fate/destiny in fiction (Page 3 of 4)

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

See also http://www.ariel.com.au/jokes/What_is_fate.html .

Oh, heck. I had my answers after the first few replies to this thread. The rest is just good entertainment. :-)

Thanks to all.
Dirk

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...)).

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

lol no. Just no.

Really ?

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.

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,

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.

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. 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.