This is ridiculously *stupid*. If we had announced every time we had connected 16 transistors together we would have *never* made any progress. We have to start thinking at a completely different level or progress will be *very* slow. It will be so slow that we will not be able to solve our mounting problems, and this will result, eventually, in a disastrous collapse of the world's economies, sending the world into it's third and last war. Humanity does not have a chance if we keep on playing around like we have all the time in the world to fix our problems.
"What if I have a desire to reach into the bowl right now, pull out the fish, toss it at the Schwinn on the other side of the room, have it land on the seat by itself and pedal off down the road to pick up a loaf of bread?"
If time machines are possible, nothing is impossible, including your example. Since we don't know whether or not time machines are possible, anything MAY be possible. I choose to be optimistic. Furthermore, even without time travel, your example is quite possible, if a sufficient amount of time is given. You miss the point entirely by saying "right now". That is, TECHNOLOGY is capable of solving ANY problem. (At this point, I would encourage other everyone to contribute to science and technology for this very reason.) However, it takes TIME to create technologies. (And the time can be reduced if more people are working on creating new technologies.) However, that itself is a problem that can be solved with technologies (one example being the computer, something people not too long ago would have thought "impossible". So, if you want me to be specific, in the limit as time approaches infinity, anything IS possible, including your example. So, anything is possible, if there are no time restrictions for developing the technology to make it possible.
Then you may take this a step further, and require that no technology be used. And AGAIN, I would say you are missing the point entirely. But, I would say that STILL anything is possible. Pick up the fish and try it. If the Many-Worlds interpretation of quantum mechanics is correct then there will be a universe where you toss the fish across the room, it lands on the seat of the Schwinn, and pedals off down the road to pick up a loaf of bread. This is further justification for my statement.
Again I say, nothing is impossible, if you put your mind to it.
"Do you firmly believe goldfish will ride bicycles? Do you firmly believe a block of cheddar cheese the size of Jupiter will spontaneously spring into being in outer space, crashing into earth and destroying all life?"
The difference is, we have the desire to go faster than the speed of light. If we had the desire to see goldfish riding bicycles I'm quite certain we could design an appropriate bowl to fit the second seat. If we wanted to see a block of cheddar cheese the size of Jupiter, I'm sure we could get David Copperfield or Criss Angel to make the block of cheese spontaneously appear, and, with a little help from NASA give it the appropriate thrust.
Some things are very improbable, for example, the existence of god and the supernatural. However, nothing is impossible, if you put your mind to it.
Very cool, but not very useful because the neuron model is incorrect. When you sum up all of the money spent on modeling portions of the cortex it would have been *far* more cost effective to get the neuron model right *before* they started making large-scale simulations. But it is still very cool. Thank you.
What? When did I say, or "act like", you are not "worthy" to hear my theory??? That is absolutely not true. I was entirely willing to "share" my theory. However, I was mocked and ridiculed. Furthermore, I have already tested it, and proven it is correct. What possible incentive could I have to "share" my theory? In addition, you have to see this from my perspective. This is not just some "theory". It is the *holy grail* of all theories that can ever be theorized. You have to *think* about the implications of me "sharing" this with the world. I was merely posting to inform Slashdotters that true computer intelligence is possible, and will happen in the not so distant future.
Btw, please mod this funny, because this has all been a joke.
The model is still completely wrong. Learning is not a result of a change in the synapse strength, as *every* model to date, other than mine, has *assumed*. Now, I am not sure if you keep up to date with scientific research, but this year a very important discovery was made regarding neurons. If you put two and two together you will come up with the *correct* model of the neuron. It has to do with the *phase* of neuronal spiking, rather the frequency. Each neuron actually does three things. First, it generates a permuation of the input. Second, it attempts to minimize the inter-spike timing (this is equivalent to attempting to solve a 10000 city TSP (Travelling Salesman Problem) in 10000D space). And third, it acts as a low-pass filter.
Using this model of the neuron I have been able to simulate 256 neurons in the brain. I am currently working on a distributed model for deployment on the Internet. It is going to take around 40 million computers to simulate a human brain. At this point I am still trying to figure out how I am going to get that many people to devote computer time.
Our model of the neuron fundamentally flawed. The synapses are *not* what allows learning to occur in the brain. I have developed a model of the neuron, which I have not shared with anybody yet, which essentially rewrites the book on what we know about neurons. In fact, when you sit down to think about the problem, there exist several obvious reasons that our model of the neuron *must* be incorrect. However, it would take an engineer, or somebody familiar with control theory, to see why.
Our model of the neuron is fundamentally flawed, but oddly, no matter how hard you observe a neuron you would never know it because the model is flawed on a time scale researchers have not studied yet.
You are absolutely right. The problem is that nobody, other than me, has figured out the correct model for the neuron. It is rather sad when a guy in his basement can out think the entire scientific community. However, history has teaches us this usually the case. It does not take a lot of smarts, it takes a *passion* to understand.
I am also working on a model of the human brain. And, not to discourage you, but you, and every other researcher in the world, are *way* off. I, however, should have a fully functioning model of the human brain within 2 years . The problem with your model, and every other model in existence today, other than mine, is that your model of the neuron is completely wrong. However, I'll give you some credit. Spiking neural networks come closer than many models, but you still do not have the most important element. The amount of computational power needed is on the order of 80 PFLOPS (that is not a typo, that *PetaFLOPS*). That is the computational power of one human brain. And that *may* be an underestimate due to some rather technical issues (you would have to understand my model of the neuron). It is *very* likely that within a couple years researchers will have discovered this model (because it is based on recent research that was done this year). By that time, I will have simulated the entire human brain.
I completely agree with you, but it is even worse. Neuroscience researchers are not even *close* to modeling a brain in a computer. There model of the neuron itself is fundamentally flawed. I know because, as of right now, I am fairly certain that I am the *only* person in the world that has even a *clue* how the brain works. I put two and two together a couple of months ago and had a "eureka!" moment where the actual role of neurons in the brain became clear to me. I have not shared my finding with anybody yet, nor do I plan on sharing them. Humanity is much too dangerous at this point.
I have successfully simulated 256 neurons in the brain and the results are already extremely impressive compared with anything that exists out there. The way I was able to simulate 256 neurons without a supercomputer *in real-time* was that I have discovered the "algorithm" of the neuron. In a year or two I will be the first person to simulate the entire brain. I always thought that some guy in his basement would be the first to understand the human brain. I just never thought it would be me.
I've studied both ART algorithms and HTMs and I cannot see how you can make a comparison, they are two completely different algorithms. A simple ART relies on *resonance* (hence it is called Adaptive *Resonance* Theory) between two only to classify the input. There is no resonance in HTMs, they are only feed forward classifiers. Furthermore, HTMs are hierarchical, the general ART algorithm is not hierarchical. In addition, HTMs train on sequences over time, the general ART algorithm trains on a set of static input patterns. Now, if you are refering to specific implementations of the ART algorithm, that is completely different, but you cannot compare HTMs with the general ART algorithm. Furthermore, HTMs or the latest flavor of multi-resolution ART algorithm, is not the issue. They both work *incredibly* well, and they are both fully capable of solving the general Artificial Intelligence problem. It is now just a matter of computer power.
Oh, come on, flamebait? I didn't start the fire... That's a good song, but my post was certainly not flamebait, it was entirely objective and I'm sorry that some here can't see the truth.
You have to realize, the sole purpose for the existence of a religious fanatic is to spread their fanaticism, in any lying, cheating, or stealing way possible. That means they'll be delighted when they have an excuse to claim intelligence is necessary for design (even those this wouldn't show that at all). They'll be appalled by the creation of such things, but once one is created that's all they need to start distorting the facts as usual.
I suppose that depends on whether you consider historical evidence written down by eyewitnesses worthless.>
It has to be taken within the appropriate historical context. You're doing the equivalent of what future observers might do, such as taking a TV program of today and turning it into fact. We can barely understand the religious irrationality of much culture the Middle East even today. Multiply that by about 50 times, and put that in the context of the politics 2000 years ago. Learn the language, or simply listen to the language. Most of the languages of the time were poetic. They repeat things 3 times frequently. They have traditions embedded into their language. Not just phrases, but entire paragraphs. Lying is frequently used when commanded to do so by an elder. I know this first hand, and personally, as my father grew up in nearly Biblical conditions in the Middle East. Language was a means of handing down traditions, and many of the books in (what we now call) the "Bible" were simply a way of handing down tradition, regarding the natural universe. "God" gets angry when... "God" will bless you when... "God" commands you to... Etc...
Oral and written testimony of witnesses is accepted in our courts of law. It is generally assumed in a court that a witness is telling the TRUTH. It is incumbent on the opposing party, defense or prosecution, to cast doubt and discredit the evidence of testimony or credibility of the witnesses.
You should know better than this. (Actually, I'm sure you do know better than this, you're just lying to promote your religion.) Let me set the record straight. *Everybody* knows the Burden of Proof is on the person making the *claim*. The person making the *claim*, in the case of a murder, is the "opposing party" (which is why they are called "opposing"). Thus, the opposing party must provide "proof". You make *numerous* claims, and thus, you have a lot you need to prove.
Simon Greenleaf, a founder of the Harvard Law School, wrote at length on rules of evidence and how an attorney may undermine or bolster the truthfulness of witnesses and their testimony....He did come to the opposite conclusion after careful study of the written depositions these four witnesses left behind. He became a Christian as a result.
Simon Greenlead died in 1853! And that's the best you can do? Maybe that should tell you something? Furthermore, it's doubtful he because a Christian as a result of reading the Gospels. What you are quoting is almost legend. I can tell quite well it's been manufactured by examining the "evidence" myself. In fact, I think that's the whole point of that excercise. Once again, another lie coming from you. But, that's not a surprise, as you are religious, and religious people have to do that all the time.
There are many OPINIONS expressed here on/. on almost any subject. Whenever the subject of origins comes up, most here express the opinions of materialistic evolution.
Evolution is not an opinion, it's a rigorously tested scientific theory. The words "scientific theory" means that at least the general premises would qualify as what most people would call "fact". Theories must make predictions. And evolution has made *many* predictions that have been verfied.
...most humans STILL believe that the dimensions of time-space and matter-energy are not all that exists.
Most young American childern also believe in Santa Claus, the Easter Bunny, and the Tooth Fairy. Does that make them real? Cultural "memes" spread like viruses, literally (numerous sociological studies have shown this). So the fact that a large number of people are doing a particular thing, or believing a particular thing, does *not* necessarily imply that it is justified or correct. How do you then determine if
The hole described in this article is most likely due to an uneven distribution or influence upon the universe's expansion.
I think you're exactly right. Consider the example of the balloon. There has to be a hole for a person to blow on to make it expand. Perhaps, this "hole" in the universe is where ZPE is flooding in from connected universes in the multiverse? Perhaps, high and low density pockets of ZPE are what we call "dark matter"? Then, perhaps, the force created by "dark matter" would then be caused by a differential in the ZPE?
This would explain the "void" as a huge inlet for ZPE into the universe forcing the universe to expand. This would also explain the mysterious acceleration in the expansion of the universe. This would also imply that there was no "Big Bang", at least in our universe, but rather a "Big Inflation". In addition, this would also explain the filament like structures seen in the overall structure of the universe. Like sand on a vibrating plate forms into "modal" patterns on the plate, similarly, in our universe you have the 3D equivalent: ZPE being the "sand", space-time being the plate, vibration caused by the expansion of space-time, and matter grouping along the edges of the pattern formed by ZPE. I wouldn't be surprised if there were many other "holes" like this, that connect to other universes in the multiverse. Although, they are probably just other parts of our universe, only accessible through one of these "holes".
Ok, the common example given for the expansion of the universe is points on an expanding balloon. Balloons have a whole which you can blow air into, which then causes the balloon to expand. Perhaps, this void is a connection to the multiverse? The expansion of the universe is due to an influx of ZPE from the multiverse? Perhaps there are other places like this in the universe? Wouldn't this explain dark matter also? Pockets of high and low density ZPE rushing in from these "voids" pushing galaxies around?
No, you're not getting it. I'm not talking "entries", but "entities". Every distinct concept. I never said anything about lumping protons, electrons, and neutrons into one. They are distinct concepts, and they always have been distinct. So stop trying to distort the facts. You religious people lie and cheat in any way possible to get people to follow you, because you are scared of the consequences of not having religion to keep society together. I'll tell you right now, society will hold together just fine without religion, thank you very much. Now, the fact is you said I can tack on anything I want. And by your definition, this is a valid statement. Thus, I tacked on "all known science" to your equation. Therefore, "God" is more complex than all known science because it consists of more independent entities, according to *your* definiton. Thus, "God" is solution is *never* the solution with the least number of independent entities. Thus, the "God" solution is *never* the best solution by Occam's Razor. Q.E.D.
It's a story of hope that every other religion will no longer exist. It's a story of hope that armagedon will come and kill billions of people. It's a story of hope that you will die, because that would reunite you with your maker. It's a story of hope that you can "save" people from going to "hell", but billions of people are going to go there no matter what you do because they can't be "saved". If *that* is hope then you've got some serious issues. Besides the fact that you don't have a shread of evidence. Evidence and proof are the foundation of this site. What you are posting is basically nonsense and your beliefs. This is not the appropriate place for this kind of discussion. Take your opinions back to church where they belong.
In Occam's Razor "simplest solution" refers to the solution with least number of independent entities. As your definition of "God" contains the most number of independent entities possible, "God" is the most complex thing, not the most simple. In addition, if one can "tack on anything else", I'll tack on all known science. This makes your definition necessarily more complicated than any scientific theory. Thus, "God" would necessarily fail all tests of Occam's Razor, implying that "God" is *never* the best solution by Occam's Razor.
Sorry, I forgot the tags. My bad. I'm absent minded because I'm trying to study ten different fields, while singlehandly attempting to save the world from destroying itself with my pinky finger.
Is this better? Free education means poorer quality education. Money doesn't grow on trees. Think that needs a <rant> tag?
There's no such thing as a free lunch. Where's the money coming from? There's only one places it can be coming from, which is taxpayers. And since we know that's not going to happen, who's paying for their education? I don't really care who pays, but what I think is going to happen is the professors are going to be underpayed. That will result in large numbers of students passing classes they shouldn't have passed. The cycle will continue and spread, and you will have a loss (or at least a major degradation) of our higher education system. This is not going to fix our problem.
Let's think about this for a second. Where does all of our money go? Bills: House, Utilities, TV, Internet, Car, etc... We all know this, so let's face the facts. Now, where does that money go? I'll tell you where, to the *wrong* people. Physicist, engineers, mathematicians, are the ones that make all of those things possible, so why aren't they getting paid for it? Because they're too nice, and the rest are just in it for immediate gains. Most item should cost 100 times what they do, but the scientists just sit back and watch that money go to other people. Why? Because some sell their soles, figuratively speaking. They sell the rights for profit, eventually, to somebody else for immediate profit, since *their* life is only so long they don't really care what happens to the rest of the money. What *should* happen is that the rights be slowly transferred to younger generations of physicists, engineers, and mathematicians, so that people that have EARNED the right, through years of hard work and study, can "stand on the shoulders of giants" and be rewarded for it. Don't get me wrong. Capitalism in America works *perfectly*. What doesn't work is our *government*. They fear a revolt if there are too many smart people other than them. So, what better to do then keep everybody dumb by not fixing the system?
This "fix" in Montana is not going to work, and will just degrade the system even more. There will be an even larger influx of people that don't care about what they are studying, and are only there to graduate. Schools will admit more people, because they are a business, and that's what businesses do. The quality of education will decrease as a result (I know, personally, as I have attended some of the fastest growing universities in the U.S. and *watched* the quality of education decline). It's a great attempt, but it's not fixing the problem. I give the Senator an A for effort, but that was curved from a D+. (See the problem?) We can do a lot better, but perhaps by implementing this system people will see that.
Sometime change in the *wrong* direction is needed to create a potential for change in the *right* direction.
Slashdot Mirror
This is ridiculously *stupid*. If we had announced every time we had connected 16 transistors together we would have *never* made any progress. We have to start thinking at a completely different level or progress will be *very* slow. It will be so slow that we will not be able to solve our mounting problems, and this will result, eventually, in a disastrous collapse of the world's economies, sending the world into it's third and last war. Humanity does not have a chance if we keep on playing around like we have all the time in the world to fix our problems.
If time machines are possible, nothing is impossible, including your example. Since we don't know whether or not time machines are possible, anything MAY be possible. I choose to be optimistic. Furthermore, even without time travel, your example is quite possible, if a sufficient amount of time is given. You miss the point entirely by saying "right now". That is, TECHNOLOGY is capable of solving ANY problem. (At this point, I would encourage other everyone to contribute to science and technology for this very reason.) However, it takes TIME to create technologies. (And the time can be reduced if more people are working on creating new technologies.) However, that itself is a problem that can be solved with technologies (one example being the computer, something people not too long ago would have thought "impossible". So, if you want me to be specific, in the limit as time approaches infinity, anything IS possible, including your example. So, anything is possible, if there are no time restrictions for developing the technology to make it possible.
Then you may take this a step further, and require that no technology be used. And AGAIN, I would say you are missing the point entirely. But, I would say that STILL anything is possible. Pick up the fish and try it. If the Many-Worlds interpretation of quantum mechanics is correct then there will be a universe where you toss the fish across the room, it lands on the seat of the Schwinn, and pedals off down the road to pick up a loaf of bread. This is further justification for my statement.
Again I say, nothing is impossible, if you put your mind to it.
The difference is, we have the desire to go faster than the speed of light. If we had the desire to see goldfish riding bicycles I'm quite certain we could design an appropriate bowl to fit the second seat. If we wanted to see a block of cheddar cheese the size of Jupiter, I'm sure we could get David Copperfield or Criss Angel to make the block of cheese spontaneously appear, and, with a little help from NASA give it the appropriate thrust.
Some things are very improbable, for example, the existence of god and the supernatural. However, nothing is impossible, if you put your mind to it.
Very cool, but not very useful because the neuron model is incorrect. When you sum up all of the money spent on modeling portions of the cortex it would have been *far* more cost effective to get the neuron model right *before* they started making large-scale simulations. But it is still very cool. Thank you.
What? When did I say, or "act like", you are not "worthy" to hear my theory??? That is absolutely not true. I was entirely willing to "share" my theory. However, I was mocked and ridiculed. Furthermore, I have already tested it, and proven it is correct. What possible incentive could I have to "share" my theory? In addition, you have to see this from my perspective. This is not just some "theory". It is the *holy grail* of all theories that can ever be theorized. You have to *think* about the implications of me "sharing" this with the world. I was merely posting to inform Slashdotters that true computer intelligence is possible, and will happen in the not so distant future.
Btw, please mod this funny, because this has all been a joke.
Slashdotters are, by far, the most arrogant people I have ever met. All I have to say is it is your loss, and not mine.
Apparently somebody modded me funny. My post was not a joke.
Apparently somebody modded me funny. It is not a joke.
The model is still completely wrong. Learning is not a result of a change in the synapse strength, as *every* model to date, other than mine, has *assumed*. Now, I am not sure if you keep up to date with scientific research, but this year a very important discovery was made regarding neurons. If you put two and two together you will come up with the *correct* model of the neuron. It has to do with the *phase* of neuronal spiking, rather the frequency. Each neuron actually does three things. First, it generates a permuation of the input. Second, it attempts to minimize the inter-spike timing (this is equivalent to attempting to solve a 10000 city TSP (Travelling Salesman Problem) in 10000D space). And third, it acts as a low-pass filter.
Using this model of the neuron I have been able to simulate 256 neurons in the brain. I am currently working on a distributed model for deployment on the Internet. It is going to take around 40 million computers to simulate a human brain. At this point I am still trying to figure out how I am going to get that many people to devote computer time.
Our model of the neuron fundamentally flawed. The synapses are *not* what allows learning to occur in the brain. I have developed a model of the neuron, which I have not shared with anybody yet, which essentially rewrites the book on what we know about neurons. In fact, when you sit down to think about the problem, there exist several obvious reasons that our model of the neuron *must* be incorrect. However, it would take an engineer, or somebody familiar with control theory, to see why.
Our model of the neuron is fundamentally flawed, but oddly, no matter how hard you observe a neuron you would never know it because the model is flawed on a time scale researchers have not studied yet.
You are absolutely right. The problem is that nobody, other than me, has figured out the correct model for the neuron. It is rather sad when a guy in his basement can out think the entire scientific community. However, history has teaches us this usually the case. It does not take a lot of smarts, it takes a *passion* to understand.
I am also working on a model of the human brain. And, not to discourage you, but you, and every other researcher in the world, are *way* off. I, however, should have a fully functioning model of the human brain within 2 years . The problem with your model, and every other model in existence today, other than mine, is that your model of the neuron is completely wrong. However, I'll give you some credit. Spiking neural networks come closer than many models, but you still do not have the most important element. The amount of computational power needed is on the order of 80 PFLOPS (that is not a typo, that *PetaFLOPS*). That is the computational power of one human brain. And that *may* be an underestimate due to some rather technical issues (you would have to understand my model of the neuron). It is *very* likely that within a couple years researchers will have discovered this model (because it is based on recent research that was done this year). By that time, I will have simulated the entire human brain.
I have successfully simulated 256 neurons in the brain and the results are already extremely impressive compared with anything that exists out there. The way I was able to simulate 256 neurons without a supercomputer *in real-time* was that I have discovered the "algorithm" of the neuron. In a year or two I will be the first person to simulate the entire brain. I always thought that some guy in his basement would be the first to understand the human brain. I just never thought it would be me.
I've studied both ART algorithms and HTMs and I cannot see how you can make a comparison, they are two completely different algorithms. A simple ART relies on *resonance* (hence it is called Adaptive *Resonance* Theory) between two only to classify the input. There is no resonance in HTMs, they are only feed forward classifiers. Furthermore, HTMs are hierarchical, the general ART algorithm is not hierarchical. In addition, HTMs train on sequences over time, the general ART algorithm trains on a set of static input patterns. Now, if you are refering to specific implementations of the ART algorithm, that is completely different, but you cannot compare HTMs with the general ART algorithm. Furthermore, HTMs or the latest flavor of multi-resolution ART algorithm, is not the issue. They both work *incredibly* well, and they are both fully capable of solving the general Artificial Intelligence problem. It is now just a matter of computer power.
Oh, come on, flamebait? I didn't start the fire... That's a good song, but my post was certainly not flamebait, it was entirely objective and I'm sorry that some here can't see the truth.
You have to realize, the sole purpose for the existence of a religious fanatic is to spread their fanaticism, in any lying, cheating, or stealing way possible. That means they'll be delighted when they have an excuse to claim intelligence is necessary for design (even those this wouldn't show that at all). They'll be appalled by the creation of such things, but once one is created that's all they need to start distorting the facts as usual.
I suppose that depends on whether you consider historical evidence written down by eyewitnesses worthless.>
It has to be taken within the appropriate historical context. You're doing the equivalent of what future observers might do, such as taking a TV program of today and turning it into fact. We can barely understand the religious irrationality of much culture the Middle East even today. Multiply that by about 50 times, and put that in the context of the politics 2000 years ago. Learn the language, or simply listen to the language. Most of the languages of the time were poetic. They repeat things 3 times frequently. They have traditions embedded into their language. Not just phrases, but entire paragraphs. Lying is frequently used when commanded to do so by an elder. I know this first hand, and personally, as my father grew up in nearly Biblical conditions in the Middle East. Language was a means of handing down traditions, and many of the books in (what we now call) the "Bible" were simply a way of handing down tradition, regarding the natural universe. "God" gets angry when... "God" will bless you when... "God" commands you to... Etc...
Oral and written testimony of witnesses is accepted in our courts of law. It is generally assumed in a court that a witness is telling the TRUTH. It is incumbent on the opposing party, defense or prosecution, to cast doubt and discredit the evidence of testimony or credibility of the witnesses.
You should know better than this. (Actually, I'm sure you do know better than this, you're just lying to promote your religion.) Let me set the record straight. *Everybody* knows the Burden of Proof is on the person making the *claim*. The person making the *claim*, in the case of a murder, is the "opposing party" (which is why they are called "opposing"). Thus, the opposing party must provide "proof". You make *numerous* claims, and thus, you have a lot you need to prove.
Simon Greenleaf, a founder of the Harvard Law School, wrote at length on rules of evidence and how an attorney may undermine or bolster the truthfulness of witnesses and their testimony. ...He did come to the opposite conclusion after careful study of the written depositions these four witnesses left behind. He became a Christian as a result.
Simon Greenlead died in 1853! And that's the best you can do? Maybe that should tell you something? Furthermore, it's doubtful he because a Christian as a result of reading the Gospels. What you are quoting is almost legend. I can tell quite well it's been manufactured by examining the "evidence" myself. In fact, I think that's the whole point of that excercise. Once again, another lie coming from you. But, that's not a surprise, as you are religious, and religious people have to do that all the time.
There are many OPINIONS expressed here on /. on almost any subject. Whenever the subject of origins comes up, most here express the opinions of materialistic evolution.
Evolution is not an opinion, it's a rigorously tested scientific theory. The words "scientific theory" means that at least the general premises would qualify as what most people would call "fact". Theories must make predictions. And evolution has made *many* predictions that have been verfied.
...most humans STILL believe that the dimensions of time-space and matter-energy are not all that exists.
Most young American childern also believe in Santa Claus, the Easter Bunny, and the Tooth Fairy. Does that make them real? Cultural "memes" spread like viruses, literally (numerous sociological studies have shown this). So the fact that a large number of people are doing a particular thing, or believing a particular thing, does *not* necessarily imply that it is justified or correct. How do you then determine if
I think you're exactly right. Consider the example of the balloon. There has to be a hole for a person to blow on to make it expand. Perhaps, this "hole" in the universe is where ZPE is flooding in from connected universes in the multiverse? Perhaps, high and low density pockets of ZPE are what we call "dark matter"? Then, perhaps, the force created by "dark matter" would then be caused by a differential in the ZPE?
This would explain the "void" as a huge inlet for ZPE into the universe forcing the universe to expand. This would also explain the mysterious acceleration in the expansion of the universe. This would also imply that there was no "Big Bang", at least in our universe, but rather a "Big Inflation". In addition, this would also explain the filament like structures seen in the overall structure of the universe. Like sand on a vibrating plate forms into "modal" patterns on the plate, similarly, in our universe you have the 3D equivalent: ZPE being the "sand", space-time being the plate, vibration caused by the expansion of space-time, and matter grouping along the edges of the pattern formed by ZPE. I wouldn't be surprised if there were many other "holes" like this, that connect to other universes in the multiverse. Although, they are probably just other parts of our universe, only accessible through one of these "holes".
You heard it here first.
Ok, the common example given for the expansion of the universe is points on an expanding balloon. Balloons have a whole which you can blow air into, which then causes the balloon to expand. Perhaps, this void is a connection to the multiverse? The expansion of the universe is due to an influx of ZPE from the multiverse? Perhaps there are other places like this in the universe? Wouldn't this explain dark matter also? Pockets of high and low density ZPE rushing in from these "voids" pushing galaxies around?
I'm an atheist also, and I basically agree with you on all counts.
No, you're not getting it. I'm not talking "entries", but "entities". Every distinct concept. I never said anything about lumping protons, electrons, and neutrons into one. They are distinct concepts, and they always have been distinct. So stop trying to distort the facts. You religious people lie and cheat in any way possible to get people to follow you, because you are scared of the consequences of not having religion to keep society together. I'll tell you right now, society will hold together just fine without religion, thank you very much. Now, the fact is you said I can tack on anything I want. And by your definition, this is a valid statement. Thus, I tacked on "all known science" to your equation. Therefore, "God" is more complex than all known science because it consists of more independent entities, according to *your* definiton. Thus, "God" is solution is *never* the solution with the least number of independent entities. Thus, the "God" solution is *never* the best solution by Occam's Razor. Q.E.D.
It's a story of hope that every other religion will no longer exist. It's a story of hope that armagedon will come and kill billions of people. It's a story of hope that you will die, because that would reunite you with your maker. It's a story of hope that you can "save" people from going to "hell", but billions of people are going to go there no matter what you do because they can't be "saved". If *that* is hope then you've got some serious issues. Besides the fact that you don't have a shread of evidence. Evidence and proof are the foundation of this site. What you are posting is basically nonsense and your beliefs. This is not the appropriate place for this kind of discussion. Take your opinions back to church where they belong.
In Occam's Razor "simplest solution" refers to the solution with least number of independent entities. As your definition of "God" contains the most number of independent entities possible, "God" is the most complex thing, not the most simple. In addition, if one can "tack on anything else", I'll tack on all known science. This makes your definition necessarily more complicated than any scientific theory. Thus, "God" would necessarily fail all tests of Occam's Razor, implying that "God" is *never* the best solution by Occam's Razor.
Is this better? Free education means poorer quality education. Money doesn't grow on trees. Think that needs a <rant> tag?
There's no such thing as a free lunch. Where's the money coming from? There's only one places it can be coming from, which is taxpayers. And since we know that's not going to happen, who's paying for their education? I don't really care who pays, but what I think is going to happen is the professors are going to be underpayed. That will result in large numbers of students passing classes they shouldn't have passed. The cycle will continue and spread, and you will have a loss (or at least a major degradation) of our higher education system. This is not going to fix our problem. Let's think about this for a second. Where does all of our money go? Bills: House, Utilities, TV, Internet, Car, etc... We all know this, so let's face the facts. Now, where does that money go? I'll tell you where, to the *wrong* people. Physicist, engineers, mathematicians, are the ones that make all of those things possible, so why aren't they getting paid for it? Because they're too nice, and the rest are just in it for immediate gains. Most item should cost 100 times what they do, but the scientists just sit back and watch that money go to other people. Why? Because some sell their soles, figuratively speaking. They sell the rights for profit, eventually, to somebody else for immediate profit, since *their* life is only so long they don't really care what happens to the rest of the money. What *should* happen is that the rights be slowly transferred to younger generations of physicists, engineers, and mathematicians, so that people that have EARNED the right, through years of hard work and study, can "stand on the shoulders of giants" and be rewarded for it. Don't get me wrong. Capitalism in America works *perfectly*. What doesn't work is our *government*. They fear a revolt if there are too many smart people other than them. So, what better to do then keep everybody dumb by not fixing the system? This "fix" in Montana is not going to work, and will just degrade the system even more. There will be an even larger influx of people that don't care about what they are studying, and are only there to graduate. Schools will admit more people, because they are a business, and that's what businesses do. The quality of education will decrease as a result (I know, personally, as I have attended some of the fastest growing universities in the U.S. and *watched* the quality of education decline). It's a great attempt, but it's not fixing the problem. I give the Senator an A for effort, but that was curved from a D+. (See the problem?) We can do a lot better, but perhaps by implementing this system people will see that. Sometime change in the *wrong* direction is needed to create a potential for change in the *right* direction.