I'm bored so ask me anything.

[MeNorel]

Because it's there. That is always the answer.



Neither has a fist.

Ok which was first?

[The_Cataclysm]

Ok which was first?

Oh, in that case it was the egg. Evolution and all.

[Dane_McArdy]

If the question was "If a tree falls in the forest, and there's no one around to hear it, does it cause sonic vibrations in the atmospheric medium", I'd agree with you.

But without the presence of a structure that can translate sonic vibrations into neural activity, i.e. an ear, I'm not sure that I can. However, I do think that reasonable people can disagree on this one.

Cataclysm, can we get a ruling?

Sound is nothing more then sonic vibrations in the atmospheric medium and hearing it doesn't change it's nature.

If you really want to get picky, then the question should be,

If a tree falls in the woods, and there isn't anything around that can "hear" in a way that humans egocentrically call hearing, is that sonic energy considered a sound?

I say egocentric, because humans often view things as if their observation of it gives it validity for existence, when in fact, it doesn't.

[Ziggy]

I say egocentric, because humans often view things as if their observation of it gives it validity for existence, when in fact, it doesn't.

but how do you know that if you havent observed it?

[JayDubya]

Sound is nothing more then sonic vibrations in the atmospheric medium and hearing it doesn't change it's nature.

I say egocentric, because humans often view things as if their observation of it gives it validity for existence, when in fact, it doesn't.

Without an observer to collapse the wave form, Schrodinger's Cat is both alive and dead at the same time. That's not egocentric, that's a simple fact of quantum mechanics.

IMO, Sound represents information. There is no information in an un-observed sonic vibration. Hearing it doesn't change its nature, but it does create information.

[MeNorel]

Is a PB&J really the meaning of live?

[Dane_McArdy]

Without an observer to collapse the wave form, Schrodinger's Cat is both alive and dead at the same time. That's not egocentric, that's a simple fact of quantum mechanics.

IMO, Sound represents information. There is no information in an un-observed sonic vibration. Hearing it doesn't change its nature, but it does create information.

Schrodiners cat is a dumb idea. All it does is reinforce the idea that everything is based on human observation for it's state of existance. The cat can observe it's self, and therefor, knows if it's alive or dead.

The information exists regardless of if it's unobserved. It has to be there, in case someone does observe it, otherwise, we are saying that something ONLY exists once Humans interact with it, outside of that, it's only potentially existable?

It takes a great amount of humitly to not see the human race as the soul purpose of the universte in terms of existance.

If anything, we are probably the speices that comes along and throws the eco balance out of wack, which causes the current system to finally crash, and start new. We aren't the end result, we are the end destruction.

The only thing about us that is unique is that we just might have the ability to see the patern, and save ourselves. Because the world won't really be destroyed by us, we will just destory ourselves. The world will survive, like it has so many times in the past.

8 major waves of extintiction, with 99.99% of all forms of life being wipped out and yet, life goes on, the planet goes on. Once a nitrogen rich atmospher, now an oxygen rich one. Who knows what will happen in say, 500,000, a carbon rich one? With carbon breathing creatures?

And when the sun burns out, then what?

The planet has very little to fear from us. Besides, maybe it just wanted plastic, and now that it has it, is getting ride of us.

[The_Cataclysm]

Is a PB&J really the meaning of live?

No, pizza is. It's all in the circles.

[JayDubya]

The information exists regardless of if it's unobserved. It has to be there, in case someone does observe it, otherwise, we are saying that something ONLY exists once Humans interact with it, outside of that, it's only potentially existable?

Yes, in fact, until someone or something observes it, it only potentially exists. Watch this video for an example. At the quantum level, things do not "exist" as we think of the word, in a specific state and place. They, in fact, exist in many states at once. This is one of the reasons that us computer geeks are talking about Quantum Computers - these are computers that can solve many problems at once.... not quickly one after another - all at the same exact instant, because the "quantum bits" are both true and false at the same time.

And, for what it's worth, I am an Athiest, with no doubt that our existence is a happy accident, and that the Earth will continue to exist without our presence.

At the same time, we are the only species that is in the position of being able to transplant life from Earth to other star systems. That does make us special, in some ways.

[Mad_Bombardier]

Cat,

Do blondes really have more fun?

[The_Cataclysm]

Cat,

Do blondes really have more fun?

Blondes are second in having the most fun behind red heads.

[cdbd3rd]

So, ask away.

Okay.
Of the several options available, which boyfriend will the wife be seeing next. The Jap, The Russian, the Wal-Mart fart ex-co-worker, or the old classmate her mother is trying to hook her up with?

[cdbd3rd]

And, for what it's worth, I am an Athiest, with no doubt that our existence is a happy accident, and that the Earth will continue to exist without our presence.

The religious pitfall aside, no truer statement can be said except that the Earth would not only continue to exist (for an interstellar while), but would be far better off without us mucking around on it.

[Borrigain]

If global climate cycles of warming and cooling have been a natural phenomena for hundreds of thousands of years, and it is unlikely that these cycles of dramatic climate change will stop anytime soon, why do we continue to delude ourselves into thinking that "we" are the cause of global warming?


Just curious,
Borr.

[WolfSpirit]

If global climate cycles of warming and cooling have been a natural phenomena for hundreds of thousands of years, and it is unlikely that these cycles of dramatic climate change will stop anytime soon, why do we continue to delude ourselves into thinking that "we" are the cause of global warming?


Just curious,
Borr.

We are the cause. The warming and cooling is a subtle thing, over tens of thousands of years. We have warmed up the earth in under 200 years.
And, its a very simple experiment to prove it.

Take two clear empty plastic soda bottles and put a thermometer in each. Leave normal air in one and seal it off with a cap, fill the other with Carbon Dioxide (which is the biggest pollutant humans release in the millions of tons per day).
Put them both in the sun for 3 hours and take a reading of the temperature...

Proof positive...

[Ziggy]

could this be considered canabalism?

[Shecky]

Yes, in fact, until someone or something observes it, it only potentially exists. Watch this video for an example. At the quantum level, things do not "exist" as we think of the word, in a specific state and place. They, in fact, exist in many states at once. This is one of the reasons that us computer geeks are talking about Quantum Computers - these are computers that can solve many problems at once.... not quickly one after another - all at the same exact instant, because the "quantum bits" are both true and false at the same time.

And, for what it's worth, I am an Athiest, with no doubt that our existence is a happy accident, and that the Earth will continue to exist without our presence.

At the same time, we are the only species that is in the position of being able to transplant life from Earth to other star systems. That does make us special, in some ways.

Quantum indeterminacy (Schrödinger's Cat) is purely a result of the pitfalls of imprecise language. The simple fact that we are ignorant of a condition until we view it does in NO way mean that a multiple-state condition exists. "The cat is both alive and dead" is sheer anthropocentrism at its worst.

The religious pitfall aside, no truer statement can be said except that the Earth would not only continue to exist (for an interstellar while), but would be far better off without us mucking around on it.

I don't know why I have these arguments with myself but... You're an illusion in my mind. The idea that the universe existed before I did is a horse laugh. The earth and everything on it is merely a mental vision within my own mind (excellent processing capacity, my brain has ), and "you" are merely my own mind expressing itself.

Gawd, solipsism is just plain fun.

If global climate cycles of warming and cooling have been a natural phenomena for hundreds of thousands of years, and it is unlikely that these cycles of dramatic climate change will stop anytime soon, why do we continue to delude ourselves into thinking that "we" are the cause of global warming?


Just curious,
Borr.

Because each cycle was triggered by something. An increase in greenhouse gases, whatever the source, contributes greatly to each pendulum swing. We ARE cranking out, directly and indirectly, a LOT of greenhouse gases, not to mention the raw heat output of humanity and its devices in general. The problem is that the question is, at present, too big to be susceptible to analysis with any certainty of truth in the result. However, with the simple fact of greenhouse gases / increased heat output leading to another shift in the cycle, combined with the knowledge that we're putting out a lot of both, we HAVE to be having an effect on that cycle. The only question is how significant that impact may or may not be. The only answer, right now, is, "We don't know, but it doesn't look good for the home team."

[Vinos]

How much wood could a woodchuck chuck if a woodchuck could chuck wood?

[Dane_McArdy]

Quantum indeterminacy (Schrödinger's Cat) is purely a result of the pitfalls of imprecise language. The simple fact that we are ignorant of a condition until we view it does in NO way mean that a multiple-state condition exists. "The cat is both alive and dead" is sheer anthropocentrism at its worst.

Thank you, I knew that how he was explaining Mr. S's Cat was wrong, and that how people use it as an example has become twisted. Some thing exists, you just can't prove it's state until you observe it. It's state exists.

People need to be able to see a world that fuctions and interacts with it's self outside of any human reason.

Just look at life that exists at the bottom of the ocean, and has done so for countless years. Only recently has man ever been able to explore some of these depths. And yet a whole world has been going on down there. Without our observation.

[Dane_McArdy]

As for the whole, "the world is nothing more then my imagination, line"

Why would I ever imagine such an existance? Sure, I have a good life now. I didn't always. And I've been aware of this concept since I was in my teens. So I would certainly hope that I would have imagined a better life along the way from then to now.