questionposter

But if in the boy's childhood it was viewed as an alright thing to do, he would have nothing to be ashamed of.

Calculators can do it, why not us?

My point is that your point about the isotopes having the specific ratios they do doesn't mean anything. If there use to be no carbon 14 in the atmosphere and then when humans started burning fossil fuel, a lot of carbon 14 was found in the atmosphere, then your point might mean something.

Even though good and evil are relative, I hardly doubt that the thing a lonely, depressed and suicidal person needs is eternal damnation.

Even with a dictionary, we cannot concretely define these things. Based on the fact that you can view your own consciousness and body's subconscious both objectively as well as the difficulty when trying to find things like a "soul" scientific experiments, this whole "soul" and "spirit" and "consciousness" thing is way more complex than we have knowledge for. If there are no mystical forces or etc. which I don't think there is, then this whole thing is likely mechanical-like, but not in the sense that it's "this chemical reaction automatically triggers that, which will trigger that", it's more complex than that, it's not just some "robotic" programming.

Even with a dictionary, we cannot concretely define these things. Based on the fact that you can view your own consciousness and body's subconscious both objectively as well as ll the difficulty when trying to find it in scientific experiments, this whole "soul" and "spirit" and "consciousness" thing is way more complex than we have knowledge for. If there are no mystical forces, then this whole thing is likely mechanical-like, but not in the sense that it's "this chemical reaction automatically triggers that, which will trigger that", it's more complex than that, it's not just some "robotic" programming.

Ok, I'm essentially saying the OP was trying to logically deduce the fallacies of religions, so in terms of assuming both God and logic and science are true simultaneously, then his points could make sense.

Well I know infinity has it's own rules, and that just goes to show that it isn't an actual number, it's it's own thing, it's everything simultaneously.

That is very ignorant because what if the people who wrote that tablet "thought" they say a space ship? That's essentially what's already happened with all religions. People wrote down or at least in some way recorded super-natural things they thought they say throughout the course of history. There's plenty of ancient scriptures that portray higher beings descending from the heavens.

Carbon 12 occurs in fossil fuel but Carbon 12 is also the most abundant isotope of Carbon in the universe. Yep, I know that there's natural carbon cycles, I've seen the graphs for CO2 changes and ocean temperatures, and based on the giant exponentially increasing spikes near similar times, one event leads to another. However, recently Earth's global climate change has been happening at a faster rate than usual. This could be largely because of humans, or because of the fact that nature is most certainly not perfectly periodic and predictable. Either is likely, but regardless of whether humans or other aspects of nature caused it, it's still a problem. However, any factor of CO2 increases will make CO2, so if you eliminate any factor, it helps in some way no matter what. The other activities besides our own activities are hard to control.

I think the OP is suggesting that whether or not something is a fact is merely the opinion of the scientists in the convention where it was determined, which is partly true, but you also have to consider the fact that there's generally much evidence and much to look at in a scientific theory which becomes fact to the point where there's almost no room to interpret it another way.

I figured it out: If there's literally infinite nothing, then there's infinite probability for anything to happen. There's no matter to say "this matter can't exist here because there's already matter here", there's no magnetic fields determining energy levels or anything, there's nothing to say that any particular thing can't exist. It's possible that you might even be use the uncertainty principal in some way to say "something infinitely precise is infinitely delocalized", and thus a particle of nothingness containing all probability extends infinitely through space containing all probable locations and energy levels, it sort of reminds of me imaginary numbers.

Just study wave mechanics and the uncertainty principal. The manipulation of sine waves is very helpful for QM, but there's also some kind of probability matrix you need to devise, and I don't know what it is exactly. I actually don't get what is so unknown about QM math wise, the founders did a pretty good job making equations and rules just to start with.

Well, I don't know, my grandfather took metaphysics classes and he basically told me it was like mixing religion and logical deduction.

Natural CO2 changes will happen no matter what, but there's many causes of that, there's hundreds of small meteors that burn up which could easily contain frozen CO2 or water and often do, there could be the fact that we don't consider the moisture in the atmosphere since as the air warms up, the capacity for moisture increases exponentially, there's the position of the continents which sounds strange, but if they are centered around the equator, that allows the ice caps to extend down more and possibly create a snowball Earth, or they could be too near the poles, there could be some change in the carbon cycle with the ocean, changes in solar output, changes in the Earth's tilt or even outburst of cosmic radiation, some of it may be the recent volcanic activity, etc. Again, I"m in no way saying it can't possibly be humans, which if you read my post with hardly any effort you'd have seen, I'm saying that a large amount of the CO2 changes can easily be natural based on all the statistical evidence I've seen myself and the fact that there's soooooo many factors that contribute to global climate change. There's no possible way that global climate change or even the levels of green-house gases could only be the result of only one factor.

It was just in some episode on NOVA, but it makes sense if you think about it too because the particles are acting similar to as if they are frame-independent, like their information doesn't change even though our time does changes.

Nope, there's a fair chance period, and as someone who use to think there was only like a 1% chance, I can say that after looking at specific graphs and statistics myself that there is a fair chance, because if you look at the graphs, the global temperatures in the long term was being controlled largely by the CO2 or greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, and that's been happening without us for a long time, just giant spontaneous shifts in CO2, and it was as if there was this giant almost unimaginable force just pushing those levels around as it pleased (not implying god). There was also new evidence from core samples that CO2 levels were high during the snowball Earth events, suggesting that large CO2 changes are still required to drastically change global temperature, which is also apparent considering the graphs I was looking at there large were, as in 10 million year increments and 25 parts per million increments. But I can also easily say there's a fair chance because it doesn't matter if its man-made or not, its still a problem.

All I have to do is look in a good geology book edited by a Ph. D. in Geology (which isn't hard to find, they're all over the place), and look at the graph of CO2 levels compared to the graphs of global temperatures, do people not even read anymore? What about those Kindles? It doesn't matter if there's drawbacks to global climate change, that's the mess we got into. Even if its natural which there's a fair chance it is anyway, so what? Should we just let a giant meteor destroy 90% of all life on the planet just because its natural for meteors to hit planets?

So the best theory for entanglement is that two particles occupy the same 4 dimensional coordinates, but different 3 dimensional coordinates. But, what would it be like if two particles occupied the same 3 dimensional coordinates but different 4 dimensional coordinates? Is that what atoms do already?

I would post it in the geology section, but every time I post something with complex mathematical concepts that isn't in one of these physics sections, no one answers. So I notice then when I graph some polar equations, particular those using trigonometric functions, they look like some of the crystal structures of minerals viewed from above, and even some naturally forming macroscopic mineral structures. Is there any correlation between polar coordinates and how rocks form at all? Is this just the random result of atoms resembling standing waves?

Ok, so then all polynomial formulas have calculable roots, but you can't use the same method to calculate all those roots, correct?

Even with friendship and devotion, it is still the desire to make someone happy or be there for someone. With hate, it is the desire to hurt someone or express anger towards someone. The opposite of these is indifference.

I don't know what you mean by "all encompassing", but love is a form of desire, and the opposite of desire is indifference.

I'm saying it's a likely possibility in terms of the OP, as in "based on this, it's likely god isn't this, but actually that."

I completely understand that the equations of based off of observation, but not only is math NOT the universe itself, everything thing that makes up any observation is created by the realm of the unseeable. Meta-physics isn't nonsense, its' just sometimes pointless. Have you ever heard of someone disproving god using evolution? Well that's metaphysics. Metaphysics is essentially considering supernatural possibilities and using conventional science to determine their nature. Metaphysics is more of the philosophy of "always consider other possibilities". "Because animals are so hostile and there's so much violence and there's a possibility of God, the nature of God is likely not an omni-compassionate being." I mean it's a little more complex than that, but you get the general idea? Also, just in case someone thinks I'm a religious nut, I'm not, I'm currently atheist. Why I am doing this is called "Devil's Advocate" (ironic huh?), the purpose of which is to exhaust the points of a topic until you are sure of a yes or no, or to filibuster something if your in congress.