Re: THIS GOES TO PROVE MY POINT. THIS JIMBO COCKSUCKER WORKS FOR ACORN AND HE'S GETTING PAID TO PLAY ON THE PC ALL DAY DOING NOTHING
Day Brown
>
>
> On 12/24/09 11:25 AM, in article
> db1df844-557b-484a...@s31g2000yqs.googlegroups.com,
> "NefeshBarYohai" <tac...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>> You know what ACORN stands for
>>
>> Assholes, Cunts, and Ordinary, Retarded, Niggers
>
> Many thanks for demonstrating your intelligence levels
>
> You never see animals going through the absurd and often horrible fooleries
> of magic and religion. Only man behaves with such gratuitous folly. It is
> the price he has to pay for being intelligent but not, as yet, quite
> intelligent enough.
> [Aldous Leonard Huxley]
>
Quantum physics sure looks like magic, yet only the most intelligent
have tried to figure it out. And when you look at what they really say
is going on, it is magic.
bigfl...@gmail.com
> bob young wrote:
>
> Quantum physics sure looks like magic, yet only the most intelligent
> have tried to figure it out. And when you look at what they really say
> is going on, it is magic.- Hide quoted text -
>
It sure looks like magic to the traditionalists, but to the
spitirually oriented (NOT religious dogmasists), it is a predictable
scientific way of progressing into the world of mataphysics. Of
course,many of the 'traditional' quantum physicist deny this because
of their egotistical nature. A tough time for some, because they may
have to acknowledge the scientific mind is not necessarily at the
leading edge of understanding.
Just think of many of the well known philosophical adages that take on
a deeper reality when quantum is introduced.
BOfL
Alan Ford
> Just think of many of the well known philosophical adages that take on
> a deeper reality when quantum is introduced.
Like what?
--
If you don't beat your meat
You can't have any pudding
How can you have any pudding
If you don't beat your meat?
Day Brown
seems to allude to the invasion by philosophy into metaphysics and
quantum mechanics.
I've driven quite a few 'atheists' to ad hominem citing how there no
longer is an "objective" view of what is going on in quantum physics
experiments. Which I saw Feynman say.
It all puts the Mormons and other Levantine religionists in neurotic
denial, as well as their favorite opponents, the atheists. too bad they
dont have their own list to rant at each other, and leave more room for
the relatively rational to discuss what passes for real data.
Day Brown
> bigfl...@gmail.com proudly displayed his idiocy by writing:
>
>> Just think of many of the well known philosophical adages that take on
>> a deeper reality when quantum is introduced.
>
>
> Like what?
observer of quantum effects.
Alan Ford
>>> Just think of many of the well known philosophical adages that take on
>>> a deeper reality when quantum is introduced.
>>
>>
>> Like what?
> The objective analysis of cause and effect. There is no 'objective'
> observer of quantum effects.
What does that have to do with the cause and effect analysis?
bigfl...@gmail.com
> Alan Ford wrote:
> > bigflet...@gmail.com proudly displayed his idiocy by writing:
'Reality is where you are looking from, not what you are looking at',
amongst many others.
Epictetus is a good reference point.
More relevant is how this applies at the most basic level of human
relationships. How each of us tries to create our own reality 'within'
others, such as wives/husbands etc. Expectation in others often
creates resistance to such expectation, creating flash points, and in
many cases, destroying relationships.
As we are becoming more subtle in our effectiveness (triggering
quantum effects), we are able to invade others space, as our ancestors
used to invade lands.
Those who understood this phenomena, predicted accurately, the
breakdown of relationships now happening in the western world. In Aus,
the divorce rate is now above 50%, and yet both parties share the same
dream of expectation.
BOfL
bigfl...@gmail.com
I would not expect someone with a 'sig' such as yours, would be
expected to understand the subtleties Day is referring to.
People 'cause' the effect without recognising the potency of their own
quantum projections. To learn such subtleties is to learn more of your
true identity, and what you are capable of.
BOfL
Tim
wrote:
>
> - Show quoted text -
What do you use to measure the potency of your quantum projections?
What is a quantum projection? Where is the transmitter located? How
did you learn the subtleties? And how do you know that you got them
correct?
Alan Ford
>>>>> Just think of many of the well known philosophical adages that take on
>>>>> a deeper reality when quantum is introduced.
>>>> Like what?
>>> The objective analysis of cause and effect. There is no 'objective'
>>> observer of quantum effects.
>> What does that have to do with the cause and effect analysis?
>>
>> --
>> If you don't beat your meat
>> You can't have any pudding
>> How can you have any pudding
>> If you don't beat your meat?
>
> I would not expect someone with a 'sig' such as yours, would be
> expected to understand the subtleties Day is referring to.
Where by "subtleties" you mean the bullshit like auras you believe not
only exist but that some "gifted" people can read them and thus are able
to diagnose anything from diseases to the expired milk in their
refrigerators?
> People 'cause' the effect without recognising the potency of their own
> quantum projections. To learn such subtleties is to learn more of your
> true identity, and what you are capable of.
Ah, the "potency of their own quantum projections"... Why didn't you say
so? It all makes coughcoughbullshitcough sense now.
Day Brown
> Day Brown proudly displayed his idiocy by writing:
>
>>>> Just think of many of the well known philosophical adages that take on
>>>> a deeper reality when quantum is introduced.
>>>
>>>
>>> Like what?
>> The objective analysis of cause and effect. There is no 'objective'
>> observer of quantum effects.
>
> What does that have to do with the cause and effect analysis?
>
>
says in his lectures on Quantum physics, while in classical physics, one
may imagine, for instance, the mass of the observer on the direction of
the fall of the apple, that has a trivial effect on the result. But in
quantum physics, the effect of observation is demonstrable and
determines the result.
Alan Ford
Yes, in quantum physics. What does that have to do with the way things
work in the non-quantum scenario, i.e. real world? Simply throwing
techno-babble like "quantum" around in situations where it's nowhere
near applicable is the first sign of the lunacy of an idea.
Day Brown
>> because you can no longer isolate the effect of observation. As
>> Feynman says in his lectures on Quantum physics, while in classical
>> physics, one may imagine, for instance, the mass of the observer on
>> the direction of the fall of the apple, that has a trivial effect on
>> the result. But in quantum physics, the effect of observation is
>> demonstrable and determines the result.
>
> Yes, in quantum physics. What does that have to do with the way things
> work in the non-quantum scenario, i.e. real world? Simply throwing
> techno-babble like "quantum" around in situations where it's nowhere
> near applicable is the first sign of the lunacy of an idea.
Maybe you noticed people are not as rational as they think. If 'think'
is the right way to describe it. The 'hunches' people have ultimately
are traceable to quantum effects in the mind that trigger the release of
brain chemicals, that- among other things- tell a mind to quit trying to
integrate more data and go with whatever it has.
Guess work; the ultimate expression of uncertainty theory.
Day Brown
him wondering, that since the athlete practices with his muscles, the
musician with his ear, the painter with his eye, etc, if the philosopher
mite not select easier questions to grapple with, practicing on them his
powers of reason to improve that (mental) faculty before trying to take
on the weightier questions- such as, in this case, the nature of what
passes for reality.
He advised physical exercise and appropriate diet- so useful in so many
other crafts, is also useful in philosophy. More recent data shows how
the trace minerals in wild and 'organic' food are used by
neuro-transmitters when laying down new pathways during learning. It
also shows new neurons are developed in adulthood, not just childhood.
Data also shows how exercise increases the bloodflow, which then washes
toxins out of the brain. Epictetus was correct.
Of course, those who lack the attention span to deal with Epictetus have
impaired mental faculties, yet often never realize. We see the trolls
here all the time indicating how common it is.
No doubt this has something to do with the breakdown of relationships.
Kids raised on sugar cereals, junkfood, and soda, are impaired as adults
and fail to perceive others and relationships clearly, and when
honeymoon hormones kick in, are, as Plotinus said, 'deranged'. Course,
the hormones only last for maybe 5 months, when unrealized expectations
come, as Plotinus said, to the lover's attention, and suddenly that
which seemed so perfect is now so flawed.
Characteristic of neurosis, to fail to deal with the ambiguity of real
paople and instead either idealize or demonize.
There is an economic side to this too; young women now make more money
than young men. I see some now are the sole support of boyfriends. To
some extent, this is childless women with maternal instincts that then
make children of their men. Nobody thot that making more room for women
in the power structures would displace the opportunity for young men.
The ancient history is obscure, but matriarchies created lotsa lesbian
couples with only a few men able to reliably meet the emotional needs of
a mate.
The notion of Aryan invasions needs revision. When drought drove the
Amazons south off the Steppes, they came into alpha male dominated
cultures with masses of the exploited, the whole thing held together by
goon squads. But goon squads couldnt deal with a mass of nomadic Amazon
refuges, and the population saw a chance for new, and hopefully better
management.
Jimbo
Jimbo
Alan Ford
More psycho-babble and pseudo-science in a pathetic attempt to somehow
link quantum physics with biology and physiology.
Day Brown
>> People 'cause' the effect without recognising the potency of their own
>> quantum projections. To learn such subtleties is to learn more of your
>> true identity, and what you are capable of.
>
> Ah, the "potency of their own quantum projections"... Why didn't you say
> so? It all makes coughcoughbullshitcough sense now.
and some dont. There's no arguing with the latter. But if you look at
his equations, you mite notice, that as the subject turns from classical
to quantum physics, the equals sign (=) tends to be replaced by relative
or approximate signs- >,<,~, which may, or may not be paired with an
equals sign.
The point is, that cause, such as that which leads to a particular
result, such as sin to damnation, is no longer so reliable. As we move
from classical to quantum, certainty is replaced with ambiguity and
uncertainty. Which challenges the basic cosmology of scripture as well
as its most ardent critics, atheists.
"Let us consider briefly some philosophical implications of quantum
mechanicx. As always, there are two aspects of the problem: one is the
philosophical implications for physics, and the other is the
extrapolation of philosophical matters to other fields. When
philosophical ideas associated with science are dragged into another
field, they are usually completely distorted. Therefore we shall confine
our remarks as much as possible to physics itself.
First of all, the most interesting aspect is the idea of the uncertainty
principle; making an observation affects the phenomenon. ..."
This is the nail in the coffin of atheism. Atheism assumes there is an
OBJECTIVE view of what passes for reality. Quantum physics experiments
show there are only subjective results and views. Levantine scriptures
can not be made congruent with these results either. For, if there were
an omnipotent omniscient god, it all would've quickly resolved back to a
singularity; but it does not because a- there is no such god, and b-
chaos, which we see is not controlled by anything, precludes the
existence of such a god.
Alan Ford
>>> People 'cause' the effect without recognising the potency of their own
>>> quantum projections. To learn such subtleties is to learn more of your
>>> true identity, and what you are capable of.
>>
>> Ah, the "potency of their own quantum projections"... Why didn't you
>> say so? It all makes coughcoughbullshitcough sense now.
> Some understand the calculus Feynman cites in his lectures on physics,
> and some dont. There's no arguing with the latter. But if you look at
> his equations, you mite notice, that as the subject turns from classical
> to quantum physics, the equals sign (=) tends to be replaced by relative
> or approximate signs- >,<,~, which may, or may not be paired with an
> equals sign.
>
> The point is, that cause, such as that which leads to a particular
> result, such as sin to damnation, is no longer so reliable. As we move
> from classical to quantum, certainty is replaced with ambiguity and
> uncertainty. Which challenges the basic cosmology of scripture as well
> as its most ardent critics, atheists.
Brilliant!!! Obviously, one can't possibly present a counter-argument to
this rock-solid logic:
- quantum physics describes the uncertainty principle
- therefore, human thought process is subject to it
- therefore, atheism is nonsense
I'd stay home with my hand on the phone at all times if I were you. The
Nobel Prize committee can be dialing as we speak.
>
> "Let us consider briefly some philosophical implications of quantum
> mechanicx. As always, there are two aspects of the problem: one is the
> philosophical implications for physics, and the other is the
> extrapolation of philosophical matters to other fields. When
> philosophical ideas associated with science are dragged into another
> field, they are usually completely distorted. Therefore we shall confine
> our remarks as much as possible to physics itself.
>
> First of all, the most interesting aspect is the idea of the uncertainty
> principle; making an observation affects the phenomenon. ..."
>
> This is the nail in the coffin of atheism. Atheism assumes there is an
> OBJECTIVE view of what passes for reality. Quantum physics experiments
> show there are only subjective results and views. Levantine scriptures
> can not be made congruent with these results either. For, if there were
> an omnipotent omniscient god, it all would've quickly resolved back to a
> singularity; but it does not because a- there is no such god, and b-
> chaos, which we see is not controlled by anything, precludes the
> existence of such a god.
Oh... my.... fucking... god... This last paragraph is so retarded, I
simply don't know where to start laughing. From the obligatory
little-Johnny-discovers-solipsism nonsense, to the continued
techno-babble that obscures the obvious lack of logic, to the multiple
circular arguments, and last, but not least, the fact that you start off
with proclaiming the death of atheism and finish with the conclusion
that there is no god.
You're a riot, dude.