A little noodle-baker

Now, we all know The Matrix isn’t real, right?
And some of the usual suspects have tried debating with people, who seriously thought there was something TO it. The best answer has always been: IF it was real, the Matrix Movies would never have been allowed to be made. They’d threaten the system.

But think about this: Now, after Revolutions, the system needs to free the 1 % who rejects the program. Whether they want to or not, maybe, since this 1 % creates an anomaly. So why not make it easier to swallow, by making a movie that presents the idea! 😄

Think about it!
(No, no. I STILL don’t think this virtual world is real.)

Omega... your signal's fading... 😬
Starting to believe it's real...

Heheh... j/k... I believe education is made up from top to bottom, and that is very funny to mess with at school... 😖hifty:

Good point. I don't think this world is real or not real. It's all about perception 😉 ever heard of that theory that says we are 3rd dimensional "shadows" of our 4th dimensional selves?

thats true...but you dont know if it WILL happen or not 🙂 it could possibly happen, thanks to the movie, we just sealed our fate as humans 🙂 oh well...but just cause theres a matrix movie, doesnt mean will still "dont" exist...still the brain in the vat theory, cant unprove that!

ps.....THE VAT HAS YOU.

McMike> (Folds arms) I just thought it was a funny idea. And there you already go… (sniffs dramatically)… Haven’t I been harassed enough… 😄

Gabe> Where would that 4D person be?? We have four dimensions, three spatial (for things to BE in), and one temporal (so things can change).
There is absolutely NO evidence for further dimensions (not even those tiny compact microscopic ones that holds string theory together). If there were, we should be able to interact with these dimensions. We should see energy and matter move into a come from these extra dimensions.
We do not.

Hex> The w(h)at?? 😉

Hex, isn't your sig a bit big? Raz just put 10 line limits on sigs... 😬

Omega> If you consider the Matrix might be true, COUNTLESS other things could be considered true... Apes took us over, We are being put under an expiriment by other humans to see how we would live in such and such conditions...

The list goes on and on and is kinda scary...

I forget who said it, but someone really famous stated that if we cannot see ourselves, how are we sure that we're using our own hands? How can we determine that the eyes we use are ours? And what we touch, are we really touching it, or is it someone/something else touching something? There is no way to physically prove that you yourself are inside you.

Originally posted by The Omega

Gabe> Where would that 4D person be?? We have four dimensions, three spatial (for things to BE in), and one temporal (so things can change).
There is absolutely NO evidence for further dimensions (not even those tiny compact microscopic ones that holds string theory together). If there were, we should be able to interact with these dimensions. We should see energy and matter move into a come from these extra dimensions.
We do not.

Well, there's no evidennnnnnccccccce... 😕 ....yeeeeeet but I think we're looking in the wrong place with the wrong devices.
:

Originally posted by JKozzy
I forget who said it, but someone really famous stated that if we cannot see ourselves, how are we sure that we're using our own hands? How can we determine that the eyes we use are ours? And what we touch, are we really touching it, or is it someone/something else touching something? There is no way to physically prove that you yourself are inside you.

You know, I'm planning on writing a book on the lines of reality that only lunatics will buy and professors read... 😛

McMike> Look at the ( ) at the end of my first post. 😉
I still DO NOT(!!) think there is any Matrix, or that I really lie in a pod somewhere in the Middle-east, giving energy to vile machines!
It’s just the philosophical aspect of the way Revolutions END, that I find amusing.

Look at it this way: Science rests on the basis, that the world/universe around us is EXPLAINABLE as it is. That means, what we see (with our eyes and instruments, telescopes, microscopes etc. etc.) is what we get. There is nothing more.
Now, based on that simple assumption science has brought forth an amazing wealth of knowledge and technologies. There has been found NO evidence of the Universe being other than what it appears to be. So we can – without worrying – assume that what we see around us is what is really there.
I’m a scientist. 😄
`
Jkozzy> Through our evolution we’ve changed and adapted to new environments. DO you think that we would’ve been able to develop language skills, alphabets, numbers etc. if we do not all see, hear and touch in the SAME way?
To me, such ponderings as “do I really see with my eyes” are meaningless. There is NO reason to assume that what I call green isn’t what you, too, call green. Our eyes are made up of the same kind of tissue and cells. Why would nature go to the trouble of constructing eyes that work differently for each human for example?

Omega > Nature constructed fingerprints, they're completely different for each human being. Everyone's blood is different in the slightest way, even if they are of the same blood type. Every human is unique in their very own way, so, yes nature may have constructed our eyes differently somewhere down the line, and yes nature goes to the trouble of a great many things... but we just never see them.

Oh oh oh! All this is going in my book!

Oh wait... I have devoted myself to the site for now... D'OH!

Jkozzy> Well, you also have different eye-colours, skin-colours, noses, shapes of the mouth etc. The important thing here is, that the FINGERS work in the same WAY. Independent of fingerprints (and barring accidents etc).
Not everyone’s blood is different. You have the O,A, B, and AB types with rhesus negative and positive. Those developed as we, humans, went from hunter/collectors to agriculture and then to a nomadic lifestyle to account for different types of diet.
The blood WORKS in the same way though. It transports energy to the cells, INDEPENDENT of the blood-type.
Our ears work in the same way, our eyes, noses, tongues, fingers, legs etc. What would be the POINT, from natures perspective, to make my eyes WORK different from yours?

Do you understand the difference?

Omega > I understand the difference, but consider the atomic theory. It dates back to around 2000 B.C. A famous greek scientist developed the idea of "empty space." He didn't invent empty space, the idea was just discovered and thought by him. In the late 1800s, more scientists were developing more and more theories for the atom, and many different (and controversial) atomic structures. A model of the atom that had made complete and perfect sense to humans not even 100 years ago has been outdated by a more complex theory. The periodic table wasn't always as we knew it. At first they lined the elements up on a chart and noticed similarities, but found that there were jumps in the elements and their properties. Then somebody (their name escapes me at the moment) instead put in blank spaces where he believed the elements to be that were at the moment undiscovered. So many revisions and theories can develop in such a short amount of time... did you know that an element in the 30s wasn't discovered until about 1945? I know that most of that is irrelevant, but the point I'm trying to make is that even though we think we may have an understanding of human and nature interaction, scientists could make a breakthrough tomorrow (or they may already have) that completely wipes out all past knowledge of the human body and we may find that in a fifth dimension Oompa Loompas run on treadmills that power our heart. You never know!

I already knew that one! 😖mart:

Well...The thread still here. Agents did not appear. No deja-vù cat till now. I remember what I just write. Conclusion: The Matrix is not real.

Jkozzy> (Coughs) Ahem. The Greeks developed the idea of a smallest particle (atom means "not divisible"😉. And then, of course, where there was NO particle, there would be “nothing”.
Then with Newton there as debates about particles OR waves.
It was a question of what could EXPLAIN what was seen or observed by the scientists. With the revolutions in chemistry heralded by Antoine Lavoisier in the late 18th century things began to pick up.

Gradually, as scientist began to learn more, and perform new experiments, old theories were ditched, as newer and better ones were thought of. But you must understand, that at any ONE point, the theories used, COULD explain what was perceived, seen and observed.
In 1850 the russian Dmitri Mendeleyev starts a periodic table for the KNOWN elements.

Many theories today are EXTENSIONS of earlier ones. Such as Einsteins Special theory of Relativity is an extension of Newton’s mechanics, the General Theory is an extension of Newtons work on Gravity.
The quark-model is an extension of early works on particle-physics and atomic models.

And heavier elements WERE thought to exist. We just didn’t have the means to CREATE them artificially in the 1930’s.

We're at a point in our scientific evolution, where we have a good understanding of the Universe and the human body. Because we can not only describe how it works. We can also make PREDICTIONS. We have microscopes and CAT-scans and all kinds of technologies, that WOULD have found discrepancies between theory and reality by now – if, say, your eyes don’t perceive light as mine do.

This is not were the scientific mysteries are today. So there won’t BE a breakthrough that completely changes our past knowledge. It will EXTEND what we already know. If what we know is wrong, medicine for example wouldn’t work.
And again: IF there was fifth dimension we could interact with, we’d see energy and matter vanish into it and come from it. We don’t.
If we cannot interact with this fifth dimension, we don’t have to worry about it at all.

What you must understand is, that science isn’t just a bunch of theories, thought up by geeky scientists. Theories must stand the test of experimentation over and over and over again. It may be, that a new theory comes around, that not only explains “this”, but also relates it to something else. Then it’s an extension. But the former theory STILL works for “this”. Just as you don’t have to get out Einstein to describe how a car turns a corner. Newtons mechanics is enough for that.

😐 so much to read for 2:41 am