[Serious Discussion] Religion

[0Target0]

Seems like you have no clue what happeh theory is.

Fine go on deny happeh with your orch or theory. Happeh was approved by many scientists. You are a kid of 17 and no wonder, you're the one who knows bests how erections work. Sorry i'm going to deny your orch or theory.

you really are educated since you don't know what masturbation is about. IRONY! 

[Greyfox]

Is this topic abotu mastrubation or religino?

[Dominator33]

Mastrubation is a religion.

[ELABD]

i didn't read every post but i want to show u wat i believe in
Quran for all : بكاء الشيخ السديس في تلاوة خاشعة
طفل معجزة ايات مكتوبة على جسده

[Tuism]

Happeh was approved by many scientists.

Really?

I thought he is just a troll on youtube..
I mean.. look at his replies: "I am curious. What did Satan have to do to recruit you? No one but someone who works for Satan could possibly write what you did."


"LOL"

[0Target0]

Really?

Just see how much value the line 'approved by scientist' brings in a debate. You don't even need to mention who these scientists are or in what context they have talked about the subject.

For example:

God is a worm theory has been approved by scientists.

Discussionstopper value in that line.

Thus untrue scientific value is an easy abuse in discussions:

take a look at this president:

Mahmoud Ahmadinejad says Europe 'stealing Iran's rain'

Scientific proof rite.

[STyL4]

(read my next post, disproving you once again 0target0.)

[STyL4]

hehe, ORCH OR  theory disproves you once again:

"Properties are part of the physical constitution of something. PART. So if a PART of something is equal to a PART of another thing doesnt mean that the two physical constitutions are the same."

we were only dealing with parts in the first place. So it's not like a property of Z=A and a property of X=A as well because we were never talking about X and Z to begin with. Simply put "observation = collapse" The two are ontologically equivalent assuming that we do not hold to substance dualism. There are no "sub-properties" of observation and collapse because they themselves are intrinsic.


"Scientific conclusions are re-executed, verified, peer reviewed. Something that is unvalid for the websites you have posted. Wow just wow, thought you learned those things at school. But I guess your education isn't that good."

Wigner's thought experiment equating conscious observation as ontologically equal to measurement: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wigner%27s_...easurement

tsince conscious observation is ontologically identical to measurement/collapse that consciousness (self-observation) is by definition self-collapse.

As with youtube video's, that is also real proof: < then he posts some videos>""


you've got disproved ONCE again 0target0, just stop it already, its a massive fail. you cant disprove that theory and those are FACTs. calling me a troll just makes u more clueless here

[Greyfox]

42

[0Target0]

hehe, ORCH OR  theory disproves you once again:

we were only dealing with parts in the first place. So it's not like a property of Z=A and a property of X=A as well because we were never talking about X and Z to begin with. Simply put "observation = collapse" The two are ontologically equivalent assuming that we do not hold to substance dualism. There are no "sub-properties" of observation and collapse because they themselves are intrinsic.

* The wave function of the universe is self collapsing *

-> similar to; The color of my hair is brown. Which is a physical property of my hair. see the analogy.

* Self-collapsing wave-functions are minds*

-> As you will understand (I mean you're not THAT stupid), If I set up a self collapsing wave function on my oscilloscope, it is not a mind. An atom orbital, is not a mind. So, while using another UNPROVEN theory (because from what i read this is still under discussion); you might be able to say that the property of a mind is the self collapsing wave function. Even with that it is necessary that you strictly define the word mind.

However combining the both to the universe is a mind is absolutely retarded.

Maybe you can use a list of other consciousness theories to pick one that actually does fit in your arguments?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Co..._theorists


hehe Target disproves you once again, better call god to stop me.

As with youtube video's, that is also real proof: < then he posts some videos>""

I'm having the impression that your mental capacities are below the average reader on this forum. I was posting youtube video's with a bullshit theory so the analogy with your bullshit theory video's might be clear. Hey...I was actually making fun of you.

you've got disproved ONCE again 0target0, just stop it already, its a massive fail. you cant disprove that theory and those are FACTs. calling me a troll just makes u more clueless here

Me fail?  Oh right, you're anticipating for what others might say to you.

ok.