Imagine the earth floating on a sine wave. The sine wave passes though the zero point. The zero point is a plane which contains the hot gasses. Are going to be other civilisations outside this cycle? Are there other civilisations who thrive inside the plane? Do some humans need to grow a brain?
Do it part time. One or two days a week, even more if you want. This will force you to interact with the hoi polloi. The general day to day communication skills you learn will help you to communicate better with others, including geeks.
Where to meet fellow geeks? University is the only place I have ever meet such people... oh, and then there was linux.conf.au where my partner said that I actually looked normal rather than the usual "out of place awkward geek that I really am".
Instead of huge robot armies with lots of bombs, destruction, murder, death and explosions for the film... how about a proactive film. While the idea of everyone working together, holding hands and building a better society in the film won't sell millions at first glance; I'm sure there have been many constructive ideas for exciting films that lead to the idea of building a better society without everything ending in disharmony.
Taking care not to lead everyone into a world where they want to build an empire that forces its ideas upon the rest of the world, yada, yada, yada, yada... I have my expertise in the sciences, not the humanities. I'm sure there are some arts grads out there who can envisage what I am suggesting.
Utilise these foreign wastelands and harvest them. Films with ideas of utilising the power grids for collection of electricity from distributed solar/wind collectors (provided the copper hasn't been stolen from these suburbs). Films with ideas of of future small towns doing this, especially with all the cliche people from films like "back to the future". The football jock, the nerd, the hottest girl in town who everyone wants to sleep with, etc, allowing the common man on the street to identify with. The cliche leaders such as the mayor should behave in a way which isn't the same as some of these older movies, ie, no blanket corruption, no high life, hard working, always introducing wind-farm (et al) ideas. The cops are not there to always bust the football jock, the cops are there to blah blah blah...
We need a revolution in films to encourage the hoi polloi clean up this mess.
I also find that it helps to think of simple harmonic motion and differential equations when doing the dance of romance:
1) You can't be an asshole all the time. 2) You need to work out how to sync your nice/nasty streaks with her moods and harmoniously move from one to the other.
You're welcome to believe that everything is God's creation, but you can't use that belief as the evidence that everything is God's creation, or as evidence that God exists, which is what you are saying you are doing.
No. That was not what I was doing. Read again.
In case I wasn't clear in my previous posts; I have faith, which allows me to believe that God exists and the universe is His creation. Proving my faith is not possible, this is most likely why it is called faith and not science. This is, in part, what separates me from an agnostic and an atheist.
I am not trying to convert or convince anyone to a belief that God exists. When someone has a faith in themselves that God exists, then they will know that God exists. Everyone is free to believe in the existence or non-existence of a divine entity as their faith dictates.
If there are more replies, I am just going to start to get annoyed and I will do silly things such as pointing to Genesis 1:1 and telling people to go google it. Atheists and Agnostics should just accept that this is who I am, and that I have faith that God exists. I'm sorry I have so little time to talk, I need to do some work to get some food on the table. If you want to pay me to sit around and philosophise all day, then by all mean pay me, but for now I need to do some work.
Thank you for taking the time to reply. I have enjoyed this. It has given me greater insight into other people and other thoughts.
I keep an open mind and will happily examine any available evidence, but God is very persistent in not supplying any evidence at all.
I see the evidence in everything. Everything is Gods creation. I believe that the study of science is, in itself, the study of Gods creation.
If there is anything "beyond" the universe then it is as good as not existing because we could never know of its existence and its existence could never affect us.
A CPU allows software to run. The software may not know about the CPU, but it still has a life cycle. The software is not directly created by the CPU, but, it relies on the CPU... I'm sure if we both trundle off into this discussion there will be an analogy or two with computers amongst the 1000 or so comments which could be posted today. Just thinking of this will give me food for thought over the next couple of years.
I do not have time for much more discussion this week; I look forward to this discussion again in another few years time. Hopefully we may cross paths again when this topic invariably pops up again.:)
Only within the confines of the universe does time have meaning.
By this definition there is a boundary to the universe. What lies outside this boundary? If our universe has a boundary and there is something on the other side of this boundary, does this next universe have a boundary... and if so, isn't it plausible that there are infinite universes, which brings us back to only one universe? Is this how some people see the non-existence of God?
I see a boundary. On one side there is our universe, on the other is God. Some people may call it Heaven. I could also go on about my thoughts of Hell, but, this goes off topic and deviates towards religion. I will suffice by mentioning that I make speculations around Dimethyltryptamine and possible connections which lead people to these conclusions, with false potential.
With only one universe we could expunge the idea of God as there is no room for him in our universe. This assumes an ever expanding outward universe. Inner universe? Sideways universe? Dimensions within dimensions? What lies beyond a dimension? The same could be said for these questions.
I am human. My brain is only so big. It can not comprehend the entire universe and what is beyond, if it could, then it would be as big as the universe itself. To quell thoughts I have faith. The one thing I am truly certain of is that God exists, it is my belief. I have faith that this is true. I have faith in my belief and that is what it is, faith. It is not scientific, my belief is most likely irrational, but, it is my belief. This irrationality is probably why it is called faith.
Asking "what happened before the start of the universe?" is like asking "what time was it before there was such a thing as time?". They are words. They do form questions. But those questions are without meaning. They don't make sense.
True, if time only exists within the universe as per the given definition. Point taken. Now tell me this, what lies outside the bounds of space and time?
The first question is meaningless because time is a property of the universe and concepts like "before" and "after" can only apply inside of it.
Then what is "outside" the universe? Implicitly there must be a boundary. I believe that God lies outside this boundary.
What came before the "Big Bang" a meaningless question? That is very unscientific.
because the North Pole is the limit of that way of thinking about the world and trying to go north of it is beyond the scope of the definition of the word.
Infinitesimally small as you approach the North pole?
...but yes, enough digression...
Read my post again. The only difference between the two possibilities is that the second has God.
Point taken.
My point is that any discussion of God in a science class as an explanation for the science is COMPLETELY unscientific.
True, when you replace "an" with "the". Mind you, in my previous post I did slip and use the word "only". It is possible there are other explanations for what lies outside the universe, however, the most plausible one (for me personally) is that of God.
I don't know what you were suggesting in your post if you weren't suggesting that bringing God into it in a science class is acceptable.
That God exists. Perhaps He only exists in my mind and not yours. Thats cool.
So, I guess my point was one of "God is what exists outside the universe".
So if God lies outside the universe, did God create the universe? I believe God did. You, however, may believe whatever you like.
In a pure science class, God has very little place. As you have alluded to, only in such a discussion as this. Separation of religion, politics and science is important.
But, understand that it is irrational, and irrationality has no place being taught in a science class, or even really discussed beyond explaining why it doesn't belong in a science class.
I understand and apply this wrt my scientific studies. I would like you to understand that my understanding of God does give me certain insight to problem solving... in what way, I can not explain, I just believe that it allows me to think differently. I freely accept that some people may never understand God, or what I believe to be God. This may or may not be a good thing, depending on ones religious convictions. (Religion is another topic again, I am talking about God in this thread, not Religion).
I believe that diversification in a population is important to it's survival. Therefore it is important that neither of these view points try to eliminate each other. They must respect each other mutually whilst remaining closely separate (almost a contradiction in terms).
...but hey, maybe my head is messy from all that pot smoking back in college... %)
If you don't have one, you are in one. What is it?
I did not make *the* case for evolution. I do, however, believe *the* evidence supports it.
(2) God's winding things up and letting natural selection take over wouldn't be intelligent design, which is what I bet you are getting at.
Assumption is the mother of all fuck ups.
You have made several assumptions, now I will make an assumption or two.
1) You don't understand Darwinian Theory. 2) You have had your mind polluted by those who purport to know about intelligent design, but, they really want to subvert the true meaning; and hence your understanding. This is clearly evident in your rant. 3) You had a troubled childhood and were ridiculed at school. 4) The bible often refers to sheep, you are one.
If you don't instantly understand what I mean in point 4) then you are a sheep in need of a shepherd.
I used the word "and" not "or"... nice try at divide and conquer though. You have used a good example to whence forth build reason for separation of religion, science AND politics.
There is always something smaller, there is always something bigger; and in between these there are infinite dimensions. Evidence so far is that the universe is infinite (please correct me if I am wrong). Outside of the infinite is the realm of God... until we can explain what lies beyond the infinite, God remains the only comprehensible explanation. (note that I used the word *until*).
In such a case, besides war, how do you propose that we rid ourselves of such people...
You appear to be advocating the necessity of genocide in the absence of controlled breeding programs. Your comment on their breeding causing "devolution" indicates that you hold them to be your genetic inferiors...
...whilst maintaining a class who is indifferent to mindless servitude?
...and you wish to keep them as a slave class. If you aren't joking, what an admission you have made in your post.
Didn't make myself clear. %)
I'm certainly not superior to anyone. I contain many defects. Every single person in the world has something unique to contribute. The biggest issue I see is when the balance swings to far in one direction and when/if this directional change happens to quickly.
The "ridding" of such people is not a "genocide" rather a re-organisation of the balance within society. If there are to many people who can't think, there will be problems, in the same way as if there are to many people who can think. We need to maintain a balance so as to move forward together. The biggest problem I keep seeing is how do we deal with things when the balance moves outside what is a stable area?
Freedom of education, yes, instant freedom to not be educated would create a nightmare of a situation and in such case there would instantly be a class of people who have difficulty thinking for themselves and could potentially fall into a "mob rule" situation with nasty consequences.
Revolutions are fought for the very reason of freeing people from such rule. Defend your 2nd amendment rights citizens, but what good will they do you if you can't decide who or when to shoot? How can you be a free person if a government agent teaches you how to think?
This is along the lines that I was attempting to express. With a added concern to the pace of change... You have made a good point.
Perhaps this helps clarify my thoughts a little? I will also need to find time to read that book you suggest. Not enough time in my day, if only there were 48 hours in a day *sigh*
If school was really for your benefit and not someone else's, why did it need to be made compulsory? I can understand the desire for free education, but why compulsory?
If schooling were not compulsory then kids would have more time to have kids, breeding like locusts, and a devolution leading to separation of our species would occur at a faster rate. In such a case, besides war, how do you propose that we rid ourselves of such people whilst maintaining a class who is indifferent to mindless servitude?
Slashdot Mirror
Australian MP Malcom Turnbul did this gaes ago.
http://itunes.apple.com/au/app/malcolm-turnbull-mp-federal/id374939098?mt=8
Kaczynski, is that you hiding behind an AC monkier?
Epic Fail? WTF?
How many years has it taken to crack the PS3?
I'd say that Sony has done a remarkable job.
That is actually larger than pi... The real value of pi is:
3.14159265358979323846264338
Yeah. Take that you poverty stricken public schools.
New is appearing that Stephen King has passed away also.
The way to describe equilibrium in the macro-economic environment was done just over 100 years with the Pareto principle.
The right to read?
http://www.gaygames.com/
Imagine the earth floating on a sine wave. The sine wave passes though the zero point. The zero point is a plane which contains the hot gasses. Are going to be other civilisations outside this cycle? Are there other civilisations who thrive inside the plane? Do some humans need to grow a brain?
Do it part time. One or two days a week, even more if you want. This will force you to interact with the hoi polloi. The general day to day communication skills you learn will help you to communicate better with others, including geeks.
Where to meet fellow geeks? University is the only place I have ever meet such people... oh, and then there was linux.conf.au where my partner said that I actually looked normal rather than the usual "out of place awkward geek that I really am".
In reference to your film set idea.
Instead of huge robot armies with lots of bombs, destruction, murder, death and explosions for the film... how about a proactive film. While the idea of everyone working together, holding hands and building a better society in the film won't sell millions at first glance; I'm sure there have been many constructive ideas for exciting films that lead to the idea of building a better society without everything ending in disharmony.
Taking care not to lead everyone into a world where they want to build an empire that forces its ideas upon the rest of the world, yada, yada, yada, yada... I have my expertise in the sciences, not the humanities. I'm sure there are some arts grads out there who can envisage what I am suggesting.
Utilise these foreign wastelands and harvest them. Films with ideas of utilising the power grids for collection of electricity from distributed solar/wind collectors (provided the copper hasn't been stolen from these suburbs). Films with ideas of of future small towns doing this, especially with all the cliche people from films like "back to the future". The football jock, the nerd, the hottest girl in town who everyone wants to sleep with, etc, allowing the common man on the street to identify with. The cliche leaders such as the mayor should behave in a way which isn't the same as some of these older movies, ie, no blanket corruption, no high life, hard working, always introducing wind-farm (et al) ideas. The cops are not there to always bust the football jock, the cops are there to blah blah blah...
We need a revolution in films to encourage the hoi polloi clean up this mess.
It's called beer. When you drink enough of it, even the most unattractive members of the opposite sex begin to look good.
You have more success if you set up an isolated/sterile region like North Korea.
It's been working for me for years...
I also find that it helps to think of simple harmonic motion and differential equations when doing the dance of romance:
1) You can't be an asshole all the time.
2) You need to work out how to sync your nice/nasty streaks with her moods and harmoniously move from one to the other.
When it becomes cool to not like something because it is popular.
When something reaches a level of market saturation such that it is no longer a novelty and is just a common item.
Popularity seems to have some form of scarcity attached to it.
No. That was not what I was doing. Read again.
In case I wasn't clear in my previous posts; I have faith, which allows me to believe that God exists and the universe is His creation. Proving my faith is not possible, this is most likely why it is called faith and not science. This is, in part, what separates me from an agnostic and an atheist.
I am not trying to convert or convince anyone to a belief that God exists. When someone has a faith in themselves that God exists, then they will know that God exists. Everyone is free to believe in the existence or non-existence of a divine entity as their faith dictates.
If there are more replies, I am just going to start to get annoyed and I will do silly things such as pointing to Genesis 1:1 and telling people to go google it. Atheists and Agnostics should just accept that this is who I am, and that I have faith that God exists. I'm sorry I have so little time to talk, I need to do some work to get some food on the table. If you want to pay me to sit around and philosophise all day, then by all mean pay me, but for now I need to do some work.
EOF
Thank you for taking the time to reply. I have enjoyed this. It has given me greater insight into other people and other thoughts.
I see the evidence in everything. Everything is Gods creation. I believe that the study of science is, in itself, the study of Gods creation.
A CPU allows software to run. The software may not know about the CPU, but it still has a life cycle. The software is not directly created by the CPU, but, it relies on the CPU... I'm sure if we both trundle off into this discussion there will be an analogy or two with computers amongst the 1000 or so comments which could be posted today. Just thinking of this will give me food for thought over the next couple of years.
I do not have time for much more discussion this week; I look forward to this discussion again in another few years time. Hopefully we may cross paths again when this topic invariably pops up again. :)
Thank you again.
By this definition there is a boundary to the universe. What lies outside this boundary? If our universe has a boundary and there is something on the other side of this boundary, does this next universe have a boundary... and if so, isn't it plausible that there are infinite universes, which brings us back to only one universe? Is this how some people see the non-existence of God?
I see a boundary. On one side there is our universe, on the other is God. Some people may call it Heaven. I could also go on about my thoughts of Hell, but, this goes off topic and deviates towards religion. I will suffice by mentioning that I make speculations around Dimethyltryptamine and possible connections which lead people to these conclusions, with false potential.
With only one universe we could expunge the idea of God as there is no room for him in our universe. This assumes an ever expanding outward universe. Inner universe? Sideways universe? Dimensions within dimensions? What lies beyond a dimension? The same could be said for these questions.
I am human. My brain is only so big. It can not comprehend the entire universe and what is beyond, if it could, then it would be as big as the universe itself. To quell thoughts I have faith. The one thing I am truly certain of is that God exists, it is my belief. I have faith that this is true. I have faith in my belief and that is what it is, faith. It is not scientific, my belief is most likely irrational, but, it is my belief. This irrationality is probably why it is called faith.
True, if time only exists within the universe as per the given definition. Point taken. Now tell me this, what lies outside the bounds of space and time?
Then what is "outside" the universe? Implicitly there must be a boundary. I believe that God lies outside this boundary.
What came before the "Big Bang" a meaningless question? That is very unscientific.
Infinitesimally small as you approach the North pole?
Point taken.
True, when you replace "an" with "the". Mind you, in my previous post I did slip and use the word "only". It is possible there are other explanations for what lies outside the universe, however, the most plausible one (for me personally) is that of God.
That God exists. Perhaps He only exists in my mind and not yours. Thats cool.
So, I guess my point was one of "God is what exists outside the universe".
So if God lies outside the universe, did God create the universe? I believe God did. You, however, may believe whatever you like.
In a pure science class, God has very little place. As you have alluded to, only in such a discussion as this. Separation of religion, politics and science is important.
I understand and apply this wrt my scientific studies. I would like you to understand that my understanding of God does give me certain insight to problem solving... in what way, I can not explain, I just believe that it allows me to think differently. I freely accept that some people may never understand God, or what I believe to be God. This may or may not be a good thing, depending on ones religious convictions. (Religion is another topic again, I am talking about God in this thread, not Religion).
I believe that diversification in a population is important to it's survival. Therefore it is important that neither of these view points try to eliminate each other. They must respect each other mutually whilst remaining closely separate (almost a contradiction in terms).
Gods Creation. The Universe.
I did not make *the* case for evolution. I do, however, believe *the* evidence supports it.
Assumption is the mother of all fuck ups.
You have made several assumptions, now I will make an assumption or two.
1) You don't understand Darwinian Theory.
2) You have had your mind polluted by those who purport to know about intelligent design, but, they really want to subvert the true meaning; and hence your understanding. This is clearly evident in your rant.
3) You had a troubled childhood and were ridiculed at school.
4) The bible often refers to sheep, you are one.
If you don't instantly understand what I mean in point 4) then you are a sheep in need of a shepherd.
EOF
I used the word "and" not "or"... nice try at divide and conquer though. You have used a good example to whence forth build reason for separation of religion, science AND politics.
There is always something smaller, there is always something bigger; and in between these there are infinite dimensions. Evidence so far is that the universe is infinite (please correct me if I am wrong). Outside of the infinite is the realm of God... until we can explain what lies beyond the infinite, God remains the only comprehensible explanation. (note that I used the word *until*).
*don't get greedy, pass it on*
Your points are good... to a point.
How about this: God made the creatures and the way he did it was via evolution.
Now go stick that in your pipe and smoke it... hippy.
In such a case, besides war, how do you propose that we rid ourselves of such people ...
You appear to be advocating the necessity of genocide in the absence of controlled breeding programs. Your comment on their breeding causing "devolution" indicates that you hold them to be your genetic inferiors...
...whilst maintaining a class who is indifferent to mindless servitude?
...and you wish to keep them as a slave class. If you aren't joking, what an admission you have made in your post.
Didn't make myself clear. %)
I'm certainly not superior to anyone. I contain many defects. Every single person in the world has something unique to contribute. The biggest issue I see is when the balance swings to far in one direction and when/if this directional change happens to quickly.
The "ridding" of such people is not a "genocide" rather a re-organisation of the balance within society. If there are to many people who can't think, there will be problems, in the same way as if there are to many people who can think. We need to maintain a balance so as to move forward together. The biggest problem I keep seeing is how do we deal with things when the balance moves outside what is a stable area?
Freedom of education, yes, instant freedom to not be educated would create a nightmare of a situation and in such case there would instantly be a class of people who have difficulty thinking for themselves and could potentially fall into a "mob rule" situation with nasty consequences.
Revolutions are fought for the very reason of freeing people from such rule. Defend your 2nd amendment rights citizens, but what good will they do you if you can't decide who or when to shoot? How can you be a free person if a government agent teaches you how to think?
This is along the lines that I was attempting to express. With a added concern to the pace of change... You have made a good point.
Perhaps this helps clarify my thoughts a little? I will also need to find time to read that book you suggest. Not enough time in my day, if only there were 48 hours in a day *sigh*
If schooling were not compulsory then kids would have more time to have kids, breeding like locusts, and a devolution leading to separation of our species would occur at a faster rate. In such a case, besides war, how do you propose that we rid ourselves of such people whilst maintaining a class who is indifferent to mindless servitude?