This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.
Messages - Dustin
Pages: 1 ... 121314 1516 ... 194
391
« on: February 05, 2015, 07:28:32 PM »
This should be good
392
« on: February 05, 2015, 07:26:52 PM »
Which particles phase in and out of existence? Photons don't just spring out when you turn on a light, it's a result of a reaction caused by running electricity through a filament. And electrons can't be anywhere around the nucleus at the same time, it's just that it's position can sometimes not be known. Like I said, I'm not an expert. I was pretty sure that particles pop in and out of existence though, and that electrons behave really oddly. I'll have to look into it more later.
393
« on: February 05, 2015, 07:22:48 PM »
My intellect is infathomable.
didnt you get a whole 1280 on your sats? woww
394
« on: February 05, 2015, 07:19:31 PM »
*4908
395
« on: February 05, 2015, 07:18:25 PM »
That's right, ask rc2381 anything!
396
« on: February 05, 2015, 07:07:09 PM »
a slightly neurotic psychopath/narcissist.
Do you think Sam Harris is a psychopath?
397
« on: February 05, 2015, 06:59:52 PM »
I wrote a post a few days ago (that didn't grab much attention but whatever) where I made the claim that the basis of all logic (think of logical laws and physical laws as one in the same) is the notion that two things cannot exist in the same place at the same time, or more easily stated, that contradiction cannot exist (a better physical definition for contradiction could be constructed but this should work fine for the purposes of this thread). For example, the sentiment that 'correlation doesn't equal causation' is logical because if every correlation was a causation, you would have an ambiguity and that would constitute as a contradiction. Another example is the law that 'an object in motion will stay in motion unless acted upon yadda yadda yadda'. That's logical because if the object were to stop for some reason, its current energy displacement would contradict the amount of energy it was given by the force that put it in motion. And the reason why energy can neither be created nor destroyed will also ultimately deduce back to the sentiment that contradiction cannot exist (it's just that deductional logic is severely limited to mathematics so we can't use this method to discover the unified theory of the universe).
So with all that said, the question I'm asking is whether or not our universe functions this way because it is demanded to, or because it cannot work any other way, because contradiction those actions. For example, when you kick a ball is it moving because you kicked it or because contradictions would exist if the ball were to not move, or if it were to move a little to the left or right, or essentially exist in any other state than what it moves in? The difference here is not semantics; the difference entails that there is no active reason why things function they way do, there are just severe limitations on the other possible movements and states of being an object could take. This idea is applicable to two topics: quantum mechanics and the unified theory. For quantum mechanics, we wonder why particles can pop in and out of existence, or how photons pop into existence when you turn on a light, or how electrons can be everywhere around an atom at once, or how they can teleport around an atom. These mass-less objects don't cause a contradiction when they behave like this. The reason they behave this way is because their threshold for possibilities is much greater than it is for objects with sufficient mass (the amount of possibilities for objects with mass is presumably just one). The other application is the unified theory, or the origin of the universe. Does the universe exist for a reason, or because there is no contradiction for it not to exist?
I think this way of looking at physics might be the right way, but I'm really not an expert here. Really, these are all just ideas and if an intelligent person thinks they're good then great. But otherwise these ideas don't mean anything, not even to me. So if anyone wants to tell me where I went wrong or if what I said made sense you're free to do so.
398
« on: January 30, 2015, 11:45:29 PM »
>Being this mad over a Internet forum
*an >Being this incorrect over an Internet forum
399
« on: January 30, 2015, 11:44:50 PM »
t4r
400
« on: January 30, 2015, 11:30:34 PM »
t4r
401
« on: January 30, 2015, 11:26:05 PM »
402
« on: January 30, 2015, 09:30:33 PM »
Cry more
403
« on: January 30, 2015, 08:17:41 PM »
There's essentially no evolutionary reasoning as to why evolution would produce genes that make homosexuals and people born in the wrong body.
The ignorance is truly astounding. Evolution produced two sexes since it allowed for more randomness in the genetic makeup of the population between generations. This is beneficial because even though it would lead to many "unfit" individuals being born, having variations among the "fit" individuals to increase the survival rate of the species as a whole in case of any sudden environmental changes. Basically, evolution has little relevance on the individual scale, individual genetics is random (within certain parameters of course).
As for gender, everyone contains genes used by both sexes. The only thing that determines what actually develops is the SRY gene which codes for a protein that regulates gene expression. If anything happens to that gene (and things happen to genes a lot) sexual development will get altered in unpredictable ways.
That would go against the model that gender is a spectrum. The fact that genetic mutations exist wouldn't cannot explain the high rate of homosexuals and transexuals.
404
« on: January 30, 2015, 08:07:02 PM »
Not every conclusion is objective.
Most people would agree that the solutions to 'what there is' can be determined objectively (or as close to objective as humans can get). As far as 'how humans should behave' or 'what there should be' is still a modern philosophical problem, as Meta would probably argue with you over.
405
« on: January 30, 2015, 07:59:06 PM »
Lot of people are going to be mad if the patriots win
I'm still rooting for them though
inb4 that's not the right way to say rooting
406
« on: January 30, 2015, 07:47:25 PM »
Whether the problem is what there is or what there should be, it's clear that people always reach different conclusions. I'm not going to pretend that I actually know the answer to this question, I'm just going to throw out an idea and hope to get some feedback from you guys. Usually there is a trend or a consensus of some kind among the experts, but not always. You might often ask yourself, why do some high level scientists believe in god while other do not?
Personally I think it has to do with logic (this is all conjecture from a non-expert so take everything with heavy skepticism). But logic is a lot more complicated than one would think. Logic, in a sense, can be understood as an extension of the scientific method (the scientific method, of course, does not encompass all the laws of logic), but it's actually far more fundamental than that, in fact it's radically fundamental. Now what exactly is logic? It's essentially what most physicists are looking for: a unified theory. We don't exactly know what that is, but we can still extrapolate a fundamental law all logic abides by: that two different actions cannot occur at the same time and same place, or in other words, that contradiction is illegal.
Hopefully the above makes sense but if not you can still understand the next part of this. While contradiction may be illegal, and while that idea may seem fairly simple, when applied to situations it can get rapidly more complicated. You cannot answer, 'is six plus seven thirteen' simply by bearing in mind that contradiction cannot exist. And thus, new laws of logic are 'invented' to grant more meaningfulness in how to apply logic to a problem. For example, the sentiment that correlation does not equal causation exists because of ambiguity. To assume that high obesity rates takes place in countries with high intelligence levels would give two possible solutions, and that creates a contradiction.
While everything may fundamentally be understood by the law of no-contradictions, it is still especially complicated for a human being to properly apply it to all problems correctly. So thus the conclusion here is that intelligent people can properly apply some logic to problems, but they don't properly apply all of it. This is why (or as I believe it to be) how multiple intelligent people can come to multiple different conclusions.
Thoughts? Questions? Disagreements?
407
« on: January 30, 2015, 06:56:43 PM »
I don't like your opinions so you should be banned
>typicalSerioususer.webm
Not at all. Considering the number of times Dustin's threads have had to be moved from Serious because they weren't appropriate shows he has no regard for actually having a serious discussion here.
Then again, they decided to give Camnator and Comms multiple chances to play nice and we see how that ended.
"Why can't Iran have nukes!!?! Why doesn't anyone care about socialism and equality like I do!?!?!  "
408
« on: January 30, 2015, 06:35:14 PM »
Science isn't around to make you feel satisfied with what you believe, in fact it you usually does the exact opposite. There's essentially no evolutionary reasoning as to why evolution would produce genes that make homosexuals and people born in the wrong body. That's pseudo science and it's only used by people without a proper resolve.
409
« on: January 30, 2015, 06:28:01 PM »
There was a thread for this already.
http://sep7agon.net/index.php?topic=24950.0
Gender existing on a spectrum =/= there being more than two genders
However it does mean that gender is not binary.
Well yeah, it does. You have two ends to the spectrum, male and female.
411
« on: January 30, 2015, 06:14:38 PM »
Sort of anarchy spillage, but I'm genuinely curious. How exactly do you know (or think you know) that there are more than two genders?
412
« on: January 30, 2015, 03:07:47 PM »
The second two paragraphs were good, but the first one was a pain if you couldn't follow all those philosophical terms.
413
« on: January 29, 2015, 11:16:35 PM »
2
414
« on: January 29, 2015, 11:15:45 PM »
>acting like this is a surprise
You would probably bottom too you queer
416
« on: January 29, 2015, 11:06:05 PM »
oh wait he's dead anyway lol
bout time
417
« on: January 29, 2015, 11:01:53 PM »
I control the forum
418
« on: January 29, 2015, 11:00:53 PM »
Mods are gay
419
« on: January 29, 2015, 10:54:09 PM »
Nuka and Sandtrap are probably the most miserable out of all of us though LOL
420
« on: January 29, 2015, 10:52:50 PM »
How does it feel to have no useful skills for society and to chase after hopeless dreams?
Pretty depressing huh? Your lives must be awfully miserable.
Pages: 1 ... 121314 1516 ... 194
|
Show Posts
