John Cuthber

"By the way: "it has been stated" is what wikipedia calls "weasel words". It's to be avoided at all costs because it may create the impression of holding meaning when it really doesn't mean a thing. Did your grandma and her tuesday night bingo club state it?" Among others, it has been stated by me. Also "The then United Nations Secretary-General Kofi Annan said in September 2004 that: "From our point of view and the UN Charter point of view, it [the war] was illegal."" Did you think it was helpful to call the UN a Tuesday night bingo club? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legality_of_the_Iraq_War Lets not bother to lie about this. the iraq war was certainly unlawful.

This idea wasn't new in 1956 http://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/cen-v034n032.p3750

Yes, the first ingredient on the list (Aqua) is just a sneaky way of getting dihydrogen monoxide into a product without calling it by that name. http://www.dhmo.org/ Seriously, what possible reason would a cosmetic company have for producing a harmful product?

it's an arrow poison.

No. Completely wrong. Rokudo, did you use lots of methoxide?

Absurdly wrong on both counts.

I suspect that when people who had not "invented" money saw other peoples using it, they copied the idea. In that sense it's a replicator.

Speaking of foreign languages, is there a better way to illustrate how out of touch you are than by giving your resignation speech in Latin?

Are you sure about that?

You could try, but I doubt you will pull it off.

Feel free to go and mate with yourself (rather than another ape).

"Tradition is important and it is tradition which defines religion," Not according to what you have posted before. It was, at that point, you who defined religion. Anyway, any progress on doing experiments with non existent equipment? Remember, if reality doesn't exist, there is no real equipment to do experiments with. So, what do you use? Incidentally, , here's a quote from that page you cited. It's weird, but that's not the problem. "Uninostril breathing facilitates the performance on spatial and verbal cognitive tasks, said to be right and left brain functions, respectively. Since hemispheric memory functions are also known to be lateralized, Naveen et al. assessed the effects of uninostril breathing on the performance in verbal and spatial memory tests. School children (N = 108, whose ages ranged from 10-17 years) were randomly assigned to four groups. Each group practiced a specific yoga breathing technique: (a) right nostril breathing, (b) left nostril breathing, © alternate nostril breathing, or (d) breath awareness without manipulation of nostrils. These techniques were practiced for ten days. Verbal and spatial memory was assessed initially and after ten days. An age-matched control group of 27 children were similarly assessed. All four experimental groups showed significant increases in spatial test scores at retest, but the control group showed no change. Average increase in spatial memory scores for the trained groups was 84%. It appears yoga breathing increases spatial rather than verbal scores, without a lateralized effect." Did you see what they did there? "Uninostril breathing facilitates the performance on spatial and verbal cognitive tasks" "Average increase in spatial memory scores for the trained groups was 84%. It appears yoga breathing increases spatial rather than verbal scores, without a lateralized effect." So, breathing through one nostril makes a difference. But it doesn't matter which one. But spatial and verbal skills are lateralised, so , according to the dogma, it should matter which nostril you use (of course, according to common sense, it doesn't- the air goes to the lungs, not directly to the brain). They have actually contradicted their own doctrine, but not noticed. That should lead you to wonder what happened. Of course the answer is right there. There's no reference intervention. So they have successfully verified the placebo effect- nothing more.

"By performing experiments which violate Local Realism. I can cite loads of evidence for it, working scientists should abandon the belief that this empirical reality exist independent of us because facts established from experiments contradicts that belief." Nope, you can not cite evidence for the suggestion that reality does not exist. If it didn't then you wouldn't have anything from which to make the equipment to do the experiment. All the experiments you have put forward are evidence against the idea that reality does not exist. You may be fooling yourself, but you are not fooling the rest of us.

An example of these linguistic gaps is this. Have you taken chimonics yet? Have I? Yea. No. In order to understand the flow here, there are gaps that refer. Here is essentially what is happening. Have you taken chimonics yet? Have I [taken chimonics yet]? Yea [have you]? No [i haven't]. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ellipsis Did you think you were talking about something new?

Yes. The only animal you can successfully mate with would be an ape. Not just any ape, obviously: it needs to be one of the apes designated as homo sapiens. The fact that you didn't realise that, is testament to your monumental ignorance of the subject on which you are pontificating. Perhaps you should stop.

Bollocks It may well be your (de)fault position, but that doesn't make it true. Anyway, back at the question: How can you show that reality doesn't exist? What do you make the equipment from?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Word_salad

Still making up words then? "What I originally intended was to give the physicists an idea of whats probably happening (if they haven't already thought about it)" Feel free to try. However, if I know physicists (and scientists in general) they won't be satisfied with something which (as you say in the first few lines) is only defined "in broad terms"- especially when, even that broad definition, doesn't actually say anything. So, in very detailed terms (because this is science, and so we need proper definitions), exactly what do you mean by "point of interest"? For example, whose interest do you mean and are you talking about a dimensionless point? If so then it's going to run into horrid problems with singularities when you show us the maths. (you were going to show us the maths, weren't you?)

I know, but I'm hoping for a miracle. Perhaps he will actually answer the question and explain how you can prove that reality doesn't exist, using only unreal things to do it with. I'm not sure if that's a bigger or smaller miracle than if he actually admits that he's wrong. Still, it doesn't matter as he will no doubt just decree that the other 7 billion people on the planet are all ignorant and he knows he's right. Mind you, if the planet isn't real, then nor am I, so how big a deal is it if I'm wrong? Incidentally, doesn't an appeal to authority require that the authority is, in some way, recognised? I mean "Einstein said it so it must be true" has some credibility if the subject under discussion is to do with physics (or violin playing). But "My granny said it, so it must be true" doesn't have the same clout. Now, since I tend to think that the people who consider theology in any depth are not bright enough to realise that they are wasting their time (angels on pinheads as it were) I rather doubt that they have any great insight into reality. Sure, if I wanted to know how many times Jesus said the word "bread" then a theologist might be just what I wanted; but that's not something I feel I'm likely to want to know. If I wanted to know how the real world works I'd be more likely to trust the suggestions of someone who looked at the real world, Surely that's better than someone who never looked further than the library (and then only at a handful of books)?

Because a drowning man will still clutch at a straw, even if he knows it's waterlogged.

It's also interesting to note that racism exists even though, from a scientific point of view, race pretty much doesn't exist.

While I'm sure that racism is a massive problem, I wonder how many kids they had to film before they found one one who so perfectly fited the stereotype of "white child thinks non white child is a thief" .

This "Graphite in the form of graphene has lots of potential in this area." only makes slightly more sense than saying that graphite in the form of diamond has potential for making jewellery.

"The Templeton Foundation – despite being headed up by John Templeton Jr, an evangelical Christian – claims to afford no bias to any particular religion," And the tobacco industry claimed that there was no link between cancer and smoking. Not many believe either group. Anyway, perhaps you would like to stop the pointless debate about who said what to whom and when (which is only ever going to be evidence of what they thought- rather than evidence of what is true) and answer my question How can you show that reality doesn't exist? What do you make the equipment from?

Nobody who read your document will have any doubt if your ability to make up words. Ascribing a meaning to them seems to be your failing.