₦airaland Forum

DaddyCoool:
Anything I want WITH prayers and imagination (it was a typo). So you don't think it is a superpower that I can get anything I really want l? OK o

I know people suffering from mental retárdation here in Delta. I also know an amputee that begs on the roadside somewhere close to my street. Can we arrange a meetup so that you can demonstrate your "superpower"?

DaddyCoool:
What exactly do you want to know. That I have all the money I want AND time to spend it is not a superpower?

It's not. Shut the fúck up.

DaddyCoool:
I have lots of time and unlimited bandwidth

What's the use of your unlimited time and bandwidth when you're not achieving anything tangible with it?

DaddyCoool:
I hope you're not a bad person

Madam please what are your superpowers? "Getting anything you want" is a vague and meaningless sentence.

DaddyCoool:
I can get ANYTHING I want (within reason) with payers and imagination. If that's not a superpower I don't know what is.
The point is that there is something very funny about this our universe but we just like to think it is all linear and logical.
Stories like the one below abound. But when it happens people think they forgot or something. YOU DIDN'T FORGET!! The universe is weird!

I hope you know you're wasting time and bandwidth with these meaningless stories?

DaddyCoool:
I can get ANYTHING I want (within reason) without payers and imagination. If that's not a superpower I don't know what is.
The point is that there is something very funny about this our universe but we just like to thing it is all linear and logical.
Stories like the one below abound. But when it happens people think they forgot or something. YOU DIDN'T FORGET!! The universe is weird!

How the fúck is that a superpower? Anything you want like what? You've started meandering outside the scope of the question again. Dem swear for you?

DaddyCoool:
As long as you don't call my precious dad a retard

In less than a minute you've just told 2 very stupid lies. I'm just watching you make colossal fool of yourself with your shameless dishonesty.

DaddyCoool:
See? You won't try it because you're afraid it'll work and shatter your notion of how the universe is all linear and logical.
Why would I waste my time bending spoons? To what end exactly. See more testimonies below
PCOS is an ovarian disease.

I know people dealing with mental retárdation, surely we can arrange a meeting so that you can use your powers to cure them?

DaddyCoool:
See? You won't try it because you're afraid it'll work and shatter your notion of how the universe is all linear and logical.
Why would I waste my time bending spoons? To what end exactly. See more testimonies below
PCOS is an ovarian disease.

This is why you'll always lack knowledge and understanding. You're busy recounting anecdotes and stories from the internet. Are you telling me you don't have any powers? You don't have any first hand experience?

DaddyCoool:
See? You won't try it because you're afraid it'll work and shatter your notion of how the universe is all linear and logical.
Why would I waste my time bending spoons? To what end exactly. See more testimonies below
PCOS is an ovarian disease.

Madam what are your reality altering powers. We can arrange a meeting so that we can test it out. Are you game?

If you can't do it, what are your limitations?

It's a very simple question.

DaddyCoool:
Testimonies are everywhere. See one below. And let me ask you: have you ever tried imagining you already have something without worrying about how and see if you won't get it? Start with something very simple and come back and give us your testimony. Testimonies like this one below are everywhere

Madam why have you not been bending spoons? What reality altering powers do you have, and can you demonstrate them? If not, what are your limitations?

I can offer a very good explanation for why people might THINK they have superpowers when they actually don't, or why people can seemingly perform "strange" acts. It's all smoke and mirrors, but I'm not going down the road of insanity with you again. Pearls upon swine, as you guys would say.

So It's either your finally put your chest out and show evidence of your claims or kindly shut the fúck up and let everybody hear word.

DaddyCoool:
Mention one pathological lie I've told

You don't tell me what to do. The stupid lies you've told on this thread have been pointed to you over and over. Did you take accountability for them then? No! So why should I expect you to take accountability for them now?

Our posts are still here for people to read, and they will read to arrive at their conclusions. As for you, you can keep deceiving yourself. You have not provided ANY SINGLE EVIDENCE that the universe is magical and you know it. But keep on lying to yourself if it helps sleep well at night.

Assassin's Creed 1
PS3

DaddyCoool:
Maxindhouse you see how the gentleman is calling me a pathological liar without equivovation, and a coward? (And by the way I told you to read Matthew 12:34 and 23:33, and get back to us. What happened?)
All because I was able to show him that thoughts and prayers do have effect on physical reality. And I made clear this is mainly based on people's testimonies and direct observation NOT scientific formulars. Uri Geller could not only bend spoons with his thought but people watching him on TV found they could do same AND he helped win a crucial game by using his thought to bend a crucial penalty just outside the goalpost!
Examples abound of people using their mere thought to do all sorts of things.
So my dear oga it is NOT everything you argue. Somethings are too well-established to be argued about!

Are you not a pathological liar? Have you not lied countless times on this thread over trivial bullshít? Are you not telling lies right now?

DaddyCoool:
Maxindhouse you see how the gentleman is calling me a pathological liar without equivovation, and a coward? (And by the way I told you to read Matthew 12:34 and 23:33, and get back to us. What happened?)
All because I was able to show him that thoughts and prayers do have effect on physical reality. And I made clear this is mainly based on people's testimonies and direct observation NOT scientific formulars. Uri Geller could not only bend spoons with his thought but people watching him on TV found they could do same AND he helped win a crucial game by using his thought to bend a crucial penalty just outside the goalpost!
Examples abound of people using their mere thought to do all sorts of things.
So my dear oga it is NOT everything you argue. Somethings are too well-established to be argued about!

So what is stopping you from bending spoons? Or moving mountains? What are your limitations?

We can talk about my gun again if you want. Let's put your hypothesis to the test then?

Nonsense and ingredients. Continue deceiving yourself.

kingxsamz:
Okra soup, pomo and fufu.

Enjoyment wan kpai some people for this country. 🤧

DaddyCoool:
You lost because you set yourself too tall and order - to debunk long proven things. And because you're arguing with a more knowledgeable person.

You were primarily out to prove that thoughts don't affect physical reality - a long settled observation. See below
Ciao!

As usual, you know I'll bring it all back to how it all started. Below is just one of the numerous rubbish you asserted without any proof. I know you'll want to distance yourself from this claim below because you're a pathological liar who can't get her story straight. 🙄

Now read yourself here:

DaddyCoool:
Magic is everywhere around you but you don't know how to access it. Infact the whole universe is magic
If you somehow totally believe something has happened the universe will make it happen!
As Christ said, if you have faith enough, you will tell a mountain to move and the universe will make it do just that. It's all magic

Now let us use the screenshot you posted and juxtapose it with this post here to find out just how dishonest you are.

You started out this discussion claiming that the universe operates based on magic. It's clearly stated above. But after LordReed and I started heckling you, you then redacted your original claim subtly and started suggesting that the universe is illogical and using QM as your proof of that fact.

The concepts you are citing from Google AI are scientifically grounded, so how can they be evidence of magic? 🤔

The placebo effect and others in the picture only work within the limits of the brain's chemistry and perception. Having positive thoughts can be good for your health, but we already know they operate within an understandable scientific framework. Definitely not the same as magic, which involves the alteration of objective physical realities. The latter is where your argument was leaning towards and yes, that was the argument I set out to burst.

You already knew this, and that's why you opted for a more minimalist assertion when LordReed challenged your claim. You were too cowardly to stick to one argument because you didn't want to get found out, so you kept shifting the goalposts all over the pitch. But at the end of the day the joke is on you because after all the back and forth, we have now established that there's a scientific basis behind many occurrences in the universe. And you still have no evidence that the universe is magic. 💁🏽

When the chips are down, you're worse off now, than when you started this debate, and you still have no proof that thoughts can affect our external reality. So like I said, we can leave it that, but if you want to keep making yourself look stupid, then be my guest.

DaddyCoool:
This man! Didn't I just tell you that anything can be made or seen as probabilistic including our very existence. See the rest of my post below.


As for other points, refer to my previous post. You haven't refuted any of the points. You haven't told us why it is logical that at an arbitrary speed (which happens to be the speed of light) speed stops increasing! Nor how Isaac Newton observing a phenomena that conforms with everything all around us is same as observing a phenomena that is at variance with everything all around us, ETC.

That thoughts can affect physical reality have been demonstrated time and again. Even pendulums. You can Google it.

In conclusion I'd advise you let this go because you can't win it - because you're out to disprove things that are long settled: thoughts DO affect physical reality, classical physics IS deterministic, QM IS probabilistic, speed of light is arbitrary just as having it as speed limit of the universe - unless we're in a simulation and that is the maximum processing speed of the processor! ETC!!!

I've already seen your updated post and nothing has changed. Still the same lies and mendacity you're engaging in, pretending as if you have any evidence for your dumb claims when you don't and this thread has revealed in great detail that you don't.

I only needed to debunk the rubbish you posted and I've done just that. Your fakse pretensions about proving your point, like the other things you've created out of your imaginations, do not constitute the reality. You tried to claim that thoughts create reality and when pressed for proof, you failed to deliver. 🤷🏽

We can leave it at that, but if you want to keep making a fool of yourself, I'm always game. 🤧

DaddyCoool:
This man! 70-year-old man!😅
Genius (maxindhouse come see what I called him o. Nobody here has ever called anybody retard), that is NOT what is being discussed. See below what we're discussing. Anything can be made or seen as probabilistic including whether we actually exist. See below and study it well. Why do I always end up spoon-feeding you?!

As for other points, refer to my previous post. You haven't refuted any of the points. You haven't told us why it is logical that at an arbitrary speed (which happens to be the speed of light) speed stops increasing! Nor how Isaac Newton observing a phenomena that conforms with everything all around us is same as observing a phenomena that is at variance with everything all around us, ETC.

That thoughts can affect physical reality have been demonstrated time and again. Even pendulums. You can Google it.

In conclusion I'd advise you let this go because you can't win it - because you're out to disprove things that are long settled: thoughts DO affect physical reality, classical physics IS deterministic, QM IS probabilistic, speed of light is arbitrary just as having it as speed limit of the universe - unless we're in a simulation and that is the maximum processing speed of the processor! ETC!!!

Nothing profound said. No evidence presented. No new insight.

I'm not surprised sha.
I already know you'll twist, contort and lie till the bitter end. 🤦🏽

DaddyCoool:
This man! 70-year-old man!😅
Genius (maxindhouse come see what I called him o. Nobody here has ever called anybody retard), that is NOT what is being discussed. See below what we're discussing. Anything can be made or seen as probabilistic including whether we actually exist. See below and study well. Why do I always end up spoon-feeding you?!

Since we are now settling for Google AI, then 2 can play your puerile game.

Like I told you before, know your cognitive limitations before you set out to embarrass yourself so thoroughly.

DaddyCoool:
All this long talk is not necessary my dear. You're arguing something you have already admitted and is written everywhere - regular physics is DETERMINISTIC while QM is PROBABILISTIC!! In regular physics you can predict FOR SURE whether the cat would be dead or alive. In QM your act of opening the box and observing the cat is what determines whether the cat is dead or alive. Your act of observing the cat is what "forces" the cat into being alive or dead. This can never be so in regular physics. I hope now you get it. I hate having to spoon-feed you everything.

This of course leads to Many-Worlds Interpretation, which suggests that every quantum measurement (observation, thought) results in a split of the universe into multiple realities. From this it is not far-fetched to extrapolate that our thoughts can affect things. If you believe strongly enough that the cat is alive, you'd land in the reality where the cat is alive when you observe it!

As for my statement you quoted from the beginning of the thread, I then went ahead to explain many times I meant "illustrate", that QM can't prove anything in the macro world. But you keep going back to the original statement. That's dishonesty sir.

About the speed of light, you only stated what happens. The question is WHY? Why that particular arbitrary speed??
And you don't think it is illogical from our everyday perspective that the speed of light is constant for all observers, regardless of their motion? That no matter how fast you're going you can't add any extra speed to the light shining from your vehicle?

In that Newton letter, the difference is that in QM what they're trying to rationalize contradicts normal, everyday macro reality AND also doesn't lead them to knowing for sure whether the cat would be dead or alive before it is observed - because observing is what causes it to be dead or alive!

All those words you mentioned can be interchangeably used with "illogical" FOR OUR PURPOSES HERE!!! You keep missing that phrase - "for our purposes here"!!

Back to speed of light, bottom line, you have no answer as to why that illogicality exists - the illogicality of the universe having an arbitrary speed limit - the speed of light. Or will you also say it is logical but only "counterintuitive"! How can it be logical that the speed of something does not increase no matter how fast you're traveling with it??!

The more I engage with you, the lesser respect I have for you. I thought you were better than Dtruth, Righteousness and all these other psychos that run around these parts of NL. I really thought you were different.

Classical physics looks deterministic when you're in the classroom and you're doing your cute little assignments and projects. But when you step out into the real world with all the messy variables and external net factors and all the uncertainties that prevail therein, your so-called deterministic regular physics will encounter certain phenomena once in a while that will make it start looking shaky. So it is not deterministic all through!

This is the singular distinction that you're finding so difficult to absorb into your brain!

As for the Schrodinger's cat, whether you observe it o, Whether you don't observe it o, the state of the cat within the box will remain as it is. So the reality of the cat in the box is independent of your observation. You didn't observe the cat's life or death into reality. It was already dead or alive, you're just finding it out for yourself. If you're not there, other observers will come to the knowledge and come and tell you.

Scientific method exists for this reason: to establish truths independent of human observation.

Your interpretation of the Many-Worlds Interpretation is another example of you being uninformed but arrogant enough to use your ignorance to make judgements about science. Yes, multiple realities are created BUT THE ONLY ONE YOU CAN EXPERIENCE IS THIS PRESENT ONE YOU'RE IN. You cannot navigate to, or between these other realities. And the implications of your observation in this particular reality is meaningless and irrelevant. Your consciousness or beliefs don't have any say in which reality you'll end up in. That's what the Many Worlds concept is about, so grow up and stop thinking you have superpowers. 😭

The reason I keep going back to your original claim is because up until now, you are still deploying QM as evidence that "at core, the universe doesn't follow logical patterns" before using it bootstrap your risible conclusions that you can alter reality with your thoughts.

There's no use lying and trying to distance yourself from that claim, because your entire argument so far has been you latching onto it as your evidence. You can call it "illustration" or any other nonsense you feel like to keep deceiving yourself. But at the end of the day we know exactly what you're doing. And what you're doing is called intellectual cowardice. You started with "QM proves the universe is illogical", to "it only demonstrates illogicality", to "it's only an illustration". The more I keep checking you on your statements, the more your position erodes from outright certainty to just mere suggestions. And then like the deceitful and mendacious liar that you are, you turn around and call me dishonest simply because I quoted your own very words.

The truth of the matter is that you're painfully ignorant on this topic, no matter how hard you try to show otherwise. Like I said before, my knowledge on this topic is not perfect either, but when it comes to the basics, I can confidently beat my chest and say that I know ten times more than you.

Moving on to your speed of light prevarications, the fact that the speed of light is the same (constant) in spite of reference frame, doesn't mean it's illogical. Again, we're back to the basic distinction here: Illogical vs. Counterintuitive. The speed of light constant is logically airtight. Why you ask? Because it's mathematically consistent and verified through experiments. The invariance of the speed of light is perfectly logical when you look at it within the framework of relativity.

Einstein didn't violate logic when he formulated special relativity, even though he defied the traditional intuitive expectations and assumptions of Newtonian mechanics.

When are you going to understand the fact that universe doesn't give a flying fúck about you? Do you seriously expect all phenomena operating at both cosmic and quantum levels to somehow match our human intuitions that we're specifically developed for hunting and running away from predators? Do you know entire position is just an elaborate "argument from incredulity" fallacy?

You asked where scientists invented math equations to resolve things they didn't understand. I gave you a very poignant citing Newton's letter, gravitional attraction, Einstein's special relativity and all that. Now you've taken style to drop that question. Instead you blundered and started talking about how Newton's postulates and equations didn't affect the superposition of the cat in Schrodinger's equation?! How in the fúck did your question transmogrify to that part of the discussion?

You keep darting and leaping about foolishly and aimlessly. Your argument has no direction, you've edited it over and over and over and over again. Whenever one of your nonsense points gets refuted you either repeat it anyway without actually addressing the criticism, or you avoid it all together and latch onto another part of the argument. You're just another prolific religious bullshítter that can't back up anything she says.

Look if you don't know what else to add to the conversation, then with all due respect kindly shut the ever loving fúck up and go educate yourself properly on the subject before coming here to spew more ignorance.

DaddyCoool:
I keep hoping I'm not chatting with a retard of some sort. How many times have I said "everyday logic"?? Where did you see "EVERY SYSTEM OF LOGIC"? Na wa 4 you o.

Oh my days, you're actually thicker than I expected!! 😱

I was making a direct reference to the question I've been asking you in my last 3 responses or more. I've been asking you if QM is illogical according to every system of logic. I even drew up a list earlier for the sake of illustration. Here it is again:

1. Aristotelian logic

2. Classical logic
2a. Propositional logic
2b. First-order logic

3. Extended logic
3a. Modal logic
3b. Higher order logic

4. Deviant logic
4a. Intuitionistic logic
4b. Multi-valued logic
4c. paraconsistent logic

5. Informal logic

You have insisted that QM is illogical, and I asked you if it was illogical according to all the systems above. You're here making it sound like I misunderstood your post when you're the one who's too dense to understand the question. And you even opened your mouth to call me a rétard. 🤣

No problem. Let me break it down for you, since you're even more slower than honey dripping from a frozen spoon.

Whenever you make your vague and pointless allusions to "everyday logic", or the even more stupid "Nairaland logic" to discredit something as "illogical", you're indirectly making the assumption that there's only one type of logic! And that logic is the one you're very familiar with.

So the simple point I'm making is that your everyday logic is NOT the only system of logic that exists. There are many others. Hence the question: IS QM ILLOGICAL ACCORDING TO EVERY SYSTEM OF LOGIC THAT EXISTS?

Can you now answer the god-damned question? 😭

By the way, considering that you thought it was a good idea in your small brain to speak on a topic that you're so criminally ignorant about, I think it's safe to assume who truly merits that "rétard" epithet between the both of us. As far as this topic is concerned, your intellectual bankruptcy is so painfully obvious, and your arrogance in the face of it is so cringe-worthy and disgusting.

DaddyCoool:
So why do you pretend not to understand simple words??

Just go get yourself a mirror already. 🤣

DaddyCoool:
And you were asked to mention in what application E=MC² and others are probabilistic

In measurements.

Although physicists have since validated Einstein's equation in countless experiments and calculations, and many technologies including mobile phones and GPS navigation depend on it, University of Arizona physics professor Andrei Lebed has stirred the physics community by suggesting that E=mc2 may not hold up in certain circumstances.

The key to Lebed's argument lies in the very concept of mass itself. According to accepted paradigm, there is no difference between the mass of a moving object that can be defined in terms of its inertia, and the mass bestowed on that object by a gravitational field. In simple terms, the former, also called inertial mass, is what causes a car's fender to bend upon impact of another vehicle, while the latter, called gravitational mass, is commonly referred to as "weight."

This equivalence principle between the inertial and gravitational masses, introduced in classical physics by Galileo Galilei and in modern physics by Albert Einstein, has been confirmed with a very high level of accuracy. "But my calculations show that beyond a certain probability, there is a very small but real chance the equation breaks down for a gravitational mass," Lebed said.

If one measures the weight of quantum objects, such as a hydrogen atom, often enough, the result will be the same in the vast majority of cases, but a tiny portion of those measurements give a different reading, in apparent violation of E=mc2. This has physicists puzzled, but it could be explained if gravitational mass was not the same as inertial mass, which is a paradigm in physics.
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/01/130108162227.htm

Beyond all of that, there are literally no instruments that can determine the value of an object (weight, mass, etc) with absolute precision. If you did physics in secondary school, you'll remember those little class practicals you had to do (pendulum bobs, prisms, placing objects on scales) where you'd take measurements, and calculate and plot graphs?

Do you remember you always had to account for margins of error? Did you bother to ask why?

It's simply because there are too many factors that can mess up the measurement. For instance in your environment. The air currents can affect your measurements. Another one is the calibration of your measuring devices.

DaddyCoool:
Our man does not understand hyperbole. Okay "fixated" if you wish.
I almost didn't use this because I knew you'd misunderstand it. You totally miss the "weird phenomena" aspect

Hyperbole aside, I like how you replaced "obsessed" with "fixation", and patted yourself on the back as if you actually accomplished anything. Or did you forget they're both synonymous? Wait, who's misunderstanding words again? 🤔

DaddyCoool:
Are any of these probabilistic? The answer is a resounding no! Neither are they out to justify any weird phenomena!

Just in case you've forgotten, the particular claim I'm challenging here is your dumbass claim that scientists don't invent equations and come up with constants for those equations to explain strange or weird events, and I've shown you why you're tragically inaccurate there. So this is just you darting and leaping about like a blind frog.

You asked me where scientists came up with constants to tweak with their equations. Now that I've bursted your bubble on that front, you've now jumped on to whether they're probabilistic. Don't worry. Keep jumping until you reach new heights of dishonesty.

In physics, a solid majority of the equations are probabilistic in practice and I've told you why. You can stick your head in the sand for as long as you like. It won't change a thing.

DaddyCoool:
Not my fault you can't present a coherent case.

Case? Since when was I ever presenting a case? Who has the burden proof here? YOU. I'm only here to point out the faults in your dubious claims that QM is evidence that thoughts can create reality. None of your points are sticking and that's why we're still here.

DaddyCoool:
Explain to us how speed of light as speed limit of the universe is logical

https://study.com/learn/lesson/special-theory-of-relativity-overview.html

You do the heavy lifting yourself for once. You can't come up to a debate like this and be woefully unequipped with the relevant facts. Later you will try and finish all of us with the power of irony by opening your mouth to talk about "spoon-feeding", when you're the one revealing your ignorance with every paragraph you type. 😤

Angelfrost:
It seems like a cruel and unusual punishment making Leicester and Southampton keep playing in the EPL...!

I remember for a while it was looking like Leicester City was poised for the top flight. I don't know what happened to them over the past few seasons.

Bruh, already. 🤦🏽

I wonder what led to the discovery of cockroach milk. Some things are better left imagined. 😃

Bannedlargejr:
Chai what a strike. You mean that there’s a possibility of osimhen and lookman not playing at the next World Cup?

Anytime I consider this possibility, my heart go just cut. 🤧

tivhador:
She's fine....I have to HAND it to her

Mad man. 😂😂😂

What's the source of this list?

Anyway it's no surprise that no governor from the South South is on it.