₦airaland Forum

davien:
in the long run,its still technology that can be used to nurture nature efficiently...

ROSSIKE:
I think part of what sinequanon is saying is that we need to develop a more sustainable technology which utilizes renewable energy sources as opposed to fossil fuels which, if left unchecked will lead to the ruin of the planet. But will the greed of the major corporations benefiting from a fossil fuel-based global economy be abated long enough for the rise in renewable energy and even (suppressed) free energy sources to take a hold in our world?

sinequanon:
You recognized yourself! Progress.



You remain profoundly brainwashed.

Technology is the exploitation of the environment to service our shortcomings.

Technology leads on to consumerism in the way I described.

The profound question, which your profoundly brainwashed mind could not fathom, is whether expanding the technology is more valuable progress than facing our moral shortcomings.

musKeeto:
Striktlymi and ajibam were working on something.. I guess its for Christians only.

These new mods sha...

timmy2409:
For anyone who's ever wondered what it's like to date a horse. This guy has you covered

http://nymag.com/scienceofus/2014/11/what-its-like-to-date-a-horse.html

IanDiamonds:
Still boils down to the point I stated earlier.
When You're out of words "Start Insulting the Opponent".
It's funny how you started the argument all bold and cogent, then you end it vacuously. Funny how people change

IanDiamonds:
Oh! Really



If the bolded is not an insult, I wonder what is.

IanDiamonds:
While you we're so quick to show how silly/slow you are you even stutter while you type..
Your post reminds me of this phrase "When you're out of words to say, start insultin' your opponent"
Reminds me of a certain lovely picture, dont know if I can find it, but I'll be sure to paste it when I do

IanDiamonds:
Sigh!


*smh*


I am confused as to where I made reference to future experiments.

Please stay on course, we're talkin' 'bout this experiment and not future experiments.
@bolded, that's what they'd make you think.


Tf? Are you sayin'. Please rephrase
Just cause I'm a Theist (Christain) does not make me less intelligent
.............

Yeah! It's so simple I need you to help me become confused.

Now that you seems to be gettin' it... Why'd they tag the title "Chemists Create Artificial Evolution For The First Time."?

IanDiamonds:
You didn't get the message.. He!! No you didn't. Probably by the end you'll get it.

IanDiamonds:
They designed the system to produce the desired behaviour. The conditions set would always yeild the end result.

IanDiamonds:
Did I hear you say HOW?

IanDiamonds:
Well, there's a robot in a lab in a controlled condition making intelligent choices regarding which properties are most desirable for the outcome (Artificial Selection? Yeah! Right) to evolve chemical droplets. Sounds more like Intelligent purposive design to me.

researchers: We're also keen to explore in future experiments how the emergence of unexpected features, functions and behaviours might be selected for.

IanDiamonds:
If the first generation was composed of the same compounds, why would the behaviour of the droplets change? How then did they come about a second generation? Should the selection process change, you won't as much yield the same result

IanDiamonds:
It sounds like the droplets arent evolving but being "evolved" by a robot.

Robot plays with water, media calls it evolution.

article: The chemical composition of the 'fittest' population was then carried over into a second generation of droplets, and the process of robotic selection was begun again.

article: The process uses a robotic 'aid' and could be used in the future to 'evolve' new chemicals capable of performing specific tasks.

researchers: We're also keen to explore in future experiments how the emergence of unexpected features, functions and behaviours might be selected for.

PastorAIO:
It is impossible for the theory to verified, or for any scientist to make predictions on the basis of the theory.

sinequanon:
A religion that someone admits is a religion, irrespective.

You see, you have half-baked ideas that you think constitute logic.

You have a general problem with logic. Are you unable to slow down and think?

In your very loose statement above, I can only imagine that you think there is some sort contradiction. The way to argue is to directly specify what you think the contradiction is, rather than hide behind rhetoric and vague hints.

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).

Dapo777:
@asalimpo So what is the practical use of godels theorem in real life? Because it seems to some people it is to disapprove mathematics.

asalimpo:
It wud spark further interest in researching on the properties of undecidable problems so that theorems and other mathematical devices cud b created that accelerate detection of undecidable problems.

Any interesting breakthrough usually creates new sub fields of active research within a field of study so it wouldnt b a suprise if theyre ungoing active research in the field of logic,philosophy,maths still on these undecidability issue.

It doesnt disprove mathematics. Isnt mathematics the bases for technology? If mathematics was useless then there'd b no advancement.

It simply highlights tht theyre classes of problems maths cant solve because these problems possess properties tht cripple first order logc systems.

PastorAIO:
Please allow me to speak once again in Sinequanon's defence. (Sinequanon, you go pay me o! Advocacy dey cost!!)
In the OP he hardly said anything of his own opinion and what he did say of his own opinion was not part of the main thrust of the Argument. Rather, he, unfortunately, started by dissing some people albeit without mentioning names. Having not followed his posts much in the past I presume there is some baggage from before so those he was referring to already knew themselves.
Mostly he quoted other mathematicians on the subject.

PastorAIO:
In the video, which I've only watched halfway so far, they lay out Godel's Paradox at 7:50 of the video.
1) We 'Know' that First Order Mathematics is Consistent.
2)It can be proved that It is impossible to prove the consistency of First Order Mathematics.
Therefore: If it is impossible to prove it then what is the basis of our 'Knowing' Mathamatics is consistent. Where does the sense of conviction come from? Obviously not from any rigorous appraisal of Maths.
If now skip to 9:40 of the video he lays out the 3 possibilities for countering Godel's theorem.
A) If we Know First Order maths to be Consistent then there must be a way to Prove it. This is the path many have tried to take and all have failed.
B)Admit a possibility of 'transcendental', provably unprovable knowledge. In other words Claim Faith. Or Intuition.
C)Or finally, Admit that the sense of Conviction in Mathematics is an illusion and First Order Mathematics is in fact InConsistent.
I think this is the basis of why Sinequanon titles this thread Faith in Mathematics.

PastorAIO:
C)Or finally, Admit that the sense of Conviction in Mathematics is an illusion and First Order Mathematics is in fact InConsistent.
I think this is the basis of why Sinequanon titles this thread Faith in Mathematics.

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.

op: They say naive things like "mathematics is totally consistent", "mathematical proof is incontrovertible evidence in physics", etc. etc.