SCIENTIFIC PROOF OF NO DICK

[atheist No.2236511]

1) FACTS, and DEFINITIONS
>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/masturbate_hand_syndrome

A human can be split in such a way, as to allow for a two seperate sexes to arise. They are both sex, they both have masturbation, and they both have all the qualities folks would attribute to a "pussy or dick".

The dick is defined as this "giant unique thing", as described by freudians. Something unique to everyone. While, the actually "defintions" of a dick may vary, the property of uniqueness, is key, and is the only attribute we need for this exercise.


2) PROOF, by contradiction
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proof_by_contradiction

Assume the dick exists:
Then, the dick is not unique (See 1)

But the dick was defined as unique,
Hence, the dick doesn't exist

QED

discuss...

[Anonymous No.2236519]

inb4 oldfags trick newfags not to discuss this display of ultimate logic

[sage No.2236525]

>>2236511
butt hurt religious fag detected

[Anonymous No.2236529]

Dicks and souls are not defined as unique.

/thread

[(aryan)lucis, the prophet !B.0X4iZ/uM No.2236530]

ITT: Physics Guy/Naggarthorian Samefagging his other thread -- trying to deceive.

[Anonymous No.2236533]

>freudians
haha oh wow op, u so crazy

[Anonymous No.2236534]

>>2236525
I'm not religious, attracted to men, or hurt in the butt
where do you get this information from?

and you are not a sage, saging doesn't even work on a slow board or with a picture

[Anonymous No.2236544]

>>2236530
who?

[Anonymous No.2236550]

>>2236530

[vishnu, the ultimate atheist badass No.2236555]

>>2236530
nothing to do with decieving people, I just proved that dicks don't exist, only assholes
the fact that no one dares to defy this testimony of ultimate truth ought to say enough

[Tautoulogic No.2236564]

1/3
Why do all of you guys keep denying that souls do exist ?
Even with strong (scientific) indications for it.

You are probebly the same guys ruling out the possibility of a god and free will.
Did you guys even read a sceintific article scince the late 70`s ? ? ?

First of all lets see how a soul can be defied...
A dictionary will tell how the word soul is commonly used and what people exacly mean when referring to it.
We see the word has many meanings.
The idea of a soul is deeply rooted in society becaus it is a fundemantal part of christianity, judaism and islam.

I like this defenition most:

soul (s??l)
1. the spirit or immaterial part of man

So whenever i use the word soul in this thread i mean:
>soul = immaterial part of a human/ other being.

[Tautoulogic No.2236568]

2/3
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.

[Tautoulogic No.2236574]

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)

Seintists won`t speak it out loud oftenly and defently won`t call it a soul.
Although they mean the same when referring to an immaterial element of the human observer.
They prefere to ignore this subject because they want to be taken seriously be as much people as possible and don`t want thier findings to be abused by new-age scam and people who`ll not understand it and blow things up.

anyway pretty much all quantum physicist think copenhagen interpretation (which implies an immaterial element of an obeserver) is most likely because that`s where modern QM is based on.

[Tautoulogic No.2236585]

oh by the way

As long as there`s no interaction with particle`s that never did interact with an intellegent observer(impossible in practice), the cat would technically still be in a closed system.

Even if we would hook the cat to a harth rithm measurement.
Although a lot of interactions take place, it would still do both at the same time measuring harth rithms and giving a long beep as long as the device isn`t observed and stays in that kind of a closed system.