R733

In God we trust.

>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vHkSDJmSgqo

The line has to be drawn somewhere, it was the same with the video store I took over. There was a horror movie with actual real fortage of a mass murderer tormenting his victims, when I took over the store I removed it from the shelves and destroyed the disk, it was basically a snuff film, the fact that it made it through any kind of legal classification is beyond me. Soon after I was confronted by a customer who said she had noticed it was gone, I gave her my reasons, and she said good idea, she had watched the film and it was extremely disturbing and she wished she had never watched it.

So in regards to your question it may be hypocrisy but I do not think pedophile should even exist, yes its a horrible thing to rape someone but its also a horrible thing to shoot someone however you see people shooting each other all over the tv. But for something as evil and wrong as pedophilia there is simply no excuse, because otherwise you will get these sick basters using skyrim ect to feed their fantasies. DEATH PENALTY TO PEDOPHILES.

 

Yea, I've got a guestion;

 

I fuck only  mature ducks (then bite their fucking heads off and cook them for dinner), but I know this guy, really sick bastard, he... fucks ducklings. I mean, how bad is that? So, I was thinking... Maybe lord would like me to fuck that sick basterd up the ass and then chop his fucking head off? I could eat his body to get rid of evidence, sort of sacrifice and communion ritual... I mean all that "shall not kill" bullshit dosen't concern sick ducklings fuckers. Plus, I could use his kidneys to make myself some new pair of slippers...

 

One more thing; killing ducks (and ducklings) is obviously fine as they show it on tv. That's why I shoot the ducklings then fuck their corpses in front of their duck mother. This way I can bee fine with the lord and norms enforced by our righteous society. Weeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee!

 

Well if you want open world games, nothing beats Operation Flashpoint, one of the best FPSs ever.

Of course that never went big since it focused on realism over small deathmatch maps like BF/COD/MOH etc

 

Flashpoint resistance is the most ambitious fpp game I know of, but it's just fpp game. Couple anti-war quotes from less or more known intellectuals and leaders doesn't really make flashpoint an information abundant artwork. It's realistic, it's it's open and shows well how much life of infantry soldier depends on "luck", but have almost nothing when it comes to character study, plot, lore etc.

 

Rpg is not about graphic or combat mechanics, it's about characters, plot, lore, enviroment and relations of these segments with each other and the player choices. It's the quality of these features that decide how good the rpg game is.

 

I'll use another comparison;

 

Morrowind is like a gorgeous high price hooker who had philosophy classes while skyrim is just a cheap,  lobotomized, short legged whore with oversized fake tits that's hidding behind too much fucking makeup.  And its's all capitalism fault. Which is of course poeple fault.

 

I don't understand why so many people are still obsessed with Morrowind, I have the game, it's good, it's fun but it is NOT THAT GOOD! It has a horrible combat system, just like every bethesda game, and the graphics are absolutely god awful, even with texture packs.

 

To compare Morrowind with oblivion and skyrim is like to compare movies made by Tarkovsky to those made by Steven Segal.

 

 

Dunno who Tarkovsky is, but I agree.

 

While admittedly bethesda dumbed Morrowind down from daggerfall (albiet making the combat system a LOT better) the way the series has been so degraded since is horrible.

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-BsV57JJ_bM

 

 

 

 

I don't understand why so many people are still obsessed with Morrowind, I have the game, it's good, it's fun but it is NOT THAT GOOD! It has a horrible combat system, just like every bethesda game, and the graphics are absolutely god awful, even with texture packs.

 

To compare Morrowind with oblivion and skyrim is like to compare movies made by Tarkovsky to those made by Steven Segal.

Moral of the story: Don't walk parallel to obvious trap.

 

What's obvious to human is not so obvious to a duck.

Must answer i'm a Duck mmmm.... Sheep . contradiction is my salt and this topic and your reactions make me laugh

 

mehhhe.......    oups quack.....

 

THE EARTH IS FLAT      

 

When i travel around the world i feel the earth is round i learned the earth is round

but when i am with people i can see that the world is flat   .

How can you say and laugh about others learned convictions and belives  when you learned yours and not experience it?

 

and i am far more frigntened about the globalisations because in all over the world we start to eat the same FLAT food, drink . We watch the same FLAT tv , in scool we learn all the same FLAT minded staff .

 

no more difference . no more discoveries the same goal the same motivations. THE EARTH IS FLAT and more now than before

 

please do not listen to me as i am a product of and forged in this very FLAT EARTH with mathematical rules that we still can not deffined and ducks that starts to have the same taste as cickens.

 

I can criticize illogical, self-contradicting convictions as I now that they are objectively wrong. 

 

There is nothing wrong with the globalisation, it's the uniformity, conformism and lack of individuality that you're complaining about. Society based on control (corporate fascism, governmetal fascism, socializm, communism etc.) require high level of unifirmity to work. It's very evil (according to my definition of evil which will be presented in politics thread) but it's the best you can do with ducks. I mean sheeps. 

 

 

Quack quack quack! Quaawaaaaaack! Quack quack quack quack quack quaaaaaaaaaack! Quack quack quack? Quack.

 

As they say, when you're between ducks you must quack like they do. My answer is;

 

Quack? Quack #!*%@ !!!!

R733, I'm going to have to ask you to tone down your rhetoric.

 

I don't care if you think you're right or wrong, your attitude is out of line. I'm also quite curious as to why, if you consider such people as beneath your intellect, why you choose to engage with them, and moreover - that you choose to condemn shows they watch, but you obviously watch yourself.

 

Yes, I'm guilty of wasting my time on pretty bad and then realllyyyy bad show. If I hadn't saw it it would be tough for me to say that it sucked so badly though (which it did).

 

I mean common, taking "moral wisdom" from blockbusters and (rather)  poor tv shows about serial killers... It's as bad (or even worse) as quoting bible. This women has contact with kids for god's (center cosmic consciousness ) sake. It's pretty bad I think. I find it quite obnoxious that people who do pay taxes and by that directly participate in mass murder have the audacity to say that they are emphatic towards others, unless they had killed someone. However if you're a soldier invading other country to steal (  ) their resources then murder suddenly becomes praiseworthy act, something perfectly moral.

 

What kind of bullshit, double standard, phony morality is that? The worst thing is that humanity (just checked the wiki) apperantly was able to land on the moon but weren't able to formulate coherent(objective), scientific definition of morality. I think that should give you idea how "spiritual" and benevolent human kind is. They care about morality so much that they didn't even bother to check what morality really is/or should be...

 

R733, I want so badly to keep arguing this, but oh god, why am I concerning myself with the opinions of an obviously crazy person? I don't even know if I should be offended anymore. You're either being intentionally obtuse to troll me or you're just nuts. I'm betting on the latter.

 

You should consider the possibility that the majority can be (more)insane. Majority does not constitute sanity, only norm. You were not capable to present objective definition of morality, so I'll do that in separate thread later. I have seen people complaining that ducks are better than humans; I think that this is sign that we should reevaluate our norms, concept of morality and way of thinking. But that's just me.

 

By the way, there is no such thing (cannot be) like perfectly sane person as it would require omniscience (you must have complete data to make perfect/optimal decision) but person can be less or more insane. Omniscience would contradict free will, hence there would be no real choice.

First of all, your understanding/definition of evil is incoherent (as predicted) and seems to me like it was based on primitive religion.

No. It's actually a very basic definition that even we atheists hold. I don't want someone to hurt me or take my stuff, so I don't do it to others. It's called empathy, dude. If you don't have it, then you're what people call a sociopath.

This mean than you're not familiar even with basic logics; your definition of good as "treat others like you would like to be treated" is false. What is hell for some is heaven for others. Some people like to kill for example, so they join military/police force where they can do it legally. Are they evil? Of course they are (according to my definition of evil at least).

While soldiers/nature of their service is evil, it would be evil to not allow them to kill each other (they have right to express themselves). Most casualties are civilians but civilians are the one who paid for the damned war so they should recaive their well deserved suffering, death and poverty. Hey, at lest unemployment will be reduced; less people and more jobs in military sector (capitalism rocks).

Eh, that wasn't good example, but I hope you understand that you shouldn't treat people as equal as they're not equal; they differ. Some are less or more similar to each other but your concept of moralitry would be only coherent to identical robots. While mainstream psychiatry/biology do consider humanity as robots (organical machines) it's quite obvious that humanity is unpredictable, very diversed system. This is main reason why normalized psychiatry is performing so poor in its predictions; so called "soft" science.

As for empathy it's one of greatest mistakes of our culture. There is a reason why it is preached so intensively by christianity; It creates immature behaviour patterns. If there is an advanced benevolent species (and I think there are many) they grow out of empathy toward allowance and total self rule. When you help someone who chooses ignorance and submission you feed that dysfunctional pattern of behaviour. By helping ignorant, submissive people you're slowing down their learning process (suffering can/should motivate the search for alternative solution), more you're becoming entagled victim of the person you rescue.

This is main reason for cultivation of suffering and sacrifice(rescue) in religion. Suffering is sympton of dysfunction, nothing more; priesthood (knowingly or not) glorifies suffering to fool people into thinking it's inevitable and something that will be rewarded.

So, your defintion of "socipath" is in fact reflection of primitive philosophy that has largely contribiuted to the misery and mental stagnation of this species. Philosophy based on empathy and rescue will always lead to fascism.

I don't preach morality in my classroom. I'm sorry if you felt I was saying that I was. I do try to instill a basic sense of respect between classmates and uphold a standard of conduct, but that has less to do with morality and more to do with helping them figure out how to grow up.

How can you teach them to grow up if you're obviously immature yourself? Unless by grownig up you mean being conformistic robot which is free to do as it's told to.

Eh, I disagree. What is mine is mine because I did something to deserve owning it. I own my body because I was born in it and live in it, I own my computer because I worked hard for the money to buy it, etc. It's a nice idea, us not owning anything, but it would create more problems than it solves. What if everyone decided to take everything of yours? Your food, your clothes, your car, your home? Why not? It's not yours. And what if someone refused to share their food/clothes/car/home with you? Why should they? It's not yours.

Idea that you have to do anything to deserve any services that current technology can allow is irrational to me. Animals don't work yet they take from nature whatever they want. While greed can be result of competition oriented ambition it's mostly result of scarcity; where is abundance there is no need for ownership as there is no motivation to accumulation or taking stuff "owned"(used) by others. I suggest you to research Venus Project.

If I'm understanding you right, you're saying that even animals should be held accountable for their actions. In a sense, I agree. We put down dogs that consistently attack people. We capture wild animals that have wandered into human civilizations and export them back to where they came from (or into preserves, if they're endangered). If we know that a particular bear or lion is targeting humans, we hunt it down and stop it. We don't just shrug our shoulders and say, "Eh, what can you do? It's just an animal, it doesn't know any better." We act to protect our own.

That's not what I meant; if animals are not conscious (contain consciousness capable of making decisions) they as organic robots are not evil but intent that manifested them is evil. At this point I have to diverse between "evil" (term i use to describe objectively malevolent action) and low level consciousness (less complex, less coherent consciousness).

I'll use analogy; weapon as object is not evil but intent behind its creation is evil; it's designed to destroy/participate in conflict. I'm not stating that participation in all kind of conflicts is evil (act of defense) but conflict does not exist amongst high consciousness - highly complex, logical behaviour patterns have no place for primitive game of competition. War is illogical; cooperation is more effective/beneficial for all.

But on the subject of psychopaths, I understand that there are people that can't help it, humans who act on predatory instinct to do things like rape or kill. Those people are broken. They lack the ability to grasp empathy or respect. They are animals. It goes back to how we would treat an animal that has consistently proven themselves a threat. We put dangerous animals in cages, or we put them down. I don't like capital punishment, but there are instances in which I think it's not only completely justified, it's the only choice.

You may think this harsh. I do, too. This is an example of the extremest of the extreme, situations that go beyond normal lawless behavior. I don't consider the guy stealing a car or holding up a convenience store to be evil, and I believe those people are still capable of rehabilitating and returning to society. It's why we don't execute purse snatchers. But the worst of the worst, the Hitlers and Bin Ladens and Charles Mansons of the world, the ones who should know better and do it anyway, they're what I'm talking about when I use the word "evil". It's the only word that fits.

Since you have quoted dexter (which is another shitty show where coherence of main character falls completely at the end of second season) I'd like to tell you this; IF YOU PAY TAXES, YOU ARE FINANCING WARS; YOU ARE MASS MURDER. You may bullshit yourself that you're a decent person 'cause you gave a buck to that homeless guy, but it's just false image you create to ptotect yourself from atrocities you have/are participating in. Have a nice day.

Defining good and evil is actually very simple and Queen Bee already used a variation of it in post #108. The golden rule: “One should treat others as one would like others to treat oneself.”

Queen Bee used the negative (inverted) form of the golden rule by saying: We look at harm done to another and we recognize it as something we wouldn't want done to us.

In other words: Don't do to others what you don't want them to do to you. ... well, I assume this can be phrased more elegantly but there you have it. The golden rule is present in virtually every religion and every code of conduct worldwide in one form or another.

If you follow this rule you're “good” and if you don't then you're “evil.”

Of course life is never that simple. For example, the golden rule doesn't work on a suicide bomber who wants to die. I don't want to die so I cannot kill him without becoming evil in the process. On the other hand, he wants to die, so killing me is perfectly fine and “good” for him.

If I had a gun and shot this guy before he could detonated his explosives, I would still think of myself as “good”, even though I just broke the golden rule.

Living up to it isn't easy, sometimes even impossible. Though if you want a robust and simple definition of good and evil, there you have it.

... and boy did I just go off topic

 

You just openly admitted that definition you try to defend is self-contradicting (illogical) and does not have any apply in reality(you can broke the rule without being "evil"); what the fuck is the use of the rule that has no apply in reality, more, even as abstract concept it is incoherent (self contradicting). I'm intrested in meaningful (containing information) and coherent (logical) definition of "evil" which could have some apply in reality and enchance our understanding-> enchance quality of our choices. Jesus fucking chirst.

Hi, Kilgos. What's going on is yet another thread has veered way off topic and we find ourselves arguing over random shit. Welcome to Lovers Lab!

Everything is interconected and randomness is just illusion of our perception. There are things that are more and less relevant though. I think that ducks are less relevant than defintion of evil (which plays important part in philosophy/behaviour), but I can be wrong...

R733, I will say that I agree with you on your assessment that evil is a human construction, but only because we possess the higher brain function to understand the difference. We look at harm done to another and we recognize it as something we wouldn't want done to us, and we call that evil. Ants and bacteria are far too simple to grasp the concept. We don't call a plague "evil", because a plague doesn't know any better. We call the child molestor who raped a 12-year-old evil because he does.

Also, you have a weird concept of morality yourself if you think stealing can be honest.

First of all, your understanding/definition of evil is incoherent (as predicted) and seems to me like it was based on primitive religion. We are different and to think that what is good/evil for you is good/evil for others is illogical. I think it's so obvious I don't need to give examples here.

I think that as a teacher (especially teacher of youngest kids where their minds are most soft and vulnerable) you should have coherent definition of "evil" if you want to preach them about morality. I hope you'll make second attempt to define evil in a meaningful, consistent way.

There is one interesting point you made about awareness; It dosen't matter for the victim if predator thinks that what he does is evil - it's only important for the development of the predator. Lmitation of definition of evil to pureposeful/conscious act is uncalled for as it does not explain need for sufferning that was caused "unconsciosly". Ignorance is not excuse; animals that evolved toward more predatory form of behaviour may not contain consciousness, but are reflection of negativity of consciousness.

As to my "concept of morality" I would spoil your challenge to answer my question about definition of evil by saying that. Yes, stealing can be honset if you do it openly -you don't camfulage your (possibly) abusive intention by laws ; this is my definition of honesty (as characteristic of expression not as another phony norm of behaviour enforced by ignorant society) ; You don't hide your agenda, opinion or intention. Or in other words, you don't hide under a mask. World of business is a battlefield; deception is primary warfare. I wouldn't call a guy who has robbed a bank in ski mask as honest, but I'd call his act more honest than activity of businessman hiding behind his lawyers.

Frankly, I think that there is nothing wrong (evil) with stealing as ownership is just abstract, illogical concept of ego. I guess ownership is an attempt to semantically justify fallacy of control. More correctly there is no such thing like stealing (as there is no really -except abstract definition- ownership), there is just abuse/misuse of resources or control over resources in order to maintain control over population that require those resources for survival. So, there is no such thing like ownership, there is just -temporary- level of control over the system.

And I think it's sad to see someone reject obvious wisdom out of hand based on it's source. I got news for you, some of the greatest wisdom comes from cartoons and children's shows. My new sig is an example of this. And when you think about it, superheroes are a modern version of the Greek mythology, much of which was comprised of parables rife with allegory and metaphor used to convey some of the greatest wisdom of the time. Just because Batman said something, that doesn't make it any less true.

I'm not biased toward cartoons in general (although if person treats cartoons as main source of his/her wisdom, I wouldn't call it a good thing), I'm biased against mainstream media/cinema which is (next to the monetary system and religion) main tool of control and manipulation. The only cartoon I have -some- respect for is "drawn together"; in fact it was a bit too smart/informative so they had to ban it.

Just because Batman said something, that doesn't make it any less true.

In theory yes, but if you seek for philosophical wisdom from a character who dress as a 6 ft bat and spends money gained from exploitation of working class to futher abuse/scare the shit out of that working class -if they try to honestly steal money (inhonest stealing is called business)-... ehhh, this exacly what most rich peole do... Anyway what batman say does not (probably) make any sense as batman is a schisophrenic sociopath. Do me a favour and learn critical thinking; by the way you didn't posted contrargument to support your claim that inside dosen't matter (inside doesn't matter, wait a minute, that's the conclusion of main character from "American Psycho"...) If "outside" (actions) is not manifested by inside then what is the cause of behaviour? Even if you try to reduce it to enviromental level you still need to decribe the cause of enviroment, more you would be dealing with system without free will so any judgment of behaviour would be illogical.

Very well said. It's funny, Boyfriend brought up Aesop when I mentioned this thread. He also pointed out Grimm's Fairy Tails. And so what if a lot of this stuff is aimed at children today? What better age to teach someone moral lessons that will last them the rest of their lives? It's why I teach 8-year-olds, they're far more receptive than teenagers who think they know everything (c'mon, you know you do).

Jesus Christ. Can you even define (in a coherent way) morality? What's your base to describe what is evil and good? I'm sure they have coverd it in cartoons so you shouldn't have any trouble with the answer...

If there is one thing I can definitely say as a scholar of history, it is that "evil does not dissolve itself naturally if left to its own devices." - if that were the case, we'd be living in wonderland.

"Evil" is result of human creation (intent); where is no human there is no "evil", just balanced progress toward higher complexity and cooperation. Only the lowest organisms (insects, viruses) are so aggressive/destructive as human kind. In fact, if we create this reality with our intent, even predatory patterns in nature may be reflection of "evil"/primitive intent of human kind.

Yeah' date=' but you know what they say about evil triumphing because good men do nothing. You could be a wonderful person in your head, but that doesn't mean shit until your outside matches your inside.[/quote']

People say a lot of things and most of them are bullshit. Evil dissolves naturally when left alone unsupported; most citizens (consciously or not) support evil by submissive behaviour; they pay taxes, they obey orders, they blindly belive in religions (including monetary system) and mainstream science.

Or' date=' to quote Batman: "It's not who we are inside, but what we do that defines us."

[/quote']

It's sad to see people quote cartoon-based characters from shallow, profit oriented blockbuster movies. Thought is everything, there is no action without (even prymitive) thought; action is just extension of thought. Forced behaviour by social norms or ego is false identity, a mask. Society of forced behaviour will be always society of conspiracy and conflict.

In my opinion' date=' this is the same as trying to convince people that there is ABSOLUTELY NO CHANCE that we are the only race in whole goddamn universe, because people, despite living in 21st century, are more inclined to believe a BOOK than their own eyes and ears. If they see an UFO, and if some1 tells them that what they saw was a mirage, THEY WILL BELIEVE THAT!

[/quote']

It's true, I might as well show duck a card trick instead of wasting my time here:rolleyes:

I think I know the difference between average duck and average man; ducks can learn and they don't waste too much time quacking about bullshit.

our reality is designed to offer maximum of free expression with consideration of level of consciousness' date=' so faulty structures won't self-destruct too quickly; consciousness will have a chance to make corrections of its intent.[/quote']

Well.... it's nice that you know the purpose of the universe. I'm going to go talk to a duck.

Just tell the duck to avoid subjects that might be too deep...

real/fundamental universe(consciousness) cannot be simulated.

If consciousness cannot be simulated' date=' then all one would need to do to determine whether this universe is real or simulated would be to find a consciousness within it.......... found one. Therefore, if consciousness cannot be simulated, then the universe is not simulated.

/cheapshot[/quote']

Consciousness can operate in virtual system just like real player can operate in multiplayer game; it does not change that the game is virtual.

Entropy (hidden [undefined/potential] data) is what our scientists call chaos' date=' disored, unpredictability.[/quote']

No it isn't, not really. Entropy is quite predictable, and it isn't really about disorder, it's about usable energy. Disorder and chaos is one way to think about entropy, but it's an extremely limited way.

Entropy is more like read-only data - the higher the entropy of a system, the less you can do with that system without external interactions; either bringing energy in from without to make the data writeable, or expanding the space inhabited by the data, thereby generating new data to be written.

Entropy is not defined just in thermodynamics, but also in information theory. Those both definitons have common part - unknown data. So, it's not about "unusable" energy (we used to call it this way because we don't understand the purpose of entropy) but energy not under our control.

the higher the entropy of a system, the less you can do with that system without external interactions;

Our universe is not a machine, limitations for focused work are not the purpose of the universe. Without entropy universe would be dead, stagnat.

Entropy is quite predictable, and it isn't really about disorder, it's about usable energy.

If think you're talking about entropy level not behaviour of unmeasured energy, which is unpredictable.

Entropy is more like read-only data - the higher the entropy of a system, the less you can do with that system without external interactions;

Once your read data, that data is defined/known (at the level of measurment)so you reduce the entropy level of measured system. So, it's more like unreadable or not readed yet data.

Exploration of the quantum world shows that our universe is far stranger than we ever imagined in the magic-obsessed youth of our species... but it doesn't show that it's simulated, only that it's weird.

I disagree. Quantum mechanics are trivial and perfectly logical/simplistic unless you want to cling to this reality as fundamental. There is nothing weird abot QM; our reality is designed to offer maximum of free expression with consideration of level of consciousness, so faulty structures won't self-destruct too quickly; consciousness will have a chance to make corrections of its intent.

By the way "quantum world" phenomena does not concern only atomic/subatomic scale; experiments with complex molecules have been performed.

To an outside observer' date=' the tedious and boring entropy is very entertaining

[/quote']

I have no ide what you're talking about. Entropy (hidden [undefined/potential] data) is what our scientists call chaos, disored, unpredictability. It's fascinating to watch chaos, to see how illogical social structures dissolve and decay under the weight of their faulty intent to control the energy. Weeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee:P

If the information is useful and relevant' date=' tell me something; how do you differentiate a simulated universe from a real one?

[/quote']

That's an easy one; real/fundamental universe(consciousness) cannot be simulated. By that I mean it cannot behave like simulated/virtual reality. Virtual reality does not contain real structures, just data that can be used to build illusionary perceptions of structures (like in computer games). Most of scientists perceive quantum weirdness as illogical because of their assumption that physical reality is fundamental. In fundamental reality things could not be at two places simultaneously, things could not simply disappear and appear, the time (process) could not be non-continuous and incoherent (in its timeline sequence). It simply could not work and would not make any sense without more fundamental reality that manufacture this universe.

Without proper tools (certain level of intelligence and machines) it would be difficult to recognize virtual (data based) nature of this reality. First double slit experiment was performed in 1909...

The info isn't useful. It is in no way relevant to our daily lives whether everything is real or just a big-ass simulation

It is. You just don't even bother to ponder it. In a way, however, you're right; ignored information is not applied information, hence useless one.

The infinite capacity of this species to reject useful informations never stops to amaze me.

Because information can't itself travel. It needs vehicles that often rely on waves (sound) or current (internet) as well as ways to process what is being transmitted (brains hearing someone saying something' date=' computers loading a web page)[/quote']

That's "common sense" understanding and -if our reality was real- it should work, but it does not; Infomation travels instantly without any form of communication. Quantum entaglement works this way because entaglement is form of measurment; our world is not space/time based it's just our mirage/percetion; reality is structed on base of data consitency. Data consistency law is above past/present(timeline) coherency (past is not defined/real past until data about it is processed).

I assure you that if we could change reality according to our intentions' date=' the world would be a vastly different place.[/quote']

Really? what are your intentions? Not so long ago you've openly said (in "just to see and hear" thread) that people should have miserable, survival based lives, as otherwise they become greedy and evil. People pray for rescue. Pray is act of submission.

I didn't say that universe does not exist; it's just works in manner we assume as impossible. It's not about nihilism it's about perspective on materialism.

So it's self-contradicting.

No; just like virtual objects in computer game are not real, but the computer itself is real(at least emulated on diffrent level). There is a system that creates/emulates virtual reality. Why? From the same reasons that we play computer games; to walk around some limitations.

Forgive me' date=' but I find believe that our world is not a virtual (simulated, data based construct) one as symptom of laughable ignorance. I guess I'm ridiculed here from the same reasons that people from "spherical earth theory" were ridiculed in the past.

[/quote']

I knew you had hubris to compare your leadership to that of Aragorn or Leonidas, even though the former is a fictional character and the political prowess of the latter is poorly documented, but to compare your virtual reality nonsense to spherical earth theory?! That's the dictionary definiton of the height of hubris and arrogance right there. A Round Earth had profound implications in the field of physics and astrophysics. Gravity. Tides. You name it. Furthermore the theory was based on observable phenomena.

Quantum experiments are observable, every day phenomena. And that's the problem. You can buy polarized filter and laser pointer and reproduct those experiments in your home(I haven't tried it myself yet though). The double slit experiment is the most often conducted experiment (according to mainstream science) in history. The thing is that they can describe phenomena (at basic level) by mathematics, but they don't really understand it. How come information can travel in space/time reality without space and time? How come you can alter past in present simple by reading or erasing data of previously taken measurement? It suggest that there is no "real" space and time it's just emulation based on data consistency.

What are the implications for proving a theory that says that nothing exists correct? None whatsoever. It doesn't matter one damn bit because nothing changes. The concept of point, distance, depth, and time remain the same as does absolutely everything else.

Implications are tremendous; reality is illusion and can be changed/manipulated by intent.

Consider this: If nothing exists, as you assert, our "universe" is just a 0-dimensional less-than-a-point projection, how is it that either I or Queen Bee can be Ignorant, let alone "Laughably Ignorant?" For one to be ignorant we have to assume the concept of "one" exists in a universe where nothing exists. Furthermore you have to assume thought is more than an illusion in our projection-world. Therefore, when you said we were "laughably ignorant" you contradicted your nihilistic fantasy.

I didn't say that universe does not exist; it's just works in manner we assume as impossible. It's not about nihilism it's about perspective on materialism.

It's clear that you don't know what "complex number" term means. You had it in your high school (at least I had). Complex numbers are calculated on base of real numbers; it's wave equation. Here is the most primitive example of wave equation;

No. Go back to high school and try again.

Complex numbers were conceived because our “pool” of numbers did not include solutions for problems that definitely have a solution in the real world. Take the square root of -1 for example. We're looking for a number that multiplied with itself yields -1. Looking at the laws that govern mathematical operations' date=' such a number cannot exist because any number multiplied with itself always has to yield a positive result.[/quote']

That's absolutely correct; I was wondering how come no one pointed out this stupid mistake sooner. Additionally quadratic function is not even a wave function. My point was to present non deterministic (multiple answer) equation with -at least- some wave features, that everyone is familiar with.

Anyway I try to minimilize math in my comprehending and just operate on basic logic; math operates on assumptions/limitations -like you cannot root on negative numbers for example. Fortunately our understanding evolves.

This has absolutely NOTHING to do with quadratic expressions, waveforms or quantum physics.

"The complex number field is intrinsic to the mathematical formulations of quantum mechanics, where complex Hilbert spaces provide the context for one such formulation that is convenient and perhaps most standard. The original foundation formulas of quantum mechanics – the Schrödinger equation and Heisenberg's matrix mechanics – make use of complex numbers."

Coriolis force is the best way to explain our results.

Gravitation -according to (newest) modern, mainstream science- is result of radiation (they don't know where that radiation comes from, some theorize that it comes from higher "dimensions")

Anyway, you seem to be a smart guy, tell me what's your perspective on M theory, Zero worlds theory and quantum weirdness. You can pm me to avoid cloging this thread;