Now that you have a working knowledge on what The Wisdom of the Crowd means I would like to ask whether it can be used as an effective tool to gain knowledge or not?

For instance suppose we don't know the distance to a star. We can ask a group of people to make a guess and the average would be close to, or even exactly, the actual distance of that star.

We wouldn't have to argue anymore about what the truth is. A group of people guessing at random would settle all debates once and for all. Perhaps I'm missing something. Comments... — TheMadFool

This actually how alot of software works. Since a computer can fail in a simulation perpetually and the only thing lost is electricity and the occasional electronic component, you can through astronomical trial and error in a simulation discover alot of amazing things. We are like monkeys, if you stick enough of us in a room with type writers, we will eventually produce shakespeare. Give us some fucking bananas damn it. just kidding.

If you are talking about a piece of software on a computer then no. A simulated soldier in Call of Duty is just a mathematical algorithm that is run a course (like water in a river). The electrons and the water just take the path of least resistance. A river and also electron flow through a processor isn't alive, it just once again takes the path of least resistance. You and I actually have feeling, just as a bacterial cell has feeling.

I am not a physicist, but I do have an S.B. from MIT. And I did write the software that was used to operate an X-ray space telescope called the Rossi X-Ray Timing Explorer. Alan Guth himself told me (or rather a small room full of people) how to make universes out of nothing. He even proved that gravitational fields have negative energy. The proof is quite simple, should you be interested. — Douglas Alan

Fucking Amazing!!!!! Send me the link or send it privately if you would like. Stephen Hawkings didn't explain in great detail what negative energy is. I know what and electron and a proton is. Feel free to send me the paper or the video.

Yes, this is quite true because gravitational fields have negative energy. So even with conservation of mass/energy, it turns out that you can get something from nothing and it could turn out that the entire universe contains zero net mass/energy. — Douglas Alan

Stephen Hawkings essentially stated that in "a brief history of time" in the early 1980s. I don't know what percentage of Physicists adhere to this or if he changed his opinion on this over the course of time. Are you a physicist?

We cannot answer whether the universe was or wasn't created, we can say 'nothing' or 'something' created us.

There's no specific reason to think it wasn't created. In fact, it seems more likely it was, which is my argument.

There's a lot of strangeness, misjudgements; a higher power, who could merely know more, is a high probability. There is probably existence of other dimensions and locale. This universe, was likely created in a chain of creations.

It's a reasonable suggestion based on all that strangeness.

I think 'some' implies relation and thing, 'anomaly".

Putting two and two together anomaly sounds almost toon, or contra-dimensional - for having what is anomaly power. — Qwex

As promised i've been reading through alot of what you've been saying through out this forum. You are by far the wierdest guy on this forum, you actually remind me to some extent of a guy known as "The Theologian". I can tell you and i are going to have alot of fun on this forum together.

If matter has existed from infinite past, then entropy is such that it can be reset to a previous state.

If this was not true, the world would be approaching much closer to a fully entropic state than what we experience right now. Or else perhaps we'd be in a fully entropic state. — god must be atheist

Entropy is a spectrum ofcourse. To say which stage of entropy we should be in right now would be hard for any scientist to claim considering the tremendous amount of unknown variables that modern science has to figure out. The user Devans99 would agree with you on this and I would have to say you are very much right in the first part of this OP.

We cannot answer whether the universe was or wasn't created, we can say 'nothing' or 'something' created us.

There's no specific reason to think it wasn't created. In fact, it seems more likely it was, which is my argument.

There's a lot of strangeness, misjudgements; a higher power, who could merely know more, is a high probability. There is probably existence of other dimensions and locale. This universe, was likely created in a chain of creations.

It's a reasonable suggestion based on all that strangeness.

I think 'some' implies relation and thing, 'anomaly".

Putting two and two together anomaly sounds almost toon, or contra-dimensional - for having what is anomaly power. — Qwex

Are you more of a "god wound up the clock and walked away kind of guy"?

We cannot answer whether the universe was or wasn't created, we can say 'nothing' or 'something' created us.

There's no specific reason to think it wasn't created. In fact, it seems more likely it was, which is my argument.

There's a lot of strangeness, misjudgements; a higher power, who could merely know more, is a high probability. There is probably existence of other dimensions and locale. This universe, was likely created in a chain of creations.

It's a reasonable suggestion based on all that strangeness.

I think 'some' implies relation and thing, 'anomaly".

Putting two and two together anomaly sounds almost toon, or contra-dimensional - for having what is anomaly power. — Qwex

What these guys don't seem to understand is while it is possible for matter and energy to appear out of nothing (based on us armchair physicist's knowledge base). Many Physicists argue for the universe to expand that would require the early universe to be lined up similar to a magnet (seems counter intuitive but the matter lined up allows for expansion instead of massive gravity causing stagnation or continual implosion).

Another thing these guys need to understand is time is like a billion sided dice. If you roll it one time and expect to roll an 8 you'll likely not roll an 8 but if you roll it one billion times you'll likely roll an 8. That being said there could have been a million big bangs from 1 million locations over X (lets say 10 to the 7000000 power "years"). Basically my point is there is so much that goes into understanding how complicated life and the universe that perhaps many of these people need to embrace "pascal's wager".

All right, God created the universe. Where does that get you? — tim wood

Yessssssssssssssssssssssssss!

We cannot answer whether the universe was or wasn't created, we can say 'nothing' or 'something' created us.

There's no specific reason to think it wasn't created. In fact, it seems more likely it was, which is my argument.

There's a lot of strangeness, misjudgements; a higher power, who could merely know more, is a high probability. There is probably existence of other dimensions and locale. This universe, was likely created in a chain of creations.

It's a reasonable suggestion based on all that strangeness.

I think 'some' implies relation and thing, 'anomaly".

Putting two and two together anomaly sounds almost toon, or contra-dimensional - for having what is anomaly power. — Qwex

Awwwww shit. I really didn't want us to become friends but it looks like we are going to become friends. When are you coming over my house to play Call of Duty? I guess your ok. :)

Have more conversations with people. Step outside your given personality a little bit. Approach the threshold of being a sociopath. Be kind to others including McDonald's workers to rebuild your soul.

When a person says, "I know", what do they really mean?

It seems inherent, that we assume that the other person "knows"; but, this is prone even to doubt and vagueness about using that phrase.

Therefore, how can we qualify the statement or word-phrase, "I know"?

Is this possible, and has already been implemented in our childhood and adolescent life that is education?

Or stated, otherwise, how does one set up a schema to decrease the vagueness of the word phrase "I know"? — Wallows

"be as wise a serpent and as gentle as a dove for he sends us out among wolves" (paraphrased slightly)

There are one to one (a type of linear), linear, exponential, inverse exponential, logarithmic relationships. There are also coefficients and constants that altar a graphical representation of a relationship. When someone says they see a exponential or inverse exponential relationship between an apple and an orange, they are somewhat saying there is a loose relationship. You can actually draw a relationship between any concept and any object or physical object. The relationship might be loose or strong.

My point is stretching the truth and lying are two different things. I someone says "I Know" , it puts what they are saying on a spectrum, and they might loosely know or have faith that you know, or they may have a very strong concept of what you are saying.

JFK was going to break up the CIA and make peace with the Soviets. Once the deep state got rid of him, no president ever challenged the war machine and the intelligence agencies again. Till Trump. Just sayin'. — fishfry

Correct!

...because if there is an all-knowing, all-seeing and all-powerful being, then the answer to every philosophical question becomes "Because God Say". — Banno

Philosophy topics don't belong in a philosophy forum because every philosophical questions becomes "Because Neeeeeeeeeech and Beetles says"

...because if there is an all-knowing, all-seeing and all-powerful being, then the answer to every philosophical question becomes "Because God Say". — Banno

lol.

Even people base truth and falsehood to some small measure on feeling. A bacteria bases its will to live or "purpose" on whether it feels like it ate enough. If a person suffers X amount they stop feeling like life has purpose. Do you see what I mean?
— christian2017

No. Can you be clearer about your line of reasoning, as I was above? — JohnRB

Perhaps you line of reasoning was stated clear, however it was just bad thinking. lol. your a funny guy.

1. Having beliefs about the meaning of life requires higher cognitive faculties with a sense of self and abstraction, evidenced in complex language skills (i.e., a grammar).
2. Ants and apes don’t have these things.
3. Ergo... — JohnRB

"1. Having beliefs about the meaning of life requires higher cognitive faculties with a sense of self and abstraction, evidenced in complex language skills (i.e., a grammar)."

You assume there is a connection but even young children have a sense of purpose. Having a sense of purpose usually stems from having some belief that in the future things will get better. You don't seem to have the ability to have abstract thought that has alot of spectrum. Something tells me we aren't going to convince each other of anything. Like I said earlier, if a person suffers X amount(opposite of happy) time they usually lose a sense that life has meaning. All people are to some degree motivated by emotion, the amount is what varies. Well you enjoy staying in that box my friend.

No further explanation is required. Ants and apes don't have beliefs about the meaningfulness of their lives. — JohnRB

Are you a 100% or 99% sure. I like to deal with over confident people. I'm not saying they do for sure but how would you prove that. Even people base truth and falsehood to some small measure on feeling. A bacteria bases its will to live or "purpose" on whether it feels like it ate enough. If a person suffers X amount they stop feeling like life has purpose. Do you see what I mean?

You can quantify anything. Because the human brain is made of particles that are subject to the laws of physics, perhaps in the future our actions will be more predictable than they are now.

But I don't think that was the exact purpose of your OP. That specific test that is in your OP is a common sort of thing as you implied. If you are implying this sort of test is very often done sloppy and unprofessional to some degree, I agree with that. Modern Psychology as opposed to tommorow's Psychology is very wanting.

I would guess they would record some numbers with the test on a spread sheet, make some uneducated educated guesses, publish it in a journal and then it would be posted on yahoo as some sort of fact. In some cases these tests do probably contain truth.

I guess you are saying some religions might be a well devised set of fallacies phrased in such a way to be coherent? Due to site guide lines I can't name the Holy book but there are atleast one very long book in a particular Holy book that is written in such a way that would make me think this is not written by a crazy man just venting his anger.

No wrong answer, if you feel inclined i can privately send you the name of that book in that Holy book. I'm sure you have better things to do though.

But yes Lawyers do this all the time. You can take 10 coherently written fallacies and present a pretty good argument that can manipulate others to benefit you or I or that guy over there.

There was nothing before the Big Bang. There was no time, so only a motion exists. — Gregory

Special Relativity dictates that where there is motion there is time, however it would be very hard for anyone to prove whether or not there was anything before the Big Bang. I think i said that in my original comment. Time can only be measure when there is motion and motion is limited by C (the maximum speed of light). I'm not going to list everything that Special relativity entails in this post.

Nothingness is fundamental perhaps to math, grammatical studies, and meditation, as has been pointed out above. And it is essential to reject absolute time and also understand nothingness is order to see the world as motion from point Zero, i.e. a projection — Gregory

I understand what you are saying here. To say the OP is partially right wouldn't be a complete fallacy, i just don't want to write a 3 page paper defending the OP that no on is going to read anyway. Yes what you wrote above is for the most part correct. Its a weaving of phrases and for lack of a better way to say this, on most levels you are correct.

Your example actually demonstrates that belief that life has meaning is superfluous, from an evolutionary perspective, to large groups coordinating their efforts to overcome the environment.

Ants and apes evolved to coordinate their efforts to overcome the environment. — JohnRB

To atleast some degree you are right.

Ants and apes don't have the belief that life has meaning. — JohnRB

Ants and Apes communicate to each other. lol. You're a silly goose. Please explain your position. That just seems so silly not to further explain.

Whether you believe in god or not, this still applies to you. I would like to propose something, it is absolutely impossible for the human brain to comprehend the term 'nothing' literally. You could say that there is nothing in a specific spot, for example: I ate your apple slice from your hand. Now there is nothing there. But you cannot say that there ever was actually nothing. If we look at our world famous laws(science, not political) we would recall that The Law of Conservation of Matter and Energy states: matter and energy can neither be destroyed nor created, but they may interchange from one to the other. This being said, we must conclude that either there has always been matter, or that there has always been energy or that there has always been both.
Which would mean that we have never had complete nothingness, there has always been something. If you believe in God, than there has always been God. Therefore there is still no such thing as nothing, neither can we comprehend nothing. If someone asked you to imagine 'nothing' and than I asked you what you saw, it would make sense for you to say 'nothing'. However, you may see a vast expanse of all black or white, or even maybe some glass like something. Either way, you still saw something, whether you'd like to admit it or not. Is it possible for us to know what something is like without ever experiencing it or anything like it? No, we can't. When someone tries to explain something you've never eaten before, they usually say the ingredients and things that are similar in taste. But you can't do that with 'nothing'.
Overall, 'nothing' is one of the many things that are impossible to comprehend or to distinguish. We can use the word, but never literally. — OpinionsMatter

Its like a Circle as defined in high school geometry book, its an abstract concept that doesn't actually exist but there are things similar to the exact definition. It doesn't prove that nothing existed before matter existed. On a different note many physicists (perhaps not all) would say matter and energy always existed.

Nothing can be comprehended but it can't be produced. As long as there are creatures that can communicate (Humans and Bees and so on) it would be hard for us to claim that nothing exists. But going back to the "beginning of time", i guess thats a whole another thread.

It was brought to my attention yesterday that using an analogy which involved a person who lost the ability to walk in an accident was guilty of ableism, evidence of the moral bankruptcy of religious thought, merited the deletion of my thread and, further, merited the the suggestion that I should be banned.

Let's grant that this is true for the sake of argument. This leads to the amputee problem, but probably not the one you're all expecting!

Atheists commonly appeal to amputees as a case study in the problem of evil and the efficacy of prayer. In fact, if you use the search bar in the top right you'll find several threads where people engage in this very tactc.

The appeal to amputees in these scenarios is inherently casting them in a negative light: as if their differently abled bodies are an instance of "evil" or in need of being "healed".

Ergo, atheism has a common problem of ableism and is morally bankrupt, etc. — JohnRB

I can't post new forum topics on "non-religious" forums due to my chosen religion. If you want to post forum topics on "non-religious" forums you should pick a new religion or become non-religious. lol. I just comment on other peoples forum topics on forums such as this.

Noah Harrari ("Sapiens") says we evolved to try to find and believe that life has meaning. The abstract concept that life has meaning even in intense suffering (some label this religion) allows very large groups of people (Ants and Apes) to coordinate their efforts to overcome the environment. This is according to Noah Harrari. He goes on to say we need a new fiction or a new religion for modern society that is different or slightly different from old religions. I disagree with him on alot of stuff but he has some interesting insights that are well articulated. He wrote "Sapiens" and "Homo Deus". His youtube videos are pretty good too.

Im interested in some thoughts concerning how moral/immoral actions balance out.
When we judge a person as moral or immoral, it seems to me that we are measuring his moral actions against his immoral ones. We consider the act, its consequences, collateral benefit or damage and how it all fits morally speaking. An ethical cost/benefit analysis if you will.
If a person commits theft but regrets in it for some reason and spends the rest of their life giving most of what they have to charity (not necessarily a formal one, could just be to people he meets who are in need or whatever) then he has worked off some kind of moral debt. We might even say the person has paid their moral debt and has a surplus, moral credit, if they ended up with a huge imbalance of moral acts over immoral ones. (For example, stole a pack of gum but saved millions of lives and donated billions of dollars to charity)
If we can measure the moral balance in this way, I dont see any reason why even heinous acts of immorality couldnt be balanced out in the same way as my stick of gum example above. This is where Id like to be challenged, as Im not very comfortable with that conclusion.

The most obvious objection to that line of reasoning is principal based, that breaking the rules is breaking the rules and no action can justifiably balance another. Thats a more fundamental issue, I dont really buy into principle based ethics. For every principal, its trivially easy to show an instance where adhering to that principal is the act of a moral monster. For example, its wrong to lie. Well, what if the lie saves a billion people? The person who refuses to lie in that instance, is a moral monster. The only way to get around that contradiction is to make yet another appeal to principal, or commit semantic fallacy where the acts are considered separately (the lie was still wrong, the saving was right).

Id most like to discuss the first bit, but I recognise that it relies on a non-principal based approach to ethics. Perhaps someone would be sporting enough to consider this thread in the context of a non-principal based approach, even if they do not normally do so.

Anyway, what Im not interested in discussing is the objectivity/subjectivity of morality. This discussion doesnt require it and if you think it does then Im sorry to say Im not talking to you. (By which I mean, ignore this thread as its not addressed to you.)

So, can we pay off moral debt? Are we moral simply by having our moral acts (and all the good they do) outweigh the immoral acts (and all the bad they do)?
(Also, I realise good acts can have bad results and vice versa, I think we can cross that bridge when we come to it, which we very well may not have to) — DingoJones

yeah i should have read the whole thing. Yeah you are completely right with this post. Sorry.

Correct. Did i miss something? I'll reread what you wrote. I skimmed it the first time.

So, can we pay off moral debt? Are we moral simply by having our moral acts (and all the good they do) outweigh the immoral acts (and all the bad they do)?
(Also, I realise good acts can have bad results and vice versa, I think we can cross that bridge when we come to it, which we very well may not have to) — DingoJones

We can pay off moral debt and i do believe wrong doing can be quantified monetarily. However I believe forgiveness even drastic forgiveness is entirely necessary for a functional society. Most organizations are unqualified to quantify wrong doing in monetary terms, but that is not to say it is completely impossible. I feel that to say wrong doing is unquantifiable either makes wrong doing trivial or it makes money completely trivial.

The persecution will continue as long as the People exibit certain ethical behaviors associated with people who have religion. The problem with universal basic income is it gives a justification for the government to decide what is ethical. This is why we need modernized significantly reduced zoning laws, Sub-Blue Laws and electric trike lanes if we want to embrace true fiscal conservatism.

The Chinese policies will not benefit the average "world citizen".

I understand:

Natural: 1, 2, 3...
Whole: 0, 1, 2...
Integer: -1, 0, 1...
Rational: m/n
Irrational: x - m/n
Real: applicable to number line.

What I want to know is how N is defined.

Is there special use of the word 'is'? Natural numbers are N, is incomplete.

A. 1 through 9, are numbers, why?

B. Why does the number system progress, beginning from the left, proceding to the right?

C. Is human number just a tool?

I'm just getting into mathematics...

Sorry for having an intricate view - I'm not trying to distract. My primary question is (A).

Further Edits:

A shadow-argument:

I understand you can count your fingers, 1 - 4, but what says a finger is a 1 and not crossed fingers? The 'whole' of the finger?

In which case it's not a single, there's an organism involved(such as under the skin of the finger), and thus, a finger is not a 1.

I understand 1 is a concept but mathmatically, 1 is a point.

Perhaps, to point at your finger you'll use the number 1 but to define it numerically it's a different number. — Qwex

You are really good at this. Are you a team or do you come up with this stuff yourself?

I understand you can count your fingers, 1 - 4, but what says a finger is a 1 and not crossed fingers? The 'whole' of the finger? — Qwex

The finger is a representation or symbol representing a mathematical concept.

Like in programming when i name a variable x that represents the number of apples being bought at a store.

Obviously you wouldn't name the variable X using correct coding procedures but a variable represents a number and a number is typically a Asian Indian/Arabic symbol that represents a mathematical concept.

Relationship between what is perceived and what exists

I can't help but have that thought in the back of my mind, about how what can't be perceived cannot exist. By perceiving, here, I am referring to both the perception that takes place with our senses, and also whatever piece of machinery allows a phenomenon to be (maybe electronically) measured (and hence, indirectly be known of).

If something can't be perceived and there are no ways to measure it with tools, can it exist? Sure, there likely is a plethora of phenomena that aren't currently measurable and cannot be studied or stated, but they'll eventually be. Think about quantum computers. There are some algorithms that have been shown by means of logical proofs to work, but can't currently be made work yet.

However, can something really exist outside of any organism's field of perception? — Samuele

There will be come a point in time where there will be a very long expanse where a specific attribute of Physics or the laws of physics won't be able to be measured or understood. Then after that lengthy period of time new findings will be available. During that long period of time people and some scientists will make assumptions about reality that aren't coherent. Many "scientists" (people of knowledge) during medieval papal europe did this. This is a common theme all through out history.

Are you familiiar with Pascal's Wager?

So something can exist even if it is not perceived or measured.

The problem is there are 100s of particles smaller than the ones found currently. What science understands now will change in 100 years. Many ethnic groups that have a strong sense of community tend to be dumber but at the same time these ethnic groups are happier and less likely to commit suicide. Their strong sense of community makes them dumber but also gives them the will to live. Many religious concepts and traditions prolong life and instill a sense of community. In 100 years many of our current scientists will look like idiots. Quantum Mechanics has different interpretations and many scientists are wrong in their assertation that it means that truth is relative.

Apes can exist in societies of up to about 150. They do communicate to some extent. Part of survival for groups of animals is that some animals have more power or knowledgable influence at times. Its a perpetual dance that flows through life constantly. For many of us if we could just work a productive non shitty job and go home and play cheap video games we would be just fine with that. It didn't turn out that way for many of us.

Are there true sentences involving colors as objects of them? If so, then colors exist. — Pfhorrest

Thats fucking funny. You are correct Sir.

Colors exist because different light frequencies exist. Your cell phone interprets different frequencies as different signals. Even time modulation and frequency hopping spread spectrum does use FM to some extent.

So our eye balls interpret different frequencies as different colors. Colors exist.

I agree that fighting during the Civil War (an oxymoron if ever there was one) must have been hell. Fighting in any war is. Too bad Homo Sapiens has not gotten past that moment in its evolution yet.

I have written op ed pieces for decades now...and I have advocated for a form of Universal Basic Income since before most people even heard of it. I think some variant of the theme will be essential to humanity getting past this time where the full time toil of humans is not necessary to meet their needs.

I think that at some point, Libertarians will come around to realize the need for major adjustment to the concept of "earning a living."

Stay well! — Frank Apisa

Based on a certain book in a certain Holy book (not naming it due to site guidelines) total globalism will happen after X time and i believe it would be silly to assume universal basic income will never happen. In all honesty if universal basic income was done right, it could please even the libertarians. However there are wrong ways it could be done.

Have a great day, Sir!

i have to head out. I'll respond when i get back. Have a great day!

Thank you for your service Sir! I think I could of fought in the Civil War Military as opposed to the modern Military because to make it in the 19th Century Military you just needed a death wish and you either were shot or you went home. The modern Military has a tremendously more details that drives people to suicide and depression. Its very unfortunate.

If you don't like Trump and also like Globalism I respect that. I believe there are ways to embrace true fiscal conservatism (reduced zoning laws and Sub-Blue Laws), such that we could circumvent the need for anti-globalist policies.

Republican in name only (RINO) (definition)

As for the RINOs and Liberal Elite, if they keep getting what they want then we probably will have to have "universal basic income". The problem is many Libertarians might get violent over that.

God bless you Sir! I wish you the best.

we offer people homes from war. We help impovished countries, we aided Japaneze earthquake, etc.

You expect us to make a work. — Qwex

Correct. Sub-blue laws and modernized significantly reduced zoning laws would however curb the imposing of our modern globalist and automated society. 50 years ago these weren't issues due to more localization and less (not absent) automation. I understand automation began for the most part with the industrial revolution but it has gotten alot worse.

Why do we allow globalism? My assumption is you are asking why do we seek power? I would argue many people desire to live a long life at such a great cost that they will subjugate and restrict their neighbor at any cost. I'm not going to get into overly restrictive zoning laws and such at this point in time.