/sci/ - Science & Math

>>14764217
>You realize the """signal"""" must be a 2 way communication
I don't know

>Are you a schizo ? What is this 1920s retardation ?
Is it in the radio or not? Obviously not, it exists no matter how many fucking radios you destroy. You're never going to find the "signal" in a radio, much like you're never going to find the "soul" in a human or in any particular thing. That doesn't mean it doesn't exist, it means you haven't found the source for the soul yet.

People actually take it to the extreme and introduce soul(s), as in "my soul" "your soul". This is also a misconception. It's not yours to possess, much like the signal is not the radio's to possess (if it's not the source that is).

>You simply assume no one can lose a memory.
It's not something to lose.

>Proof ?
Define "memory" if you disagree: It's the process of recollection, an action. Not actually physically something itself.

>And this is unolsifiable.
Because it isn't real. It isn't physical. I know sweetie, this kills the atomist. This is the end of the line of your empirical gook.

>Source I made that one up.
Memories? The source? Yeah basically.

>What you schizo ? What ?
You're the schizo asking such empty questions.

>>12011659
>objects fall down regardless of their charge
Is a description of an object falling. It's explanation is comparable as a sort of "first sin" for mass. Mass inherently has it...and nobody can explain why. You have:

>mass causes gravity
>gravity causes mass
which is circular.

>a model using two things that also have never been empirical being "warped" that causes the phenomena known as gravity
Wait, lets double check that real quick
>two things (space/time)
that allegedly exist and cause something according to this theory
>being "warped" that causes the phenomena known as gravity
So even according to GR, gravity doesn't actually exist as a force. It's a description of something else doing something.

And lets not forget:
>the never verified, made up particle "graviton"

So what you're "differentiating" in the first place has never been shown to actually exist.

>im not going to explain GR to you, just read gravitation you fucking moron
>I need to explain GR in order explain gravity

Kind of like how you need "photons" to describe the photoelectric effect despite the fact that there's no such thing as a fucking photon particle. Well GR doesn't explain the cause of gravity either, it also describes it. Even the fucking Wikipedia article specifically calls it a description you stupid fuck. What's even more retarded is that like the photoelectric effect, it also needs the inclusion of more shit (space/time) that doesn't exist in order to describe it.

>you just used 4 different words in totally incoherent ways in a single sentence,
You are an absolute professional at making descriptions and pointing out what you see. But see how nobody knows what the fuck you're talking about when you don't provide an explanation to what it is you're describing?
What words and how were they used incoherently? See, that is what the "explanation" would provide.

>>12011661
There's always some baby ready to report me to the only janny on this popsci containment board

>>11662725
"I could argue with you but I'm too lazy and scared to acknowledge a term that's been bastardized".
It's okay, it doesn't have to be about God or Jesus you know.
>>11663468
>You can't prove that souls exist, so they don't exist.
This is an argument from ignorance and doesn't even warrant a response. You must also believe there isn't mice in your house because you can't see or hear them at this moment.

>>11662703
Math quantifies what exists. It does not actually pertain to the events that take place in reality. The thing exists and then is measured. The non physical reality could only be memory itself, not something specific such as the act of thinking or logic. Memory is just the stability of knowledge, just a lost recalling of something that was to be known about. Memories of the previous iterations of whatever are imprinted on future iterations to grow upon as a foundation.
In a way, you are memories. DNA based on other DNA causes matter to condense and eventually form into an organism. This organism, this memory did not exist prior and will interlace/corrupt its own memories as it progresses. Like Plato's cave, we'll never be able to see or know "the sun" just as we'll never see the original "source" or uncorrupted memory.

>I personally believe we are much much larger than our physical bodies, and that even our physical bodies are part of our soul. It's just our physical body is the part of our soul that pokes into this simulated reality. Kinda like tip of the iceberg if you will.
Sort of the opposite with me. That we're infinitesimally smaller than our physical bodies in the form of memory. That the loss and corruption of the idea/coherency/memory that makes you "you" is what makes "matter". That what you do, how you are, your personality, and the actions you want to do is not actually "physical" at all, it just requires that you be "physical" in order to do those things translated in this physical world of overlapped and corrupted memories.

>>11260597
>>11260702
>>11260733
Memory is stability of knowledge, just as immortality is the stability of life and eternity is the stability of being.