JavaScript is required to use Bungie.net

Forums

3/23/2017 3:50:58 AM
16
[quote]Chemistry is an abstraction, biology isn't a science, and social studies are practically bed time stories made up by uneducated wage cucks to get their children to bed at night. Have fun studying brainlet subjects and not positively affecting the world like I will with a doctorate in theoretical astrophysics. Also, if you don't go to school, didn't go, or study a non-STEM major, congratulations on living a mediocre life. Society really benefited from you.[/quote] Tolkien devoted little time to either subjects and will have made a greater impact on the world than you ever will. Bill gates obtained his status without a degree. Also Ghandi, Mother Teresa, Shakespeare, Picasso, Hemingway, Mark Twain, Jesus, Charles Dickens, Lewis, Rowling, Orwell, Verne, Hugo, Kipling all, to name a few, greatly impacted the world without STEM majors. All, again, will probably have made a greater impact than you ever will. Little one, you need to learn that there's more to life. That you only make yourself a greater fool to acquire so much knowledge yet no wisdom to apply it with. You just got schooled. How ironic.
English

Posting in language:

 

Play nice. Take a minute to review our Code of Conduct before submitting your post. Cancel Edit Create Fireteam Post

  • [quote]Ghandi, Mother Teresa, Shakespeare, Picasso, Hemingway, Mark Twain, Jesus, Charles Dickens, Lewis, Rowling, Orwell, Verne, Hugo, Kipling all,[/quote] Newton > all of them Also, Bill Gates is practically a genius, so he gets a pass. The dude took high level maths at Harvard and scored nearly perfect on the SAT. And I plan to make a bigger impact than Newton. Sit back and bitch about it while I do it.

    Posting in language:

     

    Play nice. Take a minute to review our Code of Conduct before submitting your post. Cancel Edit Create Fireteam Post

  • [quote][quote]Ghandi, Mother Teresa, Shakespeare, Picasso, Hemingway, Mark Twain, Jesus, Charles Dickens, Lewis, Rowling, Orwell, Verne, Hugo, Kipling all,[/quote] Newton > all of them Also, Bill Gates is practically a genius, so he gets a pass. The dude took high level maths at Harvard and scored nearly perfect on the SAT. And I plan to make a bigger impact than Newton. Sit back and bitch about it while I do it.[/quote] Newton was a Christian btw. It's evident that you see the world only in one lens of color. You are veiled.

    Posting in language:

     

    Play nice. Take a minute to review our Code of Conduct before submitting your post. Cancel Edit Create Fireteam Post

  • How sad is it that you believe Newton being Christian changes literally anything I just said? You do realize I'm not one of those slaphappy atheists who sole purpose in life is too tell others they're wrong, correct? I've made no mention of that, so your assumption is entirely ignorant, and explains why you find so much contention with me regardless of what I say and how correct it really is.

    Posting in language:

     

    Play nice. Take a minute to review our Code of Conduct before submitting your post. Cancel Edit Create Fireteam Post

  • [quote]How sad is it that you believe Newton being Christian changes literally anything I just said? [/quote] Because you think of him so highly yet pick and choose what you like about his mind. [quote]You do realize I'm not one of those slaphappy atheists who sole purpose in life is too tell others they're wrong, correct?[/quote] You actually are but in a different way lol [quote]I've made no mention of that, so your assumption is entirely ignorant, and explains why you find so much contention with me regardless of what I say and how correct it really is.[/quote] Actually you have mentioned it in other threads/posts. Much of what you say is trash and humorously paltry. The root of ignorance is "to ignore" which you demonstrate quite frequently on these forums; so much in fact that, in your hubris, you actually flaunt it, unknowingly lol You have such potential yet, for someone claiming to be so intelligent, it's greatly squandered. Like I continue to say: you've got intelligence yet little to no wisdom, which, as many others here can see and express to you, renders all that you "know" as trash.

    Posting in language:

     

    Play nice. Take a minute to review our Code of Conduct before submitting your post. Cancel Edit Create Fireteam Post

  • Edited by The Cellar Door: 3/23/2017 2:35:24 PM
    Don't equate "scientific" to "atheism." I take a staunch position to not disrespect other's religious beliefs. Just because I study astrophysics doesn't mean my dick gets hard to arguing with creationists. I actually avoid doing so, because it's a frivolous endeavor, so your predisposition to disliking me is entirely based on a false premise. Also, I flaunt hubris very knowingly.

    Posting in language:

     

    Play nice. Take a minute to review our Code of Conduct before submitting your post. Cancel Edit Create Fireteam Post

  • [quote]Don't equate "scientific" to "atheism." I take a staunch position to not disrespect other's religious beliefs.[/quote] You are atheist and although you may not frequently "take a staunch position to not disrespect other's religious beliefs", you take a staunch position to disrespect others' beliefs regardless. Pure hypocrisy. [quote]Just because I study astrophysics doesn't mean my dick gets hard to arguing with creationists. I actually avoid doing so, because it's a frivolous endeavor,[/quote] Oh, do explain why it's a frivolous endeavor 🙂🍿 [quote]so your predisposition to disliking me is entirely based on a false premise.[/quote] Uh-oh. I didn't say that I disliked you, did I? All that intelligence, yet little awareness... [quote]Also, I flaunt hubris very knowingly.[/quote] Truly you do. I'd bet you have a hard time being humble anyways. So hubris is your default.

    Posting in language:

     

    Play nice. Take a minute to review our Code of Conduct before submitting your post. Cancel Edit Create Fireteam Post

  • [quote]Oh, do explain why it's a frivolous endeavor 🙂🍿[/quote] Neither party will ever coincide and the subject in question is a debate about a topic which lacks falsifiability on either side. It's entirely useless to attempt to "prove" someone wrong over a topic in which nothing can be proven.

    Posting in language:

     

    Play nice. Take a minute to review our Code of Conduct before submitting your post. Cancel Edit Create Fireteam Post

  • [quote][quote]Oh, do explain why it's a frivolous endeavor 🙂🍿[/quote] Neither party will ever coincide and the subject in question is a debate about a topic which lacks falsifiability on either side. It's entirely useless to attempt to "prove" someone wrong over a topic in which nothing can be proven.[/quote] Then all that's left is to deduce from logic. What are the [u]mathematical [/u] (this should be your forte, correct?) odds that the values and ratio between their values of the four fundamental forces were established on their own by pure chance? Btw it's not useless at all. There's always a chance that the discussion in the very least plants a seed of thought for which each person can contemplate at a later time.

    Posting in language:

     

    Play nice. Take a minute to review our Code of Conduct before submitting your post. Cancel Edit Create Fireteam Post

  • [quote]What are the [u]mathematical [/u] (this should be your forte, correct?) odds that the values and ratio between their values of the four fundamental forces were established on their own by pure chance?[/quote] Well that presupposes that there are local hidden variables for which [i]could[/i] in fact produce the physical structure of the universe. This is proven false by Bell's Theorem. Local hidden variables cannot reproduce all of the consequences of quantum mechanics. To put that differently, you're assuming that there [i]could[/i] be a different set of physical parameters, and that that set isn't what physically makes the most sense. The issue here is that we have one set, and it does, physically, make the most sense. It's like, if you asked me what the odds of a ball being in a bucket were, when the ball was already in the bucket. The question which should be asked is [i]why[/i] are the physical parameters what they are? [i]Why[/i] does the fine structure constant have the value it does? We can't assume that the physical parameters are optimal, but necessary. This is what theoretical physicists are looking to explain in a physically relevant manner. Now, of course, if we assume that that necessity comes from the wishes of a creator, to each his own, but the issue is that this isn't something that can be physically shown to be true. On the other hand, it also cannot be physically shown that this necessity [i]isn't[/i] due to a creator of sorts, we can only ever explain these parameters as necessary. This is the issue we are presented with, and logic cannot overcome the obstacle of a lack of falsifiability. Thus, arguing over the topic is a futile effort, and almost always leads to disrespectful comments thrown in either direction, something I don't wish to associate myself with.

    Posting in language:

     

    Play nice. Take a minute to review our Code of Conduct before submitting your post. Cancel Edit Create Fireteam Post

  • [quote][quote]What are the [u]mathematical [/u] (this should be your forte, correct?) odds that the values and ratio between their values of the four fundamental forces were established on their own by pure chance?[/quote] Well that presupposes that there are local hidden variables for which [i]could[/i] in fact produce the physical structure of the universe. This is proven false by Bell's Theorem. Local hidden variables cannot reproduce all of the consequences of quantum mechanics. [/quote] Bell's theorem is a presupposition as well. In layman's terms, it's basically saying that it's guaranteed that nothing can be guaranteed at the quantum level. Even if it is true, it only applies on the quantum level. It's like saying that walking from point A to point B, the span of a meter, is impossible because there are an infinite number of points in between, yet lo and behold we do it all the time consistently. [quote]To put that differently, you're assuming that there [i]could[/i] be a different set of physical parameters, and that that set isn't what physically makes the most sense. The issue here is that we have one set, and it does, physically, make the most sense.[/quote] There could definitely be different sets of parameters, regardless if they worked or not. The ones we abide by are the parameters that worked, and is why they're sensible. [quote]It's like, if you asked me what the odds of a ball being in a bucket were, when the ball was already in the bucket. [/quote] it's more like asking what are the odds that the basketball got into the bucket without any interference from an intelligence. It's even more like asking you the watchman theory, or further: what are the odds that metal ore formed into a functioning watch without intervention from intelligence? [quote]The question which should be asked is [i]why[/i] are the physical parameters what they are? [i]Why[/i] does the fine structure constant have the value it does? We can't assume that the physical parameters are optimal, but necessary. This is what theoretical physicists are looking to explain in a physically relevant manner. [/quote] The "why" can't be explained in a physical manner. The "why" is an intangible question requiring an intangible answer. [quote]Now, of course, if we assume that that necessity comes from the wishes of a creator, to each his own, but the issue is that this isn't something that can be physically shown to be true. On the other hand, it also cannot be physically shown that this necessity [i]isn't[/i] due to a creator of sorts, we can only ever explain these parameters as necessary.[/quote] The consistency highly suggests intelligence... but yes that's where faith, on both sides, comes in. [quote]This is the issue we are presented with, and logic cannot overcome the obstacle of a lack of falsifiability.[/quote] Deduction and logic do fine here. It's merely a matter of willingness. [quote]Thus, arguing over the topic is a futile effort, and almost always leads to disrespectful comments thrown in either direction, something I don't wish to associate myself with. [/quote] You do this plenty, however. When it's not explicit, it's highly implicit.

    Posting in language:

     

    Play nice. Take a minute to review our Code of Conduct before submitting your post. Cancel Edit Create Fireteam Post

  • [quote]Bell's theorem is a presupposition as well. In layman's terms, it's basically saying that it's guaranteed that nothing can be guaranteed at the quantum level. Even if it is true, it only applies on the quantum level. It's like saying that walking from point A to point B, the span of a meter, is impossible because there are an infinite number of points in between, yet lo and behold we do it all the time consistently.[/quote] That's not at all what it is saying, and your analogy not only has no correspondence with Bell's theorem, it is strictly false because of the concept of convergence. (i=0)Σ(1/2)^n = 1 Bells theorem guarantees that the results of quantum mechanics cannot be explained by locally hidden variables. That is not the same thing as uncertainty whatsoever. That is not saying that nothing may be guaranteed on a quantum level. That implies exactly what it says, that quantum mechanics cannot be explained by mystery variables such as an intelligent guiding force. And by Ehrenfest's theorem, which proves that quantum expectations replicate classical physics, quantum mechanics is very relevant to this discussion, and further we can deduce that a proper theory to describe the fundamental forces which nature abides by must be a group encapsulating quantum field theories of each force. This is the purpose of the Yang-Mills mass gap problem. We may not excuse quantum mechanics from the discussion when we are talking about how the fundamental forces of nature arose strictly because it is quantum fluctuations which broke spacetime symmetry in such a manner for these forces to arise. Furthermore, your analogy assumes more complexity than nature allots. The system of the universe is chaotic, thus it's state at a later time is very sensitive to initial conditions, however this does not imply that those initial conditions are complex, and in fact all of our data shows the exact opposite, and that the initial conditions of the universe were extremely uniform.

    Posting in language:

     

    Play nice. Take a minute to review our Code of Conduct before submitting your post. Cancel Edit Create Fireteam Post

  • [quote][quote]Bell's theorem is a presupposition as well. In layman's terms, it's basically saying that it's guaranteed that nothing can be guaranteed at the quantum level. Even if it is true, it only applies on the quantum level. It's like saying that walking from point A to point B, the span of a meter, is impossible because there are an infinite number of points in between, yet lo and behold we do it all the time consistently.[/quote] That's not at all what it is saying, and your analogy not only has no correspondence with Bell's theorem, it is strictly false because of the concept of convergence. (i=0)Σ(1/2)^n = 1[/quote] I guess the term I was searching for was simile. The comparison still holds. [quote]Bells theorem guarantees that the results of quantum mechanics cannot be explained by locally hidden variables. [/quote] That we know of. [quote]That is not the same thing as uncertainty whatsoever. That is not saying that nothing may be guaranteed on a quantum level. That implies exactly what it says, that quantum mechanics cannot be explained by mystery variables such as an intelligent guiding force. [/quote] Actually it can. We're just not as intelligent as the higher intelligent force. [quote]And by Ehrenfest's theorem, which proves that quantum expectations replicate classical physics, quantum mechanics is very relevant to this discussion, and further we can deduce that a proper theory to describe the fundamental forces which nature abides by must be a group encapsulating quantum field theories of each force. This is the purpose of the Yang-Mills mass gap problem. [/quote] Yet they're each still very much consistent... [quote]We may not excuse quantum mechanics from the discussion when we are talking about how the fundamental forces of nature arose strictly because it is quantum fluctuations which broke spacetime symmetry in such a manner for these forces to arise. [/quote] And now you're regressing into hypothetical BS. [quote]Furthermore, your analogy assumes more complexity than nature allots. The system of the universe is chaotic, thus it's state at a later time is very sensitive to initial conditions, however this does not imply that those initial conditions are complex, and in fact all of our data shows the exact opposite, and that the initial conditions of the universe were extremely uniform.[/quote] How do you not see the active paradox that is the universe? Yes it's chaotic, yet there's much consistent complexity. I've also noticed that you ignore much of my other points and focus only on the points you feel confident in. Your tendency is towards convenience.

    Posting in language:

     

    Play nice. Take a minute to review our Code of Conduct before submitting your post. Cancel Edit Create Fireteam Post

  • Edited by The Cellar Door: 3/24/2017 4:49:09 AM
    [quote]I guess the term I was searching for was simile. The comparison still holds.[/quote] No it doesn't. It doesn't compare at all, in any way shape or fashion. [quote]That we know of.[/quote] No, not that we know of. Bells theorem states exactly the opposite. The point of the theorem is that the results cannot be [i]possible[/i], [b]regardless of what hidden variables it may be attested to[/b], if quantum mechanics were to be explained by hidden variables. It is not an issue of our lack of knowledge, it's that what we have measured cannot possibly arise from hidden variables. This is a mathematical statement, and for you to attempt to break it down as you have is very telling of your lack of understanding of it. [quote]Actually it can. We're just not as intelligent as the higher intelligent force.[/quote] No it cannot. This is what Bell's theorem strictly proves, that quantum mechanics [i]cannot possibly[/i] be explained by hidden variables. How many times do I have to say this before it translates? It's not a factor of our observational capability, it actually has nothing to do with the observer at all. It has nothing to do with our intelligence. Bells theorem in the most basic sense translates to "these conditions cannot possibly arise from unknown variables, solely due to their properties." A proper analogy would be that you cannot say that you have 2 more dollars than another person if you have no way of knowing many dollars that person has. [quote][quote]And by Ehrenfest's theorem, which proves that quantum expectations replicate classical physics, quantum mechanics is very relevant to this discussion, and further we can deduce that a proper theory to describe the fundamental forces which nature abides by must be a group encapsulating quantum field theories of each force. This is the purpose of the Yang-Mills mass gap problem. [/quote] [quote]Yet they're each still very much consistent... [/quote][/quote] What is? This statement has no relevance to the one it is speaking to. What is very much consistent? The forces? Quantum field theories? Quantum expectations? Classical mechanics? Group theories? [quote]And now you're regressing into hypothetical BS. [/quote] Not hypothetical BS, directly following from observation. Not my fault you denounce it without prior knowledge of it. [quote]How do you not see the active paradox that is the universe? Yes it's chaotic, yet there's much consistent complexity.[/quote] ...that's the definition of chaotic.... there [i]should[/i] be consistent complexity. [quote]I've also noticed that you ignore much of my other points and focus only on the points you feel confident in. Your tendency is towards convenience.[/quote] My tendency is towards your blatant disregard for scientifically proven conclusions, I've already stated that I don't wish to nor do I argue about creationism. What I have replied to concerns your misunderstandings of scientific conclusions, not your personal beliefs.

    Posting in language:

     

    Play nice. Take a minute to review our Code of Conduct before submitting your post. Cancel Edit Create Fireteam Post

  • [quote][quote]I guess the term I was searching for was simile. The comparison still holds.[/quote] No it doesn't. It doesn't compare at all, in any way shape or fashion. [/quote] Actually it does. Just because you either don't see it or don't like it, doesn't mean there isn't one. [quote][quote]That we know of.[/quote] [quote]No, not that we know of. Bells theorem states exactly the opposite. The point of the theorem is that the results cannot be [i]possible[/i], [b]regardless of what hidden variables it may be attested to[/b], if quantum mechanics were to be explained by hidden variables. It is not an issue of our lack of knowledge, it's that what we have measured cannot possibly arise from hidden variables. This is a mathematical statement, and for you to attempt to break it down as you have is very telling of your lack of understanding of it. [/quote][/quote] Lol I actually understand it quite plainly XD Humanity lacks the capability and intelligence to measure and observe things if that level. We are creatures bound by time and are thus bound to measuring within moments of time. If you restrict yourself to thinking mechanically, as humans tend to do, then yes, there is no way to know. The uncertainty is a result of our limited human capacity. [quote][quote]Actually it can. We're just not as intelligent as the higher intelligent force.[/quote] No it cannot. This is what Bell's theorem strictly proves, that quantum mechanics [i]cannot possibly[/i] be explained by hidden variables. How many times do I have to say this before it translates? It's not a factor of our observational capability, it actually has nothing to do with the observer at all. It has nothing to do with our intelligence. Bells theorem in the most basic sense translates to "these conditions cannot possibly arise from unknown variables, solely due to their properties." [/quote] Only according to our limited capacity to understand. It's why humanity's method of measuring time is so flawed. We can't measure it unless we measure it mechanically. [quote]A proper analogy would be that you cannot say that you have 2 more dollars than another person if you have no way of knowing many dollars that person has. [/quote] That has to do with probability. Objectively, I either do or don't, and only someone beyond our plain of existence could correctly claim that. [quote][quote][quote]And by Ehrenfest's theorem, which proves that quantum expectations replicate classical physics, quantum mechanics is very relevant to this discussion, and further we can deduce that a proper theory to describe the fundamental forces which nature abides by must be a group encapsulating quantum field theories of each force. This is the purpose of the Yang-Mills mass gap problem. [/quote] [quote]Yet they're each still very much consistent... [/quote][/quote] What is? This statement has no relevance to the one it is speaking to. What is very much consistent? The forces? Quantum field theories? Quantum expectations? Classical mechanics? Group theories? [/quote] Its very relevant. As relevant as the solid object that is supporting your weight. [quote][quote]And now you're regressing into hypothetical BS. [/quote] Not hypothetical BS, directly following from observation. Not my fault you denounce it without prior knowledge of it. [/quote] Go ahead and continue to believe that ;) [quote][quote]How do you not see the active paradox that is the universe? Yes it's chaotic, yet there's much consistent complexity.[/quote] ...that's the definition of chaotic.... there [i]should[/i] be consistent complexity. [/quote] There is consistent complexity. And there's also chaos. [quote][quote]I've also noticed that you ignore much of my other points and focus only on the points you feel confident in. Your tendency is towards convenience.[/quote] My tendency is towards your blatant disregard for scientifically proven conclusions,[/quote] They're assumptions btw. It takes faith to say that they're solid conclusions. [quote]I've already stated that I don't wish to nor do I argue about creationism.[/quote] They've been more than just about creationism. [quote]What I have replied to concerns your misunderstandings of scientific conclusions, not your personal beliefs.[/quote] On the contrary, I do quite understand them. Ironically, it is you who doesn't understand. Joke's on you: we've been discussing personal beliefs this whole time lol

    Posting in language:

     

    Play nice. Take a minute to review our Code of Conduct before submitting your post. Cancel Edit Create Fireteam Post

  • [quote]oke's on you: we've been discussing personal beliefs this whole time lol[/quote] Personal belief does not supersede scientifically proven ideas. Again, I'm not speaking about religion, you've made strictly false statements and I've corrected them, and you won't accept those corrections on terms of personal belief rather than logical deduction. Again, you've compared a 4th century BC paradox about infinitesimals, which has been proven wrong, to Bell's theorem, so you don't understand the theorem whatsoever, nor do you understand quantum mechanics, the concept of uncertainty, quantum field theories, probability theory, and you have no clue what chaos even means. You are effectively scientifically illiterate.

    Posting in language:

     

    Play nice. Take a minute to review our Code of Conduct before submitting your post. Cancel Edit Create Fireteam Post

  • [quote][quote]oke's on you: we've been discussing personal beliefs this whole time lol[/quote] Personal belief does not supersede scientifically proven ideas. Again, I'm not speaking about religion, you've made strictly false statements and I've corrected them, and you won't accept those corrections on terms of personal belief rather than logical deduction. [/quote] Personal belief is the foundation of those scientifically "proven" ideas lol Religion, in this context, is weaved throughout every realm of thought. I've actually corrected your false and shortsighted ideas. You won't accept your own limited understanding. Lol you're actually incapable as long as you continue to be driven by your own ego XD ironically, you have not grasped the basics of logic [quote]Again, you've compared a 4th century BC paradox about infinitesimals, which has been proven wrong, to Bell's theorem, so you don't understand the theorem whatsoever, nor do you understand quantum mechanics, the concept of uncertainty, quantum field theories, probability theory, and you have no clue what chaos even means. [/quote] Lol I'm sorry to say but you have a neophyte understanding to all of that compared to mine, which is why conversing with you is so entertaining to me. Lol you're all bark and no bite. All fluff and no substance XD [quote]You are effectively scientifically illiterate.[/quote] Im more literate than you, so you only further degrade yourself the more you try to degrade me XD

    Posting in language:

     

    Play nice. Take a minute to review our Code of Conduct before submitting your post. Cancel Edit Create Fireteam Post

You are not allowed to view this content.
;
preload icon
preload icon
preload icon