Sure there is! Just undeny Free Will. ;-)
No, in fact, it's almost diametrically opposite to religion. Religions
What I ment with 'religion' is that 'free will' is assumed as a given fact,
---John Fields wrote:
---
Then you support the proposition that we're not really here?
No. A kick in the balls tells us that we exist. However, we are just
observers. Either we do what we are programmed by genes and memes to
do, or we do what we do due to quantum randomness. Either was we're
F&*Łed. There is just no escape from this conclusion.
Its actually all so simple really.
---
there is no reason that there should be any reason for
anything. Some in physics are taking the view that the mass-energy
just appeared, from nowhere.
---
That, then, started it all off and out of that maelstrom eventually
came the first idea.
---
Yes.
---
Then you agree that my earlier statement:
"There had to have been, however, something which started it all off."
Is correct?
To clarify, what "started" everything was, if the proposition is correct,
the creation of mass-energy. OK.
However, nothing "started" this "start". It just happened. On its own, for
no reason whatsoever., in my view. I see no reason why there should be a
reason.
Physics is characterised by "The laws of physics". However, these
laws can only exist, presumably, if mass-energy exists. In a truly
empty universe, there can not be any laws that prohit anything.
Therefor, in an empty univese here is no reason why mass-energy
cannot simple appear from nowhere
I favour this position, as I see no other reasonable alternative.
When all else is proven false, what remains must be answer..
---
Yes, but you've proven nothing, only proposed a hypothesis.
err....That was a *quote* by...Sherlock Holmes.
---
Probably more properly attributed, then, to Sir Arthur Conan Doyle,
since Holmes was his idea And Sir Arthur just plucked the quote out of
thin air.
You mean Sherlock Holmes wasn't a real person? wow...
The context in which you used it, however, was designed to lend
credence to your "it-just-popped-into-existence" hypothesis, for
which you have no proof.
It's the simplest solution. Apply ochams razor...
Either mass-energy has been here always, or it hasn't.
Cosmological evidence and theory indicts that there was a start to the
universe. Theory (General Relativity) says that the concentrated mass could
not have exited in that same state indefinitely prior. Therefore the
conclusion is that the mass-energy just came into existence. However..there
are other theories...
---
Physics does not prove anything, but gives evidence to support its
propositions. Truth can never be proved.
---
Is that the truth?
---
The explanation of the universe as a combination of classical
mechanics and quantum mechanics has extensive support.
Fundamentally, its all we have, well not unless you are a Jesus
freak, or some other such numpty.
There *are* no other hypothesis available. The brain is a mass-energy
machine. It obeys the obeys the laws of physics or it doesn't. I
believe it does. The evidence for this is overwhelming, imo.
---
"There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, than are dreamt
of in your philosophy."
There is no heaven. What evidence do you have that there is more to the
universe than mass-energy physics? Hint James Randi...
---
Well, I know mine's a fact, because I can feel it with the certainty
Impossible; the Univers is MADE OF Free Will:
Any name,god,fairy,gnome can be used to prove nothing.
Or a Democrat-driven catastrophe?On Fri, 24 Oct 2008 17:14:09 GMT, "Kevin Aylward"
kaExtractThis@kevinaylward.co.uk> wrote:
John Fields wrote:
---
Then you support the proposition that we're not really here?
No. A kick in the balls tells us that we exist. However, we are just
observers. Either we do what we are programmed by genes and memes to
do, or we do what we do due to quantum randomness. Either was we're
F&*ÂŁed. There is just no escape from this conclusion.
Its actually all so simple really.
---
there is no reason that there should be any reason for
anything. Some in physics are taking the view that the mass-energy
just appeared, from nowhere.
---
That, then, started it all off and out of that maelstrom eventually
came the first idea.
---
Yes.
---
Then you agree that my earlier statement:
"There had to have been, however, something which started it all off."
Is correct?
To clarify, what "started" everything was, if the proposition is correct,
the creation of mass-energy. OK.
However, nothing "started" this "start". It just happened. On its own, for
no reason whatsoever., in my view. I see no reason why there should be a
reason.
Physics is characterised by "The laws of physics". However, these
laws can only exist, presumably, if mass-energy exists. In a truly
empty universe, there can not be any laws that prohit anything.
Therefor, in an empty univese here is no reason why mass-energy
cannot simple appear from nowhere
I favour this position, as I see no other reasonable alternative.
When all else is proven false, what remains must be answer..
---
Yes, but you've proven nothing, only proposed a hypothesis.
err....That was a *quote* by...Sherlock Holmes.
---
Probably more properly attributed, then, to Sir Arthur Conan Doyle,
since Holmes was his idea And Sir Arthur just plucked the quote out of
thin air.
You mean Sherlock Holmes wasn't a real person? wow...
The context in which you used it, however, was designed to lend
credence to your "it-just-popped-into-existence" hypothesis, for
which you have no proof.
It's the simplest solution. Apply ochams razor...
Either mass-energy has been here always, or it hasn't.
Cosmological evidence and theory indicts that there was a start to the
universe. Theory (General Relativity) says that the concentrated mass could
not have exited in that same state indefinitely prior. Therefore the
conclusion is that the mass-energy just came into existence. However..there
are other theories...
---
Physics does not prove anything, but gives evidence to support its
propositions. Truth can never be proved.
---
Is that the truth?
---
The explanation of the universe as a combination of classical
mechanics and quantum mechanics has extensive support.
Fundamentally, its all we have, well not unless you are a Jesus
freak, or some other such numpty.
There *are* no other hypothesis available. The brain is a mass-energy
machine. It obeys the obeys the laws of physics or it doesn't. I
believe it does. The evidence for this is overwhelming, imo.
---
"There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, than are dreamt
of in your philosophy."
There is no heaven. What evidence do you have that there is more to the
universe than mass-energy physics? Hint James Randi...
---
The accelerating red shift with distance and the inverse square law
hints at something unbelievably massive toward which the distant
red-shifted galaxies are hurtling.
A wall of some sort perhaps? But in every direction? A bubble of some
sort?
Why not?
Imagine an infinitely or nearly infinitely dense Universe which has
always been there and in which are exerted forces which from time to
time cause a cavitation-like event to occur which creates a bubble into
which outgasses material from the Universe and forms our little bubble
universe, which wasn't there before, all at once.
Now we have what appears to be almost a vacuum with matter scattered
throughout which begins accreting, forming stars, galaxies, and
everything else here.
There's also The Wall, and the mass of what's on the other side pulling
on the matter that's on this side harder and harder as it gets closer
and closer until, ostensibly, it hits the wall and rejoins the Universe
or goes superluminal and becomes the Universe or who knows what.
Also, since we don't know what rules govern the Universe, who's to say
it isn't heaven?
Or God?
JF
480)460-2350 Fax: Available upon request | Brass Rat |Oh dear...
Unfortunately, non specialist star gazers have this idea that any old
No point. Already in contradiction to the known facts.
Apparently not, because what you state below still contradicts the essence
Yes. That point is well understood.
My argument (http://www.kevinaylward.co.uk/replicators/freewill.html) is
Not at all.
No. That logic makes no sense.
Hey, I just decided not to start in a fight 'yes there is' 'no there is not',
I wonder what kind of rate that is for the video frame rate and theOn Oct 21, 11:45 am, Jan Panteltje <pNaonStpealm...@yahoo.com> wrote:
On a sunny day (Tue, 21 Oct 2008 02:48:23 -0700 (PDT)) it happened Martin
Brown <|||newspam...@nezumi.demon.co.uk> wrote in
171befa1-a477-498d-b2e5-9c97a680d...@y71g2000hsa.googlegroups.com>:
What diagnostics does your set top box provide? Mine shows signal
strength and bit error rate (the latter typically scores 10 or 0 so is
a pretty useless measure).
In fact the bit error rate is about the only important thing
I do not how it is specified in your box, but bit errors should
not normally be present.
Or present only at a very low level. They claim BER < 1e-15 as the
target. I reckon in practice it is one uncorrected every couple of
hours ~ 1e-12 back of the envelope (usually manifested as an audio
glitch as they seem to be by far the most obtrusive). Typically a few
ms of click or near ultrasonic hiss.
This is beginning to sound like there were several errors made in
HD is about 2 megapixels of at least 24-bit video before compression.
Alas, the freezing and muted audio when the ber in the OTA signal
Perhaps one or two single channel antennas, carefully pointed, and one
Consider that brains that evolved as hunters and gatherers are also
Oh, dear little bubbela. This is what republicans have always meant
I didn't want to get into it. but some speak designs start their HF
That's impossible. The Universe is MADE OF Free Will. (or either it's the
Here's an experiment you can do while sitting at your computer, and you
Absolutely. Now for how many years have all new receivers been
What is "impractical" about the first device to manage doing the first
Groetjes Albert
Precious few years. I have seen smaller TVs in stores as recently as