0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Hope that goes well. And there are certainly many things that should take priority over doing anything online.
Atoms are made of protons that are billion times as precise as them, and those protons are made of quarks that are again a billion times as precise as them, so maybe we can consider that, as a whole, matter has an infinite precision though I personally think it has not, but the atoms as a distinct entity are certainly not as precise as the quarks.
I increased by one hundred the precision of the steps executed by the photons and the mirrors in my simulation of the Twins paradox to see if the moving light clock would be able to start and stop at the same place on the screen, and it did, but it took about an hour to make its round-trip instead of seconds, and there was still a small imprecision at the end. Adding precision to a computation slows it down a lot, and not putting enough precision in it leads to huge imprecision in the result.
Yes, but she knew god was going to reward her at the end, and it is undoubtedly a selfish behavior.
Terrorists use the same logic to explode themselves, and they are being doubly selfish because they harm people instead of helping them. We can't help people without being selfish, and if you think you can, it is probably because you don't push the logic enough.
Your AGI will help the whole population, but you still await to live in a better world if it works, and that's awaiting for a reward.
The moderators that are actually discussing the one way speed of light with us are not voluntarily trying to keep the power because they can't observe their own resistance either, but they can observe ours so they automatically feel that we want to keep the power, and we can also observe theirs, which is multiplied by the group effect since they can help each other, so our feeling that they want to keep the power is also multiplied. To me, this phenomenon is evidently a relativity issue, because it is similar to the impossibility to measure our own motion through space using our own light.
The atoms are their components, so they are exactly what they are and they do exactly what they do.
However, the same method allows you to use 1000 times the precision, or a million, or infinite precision, again without slowing down the simulation, so why wouldn't you just go for infinite precision in the first place?
I think you're using "selfish" to mean what I call "fairist", while I reserve "selfish" for people who are either trying to get more than their fair share or who want their fair share (and nothing less than that) while not caring if other people don't get theirs.
I want everything to be as fair as possible for everyone. If I was selfish, I'd be looking to make a fortune from software, but I don't care about making vast sums of money. I just want my fair share, and I want everyone else to have theirs too.
Even if a gang of Cambridge physicists recognised that SR is wrong, they probably wouldn't dare to say so because they would immediately be accused of taking drugs, regardless of their experience and qualifications. SR is simply too deeply established as a religion.
We are what we are and we do what we do too, but we are not absolutely precise. We build tools to get more precise, but those tools are not absolutely precise either. Atomic clocks lose only one second each 160 million years, but they still lose it.
I want my simulations to be as close as possible to the behavior of particles,
and particles don't start making calculations when they see they missed a collision with a photon.
Moreover, the time the computer takes to make such a calculation doesn't add to the time of the motion it is computing, whereas it would if particles had to do that.
Relativists make the same mistake about time, and that's your main argument against them, so you should understand my point.
What I did is increase the speed of light a bit to compensate for the loss of time dues to such a huge imprecision, and it worked, so why bother.
That's what I call a scale effect due to the limited speed of light and the limited precision at each scale: it would happen between the particles and their components, between the particles and us, and between us and the rest of the universe.
I prefer using the word selfish to be able to talk about the way we perceive our own selfishness. We can't observe ours, but we can observe others, so we accuse others to be selfish because we can observe theirs, while they accuse us because they can see ours. It's a useless ping-pong game, and it obviously means that we are all selfish even if we can't observe our own selfishness. As I said, it works exactly like a relativity issue.
If all the people was like us, nobody would care for the present and we would miss essential goods or services. If all the people would care only for the present, we couldn't make any progress because research takes time and its reward is uncertain.
I suggest that we improve democracy by having eternal referenda on all issues where people can change their vote on any issue whenever they like and the government would have to act on any change in the majority position on any issue (after a delay to give public debate a chance to push things back the other way), but again no one's interested in doing real democracy.
The only way to tackle this is to create AGI and use it to educate everyone, forcing them to question all their beliefs and having the patience to go through everything with them point by point to prove that their incorrect beliefs are wrong. It's a massive deprogramming task.
I see many people who don't appear to be selfish, but fairist. I see others who are clearly selfish. It makes no sense to me to class these two groups as selfish.
If a particle hits a photon, it hits it when it hits it and it reacts there and then - it doesn't wait for a timer to tick before it reacts.
I don't think you've got the point yet. If your simulation isn't simulating what happens in nature because you aren't calculating with sufficient precision, you need to increase the precision of the simulation until it does match up to nature.
Einstein made when he discarded ether
The space-time concept applies to gravitation, not to inertial motion, but I also think it is wrong. Einstein thought that ether was superfluous since it was inobservable, and he came to the conclusion that light would be observed to be going at the same speed whether the observer was moving or not.
I consider that space is the medium through which bodies move, and on which light propagates, but if you know my theory on mass, you know I believe that bodies are only composed of bonded sources of light exchanging light. My simulations precisely show particles exchanging light, and moving to stay on sync with the light emitted by the other particle.
That's what I consider I'm doing when I sign petitions, and I tell my Facebook friends that those are the future of democracy, but I don't have enough friends and too few of them are interested.
That's what you are actually trying with relativists here, and there is no sign of deprogramming yet. Don't we have to accept being deprogrammed before being so? Tell me how you could accept such a thing.
I bet that those you consider selfish await for an immediate reward, and that those you consider fairists await for a future one.
You and me are considering ourselves as fairists, but we still await for our own ideas to be selected one day.
If we were exclusively altruistic, we would always agree with what the other says, and we would only help him prove his point, thus showing no resistance to change contrary to all we can observe.
You believe there is no imprecision at the particles' scale and I believe there is.
You also believe that your AGI will be absolutely right and I believe it won't.
if we knew everything, we could predict the future.
To me, that thinking means that chance doesn't exist, and I see it in the theory of evolution and in my everyday life, so I can't agree with it,
you think there is only one right way to think.
To paraphrase Bohr answering Einstein about god playing dice or not, how do you know the way nature works? :0) We don't know yet so it is useless to consider we do, otherwise we might make the same kind of mistake Einstein made when he discarded ether, and we might also end up with beliefs instead of facts.
What I'm doing is studying their resistance to recognise a proof, and it's an extraordinary sight. You expect it with religious people,
Don't you remember me preaching that resistance to change is the analog of resistance to acceleration for particles? Tell me where is the stubbornness of a particle or a ball refusing to accelerate without opposing some resistance? Go on, show us you are as stubborn as a ball! :0)
Petitions would carry more weight if they always had a "vote against" option too.
I'm surprised none of the sites that host them have tried to create a complete government alternative system which would put pressure on all political parties to build better packages of policies.
Almost all the people trying to cross into the US from Latin America are doing so to try to get away from the mayhem caused by the USA's war on drugs which has handed power to the gangs.
I originally expected them to see it straight away, as they do with other arguments where there's no belief system getting in the way,
it isn't lack of intelligence that's blocking them at all (because they're generally bright - set a page of mathematical squiggles in front of them and they can romp through it with ease), but a simple refusal to overturn an incorrect belief regardless of how wrong it is shown to be.
More broadly, altruism helps to maintain and preserve the social fabric that sustains and protects us, and that, for many, not only keeps us alive but also makes our life worth living.No surprise, then, that many psychologists and philosophers argue that there can be no such thing as true altruism, and that so-called empathy and altruism are mere tools of selfishness and self-preservation. According to them, the acts that people call altruistic are self-interested, if not because they relieve anxiety, then perhaps because they lead to pleasant feelings of pride and satisfaction; the expectation of honour or reciprocation; or the greater likelihood of a place in heaven; and even if none of the above, then at least because they relieve unpleasant feelings such as the guilt or shame of not having acted at all.This argument has been attacked on various grounds, but most gravely on the grounds of circularity: "the acts that people call altruistic are performed for selfish reasons, therefore they must be performed for selfish reasons." The bottom line, I think, is this. There can be no such thing as an ‘altruistic’ act that does not involve some element of self-interest, no such thing, for example, as an altruistic act that does not lead to some degree, no matter how small, of pride or satisfaction. Therefore, an act should not be written off as selfish or self-motivated simply because it includes some unavoidable element of self-interest. The act can still be counted as altruistic if the ‘selfish’ element is accidental; or, if not accidental, then secondary; or, if neither accidental nor secondary, then undetermining.Only one question remains: how many so-called altruistic acts meet these criteria for true altruism?Neel Burton is author of Heaven and Hell: The Psychology of the Emotions and other books.
Tell me where is the stubbornness of a particle or a ball refusing to accelerate without opposing some resistance?
Quote from: David Cooper on Yesterday at 21:04:27Almost all the people trying to cross into the US from Latin America are doing so to try to get away from the mayhem caused by the USA's war on drugs which has handed power to the gangs.That's something American people refuse to admit, but European people also refuse to admit that they maintain the conflicts in Africa when they let their companies or their countries making deals with dictators. Short term benefits are always more important than long term ones.
Quote from: "Le Repeux" on 25/06/2018 13:27:53 Tell me where is the stubbornness of a particle or a ball refusing to accelerate without opposing some resistance?Can you answer that question Box? Do you see the link between our resistance and the resistance of a ball?