You think Putin wouldn't have done it if the Ukraine was a NATO member?

Continuous manifolds cannot be represented by real numbers. A continuous manifold is not made up of points. There are tangent spaces defined on them, and even tangent bundles. From where numbers can be made relating to the curvature of the manifold. You can roll a 2d flat plane over o sphere to return to the initial position. The equivalent would be rolling a ball on an equilateral triangle. You will see that an arrow on the plane will have changed its orientation wrt a drawn equator on the ball, signifying curvature. You can't do this with a cylinder. A cylinder is not curved.What happens in the case of a cone?

Take The Manhattan Project for example. When you get hundreds, or even thousands of scientists working together, in a network, there is a lot more efficiency than a handful of scientists here, and a handful there — Metaphysician Undercover

Yes. With the great result we have atomic bombs.

So the person pushing the stone is innocent because he isn't seen? — Christoffer

I mean that he can be stopped easily, contrary to atomic bombs being used.

The scientists who have constructed and concocted bombs have ultimate responsibility.

Brother Joe loves the attention given. Like we all do. Why ventilating his thoughts on a forum? He wants his ideas to get attention. To be criticized. But what are his ideas? Seems the existence of an OOO God. Let's go for the lesser ones though.

Him saying that we should serve the divine or worship the god is too muuuuch! Why? That's not what they wanted. They would laugh at us, our churches or mosques, the popes and imams, all the sacred words written, and they are asking themselves if they did make a mistake.

. Is the rock to be blamed? — Christoffer

No, off course not. But rocks and knifes don't have the potential that invented weaponry has. If you construct such a bomb, you know what it can do. Finding out the secrets of the universe can be nice, but at which cost? Wasn't it Oppenheimer thinking he had become death, the destroyer of worlds? After the fact... You can ask, but what if they invent one before us? Of course...

You could secretely roll a stone ball up a mountain. And release it. But if you are seen doing it, people will stop you. How to stop Putin from waging his war? Trying to stop him literally, by taking him captive, or killing him? What will happen?

What brother Joe means, I guess, is that everything evolving in the universe is filled with some kind of divine spark that can't be explained by the material it's contained in.

Who's to blame here? — Christoffer

The scientists who invented the weaponry.

The future is looking grim my friend... The question many, if not most, are asking is if nukes will be used. WW3 almost seems a self-fulfilling prophecy. Maybe we should have stuck to living in small groups.

If they nuke the fridge you can always hide in it though...

If it was the USA doing this (like in a faraway country like Irak), all western leaders would support the USA.

I can understand Putin more than the Bush back then.

How does that refusal to let Ukraine join NATO just so as not to 'upset Putin' now feel? — FreeEmotion

Wouldn't that have let to war with every NATO member?

d

An imagination is a simulation but a simulation doesn't need to be an imagination. They are both simulations. An imagination is an imagined simulation. A simulation is just a simulation.

That's a good one too! So we evolved in the image of some eternal divine nature. As gods made us in their image, then that's very well possible. And it includes all creatures. I mean, it's kind of miraculous that everything exists. So maybe an eternal divine nature made us appear. Along with everything in the universe.

Yes, it is self evident and attempts to deny it using it as a stand, is contradictory and admitting of recognizing it. — Garrett Travers

You can recognize something and deny it. So denying a self evident objective reality, while knowing how it looks like and admitting it exists, is not problematic.

Also, non-objectivity has no applications, so it's useless even if it were somehow correct. — Garrett Travers

So what? (Obviously it's not correct. Objective reality exists.)

We are, in fact, forced to conclude that the universe is self emergent. — Garrett Travers

No, we are not.

That is the only direction in which evidence points. — Garrett Travers

The evidence points in more directions. There is not one objective reality. There are more.

Any detractors you come across, you need to demand evidence of non-material reality, and dismiss any conclusions drawn from ignorance of reality. You should be good with that. — Garrett Travers

There is no need for demanding evidence. But if so, a scream suffices as evidence. In full knowledge of reality.

The computer isn't aware of the simulation. It's programmed. We are aware of a simulation in our brain. It's not programmed. The computer or robot has no dreams. Nature isn't programmed.

If it makes you feel better to tell yourself that, knock yourself out — T Clark

Better than what?

So my imagination isn't simulation software. Simulation software contains no imagination. But the imagination can contain simulation software. Simulation software is a part of the imagination but the imagination is not a part of the simulation software. So computers can't act like humans.

No. But I can imagine simulation software.

I experience more than one god. They can't logically be alone as the creation of love and hate takes two at least. Only when you have knowledge of another mind, you will understand that. Monotheism lacks love.

Humans can act like computers but can computers act like humans?

The principle is logically stating that only something (qualitatively) greater than life and thought and emotion and us, and everything else that has evolved in our physical universe, had to be present for evolution to have taken place.

And the “something (qualitatively) greater than” is God’s omnipotent power.

The elegance of the principle leaves out mentioning quality because any philosophically trained mind would readily understand what a greater thing is. — Joe Mello

I agree. It's the only final explanation when all gaps are closed. You could ask who then created gods but then the answer would be the same. It doesn't take gods to create gods. It takes them though to create a universe and only they can breath life into the equations.

Yeah, many people's minds are screwed up. Already at young age it starts. At school. The institute of so-called enlightenment. I reality it are dark rooms with very refined slave drivers filling the mind with bad stuff and taking good stuff out. And children looking outside of the window to the butterfly on the flower is diagnosed with ADD.

Maybe better: the particle moves in the wave. So a particle remains a particle, tough not an ordinary one. Surrounded by a mysterious wave. So particle and wave together! Strange stuff, that quantum stuff...

Somehow the paddle shape and ball shape have to coincide. The motion of the ball is represented analogue in the bunch (not digital). The bunch is repeatedly been exposed to the procedure of paddle and ball meeting. It remembers. Then when offering a motion of the ball the analogues will again try to meet, follow the memory trail, so to speak. Without a consciousness. A kind of longing though. For the memory trail.

The paddle moves analogous in the collection of neurons. You could use more complicated motions. In 3d for example. Though this will require more neurons. The ball and peddle just have to meet. A strange attractor pulls them together and this can be measured.

The cause of the change is the magic. True magic. Not the magician's magic.

A new cold war. Will it turn hot? According to Murphy's law everything that can go wrong will go wrong, no matter how cool played. It can always turn hot. Oh what save nuclear weapons keep the world!

Or weapons in general.

And yes... Putin has activated deterrence troops. Are nuclear arms for deterrence only? If they got nukes, we gotta have them too? A nuclear balance? What BS!

It's not romanticism leading to pain and war. It's the means modern wars are waged with that leads to pain in wars. Excessive pain that is. Just look in the catalogue of modern weaponry that rolls from the production lines. There are more kinds of weapons than there are people on the planet. The surface of the Earth can be wiped away 10 times. And a bomb exploding far away does you no harm. War has become impersonal, between abstract entities, like countries. "This week only: ten GPS guided drones with laser guided small ATG rockets for free", Weapon industries like war.

Good question! It seems a magnet excerts the same force on me (when I hold another magnet) as my dog pulling on the leash longing to run between the trees. The force of the magnet is constant and simple, without a sophisticated emotion, memory, seeing, barking, jumping, etc. But they both pull. :wink:

The way I see it, all of your behavior is predicated on the knowledge that your brain assimilates through sensory observation. — Garrett Travers

Already in the womb we gather information. We are not blank born. Who says we aren't born with an inate sense of God which is wiped away when we grow up?

Meaning, your primary means of successfully navigating the world in behavior, is an empirical analysis of reality, as opposed to mysticism, or spirits — Garrett Travers

Why not asking the spirits for advice in successfully navigating the world instead of empirical analysis of reality. The empirical analysis has brought the world in a shape it's never been in before. Pretty bad, that is.

Also, Epicurus believed that fear was an evil, and our ignorance of nature left us afraid of the Gods — Garrett Travers

So if we have knowledge of nature, we shouldn't fear God? Why should we fear God in the first place?

. That to dispel that fear, one should empirically investigate nature to uncover its secrets and natural processes. — Garrett Travers

If we have uncovered these secrets, maybe fear increases. Maybe it turns out that they can actually intervene, causing fear to those who think they will punìsh. But why should God punish. You can better amend your gods image and not fear them. Maybe they just created the universe without further ado. Maybe they just leave us alone.

Keep in mind, this guy produced the most peacful societies that I know of in history. He's quite literally the best of the Greeks. — Garrett Travers

There are a lot of these societies. Or better, were. Based on magic and myth. No atom bombs, no high-tec, respect for nature. They don't exist anymore. The west introduced analytical problem solving, already obligatory taught to the young at our schools.

But what has your knowledge source to do with good and bad? What morals you refer to? How to find knowledge?

He was the first to formalize it into a moral code — Garrett Travers

Is empiricism a moral code?

From the article:

"Wave–particle duality is the concept in quantum mechanics that every particle or quantum entity may be described as **either** a particle or a wave."

So not both at the same time. Which seems the most logical. When you describe the wave, you don't see the particle and vice versa.

In the same article:

"Although the use of the wave–particle duality has worked well in physics, the meaning or interpretation has not been satisfactorily resolved;"

Yes, but it's confusing. It's not both at same time. Sometimes particle, sometimes wave. They seem complementary. What does that mean? I know what is complementary. Like ying and yang. Are particles and waves one whole? Is a particle moving in a wave? What
Is the wave made of?

What is the greater ingredient then? — javi2541997

God only knows. He has put it in. Love maybe. Or hate. It's not particle-like.

I don't understand. How can a particle be a wave at the same time? Is it a quantum particle? Is the particle wave -shaped? Does it move around in a wave? What is the wave made of? Other particles?

Holism contains the same ingredients as reductionism. A set of particles can form a square, not seen in the individual particles, but that square, like the particles constituting it, lack the greater ingredient (apart from aquareness).

Where do you see this mind? Any evidence of this mind that 1. cannot be attributed to natural processes, and 2. can be attributed to mental processes? — Garrett Travers

Just look at a chemical process, or things being repelled from each other or moving towards each other. They possess an inherent longing to or aversion for each other.