of the differing values we have, we can end up with a non-zero sum system and improve the economy by trading.

This means that an economy is not about making money, but increasing value. Money is an abstract potential for value (abstract because it represents it, and potential because it can be traded for value).

When you understand these things about economies, a lot of the problems that have been presented actually clear up and no longer become problems.

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 best genes and only these should survive in the population.

Actually, having a genetically homogeneous population is bad for a species. It means that any change in the environment that would kill one, would kill them all. No variation leads to an unstable population.

Also, because the environments change over distance as well as time (eg: some might be in a hotter place than others) then there is no one set of genes that could be the best. Even the fact that there are other bacteria with the same genetic code means that it is advantageous for variation to enter into the population because these would either be better than the current and start to dominate, or become weaker and give the dominant population room to expand (a bit like what Spock says in Star Trek: the good of the many out way the good of the few).

And so it is with human populations. We live in different environments. Some have warmer climates, some have cooler climates, and out environments change over time (the history of a culture and the direction it is going in), and we have all this variation applied to our neighbour which means that the influences form the rest of the cultures of the world will effect the culture in question.

What this means is that there will be some cross cultural exchanges and it is not all one way (yes Japan got McDonald, but we also got Anime and such).

So, basically what I am saying is that the problem is actually a false one. The people who worry about the western world culturally infecting other cultures forget that western culture is also infected by theirs.

Yes. It will mean their culture will change. But it is going to change whether or not there was an exchange of ideas. A culture that doesn't change is a dead culture. The people who are in it won't be able to adapt to any change that occurs (even natural changes - and there are many examples of where this occurs - see the Greenland Norse as one example, or Easter Island).

What they think the problem is, is that the change is not going to make the culture the same as it is, or was. And yes, I know this means it wouldn't change, that is my point. It is change they fear, and they use the most obvious scape goat (a dominant culture) as the target of that fear.

Change is good. We should embrace change, and welcome exchanges of culture with other cultures.

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 the workers do because they want to, not because they have no other choice.

@swan...... you jump to conclusions quite quickly don't you? I'm sure that making insubstantial assessments so quickly based on such little evidence is a much more respectable model for scientists. I was stating that many variables are responsible for climate change, so I apologize if I had worded my statement incorrectly. I was simply trying to say that solar fluctuations could logically result in higher temperatures along with increased carbon dioxide in our atmosphere.

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.

There is one significant source of radiation, however, depending on the albedo of various surfaces, different rates of that radiation is absorbed and re-radiated throughout the atmosphere.

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 very accurately.

By measuring the amount of energy incoming, to the amount of energy outgoing we can get accurate measurements of what the difference is. And, it is not too hard to show that if one accepts that greenhouse gasses re-radiates absorbed infra-red light (or any light actually), then global warming must occur.

The only things needed are direct measurements of the ability of greenhouse gasses to scatter infra-red radiation, and acceptance of the conservation of energy (and if energy did not have to be conserved, then we wouldn't have the problem of GW as we could generate out energy without the need of fossil fuels - and your electricity bill confirms that ).

And the statistical data pertaining to causes of climate change are potentially inaccurate based on the means in which they conduct their research. Statistics only suggest probability, they are not sources of definitive truth. And theories are not laws, they're principle's of explanation of a phenomenon. If we simply accepted all theories in science we might still believe the Earth is the center of the universe. So yes, I don't always accept what's supposed truth. Call me a bad scientist if you will, however, your opinion is of no consequence. Good luck on your quest for self-assurance.

The statistical part of all this is when they are trying to work out the consequences of having increased energy in the climate and oceanic systems. The existence of this extra energy, and that it will have consequences has nothing to do with statistics at all. It is only what those exact consequences will be that is subject to probability.

Think of it like rolling a stone down a hill. The lumps and bumps of the hill will make the path of the stone and where it lands (and whose window you break) is proabalistic, but the fact that the stone will go down hill is not.

The fact is, increasing greenhouse gasses causes them to scatter more radiation, that would other wise leave the Earth, back towards the Earth, thus keeping the energy locked up in the climate systems. This is like the fact that the stone will roll down that hill and stop somewhere. The exact consequences of that are like were the stone ends up and are uncertain (but the fact that the stone will end up somewhere is not).

Based on the above theory which I have quoted, it seems that the universe , if it continuously expands would have started from a particular point or as they call it singularity.

That Point Mass - How could it have been formed is the biggest question.

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.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planck_length ) this uncertainty means that even what we consider past, present and future could become uncertain. What this could mean is that an effect can come before a cause.

What it ultimately means is that the Universe could have caused itself. That the effect (the creation of the Universe) could come before the cause (the laws of physics in the universe).

Of course, this is pure theory because we have neither the means or the compete theory to describe the Universe at a singularity, but if reality matches these theories, then the Universe could have caused itself.

If there exists - UFOs or Aliens or foreign creatures they could be very well be restricted by their own atmosphere - which essentially means that neither we nor they would be able to see each other. Right?

Have you ever been on (or just seen) a glass bottomed boat? These are boats that have a glass window in the bottom that allows you to see and bee seen by creatures that can not exist in our atmosphere (and us in theirs).

So, if Aliens did come to Earth, then all they need is an enclosed room with a window and we could see each other.

The Beginning of Life on Earth

Check out this video: http://www.youtube.com/user/cdk007#p/c/0696457CAFD6D7C9/0/U6QYDdgP9eg

The main reason we don't know how life got started on earth is because we have too many ways it could have got started. We just don't know which one was the one that started it.

Or, if there was more than one way it did get started.

Personally, I think the way presented in the video is the most likely way, as each of the steps has been confirmed to occur in the lab and it doesn't require much in the way of special circumstances for it to occur (all the chemicals involved are know to be common, and the situations like underwater volcanic vents existed - and still do). The other reason I think it is the most likely is that it involves evolution acting on the chemicals, and there is a clear evolutionary pathway to go from the basic structures to what would consider a living organism.

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 seen as the fundamental unit of an economy, but that "Value" is. Basically, everything that is traded has a value, and that a trade depends on the value of the items being traded. If money was the fundamental unit of an economy, then it would be impossible for any trade to occur without money being involved (I couldn't trade my Spider-man comic for your Batman comic if we didn't also exchange money at the same time as part of the trade).

If you think of economies in terms of value, a lot of things become much easier to understand and to deal with. For instance, any trade can now be seen as exchanges of value, and that for a trade to take place (or at least be fair), both parties much increase their net value (and the trade must increase the total combined value).

As an example: Just say I have a Spider-Man comic and you have a Batman comic.

I value your Batman comic more than my spider man comic because I have already read my Spider-man comic and want something new. You value my Spider-man comic more than your Batman comic because you have read your Batman comic and not my Spider-man comic.

We value the entertainment we get from reading a new comic.

As I value your comic more than mine, I would be willing to trade. As you value my comic more than your own, you are willing to trade.

But, because we each get an net increase in value (I loose the value of my Spider-man comic but gain the greater value of the Batman comic), out net values increase (it is a fair trade), and there is also an increase in the total combined value of us as we both have got the value that each of the comic brings us.

It is actually hard to see this if we just use money.

To extend the example: Just say we only use money.

I am willing to sell my comic for $1, and oyu are willing to sell yours for $1 too.

You buy my comic for $1, and then I buy your comic for $1. Now in this, there has been no increase in money, so if we were just looking at money, then we could not have seen that there was an increase in value for each of us, as well as for the group as a whole (total combined value increase).

Now, of course, that is a trivial example, but its intent was to show what I am talking about rather than being a case study.

But, as you can see, by looking at Value rather than money, there is so much more you can understand about a transaction/trade than you can by looking at the exchange of currencies.

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 have value (and thus need something to represent that value). Also, in a Post Scarcity Economy, not everything will be post scarcity. There will still be some things that are not subject to elimination of scarcity (and note, that even in a scarcity economy, there exists post scarcity element too).

Currently, we value labour as the source of wealth. You get paid for the amount of time you work (whether it is fair compensation for your labour or not is debatable). In post scarcity, whether you work or not, you still have access to good and services. However, there still will exist people that have a higher value than others, because they contribute in various ways (creativity, status, number of facebook friends , etc). The exact things that are valued and what those values are is highly subjective so it is hard to give specific examples of what they would be, and it would change over time anyway.

Because of this, you couldn't easily control someone by restricting their access to resources as these resources would be non-scarce and easily available.

The other thing they get wrong is they paint post scarcity societies as utopian, but they would be no more capable of utopia then our current systems (but that is another discussion)

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 are both willing to trade, then a trade can occur. If not, then no trade can occur.

IF a trade can take place, then because I value Widget B more than Widget A, my net value goes up. And, because you value Widget A over Widget B, then your net value goes up. This means that because of the trade, the total combined value to us increases.

This is the core of what capitalism is abut, that arranging trades where there is a total combined increase in value.

However, when you start to put money in the mix, we tend to think it is about the money. Money is just an abstract potential of value. That is, money is not value, but represents it (it is an abstract of it), and it represents the ability to be exchanged for things of value (potential value).

For example, I might want your widget B (and want a Widget C), but you might not want my Widget A and want a Widget C instead. You know someone who has a Widget C but does not want your Widget B. How could you get Widget C?

Well you could go out and arrange a complex web of exchanges that ends up with everyone getting want they want. But to do this from a top down method as you would have to without money is too complex to be feasible. However, if we introduce something that represents value and can be exchanged for things of value (the abstract potential), then this can allow us to make the trades.

You would trade Widget B for some Abstract Potential (money), and then trade that with the Widget C owner who would then go on to trade that for the thing (or service) they value.

In that example, it is fairly trivial to work out the trade network that gives the best possible outcome for everyone, but when you get to multiple people wanting the same thing, or long chains of people needing to trade, without an abstract potential object, it becomes completely unmanageable. But, with it, the system self organises and you can get the trades without complex solutions (true, it might not end up being perfect, but it is better and quicker than you would otherwise get).

It also shows Marat's solution to the Paradox: That if you have Widget A and want someone to trade for it, then if you destroy their Widget A's, you then have someone wanting to get a Widget A. Or, if you can construct a need for Widget As that didn't exist before, then you can trade your Widget A.

Why do people who are sure God doesn't exist, enter discussions of God? Why do others discuss God?

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 that might be like? No. I play role playing games like "Dungeons and Dragons", and in that I pretend that Gods (and Hobbits ) are real. And getting back to understanding, understanding why someone believes in God(s) helps me to play a character that does believe in God(s) or create a society that does.

So there are actually many valid reasons that an atheist can enter into a discussion about God(s).

Is it possible we can come to an agreement about what amoral means? Mooeypoo gives a good explanation, and I like Mississippichem's follow up. Calling gravity an evil force, is right in line with believing in demons.

 

I think some jumped from the word "amoral" to the word "immoral". Amoral doesn't mean immoral. Amoral is like the knife that can be used for life saving surgery, or to kill. Science is amoral, and the need for a concept of God is humans must learn more than science. With discussion of God comes discussions of morals, and discussion of morals leads to improved moral judgment. That is, we have to think our way through morality, and when we do this we are contemplating God.

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, you can show that there exists certain behaviours that are detrimental (or even advantageous) to group survival and that humans, being a grouping species, have certain behaviours that are detrimental (or advantageous) to us.

In other words, based only on objective sources, we can show that there are morals, and more importantly what these morals are. What is interesting is that there is quite a lot of leeway about what these can be. There are bounds, but there is also a lot of subjectivity as to what ones a society call moral (even to the point where what is moral for one, is immoral for another).

So, although science is Amoral, this does not mean that it is in no position to cover morality, besides, don't we expect Judges to be impartial, and that this non-biased state is a requirement for them to be able to make a good judgement. Science is like the judge, in being amoral, it uniquely gives it the best qualification to be able to judge what is moral or not.

The word "God" is the door way into discussion of morals. Read Cicero, a Roman statesman who studied in Athens. We are compelled to do the right thing, but we do not automatically know what is the right thing, or perhaps we have an emotional/mental problem that prevents us from thinking clearly. A moral is a matter of cause and effect, but why is a moral a matter of cause and effect? Because we can know, if we do this, that is what will happen. We can know this, because the operations of the universe are predictable. If we leap off a building, we will fall down, not fly like a bird. Talking about why this is so is talking about God. This is the talk that gives science morality, even if you do not use the word "God'. If you talk about morals, the cause and effect, you are talking of God, because that is what God is.

As I said above, we explicitly require judges to be impartial. We accept that this is the most important quality to have in those we expect to make a judgement about something (and I am not just talking about court judges, but also judges of bake sales and all that).

This way science, being amoral has the qualities of a judge. It has no preconceived attitudes as to what is moral or immoral. It is impartial and form this position it uses objective based reasoning to reach a conclusion.

If you start with a "God", then you already have accepted some non-impartial preconceptions (because any concept of God comes with preconceptions of what that God is), and from this makes any attempt at discussion of morality already biased.

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 high paying job. It is an investment in your future income level.

However, if you borrow money for non investment reasons (to get the latest TV, to pay of another debt, etc), then this does not get you more money and thus you are not using money to make money. Sadly, a lot of lending ends up being like this, and this is the problem with lending money.

If lending is used sensibly, then it can be used to enable people who otherwise wouldn't be able to get out of poverty to be able to increase their wealth. But, this is not the way that the majority of people end up using borrowed money.

Actually, in the house example, I should have used "if" the house is sold. This is where even sensible use of borrowed money can turn bad. Any investment is a risk, and what it amounts to is like borrowing money to play a game of poker. If you win, you could win biger than if you just used the money you had on hand, but if you loose the game, then you better look out for the loan sharks .

However, contrary to many conspiracy theories, if you loose in your investments, both you and the lender suffer because you can't pay back what you borrowed. But, because of laws put into place, the lending institutions can be covered by taking out insurance, and being able to force you to pay back the debt despite the success or failure of your investments.

So, lending does facilitate spending, but the problem is that the people who borrow the money don't always spending it the best way. If all borrowings were spent on investments, and these investments succeeded, then there would be no problem with lending money.

If it is evidence you want I have given it to you in the form of the complete plans of the design itself, nothing missing.

The first of the two things you should have noticed is that this mechanism has essentially two movements, both deadfall so no energy is required to set them in motion. The generation stage is the weight ball's deadfall down through the lower cylinder-no energy required. The second movement is the deadfall/spring assist of the 90 degree rotation, like an overweighted wheel-again no energy required, the 90 degree rotation is not engaging in the energy production, its just turning the machine.

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 unbalanced and the machine seems to do what you think it should do.

Think of it this way, like money. If you forgot to account for something you bought (say you bought a computer keyboard). When you come to work out how much money you had, then you will calculate that you have more money than you do.

This is what you have done. Because you have not accounted for the debt of raising the liquid weight form the energy of the ball falling, you think you have more energy than you should have.

There are about 6 billion consciousnesses on this planet (we usually call them people).

There didn't used to be.

Where did the new ones come from?

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.

You clearly have no ability or desire to understand what the results of the following experiment means.

 

"NASA Announces Results of Epic Space-Time Experiment"

http://science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/2011/04may_epic/

 

"Our planet spins, and the spin should twist the dimple, slightly, pulling it around into a 4-dimensional swirl. This is what GP-B went to space in 2004 to check."

 

Either the spin physically exists in the aether or what is described as spin is the state of displacement of the aether.

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 it means that your "frictionless" aether is not frictionless), and thus is not something you want to use to try and support your proposal.

Since it is a basic methodological assumption of the scientific worldview that there is nothing which is supernatural, but only things which have not yet received a natural explanation, you could say that no amount of evidence can ever establish the existence of the supernatural, simply because our methodology will not allow the evidence to count in this way. But are we just being like the Catholic Church in its response to Galileo in this resolve, since just as they said that no empirical evidence can ever establish that Church doctrine is wrong, so too we now say that no empirical evidence can ever count to establish that something supernatural is real?

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.

How much intersubjective evidence is necessary to establish that something is real? If a thousand people see something which cannot be explained according to our established paradigms of scientific explanation, should we simply define them as all suffering from a 'mass delusion' or 'crowd hysteria,' or should we tentatively accept the empirical reality of what they are testifying to having seen? The old phlogiston theory in chemistry was sustained for a long time against its opponents by its defenders stubbornly insisting that contradictory evidence had been inaccurately detected or measured.

The plural of anecdote is not evidence. Scientific evidence has to pass a set of criteria (one of which is repeatability). This is why anecdotes are not evidence.

Now, if a Ghost can up and said, each time you call my name out, I'll appear beside you no matter what the circumstance. Then this could be used as evidence as it is repeatable and can be subject to verification (like that you haven't got a hidden projector, or such nearby). It would allow experimenters to test things out and to try and disprove the phenomena (an important part of scientific experimentation).

This would not calling the person making these claims is faking it, but to prove that they aren't (or deluded, or whatever). If the phenomena is real, then no amount of disproof can disprove it. But if it is faked, then a single bit of evidence that proves that it is not true means that it is not true.

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 beneficial to a group), if an individual by bad luck is not able to get enough food to survive, then they can survive off the rest of the group. The larger the group, the smaller the cost to any individual. This is thus an advantage to the group and to the individuals involved.

2) In a large group you are less likely to be attacked by a predator. This is because a large group can more successfully defend themselves or frighten off predators and because if a predator randomly takes someone from the group then you have less chance of being the one taken.

So, if a group had a behaviour that caused the group to become smaller quickly, then this group would always be at a disadvantage against groups that didn't have that behaviour.

Thus, we can conclude that murder is bad for group survival.

Also, trust is an important part of group maintenance. If a group can not trust the members of the group, then the group can not act as a group, but instead acts as a collection of individuals. This means any benefits that the group would normally confer (as shown above) would not apply and this kind of collection of individuals would be at a disadvantage against a group that could trust its members.

Again, this shows that murder is bad for group survival.

This type of analysis can show how certain behaviours are objectively bad (in most situations), and that these behaviours correlate closely with many immoral behaviours.

'Probable Discovery Of A New, Supersolid, Phase Of Matter'

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2004/09/040903085531.htm

 

'"When we go to a low-enough temperature, thermal energy is no longer important and this quantum-mechanical effect becomes very apparent," Chan explains.'

Did you read all the article? Because near the bottom is this (bold by me to point out the important bits):

Kim and Chan tested their conclusion by performing the experiment again, but this time they built a new sample cell with a barrier in the annular channel, blocking its continuous "racetrack" geometry so that superflow could not take place. "In this experiment, we observed that the decoupling rate, as measured by the change in the oscillation rate, decreased by a factor of 60," Chan reports. "The small residual effect is due to the special property of a superfluid and supersolid known as the irrotational flow effect. What is clear is that superflow is indeed interrupted by the barrier in the annular channel," Chan says.

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?

My point is , if a person or two people then ' see ' something undefined , is that proof of something happening ?

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.

Are scientists afraid to give their opinions in science because they don't want to be seen to go against the ' knowledgeable ' crowd ? Is this preventing the exploration of new idea's ?

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 like movies and TV shows that portray scientists as know it alls and unwilling to change. But, if you are basing your view of scientist based on fictional media, then you are going to have the wrong impression.

The other thing is that some people think that just because something sounds like to should be true, then it must be true. Then when someone show them that their wishful thinking is just wishful thinking, they tend to react badly to it and make out that the person who showed them they were wrong is the one at fault because they can't see that because something that sounds like to should be true is not actually true.

What these types of people don't understand is that reality trumps all, and that Humans did not evolve to understand the fundamental way the universe works. We evolved to not get eaten by predators, to eat our prey and to make more of us. These require some understanding of how the universe works on some level, but only an approximation is needed. So what sounds like it should be true is not necessarily true because out intuition is based around being able to eat, not getting eaten and making more humans than the next couple.

Aether exists where matter does not. Aether exists between the molecules of your chamber. Aether is displaced by matter. However, you can not create a single direction that the aether can flow through the chamber. In terms of your chamber and its interaction with the aether, your chamber has millions of holes in it. In your scenario, you could have a closed chamber and as you expand the chamber inside the chamber would be aetherless. This is incorrect. As you expand your chamber your chamber 'fills' with aether. A vacuum still consists of aether.

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 up by matter already. This means that my argument still stands the matter of the chamber walls would be able to effectively block your Aether passing through.

Now, for my device to work, it doesn't actually need to block it 100%, even if it just slowed down the Aether it would still work, not very efficiently, but it would still work.

There are 2 problems with the "creation" of Aether as you explained:

1) You have previously stated that your Aether has mass, but as Einstein showed, mass and energy are equivalent. Thus it would take energy to create this Aether. So, where does this energy come from?

2) If Aether can be created like this, then doing so would increase the total amount of Aether in the universe, this should increase the pressure in or around the chamber, which could also be harnessed to produce action without apparent reaction. It would mean we would see violation of Newtons laws every time some chamber expanded or contracted. Why don't we see such obvious violations of Newtons laws?

Now, when molecules

It means you still don't understand the swimmer who pushes off the side of the pool and moves through the frictionless superfluid/solid forever experiences inertia. Once you understand this then maybe this conversation can move forward.

I understand it fine, but your explanations violate the physics of super-fluids, and yet you keep insisting that it behaves as a super-fluid.

Basically, even super-fluids don't react with an infinite speed (because it is not infinitely stiff). Because of this there must be some compression of the fluid, and this compression is stored energy. However, according to thermodynamics not all of this energy can be got back, so some of the energy that went into compressing the super-fluid is lost.

So, if not all the energy is returned, because some is lost (it spreads out into the bulk of the fluid), then not all the energy is returned to the swimmer, and the swimmer will slow down.

Sure, it might take a long time, but they will eventually slow down and stop.

This is because a super-fluid is not the same as a vacuum.

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).

The latest electrical charge fired through the corpse of religion in the hopes of reviving it is the new book by Michael McGuire and Lionel Tiger, entitled 'God's Brain.' It's announced goal is to try to recover some respect for theists from atheists, on the reasoning that since 90% of the earth's population believes in some religion, it is inconsistent with biology to assert that such a large proportion of a successful species can be so defective as to be victimized by a merely stupid belief.

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 in the grass near you, it is a survival advantage to believe them rather than require proof before acting.

So, the fact that if the positives out way the negatives, then negative traits can still survive in a population, and that belief can be both positive and negative means that this type of argument for religion is false. Unless, of course, they show that belief is such a negative trait that it would be impossible for us to survive as a species (but then that would also constitute and argument against religion - so I doubt they would try that ).

The authors argue that there is naturally a huge amount of suffering connected with human existence, and that the natural way by which humans preserve their capacity for action amidst despair -- which is in their view the evolutionary purpose of the brain, not primarily thought per se -- is by increasing their serotonin levels and the capacity of their mind for anodyne self-soothing by the boost they get from religious experience.

Well, how much suffering comes from religious beliefs? To be brought up thinking that you are worthless because of what some ancestor of yours did, and the only way you can be of any worth is to grovel and plead that some great and powerful being has enough mercy to forgive you (despite being called infinitely merciful) for something you didn't do.

This is suffering. Making someone fell worthless like that causes suffering. Making people hate others because they believe something different causes suffering. I think that religion causes a lot more suffering than it alleviates.

The authors support their hypothesis of the biologically beneficial effect of religion by considerable evidence from empirical psychology, and the conclusion they draw is that what makes people happy ought to be respected as a human virtue, so the faithful should not be held in contempt, as Dawkins and other atheists seem to do.

 

But this entire line of reasoning makes two foundational errors in reasoning. First, just because 90% of people believe in religion does not make it respectable, since the vast majority of people are violent and lazy, which is hardly a reason for respecting those features. Among cultural institutions, an inclination to use intoxicating substances, even to excess, from Ancient Egyptian beer to North American Indian peyote, is also nearly universal, but that practice cannot claim respect just for that reason.

Yes, drugs offer a much faster and quicker way to get this "happiness". So according to that argument, we should freely allow people to engage in any sort of recreational drug use they like, regardless of the suffering it causes (because as I showed above, even religion causes suffering).

A moving physical particle has an associated physical wave. An ether wave. Ether has mass. Ether physically occupies three dimensional space. Ether is displaced by matter.

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.

As matter displaces your Ether, expanding the chamber would cause the Ether surrounding the chamber to be pushed out and the extra space in side the chamber would accommodate this displaced Ether with the Ether moving through valve A.

Next, after closing valve A and opening valve B, compressing the chamber would expel the Ether inside the chamber and it would exist through valve B.

Now, as you have stated that your Ether has mass, I would get a net movement of Ether in one direction (from valve A to valve B) pushing the device in the opposite direction.

This device would of course need to work in a vacuum to avoid any effects of other non Ether fluids. This device does not work off of friction and a frictionless super-fluid would still provide movement.

However, this does not happen in a vacuum. It has never been observed and there is no evidence for it at all. In other words, if your Ether really did exist, then we should see this effect as it uses inertia, but because there is no evidence of such an effect occurring in a vacuum, we can conclude that your Ether can not exist as the effects that it would cause do not exist.

But this is similar to how a swimming stroke works. You don't use friction, you use the displacement of mass backwards (water) to propel you forwards (it is action reaction of mass).

Because of the stiffness of water (that is the speed of motion of water is not infinite), this means that water can not always get out of the way fast enough and it is the push of water against water (because water can not take up 0 space it must push against itself - and because even frictionless super-fluids take up finite space they too must push against themselves), then you can use such a push to move through the water. So swimming is still possible in frictionless super-fluids.

It also means my previous arguments stand against your Ether (along with the other arguments presented in this post too).