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 : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: one_less who wrote (985540)	12/3/2016 10:30:26 PM
From: koan	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1580253

There you go challenging again. Not a good idea to challenge him. Better to try and understand him. One builds on Heisenberg, not challenge him. <<However, I am going to challenge Heisenberg

To: one_less who wrote (985540)	12/3/2016 10:40:40 PM
From: J_F_Shepard	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1580253

The word "why" implies purpose. The purpose is to manifest higher states which come closer and closer to the ideal. The foundation of understanding this is ... get ready... conscious awareness. Observable fact, no? How often do you see the word why in the bible?

To: one_less who wrote (985540)	12/4/2016 5:15:14 AM
From: Taro	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1580253

>>Werner Heisenberg stumbled on a secret of the universe: No thing has a definite position, a definite trajectory, or a definite momentum.<<< When we look at the wholeness of evolution in existence over time, we can see a few things that contradict Heisenberg's declaration. The trajectory of all things is change, not just change for the sake of change but change resulting in the eventual manifestation of higher states. Understanding your point, Heisenberg and your statement that "...things is change, not just change for the sake of change but change resulting in the eventual manifestation of higher states“. indeed seem incompatible. Now, the possibility still seem to exist, that Heisenberg was right and your understanding how our world and we developed or rather 'just happened' from dead molecules to the much higher current state all by coincidence, is wrong, correct? When A and B cannot both be right, then either A or B must be right. "Logic deduction, my dear Watson", said the Master Detective of all times.