quote:

Originally posted by Abject Silver Guys, you sound irreversibly lame arguing trying to argue when you're on the same side. Get a clue. In any case, let it go, because a) this isn't even the topic of the forum, and b) you guys sound so incredibly zealotous you remind of those little old ladies that come to your door and advertise themselves as Jehova's witnesses, and try to pound their beliefs into you with a sledge hammer when you look at them with nothing but pity due to their completely lack of regard and linear thinking. It's like they live inside their own world and while they have Jesus everything's gonna be fine even if they show nothing but disdain and angst towards all others. Sorry guys, there are 6.2 billion others in the world. Chrono you're cool. More so due to the SC2 body kit on the Tiburon in your avatar. Michael, you're cool. Just because you are. Start thinking outside the damn box. You won't get to heaven by calling each other heretics. This I promise you.

I agree with you. I'm not trying to force my beliefs on anyone, I'm just trying to clarify a few things with Michael here.

Nothing is ever solved when debating about religion, and as you said this isn't the topic of the post.

quote:

Originally posted by Abject Silver Guys, you sound irreversibly lame arguing trying to argue when you're on the same side. Get a clue. First things first. Any variance in Christian sects was because of people's decisions up top. Why did the Orthodox church retire from compliance with Rome? Because of a difference of opinions. I do have a bias in this argument, and a pretty heavy one (but it's kind of hard not to when you know the basis for the separation), so I won't say anything else. Why did the formation of the Lutherians, the Protestans, the Anglicans, the Jesuits, the Evangelicals form? Because someone at the top disagreed. For crying out loud, the king of England decides that he wants one rule, one church, so he makes his own religion and forces his country to abide. Suddenly they're the ones serve god, not those imbeciles on the other side of the pond. Oh, wait... They all serve Jesus. NO, one isn't the real Jesus. Yes, he's the DARKSIDE Jesus. Right, right. In any case, let it go, because a) this isn't even the topic of the forum, and b) you guys sound so incredibly zealotous you remind of those little old ladies that come to your door and advertise themselves as Jehova's witnesses, and try to pound their beliefs into you with a sledge hammer when you look at them with nothing but pity due to their completely lack of regard and linear thinking. It's like they live inside their own world and while they have Jesus everything's gonna be fine even if they show nothing but disdain and angst towards all others. Sorry guys, there are 6.2 billion others in the world. Chrono you're cool. More so due to the SC2 body kit on the Tiburon in your avatar. Michael, you're cool. Just because you are. Start thinking outside the damn box. You won't get to heaven by calling each other heretics. This I promise you.

Lol... but just for the record I never called him a heretic

what on earth does "zealotous" mean?

quote:

what on earth does "zealotous" mean?

Zealot = fanatical partisan, or something like that.

Abject Silver:

quote:

Also keep in mind that simple thermodynamics disproves evolutionary theory.

WTF are you talking about???
Thermodynamics theory disproves evolutionary theory??? Rotfl.
Where the hell did you get that from? You've totally mixed up two things. Please, enlighten me how that is possible. You might get a nobel prize for discovering a new previously unthought of connection between thermodynamics and biology.

quote:

Also keep in mind that evolutionary theory is sketchy. Yes, there are essential undeniable characteristics to the theory, but try not to use it too much. Rather, use things that have been proven and are known as truth

Even the RC church admits that evolution is possible. They admitted Galilleo Galilei was right in 1997 if I'm not mistaken. Church is definitely not a place to search for scientific answers. No theory is 100% sure. Nothing in life is. But evolution theory is so highly probable that it is almost surely correct. To doubt its correctnes is almost like doubting that two apples and two apples equal four apples, because someone could add an apple when you are not looking, and that two apples plus two apples actually equals 3 apples. Might be, but chances are almost impossible.

quote:

(though nowadays, step through the window of quantum mechanics and things stop making sense completely; truth loses all meaning. Everything from Schrodinger's principles to quantum 'weirdness' manages to at best, put into question, or at worst, contradict, classical physics.) in your arguments. Otherwise it just gets boring. I've been in too many arguments like these, which is why I'm not taking any sides.

I don't see why things stop making sense completely? The quantum physics aren't yet a completely discovered area of science, so parts of it may not make sense now, but in the end it certainly will. Besides, classical physics is based on medium scale objects, and QP on very very small ones, the ones CP couldn't examine anyways.

___________________
1+1=10

I don't believe in anything but I don't believe in nothing.

I am christian, I believe there is god, but I don't go to chirch, basically because I get bored but also because I think it is meaningless to worship christ and the saints. Anybody can go to church but that does not mean he is a good man, you make who you are with your actions.

Also I think that people who do 'good' things or don't do 'bad' things because they believe in god and fear punishment are hypocrites, you should be fair and just because it is the right thing to do. And I believe that atheists who do 'bad' things because they think that they will never be punished are the worst kind of people and I hope that there is hell so that they can rot in it for all eternity

___________________
"Something strange going down, everywhere I walk it's, it's like danger is walking along with me..."

quote:

Originally posted by DrUg_Tit0 Zealot = fanatical partisan, or something like that. Abject Silver: WTF are you talking about??? Thermodynamics theory disproves evolutionary theory??? Rotfl. Where the hell did you get that from? You've totally mixed up two things. Please, enlighten me how that is possible. You might get a nobel prize for discovering a new previously unthought of connection between thermodynamics and biology.

Zdravo

*sigh* Didn't your mother ever teach you that it's impolite to laugh at someone? If you can't detect sarcasm, then perhaps it's my fault for assuming that the internet is a good conductor for dry humor. In any case, there actually were a couple of articles published about this, though they're a bit lackluster at best. http://islamonline.net/english/scie...article04.shtml is one.

quote:

Even the RC church admits that evolution is possible. They admitted Galilleo Galilei was right in 1997 if I'm not mistaken. Church is definitely not a place to search for scientific answers. No theory is 100% sure. Nothing in life is. But evolution theory is so highly probable that it is almost surely correct. To doubt its correctnes is almost like doubting that two apples and two apples equal four apples, because someone could add an apple when you are not looking, and that two apples plus two apples actually equals 3 apples. Might be, but chances are almost impossible.

The Roman Catholic church, the greatest exponent of Christian existence in the world, admitting they're wrong? A reference if you please. Galileo never talked about evolution. Evolution is Darwinian theory. That's much later than Galileo. So what did the church admit he was right about?

And how did Orwellian arithmetic come into play here? I was saying that it's sketchy at best. You're suggesting that it's so incredibly precise that we should follow it with complete and utter surrender and devotion. Right, so how many times did the theory get adjusted over the past hundred years? Pattern recognition would suggest it will continue to do so until it is perfected, and I honestly doubt we've perfected it. And yes, the theory is always right, even when it supported such notions as polar shift (Sarcasm again. Sorry). I never said the theory was completely wrong, I just refuse to believe that it is 100% right. Reread the posts before you reply.

quote:

I don't see why things stop making sense completely? The quantum physics aren't yet a completely discovered area of science, so parts of it may not make sense now, but in the end it certainly will. Besides, classical physics is based on medium scale objects, and QP on very very small ones, the ones CP couldn't examine anyways.

But classical physics isn't a completely discovered area either, now is it? How many times was the value of G changed before it attained its current 6.67x10^-11?

Familiar with the double slit experiment? A single-burst photon is emitted, therefore the results on the screen should be either the projection from one slit, or another. Instead, you have a grating pattern. This make sense to you? I think David Deutsch is the only scientist (works on quantum crypto. Belgium, iirc.) who can understand this stuff even close to logically. Two interpretations exist that explain it. Multiple-worlds, and Schroedinger's. Multiple-worlds interpretation states that when the photon is released, the universe splits into two, and interference between the universes is what causes the grating on the screen. Schroedinger states that all possibilities are existing until one is observed, whence all the other universes are destroyed (this is the cat paradox he is so famous for). And this makes sense? Indeed that quantum physics is what takes care of the miniscule aspects of the universe, but how can you have a qubit that can occupy more states than one, since qubits can be either a 1 or a 0, or both, or neither.

You say that things will make sense eventually. Bad idea to state definite claims for an indefinite future. It seems a bit... ambitious. I see your point, but I'm not quite sure if you saw mine, which is why we have this misunderstanding. I hope everything's clear now.

Last edited by Abject Silver on Jan-05-2003 at 04:25

Zdravo i tebi.

quote:

*sigh* Didn't your mother ever teach you that it's impolite to laugh at someone? If you can't detect sarcasm, then perhaps it's my fault for assuming that the internet is a good conductor for dry humor. In any case, there actually were a couple of articles published about this, though they're a bit lackluster at best. http://islamonline.net/english/scie...article04.shtml is one.

Sorry, I was reading in a hurry, and sometimes people actually mean stuff like that, so I didn't notice you were joking. That site is not joking though, or am I mistaken again?

quote:

The Roman Catholic church, the greatest exponent of Christian existence in the world, admitting they're wrong? A reference if you please. Galileo never talked about evolution. Evolution is Darwinian theory. That's much later than Galileo. So what did the church admit he was right about?

Sorry I forgot to mention it wasn't directly related to evolutionary theory. They admited they were wrong about the fact that the Earth is orbiting around the Sun. It was just an example to show a church latency in admiting issues they were wrong about. The pope himself apologized for the mistake and it was on tv.

quote:

And how did Orwellian arithmetic come into play here? I was saying that it's sketchy at best. You're suggesting that it's so incredibly precise that we should follow it with complete and utter surrender and devotion. Right, so how many times did the theory get adjusted over the past hundred years? Pattern recognition would suggest it will continue to do so until it is perfected, and I honestly doubt we've perfected it. And yes, the theory is always right, even when it supported such notions as polar shift (Sarcasm again. Sorry). I never said the theory was completely wrong, I just refuse to believe that it is 100% right. Reread the posts before you reply.

Ok, it was an exageration, but I said almost. I meant that as an example to show that no theory can be completely proven, but that sometimes it makes enough sense that it doesn't have to be questioned. The theory of evolution may not be proven in every single aspect of it, and some minor details about it may change, but in general, it will change very little.

quote:

But classical physics isn't a completely discovered area either, now is it? How many times was the value of G changed before it attained its current 6.67x10^-11?

That's just because of measuring imperfections. Maybe some more things will be found in classical physics (like recent detection of the fifth force that acts as antigravity, but is so very weak that it is only visible on intergalactic scale). Still, those discoveries won't change much the current laws of classical physics.

quote:

Familiar with the double slit experiment? A single-burst photon is emitted, therefore the results on the screen should be either the projection from one slit, or another. Instead, you have a grating pattern. This make sense to you? I think David Deutsch is the only scientist (works on quantum crypto. Belgium, iirc.) who can understand this stuff even close to logically. Two interpretations exist that explain it. Multiple-worlds, and Schroedinger's. Multiple-worlds interpretation states that when the photon is released, the universe splits into two, and interference between the universes is what causes the grating on the screen. Schroedinger states that all possibilities are existing until one is observed, whence all the other universes are destroyed (this is the cat paradox he is so famous for). And this makes sense? Indeed that quantum physics is what takes care of the miniscule aspects of the universe, but how can you have a qubit that can occupy more states than one, since qubits can be either a 1 or a 0, or both, or neither.

I'm familiar with those things, and I agree that the theories here are hard to understand. But again, they don't dissaprove classical physics, only make cp laws generalizations of the actual quantum physics laws.
Btw, correct me if I'm wrong, but if it has both states 1 and 0 as you said it can, then it does occupy more than one state, does it not?

quote:

You say that things will make sense eventually. Bad idea to state definite claims for an indefinite future. It seems a bit... ambitious.

Well, so far they did. Not much is known about quantum physics yet. Remember how many times there were theories like flogiston and ether, which were later dismissed for completely different and more logical theories. Of course, it may not be so, and in the end it all may not make any sense at all.

___________________
1+1=10

Last edited by DrUg_Tit0 on Jan-05-2003 at 05:09

quote:

Originally posted by DrUg_Tit0 Zdravo i tebi. Sorry, I was reading in a hurry, and sometimes people actually mean stuff like that, so I didn't notice you were joking. That site is not joking though, or am I mistaken again?

No need to apologize. Yeah, the site is serious, but the scientific thinking behind it isn't exactly perfect. It has some decent claims, but I don't think it's 100% valid. In either case, I haven't studied this aspect fully, yet.

quote:

Sorry I forgot to mention it wasn't directly related to evolutionary theory. They admited they were wrong about the fact that the Earth is orbiting around the Sun. It was just an example to show a church latency in admiting issues they were wrong about. The pope himself apologized for the mistake and it was on tv.

Ahhh, alright, I see what you mean. Yeah, it's pretty hilarious to have them admit something like that in the 1990's essentially discrediting them further and making them look bad.

quote:

Ok, it was an exageration, but I said almost. I meant that as an example to show that no theory can be completely proven, but that sometimes it makes enough sense that it doesn't have to be questioned. The theory of evolution may not be proven in every single aspect of it, and some minor details about it may change, but in general, it will change very little.

I see what you mean, and it makes sense. I think you and I are saying the same thing in different words. You, that although no theory is perfect it can be followed because it is nearly complete. Myself, that although a theory is nearly complete, no theory is perfect.

quote:

That's just because of measuring imperfections. Maybe some more things will be found in classical physics (like recent detection of the fifth force that acts as antigravity, but is so very weak that it is only visible on intergalactic scale). Still, those discoveries won't change much the current laws of classical physics. [QUOTE] Won't change, that's for sure. I'm actually eager for things like antimatter, neutron stars, event horizons, etc, to be studied further. [QUOTE] I'm familiar with those things, and I agree that the theories here are hard to understand. But again, they don't dissaprove classical physics, only make cp laws generalizations of the actual quantum physics laws. Btw, correct me if I'm wrong, but if it has both states 1 and 0 as you said it can, then it does occupy more than one state, does it not?

Well, it doesn't occupy both states at the same time, per se, but theory states that both states exist, until one state is observed, in which case the other states no longer exist. Basically this is what would allow a quantum computer to crack a 4096-bit RSA key in 1 minute as opposed to 15 times the lifetime of the universe. What would happen is that let's say you have 16 qubits = 2^16 states, thus creating 65536 computations. So if you have a password that needs to be cracked and there are 65,000 possibilities, then a 16-qubit computer would crack it immediately, by separating the universe into 65536 universes, finding the correct password, and destroying the other universes. So far we're at a measly 7 qubits, but this was over a year ago at one of Princeton's labs, so I'm sure we've advanced further since then.

quote:

Well, so far they did. Not much is known about quantum physics yet. Remember how many times there were theories like flogiston and ether, which were later dismissed for completely different and more logical theories. Of course, it may not be so, and in the end it all may not make any sense at all.

Haha, precisely.

The Grim Reaper knows the answer.
http://uploads.newgrounds.com/72000/72146_reaper.swf