Do you guys believe in the Matrix/Simulation theory?

[knickballer]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H-D71RCbaVQ

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MOBT-TVAhM4

Note these videos didn't change my mind but are posted to stimulate your minds.

So what do you think about the idea of us living in a "Matrix"? Or about the possibility that we are living in the past off a memory that is being generated?

Gives you a mind**** if you think about it

[miller-time]

I almost switched off when Joe mentioned he said something about Pokemon the day before and then the other guy walked in in a Pokemon outfit and they conclude it is "simulation shit"...

All of the things they spout off of are not backed up by evidence. It is just a bunch of guesswork summarized to sound like it is concise and reasonable. That isn't to say it isn't true, but these people don't have any evidence to make their claim. As Hitchens said 'That which can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence.' It is fine to have the thought, but they talk like they know it as fact which is extremely off putting to me.

[gigantes]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H-D71RCbaVQ

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MOBT-TVAhM4

Note these videos didn't change my mind but are posted to stimulate your minds.

So what do you think about the idea of us living in a "Matrix"? Or about the possibility that we are living in the past off a memory that is being generated?

Gives you a mind**** if you think about it
since you've made it clear that you believe in fairy tales and puppy dogs with unicorn horns... i'm prepared to say YES!


Now what do I win, Knick-Baller... assuming that's your real, dipshit name?

[knickballer]

I almost switched off when Joe mentioned he said something about Pokemon the day before and then the other guy walked in in a Pokemon outfit and they conclude it is "simulation shit"...

All of the things they spout off of are not backed up by evidence. It is just a bunch of guesswork summarized to sound like it is concise and reasonable. That isn't to say it isn't true, but these people don't have any evidence to make their claim. As Hitchens said 'That which can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence.' It is fine to have the thought, but they talk like they know it as fact which is extremely off putting to me.

I know they don't have any evidence but it's still kinda fun and interesting to think about it. And alot of things in life don't have evidence but doesn't stop people from believing in stuff.

I think the bigger picture is to just question life and all the possibilities of it. What if we have this greater spiritual awareness to us that we just don't know about?

[miller-time]

What if we have this greater spiritual awareness to us that we just don't know about?

But why are people so interested in leaping to these kinds of vague concepts? Isn't the universe that we have in front of us, which we can actually measure, interesting enough? I guess I just don't want to spend too much time speculating on things we can't possibly find out, and even less time believing in things that aren't true.

I think there is enough evidence there to hypothesize that our drive towards spiritual awareness is a symptom of our capacity for complex and strong emotions, self awareness, and our unparallelled ability for pattern recognition, rather than some metaphysical yearning. At least it is probably a testable idea (because it is an idea that is contingent on things that we know exist such as neural behavior).

[IamRAMBO24]

I almost switched off when Joe mentioned he said something about Pokemon the day before and then the other guy walked in in a Pokemon outfit and they conclude it is "simulation shit"...

All of the things they spout off of are not backed up by evidence. It is just a bunch of guesswork summarized to sound like it is concise and reasonable. That isn't to say it isn't true, but these people don't have any evidence to make their claim. As Hitchens said 'That which can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence.' It is fine to have the thought, but they talk like they know it as fact which is extremely off putting to me.

There is no evidence because science is slow to catch up with philosophy. This has already been theorized by Kant for hundreds of years and it's pretty much an accepted fact in the philosophical world (the best field of knowledge).

With Quantum Physics, Science is beginning to make great strides and many scientists are studying Kant again to fully grasp the "Matrix" concept. This is a fact.

It usually takes ideas many years before it becomes mainstream, so it is a hard concept for many people to grasp, but truth will always prevail and more evidence of a Matrix like reality is beginning to pop up as QP advances.

In fact, the Matrix movie was based on concepts from Quantum Physics.

[IamRAMBO24]

Anyways, I don't necessarily agree with the video, but if you want to understand Kant, here is his book in audio format. It is 30 hours long, but will be the best education you will ever get.

Forget Harvard, study Kant. If you understand him, you will understand everything about Quantum Physics. Sure he won't give you the small details and the math, but he's gonna give you the bigger picture, and sometimes this will be the most important thing you need to know; the math and details will fall in place and are easy to learn once you get the bigger picture.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RlEi-u-Rps8

[IamRAMBO24]

Also keep this in mind, the secret to Einstein's genius is his ability to understand Kant's space and time (which is also in the audio book).

[IamRAMBO24]

I don't agree with everything you're saying. This is a fact.

Two words:

BEND OVER.

[Draz]

Listening to joe right now

[IamRAMBO24]

Rambo, do you listen to Rogan?

I have no idea who that is.

[IamRAMBO24]

:lol

Why not click on the links in the OP?

Sounds like a bunch of preschoolers trying to make sense of deep concepts they can't fully grasp.

Listen to Kant's 30+ hour long audio book. That's when it gets real.

[Mr. Jabbar]

the matrix doesn't exist guys, keep posting and living your normal lives

pd: im not an agent

[IamRAMBO24]

the matrix doesn't exist guys, keep posting and living your normal lives

pd: im not an agent

Quantum physics is the future. All technological advances are going this route. Truth always prevails; it will eventually replace Newton and Einstein. Newton is consider ancient knowledge, while Einstein will be lucky to last another 50 years. There is a reason why the public education system emphasizes on Newtonian physics.

[gigantes]

Do you guys believe in the Matrix/Simulation theory?
huh?

do i consider that a couple of dipshit directors who leeched other peoples' material have impressed a small army of fanboys in to thinking that their crap was original or interesting...?

am i missing something?

[KingBeasley08]

Believe in it, nah. It'd be cool in a twisted, scary way if it was true doe. Spent hours thinking about it when I saw the movie the first time

[knickballer]

huh?

do i consider that a couple of dipshit directors who leeched other peoples' material have impressed a small army of fanboys in to thinking that their crap was original or interesting...?

am i missing something?

Sorry I didn't get the approval of ISH's #1 pseudo-intellect.. Dude proclaims himself the smartest man of ISH then goes all caveman in this thread. What's the matter?


PS, I don't listen to Rogan and that was the first video(s) I saw of him

[Clyde]

Quantum physics is the future. All technological advances are going this route. Truth always prevails; it will eventually replace Newton and Einstein. Newton is consider ancient knowledge, while Einstein will be lucky to last another 50 years. There is a reason why the public education system emphasizes on Newtonian physics.

Do you have a working understanding of Quantum Physics?? If so why are you wasting your time here on a Basketball forum?

Or are you one of these kids who reads a book and knows it all....until next week when you read something contradictory to what you thought you knew?

Good will hunting Much?

[gigantes]

Sorry I didn't get the approval of ISH's #1 pseudo-intellect.. Dude proclaims himself the smartest man of ISH then goes all caveman in this thread. What's the matter?
:D

i'm just being a brat. it was a nice movie, but somehow i wanted it to be better. my problem is i couldn't manage to see it with fresh eyes, i guess.

sorry for being an asshole, in any case.

[tmacattack33]

If this was all a simulation why aren't we living in a perfect world?

Why is their poverty, crime, and wars going on

[niko]

Sounds like a bunch of preschoolers trying to make sense of deep concepts they can't fully grasp.

Listen to Kant's 30+ hour long audio book. That's when it gets real.

So basically you're a psuedo intellectual who throws out things that are obscure to the general public to try to feel better about yourself. And only on the Net too.

Wow, your life must be totally fantastic outside of the web. :lol You must have so many friends. Because everyone loves a boring douche who pretends to be smart. And even better, this isn't even really you, it's a persona you want to have. You're TRYING to do this thinking it's worth being.

[shlver]

Newton is ancient knowledge? Classical mechanics have been used to put man on the moon, gravitational slingshots to accelerate satellites, calculate trajectories to put satellites into orbit and rovers onto other planets and is used extensively in modern engineering. Newtonian mechanics is an amazingly accurate description at the lower limit of velocity and dealing with objects at a larger scale. Newtonian physics is by no means obsolete as rambo suggests.

[shaq2000]

If this was all a simulation why aren't we living in a perfect world?

Why is their poverty, crime, and wars going on

Did you know that the first Matrix was designed to be a perfect human world? Where none suffered, where everyone would be happy. It was a disaster. No one would accept the program. Entire crops were lost. Some believed we lacked the programming language to describe your perfect world. But I believe that, as a species, human beings define their reality through suffering and misery. The perfect world was a dream that your primitive cerebrum kept trying to wake up from. Which is why the Matrix was redesigned to this: the peak of your civilization.

[gigantes]

If this was all a simulation why aren't we living in a perfect world?

Why is their poverty, crime, and wars going on
who says that's not perfect?

i mean, it's indeed 'perfect' by the standards of nature. so why should our selfish human desires be imposed upon the workings of the cosmos?

[Bush4Ever]

For the most part, people who promote the Matrix theory are those people who want to seem intelligent, thoughtful, and profound, but don't want to do the hard work needed to actually make a contribution to science (or any other serious field).

[KevinNYC]

Newton is ancient knowledge? Classical mechanics have been used to put man on the moon, gravitational slingshots to accelerate satellites, calculate trajectories to put satellites into orbit and rovers onto other planets and is used extensively in modern engineering. Newtonian mechanics is an amazingly accurate description at the lower limit of velocity and dealing with objects at a larger scale. Newtonian physics is by no means obsolete as rambo suggests.

Every time Rambo tries to pretend to smart, it always ends up showing us how little he knows.

Rambo, did you go to college? What did you study? Or is this all autodidact-ism?

[niko]

Would the concept of god be matrix like?

[-p.tiddy-]

people need to stop with the idea that if we are "created" that everything has to be "perfect"

If us humans created an artificial "cyber-world" with self aware programs of some sort, then we would be "GOD" to them...and we are FAAAAAAR from "perfect"


who is to say the "after-life" isn't like that for us...created by a race a "spirits" so to speak that are far from "perfection" themselves

[niko]

people need to stop with the idea that if we are "created" that everything has to be "perfect"

If us humans created an artificial "cyber-world" with self aware programs of some sort, then we would be "GOD" to them...and we are FAAAAAAR from "perfect"


who is to say the "after-life" isn't like that for us...created by a race a "spirits" so to speak that are far from "perfection" themselves
If there is a God, do you think he hates Tony Romo? :lol

[-p.tiddy-]

If there is a God, do you think he hates Tony Romo? :lol
no...because Romo is going to win it all and hush the doubters just like Dirk

and his current struggles will just make that moment even sweeter, it's all God's plan

[niko]

no...because Romo is going to win it all and hush the doubters just like Dirk

and his current struggles will just make that moment even sweeter, it's all God's plan

:lol :lol :oldlol: :roll: :oldlol: :lol :roll: :roll: :lol

:wtf: Wait serious?

[-p.tiddy-]

:wtf: Wait serious?
:facepalm

[miller-time]

Newton is ancient knowledge? Classical mechanics have been used to put man on the moon, gravitational slingshots to accelerate satellites, calculate trajectories to put satellites into orbit and rovers onto other planets and is used extensively in modern engineering. Newtonian mechanics is an amazingly accurate description at the lower limit of velocity and dealing with objects at a larger scale. Newtonian physics is by no means obsolete as rambo suggests.

I don't think he is worried about the practical application of classical mechanics, he believes that because it has been superseded by relativity which gives a more accurate description of the universe it is therefore out of date. He then goes on to say that relativity will be then superseded by quantum physics which at that point will miraculously confirm and justify his love affair with transcendental idealism and Kant.

[dr.hee]

I don't think he is worried about the practical application of classical mechanics, he believes that because it has been superseded by relativity which gives a more accurate description of the universe it is therefore out of date. He then goes on to say that relativity will be then superseded quantum physics which at that point will miraculously confirm and justify his love affair with transcendental idealism and Kant.

Nailed it

http://stream1.gifsoup.com/view4/3548723/popovich-thumbs-up-o.gif

[shaq2000]

Are quantum physics and Newtonian physics by and large mutually exclusive like Rambo seems to suggest? I did take a philosophy course in undergrad like Rambo, but I don't pretend to know much about physics.

[gigantes]

Are quantum physics and Newtonian physics by and large mutually exclusive like Rambo seems to suggest? I did take a philosophy course in undergrad like Rambo, but I don't pretend to know much about physics.
no, certainly not.

as i understand it, probably the biggest set of problems across physics right now is reconciling the different systems in to a unified theory of everything.

i've tried to wrap my mind around the E8 theory, and it tends to make my head hurt. maybe because i don't have much physics training, but still. :D

[16X]

I think it's an interesting theory, and if our universe was created (I don't believe it was), it's millions of times more likely that a programmer did it than a god.

This is a six minute video where theoretical physicist S James Gates Jr. explains that computer code has been found written into the equations that we want to use to describe the cosmos. I don't really know what to make of it.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bp4NkItgf0E

[-p.tiddy-]

I think it's an interesting theory, and if our universe was created (I don't believe it was), it's millions of times more likely that a programmer did it than a god.

This is a six minute video where theoretical physicist S James Gates Jr. explains that computer code has been found written into the equations that we want to use to describe the cosmos. I don't really know what to make of it.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bp4NkItgf0E
they would be the same thing

"God" is just a code name for whoever or whatever created us



IMO it is more likely to be a group effort than any one single entity...just like if we humans were to create a AI race of "beings" that are self-aware, there would be many of us involved

[miller-time]

Are quantum physics and Newtonian physics by and large mutually exclusive like Rambo seems to suggest? I did take a philosophy course in undergrad like Rambo, but I don't pretend to know much about physics.

I also don't know much about physics, but from what I can gather they essentially are describing two different sets of phenomena that don't really overlap (the behavior of very small objects like electrons and quarks and the behavior of large objects like cars and planets and galaxies). They are exclusive in that sense. Scientists now are trying to reconcile this problem so that they have a model that describes the behavior of all of these objects in one theory.

[gigantes]

they would be the same thing

"God" is just a code name for whoever or whatever created us

IMO it is more likely to be a group effort than any one single entity...just like if we humans were to create a AI race of "beings" that are self-aware, there would be many of us involved
it's hard for me to conceive that the theory even matters.

if you have X group of whatever that created this simulation, then you still have the same quandary-- who created the basis of the next ordinal reality?

we could be a simulation inside a simulation inside a simulation, etc etc, with nobody along the line ever knowing where the actual creation point was, nor the creation force involved. assuming those things exist anyway, which i'm very unsure of.

that's why it's just as interesting to me to ask WHY we want to know this stuff so badly. i think it has heavy overlap with the human fear of ambiguity, the terror of death, and yes... the good old dunning-kruger theory. :)

[16X]

they would be the same thing

"God" is just a code name for whoever or whatever created us



IMO it is more likely to be a group effort than any one single entity...just like if we humans were to create a AI race of "beings" that are self-aware, there would be many of us involved
Well, the majority of those on earth who believe in a god believe that their god was not created itself. Their idea of how everything came to be is moronic and silly, and their god explains nothing as we would then need to explain where their god came from.

Technology may soon reach the point where we are able to simulate universes, so that's why simulation theory is not a completely moronic and illogical idea like the idea of a god is.

As far as I know, us being in a computer simulation would not mean that we were actually "designed", but just that the programmer would have gotten everything started, and then after the Big Bang things would have progressed however they progressed, without the programmer having knowledge of how things would play out.

[-p.tiddy-]

it's hard for me to conceive that the theory even matters.

if you have X group of whatever that created this simulation, then you still have the same quandary-- who created the basis of their the next ordinal reality?

we could be a simulation inside a simulation inside a simulation, etc etc, with nobody along the line ever knowing where the actual creation point was, nor the creation force involved. assuming those things exist anyway, which i'm very unsure of.

that's why it's just as interesting to me to ask WHY we want to know this stuff so badly. it's an example of the human fear of ambiguity, the terror of death, and yes... the good old dunning-kruger theory. :)
that question doesn't matter to us, because you have to assume that whatever "other dimension" houses our creators follows an entirely different science book than our own, and perhaps in that dimension it is much more understandable how things came to be, OR if even that dimension has a creator....

in an existence where things like "time" and "3D space" don't exist it is too difficult for us to wrap our heads around it here.

[gigantes]

that question doesn't matter to us, because you have to assume that whatever "other dimension" houses our creators follows an entirely different science book than our own, and perhaps in that dimension it is much more understandable how things came to be, OR if even that dimension has a creator....

in an existence where things like "time" and "3D space" don't exist it is too difficult for us to wrap our heads around it here.
good points. i had a feeling i was oversimplifying somewhere, but couldn't put my finger on it.


at the same time-- civilisation is on its last legs at this point, so it's very hard for me to care much about the simulation theory.

to me, the people who care about this stuff so much are a little like code junkies obsessed with finishing some program to the exclusion of all else.

because as i said, these issues are just as much about the human mind as they are about physics... and by putting my focus on the mind aspect, i can gain insight in to self and humanity with the modest amount of time left that i have to live.

it just seems so much more practical, so to speak. then again, whatever makes you happy is probably worth pursuing... :cheers:

[miller-time]

they would be the same thing

"God" is just a code name for whoever or whatever created us



IMO it is more likely to be a group effort than any one single entity...just like if we humans were to create a AI race of "beings" that are self-aware, there would be many of us involved

My contention to this theory is that every time we attribute some natural phenomena to God we later find out that our assumption was incorrect. From simple things like volcanoes and lightning up to more complicated things like our anatomy and genetic "code" we are always finding natural explanations for their behavior or existence. This code that they have discovered could simply be the way a universe behaves, and because we live in said universe we can build machines that can use those rules.

It is one of those looking at it backwards situations. Instead of "we create code and we discovered the universe uses rules that directly resemble code we can conclude that the universe was written by a coder" it should be "the universe uses coding rules and we are able to create machines that run on those rules too."

But I'm not saying that is the case, I understand pretty much nothing about this subject so I could be totally wrong on every point lol.

[-p.tiddy-]

My contention to this theory is that every time we attribute some natural phenomena to God we later find out that our assumption was incorrect. From simple things like volcanoes and lightning up to more complicated things like our anatomy and genetic "code" we are always finding natural explanations for their behavior or existence. This code that they have discovered could simply be the way a universe behaves, and because we live in said universe we can build machines that can use those rules.

It is one of those looking at it backwards situations. Instead of "we create code and we discovered the universe uses rules that directly resemble code we can conclude that the universe was written by a coder" it should be "the universe uses coding rules and we are able to create machines that run on those rules too."

But I'm not saying that is the case, I understand pretty much nothing about this subject so I could be totally wrong on every point lol.
our different past views on this subject having no barring on the present day at all, humans believing that the Sun was "God" in the past means nothing to current theories

but IMO you are more or less talking about "religion" which is likely wrong in all forms during any time period...past, present, future

[miller-time]

our different past views on this subject having no barring on the present day at all, humans believing that the Sun was "God" in the past means nothing to current theories

Oh no doubt. It is just a good rule of thumb, as the saying goes; those who fail to remember history are doomed to repeat it. Before leaping ahead and getting all excited about the idea we are living inside a machine we need to remember that things are not always as they appear. The appearance of design, or purpose, or language does not mean that this discovery is an indication of any of those things.

To sort of rephrase what I said earlier, it is possible that when we started using binary code we didn't invent it from nothing but rather unknowingly used a system that was already there. And now when we look at the universe and see the pattern we attribute it to an artificially created system as opposed to a naturally occurring system (that we managed to stumble upon and exploit).

[gigantes]

[miller-time]

[QUOTE=gigantes]

[gigantes]

Haha that is true. Although paradoxical right?
paradoxical and disappointing.

sort of like... ah nvm. :P

[-p.tiddy-]

Oh no doubt. It is just a good rule of thumb, as the saying goes; those who fail to remember history are doomed to repeat it. Before leaping ahead and getting all excited about the idea we are living inside a machine we need to remember that things are not always as they appear. The appearance of design, or purpose, or language does not mean that this discovery is an indication of any of those things.

To sort of rephrase what I said earlier, it is possible that when we started using binary code we didn't invent it from nothing but rather unknowingly used a system that was already there. And now when we look at the universe and see the pattern we attribute it to an artificially created system as opposed to a naturally occurring system (that we managed to stumble upon and exploit).
perhaps in this case that is true but not every case...sometimes the appearance of design is very much an indication of design

either way I know what you're saying...assuming things can be bad

[IamRAMBO24]

Do you have a working understanding of Quantum Physics?? If so why are you wasting your time here on a Basketball forum?

Or are you one of these kids who reads a book and knows it all....until next week when you read something contradictory to what you thought you knew?

Good will hunting Much?

Nope.

I understand Kant. Philosophy will always be ahead of Science because all revolutions in conscious thought starts with philosophy, for example, the thinking of the majority of the population has the ideology of Francis Bacon - a philosopher over 400 years ago.

Modern science is only beginning to catch up to Kant; Einstein cherry picked his philosophy on time and space and could not accept the rest of it. It is only until the dual wave-particle experiment that sky rocketed Quantum Physics to the forefront, scientists are beginning to fully accept his entire philosophy.

He nailed it. Einstein and QP are only grasping less than 10% of his philosophy. It'll take another 100 years until they catch up to him, and then after that, we still have Hegel and Schopenhauer, which will prob take another 300-400 years.

QP is a walk in the park for me to understand (while it is extremely difficult for many people) only because I understand Kant's philosophy in it's entirety.

[gigantes]

so, rambo, assuming you didn't lecture on this previously in the thread, can you provide an idea of how kant is useful for understanding QP?


and have any physicists or scholars to your knowledge used this insight to make breakthroughs in the QP realm? or is this moreso just your idea?

[El Gato Negro]

i prefer the saints row 4 theory.

[IamRAMBO24]

so, rambo, assuming you didn't lecture on this previously in the thread, can you provide an idea of how kant is useful for understanding QP?


and have any physicists or scholars to your knowledge used this insight to make breakthroughs in the QP realm? or is this moreso just your idea?

Einstein was a student of Kant and used his space and time theories to discredit Newton. Newton was a student of Descartes and Kant was the next great philosopher after Descartes, so it goes to reason, by studying Kant, he was able to advance Science beyond Newton.

Einstein's biggest blunder was to only cherry picked Kant's concepts on space and time; he had respect for Newton and did not want to outright destroy his platform in physics without the scientific evidences to back it up. It was only until the understanding of the inner elements of the atom that there was proof to take Kant's transcendental aesthestics seriously within the scientific community.

[IamRAMBO24]

I also don't know much about physics, but from what I can gather they essentially are describing two different sets of phenomena that don't really overlap (the behavior of very small objects like electrons and quarks and the behavior of large objects like cars and planets and galaxies). They are exclusive in that sense. Scientists now are trying to reconcile this problem so that they have a model that describes the behavior of all of these objects in one theory.

All the answers of today's Science problem is in Kant's philosopy. His genius is his ability to synthesize the two problem into a coherent unity.

This is what Kant said:

1. There is a raw material world (Newtonian physics). This is the world of laws, energy, vibrations, mathematics, etc.

2. There is also another world. The world of the mind where the observer affects the material world (Quantum Physics).

3. It is the mind that actively creates the material world. He gives an example of a blind man not having sight: we have 5 apparatuses that allow us to view our reality. If we are missing one, our perception of reality is different. He draws a conclusion it is our mind that takes the raw material (Newtonian physics) to create our perception of reality, for example, our eyes take in light to create an image, our ears take in vibration to create sound, our minds take in mathematics to create reason, etc.

He calls the raw material a "thing in itself." We cannot know what it is other than to know we are restricted (like a program) to view our reality the way we do.

This is the birth of the Matrix concept.

[gigantes]

Einstein was a student of Kant and used his space and time theories to discredit Newton. Newton was a student of Descartes and Kant was the next great philosopher after Descartes, so it goes to reason, by studying Kant, he was able to advance Science beyond Newton.

Einstein's biggest blunder was to only cherry picked Kant's concepts on space and time; he had respect for Newton and did not want to outright destroy his platform in physics without the scientific evidences to back it up. It was only until the understanding of the inner elements of the atom that there was proof to take Kant's transcendental aesthestics seriously within the scientific community.
okay, thanks. i don't have much opinion about this stuff, but it seems to check out after a brief look.

so what is your training, exactly? university-level? or just a dilettante on this stuff...?

[IamRAMBO24]

okay, thanks. i don't have much opinion about this stuff, but it seems to check out after a brief look.

so what is your training, exactly? university-level? or just a dilettante on this stuff...?

Well thanks for taking an invested interest in my intentions. Like I said, the smarter posters in here usually see value in my posts.

I am a lover of wisdom. I don't study to get a job or for money. I study for the pure love of it. If what I believe has been discredited, I move on to a higher level of thinking and thank the person who challenged me; I don't fight to protect an ideology. I only seek truth. This process will never end.

[gigantes]

Well thanks for taking an invested interest in my intentions. Like I said, the smarter posters in here usually see value in my posts.

I am a lover of wisdom. I don't study to get a job or for money. I study for the pure love of it. If what I believe has been discredited, I move on to a higher level of thinking and thank the person who challenged me; I don't fight to protect an ideology. I only seek truth. This process will never end.
yea, i pretty much share that principle. i aim to see reality for what it is, not what my ego, programming or society want it to be. all that stuff can kiss my ass for the most part.

unfortunately, while i have some interest in QP, my own studies don't include much spare neural bandwidth for the kant and pals stuff. it would be fun to put your assertions to the test, but i'm simply not qualified in this case.

bummer. but maybe next time.

[IamRAMBO24]

yea, i pretty much share that principle. i aim to see reality for what it is, not what my ego, programming or society want it to be. all that stuff can kiss my ass for the most part.

unfortunately, while i have some interest in QP, my own studies don't include much spare neural bandwidth for the kant and pals stuff. it would be fun to put your assertions to the test, but i'm simply not qualified in this case.

bummer. but maybe next time.

Bro you're young and smart enough to conquer Kant. Be the next great Scientist of this century.

:rockon:

[gigantes]

Bro you're young and smart enough to conquer Kant. Be the next great Scientist of this century.

:rockon:
hah! i'm not that young, and have my work cut out for me already.

however, i'll agree to put in a full study on kant once i'm dead. i'll have plenty of time, then!

[IamRAMBO24]

Newton is ancient knowledge? Classical mechanics have been used to put man on the moon, gravitational slingshots to accelerate satellites, calculate trajectories to put satellites into orbit and rovers onto other planets and is used extensively in modern engineering. Newtonian mechanics is an amazingly accurate description at the lower limit of velocity and dealing with objects at a larger scale. Newtonian physics is by no means obsolete as rambo suggests.

Yes.

Newton is ancient knowledge. Newer ideas replace old ones. This means the old ones are no longer relevant. Sure some technological advances were made from Newton, but greater advances will be made from the newer ideas (advances that will make today's world look ancient by comparison). Einstein pretty much destroyed everything Newton said, so the idea students are still fixated on Newton is a deliberate attempt at dumbing them down.

The best Science of this century is Kantian philosophy and Quantum Physics.

QP is so powerful as a Science, it is already on its way to discrediting Einstein's E=mc2 as we speak through a series of experiment.

That is how knowledge works; you disprove old theories and move on to the next.

[Raymone]

Well thanks for taking an invested interest in my intentions. Like I said, the smarter posters in here usually see value in my posts.

I am a lover of wisdom. I don't study to get a job or for money. I study for the pure love of it. If what I believe has been discredited, I move on to a higher level of thinking and thank the person who challenged me; I don't fight to protect an ideology. I only seek truth. This process will never end.

So in other words, you have no formal education. You're one of those wiki warriors. Couldn't even get a Bachelors in Philosophy, bro?

[miller-time]

QP is so powerful as a Science, it is already on its way to discrediting Einstein's E=mc2 as we speak through a series of experiment.

OK, so explain to us how it is disproving E=mc2 then. Or at least provide us with some sources to read.

[IamRAMBO24]

OK, so explain to us how it is disproving E=mc2 then. Or at least provide us with some sources to read.

Entanglement.

Particles can link instaneously regardless of distance and traveling faster than the speed of light.

[STATUTORY]

Its a classic dilemma in philosophy, pretty much impossible to prove or disprove. Brain in a vat

[IamRAMBO24]

Its a classic dilemma in philosophy, pretty much impossible to prove or disprove. Brain in a vat

It has already been proven. It goes to reason if philosophy is what drives intellectual evolution, then the next phase will be based on Kant's ideas.

Quantum Physics is now only beginning to provide the observational proofs to support something he said over 200 years ago.

[IamRAMBO24]

Here is a 1 minute snippet of Kant:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sz6qunm6q30

[niko]

Well thanks for taking an invested interest in my intentions. Like I said, the smarter posters in here usually see value in my posts.

I am a lover of wisdom. I don't study to get a job or for money. I study for the pure love of it. If what I believe has been discredited, I move on to a higher level of thinking and thank the person who challenged me; I don't fight to protect an ideology. I only seek truth. This process will never end.
You made a whole thread saying that isn't what you do at all, rather you argue just to argue and win the argument, regardless of if you are right or wrong.

Note the bolded words signifying how right I am.