keelanz

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?

The theological view is that God did not create sin; rather, he created us with free will, and we chose to disobey.

 

 

 

That's the trick of the Incarnation. Because Jesus was human, he was paying the debt rather than God just forgiving; because he was simultaneously God, he was actually capable of paying back the debt. The Trinity (or at least a man-God duality) is required for the doctrine of the incarnation to succeed.

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?

Why would it not be logical for the group? It punishes someone who has done wrong and shows others that deviance will be punished. So if the punishment of one dissuaded two to not become deviant it is cost effective.

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

It's not theoretically possible, it's imaginatively possible. Write a fiction novel, then, and stop claiming to do science.

 

 

We've provided all the necessary refutations and links and information. Claiming we're the ones with the closed mind is mindbogglingly ironic when you're the one refusing the even CONSIDER any of our points.

 

~mooey

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?

Saying "the wave oscillation is opposite" does not make sense. A particle's wavefunction depends on the surroundings and boundary conditions, and can change as a result of interactions with other particles.

 

Also, every wavefunction calculation I've done so far has nothing to do with whether the particle in question is a particle or antiparticle. The math doesn't care. Perhaps I haven't learned enough QM yet, though.

 

Perhaps you should consider holding off on the speculation until you understand the subject more. I don't know why annihilation works and I'm midway through a course that covers basic quantum physics, and I'm not going to speculate.

midways fits....

But suppose some alien beings were rapidly subdividing and reproducing, so like a batch of bacteria, the greatest threat to their survival was that they would be poisoned by the accumulation of their own uncleared metabolic by-products acting as toxins. In such a group of aliens murder might be a survival advantage to the group, by culling the surplus population, just as it has proved to be in certain emergencies among humans, such as when some passengers were tossed overboard to prevent a sinking boat from being swamped by the waves (U.S. v. Holmes, 1842). Perhaps such a group of aliens would approve of murder, just as some primitive tribes now do, when they refuse to accept young males as full members of the group unless they have killed one person from another tribe.

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)

I've heard so many derogatory remarks slandering Israelis, (Jews), I could just vomit. Take a look at the link below and tell me how a group of nations; all much larger than this little guy, could be so "bellicose" toward them? NO! not Bellicose, that is a war like term. What the majority of these surrounding nations want, is that Israel be disembowled and left out in the sun to rot. Men, women and children! "Question" is, How can such a small nation comprized of supposed misfits, degenerates, halfwits and idiots pose such a threat to them? Could it be that Israel is the only DEMOCRACY in a region that even God has given up on? I ask this as a Hill Billy, not a religious nut case.

 

http://www.mideastweb.org/maps.htm

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

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.

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

"lets just say im gona believe what i want anyway" sucks a lot of air out of the room, and "as yet you havent proved scientifically im wrong" finishes the job, when you've ignored every response thus far. Finding derivations of E=mc^2 aren't that hard to find. Google is your friend. Complaining that nobody has spoon fed you the information just makes you look lazy.

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?

If energy is in this system then wouldn't you be referring to string theory that if you tweak these strings it becomes a dark matter particle and if you tweak it again it becomes energy? since you can make any particle by changing the wary bottom of it (roots/strings) still you wouldn't "make" energy you would only change already existing matter

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

I guess I just wanna hit the ground running. If I work on the basics now, then I can devote more time on the harder and more complex concepts or even other classes I may run in to difficulty with?. That and I find it very interesting and I have a bit of free time at the moment, so I guess I kinda want to research it a little. I am sure that the degree will provide LOTS more to take in and study.

 

I guess it is no different than the fortunate high school students that get to take "pre-calculus", before heading to college. I wasn't one of them fortunate students due to a late start because I immigrated to the United States.

 

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

Ah. Think I got it. So on the first example you REMOVE the MSD(number to the far left). Then for example two (binary) you REMOVE the LSD or LSB (number to the far right). Am I correct? now I just need to learn to convert numbers to binary and vice versa. Very interesting concept indeed, to be able to subtract via addition and inverse.

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

The Ancient Stoics tried to argue that no external impression on humans was good or bad in itself, but rather, what made it good or bad was only the person's attitude towards the impression or subjective evaluation of it. We see this idea mentioned in 'Hamlet,' where a character says, 'Nothing is good or bad,/ But thinking makes it so.' But this really seems to be a very forced and contrived way of thinking, since external impressions clearly have an objective quality which can be extremely resistant to creative re-shaping by our mental attitude toward them. If you are strapped down to a bed and being slowly tortured to death, I doubt you could seriously convince yourself that your problem was really just with your subjective opinion that torture was bad, and that you should simply change your evaluative approach to things.

 

With respect to suicide and happiness, I think you have to analyze the issue along two distinct tracks -- pleasure and value. Humans decide to remain living or engage with life because they seek to realize value in their own creative responses to conscious experience, not just because they seek happiness from conscious experience. Life may become so unhappy that people decide it is no longer worth pursuing existence for the sake of achieving something of value, so they commit suicide. Or life may be sufficiently happy that the total absence of value in it may still make it worth living. But the interaction between these distinct vectors is complex.

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.

Of course there are different gradations of certainty. If I met a society of people from another planet who regularly murdered each other and considered it fine, would I find them immoral or would I just accept that this behavior was acceptable for the kind of beings that they were? I might still find it immoral, given our strong projection of the negative moral significance of killing into the sphere of objective truths. In contrast, if these same alien beings asserted that 1 + 1 = 1.73, I would probably even more strongly want to assert that they were objectively wrong. So perhaps this has an even stronger anchor in objectivity. But in comparison with these two statements having the very highest degree of objectivity -- 1 + 1 = 2, and a very high degree of objectivity -- murder is wrong, it is clear that the assertion that chocolate is better than vanilla has only a very much weaker claim to be objectively true; in fact most people would admit that it is purely subjective.

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).

We gave up because you seem to be utterly convinced you're right despite the comments we're making to the contrary.

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

ill take it

A) you cant prove scientifically im wrong or

B) youve given up trying.

 

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?

You're a bastard. <3

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

There is an important distinction between personal taste -- like saying that chocolate is better than vanilla -- and moral conviction -- like saying that murder is wrong. In the former case, if my neighbors disagree with me and assert that vanilla is in fact the better flavor, I just shrug and agree that tastes differ. I have no objection to their eating vanilla ice cream in front of me. But in the latter case, if the woman next door says murder is good, I will shun her and regard her as mentally ill. And if she starts to kill her husband I will call the police or intervene with force to stop her, as I would not if she were also wrong about eating vanilla ice cream instead of chocolate. Tastes are personal preferences, whereas moral injunctions are understood as objective, or at least intersubjective, truths. Is it objectively more true that the freezing point of water is 0 degrees C or that murder is wrong?

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? ).

I just finish playing Portal 2 and me and my friend have been arguing if its possible (in theory) to make a portal gun like in the game?

 

I think it is possible to make it and he dose not he says "A portal gun is impossible to make since there is no way to connect the 2 portals"

and I say to that statement "its possible to make one since they would be on the same wavelength" (maybe the wrong word for it)

 

 

So my question is is it possible to make a portal gun in any way,shape or form?

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.

ill take it

A) you cant prove scientifically im wrong or

B) youve given up trying.

Is it better to be aware of the outside world and of pain, pleasure, and emotions or be blind to them and not have the ability to know that you feel them?

For instance as conscious beings we know we will die and a vast majority of us (not all of us) have a hard time accepting the inevitable, for this we live with an 'absence of death' we don't think about it. but Mice and most of the animal kingdom do not know what pain feels like, by this I mean to say that they lack the ability to know that they are being hurt. So is it better to be a mouse, completely blind out the outside world, or a conscious being and aware and conscious of this world and all that it means?

http://www.youtube.c...h?v=9Tin7x8OPho

who defines good and bad? its subjective. You cant say weather its better or worse without defining your opinion on what is good or bad, sounds weird i know but if you enjoy pain then being "aware" of certain aspects of humanity is a good thing, compared to the other 90% of the population who would says its negative. were all blind in reality to a certain extent anyway so who says we know when were getting hurt? we cry when our child is born and when our parents die, what the difference? were just learning machines were not as unique as you think, just more advanced versions of mice IMO.

On another note im fairly sure 99% of us presume it is good otherwise we'd commit suicide and try to come back as a butterfly. Self awareness is the best card nature has to play.

one and many

pound and a penny

i like your poem

A slave who knows he is a slave can accept his fate or rebel against it. A slave who is a slave, but doesn't know it, can not choose freedom.

dont kid yourself, you can rebel but your not choosing freedom your choosing death. The best you can hope for is some stockholm syndrome whereby we just hope they are doing what is in our interest and not their own and appreciate that fact (then fall in love with capturers and help the captives)