For humans, "good" is anything that is productive and/or useful and "evil" is anything that is counter productive.

No. "good" and "evil" go beyond productivity. They denote moral and immoral behavior that can be irrelevant to and transcend productivity. For example, it could be argued that it would be productive to force a group of people into slavery for the productive good for the majority, but an ethical notion of good valuing human rights and freedom would call this "evil."

You're ranting now, Rich. We were talking about your claim that "all is quanta." You have well shown that idea only exists in your Book of Rich. Get back to me when you can show otherwise....:)

I also like how that doesn't assert that all is quanta either. You're really on a roll...:)

Of course, but he never said all is quanta. So, you need to read your own posts better....:)

Those theories are lovely, Rich. Unfortunately for you, none of them assert that all is quanta as you claim in the Book of Rich.

What a lovely non sequitur and failure to respond to my last post...:)

LOL. First of all, that post isn't from a famous physicist or any physicist at all; its from some dude named "Jmfig314." And even he doesn't say it's "all quanta." He only posits that possibility as a question:

"Since certain properties (i.e., an electron's position) of a particle aren't well defined until they are measured, does this mean that quantum objects don't possess these properties, unless they are looked at?"

So, try again, Rich. So, far all you got is still Book of Rich, and you're no physicist.

So, you can't provide a link either? I knew your "it's all quanta" claim was coming from the Book of Rich...:)

Until it is viewed, it can only be said it is in a quantum state. What's more, it is all entangled and there are no boundaries

You keep saying this, and yet you never provide proof or a link. So, all you've been doing so far is quoting from the book of Rich.

So, go ahead and provide a link showing "until it is viewed, it can only be said it is in a quantum state." The book of Rich just isn't enough.

Also, Wikipedia, for what it's worth says Wheeler's theory of Quantum foam doesn't apply to the whole universe, but to "a speculative extension of these concepts which imagines the consequences of such high-energy virtual particles at very short distances and times."

Yes, in your eyes she may no longer be beautiful, but that's an issue of your perception, not her beauty. So personal experience doesn't determine the beauty of an object, but the personal experience of it. Millions of Americans hated The Beatles when they came out, and nobody wanted to buy Van Goghs paintings when he was alive. Did that makes The Beatles and Van Gogh bad?

In (roughly) temporal order:

Plato
St. Augustine
St. Anselm
David Hume
Edmund Burke
Immanuel Kant
Karl Marx
Friedrich Nietzsche
Soren Kierkegaard
Feodor Dostoevsky
Sigmund Freud
Martin Buber
Jacques Lacan
Louis Althusser
Julia Kristeva
Jacques Derrida
Jean-Francois Lyotard
Gilles Deleuze
Judith Butler

It greatly describes the Postmodern sensibility of avoiding meta-narratives, such as Marxism, Christian eschatology, linear Freudianism, or the Enlightenment...of explaining the understanding of how one must occupy these, but does not need to grant them sovereignty or even substantial legitimacy.

No, Creative, it's tragic you actually believe what you say. I already showed everything you just said is ridiculous in my earlier post I'm re-posting below. So, I'll leave it there and move on, as I will never respond to any of your nonsense again:

↪creativesoul
"Unless you know what counts as proof of Russian collusion, you cannot know what does not."

That is so nonsensical and fallacious, it's sweet. Using that logic, if someone said someone's eating Ice cream was proof of Russian collusion, only those who knew exactly what that is could say it's not.

Try again, and be logical next time.

You clearly couldn't be logical "next time." Ciao, Creative...you do have my sympathies.

The only one who's been trolled is me by Creative, unless his logic is really that bad, and by you.

And if you can't show how one post of mine has been a troll post, and we both know you can't, you're definitely trolling me.

Read my last post. The only one with unshakable, and nonsensical, conviction is you.

And your first sentence of your last tweet is as nonsensical as your last few posts. Logic has been tough for you, today.

Unless you know what counts as proof of Russian collusion, you cannot know what does not.

That is so nonsensical and fallacious, it's sweet. Using that logic, if someone said someone's eating Ice cream was proof of Russian collusion, only those who knew exactly what that is could say it's not.

Try again, and be logical next time.

Perfectly mistaken on several fronts.

Strictly speaking, the claim is not true on it's face, because the public is privy to some testimony, other documents, emails, etc. - all of which may be, and some of which most certainly is being, used as evidence to further the investigation.

Thanks for supporting my point since none of this "some testimony, other documents, emails, etc" proves, or even substantially points to, Russia hacking the election or the Trump campaign helping it.

No evidence(in the form of specific Mueller team findings) has been provided to the public. There are legal reasons for that

Thanks again for supporting my point that no evidence has been provided by the public. And you have no idea what legal reasons there are for not releasing what they have, just as you don't know what they have or if they have anything at all. The fact you claim you do shows how poor your reasoning has been on this thread. And you really read my post poorly, as I said they could have evidence in my earlier post, just as someone could have evidence that Obama conspired with the banks to not prosecute them for the 08 crash. But what they could have could be nothing and is useless until its provided:

"Could there be evidence somewhere? Sure. There could be evidence John Podesta, who works for the Russians, arranged this all to frame Trump. But until that evidence is provided, it's pointless and useless."

Sigh...I answered you above. So, you should take your shits and giggles and go play with them elsewhere. I will let my last post stand on the matter.

I wonder - again, just for shits and giggles - how someone can claim "there is no evidence" with utmost certainty simply because none has been provided to him/her.

You're really obsessed with shits and giggles; you should probably talk to someone about that.

And no evidence has been provided, so there is no evidence for anyone to see or use to make their decision. There certainly is no evidence for any conviction. Considering they've been yapping about this and investigating it for over 8 months now and provided nil, the prospect of evidence doesnt' look good.

Could there be evidence somewhere? Sure. There could be evidence John Podesta, who works for the Russians, arranged this all to frame Trump. But until that evidence is provided, it's pointless and useless.

I wonder, just for shits and giggles, how one who argues in Trump's defense would answer the following question...

I wouldn't know, since I've never defended Trump. So, you better take those shits and giggles back.

What counts as proof of criminal wrongdoing when it comes to knowingly and intentionally colluding with the Russian government for the expressed written objective of influencing the American election, governmental institutions, and/or American politics in ways that are most favorable to Russia and/or her interests?

This would be a question for a specialist in International and Constitutional Law. However, the evidentiary rule of "beyond a reasonable doubt" would still apply. And evidence of that level hasn't come close to being provided. Of course it would have helped if the cowardly DNC had let the FBI investigate their servers. I wonder what they were afraid of revealing.

And since you like "balls" taunts, try to have the balls next time to address the initiator of personal shots, not the respondent.

Actually, you should have the balls to not make childish "balls." taunts. And returning a personal shot is not falling for anything, but returning the shot.

I made a joke. Rich started with the personal shots; I merely returned them in kind.

Oh, those good old days of Aristotle and Newton. We do miss them don't we? Life was so much simpler.

You think they're entirely gone? The quality of on-line universities must really be declining.

There is nothing there except quanta. — Rich

You keep saying that as if you have no idea theres' no evidence of that and you have provided none. It's cute.

You find me the quantum definition of a teacup. It doesn't exist

I don't care about the quantum definition of a teacup. Quanta is your nonsensical fixation.

You are making it up with your mind and then want to insert it into the .... where? Your own textbook on physics?

No, that describes you perfectly, not me. You're the only one whose own personal textbook on physics says "all is quanta."

Sorry, as I said above:

"You can keep repeating that falsehood all you like. Until you back it up with evidence and/or convincing argument; it remains the falsehood it is."

So, the wishful thinking of one's mind is solely yours.

↪Thanatos Sand There are only quantum states.

You can keep repeating that falsehood all you like. Until you back it up with evidence and/or convincing argument; it remains the falsehood it is.

Whatever you and the neurologists wish to make up does not change that physicists can only find quanta.

The physicists find much more than quanta. You must be listening to people who just call themselves "physicists."

There is no glass nor is there shape.

There is both.

Just the probability equation and what is observed by humans.

No, there is more and there are many things existing in many galaxies unseen by humans. They exist just fine.

It has to be observed.

No, it doesn't....it really doesn't.

↪Banno Nope. Philosophers have to learn that there is nothing out there except systems in a a quantum state. Forget about this stuff about atoms. Plus there is no boundary.

Says someone who mistakenly thinks they are the apodictic authority on the matter and has given no evidence or sufficient argument to support their erroneous claims.

Almost nobody on the intellectual landscape has anything good to say about anything that is classified by anybody as "postmodernism".

This just isnt' true as Postmodern/Post-Structuralist theory--and that's a broad category--is actively or unknowingly used by many in Academia.

It's important to remember that Postmodernism is also an accepted and established aesthetic version of Modernist Art, Literature, music, painting, and architecture, despite its detractors.

It all depends on what the things mean to the person and how the person looks at them at that moment.

This Romantic personal experience is always a factor, but it is not the only, or even the primary, factor.

Everyone has their own definition of beauty. What's beautiful in my eyes might not be beautiful in yours.

Morel like everyone has their own relation to the objective beauty of the material world as well as to the cultural ideology that mediates their relation to that objective beauty and to their objective body perceiving it and the ideology.

Well, you haven't shown Trump has taken a huge "whack" of cash from the Russians either. Feel free to provide the link. And there's nothing illegal about taking money from Russians, only in many cases from the Russian government. Taking money from just Russians certainly doesn't show you helped the Kremlin interfere with the election.

Lord knows the Clintons have taken lots of money from the Russians....and the Saudi Arabians....and the Qatarians.

To prove this true, or even support it as likely, you have to show what Trump has gotten from the Russians...
— Thanatos Sand

A big whack of cash. Follow his sales.

Sorry, there's no evidence of Trump receiving a huge amount of money from the Kremlin for anything, much less for tampering with the election. The Clintons, however, got 30 million from Putin for uranium. Imagine how the Russia conspiracy theorists would have reacted if Trump did that.

I personally wouldn't be surprised if there isn't much more to the 'collusion' story than what has been disclosed already - that Junior and some others went along to a meeting with Russian agents, eager to hear whatever dirt they had on Clinton. But after having done that, Junior and Dad both lied about it for months. Then when they were caught out, Dad goes 'look how honest Junior is! He released all his emails.' Then they shrugged it off, like it's no big deal. Fact is, it was a lot worse than all the things that Trump has accused Clinton of. But because he has no moral compass, he has no sense of what is proper. But, of course, Trump's disregard for propriety is already legendary, it's part of his character.

Firstly, don't ever talk about propriety when discussing the Trump's or the Clintons. They are both corrupt families with no regard for human lives other than their own. Ask the Hondurans or Libyans who died in the coups Hillary pushed while she was SOS. And she did it in Honduras because the Honduran leader wanted to raise the minimum wage. And what you said about the Trumps is all conjecture. Could they have done what you said they did, sure; is there any evidence showing they did? Hardly any at all.

But I think it is a dead certainty that (1) Russia did try and influence the election and (2) favoured a Trump victory. Putin can obviously play Trump like a violin, and many of his business cronies thought he would be great for business. The tragedy is, Trump doesn't even comprehend any of this. He has no more understanding of it, than he does of health care legislation, which is zero. His comprehension is about that of a fifth-grader. So it can only ever be about him, he has no concept that Russian interference in the US electoral process might be bad thing, it means nothing to him. Doesn't understand what the fuss is about, except for bad people being out to get him.

You can't think something is a dead certainty; that shows it isn't. Try to avoid speaking in inherent contradictions. Whether Russia tried to influence our election isn't the important question. American and Russia have been trying to influence each other's elections, and have actually succeeded in influencing other countries elections, for decades. The only real issue is did they succeed, and did Trump and his campaign help. Again, we have no real evidence. So, people need to relax until we do. This intense focus on Russia has detracted from his war on public education, his continuing the disastrous war in Syria, and other real issues.

And his being a clueless idiot with no morals doesn't make him a traitor. Actual treason would, so people should let the investigation go and stop with the incessant speculating and obsession on possibilities. It has hampered our country considerably.

The Trumps have lied like Obama, the Bushes, and the Clintons lied before them.
— Thanatos Sand

That is the biggest lie of all. Trump lies continuously, and all of his trolls applaud. That is how this catastrophe of Trump's presidency is sustained. It will end in disaster for everyone.

No, the biggest lie of all is your saying I'm wrong. Obama straight up lied to us about having the NSA unconstitutionally monitor our phones. Bush shamefully lied about WMD's to push his sending 4000 Americans to die in a war where our forces killed over half a million. And the Clintons are pathological liars lying for years about the Clinton Foundation and the money they made off of it, including money from Putin

So, your saying their lies aren't as bad as the Trumps makes you their troll, and their liar. Congratulations.

I agree. It was Hillary's and the Democrat party's business to win, and they didn't. In passing I note that Republican campaigns have generally been much more geared to doing what it takes to win than their Democrat counterparts. Unfortunately for all of us, Republican campaign tactics have often been repugnant and repulsive.

Actually, it was the Democrats/DNC who ran the most repugnant and repulsive campaign when they rigged the primary against their superior candidate, Bernie Sanders, who both had better policies and a better chance against Trump. In doing so, they defrauded Sanders, his voters, and his donors, and have lost many future Democrats who will never trust the party again.

Is that an argument you're making, that all of it is just Democrat nonsense and a nothing? As a life long Democrat (read Republican, because the Democrat party is the only place real Republicans can call home) I can concede that Democrats have been responsible for their share of nonsense over decades. (In my opinion the last Republican president was Dwight Eisenhower.) But that is no account at all for the lies told by the Trump White House and his supporters.

Is that an argument you're making? I hope not. The Trumps have lied like Obama, the Bushes, and the Clintons lied before them. That doesn't mean they're working for the Russians or helped the Russians "hack" the election.

Aside from the lies, do you really believe Trump won the popular vote but for millions of illegal votes?

I never said this. You're reading my posts just terribly.

Do you really think his trying to collect voter data from the states is innocent? Do you really believe his offer to create a hack-proof cyber system with the Russians is innocent? Who thinks up this stuff? Do you think Trump does?

I never said this stuff. Why are you having such reading difficulties?

And Kushner's attempt to set up a secret "back-door" communications system with Russia?

You really need to provide a link for this one that supports this claim and explains what it entails.

And the attempts, as we write, to discredit Mueller? And his firing of Sally Yates for warning him? This list could go on and on, and Democrats had nothing to do with it. Can you say KellyAnn, Sean, Sarah Huckabee? And now Mooch? ]

Can you say that in that rant and ramble you don't provide one piece of evidence showing Trump is owned by Putin or he helped them "hack" the election? Thanks for supporting my arguments.

What is the big surprise?
— thanatos sand
That Donald Trump became President.

And yet there is no evidence that happened because of Russia. But we know for a fact the Hillary campaign worked with their media connections to build up Trump during the Republican primaries because they thought he was the easiest to beat. We also know Hillary was a terrible candidate whose campaign people ran a terrible campaign, completely ignoring the Rust belt states they went on to lose to Trump.

That's why Trump won....not some ephemeral Russia connection.

But by now the Russians have got both carrot and stick in hand, and Trump knows they'l beat him with it if they need to.

To prove this true, or even support it as likely, you have to show what Trump has gotten from the Russians and how he has bent to them. So, far we've seen barely any evidence of either.

If Trump is not the Russian's guy, then nothing makes sense. Craziness won't do; most folks don't realize that most (functional) crazy people, even really crazy (functional) people, make sense most of the time.

Of course it does. It would just show all the Russia paranoia and frenzy whipped up by MSM, Democratic and some Repbulican congressmen, and Hillary supporters is a big load of nothing. Considering no evidence has yet been shown of Trump actually being "Russia's guy," that's probably the case.

SIde question: the Secret Service was founded in 1865. for 152 years a main part of their job has been to protect the president. What do they do if he's committing treason?

You'll have to ask that when and if he actually commits it. Hillary Clinton sold Putin uranium through her Clinton Foundation; nothing happened to her.

The Russians would not have been interested in Trump as a spy; rather they would have been interested in him as a powerful and rich friend. And it wouldn't hurt if they got Trump to believe that they - the Russians - were only interested in getting along and making good business deals. This probably played out over the course of years, And maybe for a lot of that time the Russians figured their investment was mostly a sunk cost without to much in the way of a return. Then Big Surprise!

What is the big surprise? As of yet, it's not clear the Russians have gotten anything except possibly the lessening of sanctions for actions they haven't even been proven of doing.

Trump Jr. has been caught in a bold-faced lie, as has anyone who knew about that meeting prior to it's being disclosed by Manafort. It is worth noting that the evidence already warrants conviction of Manafort for espionage. Thus, he is primed for turning state's evidence.

Most people in politics, including Dubya, Obama, and Hillary, have been caught in bold-faced lies. That doesn't denote treason, which has been thrown out by MSM always attached to the bet-hedging phrases like "seems" or "appears." And you need a trial for espionage, so considering he hasn't even been indicted, saying evidence already warrants his conviction of it is nonsensical. And you assume he has substantial state's evidence to turn. Since it's been 9 months and we've yet to see evidence for that holy-grail of Hillary supporters--evidence of a Russia-hacked election--that evidence could, and probably is, just shady financial dealings....which we all already know Trump has participated in.