Haha, you're so angry! This is more than I could have asked for.
I didn't reply to you because I had little interest in engaging in an inane month-old discussion (or more accurately, vague diatribe with the occasional poster chiming in with "hmm interesting" or "what the fuck?"). You should be glad, I've given you the first substantial feedback here - I think you're at least clever enough to see that nobody can decipher your drunken ramblings. You remind me of my grandfather at Christmas, but with better bladder control. And clearly you aren't drinking eggnog - rubbing alcohol, I presume?
With regards to your first "point": I'm grossly oversimplifying the unfinished book of your gross oversimplification of dozens of books you've skimmed? This isn't a scam for money or fear, it's a scam for self-esteem. Here's how I can tell. At this point, you're throwing around terms you are clearly only tangentially aware of with the hopes of scaring me into submission. Schrodinger's cat, for example, does not merely "exist while nor existing" - the point of the thought experiment was to question the validity of the quantum mechanics you're pretending to understand by arguing that if a wavefunction collapse is dependent upon observation, then the logical extrapolations of that become nonsensical. It was more of a refutation of quantum principles than sense itself - Schrodinger was arguing that it made no sense. God forbid he ever posthumously comes across your posts.
With regards to your second "point": Eh, pass.
With regards to your third "point": I know, and that's what I was referring to. This brings me back to your Wikipedia-level understanding of the terms you're using, because I'm not sure you realize that the word "theory" means something very different in the field of science. It does not mean speculation. It refers to an empirically corroborated set of descriptions of patterns. Gravity is a theory too. But it's ok, many high-functioning preschoolers make this mistake.
With regards to your final (?) "point": I'm sure your diary is absolutely riveting, but I'm not interested in spellchecking it.
With regards to your post-final "point": Maybe they'd agree if you reduced your claims even just a little further. Tell them "YOU ALL BELIEVE THINGS" and then no one person in the entire world could disagree! Isn't that what you want? For everyone to agree with you?
With regards to your wince-inducing adulteration of quantum physics: You're either referring to the concept of a superposition of eigenstates (it does eventually collapse, you know), or Heisenberg's uncertainty. Either way it's nonsense. Yes, you're very clever to have figured out that our senses are fallible channels through which we interact with reality, it's not as though that question hasn't been debated for millennia in the form of empiricism vs. rationalism. The point about humans you clearly stole from a fourteen year old's poetry chapbook does not effectively question reality - we are human solely because that's what the word means. Language is tautological like that. Read Wittgenstein if you haven't already (haha, who am I kidding. You haven't).
Anyway, thanks. This has been hugely enjoyable. Let me preempt you by taking a note from the troll's elementary handbook: this will be my last response. I will not respond further. And to preempt your ego: yes, it's totally because I'm stupid and I just can't comprehend the magnitude of what you're saying. Sleep well.
Thank you. Let me tell you I am far from angry, as I must laugh at loud at that statement and this conversing. I give acquiesence to someone who can explain some things to me on here. I am again going to point out that religion is a scam of, and here using your logic of "self-esteem" FOR MONEY. For if it was just for self-esteem then they wouldn't need the talents of silver and gold in the outcome would they? The end goal IS money. A scam of self-esteem FOR money. We are both right. Also, naturally as your callous behavior suggests, I knew you couldn't say more than "meh" on the fact that some people die believing in something that grips more than a billion people today. I escaped the vortex of thought. Thank me and me myself.
Wow Grampa? Am I really that bad? whew that's harsh. I must admit you sound like you pulled out your dark socks and arm warmers for this one. Sweatband included no punches PULLED.
Gross oversimplification of books I've skimmed? I read btw, magazines are for skimming and I read those. College reading level by 7th grade but wasted it on science fiction novels. Bit of a procrastinator so take your pick on how far behind I may be...but time waits for no man and I understand life more than ever to take advantage of it. No, the gross oversimplification of a mind you have no idea of how much potential exists in it. Gross oversimplification by disregarding anything more I am saying by arrogantly stating that the "presiding" paragraphs (yes they were heavy heavy)you just wrote will be your last. I will not have the last laugh I humbly give admission to, but I am sure you may read this; so know you are making me stronger and I thank you for it.
There is no diary my guy. Little bit to masculine for that. Dreams of lucidity is as far as that goes. Be not the hypocrite either.
I do NOT pretend to understand quantum theory, mechanics or any of the kind. I have simply read up on some of the points it consists of. I take no credit or say I am anywhere near proficient at it's principles. I do know what a thought experiment is and a famous example: Throw a Spear into Space
You can use them in philosophy too. I am not a scientist, just a beginning philosopher on cognitive theory. Never read Wittgenstein, but have you ever read Stephen Laberge? You might find it interesting, for you never answered one of my questions by the way.
So what happens when the states of measured position do actually collapse?
Now you touched upon what I am directly focusing on for my studies. P.S I am not in college at this point have no philisophical training whatsoever except my own beginning musings. This is my alpha stage and I would like to say I am going to be focused on Epistemology and Ontology. Empiricism vs Rationalism being a study from epistemology I would also like to say I would be more inclined toward rationalism. Cognitive sourcing for reason and what we sense is directly the reason why we sense. Without the conscious there would be no senses to describe. I believe animals pin their cognitive solutions more deeply from the unconscious state of mind i.e reflexes, instinct and so on. We humans have a much larger battery of recognition of self, identity and that alone gives us the solutions to create a more expressive view of who we are.
IIN That I break religion down to make "everyone" agree with me?
↑ View this comment's parent
← View full post
Haha, you're so angry! This is more than I could have asked for.
I didn't reply to you because I had little interest in engaging in an inane month-old discussion (or more accurately, vague diatribe with the occasional poster chiming in with "hmm interesting" or "what the fuck?"). You should be glad, I've given you the first substantial feedback here - I think you're at least clever enough to see that nobody can decipher your drunken ramblings. You remind me of my grandfather at Christmas, but with better bladder control. And clearly you aren't drinking eggnog - rubbing alcohol, I presume?
With regards to your first "point": I'm grossly oversimplifying the unfinished book of your gross oversimplification of dozens of books you've skimmed? This isn't a scam for money or fear, it's a scam for self-esteem. Here's how I can tell. At this point, you're throwing around terms you are clearly only tangentially aware of with the hopes of scaring me into submission. Schrodinger's cat, for example, does not merely "exist while nor existing" - the point of the thought experiment was to question the validity of the quantum mechanics you're pretending to understand by arguing that if a wavefunction collapse is dependent upon observation, then the logical extrapolations of that become nonsensical. It was more of a refutation of quantum principles than sense itself - Schrodinger was arguing that it made no sense. God forbid he ever posthumously comes across your posts.
With regards to your second "point": Eh, pass.
With regards to your third "point": I know, and that's what I was referring to. This brings me back to your Wikipedia-level understanding of the terms you're using, because I'm not sure you realize that the word "theory" means something very different in the field of science. It does not mean speculation. It refers to an empirically corroborated set of descriptions of patterns. Gravity is a theory too. But it's ok, many high-functioning preschoolers make this mistake.
With regards to your final (?) "point": I'm sure your diary is absolutely riveting, but I'm not interested in spellchecking it.
With regards to your post-final "point": Maybe they'd agree if you reduced your claims even just a little further. Tell them "YOU ALL BELIEVE THINGS" and then no one person in the entire world could disagree! Isn't that what you want? For everyone to agree with you?
With regards to your wince-inducing adulteration of quantum physics: You're either referring to the concept of a superposition of eigenstates (it does eventually collapse, you know), or Heisenberg's uncertainty. Either way it's nonsense. Yes, you're very clever to have figured out that our senses are fallible channels through which we interact with reality, it's not as though that question hasn't been debated for millennia in the form of empiricism vs. rationalism. The point about humans you clearly stole from a fourteen year old's poetry chapbook does not effectively question reality - we are human solely because that's what the word means. Language is tautological like that. Read Wittgenstein if you haven't already (haha, who am I kidding. You haven't).
Anyway, thanks. This has been hugely enjoyable. Let me preempt you by taking a note from the troll's elementary handbook: this will be my last response. I will not respond further. And to preempt your ego: yes, it's totally because I'm stupid and I just can't comprehend the magnitude of what you're saying. Sleep well.
U >:( B?
--
Immune2BS&way2Illuminated
11 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
0
0
-
Immune2BS&way2Illuminated
11 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
-1
-1
Thank you. Let me tell you I am far from angry, as I must laugh at loud at that statement and this conversing. I give acquiesence to someone who can explain some things to me on here. I am again going to point out that religion is a scam of, and here using your logic of "self-esteem" FOR MONEY. For if it was just for self-esteem then they wouldn't need the talents of silver and gold in the outcome would they? The end goal IS money. A scam of self-esteem FOR money. We are both right. Also, naturally as your callous behavior suggests, I knew you couldn't say more than "meh" on the fact that some people die believing in something that grips more than a billion people today. I escaped the vortex of thought. Thank me and me myself.
Wow Grampa? Am I really that bad? whew that's harsh. I must admit you sound like you pulled out your dark socks and arm warmers for this one. Sweatband included no punches PULLED.
Gross oversimplification of books I've skimmed? I read btw, magazines are for skimming and I read those. College reading level by 7th grade but wasted it on science fiction novels. Bit of a procrastinator so take your pick on how far behind I may be...but time waits for no man and I understand life more than ever to take advantage of it. No, the gross oversimplification of a mind you have no idea of how much potential exists in it. Gross oversimplification by disregarding anything more I am saying by arrogantly stating that the "presiding" paragraphs (yes they were heavy heavy)you just wrote will be your last. I will not have the last laugh I humbly give admission to, but I am sure you may read this; so know you are making me stronger and I thank you for it.
There is no diary my guy. Little bit to masculine for that. Dreams of lucidity is as far as that goes. Be not the hypocrite either.
I do NOT pretend to understand quantum theory, mechanics or any of the kind. I have simply read up on some of the points it consists of. I take no credit or say I am anywhere near proficient at it's principles. I do know what a thought experiment is and a famous example: Throw a Spear into Space
You can use them in philosophy too. I am not a scientist, just a beginning philosopher on cognitive theory. Never read Wittgenstein, but have you ever read Stephen Laberge? You might find it interesting, for you never answered one of my questions by the way.
So what happens when the states of measured position do actually collapse?
Now you touched upon what I am directly focusing on for my studies. P.S I am not in college at this point have no philisophical training whatsoever except my own beginning musings. This is my alpha stage and I would like to say I am going to be focused on Epistemology and Ontology. Empiricism vs Rationalism being a study from epistemology I would also like to say I would be more inclined toward rationalism. Cognitive sourcing for reason and what we sense is directly the reason why we sense. Without the conscious there would be no senses to describe. I believe animals pin their cognitive solutions more deeply from the unconscious state of mind i.e reflexes, instinct and so on. We humans have a much larger battery of recognition of self, identity and that alone gives us the solutions to create a more expressive view of who we are.
I spell pretty good dude lol