/sci/ - Science & Math

i stopped posting here for months.

What happened to Aether by the way is he still around??

>How does this make you feel, /sci/?

99% of /sci/ thinks feelings are an irrelevant human construct and/or have no feelings thats how it makes /sci/ feel.
zombies who think there is no meaning of life and assume determinism.
Just because thier foist social images demand them to believe so.

No matter how hard you atheist guys try to deny it, Most of you rely on the exact same fundamental aspects of life as most theists do…
(most because there are exeptional retards like anti-theists and orthodox religious.)

Some one can decide to rely on (belief in); culture, tradition, other people`s accounts, it`s own feeling, it`s own experience, extreme-scepticism, sceince, etc etc…
We all rely on all of those aspects i just mentioned in some extend. This is largely dependent on our view on life and personal history.

Things you know for sure should be the beacons of light to to hold on to, not sceince and logic. Of course they are important aspects of modern society, but they are not the only and defenetly not the last experienceable truths on this matter.

The fact that you are the appearance of a human being, including a world around you is one of verry few facts that could be considered absolute truth.(even "i am a human" would make an undefendable statement when challanged by common sense, you are the appearance of a human)

This is the highest form of knowledge to reality and this is what should compose your worldview. Mysticism and thought has been, it appears so, the default point of view of human beings for thousands of years.

WHO or WHAT do you think you are to know better ?
WHO or WHAT justifies for dropping parts of your natural appearance ?

The burden of prove is on your side of arguments here, period.
ps. Lack to the belief in a God == Lack to the world around you

btw you can suggest for streaming some video any time.

Lessons From The Brain-Damaged Investor

People with certain kinds of brain damage may make better investment decisions. That is the conclusion of a new study offering some compelling evidence that mixing emotion with investing can lead to bad outcomes.

http://online.wsj.com/article/0,,SB112190164023291519,00.html
all you need to know to learn economy.

Lessons From The Brain-Damaged Investor

People with certain kinds of brain damage may make better investment decisions. That is the conclusion of a new study offering some compelling evidence that mixing emotion with investing can lead to bad outcomes.

http://online.wsj.com/article/0,,SB112190164023291519,00.html
all you need to know to learn economy.

>>2395893

Again, why would something one has faith in be incompatible within the known and unknown laws of physics ??

There are and always will be lots of possibilities/interpretations on how the universe might work.

if something is unknown doesn`t mean it is not compatible.

Some one can decide to rely on (belief in); culture, tradition, other people`s accounts, it`s own feeling, it`s own experience, extreme-scepticism, sceince, etc etc...
All of these aspects are reasonable things to rely on depending on your (philosophical) view on life.

People can see one or a combination of these aspects as fundemental and therefor must belief in a god or not, in order to fallow his/her own logic.

And this precisely why atheism is a belief rather than a lack of belief.
It is not the question of God existing or not which they lack belief in, it is the reasons for God existing or not which they believe in.

Note that being religious is just as reasonable as atheism.

>>2322614
>It just doesn't matter if I'm dead or alive.
You are acting in contradictions in my opinion.

have you ever wondered the absurdity of existance itself?
Have you ever wondered what the relations between your innerself(your entity of thought) and the world around you are? there are lots of possibility`s.

Appearance is where illogical absurdity stops and where the manifest of reason begins.

You can describe yourself as the appearance of a human, no matter what ultimate reality we live in. Even if you`re just a part of a multi-dimensional tree, a matrix-like environment(verry unlikely), or the a creation of god the statement that you are the appearance of a human still stands ground.
The same goes for flowers, rocks and "the known universe".
any other defenition of yourself and the world around you would fail. unless you try to include illogical absurditys or paradoxes.

If, to your best sceintific knowing, survival is part of the most likely defenition of yourself as a human being.
Then why not appreciate being alive.

How are you gonne justify to put yourself in a position above nature and rely on paradoxes.

See you nihilists are acting against you own logic.

>>2261224
>you don't need to like ur job as long as you like the money it brings

Your grandfather was a slave trader.

And your mother is a whore but that seems allright to you.

>>2249725

hasn`t the slightest understanding of altruism.

in fact you haven`t the slightest understanding of anything.

Nihilism doesn`t justify for becoming an ignorant and dumb ass like you.

You picked the wrong board man now go STFO.

2/4
QM has revealed that matter is not made out of some tiny tiny bits of matter, it is something much more complex.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DfPeprQ7oGc
Just pointing out here, scince we barely know what the universe/matter is made of it is retarded to rule out the possebilety of a soul.

I am not here to agree a consensus on what coases the wave form of particles to collapse. And don`t claim to know all about the sceince of quantum mechanics.
I`m just repeating what prominent sceintists already concluded.
So if you self-declared QM specialists think it`s a rediculous idea, faggory, new age bullshit, popsceince, impossible, should kill myself etc... just contact these prominent researchers in stead of ruining this thread.

Wiki
>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.
>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.
See the copenhagen interpretation suggests the collapse of particle in it`s wave form is not ultimately caused by interaction with surrounded particle`s,
BUT it ultimately collapses because of observation by a living being (interaction with a particle that has been/is going to be observed by a living being).

That`s what the Copenhagen interpretation says and thats what is considered the most likely interpretation of QM by prominent sceintists all over the world.
It seems, there is some immaterial element of an observer(human being/ other being) involved.

just made a thread about this 3 min before this thread was created.

>2242127

>>2221502

Here it is

btw i was just repeating what prominent sceintists already concluded. There is some immaterial element on humans/ other beings.

Take a look at Schrödinger's cat paradox for example. You will notice the state of the cat is ultimately determined by observation of an intelligent being.
If they would plug harth rithm measurement on the cat and leave the divice inside the box there wold still be a observation/measurement.
if you would take the measurement devise outside the box and let no one watch it, and let the device not interact with any other particle that has been interacted with another living being, it would technically still be in a closed system. And will do both measure harth rithms and giving a long beep at the same time.

So if you self-declared QM specialists think it`s a rediculous idea, faggory, new age bullshit, popsceince, impossible, should kill myself etc... just contact these prominent researchers in stead ruin threads on /sci/.

1/2
soul = immaterial entity or the immaterial part of a human/ other being.

The idea of a soul is deeply rooted in society becaus it is a fundemantal part of christianity, judaism and islam.

Some people here it is a ridiculous idea because there is no evidence for it/has nothing to do with sceince/is impossible.

Those people are actually retards who haven`t read a sceintific article scince the late 70`s.

Scince quantum theories make it verry likely matter is made out of more then just some tiny tiny bits of matter, it`s something much more complex.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DfPeprQ7oGc

Just pointing out here, souls can`t be excluded because we barely know what the universe/matter is made of.

Therefor it is retarded saying the idea of souls are ridiculous.

This is a rock solid statement so ofcourse you guys going to attacking me on peson, saying i`m a fag, laughable and know nothing about QM; --> which has nothing to do with my statement.

Article about the Wheeler's delayed choice experiment being successfully preformed...

>According to quantum mechanics, light can be either a graceful rippling wave or a hail of bulletlike particles, depending on how you look at it. Now, an experiment shows that an observer can make the choice retroactively, after light has entered a measuring apparatus. The result shows that reality is truly in the eye of the beholder.

>The results, reported this week in Science, prove that the photon does not decide whether to behave like a particle or a wave when it hits the first beam splitter, Roch says. Rather, the experimenter decides only later, when he decides whether to put in the second beam splitter. In a sense, at that moment, he chooses his reality.

http://news.sciencemag.org/sciencenow/2007/02/16-04.html

>implying in this experiment the photon is NOT effected by the act MEASUREMENT, but by the act of OBSERVATION.

Sadly most atheists/sceintists 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.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Observer_effect_(physics)

this fucking sucks man

you`re taking orthodoxism to a whole new level.

Seems you have already made conclusions about all different things and build upon this temple of "truths".

Please don`t pretend as if you know what people`s needs and desires are.
Leave more room forsuspicion. There might be things you didn`t even know you don`t know.

>>2149272
>All intelligent life is inherently dangerous to all other intelligent life

You are a retard who lacks or ignores any sense of idealism and mysticism.

>>2147713
>All intelligent life is inherently dangerous to all other intelligent life

You are a retard who lacks or ignores any sense of idealism and mysticism.

>>2147713
>All intelligent life is inherently dangerous to all other intelligent life

You are a retard who lacks or ignores any sense idealism and mysticism.

"In our culture, as part of the so-called western world, there are undoubtedly components of Christian values. I think that among those values there are ethical and humane principles that are applicable to any epoch." - Fidel Castro

That`s basically how i think about it too, exept i think that believing in god`s existence is a cultural value too.
I know people who, i know for sure, are smarter, older and wiser then me, but still believe there is a god.
Who am i to think i know better then them... ???

I just want to make my point here, the existence of a god is not the most fundamental question for a lot of theists (while it seems that for most atheists it is a fundamental question).

THE REASON WHY, someone thinks there is a God is THE BELIEF, not the idea of god itself.

In other words, someone can decide to rely on (belief in); culture, tradition, other people`s accounts, it`s own feeling, it`s on experience, extreme-scepticism etc etc...
and see one or more of these aspects as fundemental and therefor must belief in a god, in order to fallowing his/her own logic.

anyway thanks for listening and Fidel Castro is a hero
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ljH17Rq67ck

"In our culture, as part of the so-called western world, there are undoubtedly components of Christian values. I think that among those values there are ethical and humane principles that are applicable to any epoch." - Fidel Castro

That`s basically how i think about it too, exept i think that believing in god`s existence is a cultural value too.
I know people who, i know for sure, are smarter, older and wiser then me, but still believe there is a god.
Who am i to think i know better then them... ???

I just want to make my point here, the existence of a god is not the most fundamental question for a lot of theists (while it seems that for most atheists it is a fundamental question).

THE REASON WHY, someone thinks there is a God is THE BELIEF, not the idea of god itself.

In other words, someone can decide to rely on (belief in); culture, tradition, other people`s accounts, it`s own feeling, it`s on experience, extreme-scepticism etc etc...
and see one or more of these aspects as fundemental and therefor must belief in a god, in order to fallowing his/her own logic.

anyway thanks for listening and Fidel Castro is a hero
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ljH17Rq67ck

704
it the only right answer.

ps. im theist

1/3
Why are Richard Dawkins and a lot of atheists here on /sci/ so bussy trying to repel religion from society ?
The church and religion as a whole has no formal power what so ever. At least in western country`s, atheists have all the rights thy need in order to manifest themselves as an atheist, they are free to choose to go to chuch or not. Religion on itself does not force anyone to support certain idiologies or ideas.
(assuming a particular atheist is not raped in the ass by a satanist-sect), The worst thing that can happen to him is a religious person asking him why he doesn`t go to church, just out of curiosity.

there are many different forms of being christian, there is allmost a different interpretation for everyone (just like atheism manifests itself in many forms).
Therefor, It is impossible to argue against "christianity" as a whole.