USA is now at war with Euroasia (Muslims) & he is preparing who to blame (foreigners, the establishment).
Posts by bohm
-
-
-
-
39
Why the resurrection must be true
by slimboyfat inokay i was thinking about it.
and it is a transhumanist argument and nothing new, i do realise that before anyone points it out.
but it struck me afresh today that the resurrection must happen.. firstly, to state the obvious, a rational materialist conception of reality seems to exclude resurrection.
-
-
bohm
SBF:
bohm according to the video above about how physical cloning is not possible, it says that an extremely close approximation is theoretically possible but that quantum mechanics prevents an exact physical clone without destroying the original in the process of retrieving the information. A resurrection does not involve replicating or destroying one original, but extrapolating from numerous points in the past to recreate a being which resembles multiple point but may not be exact to any given one.
My point is that the problems with chaos theory are much more severe. I am with you that we don't need an exact clone, but an approximate clone too is impossible. I suggest we keep quantum mechanics completely out of it as I think it is just confusing the real problem:Let's suppose "you" consist of just 100 atoms in a completely empty room with perfect walls. Let's assume for simplicity the atoms are atoms of gas and when you are "alive" that corresponds to the atoms being in a ball in the middle of the room.
That you "die" means the atoms evolve according to the rules of classical mechanics -- they fly apart and begin to bounce off the walls of the room. This is not a poor model if you are cremated.
An alien civilization could then look at the configuration of atoms at a later time (where they would be distributed evenly in the room), measure the location/velocity of all atoms, and use the rules of classical mechanics to re-construct you (and an approximate reconstruction will do). That seems pretty simple and nothing in physics prevent this (let's assume we are dealing with classifical physics).
Here is the problem: Let's suppose we look at you just after you "die" and focus on one of the atoms. Suppose we know the location, velocity of that atom to a tremendous precision, except we are just ever so slightly uncertain about the location of the atom (assume we know it to the width of an atomic nuclei). Suppose in one case we know the exact location of all atoms, and in another case we know the exact location of all atoms except this one where we get the location wrong by the width of a nuclei. atom, and in another case we know
The problem is that this atom will eventually hit another atom, and that small uncertainty will affect the angle the two atoms then scatter (both atoms). As time progress that means the location both the atoms will become more and more different in the two cases. Then two two atoms hit two other atoms and now there are four atoms that are affected by that initial uncertainty. Then these four atoms hit four others and then there are eight and up we go exponentially until all atoms are affected. My point is that this idea holds for all atoms: Affect one atom and you affect them all.
But it gets worse: Since the uncertainty affecting each atom involved in the collisions keeps growing too, at some point the uncertainty affecting any of the atoms reaches the width of an atom at which point it might miss a collision --- that this collision happens or not will eventually affect all atoms, in other words you get a completely, different configuration of atoms just because you changed the location of one atom by the width of an atomic nuclei. This is known as the butterfly effect. Are you with me so far?
This thought-experiment was about what happens as you decompose and time moves forward, but the same holds if we assume we measure the location at a future time and tries to predict the past: Time dynamics are reversible.
So if you measure the location of a single atom wrong (by the tiniest amount), that will mean your conclusion of the past will become completely random: you will conclude the atoms that make up "you" were not actually formed as a spherical ball in the past, but as a random configuration in the room -- i.e. a gas.
There is another way to phrase this: The precision at which you need to know the present to predict the past grows exponentially.
We can continue this thought process a bit. Atoms are not static but absorbs and emits photons. When they emit a photon, that photon will carry momentum and thereby to know the exact momentum of the atom originally, you have to measure the momentum of the photon as well (and remember we do need to measure the momentum exactly because of the above problems).
This is not a problem in the room where we can put photo detectors on the wall, but in real life some of those photons will shoot into space and fly away at the speed of life. Since the alien civilization can't measure those photons that creates an inherit uncertainty in their ability to reconstruct the past. In other words the project becomes impossible.
-
39
Why the resurrection must be true
by slimboyfat inokay i was thinking about it.
and it is a transhumanist argument and nothing new, i do realise that before anyone points it out.
but it struck me afresh today that the resurrection must happen.. firstly, to state the obvious, a rational materialist conception of reality seems to exclude resurrection.
-
-
bohm
lSBF: There are still two issues: Let's suppose that your grand-grand-..-grandchildren decide to resurrect you in 200 years. To do that they need to know their present state of matter to conclude what state you were in when you died so they take the entire earth apart and measure the location of all atoms in the earth. The first problem is that a lot of information is totally gone: You were cremated so most of your information about you is found in the atmosphere where it (subtly) affects how light bounces off atoms -- since that information is then sometimes found in electromagnetic radiation, and a large fraction of that radiation escapes from earth never to be seen again, that means they are fundamentally going to be missing information needed to reconstruct you (unless they can somehow travel faster than the speed of light).
The second problem is about quantum uncertainty (as I mentioned). As time progress, small perturbations in a system are increased exponentially, meaning you need exponentially better ability to measure the present state of the system to reconstruct it's past state (to some fidelity). That exponential growth is really what's important: To even conclude that most of the atoms that make up you were together at some point (nevermind their configuration as a body --- just that you were not spread out in the atmosphere) will eventually require knowledge of all atoms at an extreme precision.
When that precision reaches quantum level Heisenbergs uncertainty principle kicks in (remember this is saying that there is a minimal limit to how well you can know a particle's position and momentum) and so you can't perform the reconstruction, even approximately, unless you can get around quantum mechanics.
-
39
Why the resurrection must be true
by slimboyfat inokay i was thinking about it.
and it is a transhumanist argument and nothing new, i do realise that before anyone points it out.
but it struck me afresh today that the resurrection must happen.. firstly, to state the obvious, a rational materialist conception of reality seems to exclude resurrection.
-
-
bohm
The problem here is in step 4.
According to chaos theory where small changes in initial configuration magnify exponentially as the system evolves. This means that you need to measure (with exponentially increasing) precision the present state of the system in order to predict it's initial configuration -- i.e. you before you died.
At some point that precision reaches the quantum level at which point Heisenbergs uncertainty principle will mean you cannot know both the position and velocity of the particles: at that point the resurrection is impossible even if you are Laplaces demon.
-
30
Oi Cofty
by Landy innew series of timc started monday.. one of the episodes is on evolution - should be good knowing cox's antipathy towards religion.. http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b088f2vv.
sorry you colonials - it's on the bbc so you won't be able to get it.
serves yourself right for voting for trump!
-
-
bohm
SBF:
Second thing is the utter conviction unionists seem to have that Scotland governing itself could be nothing other than an unmitigated disaster. What is it about Scotland or the people who live in Scotland that makes you so convinced they could not successfully govern themsleves? Denmark, Switzerland, Norway, Ireland, Luxembourg - all very successful small countries.
Well, the bit about deep-frying mars bars indicates a people who are not ready to decide for themselves :-).
More seriously, the type of argument ---"XYZ might work in country A but it certainly can't work for us because we are just different!"--- is a very typical kind of reaction and very hard to argue against. I have heard so many times why any kind of public health care in America would lead to financial ruin (even though that is not the experience of any other western country) and it is a stance which is nearly impossible to argue against because, well, this situation is just different!. -
67
John Lewis: Trump isn't a legitimate president
by Brokeback Watchtower inhttp://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/john-lewis-trump-isnt-a-legitimate-president/ar-aalqsqs?li=bbmkt5r&ocid=spartanntp.
-
-
bohm
This reddit thread contains a number of interesting stories about wikileaks and especially how Russias reactions to wikileaks changed pretty abruptly around 2011:
https://www.reddit.com/r/worldnews/comments/51yc7f/wikileaks_release_excludes_evidence_of_2_billion/
-
67
John Lewis: Trump isn't a legitimate president
by Brokeback Watchtower inhttp://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/john-lewis-trump-isnt-a-legitimate-president/ar-aalqsqs?li=bbmkt5r&ocid=spartanntp.
-
-
bohm
Regarding Julian Assange, I don't want to push any tin-foil hat stuff but he was in deep problems at the time where wikipedia was blocked for donations by mastercard, etc., He then got a Visa to russia and a TV-show on a Kremlin backed TV chanal. Reports have since surfaced that he is filtering out information critical of Russia.
-
67
John Lewis: Trump isn't a legitimate president
by Brokeback Watchtower inhttp://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/john-lewis-trump-isnt-a-legitimate-president/ar-aalqsqs?li=bbmkt5r&ocid=spartanntp.
-
-
bohm
Yes, they were copies of the Clinton server emails the FBI already had... and the fact they were even there is DAMNING.
Honestly, can you explain why? You are saying that the FBI found emails on weiners computer that compromised an agent?
-
67
John Lewis: Trump isn't a legitimate president
by Brokeback Watchtower inhttp://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/john-lewis-trump-isnt-a-legitimate-president/ar-aalqsqs?li=bbmkt5r&ocid=spartanntp.
-
-
bohm
How did 650,000 Clinton emails get onto a laptop used by Anthony Weiner?
Oh, he's the husband of Clintons most trusted aide, Huma Abadin.
Doesn't it seem most likely that SHE put them there? or they were there because she was accessing them?
Now ask why would she do that? (and also why and how many other people had access to Clinton's email account).Well, what I have to go by is what the FBI found when they investigated the emails and since you don't trust the FBI and I am not psychic it is hard for me to answer those questions (according to the FBI those emails were personal or copies of previously obtained emails)
-
67
John Lewis: Trump isn't a legitimate president
by Brokeback Watchtower inhttp://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/john-lewis-trump-isnt-a-legitimate-president/ar-aalqsqs?li=bbmkt5r&ocid=spartanntp.
-
-
bohm
Clinton admitted she deleted them but claims they were "just personal". We only have her word and I don't trust it,
No, we don't just have her word because there was an FBI investigation. You can say: I don't trust HRC, I don't trust the FBI, I don't trust the CIA, I don't trust the NSA, etc. etc. and I obviously can't convince you because you have specifically ruled out all sources of information that could influence your view. That is a world view which is robust in the sense you are unlikely to be challenged but I would ask you to consider if that kind of worldview is one you would find very convincing in other circumstances (I don't trust the scientific community, I don't trust the 9/11 commission, etc. etc.).
I don't see any reason to question his guilt or that investigation as there was actual evidence presented in court.
Yes but that evidence was collected by the FBI which can't be trusted.. or can they be trusted in this case? Who determines when the FBI can be trusted?
Hard evidence is completely lacking in the Trump dossier case, which is why we should question it.
The discussion is not about the Dossier, which I am nearly 100% certain is a fake, but that Russia influenced the election.