Popcorn Sutton

Because they know that I have some half-way decent ideas.

I got the philosophy bit. I don't use mathematical equations. [math] u = y("LanguageBit")[/math] [math] t = y(u) [/math] [math] m = P(u|t) [/math] Besides that and some code, you guys got me beat. Numbers can obviously lie though if you guys are seriously believing in implosions and particles popping out of existence. Just because you can't see it, doesn't mean it's not there. Black holes are probably so bright that any lens you point at them couldn't possibly see the brightness because it doesn't even disturb the lens.

Are you aware of the repulsive force? The one that is inherent to our universe? The one that causes everything to be pushed away from everything else? What would happen if you took a bunch of bowling balls, threw them into a perfectly contracting spherical device, and applied all the force you could to these bowling balls? Once the sphere is too contracted, it will not continue to the point of going through itself and turn "inside out" of existence (and to make it even more complex, still exert a gravitational force). It's incoherent. I'm not saying Newton is wrong, but he could be on the details. What is gravity? This thing is being pushed to a point that is so small, that the repulsive force contained within it can sustain the super solid in equilibrium. Anything that tries to break that equilibrium is reduced and repelled until it becomes small enough to either fit inside the object, or become a part of its parameter. When you take two of these objects and slam them into each other, the effect is like cotton candifying the matter.

Their productivity would be phenomenal in the things they thought mattered.

If you're near people who are within the proximity of someone who has memory problems, you may be treated as if you have the memory problems. Memories are strengthened when they are contextually active, mentally and physically. There is current research involving how we forget, but it's not worked out very clearly. I could use an answer.

It would consistently renew perspective. If someone thinks theyre qualified for the position, and the current employee is willing to train/trade, then the employer shouldn't have to take the burden. It's between the two employees at that point. In a perfect system, the employer gets a notice required by law some duration prior. If this system gets implemented, keep rejection in mind. We don't want to hurt peoples feelings. Get the cops involved if shit gets real. If, after some period of time the employment it's no longer possible, unemployment until next year. And $50000 sounds great yearly, but I don't think it would turn out well unless the entire world agreed to do the same. Then we would have to monitor.

No no no, just one day a year, like a holiday, where people have the option to trade their position or just put it up for trade and see what offers they get. . Don't get me excited. I'd be pissed if that were the case. That is partially why I proposed scientocracy, so we can focus on the main aspects of political debate first, get them out of the way, then, if they pose a problem again in the future, we can get them out of the way all over again, all the while running down the list of things that need to be done with high priority first. I don't think that this system will prevent people from spending their money on stupid things, but at least it will circulate the money legally to people who have worked hard to deserve it, no matter what background they come from. We can impose restrictions though. We can test competence, we can evaluate credentials. There are plenty of things that we can do to prevent critical fails.

Lolll you have to be kidding me! Whatever though. Good luck with your search Alfred, I'm a spontaneous researcher and I listen and read Chomsky often, I'll post if I find it.

I've had several ideas of how to "level the playing field", so to speak. The most recent one JUST popped into my head, but I will start chronologically. 1. Job Trade Holiday We all get stuck in a highly redundant process of achieving survival by getting our paycheck. What if we chose to implement some sort of Job Trade Holiday, where everyone, under some restrictions, gets the opportunity to trade their job with someone else? Note: This idea was developed very early in my Philosophy training, probably while I was taking Ethics. It's not complete at all, just a suggestion for a new radical type of holiday that would give us the chance to liberate ourselves. 2. Equal Day This would be a bank holiday, and probably would never ever work because the rich would be rushing to spend their money before they can have it taken from them. The idea is that all bank accounts are checked, all money is added up, and all the money is equally divided amongst the population. This would give the poor a chance to redeem themselves, but it would most definitely affect the above average class, so it probably will never work out, but the idea is there at least. In any case, here is the system that I think will be ideal for all of us, a system called Scientocracy. All people will have a say, and all politicians will be well versed in public opinion and consensus. Shit will get done to say the least.

Trust me Imatfaal, I've been through that entire website several times, he's been censored. Even his recent work has been censored. Check out "linguistics- unfinished business" on youtube at 8 and 20 minutes and tell me that he hasn't been censored.

Good luck finding alot of Chomskys work. He must've been pretty controversial in his time. I saw an interview with him way back in the day where the interviewer was literally telling him to shut up. He must've really touched some nerves

I think I'm slipping into another depression. I forgot who said it, it was the guy who talks about m theory. He said, paraphrasing, that by making these claims, youre condemning yourself to a life of misery. I'll take that life of misery though because it brings me alot of comfort. Thanks for your input bignose, I truly value it. It was Neil Turok.

It would feel somewhat like a burn because it's so extremely solid that even if you were to touch it slowly with your finger, it would tear apart your finger as you touched it because the mass is so focused in tiny little packets that when you touch it, it's the density of your finger vs the density of the super solid, your finger will be like cotton candy and rip to shreds. Imagine that the while object is so solid and so smooth that it's basically the smoothest razor to ever exist. It would basically be the most brutal cut ever. Your finger would literally melt into the surface like a drop of water on a frictionless plane. Your finger would melt, then evaporate in the smallest units we could ever imagine. You take one of these solid objects, and your slam them into another, and you can easily have enough mass for the creation of a galaxy.

Black holes are my first candidate. Theyre probably so extremely solid that touching their surface would burn you so extremely, you couldn't even imagine the burn you would get because it's so solid. It might be like freezer burn. Thats how solid it is.

I'm not sure about what you're saying here. I don't understand

I agree that there is no time, I think it is reducible to longevity, and I also agree that there are no dimensions, they all seem to be reducible to 0 (which is just a point of reference). Actually, there was a recent episode of "Through the Wormhole" where a scientist made the claim that there are only 2 dimensions in reality. I've expressed that (1) the word dimension is itself meaningless to me, and (2) that, to me at least, suggesting that there are any more than 2 dimensions is absurd. The reason for (2) is that you can stack them on top of each other, and if you accept that, why not reduce it to 1 dimension, where the lines can be stacked, and if you accept that, why not reduce it to 0 dimensions where every point can be stacked on other points.

I don't know if I should get into my own personal work on the subject. I'm concerned mostly with Computational Neuroscience. That specific area of research aims to put in code the very process of information entering the senses, what happens in the cell, what happens to knowledge, and basically anything related to the senses and information. It seems to me that information is structured in particles that radiate, and I think that there is pretty good evidence to support that. EdEarl might have some good things to say, and he usually makes good citations to support what he says. It seems to me that you're mostly appealing to the Anthropomorphic Principle. What you say is not necessarily false, but you focus mainly on the physics. When you get into subjects such as computational neuroscience and neuroscience in general, there really is no question of whether space and time exist independently of the observer. You can't even pose the question within those areas of study, we go by what we know, not what could be.

A lot of science, I would even argue that most science, is based on predictability. QM really threw a wrench in that, at least for a moment. By now, we are recovering from the weirdness of QM and discovering that it really is weird, but it doesn't rule out things such as determinism and probability. You might be interested in Bayesian Statistics or Occam's Razor. These are tools that are being utilized by scientists and philosophers in these times solely for reasons of predictability. As for your assertion that time doesn't exist, it's a very hard concept to define. Most scientists generally know that our methods of measuring time are flawed, but the problem is that we don't know of any alternative. We do know that velocity changes ones longevity, which is what I, personally, feel that time can be reduced to. With regards to this, you may be interested in Continuum Mechanics, which is a relatively recent area of interest in Physics.

It is conceivable that everyone could have the same consciousness. I'm not opposed to that hypothesis. However, when it comes to knowledge, it's obvious that we don't all have the same knowledge. That being the case, I have to assume that knowledge is a physical structure. It is conceivable that I am you, but if I were you 15 minutes ago, by this argument, I would never know that I was also me. Having said that, there has to exist either (1)knowledge independent of observation or (2) observation of all locations. I lean towards 2 for QM purposes.

Yes, it is an argument of incredulity, but I'll stand my ground on that one because I don't think that incredulity is a bad thing. A lot of highly respected scientists say something along these lines "singularity is just another term for 'we don't know'." I'm giving up on this one because I'm not a particle physicist. What I do know is that when I squeeze an orange, it requires more force to squeeze it when it gets smaller. It would probably get to a point to where it is so small that no force could possibly make it any smaller. The only argument against this that I can conceive is that it will get so small that the particles pop out of existence, which is strange to me because there's no place that they could go. But, even if this did happen, by Newton, gravity requires mass, and if the particles are popping out of existence, then they won't have mass.

I think that even if we had a TOE, we might not even know it. That is why we need it at our convenience. My approach is to build a language acquiring program so we can just ask it questions and it will provide answers, but that will take input. In my opinion, Google is the closest thing we have to a TOE, which may be a strange assertion because it's not actually a theory.

It doesn't take a rocket scientist to know that if you take the earth, which is obviously a solid object, and you crush it down to the size of my thumb, it will still be solid. I'm not aware of any evidence to support your "it's a fact" claim. I'm not a fan of black "holes". I cannot conceive of how they would occur, and all explanations of them have been in vain to the best of my knowledge. As a linguist and a logician, I have to ask, has anyone ever witnessed even one single non-computer simulated implosion? Where would the hole go? I cannot accept that there is a singularity that is also a hole. It makes no sense to me. I'd much rather prefer black reducers to black holes.

That is am argument of definition. Of course a hole is not solid. What if we called them black reducers instead? It takes everything caught in it's gravitational field, and reduces it, even the small stuff like light.

I've said this is another thread somewhere, nothing is something that has no length. It is, by definition, unobservable, and therefor, you can't make any conclusions about its existence. Lawrence Krauss proposed the idea of something from nothing, which I think is worth attention. It's not generally contested that expansion exists, and yet, what is it? Lawrence, I believe, says that it is the force of nothing. I agree with him on that assertion, especially with what I have learned about quantum physics. If two particles can technically be the same particle regardless of their location in space, then why can't two nothings be the same nothing regardless of its location in space. If one nothing is affected, then all nothing is affected. This could be why the universe is expanding.

See above post if you're interested. It's just a glimpse of what it may look like, but the idea is there. I could have said a few things better, but I think that if anyone decides to undertake this project, they will be much more thorough with it.