+- Las Venturas Playground (https://forum.sa-mp.nl)
+-- Forum: Miscellaneous (https://forum.sa-mp.nl/forum-4.html)
+--- Forum: General Talk (https://forum.sa-mp.nl/forum-24.html)
+--- Thread: [Serious Discussion] Religion (/thread-26936.html)
Pages:
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
133
134
135
136
137
138
139
140
141
142
143
144
145
146
147
148
149
150
151
152
153
154
155
156
157
158
159
160
161
Re: [Serious Discussion] Religion - LIke - 06-10-2011
wheres the two week mute when u need it...
Re: [Serious Discussion] Religion - STyL4 - 06-10-2011
(06-09-2011, 09:43 PM)STyL4 link Wrote: Since collapse is ontologically identical with protophenomenal observation (meaning the same thing that occurs in both mental observation and observation by non-mental equipment), how can self-collapse not equal self-observation? Since self-observation is equal to consciousness how is self-collapse ontologically different in any way shape or form from self-observation?
if im the clueless one then explain please. waiting for an answer, if u dont have stop going off topic, just proves ure a clueless troll getting owned. both ways = win.
Re: [Serious Discussion] Religion - MidNight - 06-10-2011
so like styla is on the believer side or on atheist side?
Re: [Serious Discussion] Religion - Silent_Bob - 06-10-2011
(06-10-2011, 09:20 PM)MidNight link Wrote: so like styla is on the believer side or on atheist side?
believer
Re: [Serious Discussion] Religion - MidNight - 06-10-2011
oh good, GO STYLA!
Re: [Serious Discussion] Religion - Richard - 06-11-2011
Quit the namecalling.
Re: [Serious Discussion] Religion - Tuism - 06-11-2011
(06-10-2011, 09:39 PM)MidNight link Wrote: oh good, GO STYLA!
believer doesn't necessarily mean a good thing
sometimes believer = stupid ass troll kid
Re: [Serious Discussion] Religion - Maka - 06-11-2011
(06-11-2011, 07:51 AM)TwistedDemon link Wrote: believer doesn't necessarily mean a good thing
sometimes believer = stupid ass troll kid
Exactly.
Re: [Serious Discussion] Religion - STyL4 - 06-11-2011
(06-11-2011, 07:51 AM)TwistedDemon link Wrote: believer doesn't necessarily mean a good thing
sometimes believer = stupid ass troll kid
yes, and as for that... if u mean me, don't u troll. Maka couldn't reply and so can't u, it's way too scientific for u.. because so far in ur replies i didn't see so much of a science. sometimes believer can be a good scientists also.
answer :
"Since collapse is ontologically identical with protophenomenal observation (meaning the same thing that occurs in both mental observation and observation by non-mental equipment), how can self-collapse not equal self-observation? Since self-observation is equal to consciousness how is self-collapse ontologically different in any way shape or form from self-observation?"
Re: [Serious Discussion] Religion - STyL4 - 06-11-2011
(06-10-2011, 07:16 PM)STyL4 link Wrote: Maka u still here? this discussion does not involve u because u obviously dont know whats going on, face it(dont say u do otherwise ur agument'd be better)
0target0, i guess i reached the limit of ur "patience", gg
"Therefore they are not real and therefore your god is not real."
u're doing his quantum all backwards if u think there is no real wave-like nature before collapse occurs: Dear Positivists: Who's The Quantum Mystic Now?
If there is no real probability wave then we wouldn't be seeing an interference pattern in the double-slit experiment. Also the ensemble interpretation has long been debunked.
This is from Hameroff's site directly: (Hameroff is the guy who teamed up with Penrose on Orch-OR)
Problematic Feature of Consciousness:
"Essential nature of human experience"
Possible Quantum Solutions:
"1) Wave function self collapse (Orch OR) from incompatible superposition of separated space-times;
2) Pre-consciousconscious transition;
3) Effectively instantaneous "now"(Orch OR) collapse."
"
http://www.quantumconsciousness.org/penrose-hameroff/orchor.html"
nuff said 0target0, yet another argument of urs "cuz i say so" has been proven a fail. deny more u want, u've officialy lost this debate, now go state ur own opinion because u simply can't stop, but the fact is that u're wrong. THESE UP THERE ARE FACTS. if u deny them, u deny science therefore u can't say NOTHING about Religion, NOTHING about this debate itself.
Johananratz truly is a scientists, not to mention his public debates... he's master at this, engineers cant stop him.
ORCH OR wins. facts are provided here, answer with a proper fact or u're considered as a bad debater or ur opinion can't be counted as a FACT.