cherocha: you can understand about the universe if you want the biggest picture possible) - protons, neurons, electrons etc - if not for quantum mechanics.
As a behavioral neuro-scientist i should point out quantum mechanics plays no part in your neurons.
You may feel the affect of quantum mechanics in your brain box but as a general rule your neurons don't need to use quantum mechanics to tell you that you have a stiffy.
ps(i did read your qualifier "i am blowing out my ****")
I didn't say YOU misrepresented alfy's argument, but that article sure did. His argument against QP is quite simple and when it's presented as his purist sensisibilties being theatened, that's a misrepresentation. And his work is mostly very easy reading - something quite rare in today's scientific world.
QP is just lots of maths compounded by lots of maths. It attempts to not only account for a thing within 3 dimensions (standard physics) but the thing over time, it's movement, it's changes, it's projection, and then all these things in relation to all other things right down to it's tiniest componants. And if you can get reasonably accurate predictions/projections of th tiniest things, you can go backwards as far as you want to the beginning of time.
Alfy's argument against QP is not a scientific one (though it is usually presented as one)...
QP presents things in terms of probabilities (eg 30% chance to dothis, 4% chance to do that etc.). It does this because the human mind simply can't interpret the info anywhere near fast enough. If we had all the info and the human brain was a super computer, it would be 100% certain. So QP has limited info, it presents certain probabilities and labels all the gaps in knowledge as 'random' or 'spontaneous' acts of the subject (the particle or whatever). So... we can't use examples of apparent spontaneity as evidence of spontaneity that contradicts 'equal and opposite reactions', because in reality the sponaneity is just lack of information.
If we had 100% accurate predictions, or even something reasonably acceptable like 95%, we wouldn't be using QP (probabilites) and we wouldn't need it. It might lead on to something bigger and better, but that won't happen while thinking that the thing we used to help us stretch our intelectual limits (QP) is evidence that we have no limits.
Science isn't perfect - it's affected by popular culture as much as anything else, unfortunately. Free will and other new-age nonsense fused with scientific discovery is a great way to sell books.
you missed the point freedom loving NC hipster scum. spontaneity of inanimate objects is in the very methodology of QP, so it can't be used to prove that spontaneity exists elsewhere.
If spontaneity starts to happen in a 100% a understandable way, then we might have something... or even just regular happenings in 95% understood ways. But that wouldn't be QP anymore because QP, due to a lack of info and computing power, just presents likelyhoods of things happening, but it could be something that grows out of QP.
Now come make a TR dude! Everyone else has. I'll be nice I swear. It'll only take a few days to get to rank 20 and be prwning noobs again (got a squad going after my last 4:30am rant and was pods onto the crown - ended up with nearly 4-1 k/d, and half of them were knife kills to snipers. 'The ultimate expression of freedom is made through the state.' ~Hegel (plays for TR, but on connery)
did you read an article not long agp about how they compared the brain waves for some chinese people and some westerners in relation to certain emotions and found that the waves were very different? Like they looked at the chinese guys waves when he's angry and compared to the westerners' when they're angry and found they were completely different, despite the fact that we and them considered the emotions and everything associated with them to be indential.
They considered this evidence of irrevocable cultural differences, but I saw it differently. Very differently. Firstly what we call emotions we've probably known to exist in oursleves and in language for at least tens of thousands of years, or at the latest were formalised (by Plato) 2.5 thousand years ago, and now over the last few hundred years we've been able to study the brain a bit and we bastardise all this new info to fit with these concepts that are thousands of years old.
Now where most people saw a flaw in science, I saw a flaw in the emotions as concepts because what we have in the brain data is a common element - for the first time we have the potential and need for a genuinely universal language, one derived from and created by the study of brain activity.
So rather than use what we already know through old concepts etc to explain scientific, we use the scientific data to start from scratch with a new language.
Rooney you incorrigible blatherskyte you blabbered on for four paragraphs without actually getting to the point, as your behavioral neuro-scientist i recommend a good dose of cod liver oil and a daily round of electro convulsive treatment.
One of the last things Einstein did before he died was endorse and do the foreword to a book by Charles Hapgood, called Shifting Crust: A Key to Some Basic Problems of Earth Science, in which Hapgood attempted to dismantle and refute the science of plate tectonics.
Einstein was wrong almost as often as he was right.
its fine to be wrong - to explore down paths just to have a look and see whats there and if we start down a path with preconceptions about what is and isnt possible then are we able to see whats really there?
Ahhh this fred is particle physics and **** now, while Albert’s theories of general relativity and STR can explain and appears to be correct for many things we can observe, the two most notable problems his equations fail to justify are, black holes and the related big bang.
While his equations did predict the existence of black holes and we know as truth now, those very same equations still always end in infinity, which defines black holes as singularities of infinite density and infinitesimal size. But most physicists and mathematicians see a problem with the sum of infinity (singularity).
And even parts of ST relativity you need to add other theorems to his equations in the form of hypotheticals to the math i.e dark matter. dark energy or particles etc to stop his equations breaking down, so unless proven otherwise albert's theories are not definitive. Do you know what is at the heart of a black hole vman?
I could get you quinine if you're thinking of getting malaria or a batch of suicide pills those drukz are made from local plants and i understand your need for morphine sometimes, just reading the posts here requires painkillers.
Morphine is not a medicine in the same way that chocolate is not a medicine but they both have an affect on the nervous system and as chocolate stimulates your pleasure bone if you are in pain maybe some chocolate will help.
I await the friggen hairy nosed pedants to leap from the gorse and correct the above .
LOL. You've gone from a 30 kg work man to a 90 kg work out man ever since you found out i can do 110. Me thinks you're either lying or trolling
i know your lying because a feat such as that is so extrodinary it requires proof im not claiming extrodainay amounts of weight that i lift but you are and i need some proof
Why would you want morphine? I didn't even feel that **** when I was in hospital. Pethidine and oxy is where it's at.
ah duly noted. thanks.
Apparently they allow you to **** for hours without cumming as well, even if you've got blue balls.
also that vid looked awesome with better definition. Never saw sidious really take care of business like that (even in the movies - he just looked like an unco old man most of the time, and the only times you see him in fights are against windu, where he loses, or yoda where it's a draw). From the time he asks for a ship from corusant and when he lands, the evil empire music builds things up perfectly. Here's a dude who knows how to get **** done. Plus he giggles. Gotta respect a man who giggles.
best a can do atm is 75 5 reps unisisted but its going up every week soon it will be 90 ive only been training hard for 6 months
So you lied beets? You're a liar beets. You ramble on about me being a liar for doing something most would find not hard. Yet you lie. Only 75 kgs thats **** weak beets. You're a weakling. No wonder you find 110kg a feat of super human strength beets. You weak pathetic racists
i know your lieng cus no proof and 20 reps of 110 kg is an amazing feat this is a differnt execsize we are talking about that is on bentchpress your talking about sholder press
View Control Panel
Search
