What would count as proof of God

[Learner]

Sorry about the delay,

During the earlier time discussion, if I recall without going back to the original pages, the first mentioning and post I made of Dr. Egnor and the video title, which implies as it reads, 'the case against materialism.' As I previously stated, I did not say Egnor said anything about souls....

When, and if I mentioned anything about souls, then this would ONLY be from a suggested hypothetical viewpoint I make and NOT A CLAIM! I made the suggestion for conversation, taking from what I saw from the context of the video, the documented experiments by neuro-surgeons, demonstrating cases i.e. the mind is beyond the physical brain etc.

The second mention of the video was a response to Rheas post which also regarded Biblys post of his the "soul catching" experiments that have been done, and showing nothing. So, I mentioned Egnor simply because there seemed to be some results at least, even though these do not prove the existence of souls but there is definitely a need for continous further study investigation.

Further more to your (plural) methods of detecting, the "we haven't detected any interactions" on the human scale & four forces flaw.

Even with both experiments in Egnors lab and Bilbys lab reports, they will show you that the ONLY method for detecting the "disturbances" of the four fundamental forces is by merely monitoring what goes on with the brain or body through scanners but these scanners are NOT configured or apt enough to detected the four fundamental forces interacting directly!!

So I must ask you, Rhea and Bibly and anyone else who jumped on this band-wagon without giving thought.


WHAT WAS THE APPRATUS, or MACHINE, if existing out there, that would be configured to instantly detect and monitor the actual interactions or non-interactions of the fundamental four forces to humans on the human scale....and in real time?

(May take a while to respond again, because I have to focus time on some crucial things happening here)

 

[bilby]

Sorry about the delay,

During the earlier time discussion, if I recall without going back to the original pages, the first mentioning and post I made of Dr. Egnor and the video title, which implies as it reads, 'the case against materialism.' As I previously stated, I did not say Egnor said anything about souls....

When, and if I mentioned anything about souls, then this would ONLY be from a suggested hypothetical viewpoint I make and NOT A CLAIM! I made the suggestion for conversation, taking from what I saw from the context of the video, the documented experiments by neuro-surgeons, demonstrating cases i.e. the mind is beyond the physical brain etc.

The second mention of the video was a response to Rheas post which also regarded Biblys post of his the "soul catching" experiments that have been done, and showing nothing. So, I mentioned Egnor simply because there seemed to be some results at least, even though these do not prove the existence of souls but there is definitely a need for continous further study investigation.

Further more to your (plural) methods of detecting, the "we haven't detected any interactions" on the human scale & four forces flaw.

Even with both experiments in Egnors lab and Bilbys lab reports, they will show you that the ONLY method for detecting the "disturbances" of the four fundamental forces is by merely monitoring what goes on with the brain or body through scanners but these scanners are NOT configured or apt enough to detected the four fundamental forces interacting directly!!

So I must ask you, Rhea and Bibly and anyone else who jumped on this band-wagon without giving thought.


WHAT WAS THE APPRATUS, or MACHINE, if existing out there, that would be configured to instantly detect and monitor the actual interactions or non-interactions of the fundamental four forces to humans on the human scale....and in real time?

(May take a while to respond again, because I have to focus time on some crucial things happening here)

You are too poorly educated in the essential skills needed for this discussion to be able to contribute meaningfully to it. That's not a moral failing - I would be equally incapable and incompetent to discuss the finer points of Arabic Literature, not because I am stupid, but because I don't speak Arabic.

To even begin to engage in a conversation about Arabic Literature without appearing to be an arrogant fool, first I would need to spend many years becoming fluent in Arabic. Anyone can do this, but it does take years of effort. It's not something you or I could expect to learn by asking a few Arabic speakers questions on an Internet discussion board.

Your grasp of physics is like my grasp of Arabic. I cannot replace your missing years of education on the subject with a couple of quick responses in this thread.

Your parents and educators have doomed you to a life of never understanding this topic, unless you choose to put in years of hard work; Just as mine doomed me to a life of never understanding Arabic unless I choose to put in years of hard work.

The difference is that I know that I am utterly clueless when it comes to understanding Arabic; While you seem to think that your mere knowledge that physics exists qualifies you to understand how it operates. I know Arabic exists; I can recognise it written down; But I don't pretend to be able to comprehend it, if only those who do speak it would answer a couple of simple questions.

Go away and learn the basics. Or remain ignorant and unable to contribute to (or even glean anything from) discussions between those who have learned them.

There is no reason why you can't learn this stuff. But there are plenty of reasons why it's not possible for you to
learn it in this thread.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

WHAT WAS THE APPRATUS, or MACHINE, if existing out there, that would be configured to instantly detect and monitor the actual interactions or non-interactions of the fundamental four forces to humans on the human scale....and in real time?

I'll take desperate pleas for $1600 Mayim.

 

[Learner]

Hopefuly no more theoretical ideas at last? Something more 'concrete' perhaps, especially when offered such incentives.

 

[Learner]

You are too poorly educated in the essential skills needed for this discussion to be able to contribute meaningfully to it. That's not a moral failing - I would be equally incapable and incompetent to discuss the finer points of Arabic Literature, not because I am stupid, but because I don't speak Arabic.

To even begin to engage in a conversation about Arabic Literature without appearing to be an arrogant fool, first I would need to spend many years becoming fluent in Arabic. Anyone can do this, but it does take years of effort. It's not something you or I could expect to learn by asking a few Arabic speakers questions on an Internet discussion board.

Your grasp of physics is like my grasp of Arabic. I cannot replace your missing years of education on the subject with a couple of quick responses in this thread.

Your parents and educators have doomed you to a life of never understanding this topic, unless you choose to put in years of hard work; Just as mine doomed me to a life of never understanding Arabic unless I choose to put in years of hard work.

The difference is that I know that I am utterly clueless when it comes to understanding Arabic; While you seem to think that your mere knowledge that physics exists qualifies you to understand how it operates. I know Arabic exists; I can recognise it written down; But I don't pretend to be able to comprehend it, if only those who do speak it would answer a couple of simple questions.

Go away and learn the basics. Or remain ignorant and unable to contribute to (or even glean anything from) discussions between those who have learned them.

There is no reason why you can't learn this stuff. But there are plenty of reasons why it's not possible for you to
learn it in this thread.

Seven paragraphs of the same rhetoric reveals your deep passion for serious discussion (of sorts).

 

[Elixir]

I am utterly clueless when it comes to understanding Arabic

The tragedy of the modern age is that understanding can be so easily faked that even the fakers believe it.
Their access to information stands in for understanding.


أنا جاهل تمامًا عندما يتعلق الأمر بفهم اللغة العربية
'ana jahil tmaman eindama yataealaq al'amr bifahm allughat alearabia

 

[bilby]

You are too poorly educated in the essential skills needed for this discussion to be able to contribute meaningfully to it. That's not a moral failing - I would be equally incapable and incompetent to discuss the finer points of Arabic Literature, not because I am stupid, but because I don't speak Arabic.

To even begin to engage in a conversation about Arabic Literature without appearing to be an arrogant fool, first I would need to spend many years becoming fluent in Arabic. Anyone can do this, but it does take years of effort. It's not something you or I could expect to learn by asking a few Arabic speakers questions on an Internet discussion board.

Your grasp of physics is like my grasp of Arabic. I cannot replace your missing years of education on the subject with a couple of quick responses in this thread.

Your parents and educators have doomed you to a life of never understanding this topic, unless you choose to put in years of hard work; Just as mine doomed me to a life of never understanding Arabic unless I choose to put in years of hard work.

The difference is that I know that I am utterly clueless when it comes to understanding Arabic; While you seem to think that your mere knowledge that physics exists qualifies you to understand how it operates. I know Arabic exists; I can recognise it written down; But I don't pretend to be able to comprehend it, if only those who do speak it would answer a couple of simple questions.

Go away and learn the basics. Or remain ignorant and unable to contribute to (or even glean anything from) discussions between those who have learned them.

There is no reason why you can't learn this stuff. But there are plenty of reasons why it's not possible for you to
learn it in this thread.

Seven paragraphs of the same rhetoric reveals your deep passion for serious discussion (of sorts).

Yes.

It's entertaining and enjoyable to discuss reality in depth.

Lots of people like Arabic Literature, but it's not my thing.

Lots of people like physics, and I am always happy to discuss the subject with them.

But just as Arabic Literature discussions have no place for people who insist on having strong opinions despite not speaking and refusing to learn Arabic, discussing the nature of reality with people who insist on having strong opinions despite not understanding and refusing to learn physics, is not entertaining.

Crashing an Arabic Literature club as a loud and proud ignoramus would be recognised by most people as incredibly rude and boorish.

Yet here you are...

 

[Elixir]

@Learner you seem to be betraying your username.
Characterizing bilby’s kind advice as “rhetoric” bespeaks unwillingness and/or inability to learn.

 

[Learner]

@Learner you seem to be betraying your username.
Characterizing bilby’s kind advice as “rhetoric” bespeaks unwillingness and/or inability to learn.

Not at all Elixir, I was intrigued with the post which seemed to me, like responding to my post but not really actually answering the question.

 

[Learner]

You are too poorly educated in the essential skills needed for this discussion to be able to contribute meaningfully to it. That's not a moral failing - I would be equally incapable and incompetent to discuss the finer points of Arabic Literature, not because I am stupid, but because I don't speak Arabic.

To even begin to engage in a conversation about Arabic Literature without appearing to be an arrogant fool, first I would need to spend many years becoming fluent in Arabic. Anyone can do this, but it does take years of effort. It's not something you or I could expect to learn by asking a few Arabic speakers questions on an Internet discussion board.

Your grasp of physics is like my grasp of Arabic. I cannot replace your missing years of education on the subject with a couple of quick responses in this thread.

Your parents and educators have doomed you to a life of never understanding this topic, unless you choose to put in years of hard work; Just as mine doomed me to a life of never understanding Arabic unless I choose to put in years of hard work.

The difference is that I know that I am utterly clueless when it comes to understanding Arabic; While you seem to think that your mere knowledge that physics exists qualifies you to understand how it operates. I know Arabic exists; I can recognise it written down; But I don't pretend to be able to comprehend it, if only those who do speak it would answer a couple of simple questions.

Go away and learn the basics. Or remain ignorant and unable to contribute to (or even glean anything from) discussions between those who have learned them.

There is no reason why you can't learn this stuff. But there are plenty of reasons why it's not possible for you to
learn it in this thread.

Seven paragraphs of the same rhetoric reveals your deep passion for serious discussion (of sorts).

Yes.

It's entertaining and enjoyable to discuss reality in depth.

Yes of course, but I would have thought just one paragraph would be suficient, but I suppose you wanted to make sure, I got it. Or was it something else?

Lots of people like Arabic Literature, but it's not my thing.

Lots of people like physics, and I am always happy to discuss the subject with them.

I wanted to learn about the apparatus used as detector, if one existed, and not the usual gathering of data by connecting wires to the brain and body, then formulating some theoretical idea from the data gathered etc. & etc.. Which is not like watching actual recorded footage in process, so to speak.

But just as Arabic Literature discussions have no place for people who insist on having strong opinions despite not speaking and refusing to learn Arabic, discussing the nature of reality with people who insist on having strong opinions despite not understanding and refusing to learn physics, is not entertaining.

I trully wanted to learn why you previously claimed no God was possible, If I correctly got your claim right. Don't know if any physicists make that type of claim, taking on the burden of proof. 'We don't know' or 'there's no evidence' is usually the norm I would have thought.

Crashing an Arabic Literature club as a loud and proud ignoramus would be recognised by most people as incredibly rude and boorish.

Yet here you are...

Rude, I can learn here. People usuualy learn only the rude words in any language, in Arabic too.

 

[bilby]

I trully wanted to learn why you previously claimed no God was possible, If I correctly got your claim right. Don't know if any physicists make that type of claim, taking on the burden of proof

Sean Carroll does, for one.

https://www.preposterousuniverse.co...s-of-everyday-life-are-completely-understood/

The problem here is that your question indicates a fundamental lack of understanding of the topic. Asking what kind of equipment was used is bizarre; Are you really not aware of how we detect photons? One (of many) apparatuses is the human eye. Light is a carrier of the electromagnetic force.

Seriously, I don't have the time, the patience or the desire to give you the several years of physics education you are clearly lacking. Fortunately, there are loads of schools, colleges amd universities that employ people to do exactly that. So if you are genuinely interested, those places are where you need to start.

Right now you are trying to run (a marathon) before you can walk.

There's no shortcut. If you want to understand reality you need to put in at least hundreds, probably thousands, of hours of effort, with the guidance of a good physics teacher.

Asking poorly formed questions (that you don't even recognise as poorly formed) on a discussion board isn't going to cut it.

 

[Jarhyn]

I trully wanted to learn why you previously claimed no God was possible, If I correctly got your claim right. Don't know if any physicists make that type of claim, taking on the burden of proof

Sean Carroll does, for one.

https://www.preposterousuniverse.co...s-of-everyday-life-are-completely-understood/

The problem here is that your question indicates a fundamental lack of understanding of the topic. Asking what kind of equipment was used is bizarre; Are you really not aware of how we detect photons? One (of many) apparatuses is the human eye. Light is a carrier of the electromagnetic force.

Seriously, I don't have the time, the patience or the desire to give you the several years of physics education you are clearly lacking. Fortunately, there are loads of schools, colleges amd universities that employ people to do exactly that. So if you are genuinely interested, those places are where you need to start.

Right now you are trying to run (a marathon) before you can walk.

There's no shortcut. If you want to understand reality you need to put in at least hundreds, probably thousands, of hours of effort, with the guidance of a good physics teacher.

Asking poorly formed questions (that you don't even recognise as poorly formed) on a discussion board isn't going to cut it.

So, I'm more than down to ELI5 Learner, at least to the point where a tantrum is thrown and the conversation quit by the student, as I have encountered from numerous people too long from education and too opinionated around that ignorance.

Then I don't claim no 'god' is possible, merely that no 'god' is present, no 'god' has been presented, and that no 'god' is necessary.

 

[Elixir]

He

@Learner you seem to be betraying your username.
Characterizing bilby’s kind advice as “rhetoric” bespeaks unwillingness and/or inability to learn.

Not at all Elixir, I was intrigued with the post which seemed to me, like responding to my post but not really actually answering the question.

Here's your "ANSWER", Dude:
42
As Douglas Adams so cleverly pointed out, stupid questions beget stupid "answers".
Posing such questions does not entitle you to ignoring given facts that are relevant to your alleged pursuit of truthful answers.
Your deficit in knowledge of physics, cosmology evolution etc. is a central factor in your inability to understand, but you don't want to hear that.
So, for you, "42" is as close to the truth as your method of inquiry is ever going to get.

 

[atrib]

@Learner you seem to be betraying your username.
Characterizing bilby’s kind advice as “rhetoric” bespeaks unwillingness and/or inability to learn.

Not at all Elixir, I was intrigued with the post which seemed to me, like responding to my post but not really actually answering the question.

He did answer your question. He told you that you were not qualified to have a discussion on the subject because you had no knowledge of the subject. Do you disagree with his statement?

He also stated that you could learn about the subject if you wanted to, but that it would take a lot of work on your part, and you would have to be willing to put in the work and the time. Which is something I have told you myself over and over in the past.

So are you qualified to discuss mind-brain dualism, which is what the video was about?

 

[atrib]

You are too poorly educated in the essential skills needed for this discussion to be able to contribute meaningfully to it. That's not a moral failing - I would be equally incapable and incompetent to discuss the finer points of Arabic Literature, not because I am stupid, but because I don't speak Arabic.

To even begin to engage in a conversation about Arabic Literature without appearing to be an arrogant fool, first I would need to spend many years becoming fluent in Arabic. Anyone can do this, but it does take years of effort. It's not something you or I could expect to learn by asking a few Arabic speakers questions on an Internet discussion board.

Your grasp of physics is like my grasp of Arabic. I cannot replace your missing years of education on the subject with a couple of quick responses in this thread.

Your parents and educators have doomed you to a life of never understanding this topic, unless you choose to put in years of hard work; Just as mine doomed me to a life of never understanding Arabic unless I choose to put in years of hard work.

The difference is that I know that I am utterly clueless when it comes to understanding Arabic; While you seem to think that your mere knowledge that physics exists qualifies you to understand how it operates. I know Arabic exists; I can recognise it written down; But I don't pretend to be able to comprehend it, if only those who do speak it would answer a couple of simple questions.

Go away and learn the basics. Or remain ignorant and unable to contribute to (or even glean anything from) discussions between those who have learned them.

There is no reason why you can't learn this stuff. But there are plenty of reasons why it's not possible for you to
learn it in this thread.

Seven paragraphs of the same rhetoric reveals your deep passion for serious discussion (of sorts).

Yes.

It's entertaining and enjoyable to discuss reality in depth.

Yes of course, but I would have thought just one paragraph would be suficient, but I suppose you wanted to make sure, I got it. Or was it something else?

One paragraph is not sufficient to educate you on basic physics and biology, much less cosmology and brain physiology. Ten pages wouldn't be sufficient. This is because you don't seem to have even a high school level education in these subjects and you are unwilling to make the effort to learn..

Lots of people like Arabic Literature, but it's not my thing.

Lots of people like physics, and I am always happy to discuss the subject with them.

I wanted to learn about the apparatus used as detector, if one existed, and not the usual gathering of data by connecting wires to the brain and body, then formulating some theoretical idea from the data gathered etc. & etc.. Which is not like watching actual recorded footage in process, so to speak.

You don't even understand what is being discussed. As usual.

But just as Arabic Literature discussions have no place for people who insist on having strong opinions despite not speaking and refusing to learn Arabic, discussing the nature of reality with people who insist on having strong opinions despite not understanding and refusing to learn physics, is not entertaining.

I trully wanted to learn why you previously claimed no God was possible, If I correctly got your claim right. Don't know if any physicists make that type of claim, taking on the burden of proof. 'We don't know' or 'there's no evidence' is usually the norm I would have thought.

This has been discussed at length in this thread.

Crashing an Arabic Literature club as a loud and proud ignoramus would be recognised by most people as incredibly rude and boorish.

Yet here you are...

Rude, I can learn here. People usuualy learn only the rude words in any language, in Arabic too.

No, you can't learn. Or you won't learn. You have demonstrated that over and over. You have been on this forum for years and you haven't learned a damned thing.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

So are you qualified to discuss mind-brain dualism, which is what the video was about?

If I'm watching the right video the Doctor is an accomplished neurosurgeon with wacky ideas about materialism and woo. How does being an accomplished neurosurgeon make him know anything about dualism? He says that mental faculties have nothing to do with physical things. That's pretty wacked for someone who does brain surgery to fix mental faculties. He is another quack ho takes words and objectifies them. He does this with the word "mind."

I watched about a third of the video. It's an interesting interview in that we see how our brains are able to invent woo. I'll watch the rest later. The interviewer seems uncomfortable and incredulous at what he's hearing.

 

[Coleman Smith]

Introduce Big Boy on the 50 yard line in front of 80,000 people on Superball Sunday wearing a jersey with a big 1 on it.

 

[Learner]

So are you qualified to discuss mind-brain dualism, which is what the video was about?

If I'm watching the right video the Doctor is an accomplished neurosurgeon with wacky ideas about materialism and woo. How does being an accomplished neurosurgeon make him know anything about dualism? He says that mental faculties have nothing to do with physical things. That's pretty wacked for someone who does brain surgery to fix mental faculties. He is another quack ho takes words and objectifies them. He does this with the word "mind."

I watched about a third of the video. It's an interesting interview in that we see how our brains are able to invent woo. I'll watch the rest later. The interviewer seems uncomfortable and incredulous at what he's hearing.

Did you get to the bit where he mentions some people don't like doing real science anymore, like ignoring what the neuro-scientists high;light in real experiments.? Denial I think is another term. When it conflicts with the convention, it's a head-ache for the lazy.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

Did you get to the bit where he mentions some people don't like doing real science anymore, like ignoring what the neuro-scientists high;light in real experiments.? Denial I think is another term. When it conflicts with the convention, it's a head-ache for the lazy.

I don't recall hearing that. It's striking that he starts with materialism and then moves to non-materialism, whatever that is, and claims that materialism is wrong, and never recognizes his contradiction.

 

[Learner]

@Learner you seem to be betraying your username.
Characterizing bilby’s kind advice as “rhetoric” bespeaks unwillingness and/or inability to learn.

Not at all Elixir, I was intrigued with the post which seemed to me, like responding to my post but not really actually answering the question.

He did answer your question. He told you that you were not qualified to have a discussion on the subject because you had no knowledge of the subject. Do you disagree with his statement?

The question was a simple one, for a not so hard simple answer. Very easy to say there's a 'device' like for example, a hadron colider, which got but a mere snap shot of the goings on in the sub particle universe etc.

Not sure what you're going to get from your statment, clever cloggs. but anyway., IF I know only 2 % knowledge of the subject, even if it's not adequate enough, I would disagree with your statement.

He also stated that you could learn about the subject if you wanted to, but that it would take a lot of work on your part, and you would have to be willing to put in the work and the time. Which is something I have told you myself over and over in the past.

So are you qualified to discuss mind-brain dualism, which is what the video was about?

I am qualified to be rational enough to understand contexts and concepts. Whats the qualification for enaging in the simulation universe, or matrix discussion?

 

[bilby]

The question was a simple one, for a not so hard simple answer.

It wasn't a simple question; It was a simplistic question.

If the answers were simple, humanity would have developed Quantum Field Theory centuries earlier than we did.

The answers are clear, unequivocal, and well demonstrated.

But they're not simple, and so your demand for simple answers is both unreasonable, and a clear demonstration of your lack of knowledge.

To obtain the answers you seek is not an option that is closed to you, but nor is it an easy or quick option.

Learn the basics of physics. Then learn intermediate physics. Then learn advanced physics. You're going to need to learn a fair bit of mathematics too, and likely some chemistry and some other ancillary stuff.

Very easy to say there's a 'device' like for example, a hadron colider, which got but a mere snap shot of the goings on in the sub particle universe etc...

Yeah, but nobody (except you) is saying that there's "a device".

If you want to detect the fundamental forces of reality, there are a whole range of ways to do that. Many require nothing you weren't born with; You are quite capable of detecting light and gravity without anything other than your own eyes and limbs. Some require more complex devices, and typically there are several that will do the job: Magnetic attraction can be detected with a fridge magnet; radioactivity with a photographic film, or a Geiger-Muller tube, or a cloud chamber.

As I said, your question betrays a profound ignorance of the subject. If you want to see as far as others, you need to stop trying to invent all of physics from scratch, and take advantage of the work already done by others - and the way to achieve that is to go to school and learn the easy way what they learned the hard way.

Even Newton stood on the shoulders of giants. You're never going to get anywhere scurrying around under their boots.

 

[Elixir]

IF I know only 2 % knowledge of the subject, even if it's not adequate enough, I would disagree with your statement.

First, I sincerely doubt that you actually understand 0.02% of quantum theory, and second, I would bet my life that you can’t do the math to bear out any of the conclusions you wishfully draw from it. You may have memorized 98% of what is available about it in public media, and what I say is still true.
Yeah, it’s fun to conjecture.
Have fun, dude, it’s important to have fun, even if you don’t contribute to the human knowledge base.

 

[Learner]

Thank you, so no device or monitoring apparatus exists at all, lovely, just what I needed to hear!

 

[bilby]

Thank you, so no device or monitoring apparatus exists at all, lovely, just what I needed to hear!

I have no doubt that that's what you wanted to hear, but it's not what anyone has said.

 

[Learner]

IF I know only 2 % knowledge of the subject, even if it's not adequate enough, I would disagree with your statement.

First, I sincerely doubt that you actually understand 0.02% of quantum theory, and second, I would bet my life that you can’t do the math to bear out any of the conclusions you wishfully draw from it. You may have memorized 98% of what is available about it in public media, and what I say is still true.
Yeah, it’s fun to conjecture.
Have fun, dude, it’s important to have fun, even if you don’t contribute to the human knowledge base.

Thank you Elixir for that, which reminds me of something when you said memorizing 98%.

You reminded me of the analogy, of the two types of educated. Both have accumulated knowledge throughout there time n academia. But there is a difference between the two. When putting both of these fellows out of there environment, an environment where their knowledge is not any use, the difference between these fellows starts to show. Both are very knowledgeable but only one of them is able to adapt to the new environment The other is lost and confusued because , what he was taught he has engraved as the only guidance he goes by in the environment he's accustomed to. He can't get outside that mode, i.e. outsid the box, quite stubborn, has no burden, only repeating and repeating whilst professing to be wise.

The other is course is the analytical thinker, who thinks outside the box. He has imagination.

 

[Learner]

Thank you, so no device or monitoring apparatus exists at all, lovely, just what I needed to hear!

I have no doubt that that's what you wanted to hear, but it's not what anyone has said.

I did, because now I would like to see again how those soul catching monitoring methods, without any specific sensitive device, so to speak were done again.

 

[Elixir]

IF I know only 2 % knowledge of the subject, even if it's not adequate enough, I would disagree with your statement.

First, I sincerely doubt that you actually understand 0.02% of quantum theory, and second, I would bet my life that you can’t do the math to bear out any of the conclusions you wishfully draw from it. You may have memorized 98% of what is available about it in public media, and what I say is still true.
Yeah, it’s fun to conjecture.
Have fun, dude, it’s important to have fun, even if you don’t contribute to the human knowledge base.

Thank you Elixir for that, which reminds me of something when you said memorizing 98%.

You reminded me of the analogy, of the two types of educated. Both have accumulated knowledge throughout there time n academia. But there is a difference between the two. When putting both of these fellows out of there environment, an environment where their knowledge is not any use, the difference between these fellows starts to show. Both are very knowledgeable but only one of them is able to adapt to the new environment The other is lost and confusued because , what he was taught he has engraved as the only guidance he goes by in the environment he's accustomed to. He can't get outside that mode, i.e. outsid the box, quite stubborn, has no burden, only repeating and repeating whilst professing to be wise.

The other is course is the analytical thinker, who thinks outside the box. He has imagination.

Wow, that's a really interesting and novel insight.
I am very curious now, as it seems you have me really well pegged.
Which type am I ?
Which type are you ?

 

[Learner]

IF I know only 2 % knowledge of the subject, even if it's not adequate enough, I would disagree with your statement.

First, I sincerely doubt that you actually understand 0.02% of quantum theory, and second, I would bet my life that you can’t do the math to bear out any of the conclusions you wishfully draw from it. You may have memorized 98% of what is available about it in public media, and what I say is still true.
Yeah, it’s fun to conjecture.
Have fun, dude, it’s important to have fun, even if you don’t contribute to the human knowledge base.

Thank you Elixir for that, which reminds me of something when you said memorizing 98%.

You reminded me of the analogy, of the two types of educated. Both have accumulated knowledge throughout there time n academia. But there is a difference between the two. When putting both of these fellows out of there environment, an environment where their knowledge is not any use, the difference between these fellows starts to show. Both are very knowledgeable but only one of them is able to adapt to the new environment The other is lost and confusued because , what he was taught he has engraved as the only guidance he goes by in the environment he's accustomed to. He can't get outside that mode, i.e. outsid the box, quite stubborn, has no burden, only repeating and repeating whilst professing to be wise.

The other is course is the analytical thinker, who thinks outside the box. He has imagination.

Wow, that's a really interesting and novel insight.
I am very curious now, as it seems you have me really well pegged.
Which type am I ?
Which type are you ?

Educated (which one depends on how you post, I suppose)
Uneducated.

 

[bilby]

Thank you, so no device or monitoring apparatus exists at all, lovely, just what I needed to hear!

I have no doubt that that's what you wanted to hear, but it's not what anyone has said.

I did, because now I would like to see again how those soul catching monitoring methods, without any specific sensitive device, so to speak were done again.

By application of the scientific method, in a bewildering array of different ways by thousands of people over centuries of effort.

You persist in the false assumption that this is simple.

The conclusions are simple. Arriving at them, with the ability to demonstrate complete confidence in every aspect of them, is not.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

IF I know only 2 % knowledge of the subject, even if it's not adequate enough, I would disagree with your statement.

First, I sincerely doubt that you actually understand 0.02% of quantum theory, and second, I would bet my life that you can’t do the math to bear out any of the conclusions you wishfully draw from it. You may have memorized 98% of what is available about it in public media, and what I say is still true.
Yeah, it’s fun to conjecture.
Have fun, dude, it’s important to have fun, even if you don’t contribute to the human knowledge base.

Thank you Elixir for that, which reminds me of something when you said memorizing 98%.

You reminded me of the analogy, of the two types of educated. Both have accumulated knowledge throughout there time n academia. But there is a difference between the two. When putting both of these fellows out of there environment, an environment where their knowledge is not any use, the difference between these fellows starts to show. Both are very knowledgeable but only one of them is able to adapt to the new environment The other is lost and confusued because , what he was taught he has engraved as the only guidance he goes by in the environment he's accustomed to. He can't get outside that mode, i.e. outsid the box, quite stubborn, has no burden, only repeating and repeating whilst professing to be wise.

The other is course is the analytical thinker, who thinks outside the box. He has imagination.

Wow, that's a really interesting and novel insight.
I am very curious now, as it seems you have me really well pegged.
Which type am I ?
Which type are you ?

Educated (which one depends on how you post, I suppose)
Uneducated.

For someone who considers themselves uneducated, you seem to prize your ability to know all the right questions.

 

[Learner]

I'm constantly told I'm uneducated, so I've considered the status. "Prize your ability..." - you got something there. For some individuals, no doubt, this is what it's about for them.

 

[Elixir]

IF I know only 2 % knowledge of the subject, even if it's not adequate enough, I would disagree with your statement.

First, I sincerely doubt that you actually understand 0.02% of quantum theory, and second, I would bet my life that you can’t do the math to bear out any of the conclusions you wishfully draw from it. You may have memorized 98% of what is available about it in public media, and what I say is still true.
Yeah, it’s fun to conjecture.
Have fun, dude, it’s important to have fun, even if you don’t contribute to the human knowledge base.

Thank you Elixir for that, which reminds me of something when you said memorizing 98%.

You reminded me of the analogy, of the two types of educated. Both have accumulated knowledge throughout there time n academia. But there is a difference between the two. When putting both of these fellows out of there environment, an environment where their knowledge is not any use, the difference between these fellows starts to show. Both are very knowledgeable but only one of them is able to adapt to the new environment The other is lost and confusued because , what he was taught he has engraved as the only guidance he goes by in the environment he's accustomed to. He can't get outside that mode, i.e. outsid the box, quite stubborn, has no burden, only repeating and repeating whilst professing to be wise.

The other is course is the analytical thinker, who thinks outside the box. He has imagination.

Wow, that's a really interesting and novel insight.
I am very curious now, as it seems you have me really well pegged.
Which type am I ?
Which type are you ?

Educated (which one depends on how you post, I suppose)
Uneducated.

How much education have you had/ been subjected to?

 

[atrib]

@Learner you seem to be betraying your username.
Characterizing bilby’s kind advice as “rhetoric” bespeaks unwillingness and/or inability to learn.

Not at all Elixir, I was intrigued with the post which seemed to me, like responding to my post but not really actually answering the question.

He did answer your question. He told you that you were not qualified to have a discussion on the subject because you had no knowledge of the subject. Do you disagree with his statement?

The question was a simple one, for a not so hard simple answer. Very easy to say there's a 'device' like for example, a hadron colider, which got but a mere snap shot of the goings on in the sub particle universe etc.

Not sure what you're going to get from your statment, clever cloggs. but anyway., IF I know only 2 % knowledge of the subject, even if it's not adequate enough, I would disagree with your statement.

Do you know what the Standard Model of Physics is? No you don't. I bet you don't even remember high school physics - Newton's Laws of Motion and Gravity. But you are telling us that you are qualified to discuss the nature of fundamental forces and interactions and how they are quantified by the Standard Model. Look up the Dunning-Kruger Effect on Wiki and you will find a picture of you:

The Dunning–Kruger effect is the cognitive bias whereby people with low ability at a task overestimate their ability.

He also stated that you could learn about the subject if you wanted to, but that it would take a lot of work on your part, and you would have to be willing to put in the work and the time. Which is something I have told you myself over and over in the past.
So are you qualified to discuss mind-brain dualism, which is what the video was about?

I am qualified to be rational enough to understand contexts and concepts. Whats the qualification for enaging in the simulation universe, or matrix discussion?

No, you are not. Because you haven't put in the work to learn the foundational concepts. You can't understand Big Bang Theory without first understanding Newton's Laws. You can't become a brain surgeon without first learning basic chemistry, biology and human physiology. You have to learn to crawl before you learn to run.

 

[atrib]

Thank you, so no device or monitoring apparatus exists at all, lovely, just what I needed to hear!

You have no idea what people are talking about, do you?

 

[atrib]

IF I know only 2 % knowledge of the subject, even if it's not adequate enough, I would disagree with your statement.

First, I sincerely doubt that you actually understand 0.02% of quantum theory, and second, I would bet my life that you can’t do the math to bear out any of the conclusions you wishfully draw from it. You may have memorized 98% of what is available about it in public media, and what I say is still true.
Yeah, it’s fun to conjecture.
Have fun, dude, it’s important to have fun, even if you don’t contribute to the human knowledge base.

Thank you Elixir for that, which reminds me of something when you said memorizing 98%.

You reminded me of the analogy, of the two types of educated. Both have accumulated knowledge throughout there time n academia. But there is a difference between the two. When putting both of these fellows out of there environment, an environment where their knowledge is not any use, the difference between these fellows starts to show. Both are very knowledgeable but only one of them is able to adapt to the new environment The other is lost and confusued because , what he was taught he has engraved as the only guidance he goes by in the environment he's accustomed to. He can't get outside that mode, i.e. outsid the box, quite stubborn, has no burden, only repeating and repeating whilst professing to be wise.

The other is course is the analytical thinker, who thinks outside the box. He has imagination.

You are no analytical thinker. In order to think outside the box, one has to know where the box is, what it looks like, and what is inside the box. Which you don't. You don't even understand what people are talking about most of the time.

 

[Learner]

Thank you, so no device or monitoring apparatus exists at all, lovely, just what I needed to hear!

You have no idea what people are talking about, do you?

I think you have an personal agenda.

 

[Learner]

IF I know only 2 % knowledge of the subject, even if it's not adequate enough, I would disagree with your statement.

First, I sincerely doubt that you actually understand 0.02% of quantum theory, and second, I would bet my life that you can’t do the math to bear out any of the conclusions you wishfully draw from it. You may have memorized 98% of what is available about it in public media, and what I say is still true.
Yeah, it’s fun to conjecture.
Have fun, dude, it’s important to have fun, even if you don’t contribute to the human knowledge base.

Thank you Elixir for that, which reminds me of something when you said memorizing 98%.

You reminded me of the analogy, of the two types of educated. Both have accumulated knowledge throughout there time n academia. But there is a difference between the two. When putting both of these fellows out of there environment, an environment where their knowledge is not any use, the difference between these fellows starts to show. Both are very knowledgeable but only one of them is able to adapt to the new environment The other is lost and confusued because , what he was taught he has engraved as the only guidance he goes by in the environment he's accustomed to. He can't get outside that mode, i.e. outsid the box, quite stubborn, has no burden, only repeating and repeating whilst professing to be wise.

The other is course is the analytical thinker, who thinks outside the box. He has imagination.

You are no analytical thinker. In order to think outside the box, one has to know where the box is, what it looks like, and what is inside the box. Which you don't. You don't even understand what people are talking about most of the time.

Anyone can be an analytical thinker. And you don't have tto be highly educated to be so? I listen... yes I listen to conversations of ordinary people and they seem to know how to run the country so much better than the educated people in politics.

You'll have to understand if I may sound a tad arrogant here, required for incessant responses like yours ... curb your pride!

I've bypassed one of your post because I think I can anwser that later in Bilby's post regarding "all one" of the physicists so far mentioned, that agrees with Bibly's "no Gods exist" claim and there was something about the eyes that see photons - the apparatus for seeing ghosts (I jest)

 

[atrib]

Thank you, so no device or monitoring apparatus exists at all, lovely, just what I needed to hear!

I have no doubt that that's what you wanted to hear, but it's not what anyone has said.

I did, because now I would like to see again how those soul catching monitoring methods, without any specific sensitive device, so to speak were done again.

By application of the scientific method, in a bewildering array of different ways by thousands of people over centuries of effort.

You persist in the false assumption that this is simple.

The conclusions are simple. Arriving at them, with the ability to demonstrate complete confidence in every aspect of them, is not.

He has no idea what you are talking about. He can spell out words but he can't parse them together to make sense.

 

[atrib]

Thank you, so no device or monitoring apparatus exists at all, lovely, just what I needed to hear!

You have no idea what people are talking about, do you?

I think you have an personal agenda.

I think you can't read.

 

[Learner]

Your consistency should be "admired" for all to see ... keep it up.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Thank you, so no device or monitoring apparatus exists at all, lovely, just what I needed to hear!

You have no idea what people are talking about, do you?

He alternates his persona from Babe in the Woods to a Snippy Mr. Knows Enough quite often.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

I'm constantly told I'm uneducated, so I've considered the status. "Prize your ability..." - you got something there. For some individuals, no doubt, this is what it's about for them.

It is one thing to bullshit on physics with the layman. It is an entirely different thing to bullshit on physics with a physicist.

 

[Elixir]

Thank you, so no device or monitoring apparatus exists at all, lovely, just what I needed to hear!

You have no idea what people are talking about, do you?

He alternates his persona from Babe in the Woods to a Snippy Mr. Knows Enough quite often.

Hey, it’s all of no consequence.
So many words, so little meaning. But it’s an entertainment medium, and Learner seems to be amusing himself.

OTOH I am still wondering about his “education”. Seems to have been heavily indoctrinated in the free thinker “my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge” school of philosophy.
I’m betting he has more formal education than I do, and it has taught him to pigeonhole me as a hopeless academician.

 

[bilby]

I think I can anwser that later in Bilby's post regarding "all one" of the physicists so far mentioned

One is sufficient to refute the claim of "none".

Moving the goalposts is not a good way to impress people with your intellectual honesty.

And reality isn't a democracy. It's not necessary for an idea to be popular in order for it to be correct. All that is necessary is for it not to be contradicted by observed reality.

Reality is the only authority.

 

[atrib]

IF I know only 2 % knowledge of the subject, even if it's not adequate enough, I would disagree with your statement.

First, I sincerely doubt that you actually understand 0.02% of quantum theory, and second, I would bet my life that you can’t do the math to bear out any of the conclusions you wishfully draw from it. You may have memorized 98% of what is available about it in public media, and what I say is still true.
Yeah, it’s fun to conjecture.
Have fun, dude, it’s important to have fun, even if you don’t contribute to the human knowledge base.

Thank you Elixir for that, which reminds me of something when you said memorizing 98%.

You reminded me of the analogy, of the two types of educated. Both have accumulated knowledge throughout there time n academia. But there is a difference between the two. When putting both of these fellows out of there environment, an environment where their knowledge is not any use, the difference between these fellows starts to show. Both are very knowledgeable but only one of them is able to adapt to the new environment The other is lost and confusued because , what he was taught he has engraved as the only guidance he goes by in the environment he's accustomed to. He can't get outside that mode, i.e. outsid the box, quite stubborn, has no burden, only repeating and repeating whilst professing to be wise.

The other is course is the analytical thinker, who thinks outside the box. He has imagination.

You are no analytical thinker. In order to think outside the box, one has to know where the box is, what it looks like, and what is inside the box. Which you don't. You don't even understand what people are talking about most of the time.

Anyone can be an analytical thinker. And you don't have tto be highly educated to be so?

It depends. You need to learn the following foundational items before you can think analytically about the Big Bang Model, for example:

1. Newtonian physics
2. Mathematics
3. Numerical modeling and analysis
4. Foundational cosmology (physics of macro objects)
5. Relativistic physics (general and special relativity and 3D geometry)
6. Astronomy

You also need to know about the vast body of observations that has been collected by scientists over the past two to four hundred years that the Big Bang Theory is based on.

But you don't know any of these things. So when you say things like this:

You'll be surprised to hear that I'm not a proponent of the Big Bang as it may seem to you. Meaning a "beginning" doesn't neccessarilly come from an explosion as conventionally understood - although I do take the side of the BB discussing the universe being estimated to be 14 + billion years old ; having a beginning (the theory) to work with, so to speak.

You look really foolish, because you don't have the education needed to form a valid opinion on the subject of the Big Bang model, much less think analytically about the subject. Heck, you don't even have a layman's understanding of the Big Bang Theory, based on what you wrote.

 

[Learner]

I'm constantly told I'm uneducated, so I've considered the status. "Prize your ability..." - you got something there. For some individuals, no doubt, this is what it's about for them.

It is one thing to bullshit on physics with the layman. It is an entirely different thing to bullshit on physics with a physicist.

The second one is interesting. Which post does that refer to?

 

[Learner]

IF I know only 2 % knowledge of the subject, even if it's not adequate enough, I would disagree with your statement.

First, I sincerely doubt that you actually understand 0.02% of quantum theory, and second, I would bet my life that you can’t do the math to bear out any of the conclusions you wishfully draw from it. You may have memorized 98% of what is available about it in public media, and what I say is still true.
Yeah, it’s fun to conjecture.
Have fun, dude, it’s important to have fun, even if you don’t contribute to the human knowledge base.

Thank you Elixir for that, which reminds me of something when you said memorizing 98%.

You reminded me of the analogy, of the two types of educated. Both have accumulated knowledge throughout there time n academia. But there is a difference between the two. When putting both of these fellows out of there environment, an environment where their knowledge is not any use, the difference between these fellows starts to show. Both are very knowledgeable but only one of them is able to adapt to the new environment The other is lost and confusued because , what he was taught he has engraved as the only guidance he goes by in the environment he's accustomed to. He can't get outside that mode, i.e. outsid the box, quite stubborn, has no burden, only repeating and repeating whilst professing to be wise.

The other is course is the analytical thinker, who thinks outside the box. He has imagination.

You are no analytical thinker. In order to think outside the box, one has to know where the box is, what it looks like, and what is inside the box. Which you don't. You don't even understand what people are talking about most of the time.

Anyone can be an analytical thinker. And you don't have tto be highly educated to be so?

It depends. You need to learn the following foundational items before you can think analytically about the Big Bang Model, for example:

1. Newtonian physics
2. Mathematics
3. Numerical modeling and analysis
4. Foundational cosmology (physics of macro objects)
5. Relativistic physics (general and special relativity and 3D geometry)
6. Astronomy

You also need to know about the vast body of observations that has been collected by scientists over the past two to four hundred years that the Big Bang Theory is based on.

But you don't know any of these things. So when you say things like this:

Really? You can tell all that, just by that sentence in bold? Extremely advanced, psychological profiling?

Yes it does depend - it's purely a philisophical point of view, I was getting at.

You'll be surprised to hear that I'm not a proponent of the Big Bang as it may seem to you. Meaning a "beginning" doesn't neccessarilly come from an explosion as conventionally understood - although I do take the side of the BB discussing the universe being estimated to be 14 + billion years old ; having a beginning (the theory) to work with, so to speak.

You look really foolish, because you don't have the education needed to form a valid opinion on the subject of the Big Bang model, much less think analytically about the subject. Heck, you don't even have a layman's understanding of the Big Bang Theory, based on what you wrote.

Well there's a little more to it than what you quoted. When I was an enthusiastic about learning these things plus other interests, I also came across alternative ideas back then. WHICH MEANS there were a few issues highlighted from other scientists, which seemed valid, regarding the BB theory. Now that does NOT mean I refuted the BB theory at all, back then. It just meant I couldn't be sure who got it right!! ( This was all before I became Christian, seven years now)

 

[Elixir]

I hope becoming a Christian has helped you in other ways. Because it certainly has not been helpful at all to your ability to understand either physics or the limits of your own understanding.

In my years of experience studying religious delusions, I have seen innumerable cases of Christians - most notably new converts - mistaking the peace they feel for a kind of super-comprehension of the world around them that transcends science. Which it might do. But that doesn’t lead to any understanding of science, even though it may seem to, to the “believer”.

 

[Learner]

Did you get to the bit where he mentions some people don't like doing real science anymore, like ignoring what the neuro-scientists high;light in real experiments.? Denial I think is another term. When it conflicts with the convention, it's a head-ache for the lazy.

I don't recall hearing that. It's striking that he starts with materialism and then moves to non-materialism, whatever that is, and claims that materialism is wrong, and never recognizes his contradiction.

Yes well it would be nice if you highlighted the section(s) where he doesn't recognize his own contradictions.

 

[Learner]

I hope becoming a Christian has helped you in other ways. Because it certainly has not been helpful at all to your ability to understand either physics or the limits of your own understanding. and that its not

I suppose if nothing else, at least there's something you (plural) can focus your energies on, as your main argument, as evident in the last so many posts.

In my years of experience studying religious delusions, I have seen innumerable cases of Christians - most notably new converts - mistaking the peace they feel for a kind of super-comprehension of the world around them that transcends science. Which it might do. But that doesn’t lead to any understanding of science, even though it may seem to, to the “believer”.

Well we can talk further on it on another thread perhaps. As I think you know... Scientists who are also Christian don't mix prayers with science.