2214 replies to this topic

[Julia36]

Scolarship has interaction through the ages. Particularly between the Greek School and the German School.

Within 20-40 years they will meet in person and debate ideas, and this has already been described in Cambridge

[platypus]

I'd expect by 2027 what replaces the mobile phone you carry to be able to simulate earth (which includes men of course) down to quantum events.

platypus I mean in historical simulations, not present/future simulations which might run ahead of anything but presently undiscovered condensation maths.

Simulation of the future is a lot easier that simulation of the past since you can (at least in theory) record the initial state. For past events this is not possible, which is one of the many problems that kills QA of history.

[Julia36]

I'd expect by 2027 what replaces the mobile phone you carry to be able to simulate earth (which includes men of course) down to quantum events.

platypus I mean in historical simulations, not present/future simulations which might run ahead of anything but presently undiscovered condensation maths.

Simulation of the future is a lot easier that simulation of the past since you can (at least in theory) record the initial state. For past events this is not possible, which is one of the many problems that kills QA of history.

We already do both but not accurately enough yet to physically resurrect, or predict the weather.
You predict daily and rely on your predictions.
You do archaeology each moment by using memory.

Coming machines will do these increasingly well.

...that the initial state problem kills QA

Nothing's killed.
Man is incapable of death
Man is a pattern that resurrects.
Man is a being that never dies.
Man is the extropian warrior stalking Death itself.



Everything's recoverable and we are discovering the law of conservation of information.

Or I want my money back at Archaeology college!


New physics is about information not mechanics.

[platypus]

Everything's recoverable and we are discovering the law of conservation of information.

No, everything is not recoverable! I've mentioned a couple of times that some information about past events is receding from Earth at the speed of light, and is therefore forever unrecoverable. This is one of the many problems that kills QA.

[Julia36]

Pray discourse on what the initial state problem means, and begin with a definition of the initial state, since you clearly understand it and I do not.



Trial of Socrates


Trial of Jesus

Revolution is always regarded as heresy.

I have come here to put Max More on trial and cruxify him!



I dont know if crucifixion is allowed under the forum rules, but it is traditional when a new philosophy arises.

[Julia36]

Everything's recoverable and we are discovering the law of conservation of information.

No, everything is not recoverable! I've mentioned a couple of times that some information about past events is receding from Earth at the speed of light, and is therefore forever unrecoverable. This is one of the many problems that kills QA.

Information is not LINEAR.
No event has been brought to parametres or limit by one causal path but by countless ones.

While information or data is carried at light speed from earth, where it was on earth remains, doers it not?

Information construction is NOT by one path alone, and while much is lost much remains.

I submit Tennyson's poem as proof (and also challenge you to define 'initial state' as we seem at loggerheads on it so one of doesn't understand the term or else the refutation of if.

It little profits that an idle king,
By this still hearth, among these barren crags,
Match'd with an aged wife, I mete and dole
Unequal laws unto a savage race,
That hoard and sleep, and feed, and know not me.
I cannot rest from travel: I will drink
Life to the lees: all times I have enjoy'd
Greatly, have suffer'd greatly, both with those
That loved me, and alone; on shore, and when
Thro' scudding drifts the rainy Hyades
Vext the dim sea: I am become a name;
For always roaming with a hungry heart
Much have I seen and known; cities of men
And manners, climates, councils, governments,
Myself not least, but honour'd of them all;
And drunk delight of battle with my peers,
Far on the ringing plains of windy Troy.
I am a part of all that I have met;
Yet all experience is an arch wherethro'
Gleams that untravell'd world, whose margin fades
For ever and for ever when I move.
How dull it is to pause, to make an end,
To rust unburnish'd, not to shine in use!
As tho' to breathe were life. Life piled on life
Were all too little, and of one to me
Little remains: but every hour is saved
From that eternal silence, something more,
A bringer of new things; and vile it were
For some three suns to store and hoard myself,
And this gray spirit yearning in desire
To follow knowledge, like a sinking star,
Beyond the utmost bound of human thought.
This is my son, mine own Telemachus,
To whom I leave the sceptre and the isle
Well-loved of me, discerning to fulfil
This labour, by slow prudence to make mild
A rugged people, and thro' soft degrees
Subdue them to the useful and the good.
Most blameless is he, centred in the sphere
Of common duties, decent not to fail
In offices of tenderness, and pay
Meet adoration to my household gods,
When I am gone. He works his work, I mine.
There lies the port: the vessel puffs her sail:
There gloom the dark broad seas. My mariners,
Souls that have toil'd, and wrought, and thought with me
That ever with a frolic welcome took
The thunder and the sunshine, and opposed
Free hearts, free foreheads - you and I are old;
Old age hath yet his honour and his toil;
Death closes all: but something ere the end,
Some work of noble note, may yet be done,
Not unbecoming men that strove with Gods.
The lights begin to twinkle from the rocks:
The long day wanes: the slow moon climbs: the deep
Moans round with many voices. Come, my friends,
'Tis not too late to seek a newer world.
Push off, and sitting well in order smite
The sounding furrows; for my purpose holds
To sail beyond the sunset, and the baths
Of all the western stars until I die.
It may be that the gulfs will wash us down:
It may be we shall touch the Happy Isles,
And see the great Achilles, whom we knew.
Tho' much is taken, much abides; and tho' <--------NB
We are not now that strength which in old days
Moved earth and heaven; that which we are, we are;
One equal temper of heroic hearts,
Made weak by time and fate, but strong in will
To strive, to seek, to find, and not to yield. <-------NB 2


How is information not recoverable of the young Tennyson from the old Tennyson?

And why is something dead different physics to you?

Edited by stopgam, 23 January 2013 - 02:28 PM.

[platypus]

A witty saying proves nothing -Voltaire

...and neither does poetry or semi-irrational banter. Do you really find daydreaming more interesting than trying to discover the secrets of the universe through rational, scientific means?

[Julia36]

Voltiare poked his contemporaries with more than maxims and was thrown in the Bastille for insolence.


before:



after



do you believe the old cant recover to the young?

By what reasoning do you attest the non living have different laws to the living?

Or that because the brain is in a skull it is somehow divorced from the interactive environment??

[Julia36]

Physical distance of light fro the cremation means nothing...it is a matter of numbers alone, which condense by your sacred mathematics.

My Tutor at Oxford pinned me against the wall on the first day and screamed:

"x=y! Can you accept that???!! ... -----(censored)!" and carried a cane for the rest of the tutorials.

Reduiction to physics wontr do on this. there is NO initial state but by reference to zillions of other parameters. it is nuts to attest all those will disappear at light speed to alpha centurion..the whole earth would have to go,. and if ONE PARTICLE remains..the whole will be reconstructed..

We have to resurrect a group.

That will demonstrate it to you.

Edited by stopgam, 23 January 2013 - 02:43 PM.

[Julia36]

A witty saying proves nothing -Voltaire

...and neither does poetry or semi-irrational banter. Do you really find daydreaming more interesting than trying to discover the secrets of the universe through rational, scientific means?

What sacrilege is this?

What?

"Poetry proves nothing?"

What scholarship system are you living in?

What are you discoursing in?
What are your greatest thoughts?

POETRY is GOD INCARNATE

the WHOLE of science including mathematics is but a subset of it.

DAY DREAMING???

The Truth of the imagination rules man and transhuman man can be attributed with nothing greater.

I shall cite another poem to prove the first WHICH IS ALREADY IRRETUTABLE:

Don't believe me...ask Dan Dennett, the American's greatest living philosopher (THAT is easy to pove in YOUR system by measuring the length of his beard)




Do it...Go right up to his door, bang on it with a flamingo and ask

"Is that Tennyson poem true or false - and try not to think about it please..."

Edited by stopgam, 23 January 2013 - 03:07 PM.

[Julia36]

Look, science is a piece of cake. It makes technology, therefore its testable.


Quantum Archaeology for those who've just popped in is VERY Simple Consistent, and also irrefutable as we're already doing it with simple and small things:

Quantum Archaeology For Children
<p>

An archaeologist looks at old things and tries to rebuild them back to new.

Quantum Archaeology is about how to get back all the dead people who have ever lived in the world.

People who died long ago will soon be resurrected by science when we get bigger computers.

Its based on what we know about

• science,
• maths,
• computers, and
• NEW machines.

Scientists think we can wake up the dead. Then make them young again. They are talking about how to do it. They are drawing ways to wake up all the dead people back to life.

One of these ways is by doing very BIG sums.

Then we'll use tiny robots to build the dead back to life again!

LAWS OF THE VERY SMALL

The world of the very small seems spooky to grown ups! We must work out all it's laws.

LOTS OF SUMS TO DO

There are lots of sums to do. Sums can also be done as small drawings.
You can draw sums on a grid as shapes.

There are more small drawings for Quantum Archaeology than all the stars in the sky!

So we need MASSIVE computers to do them!

Titan is the biggest computer in the world.

We hope be able to wake up the dead people even when they've been forgotten.
This is because computers are getting faster:

When grown-ups were your age they had to read everything in books and newspapers: it took them years to see all the facts they wanted.

Today we can see lots of facts.

Next year people will wear computers!

We are building better things, bigger things, and faster things.
We think computers could do all the sums for us.
It doesn't matter when this happens... because the dead dont mind waiting!
Quantum Archaeology is new, big and fun.
Quantum Archaeology has lots of toys in it.

THE GRID

First we'll build the quantum archaeology grid .
[center]

Next we'll draw the dead people on it.
Then we'll do lots of cross- checking... to make sure we've got the right person!



When we build the grid, and cross-check all the laws -

We'll bring the dead people back to life with robots!
[center]

[Julia36]

OK I was wound up after Ullyses which was read at a pivotal scientist's funeral by his eldest son after a car crash killed him and famous men at the eulogy wept because his work was classified no-one knew who he was.:

http://www.nytimes.c...ichie.html?_r=0

You define the initial state - I'll resurrect the dead. And bring your dictionary

[Mority]

Look at this:
For every particle you want to simulate you need at least a particle in your computer that is unable to compute other particles.

Assume this is wrong.
Now we can simulate our computer with less particles that are actually used by our computer. We now repeat this step: We simulate a computer that simulates a computer. In every step we use less particles but still get the whole computation. Therefore it is possible to get as much calculational power as wanted which is impossible. It would mean that for every problem one can imagine there is an algorithm as fast as you like which is just not the case!
(Imagine a world where this was true... awesome but dangerous as well)

(Assume you can do this with quantum computers. Everything you can do with a quantum computer can be done with a regular computer you just need more time. You could still form a chain of computers that simulate computers to get arbitrary large computational resources. So this is not about quantum computers. Just in case. "Although quantum computers may be faster than classical computers, those described above can't solve any problems that classical computers can't solve, given enough time and memory" at the bottom at http://en.wikipedia....uantum_computer)

Therefore we need the whole earth to simulate the whole earth, right? Still wrong as information is lost. We need all particles in the universe. But those are leaving the universe at the speed of light which makes it impossible to capture them. Ignoring them or using one particle for more than one particle leads to a wrong past becasue of the butterfly effect. http://en.wikipedia....ki/Chaos_theory

So: No way! forget it.

There is one way this could happen. As time itself runs (propably) forever we could at least compute forever. If there is a way to get new matter without loosing all energy we can simulate all possible worlds and then resurrect everyone that lifes in them. But this is not about 40 years and i highly doubt it will happen.

Yesterday i wanted to rage about the text stopgam is posting, but i was holding myself back. That he is (in my opinion) wrong doesn't matter much for me as everyone is wrong from time to time. But what makes me angry is that he is obscurating his ideas by posting pictures that don't have anything to do with quantum archeology. He just repeats his points over and over and tries to confuse us with stuff that doesn't relate to Quantum Archeology at all. But if this would be the case because he doesn't know better it would be ok. But i for my part think he is trying to make less educated people beliefe in Quantum Archeology, while he knows that it is just made up. It seems like stopgam is trying to get views.

[Julia36]

Moprity- we have diffrent posting styles, and some of us even have personalities.
I am prtetty new on longecity ad acept your dictum I should stick to the topic more.

The argument you've raised:

for one bit of description you need one bit of computing is false because:

1. You use inflation.

2. Many things in the universe if not all things, are composed of identical components.

3. The idea we need one particle of computing to describe one particle of matter is absolutely bonkers because of mathematics which is SYMBOLIC description.

Coming computers will not do brute calculation number crunching but be intelligent.

The argument is SIZE OF CALCULATION.

But i take your point and will turn down for a while:

the floor's yours.....

[DAMABO]

In mathematics one can prove things with certainty, for example that underdetermined problems usually have an infinite number of solutions. No future mathematical developments will circumvent this logical fact.

By the way, if you could do QA it would also mean that predicting the future would be child's play. Are you sure this would not lead to nasty paradoxes when people will be informed beforehand what they will be experiencing in the future, which will prompt them to change their future behavior?

cool question! interesting comments.

[platypus]

Look at this:
For every particle you want to simulate you need at least a particle in your computer that is unable to compute other particles.

You probably need much more than one particle to store the state of a single simulated particle. Let's say you need to simulate the position of the particle at the planck-scale...sounds like you need to store a large number of digits for each of the coordinates etc. These digits need to be saved in memory, which is presumably made out of matter, i.e. particles.

[Julia36]

Look at this:
For every particle you want to simulate you need at least a particle in your computer that is unable to compute other particles.

You probably need much more than one particle to store the state of a single simulated particle. Let's say you need to simulate the position of the particle at the planck-scale...sounds like you need to store a large number of digits for each of the coordinates etc. These digits need to be saved in memory, which is presumably made out of matter, i.e. particles.

ARRRGGGG!

you need either much more to confgure it unitly,


OR

much less if you describe it SYMBOLICALLY (eg in maths)

In mathematics one can prove things with certainty

No you can only prove within the system of maths itself, with certainty.

Maths is a self-referential system as early 20th century wizards proved (though they set out to prove the opposite)

and at times leads to absurd impossibilities and at other times no solutions lie transcendental numbers that go on for ever (these are said to be unpredictable but cannot be since you can list all previous sequences and predict it can be none of those, moving into orders of infinity at the very least, but possibly finities - although you cant know that til someone hits you over the head with and English dictionary. Maths is a subset of English - the demonstrably highest most economic language ever discovered)

Mority old chum, we have to tolerate each other, what? I invite you to Londn to see a multicultural civilization at work. This last happened under Gupta which had 45 of the world's population.

I am uneasy you feel rage at me. You may wish to invade France as that usually calms, and whilst there pop into the Louvre to see the relevance of art and poetry to philosophy, in which Quantum Archaeology is a topic.

Art poetry and other scallops are indeed relevant to QA for there are no true subject divisions: cataloging of them only exist for memorizing and speed IMO.

I refer you to the depressive lecher Schopenhauer to whom you are closer kinned than I and his 38 debating devil's tricks which caused the Great German Civil War 1914-89 (you have just used 3 of them)
and which you tested physically juxataposing fascism v communism.

http://www.mnei.nl/s...-stratagems.htm

Dont believe me, Schopenhauer will be resurrected in 15 years speaking fluent German:



Schopenhauer was a philosopher.

I'm NOT trying to fudhe the issue, but earnestly seek tests for QA.

Is is viable or not?

Because we are already successfully doing classical archaeology.







I

[platypus]

Look at this:
For every particle you want to simulate you need at least a particle in your computer that is unable to compute other particles.

You probably need much more than one particle to store the state of a single simulated particle. Let's say you need to simulate the position of the particle at the planck-scale...sounds like you need to store a large number of digits for each of the coordinates etc. These digits need to be saved in memory, which is presumably made out of matter, i.e. particles.

ARRRGGGG!

you need either much more to confgure it unitly,

OR

much less if you describe it SYMBOLICALLY (eg in maths)

Numbers are symbols, and storing then requires bits and a bit needs to be stored in some physical form.

Dont believe me, Schopenhauer will be resurrected in 15 years speaking fluent German:

Heh heh, so what can you reconstruct in, say, 3 years? Can you think a single simple example that could be solved in 3 years?

You should spend most of your time trying to show that QA is impossible as otherwise you might end up fooling yourself.

[Mority]

Look at this:
For every particle you want to simulate you need at least a particle in your computer that is unable to compute other particles.

You probably need much more than one particle to store the state of a single simulated particle. Let's say you need to simulate the position of the particle at the planck-scale...sounds like you need to store a large number of digits for each of the coordinates etc. These digits need to be saved in memory, which is presumably made out of matter, i.e. particles.

I am pretty sure that you are right. But the assumption that you need less than one particle for simulating a particle leads to a contradiction. Therefore it will be impossible for a mobile to simulate the whole planet on plankscale as you could simulate 2 mobiles that each simulate 2 mobiles and so on... which would lead to infinite computational resources which is almost surely impossible. That was my point. Proof by contradiction.

[Julia36]

Monity the reason I post so much here is that fanatics or other bodies keep shutting my sites down and chucking my work off stuff like Wikipedia: even my google site was shut down, I'm sure for what people thought very good reasons @ the time and I wasted valuable hours getting it reinstated.

The work may be lost unless its housed somewhere and pompous flawed or wrong it is an important idea which ought to be debated by better minds than mine.

Heh heh, so what can you reconstruct in, say, 3 years? Can you think a single simple example that could be solved in 3 years?

It;s already been done! You think I am spewing spuriousnesses?

Here:

A proton pump 800millions old successfully resurrected 2012 University of Oregon.




800 MILLION years old! 1 year old would be routine now (cloning)

We're still doing genres not individuals but the methods IS EXACTLY THE SAME as an individual is just MORE calculation.
It is NOTHING else! Memory is not magic but cause & effect.



http://blogs.discove...e/#.UQRfE_KqEgs

You should spend most of your time trying to show that QA is impossible as otherwise you might end up fooling yourself.

Good advice. I delegate it to you.
I'm busy: I've discovered something FANTASTIC

Edited by stopgam, 26 January 2013 - 11:16 PM.

[Julia36]

Look at this:
For every particle you want to simulate you need at least a particle in your computer that is unable to compute other particles.

You probably need much more than one particle to store the state of a single simulated particle. Let's say you need to simulate the position of the particle at the planck-scale...sounds like you need to store a large number of digits for each of the coordinates etc. These digits need to be saved in memory, which is presumably made out of matter, i.e. particles.

I am pretty sure that you are right. But the assumption that you need less than one particle for simulating a particle leads to a contradiction. Therefore it will be impossible for a mobile to simulate the whole planet on plankscale as you could simulate 2 mobiles that each simulate 2 mobiles and so on... which would lead to infinite computational resources which is almost surely impossible. That was my point. Proof by contradiction.

Mority: that isn't at all how maths is done.

Von Neumann invented the computer as we know it so you DIDN'T have to calculate your way. And Turing improved it IMO.

'Objects' are used in computer programing similarly
.

You calculate large wads of system, and just have ONE symbol for all that calculation.

Whenever that event occurs again, you just enter the symbol, not the whole equation.

So if I want to state the maths of a solar system, I dont have to work all the equations out (which might be massive) but just the symbol for a prptotype solar system - plus or minus it's unique variations-
which you'll agree is a MUCH smaller equation.


I have simplified but this is the idea.

the magical thing is this rule applies to every system,

ie every system is composed of identical, repeating sub-systems (components)

You can see this in the human brain which only has 300 sub-systems that repeat over and over: each of them is composed of 100 neurons (Kurzweil How to Make a Mind 2012).

So you DONT enter each neuron in the brain to compute with it, but just 300, which inflate to 100 each.


There's more....

YOU dont have to work stuff out with progressive intelligence as machine intelligence is being amplified daily by programmers, and at one point machines will start doing their own programming and modification (unless you think the brain is mystical and it's systems cant be copied)

That 'LEAP' will come in the 2020's @ latest.

I have been following some of them for over 10 years.

1. Things can be condensed into components . The components can be condensed into components ad infinitum.

2 Then they can be ascribed a symbol, and groups of symbols can be ascribed a symbol.

3. Then they can be inflated on command...automatically..

This is ONE of zillions of tricks in mathematics - which is just a long name for shortcuts, and shouldn't scare anyone.

.
For QA we are not inflating the whole universe but the relevant universe which is tons smaller.

In fact...in QA and as a general rule the calculation you need to resurrect one human person never exceeds that of the complete human person's relevant particles.

That assumes you have a
quantumarchaeology grid

The QA Grid is constructed from events in the same way as this dead sea scrolls construction.

& other stuff, but that is straightforward to set up and configure because data bases are already assembling from other disciplines, waiting to be synthesised.

[platypus]

How exactly do you record the position and velocity of 1000 particles in a 1 bit "symbol"? So in 15-years we'll have this fantastic new notation, you predict? LOL

[Julia36]

How exactly do you record the position and velocity of 1000 particles in a 1 bit "symbol"? So in 15-years we'll have this fantastic new notation, you predict? LOL

We? I know only my own nutty stuff. And yup I use different systems and notations but all of them are
obvious and wouldn't engage a mathematician fro very long with me not knowing what he was talking about

Particles dont exist alone. nor by the definition alone of particles. They are described as subsets or all inclusive sets of other things, or by causal or probabilistic laws.

sort of:




an event. The intersection of the laws or of anything else like forces, fields, waves collisions, is an event.





On predictions in retro-causal interpretations of quantum mechanics http://www.sciencedi...355219808000610



They are events. Happenstance. One description in terms of another with dynamic perspectives - a force d one moment an inevitable sequence the next, a probability filed concurrently, a particle a wave a wavicle a vibration an... it's easier to cal things events. They have qualia (subjectivity as perspective) but its easier (& probably only this one is possible any how) to describe them objectively: note I reject with many others, Russell's objection Russell's Theory of Causal Lines‎ for my own part as a crisis of confidence in maths and geometry.

the observer effect and most other paradoxes in Quantum Mechanics are resolved by Many Worlds interpretation (that may not be a good enough determinist theory of the very small but it's really brilliant)

events have
At LEAST all these (see wiki) :



In science, technology, and mathematics:

• Event (computing), a software message indicating that something has happened, such as a keystroke or mouse click
• Event (synchronization primitive), a type of synchronization mechanism.
• Event, Particle accelerator, experiments which produce high energy (Electron volt|MeV, GeV, and TeV) subatomic particle collisions
• Event (probability theory), a set of outcomes to which a probability is assigned
• Event (UML), in Unified Modeling Language, a notable occurrence at a particular point in time
• Event chain methodology, in project management
• Event (relativity), a point in space at an instant in time, i.e. a location in spacetime
• Event horizon, a boundary in spacetime, typically surrounding a black hole, beyond which events cannot affect an exterior observer
• Celestial event, an astronomical phenomenon of interest

In philosophy This is a philosophy forum- the pursuit of wisdom ...which is the first discovery possible to man (Ecclesiastes):

• Event (philosophy), an object in time, or an instantiation of a property in an object
• Mental event, something that happens in the mind, such as a thought
• Grouped Events, the experience of two or more events that occur in sequence or concurrently that can be subsequently categorized

So to specifically answer your question How do you records the speed and position of every particle etc

You dont. You record condensations: maths and laws (and to a limited extent, data - but astonishingly little of this is needed) as symbols to be inflated for use (see map analogy below).

It is calculation, not digging up things like pottery.

You already use a similar technique yourself if you think about it, when map reading.

You dont have a map of the world you look at to find the street you want to search....well you might but you only use a bit of it.

However that concept might seem impossible to a caveman whop you'd at last convinced you had a map of the world - he may insist that a map of the world would have to BE as big as the world and that therefore you were lying and had to be eaten.

the trick is multiple perspectives concurrently...You're looking at different views on one event by different means @ the same time.

There are many many tricks like this, each simple, but they build up into a mesh where you can be sure the past is absolutely restrodictable as it doers NOT exist except by laws.

You can EASILY do it, it's just been my interest for yonks so I appear dextrous @ it, or confused because i am impatient having to explain it out verbally , and it SEEMS brilliant but suspicious because it's many organblinks all at once! You know for certain NO subject is complex...there;s just lots of bits to it. But you can get the essential idea of ANY subject a a few sentences.
"
Quantum Archaeology resurrects the dead using calculations back from some events in the present.
There are fewer events on the past so most have common timelines to zillions of events in the present.
Even though lots is lost, more than enough remains to trace back. and because everything interrelated, if you can grab one corner, you can work out the whole canvass by definite chains of cause & effect and probability, you then double check by cross-referencing"


the dead are about to rise.

If you die you will resurrect in the blink of your eye: you wont even know you've died it will be so fast and your resurrected self will feel better and truer than your 'dead one a second a go.

Edited by stopgam, 27 January 2013 - 12:49 PM.

[Julia36]

[platypus]

You really don't seem to understand any of the criticism that has been raised against QA.

[Julia36]

You really don't seem to understand any of the criticism that has been raised against QA.

I can assure you I do, and have heard them before - pondered them and dismissed them.

My system is not to store weak truths or falsehoods in my memory.

It feels like people keep asking yes but can birds fly?

I say yes there's one now. and continue about flight and evolution and bird bodies and then

"Can birds fly?."

YES YES 'This wind WILL be so great as to lay low the mountains of the earth.' OK

----->

From the revue that really launched the 'satire' boom, the 1961 Beyond The Fringe. The cast: Peter Cook, Jonathan Miller, Dudley Moore and Alan Bennett. They are seated, huddled, on the top of a mountain... Jon : How will it be, this end of which you have spoken, Brother Enim? Omnes: Yes, how will it be? Peter : Well, it will be, as 'twere a mighty rending in the sky, you see, and the mountains shall sink, you see, and the valleys shall rise, you see, and great shall be the tumult thereof. Jon : Will the veil of the temple be rent in twain? Peter : The veil of the temple will be rent in twain about two minutes before we see the sign of the manifest flying beast-head in the sky. Alan : And will there be a mighty wind, Brother Enim? Peter : Certainly there will be a mighty wind, if the word of God is anything to go by... Dudley : And will this wind be so mighty as to lay low the mountains of the earth? Peter : No - it will not be quite as mighty as that - that is why we have come up on the mountain, you stupid nit - to be safe from it. Up here on the mountain we shall be safe - safe as houses. Alan : And what will happen to the houses? Peter : Well, naturally, the houses will be swept away and the tents of the ungodly with them, and they will all be consuméd by the power of the heavens and on earth - and serve them right! Alan : And shall we be consumed? Peter : Con..sum..éd? No, we shall not be consuméd - we shall be up on the mountain here, you see, while millions burn, having a bit of a giggle. Jon : When will it be, this end of which you have spoken? Omnes : Aye, when will it be - when will it be? Peter : In about thirty seconds time, according to the ancient pyramidic scrolls... and my Ingersoll watch. Jon : Shall we compose ourselves, then? Peter : Good plan, Brother Pithy. Prepare for the End of the World! Fifteen seconds... Alan : Have we got the tinned food? Dudley : Yes. Peter : Ten seconds... Jon : And the tin-opener? Dudley : Yes. Peter : Five - four - three - two - one - Zero! Omnes : (Chanting) Now is the end - Perish The World!
A pause Peter : It was GMT, wasn't it? Jon : Yes. Peter : Well, it's not quite the conflagration I'd been banking on. Never mind, lads, same time tomorrow... we must get a winner one day.<<<<<--------- |Or you can have your money back Brother Platypus¬





.

Playypus

You cant use ad hominem attack in philosophical argument.

Nor you Mority.

One wouldn't deduce best Truths that way so itls banned.

However tls tempting so





If you put ONE objection I will deal with THAT one. ie
one at once.

As far as i know, and from what I have read is typed, I dont see ANY objection that is not refutable from within the maxtrix I have.

However i have often been told i dont listen to nutty half-baked objections from people who haven't read basic quantum archaeology

I'm all ears.

You said initial state

i replied to initial state.

you raised initial state again as if you hadn't heard what I'd said.

THERE IS NO INITIAL STATE

everything is in motion for meso scales

You & others challenge speed and position as if I'm subscribed to the mad explanation of quantum mechanics.

I'm not.

QM is statistics and probability stats there IN NO WAY invalidates causality there.

Put the case the quantum world was probabilistic and not determinist (why not pigs might fly)
QA STILL holds.



Where does that get us?
For Christians popping in::


DONT WORRY! CRYONICISTS ARE GOING TO RESURRECT YOU:

Edited by stopgam, 27 January 2013 - 03:07 PM.

[platypus]

Saying you don't understand the critique is not ad hominem as far as I can tell. Have you ever actually tried to simulate, calculate or program something?

[Julia36]

Platyptus, I cant be drawn on this. I respect your integrity but I'm pulling out if Quantum Archaeology and thankyou mucho for your far-sighted objective criticisms (most of them!)

Salutes

[Mority]

Stopgam, the problem with your posts is that nothing you claim or write is based on science. It is just pictures and words that do not relate to quantum archeology. I am still thinking that you try to manipulate people as you can't be honest about the stuff you are telling us.

I will perfom some quantum archeology for you now: "A" is the symbol that stands for the set of all persons that died and "B" is the Symbol of a World where all people that are an element of "A" are revived.

Mighty mathematics... simsala bim... mumbo jumbo... I call upon the gods of symbols...

B

Did it work? Im sure they are now happily living in their new world. Hopefully...

[platypus]

Stopgam, the problem with your posts is that nothing you claim or write is based on science. It is just pictures and words that do not relate to quantum archeology. I am still thinking that you try to manipulate people as you can't be honest about the stuff you are telling us.

Yes, his "argumentation" is "not even wrong", just tangential rambling. I think it's possible that s(he) is a troll who is just passing time on the internets.