DevilSolution

Can it still be used as proof then?? I would argue not. If you require the use of math for proof but use a flawed piece of math as the proof, then im left quite confused. Is there no other way to conclusively show that you can imagine something that is illogical?? I think you could create a very strong argument against "if you can imagine it, it exists", but it should not include the use of paradox, im also not sure whether it would be conclusive.

The same mechanism is being used to lift an object. I too dont understand the message.

You are right, it does definitely deal with 'free will' as a core component but im mostly interested in the 'Querying of data' from the subconscious. Free will comes down to conscious choice, the querying of the subconscious data would seem to have some neurological science as a reference. If your aware that you are creating querying and receiving return packets of data, is there any scientific or hypothetical way of improving the systems efficiency?

Woh, something doesnt add up here; To use russels paradox to prove that you can conceive of something that is logically impossible means that mathematics cant be used as an ultimate proof. All paradoxes show this, if mathematics cant be used to prove it one way or the other, the system doesnt work. Then in the very next statement declare you NEED to use this broken system of math as proof. If you can find another example that isnt a paradox i'd be content. Otherwise your saying "This proves the system is broken, you are required to use the broken system as your proof". I remember seeing the set of all sets on portal, a little easter egg i suppose.

Shit, why stop at depression..... ...... ............... ......................... Let's outbreed every unfavourable trait, never heard of that one.

Sell it to the masses, my commercial will be hitting your screen soon "Burn your cells out today and replace them with receptors that make dirt look clean"

Why's there a pig mooching about? You can build your electromagnetic hammer if you wanted, though im not sure how efficient it would be. Also im interesting in your motivation towards the project? you've done a great job with it, do you follow norse mythology? i enjoyed reading about ragnarok though ive not ventured much further.

Its squared, not the power of 10, but the concept is the same regardless. Im gona throw a spanner in the works; Were using base 10 (decimal) as the root system here and it doesnt recur, is there any base system where the scale would recur, duodecimal for example. Or is there any scientific data on this?? By the squared process. Infact there must be, so what is it??

I signed, its already illegal though. You've got to remember minority cultures do tend to stick to themsleves which means intervention becomes very difficult regardless of public awareness. Its a general shift in the awareness of the culture as whole that will make a difference and some very stictly religious people may shrug it off either way. Pretty difficult field to address.

Polarized electric makes no sense to me, you have positive and negative in a circuit to represent the direction of current, you cant switch them in the way they make out because certain components, such as transitors and diodes work in a particular way, it would just blow the circuit. As far as the physics behind the water goes, the EM microwave causes h2o to oscilate which causes the particles to 'rub' creating kinetic energy, you would have to slow the oscilations to freeze it, if this were true freezers wouldnt use air presure to create cold, they would use this method i presume. Freezers emit heat by using a compressor to 'suck' the heat out, sort of. Proofs in the pudding though, a physicist could verify it. My knowledge it basic. EDIT: reversing the circuit makes no sense but it may be possible to reverse the microwave to slow oscilation, im not sure of the physics behind this.

Sorry, i didnt really make it clear. When you said omnipotence is impossible and therefor religion is wrong i offered this theory as a form of logical omnipotence. Though not in the contempary sense but more in the scientific sense. You are right this is straying from the OP however my threads always die in the water and im not sure how to articulate the theory. I wasnt trying to prove gods existence, just to iterate that omnipotence is not logically impossible. @Science4ever: i wish you all the best mate, i think you've hit a cross road in your beliefs and are trying to rationalise them on paper. Asalready mentioned i think its a very difficult process trying to comprehend ones perception of reality, one which im sure never fully gets solved.

Currently: Bill Hicks, love all the people Last: Charles Bukowski, ham on rye Before that i read PIHKAL :D I havent read a good novel for ages though.

This thread is a bit of a hearty read but it was very informative. I'd like to be the first to admin im arrogant to the bone and to admit i'm not of any particularly high intelligence HOWEVER i believe the two do correlate. (though not in my unfortunate bogstandard case). Let me explain my reasoning's, firstly; Our brain functions on belief systems, be it scientific or interpretive. If i have a solid conceptual belief in my mind i'm going to do all thats in my will to prove it right, or to hold on to it, thats the nature of belief. In some cases however i dont have a concrete perception of a concept and hence will question it. In the first case my mind is tightly closed to open idea's and however right or wrong, i will intellectually fight for them idea's. In the latter i know that i dont know and hence will be much more willing to co-operate in an open discussion regarding them idea's. This is just a case study of myself. 1) Belief is strong; Will be arrogant by nature. 2) Abstract understanding, willing to re-enforce comprehension; Will not be arrogant. This relates back to the genius argument in terms of determination, determination specifically of the belief (which is a concept) in which the genius must convey. For example lets argue plato was a genius, now if plato wasnt resolute in his own beliefs of his concepts, he would never have been able to convey them beliefs in a strong enough manner for us to conversely determine how useful or true they were because he would have simply folded at the first sign of opposition to his beliefs, maybe the second but penultimately he would have withdrawn belief in his concept. The only way for the concept to have been conceived as useful or *genius* by the majority of people is their ability to use that idea which would never have made it into a book or onto a wikipedia page without him being *arrogant* of his belief. Do you see what im saying?? Its an innate virtue that all humans share, put simply; The ability to convey and re-enforce an internal belief. That is what arrogance boils down to. (i think here you could say arrogance is the mannerism's in which the belief is conveyed, but for arguments sake, lets say its the determination to stand by a belief regardless of the amount or type of opposition to the belief) Now at the other end of the spectrum you have arrogant know it alls like me, people like me ask questions and quickly draw a belief from the person answering them, we then continue to probe at the teachers understanding of the concept until we find a hole in their belief. It can be a quick draw win in terms of an intellectually confusing the teacher but is of no usefull objective value. Its subconscious stimulation. The first example, where a solid belief is concieved and conveyed is a far cry from getting a quick buzz from intellectually condescending somebody of higher intellect using a pretty standard protocol. The "in for a penny, in for pound" here is that someone like me gets blown out the water by an actual genius because whatever concept they have a concrete understanding of will stand up to the most highly analysed pseudo intellect going. There will be some point at which after scrupulous scrutiny towards the concept i will fold my argument and then store it as my own. Arrogance from this perspective is essential in the 'proof' of any concept, 2 arrogant minds must battle for the ultimate succesion of an idea. The only real exception to the rule here is religious based beliefs. You can be as humble or truthfull as you want but it has no effect on how *genius* someone is, the *genius* is simply right. In most cases the *genius* must have been either a great forethinker or have broken some social convention to reveal its truth. In the terms of truth and being humble that correlates with leadership as you've described, not genius. I think for most examples of geniuses, they would absolutely have needed to be arrogant of their own theory or concept, not arrogant people, but arrogant of their belief. If you know what i mean. Arrogance shines in other ways though, like when a teacher is arrogant of a students understanding. Here a teachers arrogance can be a hindrance in the students progression.

Care to enlighten me?

Well they certainly have strong enough and simaltaniously conductive enough materials, the costs are ridiculous though. Were talking about making minute amounts in the lab, maybe there are more practical materials but im not aware.

What about the single electron theory? though not an electron a single *thing* that simaltaniously moves through everything in a single tick to give way to physical reality. I dont think its logically impossible. Do you understand the concept??

Well d'you mean the external circle? or protracting the angle into the graph? you can use anything you want to get the angle into the graph but i would have presumed a protractor might be more precise and easy. We used sohcahtoa

If you have pen and paper (preferably math paper) then draw a polarized circle graph, sine is y and cosine is x. the values go from 0.1 to 1, protract the angle you wish to figure out for the sine, I.E when you have the opposite side and hypotenuse and the angle facing adjacent, whatever number from 0.1 to 1 the angle returns when drawing a straight line from the point where it meats the edge of circle (so a straight line across the x axis until it meets the y) is the number you multiply against opposite / hypotenuse. The o/h gives you your units, where the angle draws off on the y is the multiplyer. I have no idea how to computate it though (im just gona check the math library in c and see what they do) This is essentially the visual representation of the functions, all 3 can be mapped using a polarized circle graph, however i wish to know how this can be computated, is there specific logic that must be created in the ALU to do this kind of function? This was made using a bowl and knife so not accurate, but this is the process. Alot of people arent taught how to do these by hand, when i was in school we just memorised how to use the function not what it physically represents. Seeing it allows the mind to understand it better. Then again maybe they are, i never did listen much

Just my interpretation of this. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_in_Heaven I was very high

I always seem to hit a recursive loop when trying to comprehend the entirety of the universe while simaltaniously percieving the smallest particles with the added variable of time. They intuitively merge into the same object. Analogies have a stronger foot hold than numbers in my mind but i can do a good job of breaking down maths into logic and seeing it for its functionally logical counterpart, alot of the more complex equations are out of my comprehension so by means of explanation the same truth can be conceived. I think intellectually the brain has the capability of percieving almost anything but point of reference, pre requisite knowledge and indoctrined environmental bias strongly inhibit ones ability to see the wider truth or the 'full picture'. Essentially as a single organism we will each struggle to comprehend our own percieved realities, id argue that we do have some intrinsic ability to grasp some form of infinite knowledge whether interpreted or scientific, it will be a set of re-enforced neurological structures in the brain. As a simplified answer i'd say: You percieve as much of reality as your subconscious allows you. Though you can take *some* conscious steps to try and broaden that perception.

so, its as they say then, two wrongs do make a right??

Use a electromagnetic hammer?

Thats trippy, got any more?

Nature is god and Science the bible

Thats a pretty cool thought, I had the same sort of idea relating to dejavu whereby when the feeling hits, your actually just producing or strumbling a cross a very similar feeling / scenario you've alreay felt. Like each moment is distinctly different but de ja vu is like tripping over or having the exact same thought / feeling you've once had. I doubt theres any science to it but i'd like to think my idea's are somewhat exclusive.