swansont

You made the claim. You own the burden of proof. Surely you’ve noticed how “prove me wrong” is received. It’s usually a tacit admission that one is blowing smoke.

But here we expect a certain minimum amount of rigor.

And then you spoke of randomness being affected by “mind” and how “mind” is the source of complexity in nature.

Your technical analysis is quite convincing. The way you broke down the costs to show this…breathtaking.

It’s not an example of a winning strategy. It shows that a candidate stepping aside because of some perceived millstone does not solve the problem.

I’m confident that the neuro-field does not claim that mind is tied in with randomness and the universe, and further, you are making claims about the mind that are difficult to accept as serious if it’s such a vague notion.

“I represent the heart of a congressional district once represented by Lyndon Johnson. Under very different circumstances, he made the painful decision to withdraw. President Biden should do the same,” Doggett said in his statement Tuesday Yes, LBJ stepping aside worked out really well for the Democrats

Not seeing the change doesn’t mean nothing has changed. The faces have been rotated 60 degrees Anyway, this is splitting hairs. Change isn’t time, change does not cause time. The muon argument is a rebuttal to the claim that time is motion.

Survival is not just a matter of luck, just as chemistry outcomes are not random. If you are stringer/faster/smarter you stand a better chance to survive most situations. With your ever-shifting description of mind, who is to say what role it had, but intelligence can be an advantage, since it affords an opportunity to work smarter, not harder.

! Moderator Note You overestimate the utility of your ”pointing” Meanwhile, we have rules that you need to follow.

It’s also true that in atomic clocks, less movement leads to better precision. The best kinds of clock try to make the atoms or ions motionless. Even though you can’t remove the movement, time would still pass if you could, since that’s not the source. And one has to be careful saying that change is the source, since correlation is not causation.

Appealing to emotion and base instincts works. Make people afraid. Give them a scapegoat. Subvert the system when you can. Lie. Lie some more. Keep repeating the lies.

We also know fusion is possible, unlike some research efforts. Similar to heavier-than-air flight - we know it can happen, but didn’t know if certain implementations would work.

There is a mix. But deterministic laws mean results are not random; some results are more likely than others, and some are not possible at all. You’re the one who keeps bringing up intent, not me. But there are still simple organisms. Complexity is favored if it improves odds of survival; if there are no complex organisms then it represents a new niche that could be exploited

All that means is CO2 did not cause the original temperature rise in those events. Not that it can’t.

Since humans aren’t going to be in the device, one could say it’s all robotics. But it’s also a hand-wave; there’s no science here.

And there are polls saying the economy sucks, too, when it doesn’t. People are responding to a narrative pushed by the media, much like “but her emails” in 2016, and the narrative you introduced here.

The earth has no intent either, but a dropped rock will fall toward it, and not in a random direction. There is more to natural phenomena than randomness.

Not just swing states, a small subset of these voters. Certainly not a “majority of Americans” as you had claimed “Of those surveyed, 2,255 were classified as “Deciders” — those who fit into one or more categories: They voted in only one of the past two presidential elections; are between ages 18 and 25; registered to vote since 2022; did not definitely plan to vote for either Biden or Trump this year; or switched their support between 2016 and 2020.” IOW, likely these are uninformed voters. “Still, most voters, regardless of party, report that the issue matters to them. Gest noted that “the vast majority don’t want to tip toward more authoritarian control,” with systems of representative or direct democracy polling far more favorably.” If that’s the vast majority, the poll was selecting a small minority. Who might have other issues affecting their vote.

Was anyone claiming that it did? Note that length also has no existence in the form of matter and energy I used to build clocks, and none of them worked that way. None of them had hands.

Do these people (esp. the first two groups) even watch debates? Fewer people watched it than watched the first debate in 2020 “the count of those who watched Thursday night's debate on TV marks a 30% decline from 2020, when more than 73 million people watched the first debate between Biden and Trump across all TV networks” https://www.cbsnews.com/news/first-debate-ratings-2024/ Earlier this year a fair fraction of people were unaware Trump had any legal issues https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2024/02/02/most-republicans-arent-aware-trumps-various-legal-issues/ A lot of people just don’t pay attention to politics, at least until the ads hit in the fall “But the pattern among Republicans is clear. At most, 45 percent of Republicans said they knew about legal issues: specifically, the documents case and his being found liable for assaulting the writer E. Jean Carroll. Only a quarter knew about the value-inflation suit, and only 4 in 10 knew about the criminal charges in Manhattan related to the hush money payments to adult-film actress Stormy Daniels.”

To think you could have had nuclear physicists working on this, except they worked on fusion instead.

What does your model successfully predict? Show your work.

If you have a bunch of hydrogen and oxygen atoms bumping into each other, are the resulting molecules randomly formed? You’ll get H3O2 as often as H2O?

The phrasing of the OP certainly suggests it - it’s not “should we replace Biden?” It skips past that to the position that we should (and skips examining all the reasons it would be disastrous) which is GOP propaganda. Now we have a vague mention of a poll with another bit of spin, but no link to it. It’s meant to have the left admit defeat before the battle has happened. Waste time and effort thinking about some pie-in-the-sky scenarios that aren’t going to happen, feeding the idea that some perfect candidate is out there. There never will be. Any one person’s perfect candidate is mediocre in someone else’s eyes. As the saying goes, it’s like a bus. You take the one that gets you closest to where you want to go. Don’t waste time whining about the fact that it’s not a flying taxi cab. Perfect is the enemy of good enough. If you want to defeat Trump and preserve democracy, let’s get to work. If not, get your Nazi ass away from me.