1

(83 replies, posted in TheNextBigWriter Premium)

Understandable. I certainly wouldnt want you to commit to anything simply on my accord. I merely want to create thought about it. And, in turn, this has made me think much about it. There was a moment while researching for the convos in this thread that I, for a moment, had to consider the full fledged possibility that I would come out the other end believing in Pilot Wave. I even had my apology post on here partially written in my head lol, as well as the various changes to my belief system that would require. That, to me, is a pretty good position to find oneself in now and then. I think, if we stop questioning our own beliefs, it leads to much higher chances of being wrong, and creates a stagnancy in forward progression.

I would only ask you to think about things yourself. I was raised Christian. Needless to say, I am no longer Christian. That is not to say, though, that I do not see a certain positivity or benefit within the belief, as well as some negatives. I think there is good and bad in just about every belief system, but I found none of it to be all encompassing of what I know to be true (personally, in addition to the scientific advances we have made). That is why I set out to create my own belief system. That our souls power reality, and that conservation of the proverbial cpu usage is the cause of the observer effect, that is my belief system. I created it. As far as I know, I am the very first to say it, the very first to think of it or to put it into an organized system of belief. I could be wrong, of course, but my point is that I am a supporter of people finding their own way. So I support you in not simply hopping on board with me simply because I make a few arguments. lol

I appreciate that you took the time to reply, and apologize if I have taken too much of it already. Thanks for the discussion. Have an excellent night. (and Charles, too, if he comes across this)

2

(83 replies, posted in TheNextBigWriter Premium)

lol fair enough. Yeah, I dont pay too much attention to spelling or grammar unless Im writing something serious lol. Same reason I dont use apostrophes unless it would interfere with what Im conveying. Im actually pleasantly surprised at the lack of grammatical corrections I have received here. People on facebook and other sites hound over it as if it meant they were a greater person for it. lol. I can, however, appreciate a helpful edit. lol.

Tell me what you think of the rest of my reply. Pretty good, or no ?

3

(83 replies, posted in TheNextBigWriter Premium)

And, btw, you exist in a reality in which one of the interpretations of QM is in governance. Pretending that you dont exist in a reality with gravity, or light, or quantum mechanics doesnt put ME into the realm of imagination. It puts YOU into the realm of imagination.

It is you that wants to live in an imaginary universe where your actions dont matter and have no true consequences, where time is real (which goes against QMPW, btw), and where all that you see is all that matters. Unfortunately (for you), thanks to the predominate theory behind QM, that is shown to almost certainly not be the case. Still, it begs the question, why do you so vehimently oppose a reality where choice matters ? Do you REALLY think we are here for nothing more than a worthless jaunt with no meaning behind it whatsoever ? Or is that simply more comforting to you, thus you wish to hold onto it ?

See, it isnt me that lives in the imaginary universe. I work and attempt to learn and understand the one we live in. And, just so you know, it is about far more than just the physical. The learning experiences we have here are just that, for learning. And, we cannot truly learn without free will. But that is just my... inference. To understand reality is to understand its place, its purpose, and an entire universe without a purpose is simply fantasy. This is what gives our choices weight, and this is why we should make our choices as good as we can, not reduce them to being outside our power.

4

(83 replies, posted in TheNextBigWriter Premium)

Charles_F_Bell wrote:

Paranoia is paranoia

My apologies for not elaborating as efficiently as I should have. "behaviors associated with paranoia." (aka, increased fear) Not "Paranoia."
These people are not given a mental condition by the substance. Show me one study that says otherwise, or stop saying it. Smh.

And lets see this study you keep touting. Not only do I doubt your... interpretation, lol, but I would also be willing to bet that its findings were skewed by funding from a pharmaceutical corp even at that.

And these people arent hurting themselves or others, so Im not sure why you keep incorrectly associating it with anti depressants (which, btw, you have no understanding of how they are prescribed or the reasoning behind their increase in thoughts of self harm. I have studied this. You have not.)

And at the absolute worst, it is a far better substance on the body and mind, with far less negative effects, than alcohol, and that is sold on every corner. I dont hear you arguing against it with such enthusiasm, despite many, many studies that show its (*cough* real *cough*) negative effects.

Or tobacco products...

Or many preservatives...

Or emulsifiers...

Lmao. Of all the stands you could pick, you do not pick wisely.

Charles_F_Bell wrote:

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.

Actually, no. And, most of what you said was gibberish. The outsome of the double slit is a factual outcome. It is what happened. There is no getting around that. The interpretations are merely disagreements on HOW that happened. Which, as I have already addressed, your flagship theory that exists solely on the coat tails of the lack of a completely solidified CI isnt too great of a theorum, and is deteriorating quickly. All it is is a desperate grasp at straws to hold onto materialism in any form.

Charles_F_Bell wrote:

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.

The fact of the matter is that they change when observed/measured. This is the entire basis behind QM CI. How do YOU interpret the DATA from the double slit exp ? That you dont understand this change and likely dont understand the double slit belies your ignorance on the subject.

It is EITHER CI, OR PW, or a couple of lesser known and less than realistic potentials. The point is, there are only a small number of ways for what is PROVEN to happen within the double slit to actually happen, and only one of them actually makes sense to get behind.

5

(83 replies, posted in TheNextBigWriter Premium)

I do. For starters, it should be noted that Pilot Wave is a form of superdeterminism. In other words, every single thing that has happened and will happen is unchangeable and predetermined. Which, btw, wouldnt help the whole "time is real" debate. Nothing you do matters, and is completely decided not by you, but by a set of pre defined circumstances within the universe.

John Bell - “There is a way to escape the inference of superluminal speeds and spooky action at a distance. But it involves absolute determinism in the universe, the complete absence of free will."

So, and this is from the wiki on the De Broglie–Bohm theory, aka Pilot Wave.

"The theory is deterministic[1] and explicitly nonlocal: the velocity of any one particle depends on the value of the guiding equation, which depends on the configuration of the system given by its wavefunction; the latter depends on the boundary conditions of the system, which in principle may be the ENTIRE UNIVERSE."

Good luck on proving that one, bud. As I said, the theory predominately relies on poking holes in CI.

The Born rule, which is a foundational part of the Pilot Wave theory, is not only NOT a law, but it wouldnt even work in some cases. It relies on a lack of failure at least most of the time. Not exactly the most solid of foundations.

"The Born rule in Broglie–Bohm theory is not a basic law. Rather, in this theory the link between the probability density and the wave function has the status of a hypothesis"

In addition to this, with the most recent experiment, which I have posted several times, the additional grating was added after the atom had already passed the initial grating. Would this not prove that it was not a wave that accompanied the atom, but a change in the actual particles behavior ? As I said, it relies on the small things that are slowly being closed within CI.

Not only that, but would the wave not be registered regardless of observation if it were presided by a wave ?

According to the Pilot Wave Theory "To explain the behavior when the particle is detected to go through one slit, one needs to appreciate the role of the conditional wavefunction and how it results in the collapse of the wavefunction." "The basic idea is that the environment registering the detection effectively separates the two wave packets in configuration space."

So, even here, we have an effect (a registering of the detection) of the measurement, and a reaction to that measurement. Which, in a superdeterministic realm, you were only measuring because the universe made you do it through a long string of cause and effect.

Which, to me, is broken logic. If the universe was superdeterministic, then it would have nothing to "register." How does something register something if the thing that it was registering wasnt unexpected to some extent. In essence, if the universe was superdeterministic, it would have nothing to register. It would have already been registered.

So, as far as I am concerned, there would still be a change in behavior due to observation, and the whole theory is faulty.

So, basically, while it is considered a theory, I wouldnt consider it much of a theory. Not only that, but it is basically an unprovable theory built on a shoddy foundation. As the measurements of CI get more precise and more technical, the theory will eventually be completely solid (even though its basically so already)

There is a reason that the Pilot wave theory is only seen by few to be a potentially correct theory, and most of those people only see it as such because of a desire to hold onto mundane beliefs that would lessen the impact of their choices in life. Therefore, it is, in my opinion, largely in continuance due to a common psychological tendency to avoid attaching responsibility and ownership to the outcome of one's choices. The problem with life is, it is designed to help us learn, so those that avoid learning from their choices, either through holding onto a belief system or otherwise, are doing themselves no favors.

Not only that, but many things do not work with Pilot Wave. OBE, free will, choice, etc. While this last bit is hardly a solid argument against and is more philosophical than the other parts, unlike what was said above, it does raise questions about certain aspects. For instance, the recent studies around OBEs that are giving them validity (at least moreso than before), where do they fall in ?

Also, calling me on a minor spelling error ? lol

6

(83 replies, posted in TheNextBigWriter Premium)

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

Charles_F_Bell wrote:

"has yet to be accomplished." "has yet to be accomplished." "has yet to be accomplished."

lolol You dont know the difference between paranoia and schizo. You dont understand theoretical physics or the actual evidence staring you down (which, unlike your "evidence." is actual evidence).

See, it wasnt an imaginary universe conjured by Heisen, it was a proven fact about the reality WE live in. The experiment has a difinitive outcome, not one subject to belief system. Just because you dont understand it doesnt mean that it isnt of use to the common man, since, this, like any scientific experiment, can be used for logical inferrence... if you had logic, anyways. You choose to ignore the science that is there and make wild and inaccurate, as well as logically false, assumptions about the science that is there. That is your failing. Not mine. Always remember the double slit. It is proof of your inability to adapt to the truth. To continue in a belief system so incredibly false will do you no good in life. One of the greatest gifts given man is thought. He who does not use it has wasted his greatest gift.

7

(83 replies, posted in TheNextBigWriter Premium)

You know, I gotta say, even with the disagreements (maybe even because of the disagreements), this has been a most interesting and enjoyable discussion. Charles, NJC, Cobber, I appreciate your input and replies. And, regardless of whether or not we disgree on... just about everything.... lol... I do wish you guys the best in life and your adventures (your writing, for instance). At times, I can be a bit brash in my wording and aggressive in my approach of argumentation, sometimes to get my point across, and sometimes because I get caught of in the emotion of what we are discussing. Perhaps its passion, idk. At any rate, just want you to know that there are no hard feelings and that I wish you guys the best.

8

(83 replies, posted in TheNextBigWriter Premium)

Two posts and you managed to say nothing of consequence in regards to our conversation. Plus you didnt even manage to address how your association of Bohr and Heisen to inferences made within Naz philosophy was either consequential or beneficial to your argument or point.

As I said before, regurgitating copy/pastes from google of random and unrelated junk in an attempt to argue not out of logic, but out of an assumed lack of knowledge on the part of others, wont work well. Bohr and Heisen's philosophical beliefs or the simiarities and their roots hold no bearing on the scientific outcome of the double slit experiment. Not only that, but the same experiment is still being done today in better quality and in larger sizes. As is evidenced by the paper I posted a link to earlier. I will post it again, below. It is not, as NJC suggested, a strong thread that holds up even the possibility of incorrectness within the double slit. It began as a chain, and has now been whittled away into a thread, which is soon to be nonexistent.

http://www.nature.com/nphys/journal/vao … s3343.html

"Our experiment confirms Bohr’s view."

In terms of the subjectivist nonsense, I plainly stated that it is my own, personal addition and that it was my beliefs, which are based on logical inference, using what I know to be true and peicing the rest together. It is not provable, currently, which is why I say BELIEF. However, it is a damn good, logically created belief system that encompasses probably more of the science and actual happenings than just about any other belief system out there. So, good luck with your materialism, which has already been proven to be false. lol

Now, want to waste any more time and brain power with useless, copy/pasted drivel ?

9

(83 replies, posted in TheNextBigWriter Premium)

Charles_F_Bell wrote:

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

lol no. Just no.

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 Naz in literal sense, were so in that Subjectivist sense which fed Naz philosophy.

What the crap is that then ? Either you cant adequately convey your points and arguments in an intelligible way, or you were attempting to diminish quantum mechanics via the incorrect association with inferences made within Naz philosophy. The quote doesnt lie.

10

(83 replies, posted in TheNextBigWriter Premium)

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. Thats it, dude. The effects are not permanent, and they certainly arent dangerous. Not only that, but, as I said, its not creating something that isnt already there. The people that this presents in are the types that are already suspicious or fearful types.
You are confusing a study that simply stated an increase in paranoia amongst some individuals whilst on it with a true side affect. And Im pretty sure that youre confusing paranoia with paranoid schizophrenia, which are not, in any way, shape, or form, the same thing. Thats like saying a side affect of liquor is that 20 percent of people will get in fights. No. Liquor's effects may exacerbate the conditions that lead to certain people getting into fights that are already prone to getting in fights, but it is not an actual side affect. Ironically, a little bit of extra paranoia isnt even half as bad as half of liquor's effects in general, and that really can have long term affects on the brain and body. Im preeetty sure youve probably had a shot or two in your life, right ? If not, you should. It takes a lot more than a few shots to have a permanent effect. Although, I would recommend, as with anything (including the substance we are discussing), moderation.

Charles_F_Bell wrote:

has yet to be accomplished because epidemiologic studies take longer.

So, basically, nothing to show that it has any permanent effects.

Also, you should prooobably know that this particular substance is actually created and used within your own body. When they test for usage of the substance when you apply for a job, they dont test for its presence, they test for an amount that is higher than normal. You are technically being affected by it right now. Just a fun little fyi.

Charles_F_Bell wrote:

The problem with the QM debate...

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.

And, btw, QM doesnt throw out causality and identity, it brings it into an entirely new spectrum. In fact, it could even be seen as increasing both to far greater levels.

njc wrote:

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.

Saved the best for last. I could say that I like that view from a poetic standpoint, but it is flawed. There is far more chaos (and order) from the CI view. In essence, BECAUSE nothing truly exists without observation, it creates a middle ground between chaos and order in which experience thrives.

What I find most interesting is that this coincides with entropy. Entropy, aka chaos, randomness, is really information, and the universe is gaining entropy as it goes. Aka, there is more and more information as the universe moves into a state of total entropy, in which case it will become useless as a method for deriving valuable experiences for life (similar to how a video with nothing but static is no longer helpful to watch). When combined with QM CI, it is OUR observation of the universe that creates entropy (not necessarily OUR, just life in general). Of course, this is if quantum level is raised to the level of the macro, which it is slowly working its way there. For instance, it isnt the measurement of the particle that collapses its wave function, it is our conscious awareness of the measurement device being there.
In this manner, we create entropy. We create information out of the universe. And that information is really knowledge. Basically, we are deriving knowledge from the universe over the perception of time. Not only that, but this brings back in the topic of free will and our affect on the universe through free will.

And thats pretty crappin cool. Here is an excellent, EXCELLENT video that explains some of this.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sMb00lz-IfE

Now, here is my own, personal addition.

In my belief system, the reason that observation is required to collapse superposition is because this is a conservation method for interpreting the state of the universe. Lets say that the universe, time, all of it, is merely an illusory construct created to derive meaningful experience for all of us (all of life), so that we might understand more, know more, and operate with wisdom in part and as a whole. So, lets just say, for a moment, that were the case. Then, essentially, we would need a processor, a way to create reality, so that we might experience it, right ? Now, lets take the observer effect and plug it in. If we exist on more than just the physical, which, as I have previously said somewhere that anyone who has had an OBE would know, and we have an affect on the observable universe, then is it possible that WE ARE the processors ? All of us ?

If we (our souls) are the processors that create reality, so that we might create a physical point of perception, a perception from which to experience things, then wouldnt it make sense to make the usage of that processor count ? In other words, we would need to confine what is being processed within reality to what would be consciously observed. This would mean that we would mainly process the macro, and the micro could exist in whatever state, controlled largely by the macro, until we attempted conscious knowledge of the micro. This would also present a situation in which the macro, without conscious awareness, would also be subject to our effects (just largely unrealized).

So, basically, the observer effect is basically an effect caused by saving processing power for our reality.

Most of this, btw, holds within science. Scientists are already looking for rainbow gravity and trying to determine if our universe is a hologram or not (its not, but similar). They are already showing that OBEs are valid, and the placebo effect has long been shown to link mind to matter. A lot of science and logic actually points to what I described above, including QM

11

(83 replies, posted in TheNextBigWriter Premium)

lol I like that its written in the year 7300. Thats an interesting way to convey the whole thing. I cant help but wonder if they are being goaded by 2 separate beings, both under the same guise and both with separate agendas. O_O

This is something I question often about Christianity. Lets say, for a moment, that you were viewing miracles of some dude or receiving some form of communication from a higher being. How do you know it is a good one ? Just because it is more powerful doesnt mean it should be worshipped. Not only that, but much of the Christian mythos is decidedly creepy. (baptism rituals, giving your soul away, being covered in the "blood" of Christ (like, bruh...)).

12

(83 replies, posted in TheNextBigWriter Premium)

njc wrote:

There's an alternative to the Copenhagen Interpretation called the Pilot Wave Theory.  It is said to explain the observed events at least as well, and an article that showed up in, I tnink, phys.org, says that it might better explain the wave function collapse.

Indeed, there is. It is, however, pretty much just hanging on by a thread, and relies heavily on poking holes in the other, even though the loopholes are being closed and they are performing the experiment with larger particles and in a more sophisticated capacity.

Basically, its "nawww, theres a possibility that youre wrong."

From the wikipedia page for it "Though the series of increasingly sophisticated Bell test experiments has convinced the physics community in general that local realism is untenable, it remains true that the outcome of every single experiment done so far that violates a Bell inequality can still theoretically be explained by local realism, by exploiting the detection loophole and/or the locality loophole. The locality (or communication) loophole means that since in actual practice the two detections are separated by a time-like interval, the first detection may influence the second by some kind of signal" (Bell's inequality is the successor of the Pilot Wave theory)

Basically, its only holding on by a thread and uses only a small potential for err as reason to dispute it entirely.

Heres the latest experiment that I know of, which was performed with an actual atom. It again shows that measurement affects the state of the particle (or atom), and shows that it can happen on an even larger scale than the original experiments.

http://www.nature.com/nphys/journal/vao … s3343.html

And here is an article that discusses it a bit, since it costs moneys to purchase the full paper.

http://www.sciencealert.com/reality-doe … t-confirms

""It proves that measurement is everything. At the quantum level, reality does not exist if you are not looking at it," lead researcher and physicist Andrew Truscott said in a press release."

I appreciate your reply, btw. That was a thoughtful response.

13

(13 replies, posted in Writing Tips & Advice)

I actually agree with Charles on this one. Its going too far to point out the use of his name. The original, and Tom's, kept it subtle.

14

(83 replies, posted in TheNextBigWriter Premium)

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. And, no lol, it doesnt have any cases of directly influencing intentional harm on another, unlike some of the harder substances. You speak strictly from an ill informed place of ignorance. The nature of that substance is a calming one, and it would be HARDER for one to power through those calming effects in order to do some damage to someone else, meaning that they would have done the damage and probably more had they not been on the substance. That is like trying to say that someone who took a sedative attacked someone because of the sedative. It simply doesnt work that way. They might attack someone even though they are on a sedative, but it certainly isnt the cause. The only danger they pose is to a bag of cheetohs.

Please learn the difference between cause and correlation.

Charles_F_Bell wrote:

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.

lol so there is no general consensus on the shape of the Earth or the distance from the Moon to the Earth or the fact that the Earth orbits the Sun, etc. ??? There is no such thing as general consensus among the scientific community ? lol.

Charles_F_Bell wrote:

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.

Dude, the point is, a series, which is his entire baseline for his argument that time is real, when viewed as a complete series, does not change. This is logic. Physics goes hand in hand with logic. Logically speaking, what he said doesnt work because it is a self defeating argument. The series changes from one step to another, therefore he argues that, due to the sequence, time must be real. However, the entire sequence does not change when viewed objectively. There is no way around this.

Did you check out the double slit experiment ? As I said, it proves that time is not real. You can argue against it all you want. You are arguing against science. You might as well join the Flat Earth Society. If time were strictly linear, a superposition could not be collapsed going back in time, which has been proven to be the case.

Charles_F_Bell wrote:

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.

His argument centered around the sequential nature around the development of the laws we use to explain the nature of reality, and had nothing to do with the big bang.

Charles_F_Bell wrote:

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

Whether or not God, or the anthropomorphized version of him, is the higher state than the physical, can remain in debate. However, the fact that more than the physical has now been proven by science cannot now be forgotten. So, there is something more than the physical. That much, we know. What that something is is a belief. So, while his belief in God was, indeed, a belief, the realization and understanding that there is something more than the physical and that, for instance, time is an illusion, is based on inference, from, for instance, the double slit.

And, btw, that was never the point. You asked what physicist believed it (implying that there are none). I gave you a stud of a physicist that, without a doubt, believes it.

15

(13 replies, posted in Writing Tips & Advice)

^^^ thats good. Perhaps, to further avoid the pov slip, "Windsor watched Lupus bristle, presumably at the use of his first name, and suppressed the urge to smile."

16

(83 replies, posted in TheNextBigWriter Premium)

Charles_F_Bell wrote:

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

Do you hear yourself ? Like, do you even look at what you post ? For one, those that are affected by such paranoia are the ones most likely to be playing video games in their basement, avoiding any and all possibility of negative interactions. All in all, not a huge deal for even the worst case scenario, and in no way, shape, or form affects anyone but themselves. Most of these people are docile, and completely harmless, and even moreso due its effects, whether part of the 20 percent or not (and thats supposing the 20 percent figure is even correct).

You simply dont have a leg to stand on with it. Period. In any way, shape, or form. Then you have the negative effects being placed on them not even by the substance, but by the nature of the legal status involving the substance. How did that work out with alcohol ? Mmmhmm, continue trying to argue something so utterly ridiculous. I assure you, it does not cast a positive light on you.

In terms of the rooster, which is even more harmful to others than said substance, I would even say is beyond ridiculous as an argument or comparison, since that actually does affect others in a negative way (people trying to sleep, etc.)(they can be quite annoying). However, I have foung myself in such a situation where I was affected by that very thing. And ALL IT IS is an annoyance. When confronted with the situation, I neither reported them, nor complained to them, as it wasnt truly harming me. It wasnt serious enough to make them get rid of their, probably beloved, pet, and an annoyance is all it was. To be fair, I find the level of ignorance prevalent in your posts to be far more of a nuisance and far more annoying than the rooster ever was, yet I would still have you continue to post when you deem fit (though I would prefer with a lack of ignorance), as that is part of being human, working together, disagreements, personal and societal growth. If we dont address the ignorance through discussion, how will we grow ? That makes what we are doing right now, while annoying, still an important thing. Things may annoy us mildly, but that doesnt mean that we should condemn people for it. Let them keep their roosters. And, to logically hit this home, even IF a rooster presented an unbearable situation for someone, and needed to be stopped, first, someone should try talking to the person about it. It is common decency before risking getting them a needless fine. And, even IF the person had to get rid of their rooster because it had created an unbearable situation for someone, it would not necessitate the criminalization of all who had roosters world wide, since plenty of people can keep roosters responsibly without harming another in any way. You cant blanket people like that. You cant assume one bad attribute applies to an entire genre. Its not any different than the assumption that anyone who has watched a violent film will go and eff a theater up. Even if the one out of a half million that does it has watched a violent film, that doesnt mean that the other half a mill will. There is a large variety of personality and psychological factors at play. Tell me, have YOU ever watched a violent film ? O_O

If so, have you already taken the first step to effing up a theater ?

See ? Blanketing things isnt effectual and does little to aid society when used to condemn people.

Charles_F_Bell wrote:

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.

Now that the first ridiculousness is addressed, lets address this ridiculousness. My post was valid and true, as evidenced to this atrocity of attempted arguements and points in the very post I am replying to. And "slapped you down for the punk you are" ??? Is this how you see yourself ? Is this how you see your posts ? This is nothing short of delusional. In no way, shape, or form did you "slap" me down. You responded with an incorrect assumption. That is all. You then went forth to spout the ignorant, incorrect, and completely wrong junk that you had been all along. Your posts lack intelligence and logic. There is no remedy for that on my end. I can merely point it out, and should point it out, since you should definitely reconsider your worldviews that are counterproductive to society and humanity in general, let alone, yourself. Not to mention that they are highly egocentric and damnable towards others, even if sometimes only in tone and context.

Not only that, but even if you had managed to proverbially "slap" me, that you would be proud of such a feat is saddening. I am here arguing against the guy who is condemning people for ridiculousness and spouting forth ignorance as fact, often in contest of intelligent thought. Consider that your views may have been warped over time and readjust. There is no way that I believe that, deep down, you truly believe in your heart that you are correct on most of these matters. I can see it in the way that you write that the constant regurgitation of what you have been told is almost being regurgitated now out of habit and a fear of change. You gotta be true to yourself if you want to better yourself and even find happiness. You wont find happiness on these threads. You will find it within.

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

I dont know how else to say this other than "You are wrong." Simply put, the vast majority of physicists believe as Cobber said. This is a simple fact, for which I even showed you an article attesting to the fact that the very few physicists that believe time is more than a perceptual illusion are considered to be controversial (mostly because thay are completely wrong). Your attempt to say that he was controversial for a different reason doesnt stand, as it blatantly attaches it to the fact he thought time was "real." Again, a lack of comprehension on your part.

I would like you to research the double slit experiment and come back and tell me how it pertains to time and physics, as well as the implications that it has for reality. Here is a hint. It is impossible to explain if time were "real," aka, linear.

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, trying desparately to get his name out there and sell his book by going against the grain and using inadequate logic to drive his theorums. The fact of the matter is that it doesnt work. He is trying to create a way for time to be real by using a series of changes. However, a series, when viewed as a series, does not change. It is a self defeating standpoint. Your inablity to understand the quotes you used or their relation within physics only further proves my many points throughout this post.

Charles_F_Bell wrote:

He also believed in God

So ? Sorry to tell you this, but materialism, and any belief that believes in no higher presence than the physical, is all but defunct due to the observer effect. Conscious awareness has an effect on reality. This brings consciousness to the forefront as having a higher than physical presence. Whether or not it is God, or a group consciousness where we all comprise that consciousness, there is something higher than the physical. Everyone is just one obe away from switching up their whole worldview, which, btw, science is finally starting to admit that there are valid claims of.

17

(83 replies, posted in TheNextBigWriter Premium)

^ touche, to a point, but, to a point, a man must stand somewhere, so it is best to know where to stand, and if determined only from the best drawn of conclusions one might find, then one should be determined to draw the best of conclusions. At the very least, one should know where one stands, even if he knows not which place is best. And, upon finding a place more stable than his current one, he should have the courage and willpower to move. Only a fool knows not his standing and refuses not only to be moved, but to look about himself for the lay of the land.

And thought and question are the marks of positive, forward movement. One cannot progress through life or soul without it.

So, basically, it is important to understand the noselessness of man, but it is also important to continue trying to come to the best conclusions possible and not backtrack on the progress we have made, especially not simply for the sake of willful ignorance. We may not know much, but we do know little, and if we arent guided by the little we know, then we are truly lost.

18

(83 replies, posted in TheNextBigWriter Premium)

Charles_F_Bell wrote:

Sure, public forum, wink. wink.

lolol naw dude. I, at least for the most part, couldnt care less. Anyone thats douchebag enough to get someone in trouble over something so ridiculous or enforce a law that isnt good for the people is, in my opinion, the bad guy, deserving of the very fate he would wish or bestow upon others, albeit for greater cause in itself. I literally mean that I am not a user of that substance. Although, I would like to say that, if I were, it would make my arguments no less valid in any way, shape, or form. If I were on that substance and using such logic so easily, what would that say about your negative views toward said substance ? 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.

Charles_F_Bell wrote:

What physicist believes that?

Actually, that is the general consensus amongst physicists. 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

lol

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

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

"Now he has departed from this strange world a little ahead of me. That means nothing. People like us, who believe in physics, know that the distinction between past, present, and future is only a stubbornly persistent illusion."

http://rescomp.stanford.edu/~cheshire/E … uotes.html

And, as I said, and as is in the video I posted before, time has already been partially proven to be an illusion via the double slit experiment, in which placing the detection device at the very end of the experiment, they were able to show that it collapsed the wave function going back in time, meaning that the current moment is not all that exists at that current moment.

NJC wrote:

I don't want to give Blish's story away, but imagine you could eavesdrop on every radio message ever sent, and you set about making sure that history unfolded the way it was "supposed to."

So more along the lines of my second guess ? I would say that chaos theory would pretty much determine my efforts vain. There are far too many variables aside from just what goes over radio. Still, it is an interesting concept. I picture a lonely robot, trying in sadness to bring back humanity, effortfully trying to sway the events of the past through radio communication alone, and it never working. Well, I suppose, eventually, he would succeed in bringing back humanity, but it would never be in quite the same capacity, I should think. Just my thoughts. lol. A most interesting concept, though.

19

(83 replies, posted in TheNextBigWriter Premium)

lol I like the bread loaf, too, though.

This is a video some might be interested in. It isnt directly related to time/space or the free will vs pre determination debacle, but it does have some pretty hefty inferences about reality. They screwed up on the very end, though. Of course, that is based on Schrodinger's egotistical belief that HE was the one that would collapse the superposition, and not the cat itself. This is because of a common human failure to realize that we are not the center of the universe. In reality, the cat, too, is perfectly capable of collapsing the superposition, as it, too, is just as much a part of the group consciousness as we are. So, basically, ignore the ending. WE are the observers. The cat is an observer. All conscious life is comprised of observers. The logic for the rest is pretty solid, though. It basically starts with the double slit and builds up from there.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4C5pq7W5yRM

20

(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. Imagine it as a loaf of bread chopped into very thin slices. These slices are the "moments" that we perceive. Our brain puts these together so that it appears that time flows.

This is exactly what I was saying with my DVD analogy. Then, when, and if, the person changes the course of events through free will, the entire bread loaf changes. My one addition is that changes can be made retroactively back in time in the same manner as forward. This has even been proven to happen on a small scale at the very least through the observer effect in quantum mechanics. We collapse wave functions of probability going back past the proverbial slice of bread that is the moment of perception. If we were to consider much of reality as existing in a state of probability, similar to the bread loaf being one of many possible bread loafs (albeit only one is manifest at any given moment), then collapsing a wave function can realistically change everything, going all the way back to the beginning of time.

Also, I would add that throughout storytelling, oracles and seers have sometimes been known to speak with veils and sometimes only reveal information to guide one toward a particular end, not to avoid it. So, theres kind of a lot of play there for what you can do.

NJC, could we get a bit of elaboration on that ? I am unfamiliar with that work and find it quite perplexing. Going off of what I see there, I would think that the man has created a paradox in which free will was forced, thereby keeping free will from truly being a choice, which therefore isnt free will, etc..... Or, perhaps it is implying that free will isnt really free will, since our actions are guided by chronocommunication, and that we only perceive it to be free will. Either way, I could be wrong and would like to hear other's thoughts on it.

21

(83 replies, posted in TheNextBigWriter Premium)

Rofl, as I have already stated in the other thread, I am not a user of that substance in any capacity. Its ok, though. In keeping with your previous form of lacking reading comprehension, I would expect no less. So... epic fail there...

Your last post is an excellent example of your lack of logic.

"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."

This would, in no way, shape, or form, violate the law of causality or identity. It merely brings the cause and effect in question into the unknown realm. And Im not even sure how you are attempting to relate the law of identity to the situation with the character, as his identity would remain the same, regardless of what is claimed is his destiny or the happenings around him, and one could even go so far as to say his psychological reaction to his destiny could even be seen as a part of his identity. This perfectly illustrates my irritation with the lack of logic in your posts. Googling them and attempting to use them in arguments is not sufficient, I am afraid. You must actually understand the logic behind them in order to use them efficiently. Nice try, though. At least you are trying to improve your logic game, and that is admirable. Believe it or not, but I do actually appreciate that.

Still, try considering concepts over wording for a greater grasp on what you are speaking of. It isnt so much about the wording of concepts as the logic behind them. If I were to say, for example, that A=B, and B=C, then C=A is a logical assumption. You could argue all day long that, technically, A is a different letter than B or C, and therefore is not equal to either one, yet that would not follow the logic of the concept being discussed. This is the main point of contention between me and you. One must first understand the concepts being discussed and then apply logic accordingly, and one must have an understanding of each and how they might interrelate.

22

(83 replies, posted in TheNextBigWriter Premium)

Understandng how predestination and destiny work within reality could be helpful. Thing is, predetermination interferes with free will. However, time is not linear. Imagine, if you will, that all of our reality existed on a dvd. Your moment that you are experiencing, your perception, is a specific point of data on the disc. That does not mean that the data for all the rest of time does not exist at the very same moment on either side of that point.

Now, here is where it gets interesting, and, while this may sound more like fiction than fact, I assure you that this is, in fact, reality. Reality is a construct that is being held together by all of us. Our souls, if you will, power reality. We create reality in order to have a meaningful experience. Our souls, however, existing both inside and outside reality, can perceive the data that is on either side of the exact moment that we are proverbially watching on the DVD. Therefore, one who is in tune with one's soul may become privy to what will happen in the future. In addition to this, all of us here, all of our souls, are part of a group consciousness. Because we are creating reality together, we all decide on certain directions for us, as a whole, to travel. Thus, we create certain points that are, essentially, predetermined. Most things, however, do not effect the larger direction. Therefore, if you wish to make a change within reality, it likely wont affect consensus, and it will be able to happen without interference from others. Therefore, much of our choice is allowed to us.

So, what of destiny, you say ? Well, the thing is, each and everything within our reality is subject to choice. Consensus on even the largest of events and direction can change. So, if everyone, or the vast majority, chooses a different path for life, that consensus changes, and the data on the disc changes. Even though the point of perception is localized, all the data, past, present, and future, can all change in an instant.

This happens all the time. However, we are not aware of it. This is because our physical memories, the physical data being stored on our physical brains, is comprised of the data that has been along the point of perception on the previous segment of the DVD, which has changed. So, even though things changed throughout reality, we are unaware of it.

But, since the soul is able to perceive the data and exists outside of the physical data, it is able to perceive the changes. This is why someone is more likely to be privy to the changes if they are in tune with their soul.

So, basically, we have free will on a small scale, a large scale, and we have predetermination on a small scale (individual happenings that lead up to the events determined by consensus) and a large scale (consensus). If we, for ourselves, choose to change something that does not align with consensus, it will either be negated or will create a course correction throughout reality. For example, the hero could kill himself, creating a disagreement with consensus, since he does ultimately have free will, and, even though that WAS his destiny, now reality will have to shift to bring about the same end effect. (I dont mean necessarily that massive changes would happen, but things would start changing, leading up to the same conclusion, unless consensus changed as well)

Thats pretty much how things work in real life, so hopefully it helps your thoughts on your character.

And to those that would instantly write this off as ridiculous, if you have ever had deja vu, you have experienced it on some level. And, good luck explaining the observer effect or quantum mechanics.

23

(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.

Rofl, I assure you, he lives in such a state in which he is so consistently, utterly wrong that it is truly a remarkable and disheartening thing to witness. I am of unsure whether it is pity, or whether it is irritation at the sheer ignorance spouted forth by this character that takes precedence the majority of the time.

24

(33 replies, posted in TheNextBigWriter Premium)

And (@ Charles) You have already cited pharmaceuticals as the substances that the two worst cases you speak of were possibly affected by. And the other two, one of whom was a victim of blatant racism, and another who died after exhibiting actions and demeanor that are counter-intuitive to the effects caused by the substance we are speaking of, were entirely different in all aspects. You could just as easily say that they died because they were Black, or because they had both eated bread within the previous 24 hour stretch of time. And all 4 of the incidents of which you speak had entirely different sets of circumstances, aggrivators, external influences, and methodologies involved. That you attempt to prove causation through only the very loosest of correlations is simply beyond comprehension as a complete, logicial argument. Your posts are rife with ignorance and incorrect information, as well as a lack of logical or scientific backing.

25

(33 replies, posted in TheNextBigWriter Premium)

(About Charles)  lol is this guy for real ? Aside from the fact that you have avoided logical response to any, perfectly valid, argumentations against your perfectly invalid viewpoint, your aversion to providing any real, logical argumentation of your own, and your logical fallacy of providing correlation as causation in the worst manner imaginable, that last post was utterly ridiculous. The entire point of a governing body is to govern, not to control. And the entire reasoning behind that governance is to asist maintaining a liveable, positive experience for the people it governs. When people, especially within the governing body, forget that is their true purpose, we run into problems. So, what we have here is not a governing body that does not respect the rule of law, but a governing body that, in this small way (which we need more of), is trying to respect the people it governs.

In addition to this, there is the letter of the law, and there is the spirit of the law. When one adheres stringently to the letter of the law, even when the spirit of the law no longer matches the letter of the law, we run into problems. Some laws were designed by corprations in regards to maintaining corporate profits. This is one of them. If you dont believe me, look into the origins of its banning. The spirit of the law is to reduce crime and things that harm the people, but the letter of the law is STILL maintaining corporate profits. The goal of the governing body should not be using tax money that comes from the people to subdue the very people it was created to protect, much less over antiquated, douchetastic laws that have screwed over many without good cause and kept many people from maintaining an enjoyable life devoid of chronic pain, especially when its alternatives are all far worse than it on the body, are addictive, and sold at a ridiculous markup by, you guessed it, corporations. If it leads to good people getting screwed over when they have done no real harm, than I question whether its supporters the good guys, or the bad guys. It is easy to egotistically believe that we are right in everything we do, but it is a LOT harder to question what we do and decide for ourselves. To enforce a negative thing for the sake of a letter is still a negative thing. So, if one were a thinking man, one should ask oneself if ones beliefs are truly right, or if they are simply following ideologies without question or logical thought. One should never ally oneself with a belief that they, deep within themselves, do not feel is right, regardless of the letters comprising anything.

And, no, I am not a user of the substance we are discussing in any capacity. So, no, this isnt an argument made by a biased person.