Comment Re:Where's the red button? (Score 1) 133
Whoever downmodded that, you just lost your geek card.
Whoever downmodded that, you just lost your geek card.
It is possible to create a universe from nothing. What you do is borrow energy from a quantum fluctuation.
No. You can't have a quantum fluctuation when there is nothing to have a quantum fluctuation in. Your assertion requires the pre-existance of a universe in the first place.
Ergo, the universe does not exist.
Assumes facts not in evidence, to wit, that creation is required in the first place. Consider: everything we have and know about was not "created", it was always present in some form or other. Assuming that this is not the case for a time/dimensional configuration for which we have neither evidence or understanding is, at best, fact-free speculation - certainly in no way an inevitable logical conclusion.
If you can't "wrap your mind around" how your average bunny rabbit could rule a world of vicious, hungry, intelligent tigers, does that make you "appreciate the idea"? Are you willing to extend "blind faith" in this direction as well?
I think the premise that you can "appreciate it" because "you don't get it" is just politically correct appeasement.
Why not just go with "I don't get it" and so "it's not worthy of confidence, only speculation, and that utilizing the knowledge we do have, until or unless I do"?
As to infinity, if you don't understand it, what's the problem? Pizza still tastes like pizza, and science proceeds apace regardless. Not understanding something in no way makes the mythologies of pre-scientific societies in any way likely to provide answers.
It came from God... God created it.
There is absolutely zero evidence for this, so I see no reason at all to take it seriously.
So, it was always there then. You believe in infinity.
No. I don't "believe" in anything. I was simply correcting the simplistic, errant logic of the post parent to mine.
My confidence rest with the idea that our physics is currently unable to describe what went on prior to a certain point in time, if "time" is the relevant dimensional term, even assuming that we've got the facts straight back that far from the scant evidence that remains. I'm perfectly comfortable with that. I am curious to know the answer(s), if there is/are one/multiples I can understand, but it bothers me not all that I don't presently know, and may never know.
Although I'm comfortable, as I said, I find informed speculation interesting. What I have extremely low confidence in, though, are attempts at answers made up by pre-scientific societies. I find the idea that they had any means to know straight-up ludicrous. Having been raised in a country that positively reeks of Christianity (the USA), I have made it my business to learn as much about it in particular as I could. That process served only to significantly lower my confidence in its basic premise.
But where did the something it came from, come from. And where did that come from, etc.
Why did it have to come from anywhere? Our existence implies that something was there at any point in our current time, and any point related to that, dimensionally speaking, prior, if indeed "prior" is a relevant term.
Perhaps the universe is infinite in other dimensions (like time) as well as space. If it is, so what? Does Captain Crunch taste any different? No.
The important thing, to me, is to note that we do not know, and therefore it is pointless to claim that we do. Speculation, of course, is very interesting, but only serves to winnow out the things physics tells us are nonsense. Keeping in mind that physics is evolving as well.
No. We can trace the assembly of a loaf of bread just fine from its now-current components. We can't trace the creation of the universe. Our physics makes nonsense of the evidence we have uncovered; therefore, we do not understand that evidence. Until we do, we can't trace the universe any further.
I have no problem with yet to be solved questions, and find no need to make up stories in order to pretend to solve them. I'll wait comfortably until we figure it out, assuming we do, which is also not a given. It may be beyond our capacities, and certainly as far as this universe goes, most of the evidence our current skills allow us to work with has long since dispersed.
However, from a thermodynamics POV, the "logic" does not lead to "god", because that answer solves nothing:
- A god does not come from nothing. Thermodynamics prevents this.
- A god does not create itself. Thermodynamics prevents this.
- A god was not created.
The subtext to either series of reasoning, of course, is the "it was there all the time" sally. The difference: The universe is real, here now, and assuming it was there all the time in some form isn't a huge leap of any kind, it just asserts the status quo in regions we cannot confirm.
God (or gods), however, has/have not been demonstrated to be real, and so three leaps have to be taken: First the existence in the first place, and second, the "there all the time", and third, that this is somehow relevant to us.
I choose the simple answer: The universe, in some form, was there all the time. That could be wrong; but that's what little our current physics seem to imply.
Wait, are you implying the current crop of new MMOs are what the market wants? lol.
They more likely canned it because it too closely resembled one of the stinkers you mentioned.
All taxes are regressive. The rich (and Corporations) will spend money to avoid paying taxes, leaving those that can't to pay the lion's share. There is no way to avoid this scenario, because taxes are punitive in function (e.g. Alcohol, tobacco etc) if not in practice. And while I agree that we need some form of taxes, they should be voluntary contractual agreements between Citizens and the government.
Unfortunately, the government doesn't really care about citizens, which is why our tax system is so screwed up, and why Political leaders are willing to screw it up more to get elected.
The easiest solution is to tax the velocity of money. Similar to VAT tax, but applies to all monetary exchanges of all types, from bank transfers to buy a house. The lone exception would be all cash (real greenback) transactions. Every Month, banking institutions would send an IRS statement, for each person to write a check on the transactions they incurred. It would be easy, clean and affect everyone, yet be completely easy, transparent and as taxes go up, people notice.
I started to hate ________, and I didn't want to. I did __________ (unrelated thing) for a few years to recharge. I miss it, and have been working to catch up on the last six years.
That is my exact story. I've been doing IT for 30+ years, and there is a six year (yup) period when I sold cars. People SHOULD take time off, or risk burning out. I'd rather have someone who took time off, than someone that is on the verge of burning out.
The hacker nature starts when a kid is six years old and takes apart a bicycle (or whatever). This is where the dad takes the kid and makes him put it back together. And then takes the bike apart, and does it again, only this time, letting the kid "modify" the bike. Hacker Nature is often drilled out (WTF are you doing, hope your happy, have fun not riding your bike because I am not helping you fix it) of kids by parents who are too busy to encourage it. I've seen plenty of parents ruin their kids with attitudes of "no".
It's not fair, but it's probably better to just list your master's for now.
Right now they figure you won't be happy with a junior position, but you don't have the experience from them to trust you with something more senior. Once you've got a bit of experience put the PhD back on. It will help you land more senior jobs later.
Who is giving away their time to code review the work of thousands of neophyte programmers?
Sounds to me more like the blind leading the blind.
Machines have less problems. I'd like to be a machine. -- Andy Warhol