New in cosmology and fundamental physics - Chess Forums - Page 103

Elroch · 2022-12-16T12:57:00-08:00

Seems the JWST is throwing up a lot of surprises. Some even go as far as to say that the surprises refute the Big Bang Theory, while others observe that modifying the details of the theory may be more appropriate in order not to lose the huge successes of the theory in explaining major observational

Sillver1

Sep 18, 2023

0

#2041

https://youtu.be/ftIllWczf5w?si=xt9zIHucnatdPDjC

you may reconsider conway definition of fw after watching him illustrate it. 24:28

WTFrickenA

Sep 18, 2023

0

#2042

DiogenesDue wrote:

ahh_fiddlefaddle wrote:

Again... insane OF YOU to say I'm about me and some pathetic crusade when I am just p_ssed AF when THERES FRICKEN MELTED DOWN CARS WITH LESS A CAR DISTANCE AWAY TREES UNSCATHED, HOW THE FK IS THAT ABOUT ME ? IM NOT ABOUT DIRECT ENERGY WEAPONS, PUNK .

Yes, clearly I am the insane one here... :eyeroll:

If I was at all interested in spotlight to an opportunity to be listened to and rant off as to be disrespectful, genius, than where the snot is my thread regarding it at all ? I even only have a single made thread, not even a slight spotlight standing, while you I'm sure this yr alone have a simple 3 dozen? My only interest is people TO BE PROPERLY informed wtf is happening.

Optimissed

Sep 18, 2023

0

#2043

Elroch wrote:

There is no such thing as an "accurate" definition except in the sense of being consistent with an existing, established definition. I am sure you have not defined free will objectively, which is a more relevant adverb. Thoughts are like everything else - the result of interactions between systems, so not "the result of the environment", rather a result sampled from a random distribution depending on the prior state of the brain and the state of the environment.

There is no need for randomness to generate originality. To illustrate, consider a chess engine. Its environment is the moves it sees played against it and it uses a program to generate original play against it (which suffices for the entire range of possibilities in the game of chess).

That only makes sense if something I think you previously claimed isn't true. I think you claimed that there's no agreement on definitions of free will.

Regarding the chess engine, perhaps you're using the word "original" in a rather original way?

DiogenesDue

Sep 18, 2023

0

#2044

ahh_fiddlefaddle wrote:

If I was at all interested in spotlight to an opportunity to be listened to and rant off as to be disrespectful, genius, than where the snot is my thread regarding it at all ? I even only have a single made thread, not even a slight spotlight standing, while you I'm sure this yr alone have a simple 3 dozen? My only interest is people TO BE PROPERLY informed wtf is happening.

I have posted only a handful of threads this year, only a couple of which could be considered to be "topics" for open discussion that could even become "spotlights". Your impression here reflects your accuracy in general when it comes to observing reality.

WTFrickenA

Sep 18, 2023

0

#2045

...your projection ever shown to me is a pompous chump paid big to ridicule others and have them look to be stupid, and I quite find it mad sad as a matter of fact.

WTFrickenA

Sep 18, 2023

0

#2046

😂 lol and WOULD LOVE to bust you in an armwrestle

WTFrickenA

Sep 18, 2023

0

#2047

.....lol perhaps it be arranged one day... who knows

Lincoy3304

Sep 18, 2023

0

#2048

What I think free will is - the property of being able to choose either A or not A without the choice being predetermined.

There was this really good definition I read proposed by some philosopher, but I forgot the name and where to find it.

Of course, this messes with my theology a bit, but it’s not that hard to fit it in there. It makes no sense for God to create a square circle, so we can assume that his omnipotence is “bound” by logic. It’s not really bound because strictly logical contradictory statements are not entities. Omniscience, however, doesn’t seem to necessitate logical binding. Just because the future isn’t settled doesn’t mean there won’t be a future, and that future is known by God. The statement “x will occur at y during z” is true, and since the definition of omniscience is knowing all facts, he knows this fact. This is one reason Richard Swinburne believes in Open Theism.

DiogenesDue

Sep 18, 2023

0

#2049

ahh_fiddlefaddle wrote:

...your projection ever shown to me is a pompous chump paid big to ridicule others and have them look to be stupid, and I quite find it mad sad as a matter of fact.

More of the crazy...

DiogenesDue

Sep 18, 2023

0

#2050

ahh_fiddlefaddle wrote:

😂 lol and WOULD LOVE to bust you in an armwrestle

Is that where you would feel more adequate competing with me?

idilis

Sep 18, 2023

0

#2051

DiogenesDue wrote:

ahh_fiddlefaddle wrote:

😂 lol and WOULD LOVE to bust you in an armwrestle

Is that where you would feel more adequate competing with me?

ff vs dd? reminded me of 0xdeadbeef

WTFrickenA

Sep 18, 2023

0

#2052

I'd never care to compete with you.. however your attitude and obnoxiousness and my miserable time on the streets it would be one fine day to have a match with ya yeah.

BoardMonkey

Sep 19, 2023

0

#2053

Hey @Elroch I met an astrophysicist last month. He mentioned something about a zero point instabilty.

Elroch

Sep 19, 2023

0

#2054

I am not sure what that means. It is not a standard scientific term, as far as I can determine. It reminds me of more familiar concepts such as "zero point energy" - but this is not unstable - and a "false vacuum" which is an unstable vacuum state that can decay to a lower energy configuration. My understanding of the details is poor.

DiogenesDue

Sep 19, 2023

0

#2055

idilis wrote:

DiogenesDue wrote:

ahh_fiddlefaddle wrote:

😂 lol and WOULD LOVE to bust you in an armwrestle

Is that where you would feel more adequate competing with me?

ff vs dd? reminded me of 0xdeadbeef

I just find it funny that Optimissed and this guy are the only two that seem to want things to get physical. Pro tip...if you are disagreeing with someone and you want to cause them physical harm or beat them in some physical contest instead of debating the points...it means you are losing.

Optimissed

Sep 19, 2023

0

#2056

DiogenesDue wrote:

idilis wrote:

DiogenesDue wrote:

ahh_fiddlefaddle wrote:

😂 lol and WOULD LOVE to bust you in an armwrestle

Is that where you would feel more adequate competing with me?

ff vs dd? reminded me of 0xdeadbeef

I just find it funny that Optimissed and this guy are the only two that seem to want things to get physical. Pro tip...if you are disagreeing with someone and you want to cause them physical harm or beat them in some physical contest instead of debating the points...it means you are losing.

Hello Dio, hope you're doing alright.

No idea at all what you're talking about. You've never beaten me in any argument ever, more than two or three times in total when I've made an oversight. You do not have that ability. It's just part of the yarns you spin to amuse people.

All the best.

Optimissed

Sep 19, 2023

0

#2057

(You never debate. You make claims, certainly: really weird ones, a lot of the time! Like trying to teach me English word useage. Do you win when the other person doesn't know what you're talking about? )

Optimissed

Sep 19, 2023

0

#2058

llama_l wrote:

Optimissed wrote:

I think my son has a sort of idea that citing "populist scientists" tends to reduce academic credibility, btw. Therefore the vast numbers of people citing her may be the academically and intellectually less able because the more able would tend to agree with that assessment and avoid citing populist scientists. I know that citing the Encyclopaedia of Philosophy was looked down on by the department of philosophy where I did my philosophy degree and the only thing worse than that was considered to be citing Bertrand Russell.

Yes yes, everyone who knows more than you is crazy, and every who knows less than you is stupid... although I suppose you're not even that creative with it... you just say everyone is stupid.

In any case, now all that's left is to explain why publishing (posting) on chess forums full of children makes your writing much more prestigious in comparison.

You're definitely crazy and Dio is definitely crazy. In a hospital, there are more patients than doctors. Also, crazy people tend to congregate around you and Dio because they recognise kindred spirits, which is obvious to most people. Anyway why aren't you talking about the topic?

Optimissed

Sep 19, 2023

0

#2059

Optimissed wrote:

llama_l wrote:

Optimissed wrote:

I think my son has a sort of idea that citing "populist scientists" tends to reduce academic credibility, btw. Therefore the vast numbers of people citing her may be the academically and intellectually less able because the more able would tend to agree with that assessment and avoid citing populist scientists. I know that citing the Encyclopaedia of Philosophy was looked down on by the department of philosophy where I did my philosophy degree and the only thing worse than that was considered to be citing Bertrand Russell.

Yes yes, everyone who knows more than you is crazy, and every who knows less than you is stupid... although I suppose you're not even that creative with it... you just say everyone is stupid.

In any case, now all that's left is to explain why publishing (posting) on chess forums full of children makes your writing much more prestigious in comparison.

Why aren't you talking about the topic? You need to calm down too.

DiogenesDue

Sep 19, 2023

0

#2060

Optimissed wrote:

Why aren't you talking about the topic? You need to calm down too.

...he said, posting off topic 4 times in a row and clearly agitated...