Jump to content


Senior Members
  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Profile Information

  • Favorite Area of Science
    Evidence and proof in Law

kristalris's Achievements


Molecule (6/13)



  1. Well, indeed read up on current psychology and it won't be incomprehensible (maybe dependent on the instrument between the ears used.) Like Shakespeare already knew as common sense alswell: William Shakespeare > Quotes > Quotable Quote “The fool doth think he is wise, but the wise man knows himself to be a fool.” ― William Shakespeare, As You Like It So are you a fool or wise? (as Shakespeare already grasped there are different sorts of fools. Wise fools who know what their instrument between the ears can and can't do for being then a fool, and those that think themselves on all issues wise. The latter are inherent fools. Are you wise on picture logic? Are you wise on number logic? Are you wise on verbal logic? ​What sort of logic required do you think on grasping what the OP is about?
  2. Yes I read the article. And the question put towards you what sort of instrument between the ears you think you've used in order to ascertain what it means - according to current broadly held - scientific insights, I put to you: what sort of instrument between the ears do you think you are using? Any physicist who got his or her degree by doing experiments without taking into account all of the instruments used should have flunked any exam. Well, the instrument between the ears according to current broadly held scientific insights hold very different sorts of instruments between the ears, leading to different conclusions on what is thought to be observed on the same data.
  3. Have you taken into account your instrument between the ears according to current scientific insights?
  4. Hubble believed that his count data gave a more reasonable result concerning spatial curvature if the redshift correction was made assuming no recession. To the very end of his writings he maintained this position, favouring (or at the very least keeping open) the model where no true expansion exists, and therefore that the redshift "represents a hitherto unrecognized principle of nature."[29] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edwin_Hubble Hubble had an instrument between the ears of a non authority driven composer textwriter. He could "google" for pictures in his brain i.e. the logic or picture mathematics intuitively, above par and text logic on the relation below par and checking numerative logic as a retard i.e. non existent. like Einstein, Bach types, Churchill, Mozart Hubble types as composers can/ could. His brain told him intuitively: he it's expanding! with very few dots he drew the line as a conclusion and provided the mathematics. Yet got it wrong he had earth older than the universe. Others with the instruments between the ears to do the intuitive number logic check spotted this, corrected it and showed what was to become Hubbles law. Yet as Hubble correctly maintained until his death: whatch out for the model in which no expansion exists. Bang goes the Champagne cork!
  5. http://phys.org/news/2015-02-big-quantum-equation-universe.html Now just include the forgotten instrument between the ears and bang.
  6. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Impact_winter Well, if we can land on a 4 km comet we should be able to do so on a 5 km one. Yet I guess a 4 km one like this and according to this Wikipedia be it an asteroid or comet doesn't make a great difference when sizes like this are involved. Asteroids are seen by most as spent comets. And these will ruin a lot of peoples day on impact. So, this landing at least also shows it is feasible to get a technical device of sorts and land it on the comet and or asteroid. That at least then is a beginning of subsequently figuring out what to actually land on the thing in order to deflect it. See the links at the end of the page.
  7. I'm impressed at this great feat of European cooperation. I wonder what this also means in view of the possibilities of in the future being able to divert these objects, and thus prevent them from hitting earth? For I guess one this size would constitute a wee problem when its remains hit Amsterdam?
  8. And what fundamental principle could make this most probably happen other than a dynamic crystal of the Higgs field having unspun Higgs particles in spin as Gluons in strings? Neigh conclusive evidence for what most probably is happening.
  9. Yes, yet I hope that that scenario doesn't present itself. yet one in which Brevik fundamentally changes his ways and can and will be forgiven or accepted at least by those who lost loved-ones. Probably neither will ensue unless we all fundamentally start to change ourselves.
  10. "Justice" needs a definition. A question of right and wrong can be answered in several ways. Logically done it needs a goal. But that will only suffice for those people with the logic on the brain primarily on the stated goal. People with a logic primarily on authority driven brain (= 80% in an unsafe environment) will tend to follow what the current authority will deem just. So, in a primitive society of an eye for an eye society your death will be seen as just, and an act of God when you are run down by a car and thus just. Authority driven brains are inherently religious. All humans to a more or less degree have this trait BTW. People with a logic primarily on the relationship (= 10% unsafe) will not feel that nor people with the logic primarily on the ego (= 1%). Most western legal systems have different goals for the consequences for dealing with this question. It begins with the division was it dolus, culpa or accident that you killed my father? And which degree of dolus or culpa? After that we need to see to you personal accountability. Where you compos mentis? Did you have a bad youth? et ceterra? Then, after having established what we take as fact, must we see what the laws and treaties state as how to deal with these facts. If done via a correct procedure most will agree that justice has been done. On the more theoretical basis most penal systems have as goals: vengeance, special (you not doing it again) and general (example) prevention that it happens again and upholding order. Your death only in primitive societies will provide - seeming! - satisfaction to the direct victimizes who lost a loved one or to that society as a whole. Because IMO if you haven't as a victim found your balance in life after twenty years, it is your own problem. Vengeance as a reason to punish only goes so far. So that guy who killed a large group of people in Norway has IMO had a Just punishment (even though if I'm correct he gt thirty years.) After thirty years only then can you see how society and Brevik have changed and see if society is then willing and capable of accepting him as he then is. Judging that directly is IMO extremely arrogant and based on fear of the leaders. Fear is dangerous. It spreads easily. In Norway Brevik can and probably will be held for life. For a death penalty in peacetime would IMO require absolute proof that can't be had. In a situation of extreme crises such as war or after the second world war or say in Romania with Ceaușescu I think being against the death penalty is irrelevant. It happens and is sometimes essential. As killing in war is also. So, define your justice. I hope my reaction provides you food for thought. P
  11. I fully agree with you. I was using irony. I'm strongly opposed to this use even of lie-detectors for they can be manipulated. Law is for people by people.
  12. Based on current scientific insights taking the data of DSM V and the Big Five personality traits as a fact should be in reach in twenty to a hundred years. To reach this we need to find a way to avoid conflicts as much as possible. First of all you need to state a common goal that can in democracies get a majority: The stated collective goal should then be having a long as possible fruitful life the least infringing on others. So you may believe and do what you want such as believing in magic as long as no infringement takes place. No problem. For then this should be judged on basis of the laws of logic, laws of nature, scientific insights into nature all within the appropriate boundaries. This can only be done in a Parliamentary Democracy. The ensuing possible discussion should be split in a seemingly contradictory way. One way is to have people that want to participate in the discussion do so in a safe environment that is void of ego. Methods like Theory U come into play given the topic and a talented well trained host to guard the process. I'm thus willing to partake in such a venture and turn my ego off and only speak when asked and do so in a very soft manner. I'm convinced that a great majority will reach the following conclusion, and it could also be that I reach another conclusion in the process. As I have done via the following method that is also needed. The reason why the latter that conflicts with the above seemingly slow yet faster method is that not all leaders with great ego's will be prepared to follow above route or they will misbehave during the process in order to frustrate the method. The later method is a confrontational method in which I do use my ego in the process. Like I have done on this site acquiring a bad reputation and warning points to boot. Here I just state what should be done and point towards the above method for explanation. We need to state as an extra fundamental human right that a minimum wage M, a minimum basic income B and a maximum income I and a maximum personal wealth W on the basis of for western societies of a yet to establish formula of say: W = 50 I; I = 10 B; and B = 2 M. In the dutch context with M being € 12000,- W would be 12 million. This would give Greece within the Eurozone the possibility to devaluate and also keep if required a local economy protected via the minimum income that could be just digital and limited to local produce. (You don't always need to have to use that emergency brake). This will "automatically" lead to a normally distributed income as I predict. You get more millionaires yet you have no billionaires or a situation of 1% of the population having 90% of the wealth. The other thing that is needed is that every share should be - ultimately -on name of a human and digitally recorded during which period. Personal accountability for that period (which you can insure). The share holder has the say over the shares like normal. Investing in shares is thus the only quick way to become a millionaire. Of all taxes payed you have a 10% or so security build up in order to hold the income and wealth level if it for what ever reason drops. So pay a billion taxes gives both status and security. Monopolies aren't allowed at the moment anyway. You need to organize openness on the goal logic and openness with logic on the relationship as well as conscientiousness in the legal system. This can be measured by quick thinking irony and lateral thought. 10% of the most open-minded judges go in a new R&D for temporary advice in order to reach consensus. It will lead to copying this model all across society. In education, science and anywhere. Not having given R&D all the data by any MT is an infringement as is not having reached consensus. you get whacked by the judge and will behave on the stated norm. Ultimately very few court cases will occur. Like a naphtha process the degree of flaming will subside as will the risk of explosions. The system will balance out. Why? Find out for yourself in the theory U method. Or claim that you are a fast thinking person who has active command or irony and lateral thought and let yourself be tested. Indeed by me. See who has got the biggest. Childish? Indeed yet you need to corner the Putin's of the world. It will balance out in a way that ultimately maybe even in 20 years time we get a global community like the EU yet much better that work together in everything. no more atom bombs and only two police forces yin and yang keeping balance and checking that no ape builds bombs. The route however is not a pacifistic one: when some apes fly into Twin Towers that is a casus belli. Do as the Romans and we Dutch colonized the world. Get in hit hard win the conventional war asap and have prior to that a foreign legion under say NATO leadership and air power of locals doing what the democratically led people want without the problem of corruption. Taliban, ISIS whatever is whacked down easily. Tried and tested. That works. The band of brothers yet not having legionnaires work in their own tribal area transforms a clan culture into a nation on its way towards a global community without nations as such. Do we go to war with Putin then on the Ukraine? I hope not. It is inherently unstable of also our own doing. Nothing we do or don't do will guarantee success. Putin is a mental six year old both emotionally and in lateral thinking. Yet he is a quick thinking whopping logic on ego and whopping logic on authority. A psychopath as it used to be called. Only when the Russians become convinced via the success of R&D democracy will they see this and have him out of power with his dito cronies. Other than western countries => R&D: let them come up with solutions. It can be tested asap in Gaza. Not bombing the Palestinians with bombs but bombing them with a personal digital income of say $ 500,= a month for 1.5 million poor Palestinians. And apologize for keeping the wall up temporarily and make sure that all Palestinians are treated with respect. That will corner Hamas at a cost a fraction of the 54 billion spent on defense by Israel. The US can enforce this on Israel. Having BTW Israel also stop the settlers. I predict peace will break out in a few years and the Palestinian economy will generate enough to pay the own basic income. Israelis and Palestinians will live in peace. You need to expect however a desperate attack by Hamas. You predict this and hope on a self denying professy. Yet you will be dammed if you let thugs decide the agenda. In the current internet day and age this could work quickly and we would also get into balance with nature. Stop the overpopulation, and over-stressing of the system. New social norms and aspirations will ensue. In short: state a sufficiently held common goal and do KISS, KBO via a SSG.
  13. Gulp lawyers as well? Well indeed if you want a legal system whereby the judge / jury is purely objective that can be had today. It would work a bit like the execution "photo booth" they had in the DDR or GDR German Democratic Republic. The person to be shot thought a photo would be taken smiled and was shot in the head. More human BTW than having to wait years on death row for an injection. You simply add a computer with a speech type and Google translate system. And you have a lie-detector test. You subsequently ask witnesses and suspects the computer generated questions on basis of input by the police (Robocop) and the law is digitally provided by the lawmaker. Well you either get acquitted or receive immediate verdict, for what could go wrong? Shot in the head to getting a fine or jail sentence. Very objective. lying witnesses as well of course have swift justice administered. Judges in the Netherlands are more and more acting like robots anyway, hence the confusion by some that it is best taken over by robots. All humans need a basic income all over the world anyway IMO and this is one of the extra reasons to do that asap.
  14. Awe, You might also consider an intermediate position in which you have a predetermined begin state at any point in time and a subsequent near infinite amount of probabilistic scenario's are possible that are played out all the time. Impossible scenarios are thus not played out for obvious reasons. Then we don't have a beginning or end of time but a cyclic affair. Free will is then dependent upon the way you define it. If this is indeed reality we then observe Mother Nature shoot a bullet next too the bulls eye definition of free will most people use. I'd simply redefine it so as to portray where MN is seen to have shot. You then get a more legal way of defining free will, namely in a way that all actions are assumed to have been done of free will and thus someone being seen then as a sociobot can be held accountable for actions that provide a scenario that is probably infringing on reaching any stated goal of other sociobots. In this way a pareto optimum is possible for all sociobots in getting a best scenario. The negative scenarios the punishment by law for instance subsequently make that the sociobot chooses a different line of action resulting in a better scenario for all other sociobots. Thus it is wise for a sociobot to look out for cars when crossing the street in order not to have a possible or even likely scenario of being run over by a car. Yet a scenario where you are transported as a sociobot within one second from New York to Amsterdam is absolutely impossible.
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.