Phi for All
-
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by Phi for All
-
-
1 hour ago, Dhamnekar Win,odd said: Uranus and Neptune were excluded because they don't affect human life significantly. Astrology studies the relation among transit of these planets in the zodiac, your birth horoscope and your life.
I asked if you have any evidence to support your ideas. This would be a great time to give us the details of your research into why Neptune and Uranus "don't affect human life significantly".
Even if we use astrology as a basis (certainly NOT a science), other practitioners claim that Neptune absolutely affects human life, and is responsible for dreams and intuition. Uranus is associated with rebellion and (drum roll) humanitarianism. Can you assure me your methods aren't just cherry-picking results you want to see?
-
Is this some kind of AI-generated output where you're being encouraged for such creative thought? If we ask you anything, are you just running it through ChatGPT?
You use too many unscientific concepts in your descriptions. Nobody is looking for "proof" since evidence is what the methodology is gathering. "Reality" is another big red flag, since you have no scientific definition of it. You introduce this "Gaiven" as the backbone of your concept but don't bother to explain.
Basically, a ToE would need detail you lack. Your framework is so loose you probably think it explains everything, but only to you. The rest of us require evidence. This seems akin to using astrology to explain away difficult problems.
-
-
-
-
1 hour ago, ahmet said: I just looked to the title and;
I do not say that the quality was lacking, I prefer to say that there was no quality.
This is what that article caused me to think and interrupted me to read further.
- my result: the direction or the aim is wrong to me. Consider also, whether the relevant personality who deemed as scientist in that article had psychiaric ilness.
.... and is either a delusion or such a minimal relevance that not only neglectable but also waste of time.
in general, I tend not to make any comment in such context because I have tendency to deal with only intellectual side of literature.
to me, this is Non intellectual aim generated by someone who deemed to deal with scientific contexts.
inshaAllah ,Allah will protect me to deal with something which is not necessarily needed.
I'm very glad you were able to abstain from posting about it then. Although I found your "waste of time" joke VERY funny, you rascal.
-
If they can alleviate some gastric distress, it's easy to see this becoming a standard test at the primary care level, with a healthy range we're supposed to stay within. It does make me grin to think about people who test low, and are told they have to take/eat something to make them fart more. Their whole lives they've probably been secretly proud they aren't the crude heathens everyone else is.
-
7 hours ago, swansont said: The findings provide evidence that psychological traits, like a desire for quick and definitive answers, help explain why some voters struggle to accurately judge their own political knowledge.”
I've learned to read my audience when talking political policy. There's a point where their eyes literally unfocus when they realize my answers aren't quick and pithy enough for them to remember, much less influence them. You can see them give up on understanding as they start cobbling up a response that involves Biden or Obama.
-
-
Perhaps it's the way we use representative democracy that causes the problem of advancing age within it. If our elected officials were more like a committee instead of individuals, we'd benefit from older, wiser heads while still having input from younger representatives with a more vested interest in progressive change. So many of our processes are rooted in misogyny and Christian hierarchies that glorify the individual rather than the group. We keep asking for a great leader instead of demanding fair representation of all our views.
I also think capitalist strategies favor conservatism, but only after a company has a good model in place and therefore doesn't want the applecart upset. Then they start looking for older politicians to support, with the idea of keeping things just the way they are. Perhaps a more socialist strategy could enjoy the benefits of "git wisdom" without simply putting us all out to pasture?
-
If people bothered to fact check the details these programs produce, it might be a fair way to study since you still need a basic understanding of the material and you're actively reasoning through it, hopefully figuring out why the facts are relevant or not. Unfortunately, I see too many just assume the AI is completely accurate and just saved them a bunch of reading and studying, drawing conclusions only a brilliant computer mind could do so quickly.
-
5 hours ago, Sensei said: The guy was a scumbag, and that he took advantage of his position, but that doesn't mean he was as bad as he is portrayed. He didn't put anyone in the van and drive away. This does more harm than good in the fight against real pedophiles.
I completely disagree with you about this, and it's tragic that so many seem to forgive the behavior because it didn't involve kidnapping? I think more harm is done when people ignore the women who have come forward with testimony showing Epstein was indeed a "real pedophile". Ignoring all those women shows an overall misogynistic bias, which has always tainted everything men try to accomplish, especially in science. The male perspective is forced on us at every turn, and I think the negative impacts are showing up in the revelation of the files.
1 hour ago, MigL said: What exactly, are they trying to hide ???
That Pam Bondi is Trump's Ghislaine Maxwell?
-
54 minutes ago, CharonY said: In addition, the power differential should not be overlooked. It is not like the situation is one of free, well-informed and consensual interaction. An important element of this form of abuse is the normalization of the situation, establishing authority and influence over the victims actions and decisions and perspectives. It is a well-established methodology in cults and cult-like organizations.
I particularly dislike the perspective that these children knew what they were getting into and were simply greedy. This is also part of the cult methodology, to diminish and blame the victim.
-
-
-
On 1/20/2026 at 9:20 AM, exchemist said: Senile. 25th amendment?
With all the bullshit his whole cabinet commits on the daily, we need to use Article II, Section 4 to impeach, remove, and convict the whole lot of them for high crimes & misdemeanors. We know there's been bribery, and there is evidence TFG passed NATO secrets to Putin, so treason at the highest level is also there. We don't want Vance, we don't want Johnson. The rest of the succession list is equally horrific, so we need ALL of them booted and sentenced, including that walking anal polyp Stephen Miller. We need to hold them all up to future generations as abominations to humanity.
-
On 1/19/2026 at 5:35 AM, dimreepr said: If we simplify humanity, and put the scientifically literate at one end of the spectrum and the uneducated (by which I mean the illiterate among us) at the other; fate removes subjectivity from the other end of 'our' spectrum, bc our agency has been removed from the equation.
I don't see how this works, and you don't help by interjecting "fate" as a mechanism for removing subjectivity. Also, uneducated and illiterate are NOT synonymous. Also, I don't see an equation that agency can be removed from. If you're just using buzzwords to explain this, it's not working.
3 hours ago, dimreepr said: That's kinda my point.
I think it's a horrible point. Removing the process for reasoning doesn't help anybody remove their own biases. The process is what helps recognize an objective statement from a subjective one. Your "point" can't explain the difference between "apples are fruits" and "apples are delicious".
And none of this supports the statement you made that God is a way of removing subjectivity. In fact, your arguments seem to confirm that gods are practically the epitome of subjective thinking.
-
-
4 hours ago, dimreepr said: I'm sorry but I can't let this pass, "religions don't"? Isn't God a way of removing subjectivity?
Two different system's with different approaches, both effective (arguably), so I find it difficult to dismiss an approach to life, that was historically successful.
I'll assume you mean the Abrahamic god. Can you show me how any god removes subjectivity? Please don't use anything written about them, since those myriad interpretations are at the heart of why their worship can't, by default, remove subjectivity.
-
-
On 1/9/2026 at 8:16 PM, Trurl said: To me light is the one thing that would make scientists believe in creation.
Quite the opposite, actually. Light is a symbol for capital T Truth and goodness in the Bible. It's also used to judge people and determine whether they deserve to be tortured for eternity. It represents the presence of the Abrahamic god, to the point where nothing good can happen in the shadows, even though shadow doesn't exist without light.
None of this has any scientific basis. Truth is subjective, always has been.
On 1/9/2026 at 8:16 PM, Trurl said: I just think that scientists want to figure it out themselves.
Science has ways of removing subjectivity from its reasoning process, which religions don't. It's not a matter of "figuring it out themselves" so much as rejecting sloppy methodology filled with passionate attempts to build a belief system on faith alone, since the evidence doesn't support that system.
-
15 hours ago, MigL said: Energy prices have shot up ( along with everything else ) under the leadership of His Orangeness.
In Western New York, and others on the Eastern seaboard, they buy Ontario's and Qjuebec's surplus Hydro at tariff-free, reduced prices.You can't really call it leadership when he quite obviously has no idea what he's talking about. He just told ConocoPhillips there's no windmills in China when the company has been working on Chinese wind energy generation for some time now, and China is the world leader in wind power right now.
-
57 minutes ago, Sensei said: Everything consumed in excess has undesirable side effects. Drinking more than 6 liters of water a day can lead to death (for people weighing less than 75 kg).
In excess? I think when the OP said "a lot of medication", they meant "many medications on the market", not an excess of one. Or are you claiming the dosages are excessive in general?
-
I don't think of it as the medications having side effects. The meds are designed to do what they do for the majority of patients. It's the patients who have differing issues and physiologies. Their bodies function slightly differently from one another, or react in varying ways, so the meds still do what they're supposed to, but some folks experience "side effects". Some of these meds list a dozen or more possible side effects, and I'm betting almost nobody gets them all.
Perhaps in the future we'll have diagnostic techniques that can prescribe a more precise, consequence-free form of medication. Socialized medicine would be perfect for this, since for-profit healthcare capitalizes on side-effects and cheap pharmaceuticals.
Some basic assumptions of human body and celestial nine planets
in Speculations
No, that wouldn't be reasonable. From a quick search around the internet, the sources for astrology all claim opposing things. It seems to be very much like religion, where the practitioners pick and choose what they want to believe. Not a science or even a practical methodology. I'm not interested in opinion or guesswork.
This is a science discussion forum, and you don't seem to be able to support the assertions you're making. There's nothing testable here, nothing you can make solid predictions about. It seems worthless. Can you explain the value you see in it?