/sci/ - Science & Math

>>2323261

thanks man that reassures me.

i am bit worried because nihilism seems to become a big hype of 2011. The number of nihilists replys here on /sci/ increase exponentially by day.

that`s why i started this thread.

One of verry few things that i consider absolutely true is i appear to be a human.

So the meaning of life is probeby to manifest myself as a human. (looking into history, believing in a deity is part of it).

Just like the meaning of life for a flower is probebly to manifest itself as a flower.

3/3
So stop being a pathatic fuck and accept the fact that some thing seem miraculous.

Why are sceintists so sure about this interpretation?
Because of this experiment sucessfully performed in 2006... i remember reading about it in new sceintist.

>Our realization of Wheeler’s delayed choice GedankenExperiment demonstrates beyond any doubt that the behavior of the photon in the interferometer depends on the choice of the observable which is measured, even when that choice is made at a position and a time such that it is separated from the entrance of the photon in the interferometer.
>they claim that this experiment definitively rules out all interpretations of Quantum Mechanics, except the Copenhagen and the Bohm interpretation.
http://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=174876

Not claiming it a soul exactly as discribed in the bible though.

Sadly most people here think they are too smart to "believe" in something like this. Even with hard evidence.

See on Wiki how it is a disputed subject and people are trying to make the measurement effect more likely by saying most sceintists belief that explanation.
>From this point of view, there is no 'observer effect', only one vastly entangled quantum system.[citation needed] A significant minority[who?] still find the equations point to an observer.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Observer_effect_(physics)

>>2224644
>>2224644

i was thalking about that theory of the origin of the universe.

It`s actually just a parody on some popsceince article i`ve read few years ago. They claimed it is almost certain we live in a matrix-like reality.

If an average universe like ours would ultimately produce 2 or 3 "zions" it would, according to these philosophers, make it much more likely we are just a simulation rather then some unique set of rules.

>>2221650

Don`t be so sure you faggot

>Is the cat required to be an observer?, or does its existence in a single well-defined classical state require another external observer?
>The Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics implies that after a while, the cat is simultaneously alive and dead. Yet, when we look in the box, we see the cat either alive or dead, not both alive and dead.
>the Schrödinger cat thought experiment remains a topical touchstone for all interpretations of quantum mechanics. How each interpretation deals with Schrödinger's cat is often used as a way of illustrating and comparing each interpretation's particular features, strengths, and weaknesses.

>>1640969
I disagree

the brain contains more neurons than the universe contains stars.

I don`t see us copying all those neural connections in a computer model within the near future.

I believe new intelligence can be realized. We have our philosophers, we have our programmers, we have our japanese.
The only thing that`s missing is some sheer processing power.

2/3
For expamle it is not "christianity" that holded back sceintific progression in the middle ages, it`s the people who were holding back sceintific progression at that time who holded back sceintific progression, becouse of thier INDIVIDUAL interpretation of christianity.
Just like an atheist can have social-darwinism and determinism as his fulfilling of atheism.

It`s pretty coward from Dawkins and other atheists to keep picking on orthodox religious, these people often lead a romantic life and are easy targets for the well prepared atheist "intellectuals".
I consider picking easy targets over equal opponents coward.
Why keep bashing those poor people who have respectable moral values.
I would rather like to see them arguing with religious people who are critical-thinking themselves, like those religious sceintists who work at CERN or "theist" philosophers/nihilists.

Ok now im getting sick of you silly people. Anyone who still thinks determinism is a reasonable worldview probebly hasn`t read a sceintific article scince the late 70`s. Or they simply don`t understand modern (pop-)/sceince.

90% of people here clapper thier ears if the hear about "double stil experiment" becouse they never heard of it.

Guess what im 22 and i first heard of it when i was like 16.
I was atheist at that time and believed in determinism. As the years go i was able to put some facts together and got wiser by age.
Ending up being christian.

That`s why im tired of this /sci/.
On this board i`m constantly confronted by these questions like "is there a god" "who am i" "how to interpret evolution" i already formed my (probebly final) opinion on some years ago.

And it`s getting annoying to keep seeing people getting trapped in the same tinking faults i was in a few years ago.
Wish you guys were more open and leave behind you literal and orthodox world view.

As a christian, giving your opinion here doesn`t make any sense becouse you are shove away as being a troll, retard, or christfag who is not critical. This while i am verry critical thinking.
Like there is a rebelation with "atheists vs christians". there are many different forms of being christianity, there is allmost a different for everyone. Therefor It is impossible to argue against "christianity" as a whole.
For expamle it it is not "christianity" that holded back sceintific progression in the middle ages, it`s the people who were holding back sceintific progression at that time who holded back sceintific progression, becouse of thier INDIVIDUAL interpretation of christianity.

Just like an atheist can have social darwinism or determinism as his fulfilling of atheism.

Think i`m going to check /x/ a little more becouse i`m sure ill find some enjoyable people there with a beauty and open mind i will never come across here anyway.

Ok now im getting sick of you silly people. Anyone who still thinks determinism is a reasonable worldview probebly hasn`t read a sceintific article scince the late 70`s. Or they simply don`t understand modern (pop-)/sceince.

90% of people here clapper thier ears if the hear about "double stil experiment" becouse they never heard of it.

Guess what im 22 and i first heard of it when i was like 16.
I was atheist at that time and believed in determinism. As the years go i was able to put some facts together and got wiser by age.
Ending up being christian.

That`s why im tired of this /sci/.
On this board i`m constantly confronted by these questions like "is there a god" "who am i" "how to interpret evolution" i already formed my (probebly final) opinion on some years ago.

And it`s getting annoying to keep seeing people getting trapped in the same tinking faults i was in a few years ago.
Wish you guys were more open and leave behind you literal and orthodox world view.

As a christian, giving your opinion here doesn`t make any sense becouse you are shove away as being a troll, retard, or christfag who is not critical. This while i am verry critical thinking.
Like there is a rebelation with "atheists vs christians". there are many different forms of being christianity, there is allmost a different for everyone. Therefor It is impossible to argue against "christianity" as a whole.
For expamle it it is not "christianity" that holded back sceintific progression in the middle ages, it`s the people who were holding back sceintific progression at that time who holded back sceintific progression, becouse of thier INDIVIDUAL interpretation of christianity.

Just like an atheist can have social darwinism or determinism as his fulfilling of atheism.

Think i`m going to check /x/ a little more becouse i`m sure ill find some enjoyable people there with a beauty and open mind i will never come across here anyway.

Ok now im getting sick of you silly people. Anyone who still thinks determinism is a reasonable worldview probebly hasn`t read a sceintific article scince the late 70`s. Or they simply don`t understand modern (pop-)/sceince.

90% of people here clapper thier ears if the hear about "double stil experiment" becouse they never heard of it.

Guess what im 22 and i first heard of it when i was like 16.
I was atheist at that time and believed in determinism. As the years go i was able to put some facts together and got wiser by age.
Ending up being christian.

That`s why im tired of this /sci/.
On this board i`m constantly confronted by these questions like "is there a god" "who am i" "how to interpret evolution" i already formed my (probebly final) opinion on some years ago.

And it`s getting annoying to keep seeing people getting trapped in the same pitfall i was in a few years ago.
Wish you guys were more open and leave behind you literal and orthodox world view.

As a christian, giving your opinion here doesn`t make any sense becouse you are shove away as being a troll, retard, or christfag who is not critical. This while i am verry critical thinking.
Like there is a rebelation with "atheists vs christians". there are many different forms of being christianity, there is allmost a different for everyone. Therefor It is impossible to argue against "christianity" as a whole.
For expamle it it is not "christianity" that holded back sceintific progression in the middle ages, it`s the people who were holding back sceintific progression at that time who holded back sceintific progression, becouse of thier INDIVIDUAL interpretation of christianity.

Just like an atheist can have social darwinism or determinism as his fulfilling of atheism.

Think i`m going to check /x/ a little more becouse i`m sure ill find some enjoyable people there with a beauty and open mind i will never come across here anyway.

Ok now im getting sick of you silly people. Anyone who still thinks determinism is a reasonable worldview probebly hasn`t read a sceintific article scince the late 70`s. Or they simply don`t understand modern (pop-)/sceince.

90% of people here clapper thier ears if the hear about "double stil experiment" becouse they never heard of it.

Guess what im 22 and i first heard of it when i was like 16.
I was atheist at that time and believed in determinism. As the years go i was able to put some facts together and got wiser by age.
Ending up being christian.

That`s why im tired of this /sci/.
On this board i`m constantly confronted by these questions like "is there a god" "who am i" "how to interpret evolution" i already formed my (probebly final) opinion on some years ago.

And it`s getting annoying to keep seeing people getting trapped in the same pitfall i was in a few years ago.
Wish you guys were more open and leave behind you literal and orthodox world view.

As a christian, giving your opinion here doesn`t make any sense becouse you are shove away as being a troll, retard, or christfag who is not critical. This while i am verry critical thinking.
Like there is a rebelation with "atheists vs christians". there are many different forms of being christianity, there is allmost a different for everyone. Therefor It is impossible to argue against "christianity" as a whole.
For expamle it it is not "christianity" that holded back sceintific progression in the middle ages, it`s the people who were holding back sceintific progression at that time who holded back sceintific progression, becouse of thier INDIVIDUAL interpretation of christianity.

Just like an atheist can have social darwinism or determinism as his fulfilling of atheism.

>>1506869

"If you dont believe in Jesus we will make your life living hell you unthankful prick"

So atheists, you are blaming religion as cause of indoctrination.
How come allmost all modern (critical-thinking) christians would contempt this kind of practices.

It`s simply retarded to be "against religion", while you really only have argument against the orthodox and fundamentalists. lumping them together with all other modern thinking people who are religious.

>>1506869

"If you dont believe in Jesus we will make your life living hell you unthankful prick"

So atheists, you are blaming religion as cause of indoctrination.
How come allmost all modern (critical-thinking) christians would contempt this kind of practices.

>>1438970
This