₦airaland Forum

sinequanon:
Dark Matter is currently only HYPOTHESIZED.

I am talking about your WHAT IF scenario. I am asking you WHICH COMES FIRST in your WHAT IF scenario.

Does dark matter become IDENTIFIED

OR

Do do they change the basic (repeatable, reproducible, predictable, cause and effect) assumptions of science?

Clarify your scenario so that I can address your question.

CharlesNneji1:
What I teach is basic psychology. Let's take you for instance; who would you take more seriously? Someone who gives you the impression of being a begger versus someone who gives you the impression of being a governor?

Girls are humans too, when you beg for their love you trigger the same feeling you get when a begger walks up to you. Even though you help a begger, you still look down on them.

On the other hand, if a governor invites for a dinner you count it as a blessing from God. If a begger invites you for dinner, chances are that you will turn it down.

Basic psychology.

What my methods, like you called them, focuses on is to make her see you as the "Governor" of her life (Value Bomb)

And the whole way to do this is not to be fake. Based on psychology also I have developed a strategy that triggers the "governor respect" kind of thing in a girl during seduction - I call that strategy "Bang Rule" (which is also the title of my book - see my profile)

That is what my book is all about.

So the method in the book doesn't work on a particular class of girls, it works on GIRLS.

And before you start saying it doesn't, please go on BBM and try a few of what I thought here on two or three of your female friends - if you don't like the effect, come back and insult me all you want.

Thank you

sinequanon:
This is a non sequitur. You have switched from talking about dark matter to talking about matter in general.

And which would come first, changing the current assumptions of science or somehow identifying something that contradicts all the assumptions of science?



Yes, because every definition I have seen boils down to that -- most in a very convoluted and long-winded way.

sinequanon:
This is a contradiction.

How does science identify something that contradicts all its assumptions?

Science can hypothesize the existence of something. It can search for that thing indefinitely. But, if science finds a way to identify it, then it couldn't have contradicted all the assumptions in science. The scientific way of identifying something must be (predictable, repeatable, reproducible etc.)

sinequanon:
Loyalty, as I said.

I don't follow rules out of loyalty to any idea, group or authority.



Dark matter isn't considered by scientists to contradict all the assumptions that science makes.

sinequanon:
It doesn't have to be involuntary, or regarded as universal.



Something that cannot be scrutinized or explained by the materialistic and naturalistic ASSUMPTIONS of science.

i.e it is not controllable in the sense of having a predictable, reproducible, repeatable cause and effect, or being a combination of such elements.

sinequanon:
Because I recognize them as a choice, and a choice for me rather than some universal truth.



I will because your use of the term "our world" is a cop out, as I explained. It is wishy-washy. A Christian could use the same term and mean something entirely different, unless you are saying that heaven and hell are part of your "non-supernatural" world.

sinequanon:
No. I am talking about willingly following, i.e without dissent. I break laws I don't agree with, just like most people. I willingly follow what I agree with. And I reluctantly follow or break the rest. That is not loyalty to the laws of the land.



I assume that is a typo, and you really meant "anyone".



You see? Your description of "supernatural" is wishy-washy arm-waving!

Your latest trick is to hide "materialist world" by describing it as "our" world.

Christians can just as easily define "our world" as including their heaven and their hell and their god.



Then just refer to my description of what I mean instead of quibbling over the label.

Gombs:

sinequanon:
That is where we have to agree to disagree.



We have discussed this circularity before.

"Supernatural" simply refers to things that don't conform to materialism. You can't just "label your way out" of materialism being a religion.

We have exhausted this branch of the discussion, and you clearly see nothing circular (or don't care if it is circular). So there is nothing more to say about it, except that we disagree.

sinequanon:
You seem to have a habit of missing out key phrases and changing the emphasis. I've added it back in, in square brackets (and corrected my typo! )

I wouldn't argue it, even if there were a "general" definition, which I doubt.

What is your definition of religion in its basic form?



I am not religious, by my definition, because I don't have loyalty to any rules or standards.

That's a good question, actually. I think I need to add "loyalty" to my definition, because there are things that I do "religiously", i.e as a matter of routine. I think that is more a matter of laziness and that I should aim to scrutinize all aspects of my life.

sinequanon:
A persistent denial can lead to dogma.

A religion does not have to involve dogma. It can theoretically be belief by choice, as I indicated, although I cannot think of such a religion in practice. To me, a religion in its basic form is simply a set of behaviours and standards that you follow. The belief factor concerns belief that a particular way of life will deliver satisfaction for you. A dogmatic religion takes it a step further makes it about universal "truth" and delivering some "necessity" for everyone.

sinequanon:
What I said about "beliefs which are denied as beliefs" has no impact on "beliefs which are accepted as beliefs". Nothing "becomes" of them as a result. They can still be part of a religion.

"A religion whose beliefs are not denied as beliefs, but accepted as beliefs" is still a religion. One difference is that it would be by choice, just like supporting a football team.

On the other hand, the religion of beliefs denied as beliefs is a dogma. Such a religion is likely to go around trying to ENFORCE the belief.

I don't know whether the type of religion you refer to actually exists in practice. The closest I can think of are from Asia. Hinduism, perhaps, where there is an element of choice among a pantheon of gods?

Gombs:
Bad things happen to good people, what counts is what your response to the challenge was.

sinequanon:
At a guess, I'd say you have confused these two statements...

"A belief becomes a religion when you deny it is a belief." (which is what I said).

AND

"A religion is a belief that you deny." (which is NOT what I said).

To help you practice logic, try this...

A charge of theft that is upheld in court becomes a conviction.

AND

A conviction is a charge of theft that is upheld in court.

Until you can comprehend logical constructs consummately, debating with you will be tedious.

(btw. don't bother with your reply, which will be the predictable denial).

Kay17:
Again you seem to have a general problem with self expression. You said a belief one denies is a religion, what then becomes of a religion one admits/accepts?!

sinequanon:
A belief becomes a religion when you deny it is a belief. At that point you are under the control of the thing you are following.

I am not familiar with transcendentalism, but I had a quick wiki. Wondering if you meant transcendental idealism.

Anyway, I can often find a few elements of different things that I agree with and elements that I don't. I am not religious, because I have no loyalty to any system.

(I don't think that there is anything terrible about having a belief, btw! But something is wrong when you have to deny it. And something is wrong when it involves fear!)

sinequanon:
I recently figured it out.

Most atheists try to set their religion of materialism apart by claiming that it isn't a religion.

The argument they use is that their religion of materialism has been proven to be objective,....by their religion of materialism. LOL.

The problem is that, having fooled themselves that they have no religion, so many of them have gone on a religion bashing spree.

This screwed up condition turns out to be a form of self-loathing!

To avoid this unbalanced way of being, it would be better if atheists got comfortable with their religion and concentrated on explaining why they think it is the best religion.

Gombs:
Praise waiteth for thee, O God, in Sion: and unto thee shall the vow be performed. Ps. 65:1

Many of you are praying and waiting on God for the answer to your petitions. But when you’re waiting on God for the answer, wait in an attitude of praise and thanksgiving. Wait in an attitude of expectancy! Wait on God in praise! Wait on God in faith! Prayer asks, but praise receives.

Praise receives the answer by faith and thanks God for the answer before the answer is actually visible to the natural man. Of course, there is a proper time to exercise both prayer and praise. Both prayer and praise are necessary and important. But after you’ve prayed and believed God for the answer based on His Word, that’s the time to stay in faith by praising Him. You can actually get out of faith and into unbelief by praying over and over again about the same petition, if you are praying as if God didn’t hear you the first time.

Yes, some kinds of prayer such as the prayer of intercession require diligent prayer over a period of time. But even then you need to stay in faith. Praise ensures that you keep your heart and mind in an attitude of faith; therefore, praise can actually hasten your answer.



There are different kinds of prayer, and all of them are valid in their place. However, the prayer of faith and the prayer of agreement only take a short time to pray when you pray in faith and believe God hears you. You don’t have to get into a long theological discourse with God. Just pray simply and pray straight from your heart.

Praise and thank Him today and always.... God Bless you

CharlesNneji1:
*smiles*
One; from experience I have come to know that girls who talk tough and act like they can never fall for a player Simple tricks are the ones who fall heavier. These girls try to cover up their weakness by talking tough...but still, they are still weak.
Two; this tips I'm giving here are just for people who will read them, go out and try it and then if they don't work - they are free to come and say it here. I'm not writing this for people who will just read it and conclude it doesn't work without trying it out. It's only fair you try it out before concluding it doesn't work.
*smiles*
This tips are actually simple but girls still keep falling for it and keeping jonsing for guys who use it.
The next write up is coming soon. You can read my other thread for the main time
*big smile*
Have a great day

Ubenedictus:
as the first cause

asalimpo:
^^^
e.g
did ali birth a child? (the problem statemnt)
using deductions.

A-Ali is a man (T)
B-Men dont get concieve children (T)
C-therefore, Ali didnt birth a child.
C ,is the conclusion based on the previous statements A and B.
Every statemnt here has a truth value of either True (T) or False (F).

In a mathematics system, symbols are used as shorthand to represent the statemnts...

As far as every statemnt resolves to True or False, a conclusion can b made.
A theorem could b extract from a given problem statemnt. The only outstandng issue then wud b how long it would take.
If this was d case , theorem proving cud b entirely automated
just by symbolic manipulation.

David Hilbert, a mathematician and mentor , in the 19th century wanted to put mathematics on a firm footing,so He posed a set of 23 questions that were pertinent to the future of mathematics.
One of his questions were,
something akin to
"is Mathematics (i.e formal symbolic logic system) itself as a system a perfect tool for solving any logical/computational problem posed to it"(paraphrased)

in order words can u feed it a problem and it will definitely yield an answer?

Bertrand Russel, an icon in logic, was also working on a treatise to better harmonise and formalise the language of mathematics.
But his assumption was tht mathematics cud produce a result for every problem statemnt, i.e mathematics as a system is complete.

At the conference of mathematicians in the early 20th century, kurt Godel, presented his findings which answered Hilbert's question in d negative.
This doesnt mean, theorems in mathematics are flawed but tht theyre are classes of problems that fail the nonambiguity test.

Since proof is built on d truth values of unambiguous statemnts, an unambiguous statemnt that is both true and false at the same time defeats d system.
This is where it is established tht no complete formal logic system is consistent.

E.g

problem statemnt: "is he telling the truth?"
A - everything i say is a lie.

From the statemnt A, two conclusions cud b reached and ambuity is established.
If everything i say is a lie,then No,i'm not telling d truth.
But if i admit that i told lies all along,then i'm telling d truth.

There are some semantic issues which i'll ignore but Godel showed tht for any formal logic system, certain class of problems were undecidable.
Russel assumed all propositions are decidable.

sinequanon:
Gódel's second theorem proves that there is no way of proving consistency of a mathematical system.

i.e, even if a mathematical system is consistent, you can't prove it -- you cannot distinguish it from a system which has unknown inconsistencies.

The only person who took his time to understand is PastorAIO.



Clueless.



plaetton agrees with wiegraf's clueless summary.



Meaningless.

Also a failed attempt at the wrong theorem. The thread is about Gódel II not I.



Can't read.



Comprehension problems.

These are the trolls who have set themselves up to educate us all: plaetton and wiegraf, the halfwits + 1 clueless ranter + 2 illiterates.

Don't let these folks hold you back with their disease of wanton ignorance.

sinequanon:
Anybody who is serious about improving their understanding should ignore Kay17, Dapo777, asalimpo, wiegraf and plaetton.

Apart from their appalling understanding of simple logic and a host of other hopeless misconceptions, none of them have even been able to state Cantor's assertions correctly, let alone discuss them. Discussing with them is a completely lost cause.

Just don't let them hold you back. They are the type of folk, where you come back in a year's time, and they have learned nothing.

The topic of the video can be quite challenging, but it is accessible to anyone with a mature and balanced frame of mind.

PastorAIO:
I think categorizing life into religion, philosophy, science, psychology etc etc is very artificial, contrived and impractical. They all overlap. The bottomline is that we arrive in the world experiencing a great deal of urges and pressures and we are faced with choices and we need to make the RIGHT CHOICE.

A religious man seeks to live a RIGHTEOUS LIFE.
A philosopher seeks to live THE GOOD LIFE.

All are synonyms for the same thing. It is the basic existential problem of existence that they all address.

To say that Ethics is more properly a philosophic pursuit than a religious one is to fall into the trap that these contrived categorisations sets up.
Philosophy also addresses religion and religious matters.

Your traditional definition of religion as ...
....Leaves out Buddhism, Jainism and a host of other religions.
Not to mention philosophies that address divinities and have a complex system of beliefs, e.g. Confucianism.


I believe that Sinequanon finds it so easy to come up with these 'absurdities' precisely because this distinction of religions and philosophies etc is itself an absurdity.

They are all attempts to address certain basic existential questions. And to that extent they are the same thing.

PastorAIO:
I agree that it is a kind of language,

but I also happen to believe that Language is innate

. There are linguists who have argued this and I agree with steven PInker.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Language_Instinct

I also believe that Mathematics, as a language, is something that is innate. you don't have to physically show a child that 2 apples joined to 2 other apples will result in 4 apples. Instinctively it makes sense to us that 2 of anything plus 2 more results in 4. And we can continue to explore this manner of cogitation without any recourse to objective reality. Just by exploring the process in our minds. This is why I say that Maths is Rational not Empirical.

tevinsolt:
It is moral justification, you can call it a legal justification in some sense. God created the universe and all that's is in it, so he is sovereign. Many of the laws around the world are based on what is moral but not all though.

sinequanon:
Most Africans seem to have lost the understanding of what philosophy is, and why it is important.

The Europeans, Chinese, Indians etc. have a long tradition in philosophical discourse. Africans, have by and large lost touch with their own to the point that they don't even know what philosophy is.

There is philosophy of science that focuses on or deals with science. But science is not a philosophy.

When I first joined these forums, I asked why we didn't have a philosophy forum. Africa needs philosophy seriously. The only response was "what's that?"

tevinsolt:
hell is said to be a place of fire and brimstone and a place of utter darkness. You didn't create yourself so you don't get to decide and you don't live even in this life recklessly thinking that breaking the law won't land you in Jail, how much more the person who created the universe and your being? Justice ultimately will be served, all things done in the dark will be brought to light, those who never had justice while alive, would after death.

PastorAIO:
To further elaborate, I think Religion is being used very loosely and we might not be sure of what we are saying. I'd like to make a rigorous definition of religion as something that helps us gratify our most fundament urges.

In order to work religion must identify what these urges are and how they are to be best gratified.

This would require an inquiry into human psychology and motivations, as well as an inquiry into the world and the context in which humans find themselves. The method of gratification is then developed according to the findings.

As creatures faced with choices religion must make a study of Morality (i.e. an evaluation of our options some of which will be classified as Bad and others would be classified as good and just a few will be classified as Ideal. Ideal is the greatest and highest good.), and pursuit of Moral Ideals will yield the greatest gratification.

PastorAIO:
I would say mathematics was more Rational rather than Empirical.


Rationalism vs. Empiricism
First published Thu Aug 19, 2004; substantive revision Thu Mar 21, 2013
The dispute between rationalism and empiricism concerns the extent to which we are dependent upon sense experience in our effort to gain knowledge. Rationalists claim that there are significant ways in which our concepts and knowledge are gained independently of sense experience. Empiricists claim that sense experience is the ultimate source of all our concepts and knowledge.

Rationalists generally develop their view in two ways. First, they argue that there are cases where the content of our concepts or knowledge outstrips the information that sense experience can provide. Second, they construct accounts of how reason in some form or other provides that additional information about the world. Empiricists present complementary lines of thought. First, they develop accounts of how experience provides the information that rationalists cite, insofar as we have it in the first place. (Empiricists will at times opt for skepticism as an alternative to rationalism: if experience cannot provide the concepts or knowledge the rationalists cite, then we don't have them.) Second, empiricists attack the rationalists' accounts of how reason is a source of concepts or knowledge.
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/rationalism-empiricism/

You can make advances in Maths that have no connection to reality as perceived by the senses.

It is the Scientific Method that insists on observation and experimentation. All maths requires is a tight Q.E.D.