Jump to content

Welcome to Nightly.Net
Register now to gain access to all of our features. Once registered and logged in, you will be able to create topics, post replies to existing threads, give reputation to your fellow members, get your own private messenger, post status updates, manage your profile and so much more. If you already have an account, login here - otherwise create an account for free today!
Photo

21st Century Predictions


103 replies to this topic

#51
pavonis

pavonis

    Member

  • Member
  • 6,905 posts

Actually, electromagnetism is already fully compatible with relativity; we don't need a unified field theory for that. We want a UFT to connect the strong force, gravity, and the electroweak force as different aspects of one universal force field. There's no guarantee that a UFT is possible to construct; the laws of physics may simply be asymmetric from the get-go. We want to develop a theory that unifies quantum theory and relativity theory, but even a successful marriage of the two theories won't make it possible to justify belief in astrology.



#52
RamonAtila

RamonAtila

    Member

  • Members
  • 885 posts

I think I'm better suited to engaging in other people's established topics, because I'll tend to spin quite the web and go everywhere and nowhere fast.

 

 I'm a man of faith. I don't limit my beliefs to what we can categorize. But I'm also a man of logic. If I can't explain it, I'll do more harm giving a half-assed explanation and I'll let it go/



#53
pavonis

pavonis

    Member

  • Member
  • 6,905 posts

But I'm also a man of logic.

I've seen no evidence to support this claim. 


  • monkeygirl +1 this

#54
RamonAtila

RamonAtila

    Member

  • Members
  • 885 posts

Ironically, most of my arguing power is in debunking. Read my post (#18) here:http://nightly.net/t...f-our-universe/ but then again who isn't good at debunking? I just tried to do the opposite this time. You don't know me very well.



#55
Carrie Mathison

Carrie Mathison

    Member

  • Member
  • 1,108 posts
Yo Pavonis, man why are you actually spending time on this?



look, even then I'll have nothing for you guys because there's no unified field theory to connect relativity to electromagnetism. there's no common denominator. I talk about the relativity and you guys need empirical evidence of causality. I talk about electromagnetism and you guys say: "well, how is that supposed to be in the context of a storied life?" penises and vaginas. penises and vaginas. the whole world is made of penises and vaginas and then can never get along. Im sorry, folks, we cant get two ***holes to be penises and vaginas at the same time.



LOL... how high is this guy right now!?
  • pavonis +1 this

#56
monkeygirl

monkeygirl

    Advad Disagerer

  • Administrator
  • 22,202 posts
AMANda!!!!!!!! <3 xoxoxox

#57
pavonis

pavonis

    Member

  • Member
  • 6,905 posts

Yo Pavonis, man why are you actually spending time on this?

I was bored. 


  • Ryn +1 this

#58
RamonAtila

RamonAtila

    Member

  • Members
  • 885 posts

Ahh, he just came on to badmouth renowned scientist inventor Ray Kurzweil because he's an affected jealous shpooz. Probably feelings of inadequacy comparing his glamorous career at whatever clown college it is he teaches at. You still need to prove why he's a jackass, Pavonis; you must provide undeniable scientific evidence to back up such a claim.



#59
monkeygirl

monkeygirl

    Advad Disagerer

  • Administrator
  • 22,202 posts

I don't limit my beliefs to what we can categorize.

 

What criteria DO you use to establish your beliefs?



#60
pavonis

pavonis

    Member

  • Member
  • 6,905 posts
What the hell is a "shpooz"?

You want to worship Kurzweil, go ahead. You ought to read the article linked here, though.
spectrum.ieee.org/computing/software/ray-kurzweils-slippery-futurism

Kurzweil's a jackass because he doesn't seem to really grasp the physics of half the things he predicts on, and half the things he "predicted" were already trending anyway. Anyone can extrapolate a trend. To paraphrase sci-fi author Frederick Pohl "anyone can predict the automobile; it takes insight to predict the traffic jam". What has Kurzweil predicted - that has come true - that no one else predicted?

#61
RamonAtila

RamonAtila

    Member

  • Members
  • 885 posts

Wow. Now let me finally take MY TURN (thank God) to say the last two posts are the two stupidest things I ever read! I'm not even answering! I'm don with this!



#62
RamonAtila

RamonAtila

    Member

  • Members
  • 885 posts

Jeez you guys really point the finger at ME for all the contradicting statements. Im done. I don't care anymore.



#63
RamonAtila

RamonAtila

    Member

  • Members
  • 885 posts

I remind myself of Ray Kurzweil. Ridiculed for being optimistic, my arguments are limited because they exist in the stupid realm of the people Im arguing with in the first place. Half the stuff that was trending was s*** he invented anyway, his statements are misconstrued by people like you cause all you do all day is disprove Creationists and watch too much Terminator,



#64
RamonAtila

RamonAtila

    Member

  • Members
  • 885 posts

the latest technologies are around decades before they reach the consumer. that's all I gotta say about your article



#65
RamonAtila

RamonAtila

    Member

  • Members
  • 885 posts

You're a Best Buy physicist. (Do they have Best Buy in the US?)



#66
Darth Krawlie

Darth Krawlie

    privileged ****lord

  • Moderators
  • 34,900 posts

what is happening


  • Pong Messiah, Cerina and Burt +1 this

#67
pavonis

pavonis

    Member

  • Member
  • 6,905 posts
I have no idea, but I think it's entertaining. What's a "Best Buy physicist"? I've never heard that one before.
  • monkeygirl +1 this

#68
RamonAtila

RamonAtila

    Member

  • Members
  • 885 posts

A Best Buy physicist is a physicist who only thinks something exists if it's on the racks at Best Buy. The article you shared came close to disproving Kurzweil only once: when it said he was wrong to predict there'd be computers built into clothes and the like when all we have is pads and smartphones. But the article was wrong, the technology DOES exist, and did exist at the time he said it would. It just wasn't available to the consumer. The rest of the article never disproves Kurzweil, it just says it doesn't like the way Kurzweil says what he's trying to say. (Can't I relate there?)

 

Kurzweil admits he wasn't always right. He says a couple of his predictions were essentially true, which means they were off by only a couple years or so. I suppose that makes his predictions entirely wrong. (Can't I relate there also? http://nightly.net/t...pattern-theory/)

 

As for the reason I don't like you and called you a "sphooz"? You shoot me down for not being able to prove astrology, when you haven't exactly been able to disprove it neither. (astrology ACCOUNTS for our oh-so-subtle connection to the planets)

 

You harass astrology readers for being zealots when you're ZEALOUSLY ANTI-ASTROLOGY. (They must all be ridiculed for what they are because it's not what I believe in!)

 

There were many brilliant scientists that thought Charles Darwin was crazy, because what he was saying was too much for their hearts to bear. (scientists have hearts too) They ZEALOUSLY followed convention, which consisted of thousands of well-written science books. They weren't slack-jawed Creationists, they were well-written intelligent people. It was just too much for their hearts, but they wouldn't admit that. They said it was illogical. (Man cannot be an animal because no animal on the planet is known to drive cars or wear clothes. Simple 'logic'.)

 

Show me the EQUATION that completely disproves astrology. There's as many small tests that show astrology has merit than there are tests to show astrology is pure chance. (I suppose 50-50 is not good enough odds to buy a mega-lotto ticket)



#69
Carrie Mathison

Carrie Mathison

    Member

  • Member
  • 1,108 posts
Look RA- pavonis is being a bit of a dick, this is true, but quite honestly your posts are hard to follow and it's difficult to understand what you're trying to say. I don't think all of the ideas you've shared are completely dumb.. the credentials of Kurzweil aside, I think he talks about interesting ideas that are worth discussing, and I've always found the technological singularity concept somewhat fascinating. But that being said, your posts make you sound like some stoned college kid throwing around a bunch of terms that you have no understanding of, but heard one time on an episode of NOVA or something. Of note is that pavonis did engage the point of your thread and offered a prediction, of which your response was borderline incoherent, followed by your ranting about astrology, followed finally by your post about penises and vaginas, which I read over 3 times and I still have NO idea what the F-CK you were trying to say. So at this point it is obvious you are either trolling or are hopped up on LSD, and either way, my point stands that I have no clue why pavonis is entertaining this for 3 pages now, no matter how bored he may be.
  • pavonis and monkeygirl +1 this

#70
Darth Ender

Darth Ender

    Member

  • Members
  • 522 posts

 

As for the reason I don't like you and called you a "sphooz"? You shoot me down for not being able to prove astrology, when you haven't exactly been able to disprove it neither. (astrology ACCOUNTS for our oh-so-subtle connection to the planets)

 

 

 

 

I think you are working backwards.  If you make a claim (astrology is real), it is on the person making the claim to prove it.  Period.  If astrology is real, you need to demonstrate measurable, specific, empirical evidence that supports that astronomical bodies have an impact on human behavior based on calender months.  I posted this earlier, but I would strongly encourage you to check out the Bad Astronomy website here.  

 

Reading your posts, you make several vague claims that are left open for interpretation as far as both meaning, significance. and time frame.  Let's just take one example:

 

"Neptune & Uranus in mutual reception. Forward strides in understanding feelings. Psychological discoveries, mind control (propaganda, meditative techniques, cults and governments) are in the news. Progressive ideas become more attractive to established religion"  

 

Depending on the frame of reference, this can be applied at anytime.   You need to provide evidence that makes a specific prediction that reads as "under conditions a,b, and c; x will impact y with a +/- correlation coefficient of z".  In an earlier post, you mentioned that the moon impacts the tides.  That is a specific and measurable prediction.  It can be predicted when, what, and where an event will occur.  "Given the condition of non-storm weather and a water depth of x meters, when the moon is overhead a specific area of the Earth, that area will have high tide with a correlation coefficent of +.999 (or something like that)".    

 

What is on the website (and astrology in general) offers no such measurable precision that your tide example provides.  There are several more steps (such as accounting for lingering variables), but let's just start here.  


  • monkeygirl +1 this

#71
pavonis

pavonis

    Member

  • Member
  • 6,905 posts

Now that there's another intelligent poster here, I'll add this statement. If you're familiar with the "hot-crazy" meme from HIMYM (i.e., a person can only be so crazy if they're hot, or must be very hot if they're very crazy). There's a similar idea in science, but it's the "brilliant-***hole" relationship. You can be an ass all you want, if you're brilliant. The more brilliant, the more of an ass you can get away with being. I don't think Kurzweil is as brilliant as necessary to justify his "I was right, just a couple years off" attitude on his predictions. Kurzweil has claimed that Google fits his prediction of the existence of a 20 petaflop supercomputer by 2009. Google is not a supercomputer. If he would just admit to making mistakes in his predictions, that'd be fine, but twisting his definitions to fit his predictions is disingenuous. He does not account for many factors in his predictions, primarily human psychology and physics. He knows computers, and that's about it. He's good at that, though, so he should stick to his strengths. I think he likes being the Prophet of the Singularity and being worshiped by singularity-geeks. For that demographic, he can do no wrong.  



#72
Copper

Copper

    I am groot

  • Member
  • 12,595 posts

what is happening

DDMBW.gif


The best thread Nightly has had in months.
  • pavonis, Darth Krawlie, monkeygirl and 2 others like this

#73
Carrie Mathison

Carrie Mathison

    Member

  • Member
  • 1,108 posts

Well pavonis, let me clarify what I was saying about Kurzweil. As I said, I take no real strong position on either his credentials, or his ability to make meaningful predictions, except to say, while the man is certainly intelligent and has a solid background and education in computer science, I am immediately skeptical of anyone who claims to be able to forecast the future, and start with the presumption that said person (unless proven otherwise), is full of sh-t. I am well aware that he has a habit of rephrasing his predictions, sort of like the guy who continues to predict (and re-predict) the end of the world.

Notwithstanding that, however, I do find many topics Kurzweil comments about to be fascinating, such as futurism, the technological singularity, Moore's Law, and so on.  A caveat, of course, being that many discussions of those topics are based in almost complete hypotheticals, with an element of science fiction present in them.

 

That being said, I think there is a difference between talking about those topics in a whimsical manner, and this odd cult that has formed around him that considers him to be some sort of Nostradamus, which is of course, uncommonly silly behavior.



#74
RamonAtila

RamonAtila

    Member

  • Members
  • 885 posts

I predicted the population would get more decentralized because of the web. Pavonis then predicted that centralized populations would grow instead and disadvantaged urbanites wouldn't be able to leave because they'd need resources in the city. I then responded by saying I dont see why a growing urban population would prevent the growth of an out-of-city one. Then I cited the rise of online education and online social networking as examples. What's so incoherent about that?

 

I don't mind you think my vocabulary or way of explaining things is dumbed-down. You guys have no idea how I see you. I think your reasoning is dumb-down. I feel a lot of close-mindedness. Plus, you guys are the type of people that would watch NOVA.



#75
RamonAtila

RamonAtila

    Member

  • Members
  • 885 posts

That post was for Carrie, I still gotta read the following new ones.





Reply to this topic