Slashdot Mirror
Higgs Data Offers Joy and Pain For Particle Physicists
scibri writes "So now that we've pretty much found the Higgs Boson, what's next? Well: 'There's going to be a huge massacre of theoretical ideas in the next couple of years,' predicts Joe Lykken, a theoretical physicist at Fermilab. The data has shored up the standard model, but technicolor is dead and supersymmetry is starting to look pretty ropey now. Theorists are now poking at the mathematical chinks in the standard theory in the hopes of being the first to find a deeper truth about how the Universe works."
C'mon slashdot, you're better than that.
Yes I'm being funny (or trying to).
I for one welcome our Higgs Boson overlords and the subsequent replacement of String Theory with the more sound concept in Physics of Stringy Cheese Theory.
I'd like mine with mushrooms, thanks.
-- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
From what I understand it was only one single experiment that showed us something that we think is where/what the Higgs Boson would look like.
Has it been reproduced or confirmed?
Scientists using the Large Hadron Collider in Geneva have announced the discovery of a new subatomic particle to very high confidence that is consistent with what we expect the Higgs particle to look like.
That's not very definitive. Can anybody else around well versed in particle physics tell us if the Higgs has really been found or not?
I, for one, will pull my hand back from that pair of trousers!
Theorists are now poking at the mathematical chinks
I realize Asians are known for excelling at math, but do we really have to bring race into this?
I'm very, very sorry. I couldn't resist. I understand I'm a terrible person, you don't need to reply and tell me that.
"Our two-party system is like a bowl of shit looking at itself in a mirror." - Lewis Black
>> poking at the mathematical chinks
Not all Maths graduate students are Chinese, you know.
poking at the mathematical chinks
I hope I'm not coming across as prudish, but isn't that illegal?
Really? The stereotype is bad enough, but now we're physically harassing them too?
I predict, over the next two years, what's going to come out of this is the following:
Physicists will have poked holes in most all the prevailing Standard Model-compatible theories, and will start talking about the inadequacies of the LHC and how we need a much bigger collider to prove or disprove the existence of those elusive super-partner particles required by supersymmetry.
#DeleteChrome
TF is technicolor?
Every new discovery of the past few decades has supposedly "killed" SUSY, but every time it makes a comeback with a modification to avert whatever problem the observation caused. Other theories do the same, to a slightly lesser extent.
I don't see why Technicolor is dead. The Nature article makes the claim that it's because Technicolor is Higgsless, but that's something of a falsehood. Technicolor lacks an elementary Higgs, because the role played by the elementary Higgs in the Standard Model is instead played by a composite particle. As far as I can tell it's perfectly possible that the bosonic state at 125GeV is a composite rather than elementary Higgs.
(FD: I'm a PhD student with a thesis area based around technicolor)
I understand that it would be frustrating to see years of labor on a theory go down the tubes, but at its root the finding means that we now have a slightly better understanding of reality. I would think that for many if not most people in the field, if the implications are as stated in the summary, this is exciting because we have a better idea of what direction to theorize in. Falsification is just as if not more important than making hypotheses.
Your brain is not a computer.
The experiments indicating the existence of the Higgs Boson at now at 5 sigma, which validates the "pretty much" qualification for particle physics.
The existence of God fits into a entirely different ontological category. There are no experiments you can perform to confirm or invalidate the existence of God.
So now that we've pretty much found the Higgs Boson
Maybe the Higgs Boson wanted us to think we found it.
Take the cheese to sickbay, the doctor should see it as soon as possible - B'Elanna Torres, "Learning Curve"
This is an idiotic analogy. This isn't about breaking things, it's about reproducing the kinds of conditions necessary to observe phenomena. Do you feel the same way about dissecting animals to learn about internal structure or heating various substances to get spectral signatures.
If you're going to confirm or throw out a model of subatomic physics you're going to have to use accelerators to produce the conditions where particles can be observed.
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
Uh, I hope you realize that Dark Matter doesn't have anything to do with the universe being "dark". Besides, it's not dark in the microwave band anyway. The Dark Matter "bandwagon" is trying to account for 23% of the mass of the universe which does not interact with the electromagnetic field, and hence is "dark". Much of this is hot dark matter consisting of neutrinos (generated by the conversion of a proton into a neutron) and antineutrinos (generated by the conversion of a neutron into a proton). These reactions were known in the Twentieth Century. Neutrinos have a very low rest mass, and travel at just under the speed of light. So infrequent are their interactions with normal matter that a neutrino would be able to pass through a light-year of lead with no scattering events. That leaves warm dark matter (with velocities from 1 to 10% of c) and cold dark matter (with velocities below 1% of c) to be discovered. The negatinos and positinos of supersymmetry theory were promising in this direction, but apparently have been falsified. But no one is "afraid".
Actually, he had something to say about it. http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/video/2012/jul/05/stephen-hawking-higgs-boson-bet-video
consistent with The Higgs Boson
The short version of what scientists are *actually* saying boils down to:
We theorised where IT would be and when we finally looked THERE we found SOMETHING which isn't Absolutely Not IT.
Reports I've read (forgot URLs, sue me) indicated the result found was NOT exactly as expected, but also not so massively different that they'd be sure it was NOT The Higgs.
More like:
Scientist1: Yup, that's the Higgs!
Scientist2: But I thought you said it'd have black spots not very very dark brown.
Scientist1: Well if we'd solved everything then what are we going to do after that?
Visit CryptoGnome in his home.
One of the reasons to believe they have found the Higgs boson and not some other particle is that the decay relative rates for each type of decay are pretty close to what the theory suggests.
Actually that is not really true because we do not have enough statistics to measure these rates with any accuracy. In fact the "most likely" value for diphoton rates for both ATLAS and CMS are quite a bit higher than the Standard Model predicts but the accuracy is sufficiently low that they are not yet inconsistent with the SM values. So really the rate measurements are currently far too inaccurate to have any idea whether this is a Higgs boson or not but things are improving rapidly as we gain statistics.
What is far more important at the moment are the decay channel observations. Since it decays into photons, W and Z bosons we know it must be either a spin-0 or spin-2 particle and it cannot be a fermion (spin-0.5). The Higgs should be spin-0 so this is consistent but not conclusive. Essentially it decays into the particles it should do and it _potentially_ has the correct spin. We can get a more accurate determination of the spin i.e. whether it is spin-0 or spin-2 by looking at the angle between the two leptons (electron or muon) produced in the WW decay channel - expect results from ATLAS and CMS on this soon.
However by the end of the year the rate measurements should be a lot more accurate and things will possibly start to get interesting if the current diphoton rates stay where they are but we end up with less uncertainty on the measurement.
This is worth a watch...
http://vimeo.com/41038445
Enjoy!
Name: Mr. Anon E Mouse; SSN: 555-55-5555
String Theory has failed to even generate a single definitive prediction after 44 years of hype.
ST is gonna go down in history as one of the biggest wastes of money and human potential ever.
It's equivalent to religion since nothing in ST is (currently?) falsifiable and you have to believe in it to work on it.
> There are no experiments you can perform to confirm or invalidate the existence of God.
Actually there is. Unfortunately it requires death as that results of that experience and the aftermath will provide all the proofs and more then one person could ever dream that indeed your consciousness simply changes state after death, and that there is a super-consciousness to the sub-consciousness of everyone. *Unfortunately* getting the results of said experiment back to the living is the catch. The other "kink" is that: Besides if you already knew the answer, it would (mostly) invalidate the purpose of being human in the first place.
The other way would be to learn meditation and learn how to interact with your True Self. Again, unfortunately one could spend an entire lifetime before ones "get confirmation" that there is indeed far, far more to "who you truely are."
The point though, either way the answer is largely irrelevant in the grand scheme of things. There are indeed many good people of all kinds of beliefs, faiths, and lack of said beliefs and faiths. If one has to rely on an external force / rules to be positive internally methinks one is the missing the *whole* point of religion which is little more then spiritual kindergarten. At some point one doesn't need others telling you to internalize how to treat others with respect, kindness, etc.
The ignorance and arrogance of man is to simply assume that some questions are unknowable. They may not be easy to get, but they are indeed there if one dedicates their life to seeking them. Again, the proof of this, sadly, is also going thru the death experience.
It is simpler to "just get on with life" - learning and loving. That's what its all about at the end of the day -- creating positive relationships with everyone else.
The instant someone is trying to "sell you" a philosophy is the instant it would be good to be skeptical of their agenda.
"Joy and pain"? Jesus, what are they doing, tying the boson in a knot and putting it up their bums? (I guess it would have to be a "boson's knot").
Instead of the God Particle, they could call the "Oh God! Particle".
[note: I only make this kind of off-color joke because it's past 9pm and the children have all gone to bed. I call this the "safe harbor" hours, when normal FCC rules moderating online behavior are relaxed, like a sphincter with a Higgs Boson in it. Thanks to these safe harbor rules, constitutionally-protected free speech rights of adults are balanced with the need to protect children from harmful content, like the word "fuck" and references to tying massive particles in knots and putting them up one's bum and then pulling it out slowly as climax is achieved (thus the expression "string theory"). Two physicist doing this while standing face to face are called a "Hardon Collider", named for the famous Scottish physicist Sir Ivan Hardon (1847-1903) who first posited that there's nothing else to do while waiting for the experiment to finish and there were so few female physicists back then that, hey, what happens in the lab stays in the lab. Tragically one of his experiments exploded while Hardon and a lab assistant were engaged in this act of outrage and since they had their pants down both of them got kilt.]
You are welcome on my lawn.
So, are the physicists happy and sad at the same time? Makes sense... and not.
sociology with a few arbitrary symmetry laws.
For those who want to pretend they understand:
It has been a mystery ever since it was discovered more than fifty years ago, and all good theoretical physicists put this number up on their wall and worry about it. Immediately you would like to know where this number for a coupling comes from: is it related to Ï or perhaps to the base of natural logarithms? Nobody knows. It's one of the greatest damn mysteries of physics: a magic number that comes to us with no understanding by man. You might say the "hand of God" wrote that number, and "we don't know how He pushed his pencil." We know what kind of a dance to do experimentally to measure this number very accurately, but we don't know what kind of dance to do on the computer to make this number come out, without putting it in secretly!
On the numerical value of α[ed: alpha], the fine-structure constant, p. 129
http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Richard_Feynman
PS - Whiners may wish to note Taco's response to a question in yesteday's Reddit AMA regarding lack of Unicode on Slashdot:
Ihmhi 3 points 2 days ago
One last one because I can't resist!
Why did you guys get rid of ASCII/unicode support? Sure there were some nasty ASCII posts, but it also removed the possibility for creativity. It seems a bit stifling at times, and it's funny to me that there's a website in 2012 that can't handle, say, Japanese characters.
CmdrTaco 4 points 2 days ago
Jerks ruined it for everyone.
ref
from every other article I've read on the topic, which say that the measured mass of the Higgs boson is exactly where it should be if the Minimally Supersymmetric Standard Model is correct; and too low for any non-supersymmetric theory.
http://motls.blogspot.com/2012/07/why-125-gev-higgs-boson-isnt-quite.html?m=1
Theorist #1: "We have analyzed the Higgs Boson data, and the answer is 42."
Theorists #2, 3, 4 ... 500 :"Oh #$!@. Now the bloody question changed!"
It is essential to science that experimental results are public and repeatable. What you are talking about doesn't fit into those categories. Perhaps you could call it knowledge, but it isn't knowledge in the ordinary sense.
If I had a dream where I met Satan and he told me his favorite shampoo, you could call that knowledge, but it isn't knowledge in the scientific sense, or even common sense.
Let's say you have an atom consisting of 1 Proton (1P). You also have an atom consisting of 1 proton and 2 neutrons (1P 2N). Let's say you bang these together to create 2P2N.
This apparently causes a decrease in mass, which is converted to energy.
Since mass is apparently simply drag in the Higgs field, could it be said that there is something about 2P2N that makes its drag smaller than the sum of its parts, hence the rest is released as energy? That lead is the ultimate smooth sailer in the Higgs field, and as atoms on the lower side come together or on the higher side split apart, they enjoy a stepwise decrease in their drag?
That in E=mc2, the important bit is really the c^2, because in order to create particles with mass you need not only the corresponding building blocks, but also c^2 of energy to couple the created particles to the Higgs field? Why does this coupling take the speed of light squared and not cubed?
A 'skeptic' who denounces a claim without investigating the evidence is mearly an opinionated contrairian. Maybe if you acted like a real skeptic, the failure of Hawkings to denounce the Higgs and Dark Matter would be less surprising.
And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
Indeed. It's more a matter of finding at what pitch an object resonates, like the opera singer and the wine glass. Er, wait, no, that's still breaking things...
It's like launching a rocket at the right speed and direction to get to Mars, or cooking food at the right temperature for best results, or leaning a two-wheeled vehicle just right to go around a curve, or tuning a musical instrument to blend in with the band to make a smoother sound. Something has to be adjusted to achieve a certain condition. Then, when things are in that condition, it's about transformation not breaking.
A cell phone (it was a wristwatch in the old days) is made out of many parts which come apart and themselves can break, while a Higgs boson (or any other particle found by tuning beam energy) isn't made out of anything but itself, but given the right conditions may replace itself with a any set of particles that add up to the right energy, momentum, spin, charge and other quantum numbers.
Writing as an engineer not a physicist, what does it actually mean though.
For the sake of keeping things simple, I'm going to assume in this post that they have found the Higgs boson (lets pretend they walked up to it and looked between its legs to check).
Now.
What does it actually mean for me as an engineer?
From what I've read they've shown that something that something they were assuming to exist for their model to work, does in fact exist. Where does that actually get them besides saying "Well chaps. It looks like the model is right. As you were." (or what ever the Swiss version is).
Granted they can write plenty of conference papers and journal articles and get more grants etc, but aside from that what?
What I'm trying to ask, is, how does showing that something they were relying on existing actually exists helpful?
The data obtained by two independent experiments (CMS and ATLAS, both at the LHC) is in excellent agreement for the mass of the particle. The results are also coherent with those obtained by two experiments (CDF and D0) based at the Fermilab. Something has been found, with a very high statistical relevance (five sigma level, so there is only a chance in a few million that this is a fluctuation). Whether this something is indeed the Higgs boson as predicted depends on its detailed behaviour, so it will take more time to find out. It does however look like it, or a close relative...
Obviously, there is a deeper theory because the Standard Model makes no attempt to explain why the elementary particles have exactly the masses they do, just to mention one huge gap of which this armchair physics watcher is aware. It's about time for another Einstein to come along and deduce it.
When all you have is a hammer, every problem starts to look like a thumb.
While disproving the existence of God is effectively impossible - proving it does exist would actually quite simple, provided you had His/Her/Its/Their cooperation. The fact that their is no credible evidence the existence of God suggests that either:
1) It doesn't exist
2) It doesn't desire to prove Its existence, or
3) It's incapable of proving Its existence
Considering we're talking about a being who most claim created the universe and intervenes in peoples life in ways both subtle and miraculous, number (3) seems unlikely - even just having one of his chosen messengers take part in a double-blind psionics test while God read out the cards to them would be enough to give the question serious scientific merit.
Now (2) could very easily be the case, and is in fact perfectly consistent with some faiths. But in that case I would suggest that either It doesn't actually care about our worship, codes of conduct, or the other stuff religions tend to obsess over, or It's a complete jerk: "Yeah, I know it's been a hundred generations or so since I bothered to offer any evidence that I even exist, much less which of the hundreds of continuously-mutating religions I endorse, but you didn't follow the right one so you're getting eternally condemned anyway".
Which leaves (1) as the default assumption. Either God doesn't exist, or It wishes us to be free to conduct our lives as though it does not - in which case spreading the "Good Word", especially through coercion, would seem to run counter to God's will.
--- Most topics have many sides worth arguing, allow me to take one opposite you.
There are no experiments you can perform to confirm or invalidate the existence of God.
Actually there is. Unfortunately it requires death...
Is that an assertion you'd bet your life on?
When all you have is a hammer, every problem starts to look like a thumb.
There are no experiments you can perform to confirm or invalidate the existence of God.
Bullshit. Matthew 7:7 claims "Ask and it shall be given unto you". And yet, I'm stuck with 4 inches.
Theoretical research still takes people and computers; both of which cost money. A research team consisting of two PHDs and four grad students can easily cost $1Mill. a year. Multiply that by the number of interested research groups and the possible waste can be huge. Are you really willing to risk wasting millions of dollars in very scarce funding for theoretical research just because one can not wait to be sure that the single experiment was not an anomaly?
Here is a quote from CERN Director General Rolf Heuer;
“The discovery of a particle consistent with the Higgs boson opens the way to more detailed studies, requiring larger statistics, which will pin down the new particle’s properties, and is likely to shed light on other mysteries of our universe.”
Even the CERN director does not claim to have found the Higgs boson; just a particle consistent with it. As it is said earlier in the article, it could be Higgs or it could be something more exotic. At least replicate the experiment first.
Duhhhhh now we need an even bigger, costlier particle accelerator!
Chewbacon
The Bible is like Wikipedia: written by a bunch of people and verifiable by questionable sources.
> There are no experiments you can perform to confirm or invalidate the existence of God.
Actually there is. Unfortunately it requires death as that results of that experience and the aftermath will provide all the proofs and more then one person could ever dream that indeed your consciousness simply changes state after death, and that there is a super-consciousness to the sub-consciousness of everyone. *Unfortunately* getting the results of said experiment back to the living is the catch.
But what if experiments were to conclusively prove that all aspects of personality can be explained by neurological processes? Then, consciousness would be tied to an observable, physical mechanism and then you would need to render the idea of a mirroring consciousness existing outside the observed - which is kind of a stretch, but those are not exactly news to theology.
The basic point that should be made is that just because something cannot be disproven does not mean that it is more likely than any other arbitrary and absurd claim. The reason the belief in a deity is taken seriously is because it is more widely held than the belief that we all stem from an invisible Coca-Cola dispenser inside the core of the Moon; the two claims have the same amount of intellectual merit.
toresbe
We pretty much know this if you had a detailed enough cryptome of someones brain and a suitable substrate you could run a persons personality in a simulation. What makes a person unique is basically just a map of connections/connection strength/neuron type no magic just an unbelievably complex network.
Row, row, row your boat,
Gently down the stream.
Merrily, merrily, merrily, merrily,
Life is but a dream.
You see, we have this little fact of life in which everyone dies; everyone will be given this opportunity to do their own science!
In the meantime, enjoy life! It is too short.
Besides, it is only a gamble, when you don't know the outcome or the odds. In this I already know both so to answer your question: mu.
i.e. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mu_(negative)
> Perhaps you could call it knowledge, but it isn't knowledge in the ordinary sense.
That is indeed correct, for there are two types of knowledge.
i.e. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_priori_and_a_posteriori
A priori knowledge or justification is independent of experience, and
A posteriori knowledge or justification is dependent on experience or empirical evidence
I prefer the word Gnosis = knowledge that can ONLY be understood from experience. e.g. Men have NO knowledge of what it is like to give birth. They obviously can _relate_ to the pain, but they will never truly know what this entails like a woman.
Pray tell, what kind of experiment can Science devise that is
a) repeatable
b) objective
that consciousness survives death?
Science is a fantastic system. WITHIN its domain. But there questions (and answers) outside its domain that it will *never* be able to answer. But just because that _one_ system is unable to come to any conclusions, do not imply there aren't other ways of getting the answer.
e.g.
It is akin to asking a mother "prove" she loves her children. If she doesn't slap you for asking such a stupid question, she will tell you that "she *knows* that precisely _because_ of the experience."
> But what if experiments were to conclusively prove that all aspects of personality can be explained by neurological processes? Then, consciousness would be tied to an observable, physical mechanism
You fallacy is assuming brain = mind.
Prove to me that :
a) numbers are physical
b) time is physical
Our mind deals with meta-physical objects all the time. Our brain _represents_ these concepts and ideas mechanically, but you are confusing the representation with the actuality.
See Peter Russell in the documentary "The Primacy of Consciousness" which points out the absurdity in Materialism
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=7799171063626430789
As I understand it, there is a fish that can disprove the existance of god. Sadly, it also results in rather horrible death involving a zebra crossing.
> But what if experiments were to conclusively prove that all aspects of personality can be explained by neurological processes? Then, consciousness would be tied to an observable, physical mechanism
You fallacy is assuming brain = mind.
How on earth can you say my fallacy is that assumption when you're replying to a sentence which explicitly supposes it as a hypothetical?
toresbe
How will you know you are really dead?
Dilbert RSS feed
My brain hertz
The new right fascists are bilingual. They speak English and Bullshit.
Our brain _represents_ these concepts and ideas mechanically, but you are confusing the representation with the actuality.
You haven't presented any evidence beyond the material, other than to meditate, which provides no evidence at all, as people have fooled themselves into thinking all kinds of bullshit based on such practices.
If, in fact, you could directly experience this meta-conscience, you should be able to reliably and unequivocally demonstrate some knowledge gained in this manner that couldn't have been gained through normal means.
On the other hand, there's a vast amount of evidence that points to materialism being the basis for our consciousness without some meta-consciousness that exists separate from it.
The recent discovery on July 4th of the God Particle proves the Unification Theory that eluded Albert Einstein all his life. He is up there looking down now and smiling. Find the new twist on E = mc2 at: http://godparticlephysicsfordummies.com/ The Author
Great, now I'm probably going to have to listen to the juvenile debates between the christian and science fanbois. Got to love US'ians, at least they know how to pick sides.
Don't complain about syntax, grammar, or spelling. There is no.hell like input on android.
N.B.Yoga here is used in the true sense of the word with a history measured in millenia, not in the capitalistic physical gymnastic practice from the US measured in decades. Always funny to see some new yoga startup trying to poorly re-discover real Yoga, simply because they haven't read the body of repeatable knowledge that's available.
Don't complain about syntax, grammar, or spelling. There is no.hell like input on android.
What you missed in your science fanboi rant is that the reason there is such a widely held belief in a God is because so many people have 'experienced' God. Religions are just attempts at explaining these widely spread experiences. Of course, your posture will determine how much God experiences you will have, those with a highly developed right side and consequent left brain focus will tend to be shut out of these experiences by their close minded focus on their false perception of a concrete world.
Yeah, yeah, I sound crazy but that's just because your puny mind can't assemble the total world.
Don't complain about syntax, grammar, or spelling. There is no.hell like input on android.
What you BPD sufferers confuse all the time is the mechanism with the reason. I was going to say 'what came first the chicken or the egg' but you guys have such low intelligence you still haven't solved that one and it's painfully obvious.
Don't complain about syntax, grammar, or spelling. There is no.hell like input on android.
Learn what the word meditate means, erase the negative connotations of the word based on US experience of con men using meditation as a means to steal money (It's the US, con men don't have any qualms about using anything to acheive their goals), and you may find that meditation experiences are repeatable, and if taught properly, no judgement or explanatory systems are necessary to explain to the person what they are experiencing. That's how you spot a con man, they'll always tell you what you'll experience, and how much it'll cost you, as opposed to allowing you to experience sans interpretation and sans payment.
Don't complain about syntax, grammar, or spelling. There is no.hell like input on android.
There is a lot of evidence that supports the mechanisms for the transmission of that consciousness, but nothing for the actual seat of consciousness nor its reason for existing. [..] Learn what the word meditate means [..]
So in other words, you acknowledge all the science that supports materialism, but then insist on adding in an additional component without any basis in logic or experiment.
erase the negative connotations of the word based on US experience of con men
It's not just con men. It's all the delusional and wishful thinking that surrounds this area, too.
I have hope for science that it will pass this kindergarten phase of only being able to grasp one cause and one effect at the same time, because you know, reality isn't anything like that at all, everything is co-dependent by the simple fact of sharing space.
Yeah, that's great. Now come up with your experiment and theory that doesn't amount to a bunch of hand-waving bullshit and collect your Nobel. Until then, science has progressed by discounting dogmatists like you.
So in other words, you acknowledge all the science that supports materialism, but then insist on adding in an additional component without any basis in logic or experiment.
Learn to read. I'm not adding an additional component. I'm using logic to include all human experiences instead of the science default of excluding all human experience. While you're at it, learn to think.
My theory is almost complete, i'm just working on the computer system to explain it to people who live in a dark deterministic world like you do.
BTW, you're the science dogma bitch in this conversation, I'm the one working at breaking the dogma of both science and religion by developing a universal system that logically takes into account ALL human experience. But nice try at making yourself feel superior to overcompensate for the emptiness inside which you created but not allowing god to shine through.
Don't complain about syntax, grammar, or spelling. There is no.hell like input on android.
I'm not adding an additional component. I'm using logic to include all human experiences instead of the science default of excluding all human experience.
What experience would that be? There's a reason science is exclusive, because there's too much bullshit theories without being so.
BTW, you're the science dogma bitch in this conversation, I'm the one working at breaking the dogma of both science and religion by developing a universal system that logically takes into account ALL human experience.
Thanks for the laugh.
After all, ignorance is bliss right?
BTW, it always makes me laugh too when dogmatic people accuse others of dogmatic belief, a true cosmic joke. I know you're a dogmatic science fanboi, so logic and rhetoric aren't necessary skills for you, but I'll throw you a bone to help your reading comprehension. When I said "...include all human experiences" the experiences I was talking about were, well, ALL HUMAN experiences.
Logically, any explanation of a system has to take all components of said system into account otherwise it's not a true explanation of the whole system. Don't they teach you anything in school except how to join sides unthinkingly in US and THEM debates?
Don't complain about syntax, grammar, or spelling. There is no.hell like input on android.
I'm glad your low IQ, inability to follow a train of thought, and inability to complete an argument have brought you laughter.
It's just your grandiose dreams, arrogance, and reliance on magical thinking that brings me laughter.
When I said "...include all human experiences" the experiences I was talking about were, well, ALL HUMAN experiences.
All you've stated so far was hand-waving bullshit without anything specific. I can experience the Flying Spaghetti Monster in all his awesomeness, but that doesn't mean I should come up with a scientific theory about him.