Master_Valek wrote:
btw... Tipler and Barrow where two scientists who should have wrote a lot more with each other! One was an excellent physicist, the other a brilliant mathematician.
They usually "travel in pairs." Not unlike breasts. 
psychic chess masters
Sort:
zborg wrote:
Master_Valek wrote:
btw... Tipler and Barrow where two scientists who should have wrote a lot more with each other! One was an excellent physicist, the other a brilliant mathematician.
They usually "travel in pairs." Not unlike breasts.
Only a chess nerd would compare a mathematician and a physicist to breasts. Perhaps you were thinking of frontal lobes.
Master_Valek wrote:
NobbyCapeTown wrote:
OK, I will Loek. And maybe start a new side branch thread. Are you related to Ingmar Berman ? My favourite movie of all time was the Seventh Seal, esoecially where the man played a chess game against death himself. Saw it in black and white decades ago, but it is still vivid in my mind, especially the chess scene. On a side line, I never knew a doctor named Sarfatti, but I did see the movie Scarface several times.
Doctor Sarfatti had a big book written about him recently, ''how the hippies saved physics.''
He worked alongside three doctors, one of them is more known today for their work on physics and how it related to consciousness. So not only have I chosen Sarfatti in discussions relating to UFO activity, but Doctor Fred Alan Wolf has made huge contributions into theoretical idea's concerning how consciousness relates to physics.
Sarfatti and Wolf are totally fringe characters who have absolutely zero credibility with mainstream scientists. Their minds are so "open" that they'll believe in any pseudoscientific, mystical BS.
psychic physicists and the psychologists who love them.
205thsq wrote:
Or maybe it's the truth that bends, not the spoon. Hey, I just said that, and I'm not even that skeptical about the possibility of paranormal phenomena.
Or maybe it's the truth that bends, not the spoon. Hey, I just said that, and I'm not even that skeptical about the possibility of paranormal phenomena.
I believe in fixed constants; in actual truth. The human mind is an amazingly self serving machine it often chooses what side of the coin it sees, it cannot be trusted to be objective. i guess that is the point of that post: A subject must be studied completely void of any bias or prejudice for anything new to be discovered. Blind devotion to anything that was taught without 1st hand experience of the alternatives is ignorance. People should speak about what they have personally experienced and respectfully stow their critique of matters they know nothing about.
In a sentence:"Don't knock till youv'e tried it"
I agree with that. I like spoonerisms:
spoon·er·ism
/ˈspo͞onəˌrizəm/
|
Noun
|
Ha those are awesome, nothing like cop porn at the movies.
Master_Valek wrote:
Sunshiny wrote:
Yes, it could land heads, tails, or on its side. However, there's an infinite number of possibilities that could affect the flip.
If you calculate (2 x 2 x 2...) one hundred times, you have calculated the amount of possibilities required to make universes from the action of coin throwing, 100 times exactly, giving 10^30 possibilities exactly.
No if's, no but's.
Landing on its side is a possibility, i've actually seen it happen. Added to that, you have the action of coin throwing itself. If a person chooses to flip it with a different hand instead would have made a new universe.
Master_Valek wrote:
If you calculate (2 x 2 x 2...) one hundred times, you have calculated the amount of possibilities required to make universes from the action of coin throwing, 100 times exactly, giving 10^30 possibilities exactly.
Ha-ha.
So 10^30, which is a multiple of 5, is equal to 2^100 which is not.
I admit your maths have something mine do not have.
That's the second time you claim something even the least learned reader here can see to be false (with your millions light-years crossed in a couple of years).
Maybe it would be time to stop ?
Master_Valek wrote:
Just in case it has something to do with your reading abilities, if you multiply 2 x 2 x 2... one hundred times, you end up with a number 10^30. I am not sure what part of this statement you didn't understand, but best to keep your mouth shut if you are not able to keep up.
Behold the power of photoshop :
Master_Valek wrote:
And as I was explaining, 1267650600228229401496703205376 is the amount of universes that would pop into existence if you flipped a coin 100 times in the parallel universe model.
But Iron, you seem to have reading problems, so I don't know how we will fair here.
No. You claimed 2^100 = 10^30, which is false and by more than 25%, period.
Or maybe we have a different definition of what "exactly" means :
Master_Valek wrote:
If you calculate (2 x 2 x 2...) one hundred times, you have calculated the amount of possibilities required to make universes from the action of coin throwing, 100 times exactly, giving 10^30 possibilities exactly.
No if's, no but's.
I thnk he thought it mean... Exactly equal.
Your arrogance and hubris in this thread is appalling. Please stop spreading misinformation and speaking as an authority on things you clearly don't understand.
You and I have different definitions of "exactly".
Exact is exact. Anything else is inexact.
TheGrobe wrote:
Exact is exact. Anything else is inexact.
Close enough for horseshoes and flame wars.
Master_Valek wrote:
It certainly isn't less than this like someone was claiming. At least I had the sense first to write it exactly to the correct power, not to the very last digit. If you want the number spot on, exactly to the very last digit, I have already wrote it out... I was the first one here anyway to do this.
They find it far more interesting to beat you up over semantics than to focus on the concept that was conveyed quite clearly enough. I used to work for a director who had a Ph.d. in physics, in a recording technology lab, and he used to say, frequently, regarding tolerances and the like, "Good enough for who it's for".
It's more about intellectual sloppiness and half-truths. Exactly means exactly. If you didn't mean exactly, you would have omitted the word. And if you had meant approximately, you would have said that.
If you'd have just admitted that it was sloppy to emphasize that they are exactly the same when they're not, nobody would have continued that discussion. Instead, you did the same thing you've done repeatedly, which is dig yourself deeper and deeper into a hole by making spurious arguments that your obvious oversight was not an oversight at all.
On the Wolf/Sarfatti issue, I don't know why you pasted his credentials. Do you actually not know that well-credentialed academics -- even academics with serious work early in their career -- sometimes go completely off the rails and become cranks later in their careers?
Here is my favorite argument along these lines, and one I find compelling:
http://www.simulation-argument.com/simulation.html
I can imagine you like it. That person almost reasons like you, specifically the last sentence of the conclusion. Reading the article, I had one question in my mind: if some posthuman civilization would run such a simulation, would they let the simulated people know that they are part of a simulation or not? I would guess not. The humanoids in the simulation would be programmed to think that they are the real thing and they will not be able to find out they are not real themselves. That would give the simulation more realistic value, isn't it? Therefor can you furthermore conclude that if we are living in a simulation, that it is highly unlikely that we will know that we are living in a simulation. Being part of a simulation or of a reality has the same user experience being totally humanoid. Because we can not prove that we solely live in reality and not in a simulation of reality, can we never prove convincingly that this is the real world. All in all the same conclusion as Descartes, but where Descartes created the problem of the knowledgability of the outside world, creates this article the problem of the knowledgability of the real existense of the outside world. Even if you could prove that you could know that the world existed, can you then tell me in what world we are living in? A real one or a simulated one? (At which level of simulation to be more precise.)
Maybe is that why in a lot of cultures the idea of reincarnation exists and in all cultures the notion of a god. And that UFO's stay UFO's, because they might not be spaceships, but nanobots programming the simulation.
Well thanks, I like Bostrom!
I really don't think you can make too many guesses about our hypothetical simulation runners. If the universe were a simulation its even possible we are just side junk that no one knows about. The real experiment group they care about is this civilization over on Betelgeuse....