DevilSolution

If the list is superficial then login to the router using either the http portal or ssh and pipe netstat with the required grep depending on iftables etc...the normal ip is 192.168.1.1 or 192.168.0.1. type that in your URL.

Undefined ...

 

the modulo operator gives an int, the regression from a double to int can be system specific i think.

 

using a bit field and quotient should indicate the implementation.

 

long double promption, double promotion, float promotion etc, always losing precision.

 

Its relative to your system, each type has specified memory allocated (as in 32it float)

 

as for an algraic formula im at a loss, if you wanted to estimate the iterations then using compound interest formula with the modulo 32.25 ^ x might be some help.

Again, just because we can't currently explain something does not mean it is not explicable. By your definition, pretty much all of science is supernatural.

 

 

But apparently it is.

So now your telling me the dictionary definition is wrong?

 

Not my definition, the dictionary....

 

Does it? Citation needed.

 

 

Not being able to explain things does not make them supernatural. It just means we can't (currently) explain them.

 

 

 

These are not unexplainable.

 

 

All of those things are explainable by (or even already explained by) science. None defy the laws of nature.

 

You appear to have a very idiosyncratic definition of "supernatural". You seem to be using it to mean "not fully understood".

 

A great many disagreements on this forum come about because people insist on using their own made up definitions for words.

 

Doing that is very brave. And, of course, when I say "brave" I mean foolish.

 

 

 

You are wrong.

How does science explain the cause of the big bang? The cause of dark energy? and what does it say for the inside of black holes? I must need a refresher.

 

I dont think you comprehend the dictionary definition.

 

Google "define supernatural", its not open for interpretation.

 

There is no reason to think that the big bang is supernatural.

Theres no reason not to, infact the scientific limitation almost defines that the cause is unattainable, thus if we cant explain it using any natural method it most likely ìs not natural. Call it supernatural, un-natural or possibly a paradox of logic if you want.

 

I say almost because science has the discretion of probability. I cant say for certain science is unable to explain the cause of the big bang, but given certain physical laws and time, its fairly safe to say whatever caused the big bang is beyond the realms of any imaginable science. Unless you can imagine what the "natural" cause could be?

 

And if you wish to debate what is or isnt scientifically possible, we need only look at the constraint of human comprehension to realize if it were scientifically attainable (cause of the big bang), we wouldnt be able to attain it because even the best of us are limited to the capabilities of the brain, it has finite ability. If you devolve further into AI then science or even nature to that extent becomes an extension of logic or atleast percieved nature would be an extension of logic (as computers are based in pure boolean logic).

 

Essentially humans are not capable of explaining the cause of the big bang because its beyond our logical comprehension, regardless of whether science can obtain the answer.

 

As a side note, regarding any unknown phenomena, such as the inside of a black hole or dark energy. When would a scientist concede that its supernatural? (for clarification i define it in terms of not abiding by the laws of nature / physics)

 

 

 

Others have pointed this out, but your definition of supernatural isn't helping you discuss this subject effectively. It's just causing everyone else confusion, so it doesn't matter if it makes sense to you. It ain't working.

Forget using a perfect circle, thats more of a philosophy, like the belief numbers are somehow mystic and hold the true answers to the universe.

 

My use of big bang, black holes, dark energy etc fall well within the definition of supernatural

 

1.adjective (of a manifistation or event) attributed to some force beyond scientific understanding or the laws of nature.

 

The events being the big bang etc..

 

So because the creation / cause of the big bang is beyond scientific knowledge (and as the laws of nature are defined by scientific knowledge (although it need only fit one criteria)) the big bang is by definition supernatural, or of supernatural orogin.

 

This is true for any unexplainable phenomena such as dark energy or quantum entanglement etc...

 

Causing confusion could be a gòod thing if its expanding someones comprehension, and as for it not working its upto you guys to counter me or accept that there are supernatural forces that currently exist.

 

Im simply holding my position.

 

Also to clarify a religious scientist would "probably" be as intent in figuring out "the mind of god" as it would be revealing gòds genius or such.

 

More "act of clod" than "act of God".

 

And who are you to tell science what it can and can't do?

Why do you think that you get to decide what's supernatural?

In what reference are you refering to in regards to my dictatorship of science?

 

First, humankind dictates science, therefore science is and can only ever advance as far as humans take it. As your aware humans are intellectually and logically constrained. We are limited by our comprehension, abstract understanding and logical confinements. There will be an absolute limit to this, a point beyond which we cant comprehend. Even a polymath savant (if such a thing could exist) would be limited....so i am the one telling you that science cant be any more advanced than its creator.....it also has technical limits, like the speed of EM beyond which nothing travels faster than. And due to apparatus we can only measure so small, i think planck units are the smallest.

 

Secondly again in reference to what? Pi not existing in nature yet being used in formula's? So

Supernatural formula = natural force

And as a = b hence b = a

Natural formula = supernatural force.

 

Please correct me if im wrong,

 

 

However if your refering to unexplainable phenomena such as the big bang, dark energy, quantum entanglement etc then the very definition of supernatural is an event that science cant explain or that defy the laws of nature (like pi).

Where was the leap. Everything I posted was a factual account of the nature of science today and in the past. No supposition, no assumption, no inference, no deduction. Just statements of fact.

 

Your second sentence does not parse. Perhaps you could try restating it. As written it makes no sense, though several contradictory interpretations are possible.

 

And your third sentence follows with all the inevitability of badger hunting in the presence of an ocean liner.

The leap is in the fact science has no place is attempting to unfold what could be deemed as supernatural (such as the big bang etc)

 

My statement regarding science and logic is by means of constraint. Whether we agree or disagree mathematics is founded on logic its undebatable that whatever mathematical truths of nature are defined as are by there own definition logical. Either the equation is true or false, proved using empirical evidence. As for its constraint and application this is simply seen with contradicting yet verifiable theories in science such as quantum physics and classical. We choose to apply either or as required yet neither can hold as logically right. This then is our own human constraint on mental capacity to understand and apply such logic.

 

What are the constraints on science?

Human capability to comprehend or abstract logic.

you could come up with a logically consistent, mathematical "theory" of the universe (or some aspect of it), and it could be far off from predicting the actual measurable value associated with whatever phenomenon it is describing. science progresses with more than just logic, there's testing and retesting of theories, finding out for what scales it's valid for etc

 

so what do you mean by "by means of logic?"

By means of science's fundamental basis being logical. True or false, apply epirical data then use logic as proof. Without logic science as a whole is void.

 

And with logic comes constraints....

Think of it like a lightning rod that prevents the strikes from hitting the rest of the house.

But yet (to our knowledge) we our the outcome of lighting hitting the house, given the right chemical and atmospheric conditions....

 

Inhibitors of our our being or....moving into a house and not letting any outsiders welcome.

 

Yet we dont know fully how the house was built or who made it (the 2 points intwine)....

Here is a little bit of history for you. (Just as background what I am writing here are facts - not ideas, not opinions, so there will be no need for anyone to get offended or insulted by them.)

 

Two hundred years ago, in the West, science was practiced -as it had been for some time - by people who practiced, for the most part, Christianity. For many the search for a better understanding of God's cosmos was seen as a deeply religious motivation. Many important discoveries were made by practicing clerics. There was thus an intimate relationship between science and religion.

 

But gradually science adopted what is called Methodological Naturalism. This takes the position that science is not well suited to investigate the supernatural and therefore the existence and nature of God is considered irrelevant to the pursuit of science. So, to answer your question, there is no place - currently - for religion in science. However, if we consider religion to be a branch of philosophy (as is science) it is quite reasonable that a religion sub-forum should exist on the site.

Thats a bit of a leap...science distinguishes the mathematical nature of the universe, by means of logic.

 

Yet it cant comprehend anything beyond its primary constraint of logic, therefore science only applies itself to its own constraints.....in which we choose to apply.

 

Which obviously leads to the mysticism of numerology...

 

Most of those problems are political or social. Science can help understand the causes and perhaps, suggest solutions, but they are not caused by and can't be stopped by science.

 

On the other hand, science has made enormous progress in treating and preventing cancer. And, there is little evidence that it has increased the incidence. Most is down to lifestyle choices: smoking, drinking, bad diet, etc. I suppose coal-fired power stations are fairly a significant contributor. But it is science that will find alternatives (nuclear, fusion, solar, wind, etc.)

I still think your missing the fundamental link between science and philosophy. Science is a means to an end...it answers the questions asked with no regard to future consequence, which in itself is a philosophical flaw.

 

What else little evidence do you need regarding cancer other than DNA mutations caused by radioactivity, reduced immune systems and the biochemical reactions in relation to pesticides, food addititives and the rest of synthetic chemicals we unwittingly digest? (To mention a few)

 

as i originally stated OTHER than medicinal science, theres as many if not more threats to humanity than humanity gains in terms of our morality or society as a whole....

Its a famous eistein quote, except the he says "only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity and im not sure about the former".

 

Except we don't know if the universe is infinite or not. And we don't know what the other thing is. So maybe nothing is infinite.

 

You dont know what the other thing is?

Thats exactly the point, you said philosophy isnt science so no one needs to use as you cant prove whether its good or bad. But i can prove science can be bad with philosophy.....

I would say that it is generally worse than that. How can any philosophy be proven right or, as you put it, established as fact?

 

Philosophy is not science and so one has to ask how a philosophy (meaning a 'way of thinking') is tested and shown to be 'good' or 'bad'?

 

As far as I can tell, the best one can do is argue that some philosophical position has served us well so far and thus it is a 'good philosophy'.

 

As an example, I would say that the scientific method is a good philosophy as it has given the world so much.

 

There's logical premise and morals aswell as delving into the existential.

 

Your argument is the same as laws, laws are made to keep the population under control, philosophy teaches why you should have morals and who and what you stand for. Otherwise we'd be barbarians with guns fighting over oil or land.........................

 

If we stand back and look at what its given us (other than medicinal science) its not actually great, not just the guns and bombs but the social aspects that are slowly creeping into society thanks to technological and scientific breakthroughs.

 

There's over half the worlds population in poverty, there's still a drug abuse and things like cancer which are highly likely caused by a range of scientific breakthroughs, the radioactive waste floating through entire continents, sea and air pollution thanks to Oil refinement and diesel tankers.

 

I wouldnt say there's a pot of gold waiting for us at the end of this rainbow.

 

But its OKAY aslong as we can explain why the earth rotates around the sun or how the universe began.

 

Philosophy has its place in science, otherwise were already pruned for extinction, like those meat eating carnivores before us.

 

And to the OP if you think philosophy is "really simplified to fit human understanding" i'd like to know who and what you've read. Philosophy isnt usually put in simple terms, unless you've read sophies world then fair enough.............

Only 2 things are infinite, the universe and i forget the other......

 

 

But would you like to buy an invisible pink unicorn as a pet?

 

We do trade? Air guitar...pink unicorn? actually never mind im not into my little pony......

 

No.

 

 

I don't think anyone is trying to do that. Most scientists and philosophers of science will tell you that is impossible. (And unnecessary.)

 

 

I would like to live for, say, another few hundred years. Just to see how some of the current problems get solved (not just in science). But I don't think I want to use "Robotic Transhumanism" to do that. (I don't know what it is, but it doesn't sound very nice).

 

 

That makes you religious by any normal definition of the word.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extropianism......doesnt sound too bad.

 

I wouldnt turn the chance down to be a god. Nordic maybe, whoever survives ragnarok i'll be that dude.

 

Science and religion or god are like yin and yang. Yin likes to have proof for what yin believes and tries hard to find it, yang likes to think of things that yin cant prove. Or something like that.

You mean they have a rootkit on the kernel? i use c4droid, get a terminal and use logcat to find out the parent ID of any malicious looking stuff. If you have root you should be able to remove it unless it's hidden very well, could probably follow all processes using code if needed. If its embedded in the kernel itself as in root /init etc then get a new build that your phone can handle.

 

You on linux or windows or dual?

Once again the problem is that you are using the word 'supernatural' outside of the standard context. If we allow for all abstractions of nature to be labelled 'supernatural', and I appreciate your argument here, then we are not really discussing what people would usually mean by 'supernatural'.

 

You seem to be equating what we currently do not understand and abstractions with 'supernatural'. Fair enough, but this will create confusion.

 

 

You mean why I do not like your definition of 'supernatural'? If so, then the reason is just that it does not sit well with common meaning.

 

 

That question is too lose and open ended.

 

 

I can imagine many things, many of then clearly unphysical. So what?

 

 

This is why I think the standard dictionary definition is vacuous.

 

 

 

Poe's law?

 

 

Many people think that consciousness can be explained in principle by science. That is not to say that scientists have found such an explanation, but people do study and write papers on cognitive science.

 

It's a strange concept, consciousness being able to explain consciousness. If we can then i think it'll be through AI and if so, consciousness is defined purely by logic.

I digress further that we ourselves are supernatural by being able to explain nature, as nature cant explain itself we must therefore be above it, we overstand not understand nature, which is analogous to consciousness. We can't scientifically explain consciousness, atleast not without assistance of some very sophisticated and advanced software that essentially must itself become conscious. At which point the AI will undoubtedly surpass the collective consciousness of humankind and also be supernatural. However i'm not sure a fully conscious AI is possible or that science can fully explain consciousness. Cognitive processes, neurological development and structures, perceptions and memories sure but to actually merge it all into a single theory is almost paradoxical. Like nature being able to explain itself.

 

Furthermore i think it's rather elegant to define specific things within mathematics as supernatural. If as i've explained these "perfect" abstractions are used to explain nature, then they have the right to be defined in those terms. In reality a natural circle isnt perfect nor supernatural but we dont use natural circles in our equations. The nomenclature is secondary to the point that it can deemed supernatural, and we the creators are therefore arguably supernatural. (as an extension to the first paragraph)

 

 

 

Yes. Because as soon as you say "god-did-it" you have no reason to look any further. And will attack others for looking for other answers because one shouldn't question "god did it".

 

 

It is not a belief, just a rather obvious conclusion.

 

I believe your wrong, what your misconception is alluding to is that anyone who is spiritual, agnostic or pertains to any religion must have no curiosity as to the nature of the universe and will name every unknown phenomena as "godidit" rather than use their natural curiosity to question such things.

Although in very recent history it's fair to say the majority of scientist's are atheist (which to me shows herd regression of specific individuals who have made it their lifes goal to contradict "RELIGION", the rest follow suit), there are still plenty of agnostic, religious or spiritual scientist's. Historically speaking mostly all scientists to some degree or another were religious, they may have questioned their religion but not necessarily god itself. Einstein was a pantheist and agnostic, does your "rather obvious conclusion" mean Einstein was not a true scientist?

 

It's laughable that you conclude that the existence of something supernatural means that we will stop questioning, some things people associate as supernatural have no place in science and ever will, like the belief of heaven. Believing that if you do right on earth you will end up in heaven with all your dead relatives and enlightenment may be given upon you is a comforting thought for those who have felt the coldness of near death experiences or terminal illness. To say that because i believe in heaven means i dont want to help in progression of humanity through say biochemistry or medicine is ridiculous. I think maybe christopher hitchens has you sprung or other philosophical thinkers who surpass your own ability to think.

 

Most of what you believe is probably aimed at the devout religious people who take their scriptures literally rather than metaphorically, in such cases you'd usually be right, but its not true for all, infact any self aware believer will usually use rationality on such matters the same as an atheist. You need to stop putting everyone in the same box, its like having 1000 different sets which all connect on a single belief and you think that all 1000 sets of people are therefore the same.

 

Just so your aware "godidit" answers plenty of questions for plenty of people, questions science will never be able to answer, such as; why do exist? Whats the purpose to existence? Are there things beyond human comprehension? What might they be? Could there be life after death?.....the existential problem of most people are easily answered by whichever religion they so choose without having to overthink or philosophise on such issues. Maybe you dont have these questions, maybe you have your own answers for each and every one but they are subjective and as such should have no place in science yet they are still associated by secondary means. Morals for example, are not a scientific subject, yet scientific advances should be looked at very closely using a moral approach or else science may be devolution rather than evolution.

 

One more note, i think you'll find it's religious believers who generally get attacked for having irrational beliefs, not scientists for trying to answer questions. Where do you actually dream this stuff up???

https://xkcd.com/285/

 

Where is your evidence were born athiest? sources please

So, you have a religion forum on a science site, but you can only post things that relate to science? so in a way its not universal, Its bias about science to undermine Gods existence.... You call it a religion forum.. when really it should be called, Science Vs Religion...

 

Is science rational, Really? was science rational when it created the Atomic Bomb? People think their expressing their intelligence by being scientists, they dont endorse all possibilities, not really... I thought science was about being open minded, but Science is about thinking about science, not everything... If you want to understand everything, your mind must become everything... Or nothing at all.... You started out thinking science was open minded, when really it is closed minded.... Like I said... Science expresses human intelligence in a destructive mannor, most science is used to create destructive things, not peaceful things.... There are people that use their creativity for peace, and science that uses its creativity for destructive means... Observe it...

 

Your going struggle on this site, people will use logic as a base premise to dismiss the irrational.......yet were constrained by logic so most people cant imagine beyond the realms of their own logic.

 

In general if they dont have the answer for something, then neither do you. People dont like to entertain idea's that contradict their beliefs or for which you cant prove, even though ofcourse you could be right. Not that i believe you.

I upvoted you but you also answered your own question, knowledge is power because you can make gun powder and kill people or getting things you want through psychological manipulation or brain washing people through media and so forth.......

 

I wish i was free to be ignorant.

Please quote where i said that we should give up on science because theres a chance god might exist please before asserting your misinterpretation....thanks.

 

I said who or whatever created the force could explain it, not that we shouldnt try, your free to try and do whatever you wish, by including "god" in any conversation seems to mean that that person dismisses progression? Strongly biased belief you seem to show. Excuse me if i've misinterpreted you....

Well, like, were not really on talking terms at the moment.

He said something about complementary forces.

 

I speak in conceptual terms, While we have a minimal understanding of what consciousness is, its fair to say its a unique trait, nothing else in nature is conscious is it? Some animals are sentient but consciousness is very unique. It's not an illogical conclusion. Ofcourse were supernatural...how else can we explain nature? nature cant explain itself.

 

 

Can "God" explain that?

 

Whoever or wherever it came from ... i imagine can, yeh. Cant you?

Do you believe that? because if you dont it doesnt exist....

 

 

I appreciate the response......

 

 

 

There is no meaning of life, there probably is no god (not that I care either way); yet I have given my life meaning and have a specific moral code.

 

Theres no meaning but you've given yourself meaning? care to share?

 

How can you give yourself something that doesnt exist?

 

Don't post drunk. (Actually, I would recommend you don't post sober, either.)

 

I'll take your response and raise you a.....oh wait it wasnt a response to my post.

 

Do you have one? i went all the way to google

 

and that was to Shelagh, an inside joke...

There is a difference between "things can't explain yet" and "things that science can't explain in principle"

And, as has been pointed out, science isn't finished yet.

So, can anyone think of something that science can't, even in principle, explain?

(I thought it was obvious that I meant that- sorry for not making it clear).

 

Anyway:

Why do magnets and electricity relate ?

Because they are two aspects of an overall force called electromagnetism.

human stupidity

Partly because no system is totally reliable but largely because the brain has two separatte systems for reacting to the world- one is quick, instinctive and unreliable for complex problems; the other is slow, logical and much better at that sort of thing.

We need both, because we need to address both sorts of questions.

Why do humans believe we are superior to other animals?

Because we are the only animals that can answer questions like these.

Etc.

 

It's also important to keep track of the other half of the OP's question.

 

Having a God fails to explain anything.

"Goddidit" isn't an answer; it's an acceptance of failure. <---- only for certain people!!!!

 

i already told you it was a roman soldier.

 

Well you skipped the main questions and answered the one i knew.

 

Also i had about 7 inbox quoting me so i broadly answering everyones questions.

 

So we are better because we can think? even though we murder for money and care less for our own kind than say....elephants?

 

Yeh if thats how you define better We are far too ignorant and greedy, there are animals that far out-seed us morally and physically.

 

Can science explain in principle consciousness? i missed the memo

 

Also EM explains how they relate not why they do.

 

Maybe...consciousness is supernatural?

The dictionary definition of closed minded -- having a mind firmly unreceptive to new ideas or arguments -- seems to be the antithesis of the scientific mind, which has to be open to new ideas and arguments. Whereas religion is based on unchanging tradition and rejects new ideas and arguments. If religious beliefs were provable, athesists would have an open mind and be receptive to new arguments about the validity of religion.

 

Yeh alright how many bright idea's have you had? and when we say open minded we talking sadomasochistic??

 

Accepting god is accepting yourself. Being religious is more of social activity nowadays.

 

Hitler was an atheist and a good man and i wont hear no more about it, AND a vegetarian. <----- lentil dahl

 

There's reason to believe he was betrayed by a close ally, tsssk.

 

Usually? Based on a sample size of 1. I think we can ignore that, then.

 

 

Sceptical? Yes, in a good sense. I.e. not gullible and willing to accept things just because someone says so.

Nihilistic? No. Why should they be.

 

 

OF course it isn't. That is as stupid as saying that silence is a song.

 

Oh dear....i dont believe your real

 

amirite?

 

but i have to believe that your not real therefore brain overload dfssqg

 

Its such simple logic, true is true, false is false, false must exist for true to exist, regardless....

 

 

 

And not at all, example was an expression of how atheists like to debate religion and in some or most cases put religious ideologies down.

Not my only sample data, but pretty good data.

 

Why do you think nihilistic beliefs might come from atheism?? This is google source dataaaa

 

 

Atheism is not a belief or a religion, just like not being interested in golf is not a sport.

 

But yet they usually knee deep in it.

 

My step dads an avid atheist and its half he talks about, Dont get me wrong people like christopher hitchens are articulate and interesting but hes far more bothered then me.

 

Do you think atheists are more sceptical and nihilistic? Thats the impression i get. Something of a quieter, Like realisation takes grasp and nothing becomes easier than something.

 

I feel sorry for any true atheists, i always believed at the very minimum i was my own god. Ahhh well atleast the kids have celebrities as idols, cant be all bad......

 

I cant comprehend it i dont think, its not something i generally pay much mind to, accepting the non-existence of "something" is like telling me you can comprehend infinity. I know you think you can, but i know you cant. ( not you i dno what you are im just rambling )

 

 

OHH and by the way its as much a belief as false is to logic. You may say no thats not real i dont believe in "whatever", but that in itself is a belief. Like me not believing what you say, or not believing in lizard people on the moon. I honestly believe there are not any. But i have no proof.