Ben Banana

iNow's name says it all.

I would say, as I sit out on the grass on a sunny day, that the grass and I consider the sun more than an image. Its shining on us now. Not 7 minutes from now.

Yes, the sunlight is shining on you then, but the event had a cause which originated previously. The sun may be producing photons at the instant while you lay in the grass, but perhaps you move into a building before that light may directly reach you.

In logic a thing either is or is not.

...

I'd say, nope. In an extremely arbitrary logic, that may be an axiom. Neither is "thing" rigid enough.

Is a star that we see 10,000 ly away true or false?

Unfortunately, you have no statement to reason with. You cannot question truth here.

Does it exist NOW? Or does it not exist?

First, lets be careful about the meaning of "existence." I would say, the image exists now; however, we're not sure whether the image's source exists no more.

I just laughed when I read the title, but it got better.

A "theory" has no correlation to factual standing. Believe it or not, neither does "theorem."

so..... probably not going to comprehend everything

Yep. I speak dolphin.

I guess refining a turbine in a nuclear power plant would make energy more efficient and things like that.

Although you worded it a bit wobbly, yes.

Neither do I know anything about thermodynamics, electrodynamics, or whatever sort of field applies to efficient energy consumption.

See this post of mine:

http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/65521-flying-cars-will-it-ever-truly-happen-terrafugia-coming/page__view__findpost__p__669471

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microcode

... and assembler which is designed for people to use.

Some forms of hardware feature reprogrammable microcode.

Too bad techniques of energy production are irrelevant to "energy efficiency." The techniques involved in energy consumption make the appropriately corresponding subject to "energy efficiency."

@ivanv

We already have one defined computer language that is wired in processor

Assembler is not "defined" and wired into the processor. That would be something like microcode. Most modern processors don't have reprogrammable microcode architectures.

You can compose a detailed specification for a language; but otherwise, you don't "write a computer language."

I will make fish men who can fly through air and are naturally skillful writers. Their language shall consist of popping out popcorn from their mouth at varying rates to denote words.

It is Nature who decides what's correct and what's not. Not you.

Oh well then! Nature appears by juanrga to have decided it was incorrect. But wait, its all an illusion!

I decide whats correct, not nature. Nature is not real.

Literally, 0 is not determinedly possible. Its a mere human concept, as are all numbers. For example, "69" is impossible, at least around here.

See what I did there (probably not)? That was more than a joke.

Reflexivity is so fun to think about.

EDIT: By the way, your poll options could overlap so much. There could be people who would easily pick all of them.

What is your favorite color?

I have made some observations -- unusually involving a very specific aspect of social activity -- which I hope participants of this topic also try to see. On organizational efforts in particular, examine the contrast between the motives of a "foundation" or "movement" and an "institution." You might think these are just vague and unintentionally varied labels. Personally, I see things tend as though "foundations" chain you to a cropped ideology, "movements" insensibly push an ideology, yet "institutions" (hopefully) merely inform about a set of "good" and unheard ideas. Perhaps ideological distribution is one of the most prominent elements involved with the undermining of freedom.

1) Tell the inferior about my surprise I have waiting for them.

2) Contort the face of all my messengers to appear as this great inspired fellow:

Unfortunately, I'm not very sharp regarding global warming. So, they're talking about record global temperatures for the first time in millions of years? I question whether this increase has occurred continually (a very gradual rise), or has it significantly began fairly recently (within 500 years)?

With that aside, I have understood the claim that it will continue, and also how this persistence is not expected to remain as "harmless" as it appears now for much longer.

Its amazing how... I can't comprehend this... you're... what kind of divine psychology needs to be imagined to describe the state of your... whatever its called? Your idiocy is undefinable.

A new field of psychology is indeed emerging.

Hell yes! We've got our first subject right here!

The essence of expression is an import asset, and we must store assets mechanically. Computational machines are the medium.

As all of their programs, not only the first auto-codes, people "compiled" by hand into machine code.

Nice article. I found it interesting.

5. Make me say that from the owner of this forum that they don't allow anyone to educate people about religion just as they educate people about science and that they only like to bash religion then I will go away.

You're educating us? Start yet another church! You may educate your followers! This is about discussion. We don't bash religion. I have dis-welcomed your "education."

Here's just some words from "immortal" that I've picked at leisure:

Why Scientific Realism might be false?

By the way, this is one of the worst rhetorical questions I've ever heard.

A growing number of scholars, scientists and philosophers are leading us to an esoteric worldview without themselves being aware of this. While there seems to be much confusion on how to reconcile modern science with eastern and western esotericism most of the confusion seems to have come from choosing incompetent scholars for their study.

I started to show if those religious traditions are understood in their own milieu then what its implications are for modern science.

when he says

find parallels between these traditions

those traditions are in direct conflict with scientific realism

immortal (nonsense)'s strongest point is: It might be false because I might be right. By the way, religious research doesn't give you anything to "might" with. Nothing. Maybe around people who believe they're being open minded, but certainly not here! Get that through your head. The only way for us to make you stop is say "oh I'll consider it ..." because after all, there's nothing else for us to combat you. So now, I'll be the first to say this: your philosophical approach is not welcomed by me. You do not belong here. Go away please.

You always end every argument and sub-argument with something like: "traditions ... religious scholars ... my research contradicts!" Even if you could show me a number of posts where this is not the case; your credibility, comparatively, still means absolutely nothing.

No. It doesn't even tell the past correctly at all.