Phi for All
-
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by Phi for All
-
-
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.
-
-
-
2 hours ago, Jacek said: @Phi for All I wasn't banned on Reddit's r/Astronomy for evading a ban, arguing with them or insulting anyone. I was banned for telling them they created a cancel culture, and I gave the explanation. They couldn't handle it. I couldn't even argue with them afterwards, because they muted me right away.
You know exactly why I'm calling @Mordred a liar. Go ahead, ban me, you're great at it giving 40 pages of banned users. I don't care.
I'm insulting you now because you actually are a nasty, indecent bunch of people. And @Mordred is the worst of you.
You told me not to be a m DICK about my post and my points. Go ahead, be a COMPLETE CUNT about me and ban me.
OK. Jacek/Bart/Bart2/Ravell/ad infinitum. But could you please stop loving on us so hard? Please stop joining the forum over and over again to insist on how horrible we are, it makes you look indecisive. Stay away if we're so bad. Win/win for all.
-
46 minutes ago, Jacek said: You know exactly what I was banned for.
Was it for spending more time on insulting the people who are discussing science with you than you spent on the science itself? That's probably what you'll get banned for here.
If your arguments are strong, why do you need all the toxicity? Can't you explain yourself without derision and condescension? This is a pattern for you. You join science discussion forums, break their rules, get banned, and then sign up again from a different account and start the whole shitshow all over again.
Please focus on the science you're trying to persuade others to accept, lose the snark, and try to make your points without being a complete dick about it. It would go a LONG way towards helping everyone understand what you so desperately are trying to convey.
-
9 hours ago, raphaelh42 said: I said all I had to say regarding about how to reach what is in my opinion the best/raw/pure freedom
So you were just soapboxing about your stance, and don't want to listen to those who want to persuade you that there may be problems with it? Doesn't sound like discussion to me.
-
12 minutes ago, raphaelh42 said: I guess we all have things we want to do when living in society but are not free to do because it's illegal
Offhand, I can't think of many illegal things I'd like to do if it was made legal for me just one time. Certainly nothing that would harm somebody else. Break a big plate glass window? Mildly interesting. Steal a bunch of money? Perhaps, if it was from one of those private equity firms that have been bleeding us over the last 40 years or so.
I can't think of anything, not one thing that would make me want to give up living with others because it's illegal. I can't imagine what you want to do.
5 minutes ago, raphaelh42 said: In my case it's mostly being able to build shelters without having to pay for the land
Like make nice camps, make fire, sleep there...
Fish without needing a license...
Since public lands are available for this, I have to assume you're talking about wild camping on someone else's property. It's a bit ironic, seeing as how the best way to get permission to camp on a stranger's land is to engage them socially and be nice about it, the very thing you seem to want to avoid.
I'm not sure I'll ever understand your stance fully. It would seem to be much more efficient and less work to lobby for more public lands, or make friends with a landowner, rather than to retreat from society altogether and eke out a minimum subsistence on your own.
-
-
54 minutes ago, raphaelh42 said: I wanted to explain a freedom that is not a package of concessions to remain with others
Concessions like "Don't pee in the streets", "drive in your own lane", and "put your litter in a trash can"? Which concessions in this "package" are distasteful to you?
You're very jaded. "Remain with others" is how you view social interaction and cooperation? No offense, but I think you've decided against society and are now cherry-picking the worst aspects while ignoring the clear benefits civilisation gives us.
-
4 hours ago, raphaelh42 said: Hmm this is something i feel I see everyday, everyone wants to be happy and free, but i feel people only want to achieve inside society/civilization
And to leave in society, you need money, it's like the "pass" to be inon
So I conclude people want to reach freedom only thanks to money, and this is what frustrates me, and makes me feel lonely
This seems to be a self-inflicted frustration. You haven't achieved an expected level of happiness in a society, so you assume nobody can. They want happiness and freedom but you think that's impossible if they live with others. It's affecting your whole outlook.
You absolutely don't NEED money to either live in or leave a society, it just makes everything easier. What you NEED in a society is a skill others find valuable. The work you do is enough to feed, clothe, and house you if you can find those willing to trade. You can fix my car? I'll buy the parts, you can stay in my guest room for a week and I'll even feed you. Arrange something like this 51 more times this year and you don't need money.
Again, I don't know where this focus on money comes from. To me, freedom to pursue happiness requires myself and others to follow reasonable rules when interacting with each other. It's not my ability to strike out on my own if I feel like it. It's not my ability to say anything in public I feel like saying. It's not my ability to own a weapon. If the government in the US took away all the weapons and made it illegal to own one, I would feel freer to interact more with my society. The right to bear arms isn't a freedom to me, but a lack of them would be.
-
6 hours ago, raphaelh42 said: Freedom is so precious, that when i see people expecting to become able to reach it thanks to money, in society, that annoys/disgust me
This seems like a strawman argument. Did anyone actually claim that money makes them more free, or is this something you've seen before that frustrates you in a general way?
In my thread, I tried to make it clear that I think the right rules actually lead to meaningful freedom in a society, not money.
6 hours ago, raphaelh42 said: How can you expect to be really happy, feel really secure, if you can't feel free
I think this is where you and I differ. You have a definition of freedom that doesn't make sense to me, so I think of it as false. You imagine freedom only comes if YOU are alone and free to do whatever pops into your head. Being alone seems secure to you, whereas I see it as an unnecessarily dangerous situation, especially when the topic of freedom only makes sense in a society. If you were the only person on Earth, you could do whatever you want. Is that a meaningful freedom to you? To me, freedom only really becomes an issue when people try to live together.
-
1 hour ago, Jacek said: I think you still owe me moving this thread to your trash, don't you?
Moderator Note
This is NOT discussing science.
You seem to have a big chip on your shoulder, so I have to assume you've been here before, under a different name, with the same lack of rigor and sour disposition, and failed to meet the requirements for the assertions you made. If you don't understand the criticisms your ideas spawn, please ask questions rather than lashing out or retaliating in non-science discussion forum ways. Civility greatly helps when trying to persuade others.
-
-
-
2 hours ago, Lan Todak said: I saw many people post a.i contents here. How is such content against the rules?
Like other sites, we're adapting to the sudden surge in AI generated content. We think it can be used as a LLM for those who can't always put their thoughts down as eloquently as they'd like. Many people, however, use it to draw conclusions, search for evidence, and site their sources, all of which we've proven the AI is incapable of doing honestly.
2 hours ago, Lan Todak said: They will please you if you don't filter the contents. You can ask them to be unbiased towards your contents and preferences. They will give you direct answer, clean. Btw, I don't think I will continue 😁.
Even this small interaction is much more valuable to me than anything you might do with AI.
I have to admit that I'm heavily biased against AI in general. In the US, preemptive laws are in place that prohibit us from regulating AI companies. I've heard that AI in 2026 will use more water than all the bottled water companies in the US. And it just pisses me off in general since it's obvious the billionaire class hopes AI will eliminate the need to employ actual people. To me, AI is like a fascinating toy that kills people by making them useless.
-
-
I hated it when we lost our public utility, Public Service of Colorado, and sold to a private investor named Xcel Energy back in 2000. Rates went up immediately, service stayed the same for a while, so it just seemed like handing over more money just so a corporation could profit.
After 25 years, it's now come out that they've been lax on maintaining their grid system. Four years ago, a major fire was caused by downed power lines and high winds, and Xcel got the crap sued out of them. The state demanded they come up with a solution, and the best they could do was to shut off consumer power whenever the winds get too high. They're calling it a Public Safety Power Shutoff.
Yup. I was without power from 9:45am on Wednesday until 2:30pm Thursday, with only a one day notice. It's possible they may not be getting accurate weather info since the current administration isn't funding NOAA fully, but they also decided to do another PSPS Friday morning at 5:45am. This time, power will be off until Saturday at 6pm. I had to book hotel rooms for my family.
Xcel isn't obligated to repay me for a freezer full of meat, because they argue it's covered by homeowner's insurance. My homeowner's insurance only covers accidental power outages, not planned ones. It's crystal clear to me Xcel wants to protect stockholders, not customers.
Sorry, long rant, very frustrated, but I'm hearing other stories around the US about going back to municipal utilities. How is power handled where you live? US or outside the US, I'd like to know why something so important is owned by private investors.
Messages to the president...
in Politics
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.