Edtharan

All this talk about kids being teased because they had Gay parents is not as rampant as it is being made out to be. I have gont to school with kists with Gay pareant and other Kids that were Gays themselves. There was a few cases of teasing, but not many. In fact some of these kids were the bullies themselves. From my experience, Gay children or children with Gay parents were no more likely to be teased than any other children (and scince my family moved armound a lot I have been to amny different schools). This argument of teasing, from my experience, is completely false. Usually when kids were calling others "Fag" and "Gay" the children doing so had no real idea what it ment.

OK. Imagine that you take a photo of each Board in the Game Of Life example. You could now lay out these photos and see the "Future" state of the board. You cna even set the board up exactly as it is in one of the photos and running the simulation you can see the events unfold in exactly the same way again. However, this ability to "see the future" state of the board even after it has been run through can not effect the state of the board or anything contained in it in the rerun. In this case you woudl be like the higher plane observer as you are not within the time line of the gameboard and can even see it laid out in a series of photos. But even so the system must have been run through at least once for you to be able to see it. You can replay it, but it still must have been run through. Now things become tricky if you can change the outcome of the board in the reruns. What occures is that any interaction you make with the board constrains you to follow the cause and effect of the board. So for instance, if you decided after you have run through it once, that you wanted to change the outcome (say a few cells were active and you wanted them to be inactive), then you could go back and change the board layout so that the cells you wnated inactive would remain so. The problem arrises because you can not predict the outcome. This menas that when you change it you have to rerun the entire system again form that point on. Only then can you see if what you are attempting to do will succeed, and thus are you then restricted by the systems timeline, even though you are not within it (although you if it didn't work you could just go back and make more changes untill you got it right). As soon as you interact with the system, you become part of the system and are subject to its limitations. So even if these higher plane beings that are not subject to time existed, if they interact with anything subject to time, they themselves become subject to its limitations.

Because the only way to see the outcome of a particular state of the board it to run the system. Thre is no short cut to the future of the system. If you have future knowledge of the board state it menas that you must have run through the system to get it (and then rewound it back). This means that there has to be a point in time when the system is still running through it for the first time. This is the "Buring Edge". Exactly my point. There will be a first run through it and the point at which tit is running through it for the first time can be called the present. Because ther is no way that the system can know what the future is unless it is being run through, the only way this "Future State" can exist is if the system has already been run through at least once. Because it is deterministic it can be run through multiple times and the outcome known, but because it is deterministic there is no way that if it has been run through it can effect the outcome of any other run throughs. The fact that such a system exists in our universe and can have an effect on it means that our universe is subject to these restrictions as well.

This is what it is in reponse to. Even so this invalidates the premise that we have changed from percieveing 2D to 3D. This would be an extremely unlikely occurance. That they evolved (or posessed technology that could do such a thing) so as to hide themselves, their waste products, their source of food/energy and their physical existance from us and our remote sensing devices (some of which have never been in nature before - eg measureing the gravity diferences that exist on Earth can even detect individual buildings - and there is no know way that you can block gravity). Unless they violate the known laws of nature, then the answer is a definite No (or at least not in significant numbers or with a permanent station). We can examine the entire surface of the Earth down to a few metres (with comercial satalites - I'm not sure what the military could do ). It is therfore unlikely that any operation could go undiscovered for long.

The future can not be predicted. There is a simple experiment you can do to show this, coupled with simple extrapolation. Ther is a system called Conway's Game Of Life (ther are many computer programs of it and are easy to find). The basic rules are: Start with a chessboard like grid (of any size you like, but the larger the better). 1) If exactly 2 adjacent grid cells are active then leave this cell as it is. 2) If exactly 3 adjacent grid cells are active then make this cell active. 3) Any other combination of adjacent grid cells you then make this cell inactive. What you do is apply these rules to each grid cell to work out what the board will look like for the next turn. Now these simple rules produce a system that you can not predict the future of exactly. The only way you can determine the layout of the board at some future point is to run it through the rules. Now, here is the experiment. Start with any board layout that you like and base a decission on the outcome of this (eg: to go down to the shops or stay at home). Choose a number of turns that you will perform to reach the outcome. Choose a grid cell near the middle. If the grid cell is active at the end of this then you will select the first choice. If the grid cell is inactive then you weill select the second choice. Run through the system for the number of turns you decided apon earlier. And act on the outcome. Now here is why the future is unpredictable. This system is completely deterministic, but unless you have gone through the system, you can not know wht the outcome will be. The fact that you actions have been based of this means that your behaviour due to this is deterministic, but unpredictable. Your actions will have a small influence on the universe (say the decission was to have a baby or not). This effect has set the future and it would be different than if it went the other way. Now if you could "See: the future then it means that this system must have been run through and the outcome been determined. But, there must be some "Burning Edge" where this is occureing. A point where the outcome still remains to be dertermind. The fact that such a system exists in the universe means that the outcome of the universe can not be predicted, even if it is completely deterministic.

Organisms do not exist for the beifit of others. They exist for thier own benifit. Other organisms might use them, or in the case of symbyosis use each other. Moss uses organic material trapped by it to grow and reproduce its self and many inverterbrates (and a few other organisms) eat it. ANd when it dies other microrganisms break it down as part of their use of the organig matter (then other plants and organisms use that to grow).

Well no, but what about other canines like wolves, etc? We don't hide ourselves from them. So being more intelligent does not mean that you can hide from a less intelligent organism. What you are getting at here is a supernatural entity. Any living creature needs to have a metabolisms (or at least produce entropy). This would leave some form of evidence that we could detect. If you are speculating about beings that have technology so advanced that they nolonger produce entropy, then it is not in line with the original post. This was more of a stylistic aproach (in line with cubism, impressionism, etc). There is evidence of paintings well before the pre-renaissance times that show proper perspectives (in greek and roman paintings and images and even before). So it was not so much that they didn't "See" in 3D, they just chose not to represent it that way. "Choosing not to" and "Unable to" are completely different things, humans have not "Advanced" to see things in 3D, just the style that we choose to represent that on paper (or canvas or other 2D medium) has changed, not us.

Same sex relationships, just like hetrosexual relationships can fail. This is not suprising at all and goes to show that same sex relationships are just as valid as hetrosexual ones.

Would you considder yourself more intelegent than a Dog? But we haven't hidden ourselves from Dogs have we. Why do we think that more intelegent beings would hide themselves from us?

I have heard that Newtonian determinism used as proof of God, and now people use QM as proof of God. I think that they just twits these things to suit their own agendas and realy should be looked at for fruad. True they may believe it (or at least say they do), but, as they say, ignorance is no excuse (in the eyes of the law). So, by this he equates energy to spirit. So, if I heat something, I am creating a spirit in it? If I give a rock a kick, does it give it a bit of soul (sole )? Sorry couldn't resist...

Hmm, I wonder how this effects the "Out of Africa" theory of human evolution. Also, how does it sit with the beliefe that the middle east is the aincent site of the Garden of Eden?

What you need to be looking at is feedback loops. The ocialation moddel you proposed is more likely as it is what can occure in a time delaed negative feedback loop. This is a negative feedback loop where the results are slightly delayed form their cause. (Wikipedi on feedback loops: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feedback_loop). Wars over limited resource, desease, etc are all contibutors to the negative feedback.

From what I know about it, the Omega 3 create larger holes in the cell membrains that allow nutrients in faster and waste products can also leave faster. The brain uses a lot of fats which are used to speed up neuron firering and signal transportation along them. Fish don't actually produce Omega 3. They get it from thier food. Seaweed is a good source as they produce the Omega 3.

I never denied that it changed the rate, I just said that it wasn't a significant amount. And certainly not enought to cause brain damage (except maybe if you were already about to die of starvation, and even then the body would have sacrificed tissue like muscle first and you would die before you suffered brain damage from lack of nutrition).

This implies a form of science or it's equivelent. Any Aliens thought processes will most likely be very different from ours. But to discover enough about the way the universe works to build a ship to travel the distances from one star to another will requier some form of curiosity and logic process (ie: tool creation and use and invention). The curiosity that is nessesary to discover technology will mean that they might be curious about us. This curiosity in Human scientists here on Earth lead them to study ants and learn their "Language" (pheromones), so it might be with a passing alien civilization. Well, Human scientitst do studdy ants in labs and curious Aliens might also do this (remember curiosity is most likely needed for technological developemnt). And yes, they might choose to "stomp on the ant nest", but again, I think that curiosity would stay their hand (or foot ). If they had the power to wipe us out so easily, they might just keep looking to see if we might be a threat, or wait until we are capable of peacful contact (I do not think humans are capable of this at the moment). As I said above. If they have developed technology capable of space travel, then they must have something akin to science. This requiers logical thought and a curiosity. These two traits will mean that we have some common ground and thought processes (while still being very different in other ways).

Not nessesarily. It is a good line, but it is not realy useable in a logical discussion (and besides, what kind of duck ). A planet can be modeled as a single point (for use in calculating gravity for instance), but it is not a single point (and arn't we glad of that ). So the modle of an a positron (antielectron) might be able to be calculated as if it was just an electron going backwards in time, but in reality, the model is not reality and so could be wrong. However: the simplified model that we use to model antimatter might encapsulate some fundimental aspect of it and the fact that the model acts as if a positron is just a time reversed electron might be true. Unfortunately, I can't think of any experiment that would be conclusive in this (though it might be possible).

What we are doing is removing some of the selective pressures on us. The human race is actually not very genetically diverse (afaik: ther is more genetic diverity in africa than there is in the rest of the population of earth). In periods of low selective pressure, the genomes of organisms are able to explore more "Gene Space" as the organisms with suboptimal genes are able to survive. This is actually a positive thing (in the long run - i'm not talking indivduals here). As the gene pool of humanity expands, due to this lower selective pressure, we will explore different genetic posabilities. When selective pressures do increase again, this expansion of the potential genetic coverage of the human genome will give some a better survival advantage, these will continue on. There might even be new spiecies of humans, all of which might not be nessesarily what we would call "Human" (ie: genetically compatable with us today). So I do not see this lack of selective pressure a bad thing to be happening to humans, but it is actually (in the long run) a very good thing as it will give us more advantages and better chances to survive any catastrophy (natural or man made - for example: deseases). Humans went through a gentic "Bottle Neck" where there might have been only a few thousand individuals (we would have been classed as an endangered species) this still has repecussions today in that Humans have a low geneic diversity.

I think I might re write my evolution simulator someday and post it up to one of these sites.

We already have a solution to this. It is called "interpolation". Thi is s mathematical function that takes 2 (or more) data points and attempts to create a "smooth" transition between them. Nearly every time you use a computer it is performing interpolations (especially with games). When a 3D accelerator graphics card uses the Anti Alising funtions it is useing an onterpolation algorithm. An intelegent being could use such algorithms to interpolate between the different views. They could perform experiments to prove that times exist between their perceptions and so work out that "somthing" had occured inbetween them. Knowing these things, the beings could then look for evidence of the occurances that happened between their "perceptions" and refine their interpolations of them (or even piece it together). This is essentially what we have done with the fossil record. The fossil recod has many gaps that arn't filled (usually because the organisms that would have lived then didn't leave any trace - fossilization is a rare event that only occures under certain circumstances) and so scientits have had to interpolate what has happened in the thousands or even millions of years between fossils. These interpolations are based on the theory of evolution and do not take into account any miracles. So far the theory keeps giving very good answers.

Ethics asside, this is just the same as if these "Mutations" were sever enough to stop a feotus from being brought to term. So this process has alread been happening, it is just that we are now able to apply our own evolutionary pressure at this stage of development. This does change the "natural" (and if you realy want to split hairs, as we are part of nature anything we do is still natural) evolution of humans, but so would a change in environemtn (like an ice age or a greenhouse effect - or moving to a new region). So in the grand sceme of thing it is not that big of an "Unnatural" gange in our evolution.

Well Europa, out near Jupiter, is a lot colder than here on Earth. Yet it is strongly believed that it has liquid water on it. Due to the massive tidal forces of Jupiter, the rocky core gets squeezed and heats up. This heating would be enough to melt the ice into water. Evidence for a body of water on Europa is that one of the spcecraft sent there measured a magnetic field. This could only have occures if ther was a layer of electrically conductive liquid there. On Earth we have a layer, in the core, of liquid Iron that generates the Earth's magnetic field. On Europa, this might be done with a salty layer of water. So on Europa, we have good evidence that ther is liquid water, in a place in the solar system that would noramlly only have ice, as it is far below the freezing point of water. If locations like this can exist on a moon orbiting around a large planet and scientists have discovered many large planets around other stars (large planets are easy as they can cause the parent star to wobble and this can be detected), then it is very possable that life on Plantest is rare, but life on Moons, might be more common (as there would be more moons in places places that could lead to liquid water).

So are you saying that I should not go to public places, like shoping centers and such be cause that way I can avoid all the smokers that smoke around the entrances? Or that I should not go where there are smokers because I have to avoid them? You can't avoid encountering smokers in public places. So by your statement above, we should ban smokeing in public places because it is annoying and if someone smokes in a public place the nonsmokers can't avoid it. I just don't understand you resistance to it then. If we can't avoid loud music and we can't avoid encountering smokers and both are annoying, then they should have the same standard applied to them.

Yes it is just a way of modeling the behaviour of antimatter. There is no way (to my knowledge) to prove that antimatter is realy just matter going backwards in time. It might, or it might not.

The oceans of earth are usually simulated as a dense atmospheric layer. The moon Europa had not atmosphere, but seems to be made of water (with a rocky core). This moon is one place where there might be a chance for life. So, Yes. Life might be able to exist on a planet with no atmosphere and ther might even be one here in our solar system. We just have to go and check (and that is something else altogether).

But there are many things that have been baned simply because they are annoying. So why not smokeing? Loud music at night is annoying and it is banned. There have been no health risks associated with a neibour playeing loud music at night, so by your argument we should let people play music as loud as they want at night. We do ban behaviours simply because they are annoying and it hasn't resulted in a loss of freedom or right or anything else. Banning smokeing in public places will not lead to a breakdown of democracy or your rights and frdoms. Your slipry slope argument that if we ban smokeing because it is annoying is a strawman. These things do not happen. It has never happend in a democracy and it si just pure scarmongering to suport a flawed case.