I disagree with the notion of positives and negatives and cause and effect

Originally posted by Oneness
It's foul-hardy to argue that the public's vision of the field hasn't been altered radically in the past century and that, despite quantum mechanics trying to break it down where it shuts down, it has become more and more perplexing to the scientific community.

As we produce a small answer, more questions are raised. The truth behind it all could be anything, including one or more cause-and-effect-free system[s] in nature.

You said physics is a constantly changing phenomenon. I asked for a citation. As in, a reference or link to a scholarly work or works that corroborates your opinion in some - or any - way. You have failed to do so.

Originally posted by Digi
You said physics is a constantly changing phenomenon. I asked for a citation. As in, a reference or link to a scholarly work or works that corroborates your opinion in some - or any - way. You have failed to do so.

Back on the subject of Quantum Mechanics, the idea of super-gravity does permit a cause-and-effect-free system, as the universe is one cascading expanse of postives or negatives with no negative or positive precursors. Free-energy as it were.

Originally posted by Oneness
You failed to recognize the syntax of that statement; of how I meant that our understanding of the field is constantly changing, as with all fields, not physics in and of itself.

Back on the subject of Quantum Mechanics, the idea of super-gravity does permit a cause-and-effect-free system, as the universe is one cascading expanse of postives or negatives with no negative or positive precursors. Free-energy as it were.

Your initial reply, in which you defined physics instead of responding to my inquiry, leaves me skeptical. Revisionist history is a wonderful thing, especially when your posts are often too impenetrable to refute on all possible levels.

But ok.

I truly meant how we can represent or cohesively interpret and thereby define via demonstration the phenomenon that is physics.

I don't ever pay attention to things like "will this statement be interpreted as so and so, does this sound confusing"; however lately I have been attempting to make sure that there is a level of coherency in my statements.

More so than before.

I did, however, notice this pattern in which my argument somehow manages to be pretty accurate to the truth when expressed by another seasoned debater and given substance through credible link sources by said member.

The important thing to remember is that I have a lot floating about in my head so maybe you and I should both pay more attention to what I write.

Originally posted by Oneness
I truly meant how we can present physics.

I don't ever pay attention to things like "will this statement be interpreted as so and so, does this sound confusing"; however lately I have been attempting to make sure that there is a level of coherency in my statements.

More so than before.

I did, however, notice this pattern in which my argument somehow manages to be pretty accurate to the truth when expressed by another seasoned debater and given substance through credible link sources by said member.

The important thing to remember is that I have a lot floating about in my head so maybe you and I should both pay more attention to what I write.

Heh. Fair enough. I will endeavor to do so.

If I were a scientist, I would always be attempting to find examples, rather than counter-examples. This goes for my methods in debating, I attempt to use counter-arguments to add onto a newly christened argument without the logical errors in its thesis that allowed for such counter-arguments to be used in the first place. Is it my fault that I'm able to do this without altering the theses in my arguments?

Just like I am an optimist, as opposed to a pessimist. To me, disproving theories is the pessimist's way of proving their more accurate counterparts. Whereas affirmatively demonstrating theories is the optimistic approach.

In fact, I'm tempted to do a case-study of how many "disprovers" are pessimists and how many "provers" are optimists, and vice versa...to see if I'm right about how one's mindset defines their signature scientific methodologies.

Unlike pessimism, optimism is a self-amplifying loop.

Originally posted by Oneness
It's shit.

God is omnipotent, so it's shit.

God is omnibenevolent, so I say if every infinitesimal nuance of a tick of a second can't be better than the previous one throughout my entire life-span from this moment onward, and for everyone else, than not a single soul deserves to be punished in this reality by this less-than-benevolent God.

Mass suicide should be eminent if the Hindi philosophies hold true.

YouTube video

I'm just saying and this comes from a guy who believes there is a God. Maybe he just had an idea and did some shit then shit started working.

Originally posted by dadudemon
Oneness, I think you're crazy. I like you, but you're crazy, dude.