That was at the bar, though I did have an interesting convo with a friend after a vaporizer session a couple months ago. We were talking about what conditions would need to be present for some creature to evolve the ability to travel unprotected in space. We ended up with something that resembled the Rock Monster from Galaxy Quest. That, was some good smoke.
you're alright Pedro I stopped caring about God some time ago I now have my freedom live and let live peace & love brothers
Bump! http://discovermagazine.com/2009/dec/05-discover-interview-the-man-who-builds-brains I think therefore I am.
It's interesting to compare quotes from that article to a chart that Ray Kurzweil put together a long time ago:
The rest of your post is excellent, but the part about reducing our radio wave output is completely wrong. We are in fact constantly searching for additional spectrum and for better ways to use existing spectrum because of the explosion in radio transmissions. Digitalizing our information streams in no way reduces the usage of radio spectrum. In fact the opposite has happened. As one example, radio technology for digital cellular radio is driving governments to reallocate spectrum in many countries.
God now talks to me everyday. God only talks to those who trust in him/her. For those who don't, God will manifest the universe in a way that appears as though God doesn't exist. And for those who believe in God: God chooses who are believers and who aren't so there is no point arguing with non believers.
Saw "The Face of Jesus?" on the History Channel last night and turned it off after their "hypothesis" of how the Shroud of Turin image was created was: a brilliant light coming off the body creating a photographic image, as a result of "resurrection."
I love how no one ever bothers to ask where the Shroud was for the 13 centuries prior to it's "discovery". To me the shroud is fascinating, because it's the first "photograph" several hundred years prior to Daguerre. Using a camera obscura and some light-fixing solutions like silver nitrates you could've produced this in the 14th century with the requisite knowledge. The shroud is essentially one giant negative, that's why you can view it much better when looking at a negative image of it because then you're actually looking at the positive image.
This is a very anthropocentric view of information. Information is essentially that which creates form. Everything in the universe has information. Furthermore, everything in the universe communicates information. Even rocks. Think about how a landscape can inform the weather. I believe the anthropocentric mistake you are making is to confuse abstract "modeling" with information.
As well as an incorrect statement of particle physics (RS is quite good at being incorrect). In a Bose-Einstein Condensate multiple atoms can occupy the same quantum state. While we're on the subject of atoms, an atom walks into the bar in a panic. The bartender asks, Hey what's wrong buddy?" To which the atom responds, "I've lost an electron." The bartender shoots back, "Are you sure?" The atom replies, "Yeah, I'm positive." Bazinga!
tell me this. is a B-E condensate a naturally occurring state, or is it something that requires manipulation?
It's a phenomenon that occurs at very low temperatures, close to absolute zero. We've been able to produce them in a laboratory experiments (and it continues to be an interesting area of research as it offers the possibility for macro level quantum effects to be visible). Whether or not there are any areas of the universe cold enough for BEC's to form is open to debate. Your average empty space of the universe is much to warm for a BEC to be possible.
Well, I haven't read the 60 pages of replies, but I think that claim is wrong. Scientific hypotheses are empirically falsifiable, meanwhile the existence of God lies outside the realm of empirical experience, and would lie more in the realm of Metaphysics or Theology. I think the existence of God isn't provable one way or another, that's why most people who do believe take it as a matter of faith. I'll use this example. Say you are a freakishly smart fish in an aquarium with pitch-black windows so you can't see anything outside the aquarium. That fish can empirically test several hypotheses about what lies within the aquarium, but there is an entire universe of things outside the aquarium which the fish can not know. I would say our universe is like the aquarium, and God (if such a being exists) lies probably outside the aquarium beyond anything which we can empirically know about. Sorry if this thought experiment seems a little weird or not well thought out, but I just watched my team's biggest game of the season after a party involving beer so I'm not thinking particularly clear right now. Source: Got a Philosophy degree (aka unemployed (j/k?))
Well you have to define God or his characteristics. Certain gods are very much falsifiable ideas and many god statements make claims about the universe that can be falsified. Whether your god can or cannot be falsified depends on how you define him. Keep in mind how much the god of the gaps has changed.
I'm not so sure this is a good example or analogy. I think rational fish hypotheses would soon lead to a theory that that their aquarium is an open system, that open systems must include forces that are introducing and removing elements from their system and examination of these elements have implications about the nature of what lies beyond. Further, the philosophers among the fish population would suggest that if nothing exists beyond the aquarium, there is a possibility that the opposite is also true, that something exists. In other words, by naming "nothing" it has automatically become "something." Then they'd all kill each other.
so. what you're essentially saying is that BECs exist only in a manufactured reality, so far as we know, though they theoretically could exist naturally. the reason i asked is that someone challenged my statement that two carbon atoms cannot occupy the same space. if i'm correct that BEC condensates involve gasses at very low temperatures, then it probably would be true that two carbon atoms cannot occupy the same space.
Apparently you're not correct. They CAN and they DO occupy the same space, it's just that the only times we've seen it is when we've produced it ourselves. What you're saying is that vodka and orange juice can't mix, because the only times we see it is when we mix it ourselves...
my specific statement was that two carbon atoms cannot occupy the same space. the counter claim was that in BECs, two atoms occupy the same quantum state. i'm not sure that contradicts what i said, but BECs are the result of cooling gasses to very low temperatures, as i read it, so unless carbon is a gas at very low temperatures -- and carbon is a diatomic element, as you are well aware -- it wouldn't be true, unless there are other phenomena than BECs where two atoms occupy the same quantum state. and you would have to prove that two carbon atoms can occupy the same space to falsify my contention that they cannot, not just say they can without any evidence. so i don't think i'm incorrect, at least not yet.
1) Given your position about the nature of the universe, do you understand why it's irrelevent whether or not a BEC was created in a lab vs. found in nature? Furthermore to date we've created BEC with gases like Helium-4, I'm not aware of any laws of physics that would prevent us from using a different substance, only technical challenges. Your original statement was this, In your original statement you state every object is distinct and simply use carbon atoms as one example, you're still wrong about that anyway.
how does my position regarding the nature of the universe apply? so you're saying that it would only be a matter of "technical challenges" to create a BEC with carbon as the substance. oh? so your quibble here is that the word "distinct" is inaccurate. would "discrete" be a better word?