626 Reply by Charles_F_Bell

(83 replies, posted in TheNextBigWriter Premium)

Gods Ghost wrote:

Rofl, you have given no such evidence, only assumptions and misunderstandings, as well as a self admitted lack of evidence

lolol You dont know the difference between paranoia and schizo.

  Paranoia is paranoia and is defined within a complex of mental disorders, just like thoughts of suicide.  Now, if the FDA finds that even just 4% of 10-24 year olds have enhanced thoughts of suicide that may have been there all along within a mental condition of "depression" for which they will be given an SSRI like Zoloft is above an acceptable level of side-effect, why would 20% of all persons given marijuana having side-effect of enhanced levels of mental-disorder, paranoia, be acceptable? Just what level of suicide thoughts is good for you -- any that does not lead to death? And just what level of paranoia is good for you -- any that does not lead to death?



Gods Ghost wrote:

See, it wasnt an imaginary universe conjured by Heisen, it was a proven fact about the reality WE live in.

No it is not.  It is a set of analytical mathematical equations and conjectures on what they mean.  "Interpretation" means interpretation. "Analytical" means: Of a proposition that is necessarily true independent of fact or experience.  All analytical interpretations of QM are independent of facts and experience and in Cartesian fashion assumed to be true whether or not there are facts to show they are true. There are no facts or experience that demonstrate CI (and M-theory, by the way) -- as only analytical conjecture -- "true" in any epistemological way, only in an imaginary way.


Gods Ghost wrote:

The experiment has a difinitive outcome,

There is no "definite outcome" on whether light is a wave or particle. They are both outcomes, empirically. That is why scientists are speculating, not pontificating, as you do.

Go to forum: TheNextBigWriter Premium

627 Reply by Charles_F_Bell

(83 replies, posted in TheNextBigWriter Premium)

Gods Ghost wrote:

In terms of the subjectivist nonsense, I plainly stated that it is my own, personal addition and that it was my beliefs,

You find empirical evidence staring you down w/re: "medical" marijuana which you ignore, and you find rationalist speculative argument of no importance or use to anyone but a handful of mathematicians and theoretical physicists because you feel the need to live that imaginary universe conjured up by Heisenberg, et al.: If we (our souls) are the processors that create reality . . .

Yeah, then there's the nothing to say to you in any manner.

Go to forum: TheNextBigWriter Premium

628 Reply by Charles_F_Bell

(83 replies, posted in TheNextBigWriter Premium)

Charles_F_Bell wrote:

.

Now, if you don't know the intellectual connection between the CI and Kierkegaard, Kant and Hegel, and later, Feuerabend and Popper, that is your ignorance.

And I mean this Subjectivist nonsense of yours:

If we (our souls) are the processors that create reality, so that we might create a physical point of perception,

Go to forum: TheNextBigWriter Premium

629 Reply by Charles_F_Bell

(83 replies, posted in TheNextBigWriter Premium)

Gods Ghost wrote:
Charles_F_Bell wrote:

Yes, 20% of those clinically studied.  20% serious side-effect would never pass FDA approval.

Gods Ghost wrote:

lol no. Just no.

Are you high right now?  This response in incomprehensible.  The FDA cannot approve with the standards it has set heretofore a psychosis side-effect within 20% of the population.

Gods Ghost wrote:
Charles_F_Bell wrote:

No, I said the opposite. That you should interpret my meaning that way shows you have no ability to keep up with serious debate on the subject, or you are a liar.

Really ?

Charles_F_Bell wrote:

Heisenberg and Bohr who, while not Nazi in literal sense, were so in that Subjectivist sense which fed Naz philosophy.

Bohr: Kierkegaard, and Heisenberg: Kant, Hegel, every other post-Enlightenment German philosopher.  Bohr, part Jewish and in a country invaded by Germans, would set the distance between Kierkegaard and German Nazism quite far in national politics, but not so much in the politics of scientific interpretation.  Heisenberg, head of the WWII German nuclear energy project, not so much.

Now, if you don't know the intellectual connection between the CI and Kierkegaard, Kant and Hegel, and later, Feuerabend and Popper, that is your ignorance.

Go to forum: TheNextBigWriter Premium

630 Reply by Charles_F_Bell

(83 replies, posted in TheNextBigWriter Premium)

Gods Ghost wrote:
Charles_F_Bell wrote:

is not to be ignored as merely something that is already there in lesser degree.

If you were to understand the studies, it presents with increased paranoia in some people.

Yes, 20% of those clinically studied.  20% serious side-effect would never pass FDA approval.

Charles_F_Bell wrote:

The problem with the QM debate...

Gods Ghost wrote:

lol, so youre now attempting to diminish quantum mechanics via the incorrect association with inferences made within Naz philosophy ? lol, thats already a broken argument.

No, I said the opposite. That you should interpret my meaning that way shows you have no ability to keep up with serious debate on the subject, or you are a liar.

Go to forum: TheNextBigWriter Premium

631 Reply by Charles_F_Bell

(13 replies, posted in Writing Tips & Site Help)

KHippolite wrote:

Yeah... mine has a little more traffic because I went out of my way to define how the bristling occurred. I found bristle to be a little summative... a little tell-y - kind of delivering how we should interpret a myriad of complex actions... so I filled in the missing actions and left it to the reader to choose if he's bristling or having a hissy fit or maybe just bit into a bad filling

Yes, but "bristle" has an inherent connotative meaning now to the extent that its literal meaning is never used except in the bristle of brush. By "busy" I mean using too many words to express a simple thing.  Using so many words to "show" rather than "tell" defeats what I thought to be the purpose in skipping over narration in preference to dialogue and action.  Example: rather than "He looked tired"  (simple, probably too simple and unelaborated). "Bobby Joe 'The Hook' Plegaria left his two-bit whore in bed and went into the bathroom, and before he turned on the wash basin spigot, he looked into the mirror showing his face as tired and worn from twenty years of drinking."  This sort of thing tells me it is going to take forever to finish this f***ing story.

Go to forum: Writing Tips & Site Help

632 Reply by Charles_F_Bell

(83 replies, posted in TheNextBigWriter Premium)

njc wrote:
Gods Ghost wrote:
njc wrote:

There's an alternative to the Copenhagen Interpretation called the Pilot Wave Theory.

Indeed, there is. It is, however, pretty much just hanging on by a thread... Basically, its only holding on by a thread and uses only a small potential for err as reason to dispute it entirely.

The longer something hangs on by a thread, the stronger that thread appears.

If I understand correctly, if the Pilot Wave theory is true we are back to extreme sensitivity to initial conditions and chaos rules at the quantum level as well as the macro level.  The (severly stunted) poet in me likes that.

But poetry is not physics.

The problem with the QM debate is that it started as a political debate among scientists between those preferring an objective, observable universe and the CI scientists, Heisenberg and Bohr who, while not Nazis in literal sense, were so in that Subjectivist sense which fed Nazi philosophy. It was then and now completely pointless to the determination if QM has validity or not because throwing out causality and identity, that is axiomatic to human thinking, is not necessary to accept QM as the CI implies.

Go to forum: TheNextBigWriter Premium

633 Reply by Charles_F_Bell

(83 replies, posted in TheNextBigWriter Premium)

Gods Ghost wrote:
Charles_F_Bell wrote:

20% is an unacceptable side-affect statistic for any medical use, and what is even more serious about this side-effect is unlike, say, rectal bleeding or wheezing, it can inflict harm on persons other than the dosing patient, perhaps even in a deadly way.

Except that it isnt a side effect, it is a heightening of what is already there.

That's a side-effect. SSRIs have a side-affect on teens (4% aged 10-24) of reinforcing suicide thoughts. But such a side-effect limits its damage to those taking SSRIs; paranoia and other psychoses enhanced, 20% (5 x 4%) of all ages, is not to be ignored as merely something that is already there in lesser degree.

Gods Ghost wrote:

Please learn the difference between cause and correlation.

The cause to immediate effect was clinically studied, and that is the 20%; the correlation to permanent defect caused by long-term usage, even after discontinuance of usage, something for which there is plenty of anecdotal evidence, has yet to be accomplished because epidemiologic studies take longer.

Go to forum: TheNextBigWriter Premium

634 Reply by Charles_F_Bell

(13 replies, posted in Writing Tips & Site Help)

Tom Oldman wrote:

I like Ken's suggestion. It is more active than mine.

Lupus squared out his shoulders and narrowed his eyes at her.
"I didn't realize we needed to be on a first name basis," he replied.

~Tom

It's too complicated and busy, as if he was about to throw a hissy fit.  You are right that there is a minor POV issue by your first version, and the second is better, perhaps re-worded. I don't actually understand the point of the urge to smile, but I don't know the characters.

Go to forum: Writing Tips & Site Help

635 Reply by Charles_F_Bell

(83 replies, posted in TheNextBigWriter Premium)

cobber wrote:

What physicist believes that? Although the first part can have meaning once you get around to mentioning what it is that "we" imagine, but the second part is rubbish.

David Deutsch, a member of the Quantum Computation and Cryptography Research Group at Oxford University writes all about this in his acclaimed book The Fabric of Reality in Chapter 11, page 258. Charles, I suggest you give the book a read. I actually think you'd enjoy it.

No, it's not, or rather the word "consensus" is a bogus term outside the marketing industry.  Classical physics, including relativity excluding quantum physics, just happens to have no comprehensive theory that comports to reality about time, and all physicists understand that. There has been a centuries-old bifurcation between what physicists and what chemists, biologists, and every other scientist understand about time which in reality is unidirectional, flows in one direction, and the fact that classical physics cannot include time properly, even in the POV of astrophysicists, shows a failing of classical physics.

Classical physics had many failings, it's biggest being the inability to reconcile quantum theory with relativity. But there are many theories about time and the one I suggested does not break any of the known laws of physics.

The problem that I have with your discussions is that you speak in absolutes as if there is a consensus and it supports your viewpoint. This is rubbish. Most physicists will tell you there is nothing in the law of physics that rule out time travel.

No.  I objected to your original statement (unfortunately, you did not quote above) as your own absolutist statement as to what science says, and not only does not "science" say that, I have never heard of it.  And I know of no physicist who claims travel back in time is possible, only that theory does not deny it, there being no empirical evidence whatsoever, it could mean there is something wrong with theory, and moreover, the same classically-minded physicists cannot apply their theory to a more serious issue with time/space and that is instantaneous action at a distance asserted by QM theory, for which there is empirical evidence w/re: the photon. That inability to reconcile the two Physics means that the words "consensus" and "scientists say" is propaganda and merely gist for sci-fi writers.

I came across Deutsch's approach in an informal fashion, rather than having actually read his work, and I was turned off by two major fundamental flaws : Popper's falsification method is certainly false, and his (and which is common) reductivist approach to artificial intelligence. I saw nothing in his book that grabbed me as enlightening, although I plainly admit I have not read it.

Go to forum: TheNextBigWriter Premium

636 Reply by Charles_F_Bell

(83 replies, posted in TheNextBigWriter Premium)

Gods Ghost wrote:
Charles_F_Bell wrote:

But just supposing only 20% of one's immediate urban neighbors were allowed to have roosters...

Do you hear yourself ?

20% is an unacceptable side-affect statistic for any medical use, and what is even more serious about this side-effect is unlike, say, rectal bleeding or wheezing, it can inflict harm on persons other than the dosing patient, perhaps even in a deadly way.


Gods Ghost wrote:
Charles_F_Bell wrote:

No, it's not, or rather the word "consensus" is a bogus term outside the marketing industry.  Classical physics, including relativity excluding quantum physics, just happens to have no comprehensive theory that comports to reality about time, and all physicists understand that. There has been a centuries-old bifurcation between what physicists and what chemists, biologists, and every other scientist understand about time which in reality is unidirectional, flows in one direction, and the fact that classical physics cannot include time properly, even in the POV of astrophysicists, shows a failing of classical physics.


Consensus: General agreement

Which is meaningless for the practice of science because, for example, there had been general agreement that bleeding was good medical science and that phlogiston was an epistemically real thing. Any 50% plus 1 vote of whether light is a wave or a particle is idiotic.

Gods Ghost wrote:

I dont know how else to say this other than "You are wrong." Simply put, the vast majority of physicists believe as Cobber said.

Actually, you never addressed the part of what he said which is gibberish (something about what will happen has already happened), only that time in Relativity is not fixed in an absolute sense.  I added that no physicist actually believes time represented as a dimensional grid in which movement back and forth and to and fro means the movement backwards in time is possible even if there is nothing explicit in the theory that denies it.


Gods Ghost wrote:
Charles_F_Bell wrote:

Over time, though, Smolin became convinced not only that time was real, but that this notion could be the key to understanding the laws of nature.

"If laws are outside of time, then they're inexplicable," he said. "If law just simply is, there's no explanation. If we want to understand law … then law must evolve, law must change, law must be subject to time. Law then emerges from time and is subject to time rather than the reverse."


Yes. Good job. Quote the guy who is blatantly wrong,

He is expressing what any human being with common sense knows: that any explanation which ends before nature starts must therefore be picked up by the supernatural; some may want the supernatural to exist and others (like Smolin) do not. Big Bang/Black Hole theory is seriously flawed by running out natural explanation just at t>0. This means that whatever "consensus" over that speculative theory is irrelevant because the theory is wrong/worthless at  t=0.

Gods Ghost wrote:
Charles_F_Bell wrote:

He also believed in God and Zionism.

So ?

So, his statement like the more famous one about God not playing dice, is a belief not a scientific proposition.

Go to forum: TheNextBigWriter Premium

637 Reply by Charles_F_Bell

(83 replies, posted in TheNextBigWriter Premium)

amy s wrote:

This isn't the first time this has been debated by minds bigger than ours. I can't believe no one has mentioned the Myth of Sysiphus by Albert Camus. He poses the question: If there is no god, then how can there be meaning in life? He postulates that suicide is a natural endpoint of the futility of living. I debated this in a morality class and won points on a test because the teacher asked this question: What did Camus debate in the Myth of Syphilus? One answer was 'is there a god' and the other was something like, 'advocating suicide is the only logical endpoint because life is meaningless.'

I won the points because the primary question of the philosopher's posit didn't have anything to do with suicide. It had to do with the question, "Is there a God." Only once that question was answered could the other be debated.

Is "God" the only answer to the question: Is life a meaningless struggle toward an inevitable nothingness? Is Pascal's Wager, fundamentally Camus' premise even in the context of atheist existentialism, valid?  God, fate, destiny, heaven, etc. are in that bin of comfortable delusions. and THAT was the point Camus might have made if he weren't so French about things. “Life can be lived all the better if it has no meaning.”  No, sorry, not going to happen, bud.

Go to forum: TheNextBigWriter Premium

638 Reply by Charles_F_Bell

(83 replies, posted in TheNextBigWriter Premium)

Gods Ghost wrote:
Charles_F_Bell wrote:

Sure, public forum, wink. wink.

lolol naw dude. I, at least for the most part, couldnt care less.


There's always that 80% unaffected by pot paranoia.  But just supposing only 20% of one's immediate urban neighbors were allowed to have roosters . . .

Gods Ghost wrote:

I was simply saying that the assumption and attempt to diminish my viewpoint based on something so arbitrary and, in addition, completely incorrect, was fairly amusing. Aka, the epic fail.

You started in on the blatant personal attack, and I slapped you down for the punk that you are.  Unfortunately, the way these things have happened in the past is that I end up getting censured by the "moderator." So next time, I'll just click the Report link.

Charles_F_Bell wrote:

What physicist believes that?

Gods Ghost wrote:

Actually, that is the general consensus amongst physicists.

No, it's not, or rather the word "consensus" is a bogus term outside the marketing industry.  Classical physics, including relativity excluding quantum physics, just happens to have no comprehensive theory that comports to reality about time, and all physicists understand that. There has been a centuries-old bifurcation between what physicists and what chemists, biologists, and every other scientist understand about time which in reality is unidirectional, flows in one direction, and the fact that classical physics cannot include time properly, even in the POV of astrophysicists, shows a failing of classical physics.

Gods Ghost wrote:

So much so, that when a physicist disagrees, it is seen as controversial (mostly because the disagreement is blatantly and obviously wrong)

http://www.livescience.com/29081-time-r … molin.html


________________
Over time, though, Smolin became convinced not only that time was real, but that this notion could be the key to understanding the laws of nature.

"If laws are outside of time, then they're inexplicable," he said. "If law just simply is, there's no explanation. If we want to understand law … then law must evolve, law must change, law must be subject to time. Law then emerges from time and is subject to time rather than the reverse."
________________

Smolin, who is controversial in other ways, is just reminding physicists of what they haven't been able to include in their proposals for research grants.

Gods Ghost wrote:

And here are some quotes from everyone's favorite physicist, Albert Einstein !

"Reality is merely an illusion, albeit a very persistent one."

He also believed in God and Zionism.  Positing Nature as impossible before the Big Bang,  perpetuates the theory as a God Theory just like RCC Father Lemaître proposed it to be.

Go to forum: TheNextBigWriter Premium

639 Reply by Charles_F_Bell

(83 replies, posted in TheNextBigWriter Premium)

Gods Ghost wrote:

Rofl, as I have already stated in the other thread, I am not a user of that substance in any capacity.

Sure, public forum, wink. wink.

Go to forum: TheNextBigWriter Premium

640 Reply by Charles_F_Bell

(83 replies, posted in TheNextBigWriter Premium)

cobber wrote:

Physicists believe that time does not flow as we imagine it. Instead, our entire existence in all its moments is already realized.

What physicist believes that? Although the first part can have meaning once you get around to mentioning what it is that "we" imagine, but the second part is rubbish.

Go to forum: TheNextBigWriter Premium

641 Reply by Charles_F_Bell

(83 replies, posted in TheNextBigWriter Premium)

Charles_F_Bell wrote:
j p lundstrom wrote:

Charlie, Charlie, Charlie!
Please notice I said "if." A lesson in logic: if A, then B.
I know you have wisdom to impart, it's just very important to remain clear-headed, and to express your thoughts in a manner understandable to the human race. I never can figure out what you want to say. Not that I try that hard. I'm an old lady, and I'm using the time I have left to do what I want and say what I want.  JP

So where is the "if" in your statement to which I referred:

" A prediction is like a weather forecast: sometimes right, other times, not so much. "

As you might want to criticize me for mis-communication, allow me to say: why can't you mention what you said to which I replied (I'm only guessing about the fate/destiny of weather via a weather forecast prediction);  otherwise, I haven't a clue.

Allow me to recap: there does not exist in reality fate or destiny, and a "prophecy"  to any extent it is not fraudulent or coincidental is perhaps a prediction based in stochastics [1] like about the weather, not in mystical abilities or reductionist determinism[2].

[1] formulae having random variables   [2] a philosophical theory holding that all events are inevitable consequences of antecedent sufficient causes. ; reductionism - a theory that all complex systems can be completely understood in terms of their components.

Go to forum: TheNextBigWriter Premium

642 Reply by Charles_F_Bell

(83 replies, posted in TheNextBigWriter Premium)

Norm d'Plume wrote:
Charles_F_Bell wrote:

Homer's Achilles, we suppose he added to the existing ancient legend, is a turning point in Western civilization in that Achilles is given a destiny but he also has a choice through his own action or inaction between two outcomes, so even in a culture of intervening-meddling gods, Man has effective freewill.

Free will is one of my options. One of my two MCs repeatedly has the ability to walk away, but believes so strongly in his course of action, that he ignores the ever-increasing insanity of his quest. Another option is to say that the MC was destined to lead the quest, though not necessarily succeed in it.

The other one I'm exploring is the case where the MC was never given a choice, but is trying his best to avoid his fate, which he believes would lead to all-out war for the human race. So far, he keeps failing to divert away from that destiny.

Finally, there is a very real possibility that either or both destinies are just imagined.

Eventually, it all collides. Should be a blast. Pun intended.

It is that second option (not having a choice and acting to no effect), I'd have to say does not belong in good sci-fi because it denies the law of causality and identity.

Go to forum: TheNextBigWriter Premium

643 Reply by Charles_F_Bell

(83 replies, posted in TheNextBigWriter Premium)

Gods Ghost wrote:
cobber wrote:

Fantasy, yes; sci-fi, no.  Those who are not scientists or are not familiar enough with science will confuse the two.

You gotta love someone who can so confidently be utterly wrong.

Rofl, I assure you, he lives in such a state in which he is so consistently,

in keeping with this line of ad-hom nonsense you and gobbler wish to run, let's ask who cares what a pothead like you alleges he thinks?

Go to forum: TheNextBigWriter Premium

644 Reply by Charles_F_Bell

(83 replies, posted in TheNextBigWriter Premium)

max keanu wrote:

When questioning our destiny/ our fate, I think we are questioning, seeking survival choices in the vast realms of our internal neural nets dealing with luck & chance. These neural net ideas are the culmination of our knowledge and experiences in the realms of luck & chance.... to avoid or embrace perceived destinies.

I wrote this knowing full-well that Charles Bell would take umbrage to this and therefore I used my realm of predeterminism to elicit a true destiny or a false destiny (destination), only fate will prove me right. Right, Charles? lol.

The problem here is that the topic is tilted toward what an author may/ought to/want to do and that is itself creating a fictional world of a predestined universe with the author as God.  However, in the big picture that says nothing whatsoever about reality. My philosophy for writing is anti-naturalism in that what I write is real (big picture)  even if nothing of the particulars is; whereas, the naturalist writer writes what is real (in the particulars) but in reality nothing of what he writes (big picture) is.

The fact is I agree with your first paragraph above but add that morality rather than amoral utilitarianism guides the individual through a universe that has Chance as an operand and there is no such thing as determinism.

Go to forum: TheNextBigWriter Premium

645 Reply by Charles_F_Bell

(83 replies, posted in TheNextBigWriter Premium)

j p lundstrom wrote:

If it happened, it was destined. If it didn't happen that, too, was destined. Somebody's prediction isn't your destiny, unless you're writing fiction, and lucky for us, you are.  A prediction is like a weather forecast: sometimes right, other times, not so much. So then, if whatever happens happens because it was destined, then no, you can't escape your destiny. If you are destined to save the world, then no matter what you do, your actions will save the world.
You are destined to have a nice day.

And the example of such a phenomenon as weather (and CLIMATE, by the way) is good example, but not by itself convincing to everyone, that fate and destiny do not exist in reality but rather function as convenient lies.

Homer's Achilles, we suppose he added to the existing ancient legend, is a turning point in Western civilization in that Achilles is given a destiny but he also has a choice through his own action or inaction between two outcomes, so even in a culture of intervening-meddling gods, Man has effective freewill. My willing suspension of disbelief ends when the author conjures "destiny" without freewill.

Go to forum: TheNextBigWriter Premium

646 Reply by Charles_F_Bell

(83 replies, posted in TheNextBigWriter Premium)

cobber wrote:

Fantasy, yes; sci-fi, no.  Those who are not scientists or are not familiar enough with science will confuse the two.

You gotta love someone who can so confidently be utterly wrong.

Your self-love will be seen as anti-social by the liberal thought police, so watch out!

Go to forum: TheNextBigWriter Premium

647 Reply by Charles_F_Bell

(83 replies, posted in TheNextBigWriter Premium)

dagnee wrote:

I don't believe in fate or destiny being preordained. I think you can only know you destiny/fate looking back over your life when approaching the end of it.

But doesn't make a good story and so I think this is your fictional tale and you are God in that regard and can create the world in whatever way that pleases you.


Oooo!  Let's define destiny and fate in Orwellian Newspeak!
I know my destiny in that I can see that I will have placed a period at the end of a sentence I did write.

Go to forum: TheNextBigWriter Premium

648 Reply by Charles_F_Bell

(33 replies, posted in TheNextBigWriter Premium)

dagnee wrote:

This is the other side. 
Regardless of whether Trayvon Martin threw the first punch on that fateful night, he does not deserve to have his name continually dragged through the mud.

His name was mud before he attacked and threatened to kill Zimmerman. One should suppose the racists are on the side that drug abuse had nothing to do with his actions.

Go to forum: TheNextBigWriter Premium

649 Reply by Charles_F_Bell

(83 replies, posted in TheNextBigWriter Premium)

Janet Taylor-Perry wrote:

I think fate/destiny is a staple of sci-fi and fantasy. So are prophecies and quests.


Fantasy, yes; sci-fi, no.  Those who are not scientists or are not familiar enough with science will confuse the two.

Go to forum: TheNextBigWriter Premium

650 Reply by Charles_F_Bell

(83 replies, posted in TheNextBigWriter Premium)

cobber wrote:

I believe once your fate is known.

How?  I think that such a thing put into fiction automatically puts that fiction into fantasy/magic genre.

Go to forum: TheNextBigWriter Premium