i already know enough, i've been in therapy for almost my entire life.
if any of the cells were to be replaced in the brain in those important parts those cells would be completely new. anything on the old cells that were replaced would be gone. it's like reformatting a harddrive.
[QUOTE=Stormcharger;38566890]Neurons in the cerebral cortex are never replaced. There are no neurons added to your cerebral cortex after birth. Any cerebral cortex neurons that die are not replaced.[/QUOTE]
That's not what I'm saying, at all. Since neurons need nourishment to sustain themselves it is the slow replacement of their building blocks that actually replaces them. I'm not talking about neurogenesis.
[editline]24th November 2012[/editline]
[QUOTE=NeoSeeker;38569634]i already know enough, i've been in therapy for almost my entire life.
if any of the cells were to be replaced in the brain in those important parts those cells would be completely new. anything on the old cells that were replaced would be gone. it's like reformatting a harddrive.[/QUOTE]
So how do they sustain themselves as a cell if its building blocks are never repaired?
[editline]24th November 2012[/editline]
Stormcharger and NeoSeeker, you throw facts around arrogantly correcting anyone just for the sake of being right. It's pitiful though that you can't even comprehend the fact that associating different fields of science is the definition of philosophy. We are in a philosophy thread, stop taking everything literally if you only possess knowledge in one field of science.
uuum.. from what i have heard, the old saying that braincells does not regenerate is simply just not true. Brains cells in all parts of the brain regenerate, move around and make new connections over time. The brain contains around 100 billion cells. Just because you lose some cells and get new ones does not mean you will change quickly as an indvidual.
[QUOTE=Stalk;38570395]uuum.. from what i have heard, the old saying that braincells does not regenerate is simply just not true. Brains cells in all parts of the brain regenerate, move around and make new connections over time. The brain contains around 100 billion cells. Just because you lose some cells and get new ones does not mean you will change quickly as an indvidual.[/QUOTE]
You're talking about neuroplasticity which is the change in neurosynaptic patterns for the purpose of adapting to different forms of stimuli.
you talk big shit (when you don't even know what the fuck we're really talking about) and in a sesquipedalian loquaciousness manner.
who's arrogant?
[QUOTE=NeoSeeker;38535736]the universe started out with an initial finite amount of energy.[/QUOTE]
Incorrect, this implies that you apply gravity as a force of physical mass attraction to support this claim. There's however nothing in quantum mechanics that provides evidence that gravity even exists. String theory however does support the idea of mass expansion. If every energy in the universe was expanding at the same rate, we would not notice it since we are a part of it. So since everything expands they would appear to move closer to eachother when in fact they are simply expanding to the point of collision.
This means that objects in the universe was simply smaller at the time when "the universe started" rather than being popped out of nowhere. There was no beginning to the universe and there certainly wont be an end. Because this expansion defines gravity and therefore entropy will never be able to cause the dissipation of existence since entropy only applies in an isolated system.
[QUOTE=NeoSeeker;38535736]everything before you came from the same big blast, if you really get right down to it we are all the same thing in a sense because everything came from the same singularity. that singularity wasn't infinite or all powerful though, eventually everything from the blast will subside, and nothing will be left.[/QUOTE]
Also incorrect. There's no evidence to support the concept of singularity. If you're thinking about black holes as singularities, you're wrong. Black holes are created under so extreme pressures that the mass of the black hole reaches a form of higher density star that expands faster than the rest of the universe, though it doesn't seem to expand faster since it doesn't increase in size, that's because it receives gravitational pressure from the spatial energy that surrounds it, like a domino-effect from the energy in the rest of the universe.
This domino-effect is actually light itself, that's why it doesn't have mass, and that's why a black star is perceived as a black hole.
String theory is an incomplete theory. Einsteins theory on special and general relativity is an incomplete theory. My unified field theory is not incomplete.
[editline]24th November 2012[/editline]
[QUOTE=NeoSeeker;38571123]you talk big shit (when you don't even know what the fuck we're really talking about) and in a sesquipedalian loquaciousness manner.[/QUOTE]
I learned English by studying thesauruses and dictionaries, people will always view me as a pretentious talker simply for the fact that I am autistic. So arrogance thy name, is still you.
i don't even need to say anything.
[QUOTE=NeoSeeker;38571658]i don't even need to say anything.[/QUOTE]
You can't even comprehend the paradox of that sentence.
[QUOTE=Memnoth;38569960]That's not what I'm saying, at all. Since neurons need nourishment to sustain themselves it is the slow replacement of their building blocks that actually replaces them. I'm not talking about neurogenesis.
[editline]24th November 2012[/editline]
So how do they sustain themselves as a cell if its building blocks are never repaired?
[editline]24th November 2012[/editline]
Stormcharger and NeoSeeker, you throw facts around arrogantly correcting anyone just for the sake of being right. It's pitiful though that you can't even comprehend the fact that associating different fields of science is the definition of philosophy. We are in a philosophy thread, stop taking everything literally if you only possess knowledge in one field of science.[/QUOTE]
How did I throw the facts around arrogantly, I simply neutrally stated them calm your tits bro
[QUOTE=Stormcharger;38572928]How did I throw the facts around arrogantly, I simply neutrally stated them calm your tits bro[/QUOTE]
[url]http://www.facepunch.com/showthread.php?t=1166383&p=38572174&viewfull=1#post38572174[/url]
I hope you understand.
i cant smoke weed anymore, I feel like a fucking loser
not saying smoking weed makes anyone a loser, no disrespect to anyone, just a personal decision
makes me feel like a loser when i'm sitting around with my thumb up my ass 24/7
[QUOTE=NeoSeeker;38577755]makes me feel like a loser when i'm sitting around with my thumb up my ass 24/7[/QUOTE]
Maybe try a different finger?
[QUOTE=Memnoth;38571555]Also incorrect. There's no evidence to support the concept of singularity. If you're thinking about black holes as singularities, you're wrong. [/QUOTE]
No sorry that's false
Hawking and Penrose proved that as long as at least one of several possible energy conditions hold, any black hole must have an associated singularity.
[QUOTE=Memnoth;38571555]Black holes are created under so extreme pressures that the mass of the black hole reaches a form of higher density star that expands faster than the rest of the universe, though it doesn't seem to expand faster since it doesn't increase in size, that's because it receives gravitational pressure from the spatial energy that surrounds it, like a domino-effect from the energy in the rest of the universe.
This domino-effect is actually light itself, that's why it doesn't have mass, and that's why a black star is perceived as a black hole.
String theory is an incomplete theory. Einsteins theory on special and general relativity is an incomplete theory. My unified field theory is not incomplete.[/QUOTE]
Half of what you just said makes no sense so it's pretty clear you have no idea what you're talking about
black stars are fucking awesome.
they're like on my top 10 list of things i want to see with my own eyes if i ever had the capability to explore space.
They're one of my favorite things in all of physics.
[QUOTE=pancaker94;38577061]i cant smoke weed anymore, I feel like a fucking loser
not saying smoking weed makes anyone a loser, no disrespect to anyone, just a personal decision[/QUOTE]
Same.
[QUOTE=Memnoth;38573063][url]http://www.facepunch.com/showthread.php?t=1166383&p=38572174&viewfull=1#post38572174[/url]
I hope you understand.[/QUOTE]
All good my man
I posted this in the Assignment for college thread, although I believe it would be better suited in this thread. This is my essay in support for the "Fine Tuning Argument" for the existence of God.
[quote]
[b]God of Dice[/b]
In a world with cellophane flowers towering over your head and a girl with diamonds in the sky, it is likely that either you are hallucinating, or someone tinkered with the cosmological constants. The ‘blessing’ that many do not consider in their day to day lives is the fact that the sheer existence of our universe, as we see it, is incredibly unlikely. The cosmological “Fine Tuning Argument for God” is one of the stronger arguments amongst those popular in the philosophy of religion. Although the fine tuning argument is sound, it is limited by the classical definition of God, and the inherent tendency to limit God. I hope to argue not only why the fine tuning argument is reasonable and stands up against various objections, but also why both its proponents and opponents are flawed in their dealing with God.
The cosmological “Fine Tuning Argument” rests on the shoulders of science in respect of creation. Simply stated, the fine tuning argument says that the physical constants of our universe, such as Planck’s constant or the speed of light, being so uniquely balanced on a knife edge to support our existence, are proof of intelligent design. This argument is reasonable due to the fact that we only know one time that this has happened. The big bang and its resulting constants have primarily 3 possible explanations; chance, necessity, or design. The laws as we understand them have no built in necessity for things to go the way they did. We must go to chance to tell us that the amount of other ways it could have gone are so immense that the probability of our universe is infinitesimally small. To accept the fine tuning argument is as reasonable as to accept the causality that tomorrow the laws of physics will be the same as today, it is a matter of patterns. It is slightly similarly reasonable to postulate a large number of Multi-verses in which we are only aware of our own.
The Multi-verse theory, although hypothetical, is one that attacks the fine tuning argument in a way difficult to provide a rebuttal to. The idea is that in a world of infinite possibilities, which likened to the roll of a die, if you were to roll the die long enough eventually you would get 11 consecutive sixes, or rather a stable set of physical laws. Richard Swinburne’s argument of the card shuffling machine says that if you were to win against all odds in a low probability game of Russian roulette, you would not be reasonable to say that the game was rigged. The issue with this is that you would be reasonable to think the game was rigged unless you saw multiple turns, maybe with different people, in order to see if it ever went off. John Wheeler, a theoretical physicist, argued against the fine tuning argument stating that due to the observer effect of particles, the past is irrelevant as the point of genesis is constantly in the now. Not only is the concept of the now a far too vast point to cover, but the argument is also fallible in that it ignores the logical progression of events we call time, and that the big bang is agreeably no more than a projected event in our minds as far as we can tell. It seems that electrons are as elusive as the big bang and God himself. Stephen Hawking, another famous physicist, however provided a theory for the genesis of the big bang and a proposed rebuttal to the fine tuning argument. He says that universes, much like bubbles in your milkshake, arise, expand, and stick around for a while if they are stable. This is happening constantly in a place outside of time. Although even for a physicist this is mostly conjecture and philosophy, the uncertainty of what is outside of these bubbles remains. It seems that if you consult Plantinga’s modal argument, it states that a being that is maximally great would be maximally excellent in all possible worlds. Thus I venture to say that even Steven Hawking’s Bubble tea world of universes is still a world in which god is maximally excellent. Possible worlds and the Multi-verse are not new concepts to philosophy, and as such do not pose much of an argument.
The question of what could be above and in control of those universes could be answered with “probability”. Probability ultimately is the force that drives change between Planck frames. Although most people would like to look at probability as a set of statistics taken from the past, it is ultimately a metaphysical force that can be said to drive all events. The laws of physics are no more than a mere pattern unfolding throughout our recollections, the laws of physics are truly no more than the law of the most probable thing to happen. If the odds of our universe were infinitesimally small, then either chance happened or god happened. However the issue is that this is much of a false dichotomy. If God were to exist, even in the classical sense, then he would surely be above the laws of probability. If God were above the laws of probability before the big bang, then he would have full control over what direction it takes in a sense far more encompassing than our waking consciousness can conceive of. If you flip a coin and it lands heads 100 times, the probability of the next coin-flip is still 50-50 despite whatever patterns you may find in the flipping. Similarly even though our laws of physics hold day to day, probability dictates that they may fly apart at any moment.
God is defined in most major monotheistic religions as the highest of the high, just like how in the ontological argument god is defined as a being “which none greater can be conceived”. Conversely, in “God’s Debris” by Scott Adams an old man asserts that probability and God are one in the same. I however would say that God, rather than being probability, would have probability as an expression of himself, or maybe even the only physical expression. Should a Multi-verse exist such as in the variation of the “Point-Line-Plane” postulate by Rob Bryanton, then God would surely be expressed in every world because he is maximally great, and is expressed in the results of probability. Moreover just as God expressed in probability has the ability to follow the laws of physics or not, we as thinking creatures have the free will to choose between a range of possible actions. Ultimately the concept of God is one which is too often limited due to our misunderstanding of what we should call God. Instead of defining a preconceived notion of a great being then applying it to our new discoveries, we should instead look to the highest explanation, the highest power, and call that God. The cause of the big bang, the decider, probability, God, whatever you call it, he has a major role in our lives. The fact of the matter is that things are the way they turned out, the cause of that could be called God just as readily as it could be called probability.
In conclusion, the fine tuning argument for the existence of god is a reasonable argument however it is not provable as it still leaves open the chance for chance. Although the odds of our universe arising are incredibly slim, it still is left undetermined whether we were just lucky at our one shot, or if we are the Shakespeare coming out of a room of cosmological monkeys with typewriters. Ultimately the issue at hand is the limitation we impose on ourselves when limiting the definition of God. If we are to take any pages from Plantinga’s book, we must always be aware of the false limitations we impose on this being that we try to call God. Whether there truly is a world with newspaper taxis and tangerine trees remains to be discovered, however what is reasonable at the moment is to recognize that there is a force by which we are here, whether you wish to call it probability, Christ, Allah or, Eh yeh. That force is what I propose we must work backwards from in order to understand anything about God. Albert Einstein said “God does not play dice with the Universe”, rather God is the die that decides what the next Planck frame will hold.
[/QUOTE]
I can't say I find that argument any sort of convincing, certainly not more convincing than the weak anthropic principle, and I disagree that it's one of the strongest arguments for god. I think it's one of the most flimsy because it doesn't offer the slightest refutation of the alternative. It just goes "That's not very likely, hence god did it."
Let's talk about teleportation, and by that I mean destroying you and building an exact clone of you somewhere far away.
Let's not since we had a very long discussion about that recently.
[QUOTE=JohnnyMo1;38621074]Let's not since we had a very long discussion about that recently.[/QUOTE]
lol I don't check the drugs discussion often enough I guess.
three supermassive tornados passed through this thread then a tiny black hole appeared out of nowhere for a millisecond then vanished.
basically.
[QUOTE=JohnnyMo1;38618614]I can't say I find that argument any sort of convincing, certainly not more convincing than the weak anthropic principle, and I disagree that it's one of the strongest arguments for god. I think it's one of the most flimsy because it doesn't offer the slightest refutation of the alternative. It just goes "That's not very likely, hence god did it."[/QUOTE]
I do hope you read my essay, because I did address that...
[QUOTE=Zenreon117;38622034]I do hope you read my essay, because I did address that...[/QUOTE]
I did, and I just read it again, and I can't find anywhere you address the weak anthropic principle. Where is it?
[editline]28th November 2012[/editline]
And I just read it again. It's definitely not in there. The closest you come is the Russian roulette game, but that isn't really the same.
Also, frankly the essay is mostly describing other people's opinions. You do a little analysis and give your own opinion a little, but none of it is fleshed out enough to give a compelling argument. I don't know if there was a maximum length or what but this is not a very good refutation of any of the arguments you address.
[QUOTE=JohnnyMo1;38580081]No sorry that's false
Hawking and Penrose proved that as long as at least one of several possible energy conditions hold, any black hole must have an associated singularity.
Half of what you just said makes no sense so it's pretty clear you have no idea what you're talking about[/QUOTE]
[url]http://www.facepunch.com/showthread.php?t=1166383&p=38572174&viewfull=1#post38572174[/url]
I was just messing around, it got out of hand. I hope you understand.
it's still on you bro.
i'd like to make this clear, at least my own opinion on the matter.
if you do drugs or something and end up doing stupid shit, you're 100% responsible for it either way you look at it. being the fact that you set yourself up for that shit to happen, or that you're simply an asshole on the inside and drugs just make it come out.
i don't want to come off sounding like a complete hardon about this but i do because that's the way i guess i send the message across. i don't want to be a dick because i've been there, so many fucking times. hell, before i got sent to rehab i'd write literally pages upon pages of shit i don't think i even understood at the time, right here on DD. someone might remember but i doubt it.
just understand that excusing yourself in this manner and explaining yourself doesn't always clear the air completely, it's merely an explanation and you should take full responsibility for your actions.
if you don't take full responsibility and personally feel like an asshole at least a little bit then it's going to happen again.
if you understand and this is how you're coming across, and you at least promised yourself you'd try not to fuck yourself that hard again, and you carry genuine remorse and a penchant for not doing what you did again, disregard this post. but most situations can't be excused just because you were high at the time. in fact it only makes it worse IRL and on forums without a drug subsection
Trust me on this, I isolate myself from everything out of pure remorse every time something like this happens. It will not happen again.
Edit: I completely understand what happened. That's why I'm making sure everyone knows what I'm feeling about this. Because I genuinely care.
Edit: Especially about you NeoSeeker, are we cool?
if we weren't cool i wouldn't have typed that long winded bit above your post.
i understand. in fact it's happening to me right now for some fuckin reason.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.