psychic chess masters

Sort:
zborg
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.  Smile 

Knightly_News
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.

sapientdust
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.

Knightly_News

psychic physicists and the psychologists who love them.

205thsq

Spoon boy: Do not try and bend the spoon. That's impossible. Instead... only try to realize the truth.

Neo: What truth?

Spoon boy: There is no spoon.

Neo: There is no spoon?

Spoon boy: Then you'll see, that it is not the spoon that bends, it is only yourself.

Knightly_News
205thsq wrote:

Spoon boy: Do not try and bend the spoon. That's impossible. Instead... only try to realize the truth.

Neo: What truth?

Spoon boy: There is no spoon.

Neo: There is no spoon?

Spoon boy: Then you'll see, that it is not the spoon that bends, it is only yourself.

 

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.

205thsq
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"

Knightly_News

I agree with that.  I like spoonerisms:

 spoon·er·ism  

/ˈspo͞onəˌrizəm/
 
Noun

A verbal error in which a speaker accidentally transposes the initial sounds or letters of two or more words, often to humorous effect.

 

 

fighting a liar lighting a fire
you hissed my mystery lecture you missed my history lecture
cattle ships and bruisers battle ships and cruisers
nosey little cook cosy little nook
a blushing crow a crushing blow
tons of soil sons of toil
our queer old Dean our dear old Queen
we'll have the hags flung out we'll have the flags hung out
you've tasted two worms you've wasted two terms
our shoving leopard our loving shepherd
a half-warmed fish a half-formed wish
is the bean dizzy? is the Dean busy

 

know your blows blow your nose
go and shake a tower go and take a shower
tease my ears ease my tears
nicking your pose picking your nose
you have very mad banners you have very bad manners
lack of pies pack of lies
it's roaring with pain it's pouring with rain
sealing the hick healing the sick
go help me sod so help me God
pit nicking nit picking
bowel feast foul beast
I'm a damp stealer I'm a stamp dealer
hypodemic nurdle hypodermic needle
wave the sails save the whales
chipping the flannel on TV flipping the channel on TV
mad bunny bad money
I'm shout of the hour I'm out of the shower
lead of spite speed of light
this is the pun fart this is the fun part
I hit my bunny phone I hit my funny bone
flutter by butterfly
bedding wells wedding bells
I must mend the sail I must send the mail
cop porn popcorn
it crawls through the fax it falls through the cracks
my zips are lipped my lips are zipped

 

205thsq

Ha those are awesome, nothing like cop porn at the movies.

x-5058622868
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.

Irontiger

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 ?

Irontiger
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 :

Irontiger
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. 

 
TheGrobe

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.

TheGrobe

You and I have different definitions of "exactly".

TheGrobe

Exact is exact. Anything else is inexact.

Knightly_News
TheGrobe wrote:

Exact is exact. Anything else is inexact.

Close enough for horseshoes and flame wars.

Knightly_News
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".

sapientdust

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?

sapientdust
reflectivist wrote:
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".

Did he say "it's exactly equal"? Probably not, which is entirely the point here.