Leaderboard

Oh, I thought this thread was literally about 'playing with yourself' ...

That's the problem with Religions ( aside from political commentary ) and reminds me of an Emo Philips joke Once I saw this guy on a bridge about to jump. I said, “Don’t do it!” He said, “Nobody loves me.” I said, “God loves you. Do you believe in God?” He said, “Yes.” I said, “Are you a Christian or a Jew?” He said, “A Christian.” I said, “Me, too! Protestant or Catholic?” He said, “Protestant.” I said, “Me, too! What franchise?” He said, “Baptist.” I said, “Me, too! Northern Baptist or Southern Baptist?” He said, “Northern Baptist.” I said, “Me, too! Northern Conservative Baptist or Northern Liberal Baptist?” He said, “Northern Conservative Baptist.” I said, “Me, too! Northern Conservative Baptist Great Lakes Region, or Northern Conservative Baptist Eastern Region?” He said, “Northern Conservative Baptist Great Lakes Region.” I said, “Me, too! Northern Conservative Baptist Great Lakes Region Council of 1879, or Northern Conservative Baptist Great Lakes Region Council of 1912?” He said, “Northern Conservative Baptist Great Lakes Region Council of 1912.” I said, “Die, heretic!” And I pushed him over. ( reading it back to myself, it does seem much funnier in an Emo Philips voice )

There were too many non sequitur's in your argument for me to take the time to follow it to the end. You may wish to revisit the presentation with a closer attention to logic.

One of the reasons I used to dislike Philosophy ( till Eise came along ). Most ,who call themselves philosophers, are just stroking their … ego.

UNofficial jokes go in the .science sections ( usually Physics or Biology ). It's hilarious what some people try to pass off as science.

What's the paradox? The title implies that "yourself" played both black and white. White won the game. You were both black and white. You won as white and lost as black. There's nothing paradoxical about that, and not even a feeling of doubt about those answers, let alone a sense that it's unsolvable. What am I missing? Is there some assumption that is somehow a tautology, something like "You can't be your own adversary"? "One entity cannot be two different things at once?" I can't think of any assumption that I agree with that would require a contradiction in answering the questions. What is the gist of the argument that it's unsolvable? I would bet money that you're right! I'm curious about your reasoning though. White won, "you" were playing white. No other person was mentioned. The title implies your opponent was yourself. If you are calling "yourself" two persons, that's fine, I see nothing paradoxical about that. Ignoring the title, the story describes an opponent who is not seen when the game is won. It could describe a game against someone else, who stood up and walked around after playing their final move. Not only is there no paradox, there are multiple consistent interpretations. Is it "unsolvable" because you've left out information? But I suspect that the two people are both you, and that somehow that seems impossible to you. I suspect that one person is described as "two persons" for the meaning of "playing a game for two persons", and then the meaning of "two persons" is switched, without it being obvious to you, to mean "two persons refers to separate individuals".

Are you sure?

(A collection of some thoughts brought on by recent posts and posters. Some of these are touched upon in the FAQ and Pseudoscience section, and these sentiments can be found on other science fora) If you think you've toppled relativity, quantum mechanics, evolution or some other theory with your post, think again. Theories that have been around for a while have lots of evidence to back them up. It is far more likely that you have missed something. Here are some things to consider: 1. You have to back your statements up with evidence. 2. Anecdotes are not evidence. 3. Being challenged to present evidence is not a personal attack. 4. Calling the people in who challenge you "brainwashed" or "stupid" does not further your argument. Neither does throwing a tantrum. 5. Published research (peer-reviewed) is more credible than the alternative. But peer-review is not perfect. 6. When you have been shown to be wrong, acknowledge it. 7. Just because some paper or web site agrees with you does not mean that you are right. You need evidence. 8. Just because some paper comes to the same conclusion as you does not mean your hypotheses are the same. 9. Provide references when you refer to the work of others. Make sure the work is relevant, and quotes are in the proper context. 10. Disagreeing with you does not make someone "close-minded." "Thinking outside the box" is not a substitute for verifiable experimental data. 11. Mainstream science is mainstream because it works, not because of some conspiracy. If you think you have an alternative, you have to cover all the bases - not just one experiment (real or gedanken). One set of experimental results that nobody has been able to reproduce is insufficient. 12. Respect is earned. People who are resident experts, mods and administrators have earned those titles. 13. Be familiar with that which you are criticizing. Don't make up your own terminology, and know the language of the science. A theory is not a guess. 14. If nothing will convince you your viewpoint is wrong, you aren't doing science. That's religion. 15. All theories are of limited scope. Just because a theory does not address some point you want it to does not automatically mean it's wrong. 16. Not understanding a concept, or discovering that it's counterintuitive, does not make it wrong. Nature is under no obligation to behave the way you want it to. 17. You are entitled to your own opinion, but you are not entitled to your own facts. Science cares very little about your opinion, as it has little relevance to the subject. 18. If you want to be taken seriously, you have to address criticism of your viewpoint.

Privacy concerns and compliance may be part of the equation. For example surveys indicated that perhaps 20% of Brits with symptoms did not stay at home. However, we are not necessarily talking about tech or even good sense. Even in confirmed cases folks in France, UK and Germany only provided limited lists of contacts to authorities and on average only three persons per infection were traced. In countries such as South Korea and Taiwan (as well as other Asian and African countries,) the traced folks are double digits. Also note that many authoritarian countries are doing poorly, mostly in those were the government did not take the risk seriously. So failure to recognize a public health risk and to comply to recommendation (with varying degrees) but also lack of governmental willingness to set up a better contact tracing system are some of the key reasons why the pandemic was not contained or failed to burn out. Ultimately, we have seen a case were reaction was slow and pondering with the primary aim to prevent the worse rather than trying to aim for the best outcome. If more had been invested and done in the beginning, the net economic loss would likely be a fraction of what we are going to face. Not to mention the worrying reports of permanent damages due to the disease, which may have long-lasting health costs, even once the pandemic subsides. I do not think it is a matter of authoritarianism. It is matter of whether folks decided to a) listen to health experts and b) willing to take measures that were more than "just enough". I should add: many of the countries doing the right steps such as enhanced contact tracing, were also those that have built expertise due to outbreaks such as SARS or ebola. I can only hope that this time the memory persists, and does not suddenly vanish (also in the Western world) such as after the swine flu pandemic.

Hey mate, Have you tried using bone conducting headphones? When you are out on your bike, you can hear the music and listen out for traffic as well. I bought a set, but the volume is not great. However, they work.

Fantastic! Like the music as well!

Cheers StringyJunky, hope you are well mate. Have tried the BB code thing but it failed miserably. Hey there mate, I just cut and pasted the entire youtube link into the post and got this great track:

We are sentient life. You hypothesis has been falsified.

I'm not really sure exactly what these model actually is that you could falsify. What explicitly is the model?

So what you are saying, is if these things are true and these assumptions are true and we ignore these aspects and we blindly apply these statistics, then this idea may be a possibility? You have not convinced me.

You picked a fine time to leave me Dodge Ram... "Most statements or claims on the internet are exaggerated, completely false, or incorrectly attributed" Mahatma Ghandi

Id imagine he'd love having a large rock moved to the front entrance of the White House so he can roll it to the side and emerge. It has to hurt Trump's approval. This is a crisis of hist absolute own creation. The nation has seen Trump mock journalists at briefings and Biden during the debate for wearing masks. Trump's own family defied the rules during the debate went mask-less. Trump clearly exercised poor judgement. If isn't something the left can be blamed or whatever. Trump did this to himself. Over a million people have already early voted. If it were to prove fatal that would still take another couple weeks by which point tens of millions may have already voted. A time "before the election" has passed. Ballots are being cast. It is basically too late to replace Trump with another candidate in the traditional sense. Electoral College Electors could just give their votes to Pence. However that would be done state by state and nothing legally would force all state Electors to do so. Congress also has the authority to cancel/reschedule the election. I have been worried about election result violence. I am fearful that if Biden wins White Nationalist group will perpetrate large scale domestic terrorist attacks against against people of color, immigrants, and the LGBTQ community. I am also concerned that if Trump wins we'll see violence protests throughout the nation that lead to mass fatalities. Just a lose/lose situation where people will be hurt and killed regardless of the outcome. If Trump were to pass from COVID I think it changes the violent forecast. Trump very publicly disregarded recommended safety precautions. Trump made ignoring COVID protocols part of his brand. Antfa, Crooked Hillary, Sleepy Joe, Nancy, the failing NY Times, etc didn't do this to Trump. There won't be any boogeymen for Trump supporters rage against if Trump passed. They would be fill with deep disappointment rather than violent anger. I think it would lower tensions. *I am not advocating anything with the above comments.

It's a strawman argument, and his entire argument. "These numbers don't make sense; there is something wrong with relativity." > Those aren't the numbers that special relativity predicts. "But they have to be! It's the only way that relativity can be right!"

iNow posted this from an expert on these matters: https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2020/10/02/were-final-stages-presidential-election-what-happens-if-candidate-withdraws-or-dies/

Paradoxically, it might help him. If he dies, more moderate Republicans planning right now to vote for Biden might come back home to the "replacement" Republican nominee. The RNC would have to choose a replacement candidate, but it's already too late to change ballots (also since voting has already begun in many states). The decision would be left to the electors of the electoral college in states where Trump won to pass those votes to the replacement chosen by the RNC or pass them to someone else. Nothing legally prevents them from deciding for themselves who to push votes to, but they would likely align behind the RNC choice. Pence would assume power at least until inauguration day January 17 This is very on-brand for 2020. I'm also not at all comfortable with the level of schadenfreude I'm feeling.

And I might reply to your many questions one day too, just not today

I`de also add to Swansonts List that after reading it and you Still feel your "theory" passes, USE OUR SEARCH ENGINE FIRST!!! before posting. you`de be surprised what might have been thought of before you