Thread: After life?

Originally posted by fyodor


Patently false and ridiculous. Trust me, if an electron suddenly became "60 ft" larger(actually meaningless since no dimension is specified. Perhaps you mean doubled, but it still wouldnt work) I think you could notice some differences, considering the 4 inch pen would only be 1.005 times larger than the electron. Rather drastic effects would follow, possibly.

As to the rest of this thread, the absurd "scientific/philosophy" statements and the "nihilism/existentialism" opinions (quite popular nowadays among the types who listen to Linkin Park et al) are too ridiculous and self contradictory to deign to reply to. I'll stick to refuting wrong science.

what you are saying is patently false and ridiculous. if EVERYTHING grew 60 feet, then there wouldn't be anything that was remaining to compare the new objects with. Everything would just be sixty feet bigger. when i say EVERYTHING, i mean EVERYTHING, not just 99% of things.

Perception changes meaning, and meaning changes truth. Live with it, it's the problem with being human.

so why do some people's brains make bad decisions ALL the time, like the terrorists?

Originally posted by frenchfry164
so why do some people's brains make bad decisions ALL the time, like the terrorists?

From there side of the fence it might not be a bad decision. Unless you walked in there shoes you can't really say what makes sense to them

"How do you know that is a "fact"? it was viewed by a human and measured. It's measurement is completely relative. If everything in the universe grew 60 feet, would you know? no! everything would still appear to be the same because our system of measurements is relative."

... Would we know? Why can't giants exist? - because their legs could never hold their weight. You cannot keep the volume/suface area ratio constant if you increase all the dimensions by a fixed amount.

So that deals with the first rediculous point.

"We just have faith in nature that all the parts of our universe don't simultaneously expand and contract by billions of miles every second."

Uh, why are you talking about topics you clearly have no idea about? If the universe did expand or contract by large amounts it would be easily noticeable, because we would see funky effects in the stars.

"Sciences are based on observation, and observation is based on senses, and senses are based on humans, and humans are error-prone, generalizing, foolish beings. There is no reason to believe anything that you learn, we just choose to because there is no where else to turn. "

Sciences are based on observations... yes, observations are limited by human perception...yes. Does that invalidate everything we know about the universe? BBBZZZZZZT, you see we can TEST our theories, bottom line is, IF our sense's were REALLY misleading us, and all of our theory was in fact completely wrong then STUFF WE BUILD based on that theory WOULD NOT WORK! Planes wouldn't fly, computers would not compute, but they do, so you have no case.

"reality doesn't exist, and has never existed. There isn't one reality in the universe, there is one for every living being, and every reality is different. There isn't a single static reality"

Drivel, pure unadultered grade A garbage.

1) If reality didn't exist, we wouldn't exist either.

2) If everyone had their "own" reality, A: We would not be able to communicate with each other, and B: Given that we can communicate (Which we shouldn't be able to do) we should all see the world in a COMPLETELY different way, we patently don't, we all see the sky as blue, we all experience wet-ness with liquids, we all experience a force pulling us towards the ground.

3) Different people would not be able to reproduce the exact same data by replicating an experiment.

4) All the principles and understanding we have of the world would be false, as a result nothing based on them would work, planes, cars, computers, would do nothing.

"i find it stupid that we use things based on probably error-prone observations to determine things that we can neither ever see nor understand. The original givens have the same chance as being flawed as what we are trying to figure out."

Observations are error prone which is why we repeat the ecperiment a gazillion times. If there were a fundamental problem with the way we observe the universe, science wouldn't work: It does. If the "original givens" are flawed then the theory fails, so we rexamine the givens, when Watson and Crick first tried to resolve the structure of DNA they failed because one of the "givens" was false, so they went back and checked their assumtions.

"everyone is a trillion places doing a trillion things at once. Just because you know something isn't false is a good enough reason to prove its truth (at least to you). "

What?

"Why? acording to physics mater that is less then the size of the earth falls at a rate of 9.81 meaters a second. How does having a soul effect this. also you have given no proof on a soul not exsiting, you'v only said what it dosn't do"

Physics also says that energy is neither created nor destroyed, that causality is absolute (atleast within the universe), and in short that magic doesnt exist.

How exactly do you think a soul that is made of magic non-matter, communicate with the CELLS in your brain? I'll tell you how, it doesn't, for it to do so, physics would have to collapse. Further more what exactly is your soul made of? Atoms? magic again.

"Your are confusing common believe and prove of real or non-existence of something"

I am confusing nothing, how do we work out what is real and what is not? Why do you believe that the computer infront of oyu exists? (which baring the mentally disturbed or, the intellectual wannabe's. everyone does) And why don't you believe that an unsenseable dragon is hovering over your left shoulder and in 5 minutes it will materialise and eat you?

We build up a picture of reaity based upon positive basis NOT lack of negative basis. We believe the lamp on the table exists because we have evidence for it, we do not believe in a heard of invisable sheep just because we do not have any evidence against them.

You have no more basis for the soul than for my invisable sheep, so belief it is as rediculous.

Physics also says that energy is neither created nor destroyed.

Damn... really? Someone had better tell Einstein that E = MC**2 is all wrong.

"By having logic, and using logic, we are doing something that is in essence, supernatural "

... no we are not.

"our logic, and use of logic is direct proof of items coexisting outside of nature, and her laws. the laws of nature state that things have instinct, and that under the exact same conditions, everything WILL behave in the exact same way"

Lord, why do you people talk such nonsense??

First off what exactly do you mean by the "laws of nature"? Physics? Biology?

Not everything will behave the same way in the same conditions, you fire a photon through, a series of three slits it will arrive in 1 of 4 different positions, firing a photon with the exact same energy, direction etc. does not nessesarily reult in it arriving at the same position/

2nd of all this point is foolish:

"Humans don't. emotion is unpredictable, and uncontrolable (though we can control our emotions to some extent) animals do not have emotion, they have instinct, they have drive, they live in a naural world in which they do no percieve as anything but natural, they don't think, they do no dabate, they have not logic, and they have no form of advanced communication. "

Humans do, if i place you in a given scenario, then "reset" your brain and put you back in the exact same scenario you would behave in the exact same way.

Animals do have emotion, emotion IS drive, and don't know if you noticed but humans have "instinct" to. Animals do think, they don't "debate" as such, but they have *****ing arguments over food/mates/territory that they usually resolve by fighting. Animals certainly communicate, not as much as us, but apes are advanced compared to mice, and we are advanced compared to apes, there is nothing special about is in that respect. Animals do not talk about logic, but they too build up a picture of the world based on positive evidence, not lack of evidence against something, logic is built into the problem solving part of their brains.

"If these were the functions of a mere brain then animals would to extent have these abilities"

EVEN IF animals didn't have any of those properties (which they do) your conclusion is still invalid, because our brain/mass ratio is a hell of alot bigger than any other animals, there is no basis whatsoever for claiming that man's additional intellect arises from anything but the structures of the human brain.

The rest of your post is merely random madness.

Humans are just bright apes, thats it. Thing is man has a huge ego, and feels the need to be particularly important, so we like to pretend that we are a lot more specical than we actually are.

"Damn... really? Someone had better tell Einstein that E = MC**2 is all wrong."

Einstein proved that mass and energy were equivalent, basically that mass was another form of energy. Funnily enough the 1st law of thermodynamics still works.

Man the ignorance some of you people posses, is just stupifying.

what you are saying is patently false and ridiculous. if EVERYTHING grew 60 feet, then there wouldn't be anything that was remaining to compare the new objects with. Everything would just be sixty feet bigger. when i say EVERYTHING, i mean EVERYTHING, not just 99% of things.

Wrong again, predictably. A ruler would grow so that the intervals between the inch marks was 60 feet and 1 inch. The reason the change would be noticeable is that physics depends more upon the proportion of objects/distances/charges than upon the objects/distances/charges themselves. How well do you think your toaster would work if the power cable was only a tiny amount larger than the electrons inside it? And anyways, what the hell does "grow 60 ft larger mean", anyways? Would every particle grow by 60 ft? Would empty space "grow: by 60 ft? Does that mean that the distance between everything would increase by 60 ft? If you had any idea what you were talking about, then you would have said something that actually had meaning, like "all physical objects tripled in size" then I would not take you for such an idiot Anyways...back to the argument...If so, does that refer to diameter? Radius? 60 ft in all three dimension? So a neutron would be nearly as large as your head? Are you sure you wouldnt notice that?

My God, do you know any physics whatsoever? Do you know anything at all?

Well, Sentaku, thank you for an isolated example that demonstrates only one instance of someone not being able to notice if everything gre by 60 ft...Are you so ignorant that you believe that one example demonstrates rigorous proof? Where do all these idiots come from? And anyways, do you think that what happens on your computer screen mirrors reality?