Phi for All

dave will be moving the server from the UK to a planet in the Sirius B system next month. I hope it will didn't now cause some dilation.

If the methodology is sound, it might not make a difference. The problem is, a lot of folks come here with lots of enthusiasm and interest but little education in science, and they don't know enough to evaluate the equations. They don't know enough to realize when an idea is simply wrong. I think of it like exploring. If you walk the area carefully, testing every foothold and mapping the good paths and the bad, you'll know the difference between them, and you can retrace your steps to get back on a good path, and others can duplicate your travels. But a lot of newbies start with a non-mainstream concept, so it's like they parachuted down to the site they want to explore. If the idea is no good, they have no way to get back, no way to see that their idea is wrong, no way to retrace their steps.

I know that thread, and my perspective is that you asked what emotion is, iNow gave his answer, and you told him he shouldn't post if he didn't understand your goal and couldn't be more constructive. Then he asked for definitions of the terms you were using, which others agreed was important. I thought you were extremely rude and condescending. It's been pointed out to you numerous times that reputation is often influenced by remarks like "not too bright, but very loyal", and yet you continue to make them. How does express itself in your philosophy, and what emotions cause you to behave this way?

You can't. Not until the gun goes off.

Is your offense related to the integrity you give up when you take a sentence out of context? I agree that integrity is one of the paramount virtues, but I don't believe in truth the way you paint it. I thought I made it quite clear (in the bit you snipped) that assigning equal value to all things was my objection to the idea presented. And it is ironic that you've used a strawman fallacy in the same post where you admonish me for advocating sophistry. But let's talk about this sentence: More irony, as I assume sophistication is something you're shunning as a threat to your integrity, and yet a lack of sophistication is allowing you to make a blanket assertion like this that's trivially false. You're basically saying that EVERYONE who is sophisticated gave up their integrity first. Please consider my preceding thoughts.

An apartment balcony? If it's not against the rules of the building, I don't see why not. I think rain, high winds, and work are the main reason many people use the dryer instead. If those aren't a problem, I think open air drying would be the most efficient and sustainable. Back in the mid-70s, I was repeatedly told I was NOT Chevy Chase.

Well, I don't want to go any farther afield with religious considerations, since the best change there will take a lot of time. I think the only way to correct ignorance is with teaching and time. It will probably take several generations of slow progress, as people see the prosperity of those who cooperate instead of hate. If we tried to change people overnight, their prejudices and intolerance would become more entrenched, and I don't think a one-world government would be successful. This will be more of a social evolution revolution, where better communication and cooperation ensure that more sustainable and adaptive ideas get passed down to our children.

Judaism has a heaven for those who stay faithful to the 613 laws, which is an extremely onerous proposition if you've ever seen them. Christianity has a promise of a perfect afterlife if you don't give up under pressure. And we know Islam has its sacrifice-earthly-pleasures-for-eternity-with-virgins concept. I think it's a consideration. I can imagine working things out amongst ourselves when it comes to water, food, and energy. But we have trouble now with ideologies that don't match up between people who need to share a region. I've never wanted anyone religious in charge of nuclear weaponry, since it's difficult to know how such people feel about the end of the world (evil war, or devoutly wished-for consummation?). When people who believe in such things are weighing the choice between a handful of decades of life vs eternity in the afterlife, I think it will affect the way they conduct themselves politically. I suppose the real question is, could we get the world's countries to all agree on a separation of Church and State?

1x0, I think between your translator, and the fact that you don't know much about science, you aren't going to be able to explain what must seem so clear in your head. Please, PLEASE, consider studying some science formally, mainstream science, not pop science you read on the internet. There are some great resources for mathematics, like Khan Academy. If you do, I think you will realize that most of your ideas are either trivially basic, or they're just wrong. Either way, you'll know more and have a better vocabulary with which to explain them.

OK. No offense, but this is an unsophisticated position to take. It sounds really great, that you see value in EVERYTHING, but experience will teach you that value is subjective and quantifiable. And while there might be value in all things to something/somewhere, not everything has a value that makes it interesting to science. What is measurable, your age and the age of the universe? Do you plan on studying mathematics? I think that's an excellent idea, and that you should learn mainstream science before you start redefining everything about it. I checked back over some of your other posts, and it's clear that most people don't understand how you're using words like "information" and "current appearance". You've been thinking about this a lot, that's easy to see, but you don't have the science background to understand how important terminology is. You're borrowing words and putting them together in ways that make sense ONLY TO YOU. I hope you have nothing against studying science. Some people pretend they don't need to, that they can guess at the basic parts, and intuit the rest. They can't. Complex? Or simple positive system? It can't be both. Explain "opposite forces", please. Evolution is NOT a good word to use in this context. Explain "currently presented reality", please. Who is presenting this? What does "sustainable future" have to do with how old any of us are?

OK, so it's a Hungarian translator that's using words like "appearance". This is confusing, as it makes it seem like you don't think the way we look represents reality. And I still don't know how you're defining information. It's been asked of you several times. I'm trying to figure out what's interesting about your concepts, and I'm failing miserably. Nothing against you personally, I just don't understand them, and it seems I'm not alone. Perhaps it's because you're not really asking a question to learn something, but just want to teach us what you've discovered?

I kind of skimmed over this part the first time, but now it's like a sore tooth and it's hard to leave it alone. How does one consider what one doesn't know? Are we assuming there's a whole bunch we don't know? Every time I look outside to see if it's clouding up to rain water down on me, do I need to consider that it might rain beets, or paper towels, or something I don't know, like... well, like... I don't know. Instead of having to run through all the possibilities of what we don't know, I prefer being extremely careful about the methodology used to gather data on what we do know. It's a jungle out there, and not every path leads somewhere. Science makes a path anyone can follow through the jungle, as long as they're willing to take responsibility for their own ignorance and do something to alleviate it.

I'm sorry if I implied that ALL people trying to reach an afterlife feel that way. But there are a great many people who are taught that they'll suffer in this life, but reap the rewards of faithfulness in the next. Is this not so? Those folks may not want to see a world government succeed, or at least won't invest much in its success.

No. I take that back. I'm giving YOU all the respect I give anyone else. It's your unsupported claims that everyone else but you is wrong that I don't respect. It's unhealthy that you think you can disprove science by NOT studying it. It's not every day we get people who claim what you claim. But it is like every month or two, and they never offer anything better than what you have, and it never has near the utility that mainstream science does. I'd like to borrow this for my signature, if you don't mind.

! Moderator Note Are you hiding in Philosophy because you think you won't have to defend your ideas as rigorously? I assure you, that's not the case. I'm going to leave this here for a bit, then we'll move it to a Math section. If you're not just a troll, you may learn something.

Keeping us watertight ever since oxygen showed up. Thank you, cholesterol!

I like the chores where the appliances do the hard part. I wish. That's another bit of work where you do some prep, then let an appliance take over. We use Mexicans because the Canadians we know are too lazy, and apparently don't believe in laundry. Also, we find the Mexican accent is generally more appealing and understandable.

How much suffering and ignorance could be wiped out if most of the world's military budgets were reallocated to more humane purposes? Schools and medicine, funded by the public, for every human sounds like a government that would attract followers. I'd love to see a world where people who want to live healthy, progress, and learn can do so with as little difficulty as possible. Unfortunately, there are many volatile mixes out there that we may not be able to overcome. People who cherish this life and want to do everything possible to make it better, would be trying to negotiate with people who think this life is meant for suffering, and that the only investments should be in a particular religious afterlife. Corporations will constantly try to avoid regulation while maximizing short term returns on investment until they're shown/forced to use better, more sustainable long term practices. And politicians are unlikely to want to give up any power, although I really think it's the link between politicians and corporations that needs to be overhauled.

You seem to have abandoned your original discussion topic. Are we moving on to what you think the problem is with modern science?

He's been eating out of the Trash Can, that's what started all this.

My wife asked me to take off her bra, so I did. It was pinching me a little anyway.

We see this kind of ignorant fantasizing about physics, but not biology or chemistry. I think it's because of the popular misuse of words like "theory", and "theoretical physics". To the uneducated, theory means, "something I thought about while showering and now have decided to blurt out".

I hate to use aspiration to mean greed. I think our aspirations can be good too. We get a lot of good things out of being aggressive, too. How can we keep our pioneering spirit, our stick-to-it-tiveness, our determination, while striving to be content? I agree, though, that money has gotten to be a problem. Not sure what solutions are best wrt that. If everyone were prosperous, would no one be prosperous? Or would everyone just be prosperous?

Content is a good word to use. Content people don't start wars. But can we ever be content when it comes to this concept of "the way we live is better than the way they live"? I tend to look at everybody as necessary. I love the guy who's wearing the loud clothing I would never wear, because somebody made it, so somebody should wear it, and I'm just so thankful it doesn't have to be me! I'm good at some things, and there are plenty of people to take up the slack with things I'm not so good at. A healthy system works well and provides a process for improvement and contentment. And I agree that contentment needs to be acknowledged. I have a friend who's ex-wife was always looking for things to make her happy. If they could have a bigger house, if they could have a horse like she grew up with, if they could have another child, THEN she could be happy. They did all these things before the divorce, and as far as I know, she's still miserable.

I'm pretty sure you're using a different definition of "profound" than I am. Also, a question is designed to elicit information. To ask a question whose answer doesn't exist is pointless. It's not a question since we learn nothing from it. I really dislike the misuse of knowledge and learning.