JackC

There may be private revealation but there are no known cases of it that have proven to be true. Neither is there any proven entity known to be capable of producing such an effect. There are however, countless cases of auditory and optical halucination. In fact halucinations are very common and can be caused by something as simple as tiredness. So unless you can categorically discount halucinations and I don't see how you can, private revealation will always be subject to the real and significant possibility that it had a more earthly origin. Therefore, claiming private revealation isn't evidence enough to convince someone else and should really be viewed with skepticism by the person experiencing it.

Well it is really. It might be a base level definition that many religions believe, but since there is no evidence to suggest that there is a universal intelligence, it's an arbitrary criterion.

An arbitrary definition and a couple of ifs doesn't point to anything significantly.

Humans. Winners of the genetic lottery. Luck has no purpose, it just is.

The Bible DOES deal with this very issue, in many places. Have you actually read it? Job was my favourite. God basically smote him over a bet with the devil. Go God! I think if that happend these days, they'd film it and call it Jackass.

So you're saying that Christians believe that God isn't going to lift a finger to help anyone if it infringes someones elses free will (or even if it doesn't)? Essentially, your saying that Christians believe that we're on our own down here? Yes that is the reality of it, God isn't going to help whether that is because of human free will or because God is a fictional character. But that doesn't seem to be what some Christians think. Take Windcatcher for example: "I know this can be a hard concept to grasp, but God is in control. We are not God and we won't understand everything till heaven, but I do believe that we go through things on earth for a reason.". That seems to be the words of a person who thinks God is the big puppet master in the sky making sure everything goes according to his plan. It's a pretty fucking dangerous outlook too IMHO. Hell even the Bible says "If you have faith as a grain of mustard seed you can say to this mountain : move ! And it will move ! And nothing will be impossible to you". That strongly implies that God will move mountains for you if you have enough faith (mustard seed sized faith). Maybe you're not a typical Christian, or maybe Windcatcher isn't a typical Christian, maybe there are no typical Christians, but either way your assertion that "that is not what we Christians believe" doesn't seem to be true now does it?

Well, I'm not too sure how that would go down with me if I was doing the interview. Plus points for business acumen, negative points for maybe being a bit too pedantic. Interesting thought though. Do you think that pulling out IP contracts would negatively affect your chances at interview? How would you react if someone you were interviewing asked for you to sign an NDA? Yup. Actually, they pulled another fast one on me. They said it would be a laid back interview so not to prepare anything (usually a presentation is in order in my business). When I got there they gave me 15 minutes and a flip-chart to prepare a 10 minute presentation I had to give to the entire company. No pressure eh? I thought that was pure genius. Twisted but pure genius.

Already on it.

As I suspected. I didn't write anything up at the time because I thought I stood a good chance of getting the job. So I have nothing to back up my claim. Stuff I invent on company time rightfully belongs to the company (I signed the contract after all) but I wasn't on their time, I was on my time. I think it was a bit low for them to get the benefit of free consultancy and not even offer me the job though. My ideas were obviously good enough. I guess that I have to take this as a lesson in protecting my own IP.

I think this is one of those things that I'll have to write off to experience but it's still bloody annoying. I'm a physicist and a couple of years ago I interviewed for a job at a start-up company to join their research team. During the interview they had me brainstorming ideas on one of their research dilemmas which was a way to perform 3D subsurface imaging. I came up with a method which at the time I was quite proud of because I knew it would work. By the reaction I got from them, I could tell they hadn't thought of it. Anyway, in due course I was told that I didn't get the job. Oh well, shit happens. Then today I find that the sneaky bastards have patented my idea and are producing imaging equipment using that very technique. So the interview was probably just a free consultancy excercise and they hit the jackpot. Now I don't much care about the job but they are making money off my idea which is bloody annoying. Since I didn't keep any records of my idea other than conversations with friends after the interview, it's my word against theirs and they have the patent so I assume I'm screwed. The question is, do I have any course of action open to me or is it a case of learn to patent your own crap before they do?

ich versuche lernen deutsch zu sprechen, aber ich finde es sehr schwer die worte zu erinnern. Ich glaube, es ist eine sehr schlechte Gerüche hier heute.

I'll bet you could tell something about their political views too.

You're right, some scientific disciplines don't generally get involved with conciousness, but why would they? You can't find an exact solution to the Schrodinger equation for Helium, so you're just not going to be able to do it for an entire human brain. It's not the fact that science is ignoring conciousness, it's not, there are many scientific disciplines that are fully involved, but that some areas of science aren't really that usefull in tackling it.

Sorry but you need to go back and read up on QM. The expectation value for two particles to be in the same place at the same time is not zero. In otherwords, different objects can touch. Inverse beta decay is a well documented example of this. That's the problem with pop science, you only get half the picture and it's been drawn with crayons.

After studying quantum physics professionally for many many years, I think the perceived overlap between QM and metaphysics is utter crap. It's usually based on an incorrect and superficial understanding of quantum physics. Unfortunately, trying to put QM in a popular science framework usually does little to further understanding and actually does more harm than good. In fact the only pop science book I've ever read that does a good job of explaining QM is "QED, the strange theory of light and matter" by Richard Feynman. I strongly suggest that anyone who thinks there is something in the metaphysics/quantum physics overlap should read that book.

Acording to the Bible, Adam (of Adam and Eve fame) apparently died when he was 930 years old. Since the world has only been around for 6 days (cos we're in the sixth day right now), Adam must have predated God by about oh... 930 years. And in God years that a bazzilion million trillion earth years.

Nah not basketball. Theology as a subject is more on a par with something like Medieval Golf Course Management or Klingon History.

Neither do I. Now you see I don't take that literally either. At least I'm consistent.

First, which article? I didn't post one. Second, a theory is a testable model that explains one or more facts. A fact is merely an observation of some aspect of nature. A law is a description (usually mathematical) of a scientific fact and seeks to provide no insight as to why that fact occurs it merely states that it does. Theories are there to provide the insight that both facts and laws do not and cannot provide. Facts (and laws) cannot be theories and theories can never become fact. Ever.

Awesome. Seriously, read up on what the scientific definitions of the words hypothesis, theory, law and fact are.

No, that's why I asked you to explain the difference. A reptile losing it's legs would be micro. A reptile becoming a mammal would be macro. You just made that up!

I don't know for sure since I'm not American, but in terms of European politics, American politics seems to be a bit like this: They have left wing (meaning right wing) politicians and right wing (meaning right wing) politicians. Anyone who is left leaning (meaning right leaning) is wrong leaning. Anyone right leaning (meaning right leaning) is right. Any argument between right and left must immediately mean the blow job card is played against the left who are wrong but actually right (and may even be right). At least I think I'm right (and right) which is actually left and not wrong. Is that any clearer?

No, it implies that they may become the same thing. What do you mean by "may become the same thing"?

I'd love to hear your argument Bill. I think that was his argument.

So, if someone "believes" that 2+2=5, has no evidence to support his theory, it still stands? For sufficiently large values of 2, yes.