Intoscience

So are you saying that its not possible to create an optical illusion by use of video? There is video footage of persons, famous ones such as David Blaine, Dynamo, just to name a couple levitating. Do you believe they are tricking the audience or actually levitating without aid?

Videos of phenomenon are not substantial proof, such things can be edited, manipulated to obscure etc... The onus of proof is on you by way of the scientific method, if you are serious about disproving mainstream science. Maybe if you persuaded a person claiming to levitate to go and perform this feat under actual scientific experimental conditions then people would then start to take you serious. Until then stop wasting your time trying to convince people that it is real because you have posted a sketchy YouTube video of some someone performing a trick in their underwear.

That's it then, if its been seen on America's Got Talent, it must be real!🙄 Are you really serious or just playing some kind of game? I'm curious. Do you know any Shaolin monks? I could do with my top floor windows cleaning.

This would be a very in efficient way, why would they (even if they had the resource to do this) unless it was key people? Much easier just to bomb from the air.

The wheel is not really very efficient for manoeuvrability unless the terrain is compatible. Since most animals face a multitude of differing terrain to over come then that flexibility trumps the potential speed benefit of a wheel. Additionally I would imagine the mechanism to drive a wheel would be quite complicated using organic material and terribly inefficient. Hence we developed, change the terrain to suit the wheel rather than the other way round. Other than off road vehicles which are still quite limited.

Well yes, in a sense, there is superposition in QM theory also.

One possible path from your own personal experience, maybe so. I know a few "daft planks", myself included at times. Sorry couldn't resist we use that term regularly around my parts to describe someone larking around. Yes, and this then poses the questions and considerations I have posed so far. The question being, in this situation who is you and are you distinct in all ways from the rest?

Your personal experience of your life is finite. There also can be an infinite number of versions of you existing in parallel all with a finite existence. The needle might be in only one position from your personal perspective but maybe at an infinite number of positions all at any infinite number of moments.

Yeah sure, Ok, so we have a situation where there are an infinite numbers of parallel multiverses that continually split of at every change in every existing quantum state. Sort of the multi world time line idea. This means that there are an infinite number of versions of you'. At the moment of your creation, there is the original you, every moment there after another version is created in parallel. This in theory would then continue exponentially at the speed of light. As you can see from this, there are an unimaginable number of yourself, even at a brief moment from the point of your original conception. So, coming back to the question. Would there always remain a connection between each version, do you share a soul, consciousness etc... Are you entwined on a level beyond what you can consciously experience? Or at each moment of divergence a new unique and unconnected version of you is created with an independent soul, consciousness etc...?

Are we connected to our infinite selves?

For each of us? But which us is you?

I wasn't insinuating anything, that's your assumption. It was a news report admittedly, it was not reported in any sensationalized manner but rather a clip with no running commentary (that there are many of) of parents addressing an education board regarding curriculum policies. This particular case was one parent addressing the panel as spokes person for the parent's association. They also petitioned against girls competing against boys in physical sporting competition which personally I have mixed views on. I guess my point around this is that policies are being forced upon children without the consent of the parents where the parents views/rights are being ignored. People want in general to make the world a better place, this is great and should be applauded. However, there are many many problems across the world that require addressing, some more so than others. Yet focus tends to be around what's in trend especially so that which gains momentum from outrage or negativity and then sensationalised to get everyone onboard with the trend.

Sometimes themselves, but there are many things to protect people from, it can be very complex. Bias is a good one and thinking about my own replies/opinions that I have posted on this forum makes me question my own biases. In that my own opinions even though not intentionally so, or obvious to me, can be and have been bias. This is one of the beauties of forums like these where I can express my opinions, stand by what I believe in, but then reconsider those beliefs, especially when I receive differing perspectives. I participate on these types of forums for a number of reasons: I learn new vocabulary I learn to better present my thoughts and ideas I learn about new perspectives I learn about different cultures and societies and what is important or at the forefront within each I learn new science and gain a better understanding of the areas I'm mostly interested in I learn about new science that i wasn't previously aware of They provide me with the opportunity to look in the mirror and consider my own thoughts, feelings and reflection I get to state my opinions for peer review and reflect on how they make others feel and how they sit within each culture This is just a short list off the top of my head, I'm sure there will be hidden benefits. A quick one which as just entered my mind is the benefit of escaping from the environment/society in which I live, and the people I interact with close up on a daily basis. Certainly helping with my mental wellbeing is an added benefit. But yeah awareness of bias and the resulting oppression is definitely up there.

I was thinking the other day about QM, uncertainty principle, superposition the multiverse theory, destiny and so forth. I then started to consider what the philosophical implications of infinite multiverses may present. The main one I considered was what this means for a person regarding their "soul", their destiny and so forth... I started to imagine such a scenario where we have the idea of infinite parallel multiverses where every quantum change creates a new universe that branches off. This sounds so far out there but is considered by some physicist as a plausible idea that can be used to explain many phenomena. So in this scenario everything that could exist does exist and every scenario within the confines of the laws of nature that can happen does happen. This means that there potentially would be an infinite number of every possible person that could ever be and every possible scenario would exist. This then lend me to think about a person's sense of themselves; the choices they make, what they believe to be their destiny, all the good and all the bad experiences, the length of their lives... the list is endless. But in short if this was how the universe functioned then what we consider to be destiny, luck, chance... each are just a tiny perception within our own experiences of one big puzzle where non of those have any real meaning. Then this led me to consider our "souls" and god even though I'm not a particular believer in either and what it means to sense oneself if there are an infinite number of you in existence. This then made me consider the implications of how any of that would fit into the big picture, the value of life both universally and individually and how value of any kind could have any real meaning in terms of this big picture. I could go on... since my mind has been going over this the last few days. I just thought I'd share it with you folks, if anyone is interested. Thanks

I'm not a conservative nor do I watch Fox news. I just form my own opinions based on what I feel to be sensible and unbiased. People assume I'm biased when my opinion doesn't align with their own, which many posts on this thread reveal. I did not originally use the word perceived, Dim used it in a reply to one of my posts and so I replied back using the term to stay within the context of which Dim was using. You should really be asking Dim first this question. Yes, this sums up the basic premise. Though "why not trust them"? is a good question. I guess this comes from historical upbringing, culture etc... I guess really it will come down to what is accepted by the majority within each culture and whether people can be educated and accept change even if they personally feel its not for the better. I do try and sympathise and empathise with people (this is in my nature being an INFJ, in another thread! lol) so I do try and understand things from both perspectives. however, i do also believe that there has to be a system in place that protects all. But then this gets complex since protecting one may hurt another. So again there has to find a balance where an attempt to achieve the "greater good" for the society as a whole is the goal.

You are assuming others feel the same (my bold) or have you preferred pronouns? No one is forcing you to participate, feel free to seek other avenues where your time maybe be better used. I could argue you are wasting my time by constantly contesting everything I say with flippant comments. But I'm still here still posting...

I have no reason to deny them their perceived Identity, nor should I change my opinion to align with others. And you seem to assume that I have agenda against LGBTQ folks. I have an issue with activists using these types and the actually real inequality issues as an excuse to extend their positions beyond what is reasonable. Then I have an issue with what should e a reasonable compromise to keep the ship steering on course as apposed to steering way off the opposite way. I see no other path forward than balance. Tip a little extra to even things out yeah, sure. But tip too far , well... you end up back to square one. But there are ridiculous scenarios are being created by the extreme activists to start with.

I don't expect people to stop expressing anything, I believe in free thought, free speech, equality of opportunity... What I don't agree with is a person expecting those rights to extend into a right to do what ever they please without consideration or consequence. Is it ok for me as an adult to identify as a child, dress up as so if people need convincing i'm serious and not suffering from some mental disorder, then expect to retain any privileges and rights a child may have over an adult? Or lets flip it and I now identify as a dog, as a result do I automatically lose my rights as a human? If not, why not all things being equal? Fair point, and I did express that my opinions are most likely bias towards my upbringing and society I live in. lets see, This depends on the situation, pre puberty children are not likely to rape or be capable of rape. A male teacher is in a prime position to commit this act if they are sick enough to do so and a child is going to have no chance of defending themselves. Look, I'm not saying that just because the teacher is male or female means they are more likely to commit a crime. I'm saying as a female child you are more likely to feel insecure around a male teacher especially in a sensitive situation such as a changing area. Rightly or wrongly this is what most people believe. All children are potentially vulnerable regardless of sex, maybe we do need to change our attitudes and accept a society where sex orientation and gender identity has no bearing. You are lulling me into the transgender arguments now which I'm trying my best to avoid.

I don't agree with it, when I use the bathroom I want my privacy respected from both male and female regardless. This is my personal opinion and may not be an issue for most. Where I work we have male and female toilet attendants who work in both their respective and non respective toilet areas. however, the rule is that when the attendant is operating in the area the toilets are closed during the works. So going back to iNow's point regarding male or female coaches being present in changing areas. They should respect the child's privacy and neither allowed in whilst the child is getting undressed. However, and this is where I'm going to get stones thrown at me. In general, males offer a greater threat to females than vice versa. By this what I'm saying is, in general females feel far more intimidated by males, especially when it comes to physicality. In general females are more sensitive to their privacy, especially when it comes to physicality than males. Hence in general males are less physically intimidated by females so feel more comfortable when they lose their privacy to females than females do to males. I find it all very fascinating, how it seems at least different cultures view things differently. My friends wife is a primary school teacher and over dinner I discussed this thread with her. She was horrified at the suggestion of a male coach identifying as a female attending a girls changing area. However she did say that the female teachers (and all teachers) at her school are careful not to make the children feel uncomfortable or vulnerable and when required would ensure their privacy at all times. What I'm saying is, where I come from this sort of situation is a big no no and maybe this is an archaic view. This is how I was taught and how I live my life within my society. You are assuming I'm not. I would argue that most confliction is a result of a mental disorder, not physical.

Honestly I don't want to get back into the transgender argument so in hindsight probably shouldn't have used this as an example in this thread. I'm not backing down, I'm not afraid in anyway. I just don't want to trawl through replies going over the same arguments. I don't give 2 hoots what people keep trying to insist on, in general a person born male is biologically (especially post puberty) different than a female and as a result have many differing traits both physical and mental.

For some, myself included, I prefer my own company in general

Your responses have implied such, not me. I agree with you on the content part, people who are content tend to be at peace, those at peace tend not act negatively. What makes all people content?

Ok, thanks for your insight, I find this an interesting view point. So in essence lets not make any advancements because we can't verify the true outcome, and that there maybe adverse consequences that could potentially occur in the future. I would say that this is, if not more fallacious. I'll be sure to tell my friends that we are not going to potentially save their child with medical advancements just in case when she becomes an adult she might become a dictator and kill loads of people. If you invent a time machine and happen to go back to our primordial ancestors be sure to tell them to stick to the tree tops foraging for food in the forests. Better still, head right back to our single celled ancestors and convince them to stay singled celled because if not all hell will let loose. Why wouldn't they? Who decides when it is morally or otherwise ok to allow a male identifying as a female to use female facilities such as school girls changing areas? The male in question could argue that they identify as a female at any point they choose and should then instantly have the same rights as a female. Or is there a cooling off period where the person has to prove themselves or their intent. I have a problem with a male teacher, regardless of how they identify themselves being present in my daughter's changing area. I respect my daughter's privacy at home so why should I not expect that same respect from her teachers?

Ok, it seems we are describing the term greater good under differing definitions Even so we should continue to improve things for society in general. Agreed, some maybe all the above as you say, but I still see no reason why we should not continue our efforts, after all (Vat mentioned earlier) society is a complex and dynamic system that requires dynamic and diverse ideas to promote the "greater good", I think the aim should be to attempt to improve the wellbeing of all society members as the umbrella goal but the harsh reality is that all is most likely unachievable.

So what you are saying then, that there is not point in making any changes because the "greater good" (pleasing all people all of the time) cannot be achieved? So advancements in medicine should not continue because as a result you may save the life of a dictator who then might go on to kill more innocent people? I would argue that the greater good is what is determined by general consensus as a benefit for society as a whole. Giving all the minority groups equal opportunity amongst the majority is one for starters. Equal opportunity can benefit whole societies by creating diversity which otherwise would be missed. A child which would otherwise miss the opportunity of a good education may go on to be the next Einstein, this then benefits society as a whole in many ways, including morally.