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: koan who wrote (985627)	12/4/2016 2:27:06 PM
From: one_less	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1580522

This is a discussion thread. I thought we were having a conversation, maybe not. If I were having a conversation with Heisenberg it would be entirely different. I understand Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle, you can believe that or not, it doesn't matter to me. The point is I am conversing with you (who declares he doesn't understand Heisenberg) and responding to assertions you made about Heisenberg's position on my treatment, which as I demonstrated was flawed... the HUB being a position about the possibilities in a point of time, where as my scenario was evidence collected over the fullness of time which predict with a high probability the trajectory and momentum of evolution. In other words HUB is not applicable in this case. Being grounded in consciousness means you can look at the possibilities of a particle in an instant and recognize the possibilities without being certain of the trajectory or the momentum. The idea has even been extrapolated to explain free will. However, keep in mind we are looking at an instance with no other data about trajectory or momentum. Human beings for example are prone to habits and have free will. A person with good hygiene is not likely to piss in public so there is some high predictability there, but they could throw caution to the wind and piss in public because they have free will. We are not zombies, refusing to consider new ways of looking at things is scientific zombyism. Predictability as I have treated it wrt evolution is far more predictable than the street pisser, some would even call it a scientific law that evolution works the way I have treated it. You? Bottom line, you are unnerved by the fact that I challenge conventional ideas. I do not understand why someone who claims to think philosophically and scientifically would have such objections. So that is what we are left with.