Search
 
 

Display results as :
 


Rechercher Advanced Search

Keywords

Latest topics
» Players popularity - What makes it?
Yesterday at 9:56 pm by DECIMA

» This Is What A Feminist Looks Like
Yesterday at 2:21 pm by bogbrush

» Asian Swing 2017: Bejing/Tokyo & Shanghai
Yesterday at 1:42 pm by luvsports!

» Who Is Going To Be The Next Number One?
Yesterday at 12:18 pm by legendkillar

» One of the best match ever?
Thu Oct 12, 2017 12:24 am by Tenez

» The Ultimate GOAT List
Mon Oct 09, 2017 10:50 am by Tenez

» Stefanos Tsitsipas
Mon Oct 09, 2017 10:13 am by noleisthebest

» Jelena Ostapenko
Sun Oct 08, 2017 2:26 pm by Jahu

» Nice terror attack
Sat Oct 07, 2017 3:45 pm by Viloet33

October 2017
MonTueWedThuFriSatSun
      1
2345678
9101112131415
16171819202122
23242526272829
3031     

Calendar Calendar

Affiliates
free forum


This Is What A Feminist Looks Like

Page 4 of 6 Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6  Next

View previous topic View next topic Go down

Re: This Is What A Feminist Looks Like

Post by noleisthebest on Fri Sep 29, 2017 10:47 pm

The most amazing "concepts" in this life are invisible: God, love, music, poetry.

You can't see ir make them and prove them in any lab.

Give me a formula for what Federer felt when he won his  AO 17!

People, life is beautiful! Bubbly

noleisthebest

Posts : 24939
Join date : 2012-06-18

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: This Is What A Feminist Looks Like

Post by Daniel on Sat Sep 30, 2017 6:58 pm

How does something we can feel and experience (sound, love) prove something we don't (god)?  A total false equivalency passed off as philosophical superiority.  I don't "feel"  god any more than you do.  And nor do all the women who were brutally raped, or men who were blown to bits in war, or children who were sold into slavery. Among 1000 other evils. If that's what your god allows to happen, you can keep the sadist.

Try again.


Makes me laugh... God always gets the credit for things that go OK, and is never held to account for the insurmountable amount of suffering in the world. Oh, but, of course:  He works in mysterious ways!  Laugh

Daniel

Posts : 3093
Join date : 2013-11-06

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: This Is What A Feminist Looks Like

Post by bogbrush on Sun Oct 01, 2017 4:26 pm

Tenez wrote:
bogbrush wrote:There is no will. Only chemistry, only physics.

The process that causes random hydrogen atoms to eventually move as if it had will is very long but entirely predictable. There is no guide save natural selection (a process requiring no will).
You see, you are like religious people expressing your views through dogmas.

You still have a will and/or desire to reply or not to those posts. If it followed physical and chemical laws, you'd have no choice. When you throw a stone in the air...it obeys an uncompromising physical law, same with chemistry. You can explain the homo sapiens with physics and chemistry, not the "homo sapiens sapiens".
You're just using a fictional concept to substitute for understanding.

If you observe a rockfall, or perhaps a massive tsunami crashing in to the land, you can't imagine the sheer immense number of collisions and movements of rocks, water, molecules. You'd agree that the probability of any unique arrangement of those molecules through every nanosecond of the event would be infinitesimal. Yet, amazingly, at the end if the event in fact all this atoms would indeed have interacted in one unique path. Each one took one and only one path through the tumultuous events, but here's the thing: do you think that because the probability of that singular set of events is so tiny that there must be a guiding will or do you accept that pure blind physics guided it?

Surely it would be the latter.

And so it is with you and I. These molecules have come to an organisation through the processes of chemistry and selection, and so complex it is that it operates to an inevitable path governed by the evolved sensory processes that natural selection caused it to adopt. You think it's will, you think it's life, but really it's nothing of the sort.

bogbrush

Posts : 1136
Join date : 2015-03-30

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: This Is What A Feminist Looks Like

Post by bogbrush on Sun Oct 01, 2017 4:30 pm

Daniel wrote:How does something we can feel and experience (sound, love) prove something we don't (god)?  A total false equivalency passed off as philosophical superiority.  I don't "feel"  god any more than you do.  And nor do all the women who were brutally raped, or men who were blown to bits in war, or children who were sold into slavery. Among 1000 other evils. If that's what your god allows to happen, you can keep the sadist.

Try again.


Makes me laugh... God always gets the credit for things that go OK, and is never held to account for the insurmountable amount of suffering in the world. Oh, but, of course:  He works in mysterious ways!  Laugh
When I went to the funeral of the wife of a friend, who'd died from cancer, they were giving thanks to God for giving her the strength to live as she had. I muttered to Mrs Bogbrush that this was typical if God, he gets the credit for that but none f the blame for giving it to her in the first place. Obviously I got jabbed in the ribs by her!

I sometimes think religious people have a kind of Stockholm Syndrome.

bogbrush

Posts : 1136
Join date : 2015-03-30

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: This Is What A Feminist Looks Like

Post by Daniel on Sun Oct 01, 2017 6:34 pm

If you watch a documentary on air crashes, you will frequently see a survivor say "God was looking out for me."  "God saved me."

I always want the interviewer to say "So, the other 50+ that died didn't have god?  And you did?  You were more special than they were, you crass bastard?"  And it's nearly always women who make these comments too.  I watch a lot of the Air Crash Investigations series, for example.  It really annoys me.  They say something as crass as that when they survived and dozens didn't.

Daniel

Posts : 3093
Join date : 2013-11-06

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: This Is What A Feminist Looks Like

Post by Tenez on Sun Oct 01, 2017 10:56 pm

bogbrush wrote:You're just using a fictional concept to substitute for understanding.

If you observe a rockfall, or perhaps a massive tsunami crashing in to the land, you can't imagine the sheer immense number of collisions and movements of rocks, water, molecules. You'd agree that the probability of any unique arrangement of those molecules through every nanosecond of the event would be infinitesimal. Yet, amazingly, at the end if the event in fact all this atoms would indeed have interacted in one unique path. Each one took one and only one path through the tumultuous events, but here's the thing: do you think that because the probability of that singular set of events is so tiny that there must be a guiding will or do you accept that pure blind physics guided it?

Surely it would be the latter.

And so it is with you and I. These molecules have come to an organisation through the processes of chemistry and selection, and so complex it is that it operates to an inevitable path governed by the evolved sensory processes that natural selection caused it to adopt. You think it's will, you think it's life, but really it's nothing of the sort.

1- I am not sure you understand my main point. There is energy and matter. That in itself can be considered a miracle. Logic, I mean a purely scientific mind, could maybe explain 0 (if he were in the first place) but not 1.

2 - However there is energy and matter (1) and they have led, amongst other things, to humans being free and able to think, like a seed will turn into flower or a  tree. It means this energy and matter carried intrinsically this evolution, it is "alive". It could simply have remained energy and (dead) matter. There is no logic which can explain evolution instead of perpetual immobility. Just having matter is a miracle, let alone living matter which creates human beings and billions kinds of other lives.

I think the main difference in our views is that you do not seem to see the cosmos and its life as something absolutely incredible when frankly it is. Now the question is how incredible is it? To me? Divinely incredible. I do not have to believe in God or Evil, it's just there.

Tenez

Posts : 17157
Join date : 2012-06-18

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: This Is What A Feminist Looks Like

Post by bogbrush on Tue Oct 03, 2017 1:03 pm

Tenez wrote:
bogbrush wrote:You're just using a fictional concept to substitute for understanding.

If you observe a rockfall, or perhaps a massive tsunami crashing in to the land, you can't imagine the sheer immense number of collisions and movements of rocks, water, molecules. You'd agree that the probability of any unique arrangement of those molecules through every nanosecond of the event would be infinitesimal. Yet, amazingly, at the end if the event in fact all this atoms would indeed have interacted in one unique path. Each one took one and only one path through the tumultuous events, but here's the thing: do you think that because the probability of that singular set of events is so tiny that there must be a guiding will or do you accept that pure blind physics guided it?

Surely it would be the latter.

And so it is with you and I. These molecules have come to an organisation through the processes of chemistry and selection, and so complex it is that it operates to an inevitable path governed by the evolved sensory processes that natural selection caused it to adopt. You think it's will, you think it's life, but really it's nothing of the sort.

1- I am not sure you understand my main point. There is energy and matter. That in itself can be considered a miracle. Logic, I mean a purely scientific mind, could maybe explain 0 (if he were in the first place) but not 1.

2 - However there is energy and matter (1) and they have led, amongst other things, to humans being free and able to think, like a seed will turn into flower or a  tree. It means this energy and matter carried intrinsically this evolution, it is "alive". It could simply have remained energy and (dead) matter. There is no logic which can explain evolution instead of perpetual immobility. Just having matter is a miracle, let alone living matter which creates human beings and billions kinds of other lives.

I think the main difference in our views is that you do not seem to see the cosmos and its life as something absolutely incredible when frankly it is. Now the question is how incredible is it? To me? Divinely incredible. I do not have to believe in God or Evil, it's just there.
1. You mean explain where the energy and matter came from? There is physics that is approaching this but it's beyond me to articulate.

2. The energy and matter carried on (or rather was controlled by) phsyical forces like the EM force, which in turn are just properties of fundamental particlaes. Perhaps the best example of theory triumphing was the discovery of the Higgs boson, which is what conveys mass  to everything else (in the same way that water conveys drag to anything moving through it).

The incredible complexity is mind blowing but that's inevitable given our brains evolved only to navigate through the World as we experience it (just like it's impossible to perceive 4 or 5 dimensional shapes because we evolved in 3 dimensional space). It's like my example of every particle in a tsunami; the exact layout at the end is shockingly unlikely but surely you don't think an intelligent hand decided it do you?

bogbrush

Posts : 1136
Join date : 2015-03-30

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: This Is What A Feminist Looks Like

Post by Tenez on Wed Oct 04, 2017 4:15 pm

It does not matter one yota how energy came about,... (Unless it came from our spirit or the "word-). It is the fact there is something instead of nothing.
I still don't think you see my point... Though it's very simple.

Tenez

Posts : 17157
Join date : 2012-06-18

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: This Is What A Feminist Looks Like

Post by bogbrush on Wed Oct 04, 2017 6:03 pm

Course I do, you’re concerned about an explanation for something from nothing. I think there’s one coming, and soon, but it’ll have nothing to do with supernatural beings.

bogbrush

Posts : 1136
Join date : 2015-03-30

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: This Is What A Feminist Looks Like

Post by Tenez on Wed Oct 04, 2017 6:26 pm

Nope I give up because you do not see the irrationality of having something.

Tenez

Posts : 17157
Join date : 2012-06-18

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: This Is What A Feminist Looks Like

Post by DECIMA on Wed Oct 04, 2017 7:05 pm

High level discussion!

Daniel's points I agree with, and even Tenez was making fair and reasonable posts.
Bogbrush- very intelligent posts on science and extent of its scope. Agree with everything he said, just have to be careful to not make assumptions. 
All I would add, is that even if humans can't figure out something scientifically, that doesn't mean the science doesn't exist.

DECIMA

Posts : 4429
Join date : 2013-05-03

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: This Is What A Feminist Looks Like

Post by legendkillar on Wed Oct 04, 2017 7:27 pm

bogbrush wrote:
Tenez wrote:
bogbrush wrote:You're just using a fictional concept to substitute for understanding.

If you observe a rockfall, or perhaps a massive tsunami crashing in to the land, you can't imagine the sheer immense number of collisions and movements of rocks, water, molecules. You'd agree that the probability of any unique arrangement of those molecules through every nanosecond of the event would be infinitesimal. Yet, amazingly, at the end if the event in fact all this atoms would indeed have interacted in one unique path. Each one took one and only one path through the tumultuous events, but here's the thing: do you think that because the probability of that singular set of events is so tiny that there must be a guiding will or do you accept that pure blind physics guided it?

Surely it would be the latter.

And so it is with you and I. These molecules have come to an organisation through the processes of chemistry and selection, and so complex it is that it operates to an inevitable path governed by the evolved sensory processes that natural selection caused it to adopt. You think it's will, you think it's life, but really it's nothing of the sort.

1- I am not sure you understand my main point. There is energy and matter. That in itself can be considered a miracle. Logic, I mean a purely scientific mind, could maybe explain 0 (if he were in the first place) but not 1.

2 - However there is energy and matter (1) and they have led, amongst other things, to humans being free and able to think, like a seed will turn into flower or a  tree. It means this energy and matter carried intrinsically this evolution, it is "alive". It could simply have remained energy and (dead) matter. There is no logic which can explain evolution instead of perpetual immobility. Just having matter is a miracle, let alone living matter which creates human beings and billions kinds of other lives.

I think the main difference in our views is that you do not seem to see the cosmos and its life as something absolutely incredible when frankly it is. Now the question is how incredible is it? To me? Divinely incredible. I do not have to believe in God or Evil, it's just there.
1. You mean explain where the energy and matter came from? There is physics that is approaching this but it's beyond me to articulate.

2. The energy and matter carried on (or rather was controlled by) phsyical forces like the EM force, which in turn are just properties of fundamental particlaes. Perhaps the best example of theory triumphing was the discovery of the Higgs boson, which is what conveys mass  to everything else (in the same way that water conveys drag to anything moving through it).

The incredible complexity is mind blowing but that's inevitable given our brains evolved only to navigate through the World as we experience it (just like it's impossible to perceive 4 or 5 dimensional shapes because we evolved in 3 dimensional space). It's like my example of every particle in a tsunami; the exact layout at the end is shockingly unlikely but surely you don't think an intelligent hand decided it do you?


Views on Cell Theory?

legendkillar

Posts : 1899
Join date : 2012-10-02

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: This Is What A Feminist Looks Like

Post by bogbrush on Thu Oct 05, 2017 1:24 pm

From  which perspective? The funny thing about cell theory is how the definition of living beings is often said to be those things built from cells, but that excludes viruses suggesting (as I agree) that a virus is no more than a machine made from carbon+ atoms. 

Where I differ is that I don't see where the magic comes to call a cell "alive" and a virus a machine. And it follows on that I can't see where if a cell isn't alive that a group of cells can be alive - I mean where's the dividing line?

To me the only logical conclusion is that there isn't a dividing line and the concept of "alive" is an error. There is no "life".

bogbrush

Posts : 1136
Join date : 2015-03-30

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: This Is What A Feminist Looks Like

Post by Tenez on Thu Oct 05, 2017 1:51 pm

So if there is no life.... There is no death. Cool.

Tenez

Posts : 17157
Join date : 2012-06-18

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: This Is What A Feminist Looks Like

Post by bogbrush on Thu Oct 05, 2017 11:22 pm

Tenez wrote:So if there is no life.... There is no death. Cool.
Correct, there is only the failure of the energy transfer propensities of the organism leading to its breakdown. The constituent parts are available for incorporation into new organisms though.

bogbrush

Posts : 1136
Join date : 2015-03-30

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: This Is What A Feminist Looks Like

Post by DECIMA on Thu Oct 05, 2017 11:37 pm

Scientifically, BB is correct.

But philosophically, is it good to break humans down to their micro molecules?
Could be a reasoning of a mass murderer- life doesn't exist, death is just a failure of energy transfer propensities, and the molecules will all be recycled anyway.

DECIMA

Posts : 4429
Join date : 2013-05-03

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: This Is What A Feminist Looks Like

Post by DECIMA on Thu Oct 05, 2017 11:41 pm

For me that's nothing to do with religion vs atheism; if you genuinely believe that life doesn't exist and we're all molecules being recycled eventually anyway, you wouldn't even have to be evil to be a mass murderer and not feel guilt, scary prospect.

DECIMA

Posts : 4429
Join date : 2013-05-03

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: This Is What A Feminist Looks Like

Post by legendkillar on Fri Oct 06, 2017 11:05 am

bogbrush wrote:From  which perspective? The funny thing about cell theory is how the definition of living beings is often said to be those things built from cells, but that excludes viruses suggesting (as I agree) that a virus is no more than a machine made from carbon+ atoms. 

Where I differ is that I don't see where the magic comes to call a cell "alive" and a virus a machine. And it follows on that I can't see where if a cell isn't alive that a group of cells can be alive - I mean where's the dividing line?

To me the only logical conclusion is that there isn't a dividing line and the concept of "alive" is an error. There is no "life".


It's an intriguing theory, but for the most part for me viruses are self made through stages of mutation and evolution. So essentially a starting point would have at some stage been a cell.

Essentially it is about redefining the term "living" however as above in my comment I struggle with the difference between mutation and evolution. Basically one would be considered an "influenced" change and the other "natural" and again those distinguishing factors are still unclear.

I thought I would throw that out there as you are touching on mass and energy and the not readily verified formula that is creation. Which is why I find cell theory amusing because the burning question there is "where did the first cell originate from"

Nearly 4 billion years later and still no closer to the answer.

legendkillar

Posts : 1899
Join date : 2012-10-02

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: This Is What A Feminist Looks Like

Post by Daniel on Fri Oct 06, 2017 4:59 pm

Materialistic science doesn't explain qualia, and that's where the science of "it's just cells" breaks down.  Some scientists have suggested that consciousness is actually an intrinsic value of the universe and that the more activity and communication within a system means more consciousness is given to that system.  It sounds silly until you realize that the alternative is more ludicrous.  

One thing is fairly sure - we are far more than the sum of our parts, because the sum is missing something not explained merely by the physical parts. You can tell me all about wave length and the math behind it, but you can't tell me why the brain represents that as "red" - or even if my red is the same as your red.  These things lie well outside of such a basic appreciation of the universe.  And, no, I am not making an argument for a soul, or afterlife, or anything supernatural.  But I am saying the universe is far far more than just math. Whatever the answer is, it won't be explained by just math alone. And I don't think a being that can only exist in 3D (or 4D if you want to add time) really has what it takes to explain the universe, at any rate.

Daniel

Posts : 3093
Join date : 2013-11-06

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: This Is What A Feminist Looks Like

Post by Tenez on Fri Oct 06, 2017 10:06 pm

legendkillar wrote:
bogbrush wrote:From  which perspective? The funny thing about cell theory is how the definition of living beings is often said to be those things built from cells, but that excludes viruses suggesting (as I agree) that a virus is no more than a machine made from carbon+ atoms. 

Where I differ is that I don't see where the magic comes to call a cell "alive" and a virus a machine. And it follows on that I can't see where if a cell isn't alive that a group of cells can be alive - I mean where's the dividing line?

To me the only logical conclusion is that there isn't a dividing line and the concept of "alive" is an error. There is no "life".


It's an intriguing theory, but for the most part for me viruses are self made through stages of mutation and evolution. So essentially a starting point would have at some stage been a cell.

Essentially it is about redefining the term "living" however as above in my comment I struggle with the difference between mutation and evolution. Basically one would be considered an "influenced" change and the other "natural" and again those distinguishing factors are still unclear.

I thought I would throw that out there as you are touching on mass and energy and the not readily verified formula that is creation. Which is why I find cell theory amusing because the burning question there is "where did the first cell originate from"

Nearly 4 billion years later and still no closer to the answer.

What I find amazing is how things work perfectly long before "we" -  the most intelligent people on the planet - start to understand how it works.

Without even considering the cell, The oldest question in the human history of why there is energy and time instead of nothing will never be explained by science. A Scientist can just about understand the rules governing our universe, they will never explain why there is one in the first place.

And admitting it's perfectly normal there is something instead of nothing,  how did it go from a melting rock to our lively and vivid dreams? Saying there is no life when all your senses are positively excited or in pain, doesn't quite sound right.

I believe that matter has spirit like it has energy and time as well.

What's interesting in the theory of the universe and the big bang is that the latest trend tend to show that that the universe comes from "nothing". So a spontaneous generation? Or does it come from the spirit?

Tenez

Posts : 17157
Join date : 2012-06-18

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: This Is What A Feminist Looks Like

Post by bogbrush on Sat Oct 07, 2017 4:10 pm

What evidence do you have for this spirit of which you speak?

Senses are bound to be excited, that’s what natural selection of successful (at copying) organisms is bound to produce.

bogbrush

Posts : 1136
Join date : 2015-03-30

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: This Is What A Feminist Looks Like

Post by Tenez on Sat Oct 07, 2017 6:29 pm

bogbrush wrote:What evidence do you have for this spirit of which you speak?

Senses are bound to be excited, that’s what natural selection of successful (at copying) organisms is bound to produce.

I do not have any more evidence than you have about our world being a physical reality. Imagine one day, when you die maybe, you wake up (in another dimension)  and realise that this world was just a dream...no different than the dreams you have at night. So what?

Whether our thoughts or dreams come from physical atoms or whether those physical atoms come from the "word" or spirit, I do not know. What I know is that the mind, thoughts or spirits can be as powerful as anything. Someone hearing voices begging him to kill for instance cannot be cured with drugs. If anything we know those drugs can sometimes makes those cases worse.

If I understand you, you tends to think everything is the result of lucky encounters between atoms.

I like to think there is more to it and until we find another planet with life I will stick to the belief we live in a special world.

I don;t think for instance that it is a coincidence that the Sun and the Moon - probably the 2 most diametrically opposite satellites - one huge, burning and lively, the other cold, dead and small, exercise 2 opposite forces on our planet and appear almost exactly the same size to us. No coincidence that the Western civilisation adopted the sun as their emblem while the Easter ones adopted the moon.

As this is a tennis forum, i can also point at those funny diametrically opposites: Is that a coincidence that Borg and McEnroe played in the same era? Edberg and Becker? Federer and Nadal? etc..etc...Imagine if we had Borg, Wilander, Chang and hewitt being of teh same generation and then McEnroe, federer, Edberg playing in the same era..... but the world or nature doesn;t quite work like that. It has a sense of "balance" without never quite repeating itself.

I tend to see purpose in everything, that same purpose that turned that melted rock into humans. Whether that's God or Mother Nature, or just "Purpose" it does not matter but I just find it difficult to believe it 's pure hazard.

Tenez

Posts : 17157
Join date : 2012-06-18

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: This Is What A Feminist Looks Like

Post by Daniel on Sat Oct 07, 2017 9:15 pm

I do not have any more evidence than you have about our world being a physical reality.
---

Errr, no.  We have observational and mathematical evidence for physical reality. That's a fact.

Daniel

Posts : 3093
Join date : 2013-11-06

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: This Is What A Feminist Looks Like

Post by Jahu on Sat Oct 07, 2017 9:16 pm

Nice to see this thread still going on.

Sex is good, I have proof!

Jahu

Posts : 1978
Join date : 2016-02-23
Location : Egg am Faaker See

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: This Is What A Feminist Looks Like

Post by Tenez on Sat Oct 07, 2017 10:24 pm

Daniel wrote:I do not have any more evidence than you have about our world being a physical reality.
---

Errr, no.  We have observational and mathematical evidence for physical reality. That's a fact.

I dreamt of many similar physical reality! Everything was so real in my dreams!

(I am not sure you understand my point)

Tenez

Posts : 17157
Join date : 2012-06-18

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: This Is What A Feminist Looks Like

Post by Tenez on Sat Oct 07, 2017 11:00 pm

https://www.philosophytalk.org/blog/why-there-something-rather-nothing

here is a good summary of the point I have been trying to make about why is there something instead of nothing.

However though I do not know the answer, I feel a logical mind would accept that having something instead of nothing is an abnormal phenomenon. In theory, logically I mean, there should be no time, no space.

However as Descartes once said "Cogito Ergo sum" (I think, therefore I am). That's the only fact we can acknowledge with certitude. Note that Descarte puts his thinking first and being more of a reality (or an unavoidable truth)  than the physical world that surrounds him.

Tenez

Posts : 17157
Join date : 2012-06-18

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: This Is What A Feminist Looks Like

Post by noleisthebest on Sun Oct 08, 2017 8:53 am

Has anyone seen this?


noleisthebest

Posts : 24939
Join date : 2012-06-18

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: This Is What A Feminist Looks Like

Post by bogbrush on Mon Oct 09, 2017 11:12 am

Tenez wrote:
bogbrush wrote:What evidence do you have for this spirit of which you speak?

Senses are bound to be excited, that’s what natural selection of successful (at copying) organisms is bound to produce.

I do not have any more evidence than you have about our world being a physical reality. Imagine one day, when you die maybe, you wake up (in another dimension)  and realise that this world was just a dream...no different than the dreams you have at night. So what?

Whether our thoughts or dreams come from physical atoms or whether those physical atoms come from the "word" or spirit, I do not know. What I know is that the mind, thoughts or spirits can be as powerful as anything. Someone hearing voices begging him to kill for instance cannot be cured with drugs. If anything we know those drugs can sometimes makes those cases worse.

If I understand you, you tends to think everything is the result of lucky encounters between atoms.

I like to think there is more to it and until we find another planet with life I will stick to the belief we live in a special world.

I don;t think for instance that it is a coincidence that the Sun and the Moon - probably the 2 most diametrically opposite satellites - one huge, burning and lively, the other cold, dead and small, exercise 2 opposite forces on our planet and appear almost exactly the same size to us. No coincidence that the Western civilisation adopted the sun as their emblem while the Easter ones adopted the moon.

As this is a tennis forum, i can also point at those funny diametrically opposites: Is that a coincidence that Borg and McEnroe played in the same era? Edberg and Becker? Federer and Nadal? etc..etc...Imagine if we had Borg, Wilander, Chang and hewitt being of teh same generation and then McEnroe, federer, Edberg playing in the same era..... but the world or nature doesn;t quite work like that. It has a sense of "balance" without never quite repeating itself.

I tend to see purpose in everything, that same purpose that turned that melted rock into humans. Whether that's God or Mother Nature, or just "Purpose" it does not matter but I just find it difficult to believe it 's pure hazard.
No, not luck or haphazard in the slightest. You've not listened to what I'm saying.

It is not luck when metal filings align themselves in the presence of a magnet, it is the electro-magnetic force. It's not luck when hydrogen atoms fuse to helium and generate enormous amounts of energy, it's the interaction of fundamental forces conveyed on particles that make protons look gigantic. It is not luck that simple arrangements of self-copying molecules increase in complexity towards the evolution of highly complex organisms, it's simple chemistry and an iterative process.

bogbrush

Posts : 1136
Join date : 2015-03-30

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: This Is What A Feminist Looks Like

Post by Tenez on Mon Oct 09, 2017 11:29 am

bogbrush wrote:No, not luck or haphazard in the slightest. You've not listened to what I'm saying.

It is not luck when metal filings align themselves in the presence of a magnet, it is the electro-magnetic force. It's not luck when hydrogen atoms fuse to helium and generate enormous amounts of energy, it's the interaction of fundamental forces conveyed on particles that make protons look gigantic. It is not luck that simple arrangements of self-copying molecules increase in complexity towards the evolution of highly complex organisms, it's simple chemistry and an iterative process.

Indeed. Then you have to agree that matter, or those laws are "intelligent". If those "dead atoms" (according to you) go from chaos without life to consciousness or awareness, then this "purpose or evolution" is inherent to matter/energy, like a seed contains the design of a tree.

Again, you seem happy to understand how the laws of life work but don't seem very surprised to see them in the first place. I find it bizarre that you do not see the purpose in all that. Your example of a tsunami leads to chaos not Mozart's concerto, this is where I guess I don't follow you.

Tenez

Posts : 17157
Join date : 2012-06-18

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: This Is What A Feminist Looks Like

Post by Tenez on Mon Oct 09, 2017 11:58 am

bogbrush wrote:No, not luck or haphazard in the slightest. You've not listened to what I'm saying.

It is not luck when metal filings align themselves in the presence of a magnet, it is the electro-magnetic force. It's not luck when hydrogen atoms fuse to helium and generate enormous amounts of energy, it's the interaction of fundamental forces conveyed on particles that make protons look gigantic. It is not luck that simple arrangements of self-copying molecules increase in complexity towards the evolution of highly complex organisms, it's simple chemistry and an iterative process.

... and lots of luck remain to be involved in your "physical" only process. There has not been new start of life since 3.8 billion years, not on earth and not observed on other planets yet.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/nature/life

Tenez

Posts : 17157
Join date : 2012-06-18

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: This Is What A Feminist Looks Like

Post by bogbrush on Mon Oct 09, 2017 12:12 pm

No, they're just properties. A stone isn't intelligently drawn towards the Earth, it's the hypothetical graviton that does it.

Luck comes in only to the very specific outcome; if you threw the collected works of Shakespeare into the air would you be amazed at the precise configuration of pages that lay on the floor? The layout would be just as likely as if they fell all neatly arranged correctly but since there are so many more apparently chaotic outcomes you view them as all the same and more or less inevitable. So it is with atom; you're looking at THIS outcome and declaring it amazing, I'm telling you one that was pretty much like this was obvious.

bogbrush

Posts : 1136
Join date : 2015-03-30

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: This Is What A Feminist Looks Like

Post by Tenez on Mon Oct 09, 2017 12:25 pm

bogbrush wrote:No, they're just properties. A stone isn't intelligently drawn towards the Earth, it's the hypothetical graviton that does it.

Luck comes in only to the very specific outcome; if you threw the collected works of Shakespeare into the air would you be amazed at the precise configuration of pages that lay on the floor? The layout would be just as likely as if they fell all neatly arranged correctly but since there are so many more apparently chaotic outcomes you view them as all the same and more or less inevitable. So it is with atom; you're looking at THIS outcome and declaring it amazing, I'm telling you one that was pretty much like this was obvious.

No, the luck is not there I am afraid....The luck is in Shakespeare's work being sent up in the air only once in 4 billion years, that is in itself an amazing piece of luck! It could have been sat on its table for all that time and no-one threw it in the air OR more likely, someone picked it up regularly and throw it in the air as per the rules of nature, then fine but the fact is neither case have been observed. Life so far is a 1 in a 4 billion years occurence.

Tenez

Posts : 17157
Join date : 2012-06-18

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: This Is What A Feminist Looks Like

Post by bogbrush on Mon Oct 09, 2017 1:56 pm

Tenez wrote:
bogbrush wrote:No, they're just properties. A stone isn't intelligently drawn towards the Earth, it's the hypothetical graviton that does it.

Luck comes in only to the very specific outcome; if you threw the collected works of Shakespeare into the air would you be amazed at the precise configuration of pages that lay on the floor? The layout would be just as likely as if they fell all neatly arranged correctly but since there are so many more apparently chaotic outcomes you view them as all the same and more or less inevitable. So it is with atom; you're looking at THIS outcome and declaring it amazing, I'm telling you one that was pretty much like this was obvious.

No, the luck is not there I am afraid....The luck is in Shakespeare's work being sent up in the air only once in 4 billion years, that is in itself an amazing piece of luck! It could have been sat on its table for all that time and no-one threw it in the air OR more likely, someone picked it up regularly and throw it in the air as per the rules of nature, then fine but the fact is neither case have been observed. Life so far is a 1 in a 4 billion years occurence.
That's completely speculative. You have no idea how often molecules aggregated into self-copying models. No idea whatsoever.

I don't think you understood the analogy either.

bogbrush

Posts : 1136
Join date : 2015-03-30

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: This Is What A Feminist Looks Like

Post by Tenez on Mon Oct 09, 2017 3:00 pm

bogbrush wrote:
Tenez wrote:
bogbrush wrote:No, they're just properties. A stone isn't intelligently drawn towards the Earth, it's the hypothetical graviton that does it.

Luck comes in only to the very specific outcome; if you threw the collected works of Shakespeare into the air would you be amazed at the precise configuration of pages that lay on the floor? The layout would be just as likely as if they fell all neatly arranged correctly but since there are so many more apparently chaotic outcomes you view them as all the same and more or less inevitable. So it is with atom; you're looking at THIS outcome and declaring it amazing, I'm telling you one that was pretty much like this was obvious.

No, the luck is not there I am afraid....The luck is in Shakespeare's work being sent up in the air only once in 4 billion years, that is in itself an amazing piece of luck! It could have been sat on its table for all that time and no-one threw it in the air OR more likely, someone picked it up regularly and throw it in the air as per the rules of nature, then fine but the fact is neither case have been observed. Life so far is a 1 in a 4 billion years occurence.
That's completely speculative. You have no idea how often molecules aggregated into self-copying models. No idea whatsoever.

I don't think you understood the analogy either.

No. It's not speculative at all. As the link provided says : "The evidence indicates that all organisms on Earth are genetically related, a genealogical relationship that can be represented as an evolutionary tree known as the Tree of Life." meaning we come from one organism. So clearly if life is self- generated on multiple occasions, why don;t we have new start of life. According to you we should still have dinosaurs in the making or new giant trees or sea monsters. Nature being so good at adapting, the new lines of life woudl be even more efficient than the 3.8billion one.

I perfectly understood your reasoning but even Dawkins agrees on this. That's this life is a huge piece of luck!

Tenez

Posts : 17157
Join date : 2012-06-18

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: This Is What A Feminist Looks Like

Post by bogbrush on Mon Oct 09, 2017 11:58 pm

How do you know other life hasn’t originated and been competed out at cellular stage, or failed, or evolved to be convergent?

We’d have dinosaurs if dinosaurs were a useful model. It isn’t, so we don’t.

We do have new organisms evolving, the process hasn’t stopped.

Dawkins is an ass. His insight is nothing special and he funks the conclusions. He’s less atheist, more Jedi. Bit of a prat really.

bogbrush

Posts : 1136
Join date : 2015-03-30

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: This Is What A Feminist Looks Like

Post by DECIMA on Tue Oct 10, 2017 12:56 am

Bogbrush is, once again, correct.
Imagine if we had a special dice with 4 trillion sides. Getting any particular side is completely luck. But if you threw the dice 4 trillion sides, you'd expect a particular side to be landed on once.
Time is eternal, perhaps we only have this universe after 3.9 billion 'tries' that we don't know about.

Tenez has raised some fair points though, and one thing Bogbrush could go into a bit more detail on, is his question of why there is something rather than nothing at all. I can vaguely follow the process from 1 atom turning into what we have now. But how did we get that one atom at all? Why that rather than 0?

DECIMA

Posts : 4429
Join date : 2013-05-03

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: This Is What A Feminist Looks Like

Post by DECIMA on Tue Oct 10, 2017 1:20 am

Tenez on the whole debating very reasonably despite BB being right, with the exception of this far reaching claim:

Tenez wrote:I like to think there is more to it and until we find another planet with life I will stick to the belief we live in a special world.

I don;t think for instance that it is a coincidence that the Sun and the Moon - probably the 2 most diametrically opposite satellites - one huge, burning and lively, the other cold, dead and small, exercise 2 opposite forces on our planet and appear almost exactly the same size to us. No coincidence that the Western civilisation adopted the sun as their emblem while the Easter ones adopted the moon.

As this is a tennis forum, i can also point at those funny diametrically opposites: Is that a coincidence that Borg and McEnroe played in the same era? Edberg and Becker? Federer and Nadal? etc..etc...Imagine if we had Borg, Wilander, Chang and hewitt being of teh same generation and then McEnroe, federer, Edberg playing in the same era..... but the world or nature doesn;t quite work like that. It has a sense of "balance" without never quite repeating itself.

It's true that science doesn't yet have the answers to everything, there are still some doubts especially considering the origin of everything.
But it's important to understand that it's a far stretch to go from saying that, to then saying any of the major religions are true or what Tenez is saying here is true.
Tenez is indicating that there's something supernatural or spiritual in the way Federer and Nadal have risen as rivals, presumably as they are so different they 'balance'. That is actually beyond crazy if you think about it.  
I sometimes wonder why Tenez, despite being knowledgable in facts and informed on tennis, gets his analysis and predictions so badly wrong so often, and then keeps losing debates. How?
It's because he genuinely believes that divine intervention has created a dichotomy of 'good' and 'evil', and he's on a side of that. When NITB said she genuinely believed Nadal and Satan were linked, Tenez seemed to agree and a few days later brought it up after Nadal got a lucky line call, saying 'this is what NITB was saying, satanic luck'.
Even some Federer fans privately tell me that the hate Nadal gets from NITB and Tenez on here seems so unreasonable it's like religious fanaticism... and unfortunately that's proved to not even be a simile or a metaphor, it's the literal truth for them.

DECIMA

Posts : 4429
Join date : 2013-05-03

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: This Is What A Feminist Looks Like

Post by Daniel on Tue Oct 10, 2017 2:03 am

Laugh
Satanic luck! Hahahaha!

Daniel

Posts : 3093
Join date : 2013-11-06

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: This Is What A Feminist Looks Like

Post by Tenez on Tue Oct 10, 2017 9:52 am

bogbrush wrote:How do you know other life hasn’t originated and been competed out at cellular stage, or failed, or evolved to be convergent?
Simply because there is no trace of it. We could have different evolutions at different stages running on earth or elswhere. We could have identified organisms or cells which started 4billion years ago, or 3 million years ago, or one million years ago. But there there are none observable today or elswhere.

We’d have dinosaurs if dinosaurs were a useful model. It isn’t, so we don’t.
But they were the most useful model at one stage. A new evolution line (from atoms/minerals)  could get to those dinosaurs again. This is not what I think but what you tend to think cause you don't find that 3.8billion old event particularly lucky, meaning it could have happened multiple times under your physical laws.

We do have new organisms evolving, the process hasn’t stopped.
but all starting from that very event which happened 3.8billion years ago. I am surprised Decima makes you "right" (I like the way he places himself as omnipotent, holding the universal truth btw).
Dawkins is an ass. His insight is nothing special and he funks the conclusions.
on this we agree.

I am not trying to prove there is a God and/or Devil....I am just saying that to me it is at least as foolish to think there is no "Purpose" in all that than there is.

We have fundamental questions unanswered and we are likely to never know them. That's no surprise that all civilisations on earth dreamt of divine symbols giving them purpose for their lives, before the "golden calf" became the main religion of those who don't believe in supra natural purpose. Religion might be the food for the mind for those who need to find direction.

Tenez

Posts : 17157
Join date : 2012-06-18

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: This Is What A Feminist Looks Like

Post by bogbrush on Tue Oct 10, 2017 10:04 am

Tenez wrote:
bogbrush wrote:How do you know other life hasn’t originated and been competed out at cellular stage, or failed, or evolved to be convergent?
Simply because there is no trace of it. We could have different evolutions at different stages running on earth or elswhere. We could have identified organisms or cells which started 4billion years ago, or 3 million years ago, or one million years ago. But there there are none observable today or elswhere.

We’d have dinosaurs if dinosaurs were a useful model. It isn’t, so we don’t.
But they were the most useful model at one stage. A new evolution line (from atoms/minerals)  could get to those dinosaurs again. This is not what I think but what you tend to think cause you don't find that 3.8billion old event particularly lucky, meaning it could have happened under your physical laws.

We do have new organisms evolving, the process hasn’t stopped.
but all starting from that very event which happened 3.8billion years ago. I am surprised Decima makes you "right" (I like the way he places himself as omnipotent, holding the universal btw).
Dawkins is an ass. His insight is nothing special and he funks the conclusions.
on this we agree.

I am not trying to prove there is a God and/or Devil....I am just saying that to me it is at least as foolish to think there is no "Purpose" in all that than there is.

We have fundamental questions unanswered and we are likely to never know them. That's no surprise that all civilisations on earth dreamt of divine symbols giving them purpose for their lives, before the "golden calf" became the main religion of those who don't believe in supra natural purpose. Religion might be the food for the mind for those who need to find direction.
The only difficult question, as Amrit says, is how do we get energy from nothing (matter coalesces from energy so that's not a problem). That is where I said study of black holes is critical because they are a match for the pre-Big Bang environment. I have read that vast energy might arise from miniscule variations in a void; already we know there is something called vacuum energy which involves the concept of energy coming into existence due to quantum fluctuations - something from nothing!

As I see is, it's like saying 0 = 1 - 1. Agreed? But what if the 1 and the -1 very rarely became separated? Then we'd have a stray 1 and a stray -1 floating around so we'd have two somethings from nothing. At the quantum level it is known that fluctuations blink in and out so it's not unreasonable.

The evolution of atoms to Federers 18th Slam is all fairly simple in my book, a load of known processes set on run for billions of years.

If you want to get really freaked out, try this;

- It is a proven fact that Einsteins prediction of the variable nature of time show that time is not a constant. This was even shown 50+ years ago using atomic clocks sent into different gravitational positions and the observed time slippage matched his calculations exactly. Thie the therefore not quite the constant we imagine!
- the same theories suggest time might not move at all at the most extreme positions, in which case concepts of before and after might fall apart.

bogbrush

Posts : 1136
Join date : 2015-03-30

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: This Is What A Feminist Looks Like

Post by Tenez on Tue Oct 10, 2017 10:19 am

DECIMA wrote:Tenez on the whole debating very reasonably despite BB being right, with the exception of this far reaching claim:

Tenez wrote:I like to think there is more to it and until we find another planet with life I will stick to the belief we live in a special world.

I don;t think for instance that it is a coincidence that the Sun and the Moon - probably the 2 most diametrically opposite satellites - one huge, burning and lively, the other cold, dead and small, exercise 2 opposite forces on our planet and appear almost exactly the same size to us. No coincidence that the Western civilisation adopted the sun as their emblem while the Easter ones adopted the moon.

As this is a tennis forum, i can also point at those funny diametrically opposites: Is that a coincidence that Borg and McEnroe played in the same era? Edberg and Becker? Federer and Nadal? etc..etc...Imagine if we had Borg, Wilander, Chang and hewitt being of teh same generation and then McEnroe, federer, Edberg playing in the same era..... but the world or nature doesn;t quite work like that. It has a sense of "balance" without never quite repeating itself.

It's true that science doesn't yet have the answers to everything, there are still some doubts especially considering the origin of everything.
But it's important to understand that it's a far stretch to go from saying that, to then saying any of the major religions are true or what Tenez is saying here is true.
Tenez is indicating that there's something supernatural or spiritual in the way Federer and Nadal have risen as rivals, presumably as they are so different they 'balance'. That is actually beyond crazy if you think about it.  
I sometimes wonder why Tenez, despite being knowledgable in facts and informed on tennis, gets his analysis and predictions so badly wrong so often, and then keeps losing debates. How?
It's because he genuinely believes that divine intervention has created a dichotomy of 'good' and 'evil', and he's on a side of that. When NITB said she genuinely believed Nadal and Satan were linked, Tenez seemed to agree and a few days later brought it up after Nadal got a lucky line call, saying 'this is what NITB was saying, satanic luck'.
Even some Federer fans privately tell me that the hate Nadal gets from NITB and Tenez on here seems so unreasonable it's like religious fanaticism... and unfortunately that's proved to not even be a simile or a metaphor, it's the literal truth for them.

It is not difficult to understand though. Order and chaos follow each other everywhere in nature. It's not a question of believing in god or evil..unless you call order God and chaos Evil, which one is perfectly entitled by the way. I personally don't. I think both are necessary. We know for instance that Cancer evolved with human life too. Mushroom developed to decompose and control dead wood which was amassing and occupying huge space unecessarily.  

To take the example of Federer, I think he is the ultimate professor of tennis, has learnt and applied everything by the letter when it comes to tennis (take the ball early, keep head still on BH, go to the net at the first opportunity, knowing how to volley etc...) and doing all that to save a maximum of energy like a bird flies with much less energy than a plane or any model we can build. That to me is "order". Nadal's game came to destroy all that by sending a ball which is difficult to control, by making Federer run and break his talent, exhausting him and making look older at the end of a 4 or 5th setter than he would against the rest. I see Nadal's game as based on destroying any form of talent, or making sure that talent who play a lesser role as the match extends. One can call this "satanic", chaos, or else. It doesn't matter. I quite like to describe life with images more than a purely scientific boring way. You might say Nadal has talent to break federer down, I'd say yes like cancer or a virus can destroy a human being even though it is much less complex than their victim.

Food for thoughts.

Tenez

Posts : 17157
Join date : 2012-06-18

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: This Is What A Feminist Looks Like

Post by Tenez on Tue Oct 10, 2017 10:38 am

bogbrush wrote:The only difficult question, as Amrit says, is how do we get energy from nothing (matter coalesces from energy so that's not a problem). That is where I said study of black holes is critical because they are a match for the pre-Big Bang environment. I have read that vast energy might arise from miniscule variations in a void; already we know there is something called vacuum energy which involves the concept of energy coming into existence due to quantum fluctuations - something from nothing!
That was my question, not Amri's btw. But also, As mentioned many times, it does not matter "how" but "why" so the main question will still be unanswered. Why is there gravity and time. We can do wonderful things with electricity....we still don't know why electrons exist and turn around a mass.

As I see is, it's like saying 0 = 1 - 1. Agreed? But what if the 1 and the -1 very rarely became separated? Then we'd have a stray 1 and a stray -1 floating around so we'd have two somethings from nothing. At the quantum level it is known that fluctuations blink in and out so it's not unreasonable.
Yep and how can mass disappear and with it time as well? But again, it follow physical laws. Why are there such laws?

The evolution of atoms to Federers 18th Slam is all fairly simple in my book, a load of known processes set on run for billions of years.
Yes...but it is bizarre you are still not surprised this process started only once in the observable universe. But I give up on this.

If you want to get really freaked out, try this;

- It is a proven fact that Einsteins prediction of the variable nature of time show that time is not a constant. This was even shown 50+ years ago using atomic clocks sent into different gravitational positions and the observed time slippage matched his calculations exactly. Thie the therefore not quite the constant we imagine!
- the same theories suggest time might not move at all at the most extreme positions, in which case concepts of before and after might fall apart.
Yes. It was done by flying 2 planes with precise clocks. One going Eastwards, the other westwards.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hafele%E2%80%93Keating_experiment
but that is an experiment you can reproduce at will. So far we have not been able to create a spontaneous generation like it happened roughly 3.8 billion years ago.

Tenez

Posts : 17157
Join date : 2012-06-18

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: This Is What A Feminist Looks Like

Post by bogbrush on Tue Oct 10, 2017 6:44 pm

Why is irrelevant. It’s presupposes a need for an inspiration.

You ask how can it do this but why not? Physical laws just descriptions.

Nonsense, the process has almost certainly started countless times. That we have so far looked closely at almost nowhere does nothing to inform us.

I’m afraid that if you really are so desperate to believe in a will behind all this I can’t help you. It’s up to you if you really insist on imagining a prime mover, in the complete absence of any evidence.

bogbrush

Posts : 1136
Join date : 2015-03-30

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: This Is What A Feminist Looks Like

Post by DECIMA on Wed Oct 11, 2017 10:36 am

Tenez wrote:It is not difficult to understand though. Order and chaos follow each other everywhere in nature. It's not a question of believing in god or evil..unless you call order God and chaos Evil, which one is perfectly entitled by the way. I personally don't. I think both are necessary. We know for instance that Cancer evolved with human life too. Mushroom developed to decompose and control dead wood which was amassing and occupying huge space unecessarily.

To take the example of Federer, I think he is the ultimate professor of tennis, has learnt and applied everything by the letter when it comes to tennis (take the ball early, keep head still on BH, go to the net at the first opportunity, knowing how to volley etc...) and doing all that to save a maximum of energy like a bird flies with much less energy than a plane or any model we can build. That to me is "order". Nadal's game came to destroy all that by sending a ball which is difficult to control, by making Federer run and break his talent, exhausting him and making look older at the end of a 4 or 5th setter than he would against the rest. I see Nadal's game as based on destroying any form of talent, or making sure that talent who play a lesser role as the match extends. One can call this "satanic", chaos, or else. It doesn't matter. I quite like to describe life with images more than a purely scientific boring way. You might say Nadal has talent to break federer down, I'd say yes like cancer or a virus can destroy a human being even though it is much less complex than their victim.

Food for thoughts.
I'll give you credit and say that for the most part of this thread, you've made fair and reasonable points, and asked pertinent questions.
But this post is really off the rails. If you posted the second paragraph by itself in a thread about tennis that would be alright, it would be a good post for a healthy debate. But with the first paragraph along with it, and in the context of the debate on this thread, it's absolutely crazy. Can you not see that?
The idea there's something supernatural or spiritual in the fact Federer and Nadal have different styles and are at the top in a similar time period is one of the most loony things I've heard. And this sort of mindset from you is probably why your analysis and predictions are so often wrong and narrow mindedly against Nadal.

DECIMA

Posts : 4429
Join date : 2013-05-03

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: This Is What A Feminist Looks Like

Post by DECIMA on Wed Oct 11, 2017 10:38 am

bogbrush wrote:
The only difficult question, as Amrit says, is how do we get energy from nothing (matter coalesces from energy so that's not a problem). That is where I said study of black holes is critical because they are a match for the pre-Big Bang environment. I have read that vast energy might arise from miniscule variations in a void; already we know there is something called vacuum energy which involves the concept of energy coming into existence due to quantum fluctuations - something from nothing!

As I see is, it's like saying 0 = 1 - 1. Agreed? But what if the 1 and the -1 very rarely became separated? Then we'd have a stray 1 and a stray -1 floating around so we'd have two somethings from nothing. At the quantum level it is known that fluctuations blink in and out so it's not unreasonable.
Ah wow, that's so clever actually.

DECIMA

Posts : 4429
Join date : 2013-05-03

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: This Is What A Feminist Looks Like

Post by luvsports! on Wed Oct 11, 2017 10:45 am

Crikey, i've missed a lot on this thread! 
Is Andy Murray -1?

luvsports!

Posts : 4017
Join date : 2012-09-28

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: This Is What A Feminist Looks Like

Post by bogbrush on Wed Oct 11, 2017 2:41 pm

DECIMA wrote:
bogbrush wrote:
The only difficult question, as Amrit says, is how do we get energy from nothing (matter coalesces from energy so that's not a problem). That is where I said study of black holes is critical because they are a match for the pre-Big Bang environment. I have read that vast energy might arise from miniscule variations in a void; already we know there is something called vacuum energy which involves the concept of energy coming into existence due to quantum fluctuations - something from nothing!

As I see is, it's like saying 0 = 1 - 1. Agreed? But what if the 1 and the -1 very rarely became separated? Then we'd have a stray 1 and a stray -1 floating around so we'd have two somethings from nothing. At the quantum level it is known that fluctuations blink in and out so it's not unreasonable.
Ah wow, that's so clever actually.
If you liked that, read about Hawking radiation.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hawking_radiation

This is the part that most closely represents my point;

"An alternative view of the process is that vacuum fluctuations cause a particle–antiparticle pair to appear close to the event horizon of a black hole. One of the pair falls into the black hole while the other escapes. In order to preserve total energy, the particle that fell into the black hole must have had a negative energy (with respect to an observer far away from the black hole). This causes the black hole to lose mass, and, to an outside observer, it would appear that the black hole has just emitted a particle."

bogbrush

Posts : 1136
Join date : 2015-03-30

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: This Is What A Feminist Looks Like

Post by Tenez on Wed Oct 11, 2017 7:27 pm

DECIMA wrote:...I'll give you credit and say that for the most part of this thread, you've made fair and reasonable points, and asked pertinent questions.
But this post is really off the rails. If you posted the second paragraph by itself in a thread about tennis that would be alright, it would be a good post for a healthy debate. But with the first paragraph along with it, and in the context of the debate on this thread, it's absolutely crazy. Can you not see that?
The idea there's something supernatural or spiritual in the fact Federer and Nadal have different styles and are at the top in a similar time period is one of the most loony things I've heard. And this sort of mindset from you is probably why your analysis and predictions are so often wrong and narrow mindedly against Nadal.

What wrong did I say? Truth doesn't care about being crazy or loony. It simply is truth.

You know the saying "A fool thinks himself to be wise, but a wise man knows himself to be a fool.

Tenez

Posts : 17157
Join date : 2012-06-18

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: This Is What A Feminist Looks Like

Post by Sponsored content


Sponsored content


Back to top Go down

Page 4 of 6 Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6  Next

View previous topic View next topic Back to top


 
Permissions in this forum:
You cannot reply to topics in this forum