Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.


Messages - paddy

Pages: [1] 2 3 4
1
Technology, Science & Alt Science / Re: Time
« on: January 23, 2009, 01:35:19 PM »
That's no proof, I don't remember what I did last week.. But seriously, we would only have memories of one of those time lines, the one we lived in.
Your assuming other time lines exist, or order to not remember them.
Occam's razor suggests it is more likely one time line exists, because the effect is the same, and one time line is simpler.
When it comes to Occam's Razor, don't take shaving lessons from Tom Bishop.

The universal top speed of the speed of light, time dilation, gravitational bending of space, relative frames - these are very counter intuitive concepts but the math supports them and they have lead to successful predictions of astronomical phenomena. 

Then we add quantum mechanics into the mix, wave/particle duality - the double slot experiment defies all logic.  As of right now, the concept of parallel timelines is actually taken seriously in physics.  It won't have a huge impact on your life in all likelihood as you cannot interact with them in any way, but they may very well exist.

Also, your memories are based on patterns of data stored in your brain that have been built up in this timeline - so not remembering them is of course expected, not a complicating factor.

2
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: God
« on: January 22, 2009, 04:25:05 PM »
I am a devout christian, and I can say to you that there isn't any real evidense that he is real. But you have to believe and trust him and after awhile you know he is real.

Well thank goodness you weren't born to a family of Scientologists.  Or Buddhists, Hindus.... etc etc.
Luckily you were born in the exactly right place to sponge up the teachings of the one true God - born somewhere else you could strapping explosives to your chest right this moment.

Edit:  If that comes across as too hash, my point is if you leave your moral compass up to something as
capricious as an unquestionable belief, you are basically throwing the dice.  You can feel as smug as you like if you feel your beliefs happen to coincide with a faith that has decent morals, but whether someone ends up a Buddhist that wouldn't harm a fly or a radical Muslim that would happily strap a bomb to a child's chest, both of them feel just as smug and morally righteous as you do.
It doesn't matter, he was banned for some reason. And I feel sorry for you, have a good time in Hell
For someone who has no proof whatsoever you sure are on the ready to condemn people you have never met.  I think your jealous, evil god is a bad influence on you.
You condemned yourself

How can someone condemn themselves? 

We all just live our lives, it's the guy upstairs (should he exist) that does the actual condemning.  You can believe he'd condemn someone for being skeptical, raising logical questions, etc if you like but that's just your opinion. 

3
Technology, Science & Alt Science / Re: How Life Began
« on: January 22, 2009, 12:44:39 PM »
Actually 99% of genetic mutations are neutral. Neither good nor bad.
Okay. But the chances of us progressing so far on less than a percent has to be in the billions.

It may seem counter intuitive, but humans have trouble actually comprehending the odds of winning the lottery - we don't tend to do well with very large numbers.

The very moment that the first non-living cells were able to replicate and complete, the evolutionary process started.  As it continued the mutated losers, became food for the mutated winners, which allowed the losers to actually help the winners.
More importantly, cell replication takes advantage of the 'power of two' principle.  One becomes two, two becomes four, etc...

2256 = 115,792,089,237,316,195,423,570,985,008,687,907,853,269,984,665,640,564,039,457,584,007,913,129,639,936

Essentially you end up with lots of cells to mutate, with the most beneficial mutations becoming dominant. 

Throw in a few billion years and it starts to appear more viable.


Regardless of that though, you should at least be able to see how cellular life could evolve out of non living self replicating cells given the factors mentioned above. 

4
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: DEATH
« on: January 22, 2009, 09:43:43 AM »
I honestly think the reason we fear death is not the fear of non-existence so much (we got alone fine before birth) but all the unfinished business we leave behind. 

If I were to be mortally wounded right now, there's a lot of people I wouldn't get to see, things left undone... all these things matter to me very much during life and hence get me out of bed in the morning.  No matter how long we live there is always more to live for, and to die always means one will be separated from those things forever.  To say I won't care because I'll be dead is to say they never mattered to begin with, which may be true but after a lifetime of needing to care it's a hard hell-whats-that-word* to reconcile. 

*you know that word.... when you have two incompatible ideas in your head at once that coexist by agreeing not to fight... I can't believe I forgot it.  >:(  >:(  >:(


On the other hand I don't think a person's consciousness is really "moving forward through time" and that the perception of that phenomenon is an illusion created by how our brains work.  So every moment we are conscious simply exists in a certain moment in time, each existing unchanging in their given moment in time... so our scope is finite but not really "ending" exactly, though I have no idea what the grand old effect will be all in all.

5
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: God
« on: January 22, 2009, 09:24:41 AM »
I am a devout christian, and I can say to you that there isn't any real evidense that he is real. But you have to believe and trust him and after awhile you know he is real.

Well thank goodness you weren't born to a family of Scientologists.  Or Buddhists, Hindus.... etc etc.
Luckily you were born in the exactly right place to sponge up the teachings of the one true God - born somewhere else you could strapping explosives to your chest right this moment.

Edit:  If that comes across as too hash, my point is if you leave your moral compass up to something as
capricious as an unquestionable belief, you are basically throwing the dice.  You can feel as smug as you like if you feel your beliefs happen to coincide with a faith that has decent morals, but whether someone ends up a Buddhist that wouldn't harm a fly or a radical Muslim that would happily strap a bomb to a child's chest, both of them feel just as smug and morally righteous as you do.
It doesn't matter, he was banned for some reason. And I feel sorry for you, have a good time in Hell

Don't cry for me King Man, I'm perfectly willing to go to Hell if that's what my moral beliefs require of me.   :)

Out of curiosity, what gives you the impression I'm hell bound anyway?  It's not like I said anything that everybody doesn't already know....


Genghis Khan enjoyed watching the families of people he killed weep in front of him, then he would kill them too.

Yeah, he's probably going to hell.   You'd pretty much have to be part of the Spanish Inquisition to do that sort of thing and still get into heaven. 

6
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: God
« on: January 22, 2009, 02:13:22 AM »
I am a devout christian, and I can say to you that there isn't any real evidense that he is real. But you have to believe and trust him and after awhile you know he is real.

Well thank goodness you weren't born to a family of Scientologists.  Or Buddhists, Hindus.... etc etc.
Luckily you were born in the exactly right place to sponge up the teachings of the one true God - born somewhere else you could strapping explosives to your chest right this moment.

Edit:  If that comes across as too hash, my point is if you leave your moral compass up to something as
capricious as an unquestionable belief, you are basically throwing the dice.  You can feel as smug as you like if you feel your beliefs happen to coincide with a faith that has decent morals, but whether someone ends up a Buddhist that wouldn't harm a fly or a radical Muslim that would happily strap a bomb to a child's chest, both of them feel just as smug and morally righteous as you do.

7
Flat Earth Debate / Re: BLAST Telescope
« on: January 17, 2009, 05:39:49 AM »
Quote
Dwight D. Eisenhower and his advisors, after being urged by congress to counter Soviet dominance in the space race.

So by the military, right, just what I said.

Quote
No, these guys were researchers. McMurdo is a research base.

Military research bases are also by invite only.

Quote
Proof?

Just look at their website.

Isn't it a research station?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McMurdo_Station


8
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Thoughts
« on: January 04, 2009, 01:38:35 AM »
I remember pulling a 30 odd hours coding run once on a project with a very tight deadline, and the thought crossed my mind that I could just die instead, and my whole body just relaxed so much at the thought it really freaked me out... gave me the impression you can run out of "will" the way you can run out of energy trying to swim to shore, and at some point what keeps you going may just dry up, so it made me want to be sure I never got there.

I've had random impulse thoughts, mostly under stressful situations like long periods of highly focused driving, it crosses my mind I can just turn the wheel and completely, irrevocably and radically change the sequence of events that are about to happen, but I think that is more a macabre fascination with the frailty of human existence and not about a desire to actually die.

When I was younger I had the idea if I ever decided to kill myself, I'd join the military or a group of monks or something - basically if I didn't want this life/body/ego deal I'd at least try to recycle it in some decent manner, so I guess I thought about it a little bit. 


But really, it just doesn't come up.  If I was crippled, or partially brain damaged, I may consider it.  I honestly don't know how I'd react to that, but as I am now, I really don't ever think about it.

9
The Lounge / Re: Top Selling Video Games
« on: December 31, 2008, 04:21:15 PM »
At least for consoles, I wonder how the list would break down if the numbers of sales were compared to the number of active consoles to get a "market domination" factor. 

10 Million copies of Super Mario 2 release over twenty years ago compared to 13 million copies of Sims 2 in the 2004 market isn't really a fair comparison. 
 
Of course, PC games never sell, they are only pirated (unless they're online play) so that's not a surprise.


Having missed everything in between the third Zelda up until Halo 2, I still think Ultima VI, the original Heroes Quest, and Wing Commander - Privateer are three of the best damn games ever made.  I guess I better get up and go yell at some kids to get off my lawn.

10
The Lounge / Re: My father's side of the family is really religious
« on: December 29, 2008, 02:01:21 PM »
"Fucking hell, why are we following a star?"

"What?"

"Why in the name of fuck have we been following a star for two damn years?!"

"...We're going to go the..."

"Don't give me that bullshit.  I'm tired.  Fuck the savior, I'm leaving."

"Well fuck off then, dick."

I wonder how far you could get following a star for 2 whole years.  I mean, it's not like being lost in the desert going in circles - you are following a star and going in a straight line. 

11
Technology, Science & Alt Science / Re: Thought Police!
« on: December 27, 2008, 01:39:11 PM »
I guess that's reasonable about human nature - but I think a lot of human nature comes from "nature" that goes back a lot farther than just to the "human" factor.  If someone tries to attack you, it is reasonable to expect you to either fight back or attempt to flee - it may not be universal, but it is fairly reasonable, so where does that come from?  Would that not be part of our "nature" to do so?  You can break a human the way you can break a horse, but aren't there some common underlying traits that lead to such reasonable expectations in such situations?

Regarding the concept of basic human rights, I may need to clarify myself a bit:  I don't feel that we have any special "endowed" rights from any creator or such.  When I think of basic human rights, I think of the lowest common denominator of trigger points where, if you push someone, they'll push back.  There is nothing stopping one group of people from oppressing another, but to do so will require strong-arming them, or at least tricking them into thinking they are not being oppressed. 

The core most basic desires of any individual, which generally are to "live in a fashion they feel gives them the best chance to prosper, and hopefully procreate" are fairly universal.  When we have a society that tries to mediate individuals that are at the same time symbiotic and competitive, those are the key drives we try to keep from clashing.  We create the concept of basic human rights which, is inherently subjective, but it's designed to address those drives, which are more or less objective

That's pretty much how I define "basic human rights" if that helps clarify at all.

12
Technology, Science & Alt Science / Re: Thought Police!
« on: December 26, 2008, 03:51:35 AM »
But the problem that comes from that is the legitimacy of rebellion, which must come from the individual and can't be justified outside of himself. This leads right back to the problem of relativism and individualism.

Legitimacy of rebellion is definitely a very "gray" area - take the issue of secession.  If a region votes in favor of secession, do they have the right to?  How big does that region have to be - does it have to be a whole state, or can it be just one district within a state?  If one person in a neighborhood is against it and has been paying taxes their whole lives in support of their country, and even served in the military, and then is told that because their neighbors see fit to secede - that the nation he's defended and supported will no longer defend him if his neighbors try to "nationalize" his property?  This seems unfair, just as it seems unfair to unilaterally suppress secession. 

It is impossible to respect everyone's basic rights all the time - but I guess I don't see that as the issue.  The way I see it, I would not blame the fellow for violently defending his home, and I wouldn't blame the region for violently defending their right to secede. 

If I was a prison guard walking a condemned prisoner to his execution, I would not blame the guy for trying to kill me and escape - I'd be party to his slaying, and he has a basic right to resist.  At the same time, I have a basic right not to let the guy kill me, and would fight back and try to kill him if he tried. 

Such simple examples are pretty easy to follow, and while more complex examples lead to subjective assessments of the situation, the situation itself is based on some rather universal factors in human nature. 

The concept of basic human rights is subjective in that we don't have a universal way of looking at it, or understanding it, but it's based on some fairly hard to deny universal principles of human nature.

13
Technology, Science & Alt Science / Re: Thought Police!
« on: December 25, 2008, 03:27:21 PM »
I think the real reason this is a confusing issue is we are using the word "right" in different contexts without clearly defining them.

Personally, I would propose a break down like this:

Basic Human Right - essentially something that one "cannot rationally begrudge another person for doing" and while vague, and hard to define, is at the heart of all laws regarding "rights" in general

Legal Right - a legal protection within a society of laws designed to best recognize Basic Human Rights to the best of the ability of the governing consensus. 


For instance, we generally believe people have the basic right to govern themselves - to influence the decisions of the government that governs them.  This general belief comes from some observation of human nature, and may be imperfect, but it is trying to account for something real in human nature. 

Then we have the Legal Right to vote, which is based on our government's solution to try to allow people to govern themselves as per our particular flavor of democracy.  That legal right can be taken away, in the case of convicted felons and such.  A resident alien does not have that right in this country, to protect diluting that right of full citizens. 

Even when it comes to the death penalty, the state may execute a person, which can be viewed as a violation of their basic rights, but at the same time it is to protect the basic rights of the public at large from that individual.  (whether or not misguided...different topic)

But the concept of basic rights comes from the simple premise that all men (and women) are created equal, and the tendency in human nature to resist against certain acts of oppression.  I'd go so far as to say taxation without representation appears to be inherently unstable due to qualities inherent in human nature. 


So, you can think of legal rights as a means to try to accommodate our best understanding of what appear to be basic human rights.  A society could say "you have no right to defy the Emperor" but, should the Emperor come up to you and ask you to slit your own throat for his amusement, he shouldn't be surprised if you slit his instead.  If he is, then he has little understanding of human nature, and basic human rights.

14
The Lounge / Re: Sharing my little side project
« on: December 24, 2008, 08:42:01 PM »
Whoah, does this mean I could actually compile iphone apps without having to buy a Mac?

If that's the case you just might be, in fact, my hero.

15
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Would you still be you?
« on: December 24, 2008, 04:36:08 PM »
I'm loving how well this debate is going.  I think we've brought up some really interesting point of views.

So, have we concluded that two copies of the same conciousness cannot exist as one conciousness but as two seperate ones?  How strange if you could see from two different perspectives.

I recall watching some show on TV a long time ago, when they were still studying experimental surgeries to deal with extreme cases of epilepsy, specifically surgically separating the two hemispheres of the brain by cutting the bridge - the results were really freaky imo. 

They found they could communicate information to the individual using only senses on one side of the person's head, and then request the information via the other, and the person would simply not know it.  For instance, they told a fellow in one ear, to leave the room, and after he got up, they stopped him, and asked in the other why he was leaving.  He said he was thirsty, and wanted to get a soda - but that side of him had no idea he was asked to get up and leave.

It led me to believe that both the individual consciousness of a person can be split, and also that (on a different topic) a good chunk of our thoughts seem to be dedicated to rationalizing what we do, instead of making decisions.  It's an interesting thought - maybe you get up for a rational reason, or get up for an artistic reason, and maybe you have both thoughts at once in different areas of the mind, because one or both is a rationalization, due to temporary dissonance between the hemispheres. 

How common is it to get angry at someone for BS reasons, because we are already having a bad day?  We may say something mean, and at first tell ourselves its because "they were being a dick" and a few moments later, realize we were being harsh because it's just been a rough day.  Is that late realization due to "the computation of thought coming to that conclusion" or is it the delay in propagation of information from another area of the mind that already realized it?  Did another part of our mind "know" already and make the decision to be harsh to that person, just because other people had been pissing us off all day?


As for "seeing from two perspectives" I can't see that happening without a data bridge between the two individuals and their respective sensory systems (including the sense of "internal dialog" that allows us to be aware of our thoughts).  If that bridge can be separated in a single human mind and cause dissonance, the complete lack of a bridge would create the same effect.

But then, is the person with a split mind really "two consciousnesses" or one, with two aspects that are not aware of each other?  Is there any difference - between that "individual's" experience and two clones' experiences, and even the experience of all humans at once - is there any difference between the consciousness of two people separated by a physical body separation and one person with two hemispheres separated by surgery? Of course, "I still see stuff from here" and everyone else "sees stuff from there" but it's an interesting concept, including if you ever did get your hemispheres separated, would you suddenly see out of your left eye for the rest of your life, or your right eye?

16
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Would a clone have a soul?
« on: December 18, 2008, 08:50:38 PM »
Another question:  Your friend who saved your life once is dying, and gets cloned and has his consciousness transferred.  Before the original is destroyed, someone busts into the room and says they have a cure that will let him live in perfect health, but with a 10% of relapse.  You, him, his clone all go rock climbing, and due to an accident, you can save the original or the clone.  Which do you save, and does it matter?

That is an interesting one.  I don't know.  How would I know who the clone was and who the original was?  Would the clone have a different personality or wear something specific so that I know who is who?  It would be incredibly difficult to let one of them die either way.  I'd have to see the look on their face as they've realized I haven't chosen to save them.  That would affect me greatly.

It is kind of a harsh question I guess, and that is a good answer. 

I never actually answered your original question:  I would let myself be downloaded into the computer, but I would see that as an entity "patterned on me" and not myself being transferred.  I am pretty partial to my goals and views, and don't plan to have children (which I don't see as a continuation of one's own will anyway) so it would be a way to allow my work to continue after I am gone, but not extend my consciousness specifically.

17
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Would a clone have a soul?
« on: December 18, 2008, 08:47:26 PM »

Is the original destroyed?  When I move software, I have two choices, copy it to a new location or simply move it to that location.  If your thought patterns and other mental processes are moved rather than copied, you would still be you.  Now, if the soul is a metaphysical bit that requires some sort of higher power to create or manipulate, you would no longer be you.  If on the other hand, the soul is the aggregate of all of your experiences, the mental extension of your life, then you would still be you after being put in the machine.

(I don't think they can make a computer that is as complex as the brain or store a person in one, but that was not the focus of that question.)

About the Star Trek transporter.... I wouldn't get on one either, but going by the Canon facts, it's safe.  You are broken down into your component parts and moved to a new location where you are reassembled according to the map made as you were disassembled.  No different than moving a file in a computer.

The thing is, when you move the software, if it is from one drive to another, bits are written to the destination drive, and then deleted from the original drive after the fact.  (technically speaking, the original file is 'unlinked' so it is no longer considered protected in-use space, but it doesn't get erased until a new file buzzes over those bits with new data...but it does effectively end up deleted at some point) 
If that file had consciousness, then it would observe that odd feeling of having all it's bits read, then it's pattern of bits overwritten in such a way that destroys the pattern, and if the pattern is what creates the consciousness, then obliterate it's consciousness in the process.

All 'move' is in terms of computer files, is a copy with a post-op delete of the original.  This only varies when you move files within the same hard drive, in which case only the directory meta data is modified. 


I think continuity of consciousness is real, for a healthy human.  Even when you are sleeping, you still hear and absorb input from your surroundings.  Only when you lose contact with everything around you, IE. Blackouts, comas, extremely high fevers, do you lose that continuity.  Perhaps that is why some people come out of experiences like that with severe personality changes.

In your climbing question, I would save my friend.  He is known to me, and we have history.  The clone is someone I just met and may or may not mean anything to me at this time.  It does matter.  The clone may remember everything my friend does, but since he awoke, he has been having experiences that make him different.  He may be very close to my friend, but he is not the same.  Plus, my friend has lived through a life threatening illness that I was there for, and that would change him even more. as well as bringing us closer together than the being that doesn't remember that.

Plus, my friend is the one who saved my life and I owe that person, not the fruit of his loins or whatever a clone would be considered.

I have to agree with you 100% here.  For me, the way I see it is "the individual looking out from behind that set of eyes" was there when they saved my life, the clone has the experience, and could not experientially know they are not the original - but they still aren't. 

18
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Would a clone have a soul?
« on: December 18, 2008, 12:01:58 AM »
Let's say you're on your deathbed and this is a great deal in the future.  A doctor has offered you two choices.  1.  You die and 2. Your memories, thoughts, and emotions can be downloaded on a machine so that you can continue to live.  If you choose the second one...are you really still alive?

I'd have to say no, because, we are talking about one's consciousness.  I think a new consciousness would begin, and the old "you" would die.  This is because, when you look at it, it's not a "transfer" but a destructive copy process.  All the attributes of your consciousness are first duplicated, then the original is destroyed.  You would see the machine whir to life from your bed, and then the lights would go out. 

On a similar note - I wouldn't step onto a star-trek transporter either.  I am pretty sure I'd "die" and a doppelganger would take my place at the other location.  The copy would be sure the transporter worked, unable to tell it's consciousness only began that second, and decide they are entirely safe and don't interfere with the continuity of a conscious being's experience, but that would be an illusion.

That.... or all continuity of consciousness is an illusion - for all I know the individual life-cycle of consciousness only exists for a millisecond, or until one falls asleep... no way to know for sure.  Not being able to know - I think I'd play it safe.


Another question:  Your friend who saved your life once is dying, and gets cloned and has his consciousness transferred.  Before the original is destroyed, someone busts into the room and says they have a cure that will let him live in perfect health, but with a 10% of relapse.  You, him, his clone all go rock climbing, and due to an accident, you can save the original or the clone.  Which do you save, and does it matter?

19
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Nullipotent Being
« on: December 17, 2008, 11:47:09 PM »
Isn't that like saying if a being is omnipotent, that it should be able to create a rock that is not a rock, and since that is impossible, an omnipotent being is impossible? 

Also, it strikes me as a bit of an assumption to think we could make broad sweeping claims as to what an omnipotent being could and could not do, given our little brains.

If this guy takes it any farther, he best be extra careful at zebra crossings.

20
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Athiest World
« on: December 17, 2008, 11:40:46 PM »
Out of curiosity, what do theists want from atheists?

Looking back, and thinking about all the religious people I've known:  the wisest Christian, the wisest Wiccan, the wisest Buddhist, the wisest Hindu, the wisest Muslim, the wisest Jewish person, etc... no two of them could agree on which religion was right.  Even within Christianity, the wisest Catholic, the wisest Mormon, the wisest Baptist, the wisest Jehovah Witness - no two of them could agree on which branch of Christianity was right

There are atheists who are annoying as hell I am sure - just as there are annoying people of all faiths or lack thereof, but they don't seem any more annoying that the zealous vegans or greenies or any other human with a specifically zealous cause. 

If you want to believe that Atheists are somehow less moral than religious people, I guess you can keep checking your closest and under the bed for them before you go to sleep, what ever floats your boat.... but what exactly do you want from us?

21
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Beware the window...
« on: December 17, 2008, 10:51:16 PM »
We observe the earth to be flat.

FET posits that it is because it is flat.

RET posits that it is because the whirling globe we are on is so large that it only appears flat up close.

RET clearly has much more on its plate concerning the burden of scientific responsibility than does FET.

I get the whole "observe the earth to be flat" thing when you look out your window, and view the horizon.  What about all the other things you observe out your window?  Seasons, the motion of the starts, the phases of the moon, the shift in the sun's rising/setting points and all that?

The moment you observe all of those phenomena just outside your window, you are observing facts that are hard to explain within FET.  Maybe RET has a higher burden - but RET does explain all these things, with a single, simple model.  FET tries to incorporate all kinds of strange things such as celestial gears, constant acceleration - things we do not see anywhere else in nature and exist only as ideas created for the purpose of trying to make a FET model feasible. 

FET does not explain all you see from your window.  It explains one observation - that the horizon looks flat.

22
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Atheists! Are They Brave!
« on: December 12, 2008, 05:05:13 AM »
What your doing that's making you dare to this challenge? and ready to get punished if you were wrong? I admit I cannot be like you guys, and I believe countless number of humans can't be like Atheists? what's the secret behind that guts?

Really, it's just about living an honest life.  I honestly can't believe in any of our earthly religions, so if that gets me sent to hell, so be it - at least I am doing what I think is right, which is more important than where my soul ends up anyway.



On a side note:  (specifically to Cheryl Wiesbaden's comments)

I have to agree with moonlit on this one.  Or, to my best understanding of her position that is.  If God is omnipotent, then how could we know God?  We could think we know God, but how would we know it's not just some other nearly omnipotent being, that wasn't involved in the whole creation of the universe?  Someone can claim to know God, but how can you know if they do?  Maybe it's God, maybe it's delusion, maybe it's Xenu. 

The fact is, any entity with powers approaching that of God, would be indistinguishable from God to anyone in our position.  As for those who know God - do you doubt David Koresh's faith?  He truly believed he knew god, but did he?  Do clerics that sanction suicide bombers blowing up kids know God as well as they believe they know God?  Did those that truly believed interracial marriage was an abomination against the Bible know God?

We have a whole world filled with people that believe they know God very well, and yet so many of them only believe "them and theirs" have it right.  It is not hypocritical to assess the reasonably as to whether a human can know God or not.  It's merely the application of observation and reason.

23
Flat Earth Debate / Re: The injustice of John Hampden
« on: December 09, 2008, 01:37:32 PM »
Causation vs Correlation applies here I think.   

1) It is reasonable to assess most reasonable people including judges at that time found the idea of a Flat Earth rather unreasonable, and would have trouble swallowing claims that it was flat.

2) It's reasonable to assess he lost the case for reasons other than his Flat Earth claims, or any bias of those judging him. 

24
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Mile Markers, Odometers, and bears - Oh my!
« on: December 07, 2008, 06:12:46 PM »
....should I just call this a win for RE?  Unless someone can explain the 'odometer/mile marker' issue in a manner that supports FET, it's a pretty huge hole in the theory...

25
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Mile Markers, Odometers, and bears - Oh my!
« on: December 07, 2008, 02:19:38 PM »
....can anyone explain how FE accounts for this?

If FET is correct, there must be a rational explanation.

26
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Mile Markers, Odometers, and bears - Oh my!
« on: December 06, 2008, 05:30:37 PM »
I did a search first, but didn't find anything so I'll start a new post:

Highway mile markers - how do they always manage to match up with the odometer on my car regardless of how far north/south I am?

My car is a little old, so no chips or GPS to allow conspirators to manipulate my odometer... but no matter how far north, or south, or whether I am traveling north/south or east/west the numbers seem to always match up with RET data.

There should be significant distortion between the mile marker postings on the highway and what my odometer reads depending on how far north/south I am if the world is flat.


How does FET account for this?

So, how come the map you were using to compare with the distances you measured with your odometer is drawn on a plane?

Also, before you started driving, people built the road and used a small wheel to measure distances between the mile markers.

1) Flat maps are a lot more "handy" to carry around, and the distortions are built into the map, which are exceptionally minor at small scales.  However the map doesn't even factor into this issue - we are only talking about mile markers and odometers.

2) Using the small wheel to measure the distances between the markers is part of Round Earth Theory.  According to Flat Earth Theory we live on a disk and RE distance measurements and maps are all faked by a conspiracy, including GPS to account for the northern hemisphere compression and southern hemisphere expansion.  They'd have to use a bigger wheel (for east/west roads) the farther south they got to keep the measurements in line with the fake maps and fake GPS data to fake the impression of a round Earth. 

The problem though, is even if they fake the mile markers, there is no explanation of how a car's odometer can match up to all the?se different, faked measures at different latitudes.

So you say we neglect the discrepancies between the maps and the real measurements to conclude that RE gives correct predictions. Nice.

The distance between two points measured by a small wheel does not depend on the shape of the Earth. It is 1 mile. Period.

That's my point.  FE states that due to the shape of the Earth being a disk, RE maps are wrong, and tools such as GPS send falsified data to convince people they are on a Round Earth.  False data sent via GPS is at least somewhat plausible, and has been discussed a lot on these forums.  What has not is how distances on land can be falsified when we have things like odometers and mile markers.  Since 1 mile is 1 mile, period (as you said), and you can use the mile markers to see this, and your odometer to see this, any false data from a GPS that claims you've moved more or less than a mile would become obvious.


How does FET reconcile the "RE maps are false, and GPS's lie" with the fact they appear to tell the truth as per mile marker indicators on highways, which can be corroborated with readings from your car's odometer?

27
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Mile Markers, Odometers, and bears - Oh my!
« on: December 06, 2008, 01:57:27 PM »
I did a search first, but didn't find anything so I'll start a new post:

Highway mile markers - how do they always manage to match up with the odometer on my car regardless of how far north/south I am?

My car is a little old, so no chips or GPS to allow conspirators to manipulate my odometer... but no matter how far north, or south, or whether I am traveling north/south or east/west the numbers seem to always match up with RET data.

There should be significant distortion between the mile marker postings on the highway and what my odometer reads depending on how far north/south I am if the world is flat.


How does FET account for this?

So, how come the map you were using to compare with the distances you measured with your odometer is drawn on a plane?

Also, before you started driving, people built the road and used a small wheel to measure distances between the mile markers.

1) Flat maps are a lot more "handy" to carry around, and the distortions are built into the map, which are exceptionally minor at small scales.  However the map doesn't even factor into this issue - we are only talking about mile markers and odometers.

2) Using the small wheel to measure the distances between the markers is part of Round Earth Theory.  According to Flat Earth Theory we live on a disk and RE distance measurements and maps are all faked by a conspiracy, including GPS to account for the northern hemisphere compression and southern hemisphere expansion.  They'd have to use a bigger wheel (for east/west roads) the farther south they got to keep the measurements in line with the fake maps and fake GPS data to fake the impression of a round Earth. 

The problem though, is even if they fake the mile markers, there is no explanation of how a car's odometer can match up to all these different, faked measures at different latitudes.

28
Flat Earth Debate / Re: I feel I must try
« on: December 06, 2008, 03:29:00 AM »
...I am as sure that this one precise ninja-like post will blow all the FEers away and force them to convert to RE, as I am sure your points are entirely new and have not been discussed beyond death in a thousand other threads. 

29
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Another attempt at explaining satellites.
« on: December 06, 2008, 03:17:09 AM »
On a note about the "hologram" projection onto transparent surfaces:  They only add light, not dark opaque areas.  Aren't there photos satellites and the ISS passing in front of the moon and/or the sun?  The opacity is an illusion created by reflecting enough light off the vaporous material so to 'bleed out' that is behind it, giving the impression of a solid image in mid air.  If you watched a satellite pass in front of a star, or the ISS, you would see the star pass through the dark areas as if it was in front of the image.  I think this would have been noticed by now considering how many people observe these.

30
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Mile Markers, Odometers, and bears - Oh my!
« on: December 06, 2008, 01:54:05 AM »
WHERE ARE THE BEARS?

Well, they are on the roads in the more northern areas, causing you to swerve a lot, and adding mileage to the route thus compensating for and false RE map 'compression' of lateral distances near the center of the earth disk.  There are also tiny, invisible bears that like to travel in the same direction as you in the southern hemisphere, and push your tires along, giving the false impression you've covered less distance.  Bears are basically landfish.

That, or I got nothing.  Maybe subconsciously I just wanted to make a public service announcement about bear awareness. 

Pages: [1] 2 3 4