Re: Re: TOP 100 FACTS: #1, 2 No Gods, Only Physics

[docrufus]

Uncle Merlin says about- Intelligence...

'The philosphers stone of the modern alchemy'.

[inmendham]

the in Mendham pontificater says... "I've missed you."...... now let's get down to making some gold out of some other four-letter words.

[docrufus]

Always keeping an abracadraba eye on you- goldenboy- *~*

[Mork5]

"Suffering is the enemy, not the one who caused it"

Great - obviously in Mendham there is intelligence..

[MiniMystic]

People may be equal at birth but from that day on it all change. You start off with an old religious idea and say you want to throw out that stuff. It is a bad way of getting lazy bums up and going. You want to bring me down to their level by saying we are equal. No No No.

[inmendham]

I am all for a substantial measure accountability for personal choices... but bad social structure effectively forces some choices and that must end for accountability to mean anything.

[MiniMystic]

That is real political talk immendham, I did not understand it. I know what the word equal means and I know that people are not equal. The communists tried that idea and look were it got them.

[inmendham]

red baiting... cheap argument rhetoric of the desperately fascist. In more than one video I explain my vision of "incentive economics", to call it communism is a cheap fucking slander and you can fuck yourself with that.

[MiniMystic]

That is tough talk but it does not answer the question of how unequal people can be equal. In the other comment you said the lazy ones are going to be punished and that shows you are not serious about people being equal. So which is it tough boy.

[inmendham]

It's about creating a fair playing field... if you regulate the game to adjust for handicaps (real ones) and unfair cheating (handouts to the spawn of the rich) then you can hold people accountable... If they choose to give nothing, they get nothing, that is their punishment. Prizes of variable worth can be award based on performance starting with a minimum prize for just playing by the doing-your-best rules.

[MiniMystic]

Quite a politician are you not. First try to bamboozle with words that mean nothing, then get all on the attack and then pretend you have forgotten what the question is. Prizes of variable worth are to awarded by you no doubt to people who are all equal. Typical politician all tricks and no substance.

[inmendham]

I trust the judgment of the average listener/reader. The details of what I have proposed are neither hidden or complex. You are the one playing word games... people are equal enough to deserve equal rights, equal opportunity to realize their potential, and equal apportionment of rewards commensurate to their contribution (productivity).

[MiniMystic]

You are talking politico tommy rot. Typical again to say it is me playing word games. You say equal apportionment of rewards commensurate to their contribution which presumes all your equal people are going to all produce the same, communism!!!!

Or you do see that they will not all produce the same and so they are not equal? You are a fraud or a fool.

[inmendham]

And you're a fucking piece a shift incapable of honest argument. If you listened to my videos I've proposed a system the merely places limits on the preposterous excesses'. Individuals could still acquire uneven/unequal wealth, they just couldn't do it for producing nothing, or to preposterous extreme.... that isn't even socialism let alone communism you desperate elitist fascist Fuck.

[MiniMystic]

And back to acting tough but fail to answer the question of how any of that is equal people. Is a facist Fuck equal to a deluded political wannabee?

[inmendham]

""""how any of that is equal people"""

you have to phrase a question rationally to expect an answer... I used terms like practical equality... essentially or substantially equal. obviously the physically impaired or mentally impaired are not equally able... and it is reasonable to say that some choices people make, make them less deserving. The overall principal of equality doesn't challenge the fair minded.

[MiniMystic]

You now try and hide your equal word behind some others but now we see that the less deserving and the not fair minded fall off the equal list. That sounds better. If you had said that to start with it would have saved us some bother.

[inmendham]

I really shouldn't have to explain that serial killers aren't as deserving as Gondi... if I was suggesting same for everyone I would have just said "same for everyone" economics.

[MiniMystic]

I have got it now. You have dropped the equal idea and that is good. Those that do not get off there arse are punished and those that do are rewarded. No change. No problem.

[MiniMystic]

Your the politician and get to choose who is deserving and who is not. No change. No problem.

[inmendham]

The rules of the game make the decisions. I've suggested reasonable rules that enhance fairness... you've thrown some of "red" herring mud pies to distract from your feeble defense of an indefensible status quo.

[pigfarts992]

Love your hair...

[MiniMystic]

In America maybe you have the problem of greedy people but there are other places in the world where the problem is laziness. There are large groups of people who will not get off their lazy arses and expect everything to be given to them for nothing. This is maybe another type of greed. Educate them to work and then when they do they get greedy for more money and things to buy. Out of the frying pan and into the fire.

[inmendham]

"""greedy people vs. laziness"""

inheritance creates individuals with both vices... and the third of hypocritical arrogance as they nag others to pull bootstraps. I think a society (economic system) can be structured to encourage all people to produce at their best efficiency (a level of production just short of compromising health and well-being)... but such a system can't let people inherit a free ride, and expect others to walk on legs they don't have.

[MiniMystic]

Money is not the only thing that is inherited. A lazy attitude is also inherited and you will not be able to tax that fact out of existence.

[inmendham]

I think if you create fairer incentives, laziness will have its own punishment.

[MiniMystic]

That is right then, the lazy are to be punished. It is the only way to get there lazy backsides going.

[MiniMystic]

Where in nature do we find greed?

Only in humans!

Surely it is human intelligence that makes for greed?

[redliterocket4]

I agree. Greed requires a pretty sophisticated concept of self. Only humans can think abstractly enough to reason out how to best fuck over our neighbor for our own maximum gain. Animals will certainly fight for their survival, but as soon as they are no longer immediately threatened, there is no sign of the very human concept of greed.

[inmendham]

"""Where in nature do we find greed? Only in humans!"""

you've got to be kidding... the better question is where in nature isn't there evidence of greed (individual or tribal selfishness) animals are constantly fighting over territory and resources... even well fed monkeys in a zoo will attempt to hoard food.

[redliterocket4]

Greed is defined as the desire for more than one needs. Animals take what they need, only humans create stock piles.

[redliterocket4]

Most biologists agree that caged animals are no longer an adequate measure of natural behavior. For all intents and purposes, a caged animal is an insane animal incapable of living as it would in its natural environment. Do jailed humans retain their sanity? Not usually.

[redliterocket4]

This has nothing at all to do with nature being violent or not, though. So let's not get confused. All I am saying is that specifically GREED is not found in any animal. Greed requires a rather complex self-awareness that only humans have thus far been able to develop.

[redliterocket4]

Animals fight over what they need to survive, no more.

[inmendham]

"""Greed requires a rather complex self-awareness that only humans have thus far been able to develop.""" """Animals fight over what they need to survive, no more."""

This is just absolute nonsense... every day hundreds of thousands (at least) of animals are starved to death by big fat siblings and relatives. Primates in-the-wild have been observed carrying off as much food as their arms could hold and more than their bellies could.

[inmendham]

In many herd animals a few alpha males get all the females, and the best food resources/territory well in excess of survival needs. The only thing that stops animals from hoarding, to human proportions, is their lack of enabling technology. Intelligence doesn't breed greed it just liberates (empowers) the selfish vice already built into the organism.

[MiniMystic]

So let me see if I have got you right. It is possible for one bird in a nest to grab the food from the parent and thereby kill, maybe, its siblings. This is greed.

Humans, given half a chance, would do similar things. The birds cannot help themselves but humans can use their extra intelligence to curb what may be called their natural excesses. How did I do?

[inmendham]

I would say close enough... as long as you don't have a punch line hidden behind your back.

[MiniMystic]

That makes a reply hard because I don't know what you think that I am having behind my back.

I will take the next step anyway and say that you presumably think that educating is the way to teach humans not to be greedy?

[inmendham]

It seems almost silly to say people need to be "educated" to accept the logical implications of our practical equality.... but if I must use that word, yes.

[MiniMystic]

Animals do not have the intelligence to do the sort of greed you talk of in your video.

[DavidKabuki]

I'm glad you clarified that you did not mean Physics to be a new religion. I really hate that new age "What the Bleep do We Know?" trend of trying to imply Quantum Mechanics is some kind of proof of God(s).

[redliterocket4]

It certainly is no proof of God or spirituality. All it does is leave the door open, because it says that materialism is no longer a legitimate scientific paradigm.

[redliterocket4]

I meant leave the door open for spirituality, not the Biblical God or anything like that.

[redliterocket4]

The purely physical process you speak of has evolved through stages of development. A few moments after the big bang, there was only pure light and energy. A few thousand years later, the first particles begin to cool off and form. A few million years later, particles become atoms.

[redliterocket4]

A few million years after that, gravity pulls those atoms together to form stars. A few more million years and the first stars begin to die out by collapsing in upon themselves, thereby forging heavier elements such as iron and carbon, which are then ejected out into space to eventually coalesce again because of gravity to form whole solar systems.

[redliterocket4]

Some of these solar systems have planets capable of sustaining life, which evolves from simple chemical reactions into complex metabolic processes. Eventually these simple processes evole into higher organisms, which evnentually become capable of sustaining mind as we humans know it.

[redliterocket4]

Now I am sure you are quite familar with this story... my point in mentioning it is to ask whether or not one could have predicted the final outcome from the very beginning. To say that it is all predictable and law-abiding is to say that all the laws existed at the beginning of time. They did not. The laws themselves evolved over time, which is to say that they are not laws at all, but habits.

[redliterocket4]

I won't go so far as to say that evolution has a specific purpose or end, but for certain it is spontaneous and creative, as it is constantly transcending itself into new and more complex forms. There is no telling what tomorrow will bring.

[inmendham]

"""There is no telling what tomorrow will bring"""

A petty bit of poetry, but really nonsensical mush. With enough information/data concerning current circumstances tomorrow is infinitely predictable.

"""The laws themselves evolved over time"""

I don't think there's any substantial credible evidence of that.

[inmendham]

"""as it is constantly transcending itself into new and more complex forms."""

I would agree that variety changes, but I think that raw complexity reaches some hard to expand beyond absolutes... is a billion year-old ant substantially less physically complex than a guerrilla?

[inmendham]

Through a very slight change in complexity/arrangement, relative to great apes, man has acquired the complexity of acquiring vast amounts of intelligence and the capacity to communicate it to others. Intelligence is almost a new separate "life form" growing and evolving by new rules.

[inmendham]

Like the planet earth is the vessel for life, the ape-man provides a atmosphere/environment capable of sustaining intelligence--unfortunately unlike the rocky earth, the ape-man still has an animal agenda quite capable of turning that intelligence into nothing but another sharper set of canine teeth.

[inmendham]

"""for certain it is spontaneous and creative"""

After the discovery of physics I think the word spontaneous should have been remove from the dictionary. Spontaneous is a contrivance of ignorance, and is a word the scientifically literate should use very carefully.

[redliterocket4]

Sometimes you say nature is chaotic, but then you turn around and say it is ordered and law-abiding. Which is it?

[inmendham]

"""nature is chaotic... law-abiding. Which is it?"""

What I have said is that nature is governed by crude laws... these laws have no appreciation for right, wrong, or any quality of efficiency, especially when it comes to suffering endured. Kind of like having Highway laws that said anything goes as long as you stay under 600 miles an hour... It would be law but no doubt conducive to chaos.

[redliterocket4]

what exactly do you mean by the "discovery of physics"? Physics is an science, not a discovery. That's not a knock on physics, I'm just saying that modern physical theory has not "discovered" anything. It has created a system of measurment that accurately models the behavior of nature when she is put to the test (ie, when she is manipulated by very sophisticated and powerful experimental devices like partical accelerators and proton guns, etc.)

[redliterocket4]

by the way, I'm curious to know what you have read or where you get your information about the physical sciences, quantum, relativity theory, etc?

[inmendham]

"""what you have read or where you get your information"""

I read a lot of text books in my youth, but admittedly don't read much but the "must see" stuff now published. I'm pretty damn unimpressed by much modern science, lots of cold fusion style speculation without much real scientific substance... I will make an example video.

[redliterocket4]

There is a huge difference between Newtonian physics and relativity/quantum theory. The former was deterministic and billiard ball-like, no doubt. But things have changed! Physicists no longer speak of matter as though it were some kind of substance. They speak only of form, of symbolic measurement and mathematical calculation.

[redliterocket4]

And this isn't new... the paradigm shifted back in the early to middle part of the 20th century. Read what Eddington, de Broglie, Jeans, Schroedinger, Heisenberg, etc. had to say about their findings and I think you'll be surprised.

[inmendham]

"""Physics is an science, not a discovery."""

The end product of the science of physics is revealed truth... that fits my definition of discovery.

"""modern physical theory"""

I was mainly implying discoveries like Newtons Apple, "discovery" of the periodic table, the theory of relativity and such.

[rozeboosje]

> really nonsensical mush

Not quite; take, for example, Newton's laws of motion. Apply these to three billiard balls colliding and you can show mathematically that the result is not computable. All you can do is slice time finer and finer and produce ever more accurate approximations, but never calculate what happens *exactly*.

[inmendham]

"""accurate approximations, but never calculate what happens *exactly*."""

I would argue, that for the sake of argument, that 99.999% of exactly is in most cases good enough. Hopefully we can agree that the "unknown variables" are just undiscovered and not necessarily "truly variable" in the "spontaneous" sense of the word... or maybe you believe physics will discover a "silly and spontaneous" force deep in atomic structure;)

[rozeboosje]

No. I mean even if you know the "rules" by which it works completely, and they are fully deterministic, the result may be non-calculable, for purely mathematical reasons. It means that in order to compute what would happen next you would need an infinite number of steps in the calculation. And that is impossible.

[rozeboosje]

It's related to the Halting Problem in Turing machines.

[inmendham]

I haven't seen much discussion here on the subject... but do think there's a clock cycle (heartbeat) to the universe?... I am tending to believe some absolute, perhaps related to the speed of light, which effectively is defined by the smallest movement of the smallest particle/wave. Kind of a Time Matrix that forces action to the next grid line.

[rozeboosje]

That's an interesting concept. It would avoid the problem altogether.

[redliterocket4]

isn't that what quanta are? the smallest packets of energy/light possible for us to measure?

[inmendham]

Maybe so... I am no expert on current quantum theory status... but it was my past impression that we still haven't got the tools to cut the universe into small enough slices to see/model the absolute (if it exists)

[redliterocket4]

The deal is this: we have cut and cut and sliced and diced and we keep finding smaller and smaller particles. So we name them and continue on our way down the rabbit hole. We will never be able to reach the "final particle" because at the level we have already reached, there are no particles left, just energy "packets," which we call packets for convenience sake, not becuase they exist "out there" as discrete bundles of stuff.

[redliterocket4]

even the atom is not really a particle. We could never take a picture of one. It is a mathematical construct, a group of energetic packets that exist within a certain cloud of possibility. I am using the physicists own language here, not composing poetry.

[inmendham]

Models can end up having a lot of contrivance in them... I like the poetry of the solar system style atomic model but obviously the two universes are not really very similar... lots of empty space in both but apparently very different glue holding things together. Maybe someday I'll find the time to write a book on grid-theory... well, maybe a pamphlet... well maybe I will just post a comment somewhere.

[redliterocket4]

I wrote a paper on my take on quantum theory and what it says about the physical world and reality. Actually I had a lot of help from the physicists I mentioned before. I'm posting it if you care to read it, though no one is forcing you! So don't get upset if you think it's just a bunch of nonsense. If you do think it is nonsense, I think the premise of the paper would actually agree with you, though...

[Meloco2007]

I've seen you cut a vids short when your running out of time. Did you know you can make your videos as long as 10:59 and still be able to upload them?

[inmendham]

Unfortunately The format my recording software uses ends up going over the 100 MB limit at 9:50 seconds.

[rozeboosje]

If you use Windows XP it comes with (or you can choose through MS Upgrade) Windows Movie Maker. If your recording software produces a format it recognises such as .avi, you can simply push it through that and produce a .wmv file which can be quite a bit smaller depending on the bit rate you choose. Don't use WMM for editing; it sucks.