Pazza's avatar
Pazza
(2914 points )
  • Last visit: December 2nd, 2012
  • Joined: October 18th, 2009

Pazza’s profile

Pazza’s story

There is no Newtonian universe, there is only infinite conciousness and we all occupy the same point simultanously.
Space, time and matter are all perceptions. There is no digital there is only analogue.

Mate, I am so full of shit its untrue!

(there be no brains in dem straws…nun!)

Topics (5) see all

Login to see what topics you have in common with Pazza

Greatest questions see all

Login to send a message to Pazza.

Recent messages for Pazza

Seek's avatar Seek said

I’m going to call this discussion done for the following reasons:

1. It’s pointless to debate when we cannot agree on a single definition for the terms we are debating.

2. I have already made perfectly clear that I am not familiar with the finer points of physics, particularly quantum theory, and in fact I’m fairly certain that such people as Stephen Hawking have said that anyone who thinks they understand quantum theory is plainly wrong.

3. I was interested in sharing your opinion and contrasting it with mine. As ETpro has not been invited into the debate (which you could have done at any time by opening the debate in question form), it would be inappropriate to use him as a source.

October 4th, 2012

Seek's avatar Seek said

I forgot to bold one paragraph. Hope it’s not too hard to find.

October 2nd, 2012

Seek's avatar Seek said

Wow… just wow. I can’t think of how else to do this, so my answers are in bold

You want to keep your mind open, yet you want to have boundaries or constraints on how open your mind is? – Yes. Again, don’t keep your mind so open your brain falls out. I can believe that there may be complex life on other planets, I’m not holding my breath that I’ll be present for First Contact with the Vulcans (or Vogons, take your pick)

It would appear that the questioner deemed my opinions helpful, so I fail to see how debating within that particular thread ‘derailed it’ *The statements that you made to her in answer to the question were helpful, however a tangent that is unrelated to the question at hand is a distraction to the topic, and as a user and as a Mod I hate having to riffle through pages of tangents to get to the meat of a topic. It’s great when a question brings up a somewhat related debate, but they are better placed in another question (which you are more than welcome to ask if you’d like to bring this conversation public) or in PM, as we are doing now.

“The concept of the “chakra” was developed thousands of years ago by people who had not yet figured out how to smelt iron”
Ye right, and Egyptian slaves build the pyramids with copper tools?
*Actually, the most convincing theory that I’ve seen is that they cut the stone with wedges of dried wood. It’s quite fascinating. I’m certainly not going to conclude that aliens did it (I’ve read Fingerprints of the Gods, too. Good read, but mostly science fantasy.)

Also interestingly, the bronze age precedes the iron age, so it would appear really primitive cultures new how to make alloys before they new how to smelt iron? even though Iron oxide is the most abundant element in the ground? True statement. Copper and tin typically don’t need to be smelted (or bled out of the rock, as iron ore does) and they melt at a much lower temperature. Considerably easier work with much more available materials. But, how is this relevant?

” I sincerely doubt they had any advantage over us as to the inner workings of the cosmos.”
Being sincere doesn’t make you opinion a truth. No, facts do. And facts support my opinion.

And there are of documentaries which point to evidence of an ancient civilization which had advanced knowledge of constellation and the precession of the equinoxes. But hey, main stream science says its not so. There are documentaries that point to evidence that Jesus is a Doctor Who character living on some planet in outer space. A “True Believer” with a video camera does not a fact make.

“the philosophy that the entire universe cannot be proven to exist is so much psychobabble”
Isn’t science a philosophy? No. Philosophy is a study of the nature of knowledge. Science is the gathering and application of knowledge. You may find definitions that support science as a philosophy, but if our discussions are to have any meaning whatsoever, we must separate the two. When I discuss philosophy, I discuss those who contemplate questions which have no definite answer. Science deals with the finite.

I suppose the only truth is, is that I am having an experience, I can’t prove it too you, yet, never the less, I’m having it, therefore your opinion that shakra’s are ridiculous because, you can’t scientifically measure them, or, you’ve never personally experienced one is nonsensical.
Again, I’m not playing dictionary calisthenics. We can either agree that the commonly accepted definitions of words apply in real life, or we can end this conversation. Clearly we exist, because we are here arguing about whether we exist. While one person’s experience does not constitute proof, shared experiences often do, when those shared experiences can be recreated under similar conditions. This is why a experiencing a tornado means something actually happened, and speaking in divers and unknown tongues is still unproven (and this coming from someone who taught Sunday School in a tongue-talking church for ten years)

“Einstein said many things that are taken out of context.”
“reality is an illusion, albeit a persistent one”???????
In what context (in your opinion) was it supposed to be in, and in what context was it put into that is wasn’t supposed to be in? Personally, I think Einstein had a terrific sense of humour, and he also was in love with the universe. His mentions of “god” are not religious, he simply used the word “god” as a name for that which he had not yet figured out.
Reality definition – The world or the state of things as they actually exist.
Illusion definition – A deceptive appearance or impression.
How do they actually exist? It’s cute how you use finite definitions when they suit your purposes.
Is an atoms appearance deceptive?
Is our perception of an atom correct?
“commonly accepted definition”, how does science define an atom? An atom is the smallest particle of an element that contains all the traits of that element. You can have one atom of gold, but if you cut it in half, what you have is no longer gold.
As far as I am aware, science can measure one and split one, but when ask what is it made of, science just says energy. I have never, ever heard of a scientist claiming that an atom is “just energy”. I will posit that it is often described to laymen as positively and negatively charged particles and uncharged particles suspended in mostly empty space. This does not change the fact that one atom of gold is still gold.

So what is energy? You can play around with terms and names, and say “there are many forms of energy”, but you can never tell me what it actually is. Is it a quantum fluctuation in a vacuum?, fine, then what is the vacuum? whats it made of? By definition, a vacuum is empty space. It’s not made of anything. I am not a physicist, so I frankly don’t know what energy is made of. However, there are people that do. I’m just not one of them. My brain is more attuned to natural sciences – too much math in physics for me.
So when I say there are no atoms, I’m suppose I really mean you can’t prove there’s any such ‘thing’ as an atom.
Thing definition – An entity, an idea, or a quality perceived, known, or thought to have its own existence.
Thought to have its own existence. Hence, reality may well be an illusion.
“Energy is energy is meaningless tripe”
You say that there’s more than one type of energy, fine, but you still can’t tell me what it is, and its not only tangible by senses which are phenomena.
Prove how you can truly know the noumenon?
You can’t know it first hand, only perceive it in the mind, therefore you can’t proves it exists as noumena.
More dictionary calisthenics. This is getting boring.

“Chakra yoga, Reiki, prayer, and the like demand that one believe something with no evidence”
Are you suggesting that people who claim to be, and are measurably healed by such practices are not proof?
There has never been proof that any of these work as more than a placebo. Placebos are great, and I think that as placebos homeopathy and Reiki have their place in society, mostly because ethics and malpractice lawyers prevent real doctors from prescribing placebos. If you do have proof of Reiki, Chakra healing, or prayer can actually heal someone in a controlled environment, you could win a million dollars

The barriers to you openminddness are evident by the “No.” at the end of your post.
Of course it was. That was the intent. Again, I’m open-minded enough to say “Oh, that sounds interesting, I’ll look further into that”, and not so open-minded as to say “Oh! That sounds interesting! It must be true and I will change my lifestyle accordingly!. That is simply fundamentalism.

October 2nd, 2012

partyparty's avatar partyparty said

Regarding your answer:
LOLL Many thanks Only Pazza

December 27th, 2009

partyparty's avatar partyparty said

Regarding your answer:
Thanks Only Pazza. I was just curious about what other people thought

December 27th, 2009