perhaps not a GOD, but definitely a GAP

reply to post by ImaFungi


Ima seriously it sounds like you need a couple of days of ATS.

I explained to you before those comment you made were really disrespectful and I responded as any man would when confronted with a person who is two uneducated to respond intelligently.

Sure we jab at each other and sometimes we many even get upset at each other. But this kind of spewing of filth you call a response I really could care less what you think, claim or assert.

Its like this I do not care you tell me you are a direct descendant of Quetzalcoatl and Buddha and are to finally here establish that mysticism does not exist..... I do not care what you think.

Get over it and in the future might I suggest you learn to talk to people in public places.

Any thoughts?

you have not been able to simply state what it is you think, or the fault may lie in my inability to interpret it

reply to post by ImaFungi


this was the basic gist of the post I deleted above.

I had also become frustrated because I sensed that we were getting further away from effective communication, rather than closer. I responded to your one (irrelevant) line in order to point that out. however, I did read and appreciate everything you've written.

"quantum snobbery" refers to anyone who tells others that they aren't capable of understanding, in functional (if not technical) terms, this apparently befuddling theory. this doesn't mean that we're all on the same page, yet, but only that getting down on people is just as bad as people who get overly whimsical.

so often, people with good information become bullies. I like to bully bullies.

reply to post by Kashai


Woah, what do you know about Quetzalcoatl? Is the myth that he didnt like mysticism?

reply to post by Kashai


If you believe there exists Truth, and only truth, and that which is not truth, is a lie, or wrong. And you believe, for I will tell you, that I care about knowing and thinking about the truth, you will understand why I may have recently gotten a bit sour towards you. It seems we do not care for, and respect the truth, to the same degree. How can or should I take anything you say seriously, if you do not have a great respect for the truth, if you allow yourself to carelessly become infatuated with beliefs and ideas and feelings. If you project yourself on the truth, and not the truth on yourself. You are completely satisfied with illusions, you have no true grounds for believing the things you do, and you have secret biased and selfish reasons for believing the things you do.

Can you give me one example of your personal experience with Psi abilities? What has led you to believe so strongly, in the actuality and significance of this term which relates to a mysterious and mythical phenomenon?

reply to post by ImaFungi


What evidence do you have for your truth?

I work with law enforcement addressing both events that occurred in the past as well as in the future.

I accurately describe murders, attempts at murder and incidences of child abuse both before and after the act
as well as at the moment the act is being committed.

I began doing this when I was 9 and have never failed to accurately define the circumstances in every detail

I have worked with US State, and Federal Agencies, Interpol, as well as the military and it's all high end issues.

Where the person or persons convicted end up with life imprisonment or the death penalty. This due to the convictions, depending upon where they happen to be living, and what they did.

Your truth does not exist.

Any thoughts?

Kashai and ImaFungi (and others)

yet again, i feel we must jump the track to a new thread in order to satisfy the issues which have cropped up in the course of this thread. they are, of course, related. but different perspectives deserve new discussion.

thanks for the opportunity to get these thoughts out there. i do not know if they are worthwhile, but it has been good for me to put words to concepts.


Resonance: Quantum, and Chaos

reply to post by Kashai


Hm, what are you really saying here? There are probably 10,000 murders a day. You can randomly telepathically view some in the past and future, and now enough details about it, to, prevent it, or find the suspect?

Originally posted by tgidkp
reply to post by ImaFungi

 

and yet, the primary mode of investigation into our universe is to seek out these 'truths' and 'rules' in order to find out what "really exists". science thinks that the universe is a machine. it is not a machine. it is dynamic. your ability to resolve the paradoxical statement is proof of this.

this dynamism is the heart and soul of quantum theory....whether or not you believe in such things as souls.

Are you certain of these statements? The term "machine" does not preclude dynamism. In fact, the more dynamic a machine becomes (autos, rocket ships, computers, etc.), also the more interesting.

Quantum theory is no more "dynamic" than other physics. What I find at its core is not dynamism, but rather a simplistic principle--- that nature itself is limited by our inability to measure it. IMO it is not nature, not the behavior of atoms and their components, that is limited-- it is quantum theory itself.

reply to post by ImaFungi


Yup

And certainly my anonymity is very important to me.

I am here to chat that's it.

Originally posted by ImaFungi
reply to post by Kashai

 

Woah, what do you know about Quetzalcoatl? Is the myth that he didnt like mysticism?

No I have not yet received the memo.

ok not angry with you anymore

reply to post by Greylorn


a really great response. i have authored a couple more threads recently which are more diminutive in the estimation of quantum mechanics... and where we might find a more dynamic theory.

this is not the first example of me mis-speaking. i am sorry for the confusion. dont take me too seriously... i am just tossing some things around.

i mean, really, it is no mistake that it is called quantum mechanics, right?
(i do try to replace "mechanics" with "theory" as often as possible.)

Originally posted by tgidkp
reply to post by Greylorn

 

a really great response. i have authored a couple more threads recently which are more diminutive in the estimation of quantum mechanics... and where we might find a more dynamic theory.

this is not the first example of me mis-speaking. i am sorry for the confusion. dont take me too seriously... i am just tossing some things around.

i mean, really, it is no mistake that it is called quantum mechanics, right?

(i do try to replace "mechanics" with "theory" as often as possible.)

edit on 9-8-2013 by tgidkp because: (no reason given)

Tg--

Kindly take a few moments to point me in the direction of your other threads. Time is short.

No real confusion, since you've taken a few moments to clean it up. Others could benefit from your example.

I must take you seriously, especially when you are kicking ideas around. Ideas are important. You've dropped a lot of good ideas on this forum, and if I thought that your ideas were like random bird droppings, I'd lose interest.

Consider the possibility that QM was indeed given the "mechanics" title by mistake. I was in the process of flunking my first QM class, way back when, until the night before finals I realized in a stroke of insight that QM had nothing to do with the "mechanics" classes I'd learned before. It had nothing to do with real physics either, except functionally-- which made it useful.

There are alternative ideas about the physics behind QM, but only one that I know of that would bear the title of real mechanics. Nice that you make the distinction between reality and theory. We should extend this conversation to your other threads.

reply to post by Greylorn


here
here

reply to post by Greylorn


What is the minimum requirements for 'stuff' to be 'mechanics/mechanical'?

What is the minimum requirements for 'stuff' to not be 'mechanics/mechanical'?

Originally posted by ImaFungi
reply to post by Greylorn

 

What is the minimum requirements for 'stuff' to be 'mechanics/mechanical'?

What is the minimum requirements for 'stuff' to not be 'mechanics/mechanical'?

I'm sorry, but I do not understand the sense of this query. Perhaps you can clarify.

reply to post by tgidkp

Lol what makes me giggle is everybody thinking computers cannot deal with contradictions. Of course they can, if they're coded to allow for it (and not coded with hard boundaries).

This is how I read the statement:
"The Statement: 'The statement is not in English' is not (error...) understandable.

I know it's 'in English', so I assume 'in English' means something else. What I do is I replace 'in English' with something else that makes sense to me. Software can do this (no obvious obstacle).

If it spots a contradiction it can fit something in its place that isn't a contradiction. Better yet, it can remember this instance of contradiction and adjust it later if it finds a better fit.

It's basically:
1) Spot contradiction
2) Best match algorithm
3) Adjust later if needed

Essentially, we blur a contradiction so it's not a contradiction. The brain is a soft thing, not a hard thing. It moves with the times. It's fuzziness. This is where its power is.

This is basic stuff. Our brain does this ALL THE TIME. Open up a elementary science book and you'll probably find some mention about how our brain assumes and projects constantly. For example, if the brain sees a line, it assumes that the line continues, even if there're breaks. These assumptions can be wrong and this is what has led to the so many awesome visual illusions tricks out there.

"Assumptions" aren't always hardwired into our brain, see here:
phys.org - Remembering the future: Our brain saves energy by predicting what it will see...

We ARE figuring out intelligence, but who pays attention or remotely understands it? These things aren't easy and that's why we weren't making artificial brains 50 years ago. Time....

Pattern recognition algorithms have come a long way and I think that these, connected with a layered system of progressively higher knowledge, can bring us closer.

reply to post by jonnywhite

If it spots a contradiction it can fit something in its place that isn't a contradiction. Better yet, it can remember this instance of contradiction and adjust it later if it finds a better fit.

sure. why not?

giggle away, but the fact of the matter is that it takes a finger to push a button to initiate the bootstrap code. do you suppose we'll ever be able to simply program our way out of that one?

(((((((infinity) +1)...)...)...

reply to post by tgidkp

Learning algorithms program themselves.

Something like that.

They'll take uncertainty and shrug. No locking up. No crashes.

Why you keep looking for the one thing that can break the code? You got a chip on your shoulder? What're you afraid of. Humans have had plenty of chances to destroy themselves.

It's fear. Maybe the release is to realize we never really had control. Personally, I see us as microcosmic swirly things at the mercy of immense unseen forces outside ourselves.

reply to post by jonnywhite


i just get irritated when people focus on the minutia of some aspect of the argument without discussing it in context of the information i have presented in the rest of the thread. i have spent quite a bit of time composing my recent threads, and it feels disrespectful to me.

in the case that you actually understand the overall point of the thread, then i can accept your comment that "we never really had control" to be a valid premise for further discussion.

hell. i am even willing to admit to my own "breaking up" or whatever it was that you've now edited out.

i just wanna talk about what i am trying to talk about....not about literal computers. however, if you want to continue use of the metaphor to further discuss the thread topic.... sweet.

Originally posted by Greylorn

Originally posted by ImaFungi
reply to post by Greylorn

 

What is the minimum requirements for 'stuff' to be 'mechanics/mechanical'?

What is the minimum requirements for 'stuff' to not be 'mechanics/mechanical'?

I'm sorry, but I do not understand the sense of this query. Perhaps you can clarify.

"Consider the possibility that QM was indeed given the "mechanics" title by mistake. I was in the process of flunking my first QM class, way back when, until the night before finals I realized in a stroke of insight that QM had nothing to do with the "mechanics" classes I'd learned before. It had nothing to do with real physics either, except functionally-- which made it useful. "

This is a quote written by you, which led me to wonder, what you thought the concept of mechanics means. If QM is not mechanics (or equations describing mechanics), then you must have some notion of what mechanics in themself are. So I am asking, if stuff exists and that stuff can be mechanical, and stuff exists and that stuff can be not mechanical; what are the minimum requirements for stuff to be consider mechanical/mechanics and what are the minimum requirements for stuff to be considered non mechanical/non mechanics?