Sidewalker's avatar

Sidewalker

Member since

Sidewalker
So let's hypothesise.

Two people are presented to you encased in card board boxes with only their lips showing. One is the person depicted above, the other is a women with thin pale lips.

Which box do you choose?


The woman of course, and this reminds me of a joke.


A lumberjack arrives at a remote camp and the foreman is filling him in about the place, processes, etc. He asks if there are any women around, boss says "No, that was a big problem before but we came up with a solution, about a hundred yards down the road there is a barrel with a hole in the side, any day but Thursday you can put your naughty parts in the hole and you should be satisfied."


He thinks that's weird but what the heck, he gives it a try and wow, it was fantastic, he goes back to the boss's office and says, "Holy cow, that was great, how come I can't do it on Thursdays?


Boss says, "On Thursdays, it's your turn to be in the barrel".






Sidewalker
The perpetrator was arrested, will be tried for a crime that should result in the death penalty?

He will be released again. That's what will be expected, of course, because America has a fascination of blaming systems instead of people.


If he was an adjudicated rapist with 34 felony convictions, we would probably elect him President.

Sidewalker
Anyone that thinks I'm hateful for saying it (or any other "current insult" that you prefer) I will sarcastically accept.

If you want to change my mind, then come up with something better than boring (but entertaining) name calling.


You seem to be obsessed with other people's genitals, especially people like in this picture.


Oh well, whatever gets you off, if this picture gives you a woody, fine, why would we want to change your mind?

Sidewalker
Previous usernames have been Sonofcharl and Fredsnephew, and I think the former was with debate.org.

OK, then it wasn’t you, his exact phrase for God was “floaty about bloke”, pretty close, but no “Scarecrow in a fedora”, that’s unique.


"Potential", in this case simply refers to the possibility for material existence, without the need for what we understand to be physical laws.

You mean, the probable just becomes actual when you look at it?


Is it possible for emptiness to become full...Or can fullness never be empty.

I think I hear the sound of one hand clapping.


And the dilemma for me is that this conundrum cannot be reconciled...Potential can neither be finite nor infinite.

I don’t know about that, according to quantum physics, that’s exactly where physical reality comes from, it is a potential that becomes actual through observation.


Quantum physics tells us reality is made of waves that behave as particles, or particles that act as waves – and not waves of some underlying stuff, but waves of “probability”, reality a halo of pure possibility that goes unrealized until it is “collapsed” by an observer, who almost seems to conjure the particle into existence out of a mathematical haze.


And whilst out walking yesterday, I was suddenly struck with the notion that a circle cannot be infinite, so therefore neither can it's radius.

And then struck with the notion that the circle might be infinitely expandable.


Hey, Einstein used to take walks like that.


What made Einstein great was not some intellectual ability to resolve conflict by determining which side was right, that simply is not what he did to completely revolutionize understanding in physics. Only one representative example would be the battle between wave theory and particle theory of light that had vehemently raged between two "sides" for decades before Einstein took a walk and resolved it all.


He did not determine which side was right, he said both sides were right, and both sides were wrong. He allowed two mutually exclusive theories, two irreconcilable "sides" full freedom to exist simultaneously in his mind with the implicit understanding that perhaps both were expressions of a higher truth and then worked it all out to achieve a higher and more comprehensive understanding of the underlying truth, and in so doing he completely revolutionized physics. Again and again, he engaged in this type of mental process and astounded the scientific world with his insights into the true nature of physical reality. That was his brilliance and the key to his genius.


So keep on walking and let me know when you have figured out the answer to the Ultimate Question of Life, the Universe, and Everything.


Just another irreconcilable mind game.

Mind Games (Remastered 2010)


How do you get something – in this case, everything - from nothing?


In generall, there are two schools of thought on the subject.


There are the “magical floaty about” believers who want to reject science in favor of some transcendent reality, many call it God, but many others use different words, the One, the Void, the Primordial Deep, my grandmother used to call it Unetlanvhi. This transcendent reality was described as dimensionless and infinite.


Of course, that’s just silly and unscientific. Science says everything has a cause, so what caused God? And don’t give me any of that “God just is”, or “God is uncreated”, or that “God is a necessary being that must exist”, because that just isn’t science. Those guys always want to invoke some transcendent existence that precedes or lies outside the physical universe, that just has to be the way it is, to which there is no alternative, they want to tell us that underlying our present universe there is something beyond space and time, something very mysterious, but that is all just nonsense, the universe is everything, and science explains it.


Now let me explain it to you scientifically, to show how foolish those people are.


In the beginning there was a primordial mass we call a singularity, it was infinitesimally small, infinitely hot, and infinitely dense, in it all the matter/energy in the universe was squeezed into a single dimensionless point, don’t ask where it came from, it just was, it was uncaused and uncreated, it just is, a necessity that must exist. In addition to that, there was a deep mathematical structure that necessarily existed, it preceded or lay outside of the physical universe, it just had to be what it was because there was no alternative.


Now, within this deep mathematical structure, if you apply relativity and quantum theory to this pre-existing primordial mystery, you get a cosmic loophole big enough for all creation to jump through. In the end, the universe is a quantum fluctuation that can be described as either a particle or a wave, and n a special kind of mathematical transubstantiation, the numbers took on substance and became the universe.


There, we don’t need all that belief and mystery and supernatural God stuff, because now we have science to explain things.


Sidewalker

May she rest in peace.


Of course, there are those who see such a tragedy as a gift, something to be celebrated and used for political gain.


So unfortunately, first she will be dragged through the political slime of partisan opportunism and used to justify hostility and aggression.


Then may she rest in peace.



Sidewalker
What's it gong to be, Democrats? Do you have a more reasoned response to a present, for an utterly lacking crime response other than a %#$#^ ban?

How about something original? There's nothing about woke that is.


The perpetrator was arrested, will be tried for a crime that should result in the death penalty?


What more do you want?


It was a tragic, made more tragic by attempts to politicize this woman's death for a petty agenda of cheap political opportunism.


Iryna Zarutska deserves better.





Sidewalker
Since we have people scared to enter the debate rounds, is taxation theft?


The terms "taxation" and "theft" are legal terms that are explicitly defined by the state's legal framework, if the state does not define taxation as theft, then it is not theft.


Would it be theft for you to use public services like roads, public safety, public education, and national defense without paying for those services?


Without taxation, how would public services be funded?


Would you prefer to live without the benefits of public services? How would that work?






Sidewalker


"We the People of the United States, in order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America"

So, how do justice, tranquility, common defense, general welfare, and the blessings of liberty achieve "a more perfect union?"


Let's see here, you suppose the founders believed that a union that had "justice, tranquility, common defense, general welfare, and the blessings of liberty" was more perfect than a union that did not have those qualities?


You know, like in the simple and straightforward meaning of the sentence.



Sidewalker
Today, the “separation of church and state” is interpreted as forbidding mention of God in pubic schools, or conducting prayer, even by one's self in silence, when the Everson case [1947’s Everson v. Board of Education] found"
 “…that although the United States government cannot promote religion, it also cannot be religion’s adversary.”


That’s an astoundingly uninformed interpretation of Everson V. Board of Education, your interpretation is non-sequitur nonsense.


Everson argued that the state law that allowed the use taxpayer funds to pay for transportation to Catholic schools was unconstitutional, the Supreme Court ruled against Everson, supporting the state law because it compensated parents who sent their kids to public and religious private schools equally.


It had nothing whatsoever to do with “forbidding mention of God in pubic schools, or conducting prayer, even by one's self in silence”. 


The OP is either patently dishonest, or just plain stupid, or both.

Sidewalker
Is it reasonable to suggest that matter in it's most basic state must have infinite potential.

I guess it depends on what you mean by “infinite potential”, if you are talking about energy, no, it is not reasonable to suggest matter must have infinite potential energy, both classical physics and relativity say that is impossible.


Though if matter cannot be reduced to zero, is it not then both potentially infinite whilst remaining finitely reduceable.


I’m not sure if I follow what you mean by that, please explain further.


Which would be to say that potential cannot cease to be.


Again, if we are talking about energy, then the potential energy of matter can certainly reduce to zero, if you are talking about something else, please explain further.


And of course the same conundrum also applies to A GOD...(The magical floaty about or scarecrow in a fedora type).


No, I don’t think it does, anytime you see the word “infinite” on the internet, people start talking about God, but the OP was about geometry, and I don’t see how this or any other physical conundrum that transfers to the spiritual realm.   Mathematically, infinity tends to apply to limits, and in theology, associating God and the word infinity is meant to signifies that God's being, attributes, and existence are without limit, as opposed to the finite nature of the physical world. It is a matter of God’s transcendence, which would be a matter of transcending physical conundrums, the implication is beyond our finite human intellectual capacity to know, Isaiah 55:8-9 comes to mind:


“For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways, saith the LORD. For as the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways, and my thoughts than your thoughts.”


((I recognize your "magical floaty about" thing, it's on the tip of my tongue but can't quite remember, what was your screen name at debate.org?))


Though if potential can be lost, this would therefore give credence to the GOD principle. (That which reinitiates or maintains material potential).


I don’t follow the reasoning here, what do you mean?

Sidewalker
What if Hilbert and Poincaré, sincere in their beliefs, brut misguided


Yeah, David Hilbert was a lightweight in the field of mathematics LOL.


You started out talking about Euclidean Geometry, but I suppose that Euclid guy didn't know shit about geometry either.


faith is how things, like eternal life, can be known to be true,


If it's known to be true, it isn't faith.


But hey, if you are a science denier, you may as well also be a mathematics denier, and a logic denier.


BTW, you forgot to tell us about how that Aristotle guy didn't understand logic.





Sidewalker
infinite cannot exist in reality?

Aristotle first established it, and in the modern era, David Hilbert and Henri Poincaré demonstrated it, all three distinguished between an actual infinity and a potential infinity. Time can't extend infinitely into the past, because we could never arrive at the present, it could only "potentially" extend into the future infinitely, but there is no way for us to know that. A potential infinity can be an abstract repeating process, but even theoretically, an actual infinity can't be observed. Hilbert and Poincaré proved a completed, infinite set can't physically exist, if it is completed, it is finite, if it's not completed, it is only potentially infinite.


life is infinite.


The point being, you can believe that "potentially", but you can't actually know it to be true.



Sidewalker

Of course this is all theoretical, because an infinite cannot exist in reality, and even if it did, we could not know it.


So theoretically, I don't think so, first a radius is a measurement of distance and infinite is not a mathematical distance, you really can't apply mathematical concepts to it (Georg Cantor tried to but that's why he ended up in an insane asylum)


Second, the radius of circle is geometrically associated with an arc, but if the radius is infinite, then the arc is zero, making it a straight line, and an infinite straight line can't be extended into a circle.

Sidewalker

Desperate to look like a tough guy as the whole world laughs at him, Trump has made a military strike against a small Venezuelan boat with no evidence whatsoever that it involved drugs, gangs, or any other reason to strike it in international waters, which is an act of war either way. To which, JD Vance stated he "doesn't give a shit if it was a war crime".


In a post yesterday Trump threatened war with Chicago LOL, here is the President's actual post..



I don't think there's any way to get the rest of the world to stop laughing at him, but at least, maybe we should stop worrying why he is protecting pedophiles before he sets the entire world on fire.



Sidewalker
You continue to try and discredit the work of climatologists.

The scientific community is engaged in a vast conspiracy of course.

And no doubt continue to promote the idea that the scarecrow in the fedora has provided us with non-problematic and inexhaustible supplies of fossil fuels.

What choice do we have, you certainly can't have wind turbines ruining the view from the golf course.

Hmmmm...I not sure that your hypotheses are backed up with a whole lot of credible evidence Faux.

If Trump said it, we don't need no stinking evidence.

And...I'm not sure that the global climatological community is made up of bozos, with equipment they threw together, made with bits that they found in a junkyard.


It's all a distraction, desperation to deny the truth, which is he believes what Trump tells him to believe.


Nothing else matters.




Sidewalker
I've seen a total solar eclipse.

And my advice to anyone planning on going to see one, is take some warm clothes with you.


Yeah, me too, and I was surprised by the dramatic temperature drop also.


I was asking Fauxlaw about this because he chose the bullfrog as his spirit animal, which to me is very interesting, my peeps generally associate it with an eclipse. I was wondering if he chose it or it chose him.

Sidewalker
Of course, and no amount of largesse obfuscates that from normal, sane people. It's all crumbs to them.

 (i.e. more than 50%)

So he has about 30% more to go to reach that mark, not that he or any other ultra-rich person really cares about donating significant amounts over encoded tax deductions... and especially if it's not funding a crony NGO


While you stand in judgement of Bill Gate's contributions, how about you tell us all the things you have done to help the less fortunate.



Sidewalker
Cli-Sci [my moniker for Climate "Science"] came late in the game to class, only some 200 years ago, when the seniors in class have been here for thousands of years. What makes Cli=Sci [I put "sciemce' in quotes for a reason I'll shortly explain] think it ranks among the senior class?

I asked some questions a while ago that were never answered. I'll ask again. The criticality is simply this: science depends on careful, accurate, repeatable data collection. Anybody disagree with that?
Fine, let's proceed: Data depends on measurement, and that depends on the right tools for the job. The care and keeping of those tools is the critical matter here, and the subject of my questions. They are;

How many measurement stations are there? 

Are they all using the same measurement equipment for the same measurement need? 

Is the equipment used the optimum equipment for the measurements required? 

Is all measurement equipment used of an accuracy that is 10 times the required tolerance specified to assure data is valid within specified tolerances? 

How accurate and timely are all their calibrations performed and recorded on all specified measurement equipment [including just a straight edge ruler]? 

Are those who conduct the measurements all properly trained in the function of the measurement equipment used?

Are all who perform calibration of measurement equipment also adequately trained as above? 

Is the training verified as effective with follow up by the trainers? 

Do the measurement operators all use the same measurement process technique?

Unless all these questions can be answered correctly and accurately, the data collected is garbage, and I don't believe Cli-Sci is yet up to the task, for instance, of just measurement of sea level temperature around the world ay multiple stations, let alone any other more complicated measurement.


OK Kanuna, please apply your criteria for belief to the LDS church and tell me what you get?


  1. How can you verify that an angel named Moroni visited Joseph Smith, how do you know the Golden Plates ever existed, and where are they now?


  1. On what scientific basis do you believe that God has a physical body, that He had sex with Mary, and now lives on a planet named Collab.


  1. What observations or evidence exist for the process of exaltation, where men can become a God.


  1. What evidence is there that there are an infinite number of Gods managing infinite universes.


  1. What evidence is there that wearing Temple garments provide spiritual protection from evil?


  1. What independent archaeological, historical, or scientific evidence that the Nephite and Lamanite civilizations existed in North America?


  1. What evidence is there that Native Americans are descendants of ancient Jews, specifically the "Lamanites".


  1. What DNA evidence is there to link any Native American group to ancestry from the ancient Near East?


Unless all these questions can be answered correctly and accurately, then by your own stated standards, your belief in the LDS Church is completely unfounded.


Sidewalker

Bill Gates and his wife, along with Warren Buffett founded the Giving Pledge, a charitable campaign to encourage wealthy people to contribute a majority (i.e. more than 50%) of their wealth to philanthropic causes, Gates has inspired over 200 billionaires to pledge over $300 billion to help the less fortunate. To date, Bill Gates has personally donated over $30 billion to non-profits, and it is estimated that he has saved more than six million lives through his vaccine and healthcare initiatives.


You really think he got into the Climate Change game for the money?



Sidewalker

Donald Trump's disastrous governance has successfully tanked America's labor market, the economy only added 22,000 jobs in August, meaning there are more unemployed people than there are jobs. 1.


The Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) also revised down the numbers from June to show there was negative job growth for the first time since...well, since the last time Trump tanked the economy.


Time to fire people over at BLS AGAIN, for the crime of telling the truth, which is strictly verboten in this administration.



Sidewalker

Interesting article, I think 1,3, and 8 are the biggies. What do you think?


Inside the Minds of Climate Deniers—10 Things Psychologists Have Learned


1. They Only Pay Attention to Facts That Support What They Already Believe

2. They Need to Believe Our Current System Is Working Fine

3. Rejecting Climate Science Is a Way to Fit in With Their Group

4. They Hate the Solutions So Much They Reject the Problem

5. Believing Climate Science While Living Normal Lives Creates Mental Stress

6. Future Problems Don’t Feel as Real as Today’s Concerns

7. Smart People Think They Can Figure Out Complex Science on Their Own

8. Conspiracy Theories Make Complex Situations Simple to Understand

9. Denial Protects People From Feeling Anxious and Helpless

10. They Only Read News Sources That Tell Them What They Want to Hear