Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : GOPwinger Lies/Distortions/Omissions/Perversions of Truth -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: puborectalis who wrote (75802)	8/23/2006 9:56:27 AM
From: 10K a day	Respond to of 173976

Would u like to buy a vowel?

To: puborectalis who wrote (75802)	8/23/2006 10:44:32 AM
From: JeffA	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 173976

The big bang supports elemental development at a much lower level than carbon. It is in the baryon range until deuterium was formed. The cause of why protons and neutrons came to be together is not explainable, the addition of an electron is, if you can get by not explaining the proton and neutron. How gravitational forces came to be and made matter attract and clump together is not explainable, another theory. So, using the aforementioned "facts," in cosomological terms, carbon would be quite old and totally incapable of indicating how the universe formed.

To: puborectalis who wrote (75802)	8/23/2006 12:26:00 PM
From: one_less	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 173976

Open minds might consider the following: 1) Proof in the classical sense requires the ability to observe and replicate for the sake of validity. It also requires the ability to dismiss other plausible explanations having proven the null. 2) The models you are following involve a great deal of purely complex mathematical treatments. The mathematician Kurt Godel has proven that any attempt to produce a paradox-free mathematical system is bound to fail. Also... "Computers, Paradoxes and the Foundations of Mathematics Some great thinkers of the 20th century have shown that even in the austere world of mathematics, incompleteness and randomness are rife. Gregory J. Chaitin Some of the great intellects of the 20th century attempted to set mathematics on a sound logical footing, only to discover the inherent limitations of formal axiomatic systems. The author gives a sweeping description of this evolution of thought and summarizes his own contribution to the modern understanding of mathematics, which, like quantum physics, contains elements of randomness at the most fundamental level." siliconinvestor.com. 3) Even the most simple paradox can be dismissed when we involve human beings and conscious awareness. Zeno's paradox of dividing distance and time into infinite number of intervals making movement from one finite point to another, confounds the computer but falls apart when we make the observation of a real circumstance, because we are aware that in real nature we can divide time anyway we want... as a limited segment or infinite number of times. 4) Not that the work isn't practical and useful but classic materialism skips over a bunch of gaps and paradoxes that involve life, consciousness, and awareness to explain a mechanistic universe prepped with a pile of "Ifs". One being the whole notion of real time existing out of the present mode of our awareness in the first place. You believe in time machines too?