keelanz

If you take someones eye they are permanently disabled, imprisonment is relative to the crime, also i was looking at it from an idealogical point of view so i wouldnt have criminals "mingling". I agree there is no objective answer but like we was saying earlier things like prison are more intersubjective than physical harm.

Okay well my last post about Energy has been locked due (apparently) to myself preaching so before i get into it i would like a little disclaimer from the staff here: This thread is for the input of others about my idea's, which you FAILED to do. =D Essentially the format is going to be simple, i shall write a few analogies about Energy, God, Consciousness & Purpose, then if you philosophers out there would like to feed me with your idea's we can hopefully get a good discussion going about some of the most intricate, interesting and modern idea's that are floating around right now, so without further ado. Creating ENERGY: okay to start with it might be good to define energy not only in terms of e=mc^2 but in some finite terms of existing. Energy and mass must both necessarily EXIST for conversion between the two to be true, so as long as you guys can distinguish between something (energy/mass) & nothing (vacuum/blackness) then you should be able to follow my analogy quite easily. all of us can grasp the concept that we cant just click our fingers and create something from nothing? were not god? okay so heres my analogy; "energy has many context's, how can anybody define it as one thing? if it can be defined as one thing then it must be something, if it is something then something that is nothing must not be energy. 100 years ago IC's (integrated circuits) didnt exist, they do now, somewhere in the last 100 years a form of energy was created. in my own defense im not stupid enough to actually believe im creating something physical from something non physical, im using something physical(materials) & something physical(human brain) to create something that otherwise wouldnt exist in the physical world yes people im saying turning clay into a plate or a tree into a book or grapes into wine is ENERGY" that was part of my energy post that got locked next we have God, im not quite sure how to define God so ill try with this "I dont really go by any dimensions above the 4th but including the 10th so thats our 3Dimensional world, time and the all the possibilities of the laws of physics(gravity, magnetism, SOL) its my opinion that a logical system could allow for all these possibilities. once the 10th dimension has been reached logically all permutations would have been expressed so at that point you could repeat infinitely but your not getting anything that hasnt already been defined. Once you go past 10 dimensions things like string theory(what wave length you on?) try to explain whats outside them boarders but realistically it can still only be defined within the 10 dimensions. So when things like theoretical quantum physics tries explaining our reality i perceive it as nothing but a romantic/religious outlook of being multiple versions of ourselves too many times over too comprehend." okay so thus far we have God existing as some sort of logical machine that encompasses the whole of comprehension as being possibilities and if everything is theoretically possible then you create energy when you do one of the possibilities that have not yet been done. If you philosophers are still with me, although im sure we will discuss the above i would like to know how any of this has any relevance on "purpose" for example if the above is true then what is the point? just to enjoy the ride? personally i think its answered by what god did on the 7th day? finally i would like to know your guys views on what relevance all of this has on our consciousness?

Im not a theologian but if we take all omni's to be true (which i take is the standard belief of god) then giving us free will is kind of a paradox which is saying that god isnt everything but he is everything that is commonly seen to be good. perhaps jesus was a phoenix? if for arguments sake we dont take the bible literally(lol) then maybe the idea OF jesus rose again; word spread to new lands about a specific HUMAN who was willing to give his life for all that was considered good, like standing up for the common man against the dictator of the day and spreading the word of love (god?) the rest are fairy tails for the kids?

If you take somebody's eye who would usually be an active member of a group (say a fireman?(by physical harm you usually take certain abilities away)) then it certainly doesnt benefit the group because we would be a fireman down, putting them in prison for a certain amount of time, taking away their liberty and rights might be a better way of stopping deviants (though an eye for an eye isnt really devious its straight forward) in other words physical revenge usually isnt the best way to teach a lesson and hence isnt really logical (there is logic there but when you add other aspects it becomes either illogical or inadequate logic ), infact fighting fire with fire only makes it hotter and burn quicker

According to the 10 dimensions every physical possibility is theoretically possible. so all the links are equal to ZERO? the only information you you provided was "its not my fault you dont understand science" and you didnt refute anything you only claim im wrong because my idea contradicts e=mc^2 (infact it doesnt even contradict it, it just changes its use) heres a better idea than my idea, how about instead of telling me im wrong, you show me using my analogy how im wrong? because otherwise your not really doing anything but telling me what i already know (I.E that you believe e=mc^2.....) by the way lots of theoretical science contradicts each other, you are aware of this right?

midways fits....

Right i get that, that was pretty much what i was trying to say when i said morals and ethics are subjective, that means its relative to the individuals conditions, game theory aside if murder is needed for survival or is instinctively built into oneself its hard to persecute or define it as a bad thing. Back to the question in hand, it follows that everything that isnt logical, mathematical or scientific is subjective and therefor true to oneself but false of reality. Everything YOU know is TRUE, we have a few things that collectively are TRUE to most of us and finally there are TRUTH's which are exclusive to ourselves and more than likely fallacious in reality. (such as my belief that you can create energy)

your post is very biased, you didnt mention how the jews got the land. Here's my analogy: the british own nebraska by force and native indians still own the other 49 states, how mutual or hostile would you be if you was the native? how would you feel to be the british? you have to philosophise both sides before you just say "the evil muslims hate democracy", also i think you'll find if no international markets or trades existed then the muslims wouldnt have anything to fear from the jews but the fact america has its hand up israels ass would scare me too if i lived in a neighboring country. Theres no absolute answer that secularism is better than a religious consituency, for example alot of our western politics is broken and bent whereas in the islamic nations they all have the same approach and outlook, they all just want whats best for their people and to the most degree not to the extent of other peoples and cultures with which our society is indifferent. personally the muslim idealism scares me as much as the facist or military but fighting fire with fire just makes it alot hotter and burn alot quicker

this is taking a logical approach though, theres no room for emotional accounts I.E an eye for an eye might not be logical for the group but ethically "fair" for the individual this kinda means you made something objective that was subjective by applying objectives to it, but in reality you have just deducted the subjective aspect altogether P.S im a rational so i rather like game theory

The first statement did suck the air out of the room but only a room that was full of people who had already been suffocated by the looks of it. I said that statement at that point in time because people werent looking at my analogy, you guys didnt like what it suggested so you blindy refuted it without any evidence other than "you dont get to make your own definition of energy" & "your contradicting reality" (i was defining energy in a logical sense not making my own definition BTW & i see no proof of any contradiction) so hence i told people who had nothing to show that ill take their nothingness and do nothing with it. I dont want or need to be spoon fed i was looking for an intellectual discussion regarding my analogies, obviously thats asking far too much of scientists. I thought perhaps my in-depth explanations, over the top analogies and all round input into this topic might just show my eagerness and determination to figure it out, quite the opposite of lazy, i simply asked mooey for external links as she said she may have some to suggest (thats after apologizing for any offense i may have caused). I created a thread not necessarily to prove but to show you guys that i already understood the concepts of e=mc^2, which as long as you were able to grasp my outlook on it then i wouldnt of had to endlessly study different peoples views on explaining e=mc^2, if you guys actually read that thread (which im presuming you did) then i thought perhaps you would link me to a specific website whereby it explains a concept i have perhaps missed (but you swonsont actually gave me a link which suggested something quite similar to myself before i even started on this thread) Which can only lead me to the natural conclusion that my idea is right, i dont want to be put on a pedestal i just want an active discussion which deals directly which my analogies rather than being told im wrong without any proof of how. for the luls http://www.kontraban.../Meme-Rap/#show peace, love and a little science P.S where can i make a topic on luls? lounge? No i dont really go by any dimensions above the 4th but including the 10th so thats our 3Dimensional world, time and the all the possibilities of the laws of physics(gravity, magnetism, SOL) its my opinion that a logical system could allow for all these possibilities. once the 10th dimension has been reached logically all permutations would have been expressed so at that point you could repeat infinitely but your not getting anything that hasnt already been defined. Once you go past 10 dimensions things like string theory try to explain whats outside them boarders but realistically it can still only be defined within the 10 dimensions. This is just my subjective outlook, i dont have any hard evidence to prove it. To me when theoretical physics starts dealing with anything other than the 1st dimension then it just becomes an illusion, 1 must exist but as long as we have 1 we can make 2, once we have 2 we can make 3 or 4 from what we already have etc etc. So when things like theoretical quantum physics tries explaining our reality i perceive it as nothing but a romantic/religious outlook of being multiple versions of ourselves too many times over too comprehend. as far as converting the energy goes you are still creating it as long as that possibility has not yet been lived so although it can exist within the realms of the logical system if it hasnt yet then by doing so you are making 2 from 1(creating something that doesnt exist from something that does) in other words if everything is theoretically possible then you create energy when you do one of the possibilities that have not yet been done...pow

yeh if you do well in your first year your allowing 1) good work experience prospects and 2) the ability to get higher grades in year 2/3 yep thats spot on

haha i wouldnt bank on it, i cant wait to try it. i always remember one level took me ages on the original game, the one where theres a long hall way with no portal walls you had to open 1 and go through the hall to the other side took me a stupid amount of time to figure out then the rest just came easy

I agree for the most part however the analogy given is double ended, your looking at it from only 1 side, if you was the person doing the torturing because for example a close family member was in trouble or for say a matter of national security then if you were the person being tortured you would subjectively at the very minimum understand why your being tortured. If however you were being tortured without a cause there would be absolutely no subjective understanding i dont think, hence it could be defined as objective? So i think it comes down to cause and effect, if theres a cause then the effect is subjective, if however the cause is not understood it can be presumed objective. I dont really understand the process of suicide enough to make a valuable remark however the remark i made on suicide was relative to consciousness being good or bad, I.E if it a negative process of nature, we would surely kill ourselves to get away from it....sort of thing.

Im not concerned weather most people can admit that taste is subjective, or weather mathematics is objective. You said yourself ethics are intersubjective which is just a combined subjective not objective. In other words its my opinion there is not many actual deductible truths other than perhaps logical, mathematical & scientific, all other truths are intersubjective which to all extents and purposes is truth in our reality (hard to break away from that belief system).

your comments dont prove anything, my analogies do..... you showed no external links or proof, you just said i was contradicting reality (without explaining how) im not convinced im right, i came up with the idea so its mine to hold, however unless you can prove me wrong without saying "your wrong you contradicted reality" then what values to your comments really have? if you had some mathematical, scientific or logical proof that my assertion is fallacy then well....i will eat my hat, until then at least one human knows the truth i even apologized for offending you.....seems to have backfired, perhaps if my response were more offensive you may have felt the need to defend yourself? ah well im sure theres other forums i say given up trying because as yet you havent proved scientifically im wrong

the simple answer is no, it wont ever be controlled unless you want nazi's again =D beer is bad

personally i like this http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extropianism i think if your honest with yourself agnosticism is the way too go however a belief in something is fundamental, its just an open ended belief so too speak.

This made me LOL, please explain how thoughts spontaneously occur in your mind? you might just save us hundreds of years of neuro science

well can nothing be defined as infinite?

i see the rules can be bent? just like time and space?

no there really is no other difference other than the way you have been raised, if murder had been a predominant part of your upbringing I.E for survival, then you would certainly no longer claim that your neighbor is insane or on that note i dont think youd ring the police when you find out she was trying to kill him because he and a few of his mates turned her into a doll (GHB/rohypnol) & caused her life to be a misery. If we lived 1000 or even 2000 years ago im sure things would have been very much different. As you said its intersubjective, thats to say its a majority vote but still not objective, thats why we have laws in place, these laws are not right or wrong, they are just agreed upon by the majority just as im sure the majority enjoy sweet over sour, it doesnt mean sweet is absolutely the best taste..... your raised not to question peoples tastes, your raised with religion and laws (generally? ).

aww i didnt even know it had been released, is co-op any good? anyway i would doubt it but then again who knows? i wouldnt sit on either side of the fence id just be optimistic about the whole idea and the progression of physics, I.E 200 years ago space travel would have been presumed impossible now its needed to keep society running at usual pace.