What do you believe?

[Vanni Fucci]

Okay.... so why didn't they just start with that and skip all the pain and suffering of the last 5000 years?

...because it is the few who wish to subjugate the many...what better way to gain acceptance of this "pain and suffering" than to allow for the idea that one is protected by a higher power...and what better way to cause this "pain and suffering" than to foster systems of belief that are intolerant of any other...

...is it merely coincidence that Jerusalem is a holy site for 3 of the world's religions?

...in the end, humanity must be sufficiently weakened from unending war and famine and disease...and it will be when the faithful cling faster to their beliefs that the "there is no god" card will likely be played...

That's about the only thing in your post I agree with.

...these are my beliefs, Dexter, and I don't expect you to agree with any of them...

 

[Vanni Fucci]

Okay.... so why didn't they just start with that and skip all the pain and suffering of the last 5000 years?

...because it is the few who wish to subjugate the many...what better way to gain acceptance of this "pain and suffering" than to allow for the idea that one is protected by a higher power...and what better way to cause this "pain and suffering" than to foster systems of belief that are intolerant of any other...

...is it merely coincidence that Jerusalem is a holy site for 3 of the world's religions?

...in the end, humanity must be sufficiently weakened from unending war and famine and disease...and it will be when the faithful cling faster to their beliefs that the "there is no god" card will likely be played...

That's about the only thing in your post I agree with.

...these are my beliefs, Dexter, and I don't expect you to agree with any of them...

 

[Vanni Fucci]

Okay.... so why didn't they just start with that and skip all the pain and suffering of the last 5000 years?

...because it is the few who wish to subjugate the many...what better way to gain acceptance of this "pain and suffering" than to allow for the idea that one is protected by a higher power...and what better way to cause this "pain and suffering" than to foster systems of belief that are intolerant of any other...

...is it merely coincidence that Jerusalem is a holy site for 3 of the world's religions?

...in the end, humanity must be sufficiently weakened from unending war and famine and disease...and it will be when the faithful cling faster to their beliefs that the "there is no god" card will likely be played...

That's about the only thing in your post I agree with.

...these are my beliefs, Dexter, and I don't expect you to agree with any of them...

 

[Dexter Sinister]

...these are my beliefs, Dexter, and I don't expect you to agree with any of them...

Yes, I understand that much, but I understand almost none of your post apart from that. Surely you have reasons for believing as you do? Why must humanity be weakened by believing and acting upon things that aren't true before it can be told the truth? Wouldn't it be better to be told the truth from the outset if the result, the destruction of all supernatural belief systems, is the same?

Please don't misunderstand me here. Your statement of what you believe is completely alien to me, I have no idea why anybody would believe that, and I'm deeply curious. What is it, for instance, that leads you to believe there are secret keepers of arcane knowledge? What is the nature of this arcane knowledge? Why have these keepers created belief systems only to destroy them?

Seems to me there are far simpler explanations for the history of the last 5000 years, starting with the observation that most people don't think very clearly. Jared Diamond's just published a book called Collapse that discusses why civilizations fail, and it makes essentially the same point: human societies are short-sighted, selfish, and not very bright. All things considered, simpler explanations are better, and I find it hard to give any credibility to the notion of a 5000-year old conspiracy controlling things when ordinary human stupidity provides a perfectly adequate explanation. One of my basic rules: never attribute to malice what is adequately explained by stupidity.

 

[Dexter Sinister]

...these are my beliefs, Dexter, and I don't expect you to agree with any of them...

Yes, I understand that much, but I understand almost none of your post apart from that. Surely you have reasons for believing as you do? Why must humanity be weakened by believing and acting upon things that aren't true before it can be told the truth? Wouldn't it be better to be told the truth from the outset if the result, the destruction of all supernatural belief systems, is the same?

Please don't misunderstand me here. Your statement of what you believe is completely alien to me, I have no idea why anybody would believe that, and I'm deeply curious. What is it, for instance, that leads you to believe there are secret keepers of arcane knowledge? What is the nature of this arcane knowledge? Why have these keepers created belief systems only to destroy them?

Seems to me there are far simpler explanations for the history of the last 5000 years, starting with the observation that most people don't think very clearly. Jared Diamond's just published a book called Collapse that discusses why civilizations fail, and it makes essentially the same point: human societies are short-sighted, selfish, and not very bright. All things considered, simpler explanations are better, and I find it hard to give any credibility to the notion of a 5000-year old conspiracy controlling things when ordinary human stupidity provides a perfectly adequate explanation. One of my basic rules: never attribute to malice what is adequately explained by stupidity.

 

[Dexter Sinister]

...these are my beliefs, Dexter, and I don't expect you to agree with any of them...

Yes, I understand that much, but I understand almost none of your post apart from that. Surely you have reasons for believing as you do? Why must humanity be weakened by believing and acting upon things that aren't true before it can be told the truth? Wouldn't it be better to be told the truth from the outset if the result, the destruction of all supernatural belief systems, is the same?

Please don't misunderstand me here. Your statement of what you believe is completely alien to me, I have no idea why anybody would believe that, and I'm deeply curious. What is it, for instance, that leads you to believe there are secret keepers of arcane knowledge? What is the nature of this arcane knowledge? Why have these keepers created belief systems only to destroy them?

Seems to me there are far simpler explanations for the history of the last 5000 years, starting with the observation that most people don't think very clearly. Jared Diamond's just published a book called Collapse that discusses why civilizations fail, and it makes essentially the same point: human societies are short-sighted, selfish, and not very bright. All things considered, simpler explanations are better, and I find it hard to give any credibility to the notion of a 5000-year old conspiracy controlling things when ordinary human stupidity provides a perfectly adequate explanation. One of my basic rules: never attribute to malice what is adequately explained by stupidity.

 

[Vanni Fucci]

One of my basic rules: never attribute to malice what is adequately explained by stupidity.

That's a fair assumption...it doesn't, however, fit with the modus operandi of those of whom I speak...

...as to arcane knowledge, I'm not suggesting that these people have attained any sort of supernatural powers or any such thing...I am suggesting though, that they keep knowledge of the true history of mankind...and how they've helped to shape it...

...your questions beg answering, and they will be, as far as I am able...but not tonight... 8)

 

[Vanni Fucci]

One of my basic rules: never attribute to malice what is adequately explained by stupidity.

That's a fair assumption...it doesn't, however, fit with the modus operandi of those of whom I speak...

...as to arcane knowledge, I'm not suggesting that these people have attained any sort of supernatural powers or any such thing...I am suggesting though, that they keep knowledge of the true history of mankind...and how they've helped to shape it...

...your questions beg answering, and they will be, as far as I am able...but not tonight... 8)

 

[Vanni Fucci]

One of my basic rules: never attribute to malice what is adequately explained by stupidity.

That's a fair assumption...it doesn't, however, fit with the modus operandi of those of whom I speak...

...as to arcane knowledge, I'm not suggesting that these people have attained any sort of supernatural powers or any such thing...I am suggesting though, that they keep knowledge of the true history of mankind...and how they've helped to shape it...

...your questions beg answering, and they will be, as far as I am able...but not tonight... 8)

 

[Vanni Fucci]

Dexter, in response to your assertion that alternate universes would be fundamentally similar to our own, that would be true if space were limited to three or rather four dimensions. Three dimensions for space, and one for time.

However, after reading Hyperspace by Dr. Michio Kaku, I believe that it is entirely possible that the universe is not limited to the three physical dimensions, and a fourth of time. It has been shown that the Standard model, the GUTs Model, the Theory of General Relativity, the Super String Theory can all be reconciled with the Kaluza-Klein Theory, when approached with the assumption that space and time is a combination of ten or twenty one dimensions. Ten dimensions that was what his book focused on.

That being said, and because our universe is three dimensional with a fourth for time, there may be universes that are based on six dimensions, five for space and one for time. This universe would be inconceivably different from our own, possibly allowing for space within space...

Just thought I'd put that out there...

I'm still gathering material in preparation for the other debate...but I'll probably post in another thread...it will be a long one... 8)

 

[Vanni Fucci]

Dexter, in response to your assertion that alternate universes would be fundamentally similar to our own, that would be true if space were limited to three or rather four dimensions. Three dimensions for space, and one for time.

However, after reading Hyperspace by Dr. Michio Kaku, I believe that it is entirely possible that the universe is not limited to the three physical dimensions, and a fourth of time. It has been shown that the Standard model, the GUTs Model, the Theory of General Relativity, the Super String Theory can all be reconciled with the Kaluza-Klein Theory, when approached with the assumption that space and time is a combination of ten or twenty one dimensions. Ten dimensions that was what his book focused on.

That being said, and because our universe is three dimensional with a fourth for time, there may be universes that are based on six dimensions, five for space and one for time. This universe would be inconceivably different from our own, possibly allowing for space within space...

Just thought I'd put that out there...

I'm still gathering material in preparation for the other debate...but I'll probably post in another thread...it will be a long one... 8)

 

[Vanni Fucci]

Dexter, in response to your assertion that alternate universes would be fundamentally similar to our own, that would be true if space were limited to three or rather four dimensions. Three dimensions for space, and one for time.

However, after reading Hyperspace by Dr. Michio Kaku, I believe that it is entirely possible that the universe is not limited to the three physical dimensions, and a fourth of time. It has been shown that the Standard model, the GUTs Model, the Theory of General Relativity, the Super String Theory can all be reconciled with the Kaluza-Klein Theory, when approached with the assumption that space and time is a combination of ten or twenty one dimensions. Ten dimensions that was what his book focused on.

That being said, and because our universe is three dimensional with a fourth for time, there may be universes that are based on six dimensions, five for space and one for time. This universe would be inconceivably different from our own, possibly allowing for space within space...

Just thought I'd put that out there...

I'm still gathering material in preparation for the other debate...but I'll probably post in another thread...it will be a long one... 8)

 

[Dexter Sinister]

Dexter, in response to your assertion that alternate universes would be fundamentally similar to our own...

That's not what I said. I said there's no reason to assume they'd be any particular way, and in fact I distinctly said I think the possibilities are infinite. Where do you get "fundamentally similar to our own" out of that?

 

[Dexter Sinister]

Dexter, in response to your assertion that alternate universes would be fundamentally similar to our own...

That's not what I said. I said there's no reason to assume they'd be any particular way, and in fact I distinctly said I think the possibilities are infinite. Where do you get "fundamentally similar to our own" out of that?

 

[Dexter Sinister]

Dexter, in response to your assertion that alternate universes would be fundamentally similar to our own...

That's not what I said. I said there's no reason to assume they'd be any particular way, and in fact I distinctly said I think the possibilities are infinite. Where do you get "fundamentally similar to our own" out of that?

 

[Gonda Blow]

There must exist a relation between the latitudes of freedom Delta-f and of regulation Delta-r of the type Delta-f X Delta-r = p ... But what is the "political constant" p? I must leave this to a future quantum theory of human affairs

 

[Gonda Blow]

There must exist a relation between the latitudes of freedom Delta-f and of regulation Delta-r of the type Delta-f X Delta-r = p ... But what is the "political constant" p? I must leave this to a future quantum theory of human affairs

 

[Gonda Blow]

There must exist a relation between the latitudes of freedom Delta-f and of regulation Delta-r of the type Delta-f X Delta-r = p ... But what is the "political constant" p? I must leave this to a future quantum theory of human affairs

 

[Vanni Fucci]

Ok Dexter, you're right. You did say infinite possibilities...among the dead universes...what I meant to address, and did such a shoddy job of doing, was universes that could support life...

You did say this:

String theory may eventually provide an explanation for why those fundamental constants are what they are, and show that they can't be anything else, or it might demonstrate that there's an infinite range of possibilities for them and we just got lucky in this universe.

...which I guess you had already addressed and what I mentioned above is superfluous and redundant...

Forgive my abruptness...and carry on... :lol:

 

[Vanni Fucci]

Ok Dexter, you're right. You did say infinite possibilities...among the dead universes...what I meant to address, and did such a shoddy job of doing, was universes that could support life...

You did say this:

String theory may eventually provide an explanation for why those fundamental constants are what they are, and show that they can't be anything else, or it might demonstrate that there's an infinite range of possibilities for them and we just got lucky in this universe.

...which I guess you had already addressed and what I mentioned above is superfluous and redundant...

Forgive my abruptness...and carry on... :lol: