Phi for All

Science assumes nothing about god(s). In fact, science assumes there is nothing supernatural, since we have no evidence to support the idea. God(s) is not a subject science can address until some observational evidence comes to light. Which it never has.

Is this going to be one of those threads? The kind where we spend all our time providing supportive evidence for a mainstream theory, while all you do is post smug non-answers like this one, that tell us NOTHING? Here we attack ideas, not people. If all you're going to do is criticize the people participating in your thread, why are we bothering?

You should try to show this, using evidence, rather than trying to wave it into validity with your hands. The preponderance so far is with the theory (not hypothesis) of evolution, one of the most heavily studied and researched theories science has ever developed. Evolution itself is a fact; the theory is our best explanation.

The technology might be reliable, but the questions asked are often misleading. If you work in a computer store, and I'm giving you a lie detector test (and my boss told me to find someone who's lying, no matter what), I can ask you, "Have you ever taken money from the cash register that didn't belong to you?" If you say no, it's going to show you're lying. I can get you fired right there. Because of course you've taken money from the register, it's part of your job. None of it belongs to you, but you give change to people on most cash transactions. You understood that I meant "steal", but I said "take". I could ask "Have you ever taken merchandise off the shelf that didn't belong to you?" Again, it's part of your job, and your brain knows that, but if I ask it this way, and you say no, it will show as a lie.

I didn't see it earlier. Has anyone explained that the singularity associated with the BBT isn't a black hole? We've seen this misunderstanding a lot.

These politicians have a lot of PTPB (People To Pay Back), and a lot of those people don't want environmental regulations at all. I don't think it's a case where these politicians aren't listening to the expert consensus, it's that the other voices are louder, or at least more profitable. Without those lobbying voices in their ears, I think they'd side with the professional experts that are trained to be aware of such things. I keep thinking about what the Clintons have done to earn money since Bill left office. They were supposedly broke and in heavy debt in 2001, yet now they're worth millions. And from what I've read, the wealth came from speaking engagements to some of the very groups that would lose profit if tighter carbon regulations were in effect, if they were made to stop polluting our environment.

! Moderator Note There's nothing in the OP about religion, so let's stick with mainstream science for this speculation, and leave religion to its own section.

In that time, you've learned what it takes. When you turn pro, you become more of a "lady" man, focusing your efforts on the greatest lady in the world.

For me, wisdom is an emergent property of intuition, or rather fighting against it. If there's a fire in the forest, it might be wise to fight your intuition about putting it out, for the good of the whole forest. Wisdom tells us to offer to cut a baby in half and give the parts to the two women claiming to be the mother. As long as they aren't doing too much harm, it's good to ignore your intuition about breaking up a fight between two people, since it harms their chances of working things out themselves.

Maybe wisdom isn't imparted, it's absorbed. Imagine an infinite sponge, capable of soaking up the knowledge of every experience in the universe....

I'm trying to wrap my head around the general response to a couple who can't die, who get to live forever while the rest of humanity gets less than a hundred years. How many people would support our right to privacy, and how many would demand we be tested to find out our secret?

That means part of my life will be spent hiding the immortality of my wife and I.

Oh, it's just me and one other, not everyone?

Nothing can harm us?

Define "live". Not down to the trivial, but it would be important to know something about your immortality process. Do we continue to age at some slower rate, or is it assumed you'll be an average, healthy person (at what age physiologically?) who can't die? Or is this more of a "as long as you don't have a fatal accident, you'll never die, at least of natural causes" sort of affair? I kind of favor the idea of not dying of natural causes, but still being mortal when it comes to decapitation or being blown up. This might negate the intention of the implied immortality of "forever". Is forever important in this scenario, or is a thousand years enough? As for living a whole lot longer, sure, sign me up. If I don't have to worry about my mental and physical capabilities being impaired, and could spend my scads of time accumulating compound interest, and using that to explore the world, meet new people, discover new discoveries, experience the development of our species and others over longer periods of time, and generally push the limits of how much a person can know, I can't think of a more delightful future.

I think this is the real reason Paul Ryan doesn't want to come charging to the rescue. He knows the Republicans have no chance this year. Why waste the effort, and get ground up by Trump's propaganda machine, just to lose in the end anyway?

Agreed, and I think this is a very dangerous sentiment. Ever since it was pointed out that this election is very much like the 1968 election, with Trump as the volatile and bigoted Wallace, Sanders as the professorial McCarthy, Clinton as Humphrey, and Cruz as Nixon, I've read a lot of the things Cruz has to say. He's a poisonous little toad, unbelievably petty, and loves to stab at the back from the darkness. After almost 50 years, putting Cruz in the Oval Office would be like Nixon on steroids, imo. The evil politicians have learned a lot over the decades.

Sorry, we're going to need them out, too. We need the building for actual governing.

You won't need to. We'll all be in your front yard, American refugees. I still get the couch though, right?

http://www.cfr.org/campaign2016/bernie-sanders/on-islamic-state http://www.cfr.org/campaign2016/bernie-sanders/on-defense http://www.cfr.org/campaign2016/bernie-sanders/on-north-korea Sanders is convinced the US has to stop making these Leroy Jenkins military moves, and start working with coalitions of affected groups to form more effective solutions. We need to stay out of the boots-on-the-ground battles in the Middle East, yet remain supportive of our allies. This is where he differs a lot from the rest. He thinks we should be helping the people in affected regions form alliances that will help quell the chaos instead of inciting it. Everyone else is going to continue sending drones and scarfing down the terrorism bait, bankrupting us in the name of national security and corporate greed. We know that doesn't work, makes the rich richer, and escalates the fear felt by the general public. When you aren't thinking in terms of "waging business" on our enemies, growing their numbers to keep things profitable, I think you can actually look for solutions that don't involve killing and military intervention. If we can stop the source of funding for terrorism, remove their teeth, then their own societies can go back to dealing with the extremists among them.

We have to leave enough roads to make it to home and work, assuming we need separate space to land. I'm also assuming there is no way to transition between flying mode and driving mode instantly (like landing in the middle of ground traffic), so we would need some kind of isolated landing strips/areas. Since we'd still need roads for short trips in our cars, it seems that we don't gain the advantage of more space/less roads. Possibly the super highways could be removed, since most would probably want to fly for longer distances. It could be done, but at what cost and to what advantage? With all the flying cars, you'd need some kind of aerial highway, flight corridors where you could join other pilots heading in the same general direction. But that's not what people think deep down when they think of flying cars. Most people imagine being able to plot a straight line course to where they're going, to minimize the distance flown. But now imagine a whole city of flying cars, all wanting to fly straight to their destination. It would have to be computer controlled, and doesn't that just take all the fun out of flying your car around? I don't think the advantages of flying cars can be realized, since the necessities of safety and logistics tend not to favor them.

It's all disadvantage, imo. Sounds cool, but it would be a nightmare to add a third dimension to our auto traffic. There might be an advantage if we were to remove most of the roads, and leave just enough to get to our homes/businesses from the landing strips (do our cars hover? That would make a difference), but I don't think we'd do that. I think we'd keep the roads, AND add facilities for our flying processes. I can't even imagine what air traffic control would be like. It would eventually need to be automated for safety, so you really wouldn't be doing the flying yourself. For economy, we'd probably figure out ways to connect multiple vehicles all flying to the same destination. We have cars that can drive themselves now, and I can't help but think it's crazy that we don't just invest more in trains and light rail, rather than hook all our cars up like a train. I think it would be the same for flying vehicles. Better to invest in flying mass transit. An individual flying vehicle is an interesting idea. I think it falters when everybody has one.

Sanders is the only candidate not under investigation by the FBI. He has the only positive budget, where all the other candidates are deficit-spending their asses off (which is such hypocrisy from the Republicans, who claim it's always the Dems who jack up the debt). He's the only candidate who seems more interested in representing what the People really want, instead of furthering his own political career. He's the only candidate who hasn't taken money from the corporations that we all know are causing huge problems for our country. He's the only candidate who will try to stop the insanity of waging full-scale war against cheap little terrorists, and try to change the focus so our responses at least don't create more terrorists. I think that covers how I feel about the rest.

Threads are trashed for breaking the rules. Even if you have a thread (as you do) where you were unable to support your assertions, it's not trashed, it's locked so it doesn't waste any more time. IOW, it's not the ideas that merit moderation, it's the rule-breaking. But I know it makes you feel like Galileo to think it's your ideas that are too much for modern science. It's a common delusion.

The scales of justice, which I mentioned when I started this analogy, work the same way. But I understand why you don't want it to work. Thanks for playing anyway.