koti

So a ticking clock which I always have in mind when babbling about physics would do just as fine as a metronome. Got it, thanks for your answer Swansont.

Your "extra step" might be very useful for the OP to understand some of the issues touched here. As for me - the contradiction is ruthless and still makes me uncomfortable

Could you point out where I'm wrong in my babble below because I am clearly missing something? : A clock is a metronome with a display. A metronome is a clock without an apparent display but a metronome gives a ticking sound which we can use as a "display" by counting the ticks. If we set the metronome so it indicates exactly 1 second at each tick (we can use a clock for that) we have oureselves a clock. I don't get it why we should be using a metronome instead of a clock - isn't it the same thing ?

http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/97980-last-cig-at-night-smoking-cessation/page-6#entry943678

Could you clarify why we should be using a metronome instead of a clock?

I am not trying to define space, I dont feel fit to do so. I'm trying to define the concept of emptyness.

You are touching many subjects and a good starting point would be defining "emptyness" Empty = 0. For something to fit inside something you have to have somehing. If there is nothing there is no point of putting nothing into nothing. Space on the other hand could be not empty, it could be full fields on the quantum level. It might be full of activity which in our understanding would not be "empty"

I agree, but... I would rate my personal view on the probability of Jesus being a real person as high. I'd say similar to the probability of me getting up tomorrow and having coffee. Some guy probably existed in 1st century palestine and the "right" conditions led what we have now. I fail to see how this is relevant in any way to anything. The OP question is too general.

The whole discussion here is people arguing about that very issue. I agree with you on the your view that space-time should be "substancial" but undortunately it doesnt seem that easy to prove that and eliminate that "should be"

I guess what he/she ment is that there are different levels of probability of things being true or untrue while we dont know the answers.

So if I understand correctly, the question at hand is that we are looking for past existence of a single person who is responsible for 2 thousand years of global hallucination. I would like to express my subjective opinion that this question is not of big relevance to me and I'm suprised that it seems relevant to many people here. I was brought up to live for higher reasons than searching for people to crucify them for their faults.

We don't know for sure but the question is incomplete. If it was more specific there wouldnt be 36 pages of discussion. It is very plausable that a guy named Jesus existed from whom it all started. I would imagine that he might have been someone similar to our modern Deepak Chopra. In a case that this is the question asked, its no big deal, what does it matter to anynody if he existed or not. The question implies though, that we might be trying to find out if a Jesus who changed water into wine and walked on water existed. Or is the question asking if Jesus from The Big Lebowsky existed?

I hope its not a permanent state Did you try rewarding youreself?

0+0=0 You lost me on the rest.

To the Mods: I'm unable to delete nor edit my double post above (I posted it from Safari on iOS) Is there a time buffer for being able to edit posts? I'm posting from Chrome on Win 10 now and I'm not able to edit nor delete the above. Sory for the mess, I will be grateful if one of the mods could delete my double post above or in case I'm an idiot explain to me how I could do it myself.

That was entartaining. Thank you all contributors.

Are you finding out the scent of things again? Any other positive changes?

I don't think that knowing everything has to be equal to being able to "do" everything therefore I don't think its equal to being able to exist forever. Reasons for existing is another thing and it depends on personal characteristics. You could have a know-all "god" whos a grumpy asshole or a chill know-all guy who flies around to say hi to other forms of life. This doesnt affect the human nature though...we are built to explore and curiosity is the main drive. That drive would be gone.

This question rattles in my head for a long time now. Is it possible there are milions of layers uppon layers of "realities" and we are barely scratching the surface of the first layer with our current understanding of the universe? Is it possible that each of those milions of "realities" have their own distinct physical laws completely incompatible with each other? On one hand this might seem a little depressing but when you think about it from evolutionary and existencial point of view this might be an atractive concept. If we would find the "holy grail" of physics and understand everything that is, was and will be we would loose our curiosity and essencialy our main drive to survive as a species. Is it possible that our current tools for understanding are so crude that our search for quantum gravity for example is as useless as explaining to an ant what LHC is? I wonder what are your thoughts on this.

Theres a thread in "Speculations" called "Laser curvature test on lake Balaton" I guess I'm a sick bastard but by skimming through the thread I immediately thought of this:

That answers my question which I edited into my post while you were typing the above.

I think it serves a great purpose by exposing corporate surrealism.