Leaderboard

! Moderator Note It's been painfully obvious for a LONG time, but it's still frustrating that you don't bother to source your conjecture the way others do. You seem to think your raw opinions are meaningful without facts and evidential support. This has allowed you to post a whole lot of crap in otherwise scientific threads. You need to stop it. You seem very smart, and you often represent a POV that we need to see, but you ruin it with unevidenced opinion that you assert like it's fact. We can start trashing bad faith posts like that if you can't stop yourself, but we want to let you know our thinking on this.

Which animals? Me, a week ago today:

Well this human minds very much and finds it insulting to blind folks. You have come full circle to the twaddle you started with, despite having acknowledged you were wrong and others had a point or three, along the way. I'm out of here.

Crap, is this your argument, that color doesn't exist for animals because you don't think they know what colors are? Holy moley, if I'd known that I wouldn't have bothered. I don't appreciate willful ignorance and purposeful obfuscation. It shows you aren't arguing in good faith.

He might have been trying to explain how color is all in our heads: https://www.extremetech.com/archive/49028-color-is-subjective A practical example: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_dress *consciousness There are pigments in nature but no sensation of color "out there," if that's what you were trying to say...

And a koala is also called "koala bear" even though it has nothing to do with bears. It's a marsupial. That would lead us into the fascinating world of misnomers. The loss of coherence that connects the quantum domain with the classical domain has to do with interaction, not with the observation of anything. There are planets out there that nobody will ever visit, and electrons, protons, etc, are doing their business giving rise to physics that a potential observer would interpret as classical, because they are in the classical or quasi-classical regime. Again, it's not about observing, it's about quasi-classical interactions. Ok. I have no doubt now you've picked this up from somewhere, so I've been looking it up. A minority of people seem to use that distinction "passive" vs "active". Not that it has aroused much interest at all. It seems to come from D. H. Zeh in connection with the Everett interpretation. The rest of the community doesn't seem to be paying much attention to it. I'm certainly not. I don't find such distinction useful. It's only people paying heed to the many-worlds (or relative-state) interpretation of QM that seem to find it necessary. And, then again, not all of them. You should. The interaction Hamiltonian depending on the coordinates of the apparatus had better commute with the observable it's measuring. Otherwise it's just smearing things out. If it does, it can't change the statistical weights. If it doesn't... I've reviewed this over and over and over... And over. And what's inescapable is that it doesn't change the weights (the diagonal elements of the density matrix). But it does change (and how!) the non-diagonal elements of it. And guess how we call the non-diagonal elements of the density matrix. Yes, you guessed it. "Coherences". And that's no misnomer: It contains all the possible interference terms. If the interaction is "classical enough" (the mechanical action of order many times \( \hbar \) ), then the interference terms die out in ridiculously short times. So yes, in these cases the apparatus does something on the quantum system. And viceversa. But it's very different to telling us anything like probability of cat dead = 1 and probability of cat alive = 0. Superpositions should live forever. Now, there's a series of paths you can take from there, but I'm afraid they all involve some kind of semantic orgy I'm not willing to get involved in: Pick your alternative (many-worlds, double solution, transactional,...) and adhere to the litany the "natives" use. Not for me. I prefer to say, "I don't know". Amen to that. Except the bit about "observation". Ditto. Measurement in the formalism of QM selects a basis, not a state from that basis. I disagree. There are better alternatives, but they haven't been considered nearly as seriously as they deserve. But that's my view.

A desire for revenge and retaliation is understandable, and arguments in favor of it as a method of prevention run contrary to the available evidence. Kids who are punished learn how not to get caught. They don’t learn how to be a better integrated more productive member of society. Adults are mostly just kids with larger clothes, bills, and related responsibilities. We’ll always have criminality, but we don’t have to stick to the discredited notion that fear of imprisonment is what stops people from engaging in it.

If one has a conformally flat metric, the corresponding Friedmann-Lemaître-Robertson-Walker (FLRW) metric can be obtained from it by a coordinate transformation: (ds)² = A(t)² ((c dt)² – (dx)² – (dy)² – (dz)²) t = ƒ(t') ; x = x' ; y = y' ; z = z' dt = ∂t/∂t' dt' + ∂t/∂x' dx' + ∂t/∂y' dy' + ∂t/∂z' dz' = dƒ(t')/dt' dt' dx = ∂x/∂t' dt' + ∂x/∂x' dx' + ∂x/∂y' dy' + ∂x/∂z' dz' = dx' dy = ∂y/∂t' dt' + ∂y/∂x' dx' + ∂y/∂y' dy' + ∂y/∂z' dz' = dy' dz = ∂z/∂t' dt' + ∂z/∂x' dx' + ∂z/∂y' dy' + ∂z/∂z' dz' = dz' Note that the primed coordinates (t', x', y', z') and unprimed coordinates (t, x, y, z) have reversed roles compared to the earlier posts in this thread. dƒ(t')/dt' = 1/A(ƒ(t')) A(ƒ(t')) dƒ(t')/dt' = 1 Let F(t) be such that: dF–1(t)/dt = A(t) Then: dF–1(ƒ(t'))/dt' = A(ƒ(t')) dƒ(t')/dt' = 1 F–1(ƒ(t')) = t' – t'0 where t'0 is an arbitrarily chosen value of t' ƒ(t') = F(t' – t'0) Let a(t' – t'0) = A(ƒ(t')) Then: dƒ(t')/dt' = 1/A(ƒ(t')) = dF(t' – t'0)/dt' = 1/a(t' – t'0) And therefore: (ds)² = (c dt')² – a(t' – t'0)² ((dx')² + (dy')² + (dz')²) .............................. For example: (ds)² = exp(k t)² ((c dt)² – (dx)² – (dy)² – (dz)²) A(t) = exp(k t) 1/A(ƒ(t')) = dƒ(t')/dt' = exp(–k ƒ(t')) exp(k ƒ(t')) dƒ(t')/dt' = 1 (1/k) exp(k ƒ(t')) = t' – t'0 where t'0 is an arbitrarily chosen value of t' ƒ(t') = (1/k) ln(k (t' – t'0)) 1/a(t' – t'0) = dƒ(t')/dt' = 1/(k (t' – t'0)) a(t' – t'0) = k (t' – t'0) Therefore: (ds)² = (c dt')² – (k (t' – t'0))² ((dx')² + (dy')² + (dz')²) as would be expected from the earlier post.

The problem with "going back to the way things were" is that it's entirely subjective. The 90s was the most prosperous decade of my life, and before 1996 we actually had rules about what constituted "news" used to inform the public, so I could wish we could go back for those things. But the 90s also means the Columbine shooting here in my state, the one that started the media craze over school shootings. The genocides in Yugoslavia and Rwanda. The Oklahoma City bombing, and the first World Trade Center bombing. And going back to the 50s?! Not if you're a person of color, or don't like cars breaking down on the regular due to vapor lock, or if you don't want actual ballot box tampering. Most of the folks I hear talking about life being better in the 50s mean it was before civil rights, when white people could do or say anything they pleased. I'd have no problem with capitalism if it rewarded work/talent equitably, but in its current form it doesn't. Work/talent combined with resources makes goods and performs tasks, and all involved should profit equitably, but the resource owners look down on work/talent, and overvalue their resources to the point where the resource owners make hundreds of times more than the talented worker. And I'm not sure you need big surpluses to make some things free-to-all. If we'd been smarter about internet shopping, we could have made the big corporations pay to use our data to target us. And if we'd use public spending the way it should be used, with absolutely no profit motive involved, we could save a LOT on things just about everyone uses. Interesting. Generational wealth is a big problem. It might get a bit sticky for someone who just has a home and $30,000 in savings. That person's kids were hoping for a leveling up opportunity of their own. I'll have to think about this. I'm reminded that the modern narrative tells us to kick our kids out of the house at 18 and don't give them anything so it'll make them resilient, yet rich people do the opposite. They fund them fully, make sure they have a great education, and keep them close as they navigate through life. My hard left? I'd expand the US Postal Service, get them their own fleet of jets, and turn them into a hub of commerce and shipping, publicly funded. I'd have them set up an enormous website where anyone who wanted to sell anything and have it shipped could do so. IOW, I'd take care of the Amazon problem by competing with them using a socialist format that wasn't driven by profit. Shipping costs would go down, the USPS site wouldn't be trying to compete with its own vendors (like Amazon does), and both large and small businesses would see costs go down. To go along with this, I'd also add internet access in infrastructure bills. I think the US government using socialism to give every citizen access to capitalism is a huge investment in its People.

Was going to point this out. More greenwashing, at this point. Really good news for the environment would be masses of people in developed countries bicycling and walking and buying less fungible junk and living in smaller homes and eating more plants, choices that powerful corporations strenuously want people not to make and fight tooth-and-nail against with enormous campaigns of mass marketing.

No philosophy here. Neither science. Just a list of crackpot ideas, completely detached from reality and the discussion in this thread.

For a moment there I actually thought it was stolen from the Copypasta subreddit (maybe I should copy-pasta THAT onto r/copypasta...)

If you look at the sea level rise over time, it's very hard to attribute any of it so far to CO2 levels. The current CO2 level rise was tiny, up until 1950, when the acceleration began. Given that there must be a time lag between CO2 rising and sea level rise, it's reasonable to infer that the graph up to 1970 is of natural rises, due to other causes. It's very very hard to look at the graph, and see any effect as yet, after 1970, from CO2 level. It appears so far that it's just continuing the previous trend. If there is an effect in the graph, it's very very tiny.

You seem to be confusing IPCC reports with science. Instead of responding to my post with any kind of logical point. I just posted the graph from wikipedia (as usual) and the rest of my post was easy enough to read and respond to, if you disagree with it. As for unsourced conjecture and opinion, I write my own posts. I would have thought that would be obvious by now. Sea level rise - Wikipedia If you think Wikipedia got it wrong, I'm sure you'll soon be writing your own pages.

I'm just returning a small portion of the snarkiness and bitchiness that you sent my way in the artificial consciousness thread. If you can't take the heat, get out of the kitchen. You had nothing better to do in that thread but make statements like "He is a waste of time" because well, you had nothing to stand on. Better look in the mirror before throwing rocks. That said, what you typed was a category mistake, because the statement I made was not from the societal angle; I was being consistent throughout. You're mixing personal action with societal evaluation. Nah, I'm not your ally. I have no choice but to not be!

Rubbish. The rehab industry will shout it to the rooftops, but they ignore the fact that punishment is a great incentive to go straight. Since most crime goes undetected, it's not possible to assess the success of rehab. Many criminals learn from getting caught, and are more careful next time. The probation industry will claim them as successes, while they carry on offending but not getting caught. I envy and admire the US for their sentencing policy. Or I used to, but behind the scenes, a lot of the headline sentences are abandoned when the criminal " shows that they have reformed " and they end up doing four years of a nominal 20 year stretch. I think you would get the same results, or better, by getting rid of all the rehabilitation industry, and just kept people in for the sentence they deserved on the day. In this country, people know full well that if they get 8 years they will only do four. Criminals especially know how to play the system. The people I really feel sorry for, are innocent people who are found guilty. If you don't admit to something you didn't do, you will do the whole 8 years and more. THAT is criminal.

If there were no visible light spectrum, then there would be no human mind. So you take it for granted that universe is this way. Like a given fact. Have you ever thought why universe is THIS way and not the other? Is this just coincidence that there is visible spectrum of light and there's human brain which have the ability to interpret a wavelength to a colour? I tell you again: animals see different beings and things. They don't know that this difference is a "colour" because they don't know the word "colour". And there's no colour in the nature, the "colour" is in a human mind only. If you didn't know the word colour, the names red, blue, green, what would you see? Would the sky be blue for you?

Do you know where The Kingdom of Heaven is?

Do animals know that the sky is blue, the grass is green? I think dolphins can differ colours in human way, like colors have some meaning for them.

Religion is a subtle topic, because there's so much subjectivity in it. The only objective knowledge about God is The Bible. And The Bible says that "Kingdom of Heaven is inside you". And everything is in God's power, and there's no evil, the only real evil is a sin. And that evil on Earth is the result of a man's free will. And yet you have to use due instruments for understanding religion. You can't measure a weight with a ruler.

But where is evolution if animals also distinguish colours? As I am being proved. Evolution of what? How could the sky be blue if there is no blue. And yet. Animals don't distinguish colors, this is wrong statement. They distinguish carriers of a color. And I stand on this thought. And I have one more question. what science or area of knowledge does color relate to? So that I could choose a correct way of communicating. Because I can see that philosophical way of thinking is not appreciated. But color is a philosophical question also. Color (American English) or colour (Commonwealth English)

You seem to think your raw opinions are meaningful without facts and evidential support.

So, so long as the facts and evidential support are safely stored inside your head, you are free to post without them? I suppose that's one of the benefits of moderating.

Here is what you're studying:

Hello. I am the Ubermensch. A product of many great minds throughout history. You will be well served to read this story. I have found my forum. King David was a sword maker. One of his creations has survived through history. The historical timeline is spotty as to definitive ownership of this Sword during the time through to Maurice Benyovsky, suffice it to say that many great people possessed the Sword prior to Benyovsky, the first elected King of Madagascar. The Sword was gifted to Benyovsky's good friend Benjamin Franklin through him to relative who settled the Sword with Ralph Waldo Emerson. This history of this Sword is well known to these historical figures. Emerson intellectually imbues into the Sword a treasure hunt using a unique coin to be connected to the presence of the Sword. This was Emerson's life long project called "Natural History of Intellect". The Sword/Coin duo, now, was placed to fate. They move to... Thomas Carlyle and through to Richard Wagner, the German creator of "Parsival" a play detailing a cutting instrument and cup of rejuvenation of plenty which is synonymous with the Sword/Coin duo. Obviously very close to Nietzsche, Wagner transfers the Sword/Coin duo to him. Nietzsche and Emerson very close as their work is well known to each other (in the open); however, they never met. Emerson's "Oversoul" or "Pure Transcendentalist" imbued into the Sword/Coin is synonymous with Nietzsche's now "Ubermensche". Nietzsche carry's on Emerson's legacy in the object duo. How does Nietzsche proceed?... Nietzsche becoming ill just after penning Z. part IV. He is approached by an obscure figure. Dr. Willibald Hentschel, the early father of Eugenics which was hijacked and proliferated by Hitler after 1933. Hentschel became a nazi late in life due to political pressure but never adhered to the political position and was a double agent against Hitler when he finally became a registered nazi. He died in about 1946. Hentschel desired a very limited copy of the penciled Z. Part IV and Nietzsche seeing him as a potential candidate to propel into the future the Sword/Coin project of Emerson and now Nietzsche, he passed the Sword/Coin duo to Hentschel. The ancient Sword, once in America gone to Europe will now be going back to America with the Hentschel line ( all documented )... The Sword/Coin duo has the imbued potential to teach one (and only one) the historical, intellectual facts of the coming Ubermensch. Who would that be...? At this point do we really consider that this story is coincidental? What is the Power behind its creation, its evolution, its Truth? How does this connect with Carl Jung and Nietzsche? How is this video relevant: A young boy, innocent, observant, enthusiastic has found a sword in a an old steamer trunk in the attic of his boyhood home in 1976. Forty-six years later he publishes this book: "RED KNEE....Itsy, bitsy SPIDER. Ah, yes, moving into the "Age of Aquarius" as the video suggests. My job, throughout the historical highway of learning as I have become an autodidact, was to become...to learn of who I am and who I will become. This was the experiment of "Natural History of Intellect" and of the "Ubermensch" of Emerson and Nietzsche, respectively. How do I proceed...? What now? Who studies this? How do we get this fantastic story to people who need it? The "Age of Aquarius," yes...please, only serious adherents write me at personal email removed by moderator Ubermensch. SWORDIMAGE.pdf