TheGeckomancer

Half of this is flat out BS I am not going to dignify with a response such as the mutations don't explain evolution. Please refer to my previous post about irreducible complexity and perspective. it doesn't exist. The history of all irreducibly complexity arguments have been that at the time we simply couldn't answer that question. Not only are you claiming that being ignorant proves god which I think even god would be offended by. But you are insulting generations of hard work and brilliant research while going it. If you want to claim there is a creator, then he created you with higher thought functions. Use them. I personally would be disgusted if I made a species with gifts as absolutely powerful as logic, math, and tool manipulation and they decided to give up on learning because they concluded that god disapproved. Another way of putting this is. I don't care if you think you have 10 billion examples of irreducible complexity. Your argument is inherently flawed, the irreducible complexity argument itself is inherently flawed, it wouldn't matter if you actually did find a legitimate example, which you haven't. Now that I think about it, this topic does not deserve it's own thread. Irreducible Complexity is not even it's own argument. It's a god of the gaps argument. That's covered under "Can science explain a universe without god?" which I addressed.

Everyone wants to cherry pick my arguments. Ignore the reality. I don't get why people don't understand that while gun nuts are a thing, so are anti gun nuts, and they are both as illogical. Even assuming the ban did work, which again, completely impossible for all the reasons listed above. We would still not be addressing the core of the issue at all. Why do people want to lash out and commit these acts of violence? What are we not doing as a society that we should be? Because guns have been a thing in the US for over a hundred years, more common than cars, but EITHER mass shootings were not a problem in the past, OR we only just started caring about them. Which is it and why? I know it's a TERRIFYING idea, especially to security minded that we can't stop people from causing harm but if you step back and just look at your own life you know it's true. You could google right now, how to whip up a bathtub chemical bomb and just go have a night on the town. But you don't, why? And if your argument then becomes what about the mentally ill? What about them? You never cared before they could get a gun and shoot you why care now? Is it okay to limit the suffering they can cause others without dealing with the suffering they are experiencing? We like to act like mental health and poverty are not our problems, but they are, they are societal problems. It's an insane double standard. We want to limit your ability to lash out at society, but society wants NONE of the responsibility for your happiness or well being. And Strange this is just for you. Have you once, in ALL of these posts hear me glorify guns? Again, I don't own one and I think they are evil. Unfortunately they are an evil to stay. You do not have to be "pro gun" to realize that "anti gun" is not logical. I hope I have made it abundantly clear why.

This whole topic. And my comment obviously means I am one of the master minds responsible for this devious plot trying to distract you. But then I wouldn't have.....wait.........

The problem is that until the study is done, which is too unethical to do you wouldn't know. But if it prevents long term memory from forming I don't see how it could allow long term suggesting. I have also looked into this devil's breath. Frankly, I don't buy it.

Not a chemistry expert but it makes sense that it would be surface area. And unchopped potatoe only exposes the skin, chemical reactions will happen through it but the more surface of the potatoe that the peroxide has exposure to, the faster it can react.

So if you raised a child completely separate from language they would be brain dead? Not even close. They just don't think like you or I do.I can imagine it would make some abstract concepts REALLY difficult to think about, but not impossible.

Also. This is more a side effect of interactions of photons with matter. I would suggest for a much more interesting read in the Breitt-Wheeler process. http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1742-6596/497/1/012016/pdfThe math is a beast but you can ignore it and still get some usefulness from this. http://www.gizmag.com/experiment-to-turn-light-into-matter/32107/Much simpler article on the matter This is also much less speculative, while the test hasn't been done the math has been confirmed dozens of times.

I feel it's kind of self explanatory. We have to do the same thing with math we do with dark matter. Since it cannot be seen, we make theories to explain the function of something, then we hold our theory up to reality and see how well it does. Since there is no theoretical model that would allow us to judge the "reality of math" I guess you would say. We have to fallback on the constant reinforcement of maths accuracy in all parts of the natural world. I get that in the end it comes down to induction reasoning but godel supported in the end that's the best we can get for true verification of anything.

There have been experiments done, that have not been verified at all, still really new, where they were supposedly able to generate mass from photon interactions. "Illusory mass". Mind you this is mostly unverified like I said, the theory is sound to an extent but demonstrations are in short order. http://phys.org/news/2013-09-scientists-never-before-seen.html

Sorry it's not your fault, I make edits for a while after I say something, refining my idea on the go. I know that's not the best method but I get impatient to post a response. The problem is not the difficulty to break the security that prevents you from using a 3d printer that way. Once ANYONE does it EVERYONE DOES IT that's the way it works. Everybody individually who modded their PS2 did not figure it out themselves, 1 guy did it and everyone copied. That's all it takes is one person, and there WILL be one person the first day of release, every time, guaranteed, this is part of the hacker community. In response to the idea of having scanners everywhere. They have already 3d printed single shot plastic guns, no metal parts. Yes they kind of suck, but this is early early prototyping. In response to the air plane security comment please check this out. A series called Adam Ruins. not only is it worthless, it's damaging because it provides the illusion of safety where it isn't. Am I insane or did you not have a comment in there about how we needed the tsa to protect us from terrorists because peace and love won't work? Maybe you took it out? I don't know. I am going to leave this up here because either way the argument applies. Banning guns here and now in the US is the illusion of safety because you won't get rid of them, and you won't stop people from printing them. Additionally, 3d printers don't have real limits on what they can make. Blocking the ability to make guns (which is basically impossible for the points I laid out earlier, if you knew programming and I am not being insulting you would know you cant specify variables as broad as I defined without making the device unuseable) it would not prevent the 3d printer from making any newer deadlier, more sophisticated more concealable weapon. Which again is the real concern because guns overall are not that dangerous. You as an individual can't kill more than a couple dozen people before being stopped. Not saying thats a good thing but it is nothing compared to ANY improvised explosive, or the weapons capabilities of 3d printers in the next 5 years. Or crap, I could go buy a drone at radio shack and put a bomb on it.... Which is another thing I will not actually have to go to the store and buy, if I want to be a domestic terrorist I don't even have to get up. I can print up the drone and bomb, control it remotely and go take out a school all in a recliner and bunny slippers. You are missing the point of my argument, individual METHODS are irrelevant, if someone wants to cause harm they will. We have to mitigate the desire to cause harm as a society. No other solution works. 3d printed drone, video is over a year old. 3d printed metal gun, video is 2 years old Wow didn't know this one, 3d printed plastic gun that can actually handle firing a whole clip Drone firing a gun Civilian Video of Drone wielding automatic weapon with equipped self destruct payload this last one may be fake but it's certainly not unfeasible Is my point made yet? Banning weapons will do NOTHING to the availability or lethality of weapons, which WILL CONTINUE TO RISE. This is not something laws will stop. We need a change in mind set. Period. Which is why in one of my very first posts about this topic I said that guns are not even a symptom of the disease.

I am only making a not even 5 year future prediction. There are already 3d printers that can make have made reliable reuseable firearms. And if you know anything about computer engineering or programming, there is no restriction you can put on a device that cannot be removed. Technology is ALWAYS a double edged sword, there is no way to not make it be one. The 3d printer would have to inherently be incapable of making guns, by default. Which is already not the case, and you could not engineer one without that capability without seriously gimping it's other capabilities. Additionally, even if you could, I could still print out the parts and assemble it myself. Are you going to have a software protocol restricting my ability to print metal cylinders 9mm in diameter? What about 8? See it's easy to ban parts on guns cause they are prebuilt by size. If I can make it at home you not only have to program the printer to not make any existing gun parts, but any part that can be USED as a gun part scaled to any size. And assuming you did all of that. I can print out the parts to a 3d printer that doesn't have those hardware or software limitations. Also. You export military hardware. We make military and (like all of the) civilian weapons. Beyond that. Your argument about disease is solid, because most of the most lethal viruses are exotic. Meaning easily kept out of every day hands. The problem is a lot of biologists expect that by the year 2040 your average 1st world citizen will be able to bio engineer life ending plagues in their home. Nothing will stop joe blow though from taking a circulating strain of h1n1 or something and mutating it up to the MUCH more lethal one I think h5n1 they did in labs. So again, crazy as it is, we have to trust humanity to not want to kill each other. Since JUST trusting seems like a bad idea, how about lots of education and social reform promoting mental health and happiness? Or is that a bad idea compared to banning a tool capable of violence without treating the fact that WE ARE violent? Many people thought humanity as a species was too immature for nuclear weapons. That we would destroy ourselves. I am not saying they are not right. I am saying we haven't done it yet. And understanding the trend of technology to grant more power to impact the world through less and less human effort means INDIVIDUALS WILL become more dangerous. Maybe we will blow ourselves up one day. Seems a lot more likely that we will if our goal is not to educate people, train ourselves to not react brashly, and develop level headedness. Finally something was gnawing at me about your post and it took me till now to realize what it was. You seem to assume that the quality of printed gun will vary from one person to another? There are no more craftsman, I feed the printer a set of mathematically precise instructions and it prints EXACTLY what was specified. There are ALREADY downloadable 3d printable gun softwares. Push this out half a decade.

You basically have the same stance as me. I don't think there is a god. I haven't ruled it out. You would have to convince me and it would take a LOT. But even if you did you would not convince me that the existing god is the christian god. Or any other specific god. I simply think all religions are dumb. If we add to the hypothetical situation that god comes out and says he is the Christian god then I guess so. Or it's a higher life form messing with us. But if I assume an intelligent designer created the whole universe for us and did it this badly (the universe is amazing, just not for us specifically) I will have words for that God.

No I am not. You are cherry picking my argument and avoiding all of the key points. How do you answer the 3d printer problem and future lethal weapons that people will be able to make in their home? Or let me put it this way. You get your wish. They ban guns tomorrow. I go home, print one out, and shoot a school full of children. Whats your answer? Ban 3d printing? Thats not a thing, 3d printing IS all next gen technology. We can no more remove 3d printing from the picture and PERSONAL landscape than we can televisions. Also, the weapons more dangerous than guns are not concealable for the most part. I can't hide a nuclear bomb in my pocket and radioactive materials are exotic. Metal and a printer aren't. I am saying that some things are easily restricted and others are not. Restricting guns in a country that doesn't have guns is simple, restricting guns in a country that manufactures and sells more of them than anyone everyone else in the world combined is MUCH less simple. Also saying other countries can successfully ban guns (pre 3d printing advent) does not say anything about the US. We could not tell China they are allowed to sell bamboo but not have it. IT COMES FROM THERE. It's not a logical statement. You'd have to say america needs to stop manufacturing guns. Which will literally not happen. So to reiterate my real point. "As shocking and terrifying as it is to everybody we have to learn to......Trust *gasp!* humanity and each other. You simply will not be able to stop people from having lethal concealable weapons going forward. Making a society of people responsible and capable of impulse control is the only solution for everybody woldwide."

Because we are the worlds largest manufacturer of civilian and military firearms. We make them. We don't need to smuggle them from anywhere like you do in your country. Mexico has much more gun violence than the United States. They have ONE gun store in the entire country and it is INSANELY regulated. They get their guns from us. If we can't stop them from being illegally taken and smuggled out of country how would we stop criminals IN country with access to the manufacturing facilities and people? And again. That doesn't work going forward because now your neighbor could have a printer in his house that makes guns. As shocking and terrifying as it is to everybody we have to learn to......Trust *gasp!* humanity and each other. You simply will not be able to stop people from having lethal concealable weapons going forward. Making a society of people responsible and capable of impulse control is the only solution for everybody woldwide.

I never said don't make effort to keep people safe from guns. But removing them isn't an option. Every single generation has the responsibility and burden of living with it's own technological capabilities. If we conclude humans are too irresponsible for guns what happens when a MUCH more dangerous technology rolls around we can't control or limit? Another way of putting this is you would never say say lets ban trashbags if a child accidentally suffocated. But if a kid accidentally shoots themself (which is entirely the fault of the parent). We say ban guns. I already explained why the intentional gun violence part doesn't even matter but I will repeat it. Guns kill things, that is the express purpose. You don't get shocked when a rake collects leaves. I hate guns, I think they are one of the only actually evil inventions. I think being able to take life that easily is evil because it takes away most natural opportunities for a bad impulse to wear itself out. But, some humans have bad impulse control, and 3d printers can make unregistered guns on the fly already. Again I ask what happens when weapons more dangerous than guns are something you can print out at home? We gonna institute more bans? Again, I hate guns, but we have to approach this logically.

I thought that was the point I was making. A point can exist relationally(mathematically). You can describe it's position on a line or in space. But since it itself is not a thing, if you put it in nothing, you lose the ability to describe it. Ignore this. I see why. I never understood what he was asking. Got it. I totally misunderstood the initial question.

And yes I agree that nothing in this discussion matters for the way math is used. Also yes. It's a philosophical pissing contest. But simultaneously, it feels like an important truth of the universe that math is a fundamental part of it's makeup. I have actually read the incompleteness theorems an checked out some interesting discussions about it. It's problematic in certain ways. One is it's only true if you accept the axioms it's based on and people have found faults with them. But I am REALLY not going to touch that topic. Other people had gripes with it not me. I do not know enough to even begin parroting someone else's opinions on that.

Universe is of mathematical structure.

Point taken I suppose. But at that point we just get stuck in definitions. I suppose in a sense I am arguing that nonphysical things can be real because we can prove certain concepts independent entirely of human consciousness and perception.

Yes but it means that the existence of non logical axioms doesn't do anything to the argument that math is a part of the natural world, and real if in a platonic sense.

Yes but strictly euclidian geometry is not the whole picture. So while the false postulate may work in a certain context it is not a strictly true statement right? To sum this up a different way. The problem to me doesn't seem to be that non euclidian geometry and non logical axioms counters my argument. Just that they are incomplete axioms and we have not found the correct way of writing them.

So. This is a big question. One I am having trouble picking apart. It doesn't help that I know very little about the formation of euclidian and non euclidian geometry. But it seems to me that the parallel postulate was never correct in that case. It may have appeared superficially so but is incomplete.

We wouldn't. But we do not directly observe dark matter. We do it indirectly. The same way we do math.

This is a serious Alice in Wonderland Rabbit Hole question........ When you first asked it I was already gripped by the complexity because this is not a simple question. By the time I read through a few responses my mind jumped to a few extension questions that actually scare me a bit. What if we can establish a near perfect rate of genetically mapping criminals? Is it okay? This information would be worthless if we did not proactively test people. And what do you do with that knowledge? Doing anything at all is deterministic and has scary implications about the future of behavioral treatments for people. What if people don't want to be tested? As it is now forensic DNA testing is one of the least accurate sciences we have for prosecution. The odds of pulling anyone else's DNA from the crime scenes are insanely high, you carry the DNA ON YOU of most of the people you have interacted with throughout any given day. If you refuse to submit to a sample, it's borderline incriminating, if you do submit and the test itself was wrong (which happens a lot) you are pretty much guaranteed incriminated. There are a ton more questions that can be asked from this. It's a lot more than "What is more important, truth or privacy?".

i agree if this can be taken as "certain applicable aren't applicable to certain physical situations (or any) and would produce erroneous results" my point in bringing up reification fallacy (the first definition you presented is closer to what i'm talking about) is that earlier in the thread you mentioned: I do not understand this sentence. Maybe the way I put that up there was confusing. The first sentence, in quotations was my FIRST attempt at constructing that sentence. You showed me I had to revise it. The second attempt is the one after out of quotations. There were 2 separate statements. If you did not confuse those, I am still confused by your statement. which is an oxymoron if by real you mean "physically exists," but you could be referring to some sort of "platonic" existence. I am referring to a more platonic existence but even if I wasn't this still comes to mind. So is dark matter not real if we can never physically interact with it even though we can observe its effects? And that is my point, it's not a side point. Some things may be REAL without us ever being able to interact with them. the one thing that isn't clear (for me at least) is how something (an abstraction) that is useful to describing and predicting phenomena must be fundamental? I find the same question equally unclear. How can a man made system in a vacuum answer questions about fundamental aspects of reality without being an inherent part of it? It seems more of a challenge to justify saying it's not a part of it. This was copied from https://www.dartmouth.edu/~matc/MathDrama/reading/Wigner.html From an article called The Unreasonable Effectiveness of Mathematics in the Natural Sciences "The first point is that mathematical concepts turn up in entirely unexpected connections. Moreover, they often permit an unexpectedly close and accurate description of the phenomena in these connections. Secondly, just because of this circumstance, and because we do not understand the reasons of their usefulness, we cannot know whether a theory formulated in terms of mathematical concepts is uniquely appropriate. We are in a position similar to that of a man who was provided with a bunch of keys and who, having to open several doors in succession, always hit on the right key on the first or second trial. He became skeptical concerning the uniqueness of the coordination between keys and doors." And that's the situation we are in. If math was a man made system every problem and every solution would be uniquely enclosed systems. With minimal to no usefulness in tools from one problem to the next. Instead we have a ring of keys, and nearly any key opens any door. That is not logical unless the doors and keys are part of the same fundamental system. Non logical are a couple of things. First something I don't know hardly anything about so anything I say on the topic is going to be half assed at best. I literally had to google the term right now and the information I found on it was vague at best. If I understand correctly they are statements that are only true in certain situations? It would seem to me that any statement like that is an incomplete one, and could be tied to a more complete statement to make a fully functional axiom. And I agree with you.