Phi for All

Less gods than one is... more reasonable.

It sounds like the meeting was a success because both sides get to claim things that aren't in the document they signed. Trump says denuclearization will happen quickly, Kim says it will be a careful, step-by-step process in conjunction with other concessions. Kim, of course, gets to claim that he removed the US/SK war games without giving up anything. I see nothing noteworthy about this agreement that wasn't in others, and the war games concession makes it a loss for the Trumpster. It's one thing to want peace, and to try and use unconventional means when nothing else has worked. But if this was really what Trump wanted, why antagonize current allies and relationships? This seems more about a fundamental shift towards aligning ourselves with the worst repressive regimes in the world instead of the most progressive. I'm leaning towards the stance of Guy Verhofstaft, the EU's Brexit rep. Tell us what Putin has on you, Don, and maybe we can help.

Religions without deities to protect don't seem to rely as much on what science would call supernatural behavior. There seems to be more reason when there's less gods.

I was the exact same way. Now, I wish I had gotten a tutor to help me over my stumbling block with math. I had absolutely no idea what knowledge would help in my life and what wouldn't. Knowing an important language like math will literally change the way a person approaches any project. It's more than a skill set, it's like a sensory filter, something that adds a layer of nuance to your perspective. It's never a waste of time to dispel ignorance. It's all about constantly honing your mind with information that lets you adapt to virtually any situation you find yourself in. Plus, a current trend is hiring for language and science skills in finance, so math skills are a great crossover for a person interested in a wide choice of careers. Just sayin'.

What kind of belief is required for worshipping an entity that is unfalsifiable? If you choose to believe in a religion, what is there about the doctrines to trust? Wishful thinking is often used, but more often the views seem to require no hard evidence. It's not so much about what is required as what's NOT even considered (like falsifiability), and that sounds like faith to me.

From the perspective of extreme wealth capitalism, he's doing everything right. The theatrics hide his removal of restrictions and regulations that limit profit, and allow the GOP to claim shock at his outrageousness while passing bills to promote more private ownership of previously public or state owned operations. He repealed Obama-era regs that required ISPs to take reasonable measures to protect your sensitive data, just before we came to find out about all kinds of breaches of our sensitive data on the web, so that saved the major providers a LOT of legal trouble. From the perspective of those who want us to align more with China and Russia in the future, and less with our traditional allies (too socialist and won't promote 100% capitalism), Trump is working furiously to Make America Better (Redder?). Without NATO and all the other stumbling blocks to increasing investments exponentially worldwide, extremist gazillionaires will be able to create a capitalist utopia where everyone will have work, and those with the most money will just trickle that down to everyone else. That makes a lot more sense (if you already have a lot of money) than the humanitarian strategy currently in place. From the perspective of fringe groups that hold negative views, Trump is the Savior. He has done so much good promoting traits and behaviors that so many people were trying to remove from society, like bigotry and misogyny. Just because the people who actively discriminate on a daily basis are a small minority, that doesn't mean their hate-filled voices shouldn't be heard, or treated on an equal basis with more mainstream thought by the media.

All words are conceptualizations of the natural world. Why do you pick out time as different? Why does time being a word for what we use to denote movement remove any of that meaning? Rock, happiness, and quantum are also words we've given special meaning. I think you're hung up on trying NOT to learn mainstream science. You think you've found something that makes more sense, because you don't know what you don't know.

Once again, your answer leaves me feeling as though you missed his point in order to pick a bone about something else. It has to do with the pride you feel as a "fiscal conservative", that's plain. I remember liking the way Ross Perot and later Jesse Ventura talked about being fiscally conservative but socially liberal. The problem is, none of that really means anything. There are times when being liberal socially isn't being conservative fiscally. There are even more times when it's unclear what the "conservative" choice would be fiscally. You never have addressed my question about whether it's more fiscally conservative to get more bang for your buck or to not spend it in the first place. I would suggest that context matters more than any label you might slap on it, period. I think you equate "conservative" with "prudent & wise" in your mind, so that whenever someone uses the word, you immediately jump to defend. I think Ten oz is usually talking about the US conservative politicians who've held our Congress in deadlock for a decade, don't spend money unless it enriches them, their friends, or their donors personally, and aren't interested in fiscal conservancy so much as reducing taxes and regulations that cut into their profit. That's why it always seems like you're not arguing about the same things.

Also, for discussion, videos are terrible. I'm not about to keep playing it over and over to catch what you said so I can quote it here. I really dislike that you spent so many years making up your own terminology for words that are well-known. I agree with everyone here, to call everything energy is worthless. I also don't see any reason to treat time as a language. Math as a language is great, but you really have to torture either time or language to make them perform the same. It's too bad you didn't put such effort into understanding spacetime.

I'll make this a formal question. How will your concept change knowing that energy is not a thing unto itself (Can you hold energy in your hand? Can I borrow a cup of it?), but rather a property of things? Also, won't you always fail dimensional analysis when you use time for part of your idea but then claim it doesn't exist in other parts? No offense, but this seems like an idea you got because it "made more sense" than what mainstream science offered you. IOW, it's full of imprecision and misunderstandings that would be obvious to you if you'd studied formally. Very common for smart humans to stitch together disparate ideas to make a recognizable pattern they can deal with, which is one reason why we need science.

The wackiest, farthest left proposal any major liberal has had in the last 18 years was to ask the UN to monitor our presidential elections for fraud. Let that sink in.

Which is exploited by those with other agendas, usually money. This explains why fiscal conservatives in the US don't support universal healthcare, even though making Medicare available to everyone would cut medical costs in half (which seems pretty fiscally smart to me). All this rabid nonsense about race and gender is magician's hand-waving, to cover up all the extremist investment opportunities being exploited. The vast majority of Americans get along much better than the media portrays, but that's not sensational enough to entertain.

Observation supports Ten 0z's stance but not yours. Your generalization has no basis, but yet 87% of US Republicans approve of the job Trump is doing, which includes the stuff that makes him a horrible, divisive commander (he isn't a leader of any kind). You yourself call him out while agreeing with anything you think sounds fiscally conservative.

They've taken duplicity to such a high level! They've always used the accuse-the-other-guy-of-the-bad-things-you're-doing tactic, and the it's-good-when-we-do-it-but-bad-when-you-do-it tactic. For the last couple of years we've seen the we'll-pretend-to-be-scandalized tactic, denouncing the worst Trump offenses vocally while supporting them strongly with their approval of his performance. I have no other word but hypocrisy. I'm so disappointed so many of my fellow humans are behaving so cravenly, so hatefully.

87% of the GOP approve of his actions. They've already torn down the Reagan statues. They lie when they act offended.

I still say this is all opportunistic extremism, whipping up the mobs, divisively fomenting hatred wherever he can, taking credit for anything good that happens, and blaming his failures on his opponents. I want to believe that conservative folks have better values than this, that this flimflam conman isn't their idea of an American leader, but 87% approval among Republicans is pretty damning. That's higher than anyone except Bush right after 9/11. That's higher than Reagan, ffs. Are these the same people? Were they always in support of pussy-grabbing, ruthless, egomaniacal fascism?

If you had the credentials to design a better engine, you would know exactly who to contact. Without those credentials, even if you were given the right contacts, they would be too busy reviewing designs from those with better credentials. Nothing personal, just the way things are. I'd invite you to share the designs here. You'll get some valuable input and hopefully everyone will learn a little. If NATO contacts the Admins and has them shut down this thread, then you know you're onto something.

I don't see any of that as "necessary", especially in a country that acknowledges the importance of the health of its citizenry enough to invest heavily in it. I would suggest that your debt implies some other forces at work other than the differences between fiscal policies. If you were in the US, I would suggest you look at where your publicly-managed services intersect with your privately-owned contractors -- that's traditionally where the corruption lies. Some of our extremist capitalists love pointing out how our social programs can't stand on their own, especially after lobbying to make them so weak. These are the kind of people who don't think twice about stirring up fringe hatreds with their words, then holding themselves up as the only solution.

I'll toss this one to Klaynos. The system would need to set levels for warnings and closures. I'd just like to see more speculators react reasonably when mistakes are pointed out. To ignore a correction and claim we're not giving some pet idea a chance defeats the whole concept of discussion. You can't defend an argument that doesn't have its facts straight.

Not all. 87% as of last Gallup poll. Probably because I was actually trying to convince you that fiscal conservatism is meaningless. It's an easy phrase to manipulate. Is it conservative fiscally to get more bang for your buck, or to not spend the buck in the first place?

Historically, conservative stances always fall to progress. And I can't think of a case where the vast majority doesn't agree that progress overall is better. People gripe about how things used to be, but when pressed usually agree that "we've come a long way since those days". I had an argument about this the other day with a friend who bemoaned not being able to work on his car engine like he could back when there was plenty of room. I reminded him they had lots of room in the engine compartment because they broke down a lot more. Bottom line, a conservative stance against "others" isn't sustainable now, unless the aim is to hide in a bunker, or force others to bow to our will, or justify killing everyone who isn't what we want them to be. A global community of humans working to solve problems for all seems like an inevitable and hopeful goal, so I'm not sure why there is so much "othering" going on. I think it has more to do with money than hate, though. Fringe hate is being stirred up to make it look more pervasive. Get folks together face-to-face and you see a lot more commonality, and far less division.

I think Klaynos' underlying point was that, since it's not the specifics of a particular idea that we're questioning but rather the ability of the author to support it with an accurate and reasoned argument right from the start, it should be possible to use some sort of numeric analysis to set the bar for alternative hypotheses. It's frustrating trying to be fair to the author as well as the members who try to help. We want to give enough time to lay out a good case for an idea while also respecting the time of the folks who are often ignored as they correct mistakes.

They aren't unlikely, and you can't seem to find any significance (other than the supernatural), so why should I? I'm content to claim I-don't-know rather than give in to guesswork based on historically inaccurate human hopes. I'm not refusing anything except YOUR IRRATIONAL EXPLANATION. I'm waiting for a better explanation than the ones we have now, which work amazingly well.

I'm sorry, but that's not something you can know without some pretty strict methodology. How... vague. And uninteresting. Your incredulity at the tiny numbers is an emotional effect, I hope you realize. You claim this is a reasoned line of thought, but it's just not. I've learned to talk about nature, and leave "reality" to philosophers (no, you aren't one of those, either).

How do you adjust for pareidolia? Science has methods to deal with our confirmation bias, but you seem to have no such filter, so the "evidence" you claim is suspect.