ProHypster

@ Smartguy

OK, i'm no good with models or graphs so i'll just expand on what i meant.

By observing one of the degrees of freedom of one of two entangled 'twins' the other twins value is automatically known. This can be used to send information in the form of binary or other code (if it had more degrees of freedom). The information is transmitted instantaneously, ignoring the speed limit, no matter where the other particle is. If this is true then you should be able to send information to two different reference frames (and according to relativity, both are right.) If so, you would be able to send information of each others circumstance and thus be able to communicate through space/time. You could have agreed to interact at some point with other person but still be able to communicate using the entanglement communicator, enabling you to violate causality. No time travel required

You are talking about teleports.

I'm going to expand on this answer later but so far the problem is

(if it had more degrees of freedom)

The whole statement collapses there.

I've read in a russian journal, there's a seperate catastrophe event "almost end of the world" every year beggining with 2012 for some reason and ending somewhere in 2030's when apparently the last things of this world will be destroyed, (Long after humans got destroyed)

Catastrophes including: Last piece of oil, Nuclear Apocalypse, Soul apocalypse... etc.

I will have to find the article in english.

Then there was apparently one in 2006, 2002, 1999/2000, 1996.

I'm more surprised that we did than that we didn't. I never noticed.

It's disabled because the bots were abusing it.

That's what she said!

I'm no physics expert either, but I don't think "time" itself moves, space-time can bend, but I don't think it can move(isn't it everywhere at once?). The speed of light causes those delays because of how big space is.

In any case it must be a constant (Very High likelyhood that at least one thing in this universe is constant if there is inconsistency, like Anti-matter and matter). And I think it moves is more likely then it doesn't because time must have some kind of energy. And Energy is connected to movement. Unless you think time has 0 energy, that could somehow make sense if time is illusional and doesn't exist but which do you prefer....

Wai wait wait... Are you saying the broken watch arguement is logical?

No, that would also be illogical.

You could set up an experiment where while (future person) interacting with (past person in future{longer wait}) while sending a messege to past person in past not to interact.

Rephrase please, or make a graph, I got mind raped.

Try to understand my opinion, I think that the farther something is away from you, the more in the past the vision is. I can assume by my logic as far as the assumption that time is the fastest thing in the world and the norm if anything is faster then time then it is probably something from another world (A confusing statement, I know). You can notice that with a star the best. When we see a star dying, we know it really died a long time ago. But the effect of it will not reach us untill the future.

Here's my vague thoughts... I'm not a physics expert but I can see logic in some things.

EDIT: Convert light waves to radio waves, message waves and you see why it's not going to work in my opinion. Although I didn't really understand what you meant

but you seem to be this cranky character complaining about everything

 

Well, I complain when I personally feel some one is not doing things right/well, I prefer standing up to my principles than being silent. . . Of course it would be preferable if Valve heard my voice directly but I am not so much criticizing Valve directly as I am criticizing the mindset displayed by a few individuals. Whether Valve's long, active secrecy around one of the biggest series in gaming is a good or a bad marketing strategy is a matter of opinion. Personally I am patient and will wait as long as it takes but I simply try to explain why I feel people have the right to criticize Valve's strategy. Saying things like "Man up" with little else doesn't advance the discussion.

Hey Bjossi, I had nothing against that, in fact I respect you for that, just have a funny sight in my mind. If you haven't noticed, I criticize a lot too, just didn't bother criticizing games.

And I have a similar idea of good games as you do.

Yet again, I believe in Valve and that they will bring a game that stands up to its potential. I will also wait on the game.

Company store? Are you saying that the money wasn't yours that you earned from working in the mine? Are you saying that they forced you (with threats) to buy only from their store? But assuming you were always free to negotiate the terms of your employment and walk away, that's lassiez-faire.

Assuming nobody wants to work in a coal mine.

Not much of an Adam Smith supporter, are you?

Hey look at this, after 2 weeks or so my philosophy that you won't agree due to moral reasoning stands true.

I stick to my statement that the whole thing could've been avoided at least with three options. Without school having to do anything.

 

You have to understand that the vast majority of modern American parents are mentally incapable of believing that their children are anythying other than perfect little angels, no matter the evidence presented to them.

 

We are talking about people who will deny VIDEOTAPE.

 

"Your 15-year-old beat up six first-graders."

"Nuh-uh."

"We have the entire incident on video, his face is clearly visible."

"Wasn't him. Those kids must have done something to provoke him."

Want to watch the video again? They're playing hopscotch, he just wades in and starts swinging."

Well, they shouldn't'a been in his way!"

 

"Parenting" went out of fashion some time in the late 1960's, now its much more popular to be your kid's "buddy" or "supporter," no matter what they do. I blame a bunch of bad books by a bunch of crap psychologists. And hippies.

All of that is proof of different moral reasoning in different cultures.

Hippies lol, good thing the Soviets never had to put up with those assholes, lol, I imagine we would be bankrupt much earlier. Not to mention the mafia...

The last thing that I want to write is that, I thought he was from New Zealand... as it says in his description.

Our parents bully our children.........

Never doubt it.

 

In some weird way, you entertain me.

 

Likewise.

 

Personally, I think I'm entertaining for the same reason a Godzilla movie is entertaining... sometimes, you just want to see a giant lizard randomly appear and smash things.

 

The rest I just don't agree with for obvious reasons.

*Shrug* Opinions are what they are. Attempting to change them is usually futile.

 

Consider this: In those Godzilla movies I just spoke of, King Ghidorah (the really bad monster with three heads) is never defeated by fluffy bunnies. It is always left up to Godzilla to kick his ass. There is a lesson here.

Well that's proof for different moral reasoning right there.

You think it's right to kill a family member due to another criminal family member.

I don't.

Scary conclusion? Yes.

Are we cool though? (As long as you stay out of my lawn ) Yes.

Guess what Michael, I understand perfectly what you are saying. You got better at defining what capitalism is, it is now much closer to the true termin of capitalism.

I prefer democracy much to the republic and I know the differences perfectly.

Go ahead and think what you oughta think.

One question just so my prediction comes true?

You fascist in any way, Michael?

Agree to disagree and stay out of my lawn (Europe).

we already got portal 2

 

A game I could not care less about.

 

The complaining is very legit, considering Valve's four years of silence. We do not even know if they actually started working on the next Half-Life instalment, be it an episode or a full sequel. We can wait two more years, then the time between Half-Life 1 and 2 has passed.

Lol, Bjossi, I understand the Portal series are first person puzzle and not really on Half-life level but you seem to be this cranky character complaining about everything

HOWEVER, consider the possibility of Ross having not yet submitted either episode. Keyword: consider. As I'm pretty sure he has.

Considering that is a sin.

*raises hand cautiously* I have a question. Why do men have nipples?

 

Men can actually breastfeed.

And that, kids, is the reason I did not reply to that question.

EDIT: Oh... I hope I don't get banned from Alyxx *Fingers Crossed*

Ok, so you are specifically talking about the three main monotheist religions.

Sure, next time say exatcly that, as this is a religion in general thread.

 

You are correct. I should have done that, my apologies.

 

Now to the stoning.

 

Haven't you heard fascism originated from the misused natural selection.

Naziism then developed fascism?

 

Karl Marx's and Engels (Everybody forgets Engels , and he was the one getting things doen too!) communist theory was misused for North Korea's despotism.

 

I've heard this before and I think I saw you mention it in the evolution creationism thread as well.

Social Darwinism is pure pseudo-science. A deliberate twisting and mangling and misrepresentation of evolution and natural selection to justify pre-existing racial intolerance and hatred.

Just like the KKK is pseudo-christianity.

 

However, religious commandments to order the death of certain individuals, such as non believers or homosexuals, or people who gather sticks on the sabbath, can be quoted ad verbatim. Though sometimes maybe out of context, but in general the bible torah and koran are pretty explicit on who should die, and why.

 

A religious commandment issued by a supreme being who is perceived by those who seek to carry out the commandment as infallible and righteous can not be questioned at any time by those who accept the deity's position as supreme moral arbiter.

Thus, my point, acceptance by an individual of a deity's supreme authority on the question of morality can lead to that individual carrying out inherently immoral acts, but perceive those very acts as morally righteous.

 

After sitting here for a while I realize that Social Darwinism is in fact similar, the nazis believed that slaughtering millions of people was not morally objectionable in accordance with their ideology. Though Social Darwinism could be easily argued against, it was inherently dishonest and deceitful, and has largely died out.

 

I think we can both agree that our wider problem then is with the vigorous and blind pursuit of an ideology, which can lead to disastrous results.

But I will have to reiterate that when it comes to religious scriptures there are some pretty explicit commandments in all 3 major holy books which are by todays standards down right evil. And it's up to people to develop a moral compass independent from their religion in order to decide which commandments to follow and which ones to ignore.

 

And with that I rest my case for the evening.

Have a good night then

Concentrate on the fact that natural selection didn't even have anything written about killing or murder of other people and it certainly didn't write anything about how should someone live.

And yet some types of Fascism and Naziism were more evil and worse then any religious actions done in the world (Not that it means religion is any better then any other ideology)

I'll let you think about it, I think you will come to the same conclusion as me eventually.

In fact, read my older posts on this thread, you may find that I already wrote further then what you did but in similar context.

Man, I can't kill that many people now... screw it.

Oh and daniel, you could easily say that if there is only one number, one world, one mathematical entity, and this entity is what happened, then there is nothing random about it. That is just one logical statement against my "proof for monotheists". So much simpler then the extremely far stretched text you wrote.

 

The more you write, the more you assume, the less chances there are for it to be true.

 

I can accept your argument, but I find it very problematic.

I've considered that argument before already.

 

Why is is far fetched and problematic? Watch this video:

 

It's pretty simple if you understand basic biology.

That video is clearly problematic with too many illogical assumptions.

That is how a scientist would comment on it.

I just think think it's too broad and wild for me to accept that argument.

Hohoho, looks like someone's philosophy was right!!!

I knew it.

Ok, so you are specifically talking about the three main monotheist religions.

Sure, next time say exatcly that, as this is a religion in general thread.

Now to the stoning and

Something which can't be done with ideologies which do not include deities.

Haven't you heard fascism originated from the misused natural selection.

Naziism then developed fascism?

Karl Marx's and Engels (Everybody forgets Engels , and he was the one getting things doen too!) communist theory was misused for North Korea's despotism.

Both theories rejected religion specifically and still they got misused.

Especially Karl Marx's theory who stated that you will work 1 hour in a day and enjoy the rest of the day in a perfect communist state through the extermination of corruption. Everyone should participate in the community, and the poor shall become equals. Children are the future... etc etc

I don't see that happening in North Korea.

Also, you being a Psychologist (i think), do you think philosophers rarely dieing as an atheist is more than coincidence?

Well, I'm not a psychologist, other than having taken a course some time and being interested in some of the psychology experiments, I'm more interested in the bigger questions rather than an observation how the mind works.

As far as philosphers rarely dying atheists.

I don't know.

It seems like their life drove them to some kind of theism/spiritism in the end.

But even philosophy relies on a fundamental principle: logic. If the world is illogical then we are all wrong.

As Aristotle said that there is going to be eventually a small particle that is undivisible which he could in no way prove. It is still not proven but we can logically assume it is a very probable philosophy.

The philosopher himself may consider everything to be said from him true as in being true/right in philosophy is different then right and wrong in real life.

In philosophy right and worng is defined by your philosophy and not through universal meaning.

Consider the Ontological argument by Rene Descartes.

You challenge every question you have, from "Am I real?" to "Could Quantum Physics really be logically possible?".

You reform the answer when you learn something new in your philosophy until you die.

Those that die challenging more questions, die smarter/wiser.

The most important question "How should I think, how should I get knowledge" is the first question you should ask yourself as a true phiolosopher.

With all that said, as you can see, philosophers can be very different, but they all share one thing.

They all love wisdom and thinking.

Usually people live ignoring these questions and live a follow model, learning the way they see others learn in their community. Born in a christian community, they will be christian and learn the christian way. Born in another community, they will learn like that community. Raised by atheist parents, they themselves will be either atheists or the opposite (rebellion, not through questioning) without really questioning. Of course that's not to say they don't question at all. But they don't question fundamental/presumed things and if the foundation of your thinking is wrong then your whole house of knowledge you are building will collapse.

EDIT: I just found out that FM 34 was made before machinima released FM 33. That is also an example of philosophy. Judging by the rate ross was going and how many days it takes for machinima to upload plus effects of popularity and other logical thinking, I predicted in the very beggining of 33 being finished that 34 is going to be finished before machinima uploads 33.

Well now, a week later, it's proven scientifically. Other philosophers would predict based on what they think, those that didn't predict at all were not philosophers. This is generally how it works in real life too except instead of a week it takes a lot more time

Well, you posted again, I'm not going to lie,

 

1. It seems like this whole thing could've been avoided with at least 3 options.

 

2. You went to a christian school and you were atheist......

Not a christian school, just a school full of christians. The only other school in the area was a catholic school and a college.

 

3. Your parents... Their parents... confuse me as hell for now.

Their parents? They rejected the idea that their children were bullies. In fact, one of the parents complained to the school about how I was the bully as I was "telling on them" when they didn't do anything. My parents? I told my dad nothing about the bullying, he only knew about the major incidents and as far as he knew I'd fallen off the playground. He complained to the school about the other 2 and the school said they'd do something about him... They sent him to a 1 week anger management course. And as I said before, the other guy got a 2 week suspension

 

4. 10 year olds in a gang can't be stopped???

Well obviously not, school doesn't do anything about it and parents do nothing about it. What do you expect?

I stick to my statement that the whole thing could've been avoided at least with three options. Without school having to do anything.

If you as a person accept the basic premises of a monotheistic religion, you accept that god is the supreme arbiter of morality.

Incorrect statement. Inductive reasoning. Assuming all monotheists accept god as a supreme arbiter of morality because you only know of that kind of people.

If you accept the existence of god and adhere to an interpretation of god in line with one of the three monotheistic religions, then the premise that god is sole arbiter of what is moral is what is not logically follows.

There is more then three monotheistic religions.

The only way you can be exempt from this is if you call yourself a deist. But you cannot call yourself a christian or a muslim and not accept that morality comes from god. Accepting god as the arbiter of morality is inherent in the definition of christian, jew or muslim.

Well, I already said that there is more religions than just this that are monotheistic.

Don't make this any more nebulous and vapid than it has to be. I know you like to obfuscate.

I try to be as clear as possible, that's why I write in short sentences and use terminology to the fullest.

Therefore, whatever god claims is moral, is moral. Even if god commands you to go into a city and slaughter every man, woman, child and animal. As he did in the old testament, hence why I mentioned it.

I am not the only one making this point, many christian apologists agree with me: whatever god decides is moral, is moral.

Of course, this all depends on whether or not a person A: Believes god is real and B: Believes morality comes from god.

Maybe I did not make this sufficiently clear in my previous post.

But if you accept A and not B you're at best a deist, you don't get to call yourself a christian since you simply don't meet the requirements for that category.

No, if you believe in God/Gods and at least one other person agrees with your point of view and you study and teach what you believe in then you are participating in a religion.

As for saying that people are more willing to kill if they believe they are acting in accordance with the wishes of their deity, maybe I was too hasty as I can't find a conclusive study on that. Maybe the desire to kill comes first and religious commandments are used to legitimize these violent desires.

Abductive reasoning (You narrowed it down to only religious commandments while in reality it could be any info in the world making relious commandments specifically look bad)

If you disagree, which I have no doubt you will.

Showing some wisdom there.

Please explain your position more fully rather than just saying you disagree.

I hope I did

PS: Congrats to Alyxx for becomnig mod!

I would play assasins creed if it was in first person.

I really hate it when good stories get turned into unrealistic 3rd person feeling.

I disagree with the whole post.

EDIT: More specifically.

But throughout history people have been shown to be more willing to kill if they believe they are acting in accordance with the wishes of their deity.

Inductive Reasoning.

After all god is the supreme arbiter of morality, if god tells you to kill people it must not only be okay, it is righteous. Just like in the old testament.

I disagree + Logical fallacy.

By the way, it turns out my educated guess is turning true in the "bullying" thread.

Remember..

It shows it affected their own lives in a bad way I guess, either that or they are voting uninformatively, or they are rebels.