If so, why do you not include at least minimal consideration of these truths in your model of understanding of the Universe?
Because I believe truth requires empirical evidence or logical deduction. Otherwise it's an opinion. It does though. Do you have a different definition of empirical evidence? My apologies, let me rephrase: Your belief is incorrect as it is a false dichotomy, and therefore your conclusion does not follow because your premise is incorrect (or at best, incomplete). |
|
|
|
Thank you!!
It states
St:2 F:0 NB:17 AS:0 BW:[095/ 6 B/s] E:0.00 I: 0.00 BTC/hr BS:0
0: 0.0 / 0.0 h/s : A:0 R:0+0<none> HW:0/none
I can't find what this means. Does it mean that I'm mining 0 btc per hour so it is not really mining?
I'm not sure which mining software you're using, but I'm assuming A:0 means that you have submitted 0 accepted shares and thus have not contributed any useful work for solving a block. Also, 0.0 h/s means 0 hashes per second, so it appears that you aren't mining whatsoever. As far as the 0.00 BTC/hr measurement is concerned, this might still be the case even if you are successfully mining with a low hash rate. Since bitcoins are divisible far beyond two decimal places, a low hash rate could indicate that you are receiving 0.00 BTC/hr but you might be earning thousandths, ten-thousands, etc. of a bitcoin per hour which, due to rounding, would appear as 0.00 BTC/hr. |
|
|
|
What does detected new block mean?
Longpoll from pool 0 requested work update
Longpoll from pool 0 detected new block
Longpoll from pool 0 requested work update
Longpoll from pool 0 detected new block
Longpoll from pool 0 requested work update
Longpoll from pool 0 detected new block
Longpoll from pool 0 requested work update
Longpoll from pool 0 detected new block
Longpoll from pool 0 requested work update
Longpoll from pool 0 detected new block
Longpoll from pool 0 requested work update
Longpoll from pool 0 detected new block
It means that some other miner somewhere generated 25 new bitcoins by "solving", or providing proof-of-work for, a "block" containing a certain number of bitcoin transactions. Each 'block' contains a certain number of bitcoins transactions, and all blocks together make up the 'Blockchain" or the global ledger that keeps a public record of all bitcoin transactions ever made. So, when your miner "detected a new block," not only were 25 bitcoins generated, but the integrity of this global transaction record was maintained and extended. Edit: This is why your miner indicates "requested work update" each time a block is solved. It needs to retrieve the information necessary to begin working to solve a new block. |
|
|
|
Rassah:
Do you believe there are non-empirical truths or undecideable truths (e.g. "This sentence is false") that are real?
No I do not. If so, why do you not include at least minimal consideration of these truths in your model of understanding of the Universe?
Because I believe truth requires empirical evidence or logical deduction. Otherwise it's an opinion.If not, then why don't you believe these truths exist when they have been acknowledged by prestigious mathematicians, scientists, and philosophers (and especially when some are self-evidently real)?
Because that's an argument from authority, and smart people make mistakes? We had a pretty good model of our solar system that had the earth in the center, created by some really smart people, and the middle even worked correctly to predict locations of sun and planets. They were still wrong in the end. Most importantly, a "truth" that is not based on anything real (or empirical) is about as useful as the statement that "unicorns like carrots." Sure, that's nice. Why should anyone care? Your conclusion does not follow from your belief. |
|
|
|
Remember: there has never been a single fact, theory, or model that science has been able to prove beyond all doubt, and as long as the scientific method is utilized, this will remain the case forever.
Science can't prove shit. Never has, never will.
Which is exactly why it is the most trustworthy method we have. I trust someone who says "I don't know everything, but based on this and this, the answer is probably this" much more than I trust someone who says "I know everything, and out mpof my ass, the answer is this. DON'T QUESTION ME!" I trust myself more than I trust anyone else, kind of like how I trust me more than anyone else to keep my bitcoins safe. I think if you had two bitcoin exchanges offering to secure your coins, you'd opt out of both options and just do it yourself. Also, most trustworthy (in a peer-reviewed, empirical context only) does not mean best, most accurate, etc. Which is good, because it's not. It's utterly useless for describing non-empirical things, such as its own reliance on abstract mathematical laws. Here's a fun quote describing the scientific attitude: "'Reality consists of all and only that to which we can apply a protocol which cannot be applied to its own (mathematical) ingredients and is therefore unreal.' Mandating the use of “unreality” to describe “reality” is rather questionable in anyone’s protocol." |
|
|
|
There is a difference between trolling and being abusive/destructive.
It is a very fine line and I'm glad I'm not the judge here, I don't know what I would do. But I will say in my opinion, Matthew N. Wright, the psychopathic repetitive scammer gone, makes the BTC world a better place. He has done far more harm than good to this community.
That being said I think everyone should be able to speak their minds as long as they do not harm others. Editing the results of a poll to make it look like people voted for something they did not really vote for, in my mind seems counterproductive and goes against the values of free speech.
Could the forum hire a mod just to follow him around and keep him from scamming and being abusive? It sure could. But the real question is, should it?
This is borderline libel/slander. I trust MNW more than 99% of people on this forum because of his actions. Dude makes a foolish bet causing himself to owe others tens of thousands of dollars that he was never prepared to pay...and to this day he is still honoring his debt. MNW has more balls than you'll ever have. And I follow your posts rather closely, fyi. I have for some time. What part of it was slander? Psychopath part? Okay, Fine I'm not a Dr... He might not really be a psychopath. His "joke" that cost people a shit load of bitcoin while he helped pirate get rid of his debt at a much higher than maker price is not even what I'm talking about when I said he was a scammer. The guy has been tagged more than once and been involved in all sorts of dirty shit and scams. Also honoring his debt? Admitting he had a debt was a deal he made with theymos to get his scammer tag off. Has he paid anything since then? Lol. You are a funny guy. He owes shit loads and is not making payments. Yes. |
|
|
|
I have reached the 8th-10th dimension. The fifth dimension brings into play the variable of the mind, consciousness. You can optionally see conscious energy in the fourth dimension. Higher dimensions formulate more complicated patterns of energy. Ultimately, the tenth dimension is pure white light, infinite love, absent of space and time.
If you want to see for yourself, eat a psychedelic, they are god's gift to connect to him, it, whatever. Tune yourself to frequencies you didn't know existed.
Really? I'll make it easy on you. Explain how the 5th dimension works in regards to the other 4. Why is the 10th dimension the limit? Once you have done that, I'll ask you about the 6th to 10th.  |
|
|
|
But what about the 4th dimension? This is a little bit trickier. We can't see a 4-dimensional object, so how can we learn about one? Well, we could draw a tesseract on a piece of paper! This gives us some information about 4-dimensional objects. How? Because what we did is that we, as 3-dimensional beings, took conceptual, mathematical knowledge of 4-dimensional objects and quite literally thrust them into the 2nd dimension into a logical realm infinitely beneath our own.
The 4th dimension is time. To pinpoint a spot in space time you need 4 parameters. Longitude, Latitude, Altitude and time. You can see a cross-section of a 4th dimensional object simply by looking at it. You can record it by taking a picture, but no two pictures will be the same. FTFY |
|
|
|
Remember: there has never been a single fact, theory, or model that science has been able to prove beyond all doubt, and as long as the scientific method is utilized, this will remain the case forever.
Science can't prove shit. Never has, never will.
I know enough to know that I know nothing at all. I'm sorry, but I think that's a stupid thing to say. Of course you know things in some context or another, and you even know things absolutely in some context or another. You know you exist in the context of your experience. If you don't, you're insane. It's directly evident -- so evident, in fact, that you know this before you could even generate the electrical signal to generate the thought in your head that you know you exist. Direct experience. i.e. a direct subject/object relationship begets absolute information (and thus, absolute knowledge) about that relational system. It's there. All you need to do is stop being insane and acknowledge it. I'm honestly saying this respectfully, because I've said your exact words in the past...until I realized they were insane. I don't know I exist and I don't even know if I'm sane. Dude. Just look at the sentence you formulated. It's a pile of contradictory horseshit. "I know enough" to know that "I know nothing at all." Your conclusion? Enough = nothing. Is there some validity to this? Yes. But you don't start from that perspective to explain things. That's called condition-level logic. You need to start with a higher logical vantage point and look down upon condition-level logic to see it clearly and explain it. Consider the following: We are 3-dimensional beings. What do we know of the 2nd dimension? Well, it's pretty easy to learn about it. Our world is made up of literally an infinite number of 2-dimensional surfaces. Length and width...wow...hard stuff. But what about the 4th dimension? This is a little bit trickier. We can't see a 4-dimensional object, so how can we learn about one? Well, we could draw a tesseract on a piece of paper! This gives us some information about 4-dimensional objects. How? Because what we did is that we, as 3-dimensional beings, took conceptual, mathematical knowledge of 4-dimensional objects and quite literally thrust them into the 2nd dimension into a logical realm infinitely beneath our own. In this way, it is possible to talk about the Universe in an absolutely true way using a set of hologrammatically similar languages. nothing = enough Like I said, there is some validity to this, but it's undeniable (and easy to prove) that absolute truth exists, and if "nothing = enough" is equatable to "absolute truth" then I think you gave up prematurely. Most any person has all the tools they need to start looking for absolute truth right here, right now. Absolute truth is like Bitcoin's cryptographic weaknesses in the sense that it's hidden in plain sight, but dislike Bitcoin's cryptographic weaknesses in that you can currently 'crack the code' using a specific method. |
|
|
|
people think i'm insane because I hear voices and see things that they can't see and vice versa. Maybe I'm just one of the few sane people left.
In many Amazonian tribal cultures (and likely others as well), those who see things and hear voices are recognized at youth for their unique abilities and are taught how to accept, manage, and learn from those experiences. These people often become village leaders or "shamans" that provide spiritual and even botanical/medicinal knowledge for the tribe. |
|
|
|
Remember: there has never been a single fact, theory, or model that science has been able to prove beyond all doubt, and as long as the scientific method is utilized, this will remain the case forever.
Science can't prove shit. Never has, never will.
I know enough to know that I know nothing at all. I'm sorry, but I think that's a stupid thing to say. Of course you know things in some context or another, and you even know things absolutely in some context or another. You know you exist in the context of your experience. If you don't, you're insane. It's directly evident -- so evident, in fact, that you know this before you could even generate the electrical signal to generate the thought in your head that you know you exist. Direct experience. i.e. a direct subject/object relationship begets absolute information (and thus, absolute knowledge) about that relational system. It's there. All you need to do is stop being insane and acknowledge it. I'm honestly saying this respectfully, because I've said your exact words in the past...until I realized they were insane. I don't know I exist and I don't even know if I'm sane. Dude. Just look at the sentence you formulated. It's a pile of contradictory horseshit. "I know enough" to know that "I know nothing at all." Your conclusion? Enough = nothing. Is there some validity to this? Yes. But you don't start from that perspective to explain things. That's called condition-level logic. You need to start with a higher logical vantage point and look down upon condition-level logic to see it clearly and explain it. Consider the following: We are 3-dimensional beings. What do we know of the 2nd dimension? Well, it's pretty easy to learn about it. Our world is made up of literally an infinite number of 2-dimensional surfaces. Length and width...wow...hard stuff. But what about the 4th dimension? This is a little bit trickier. We can't see a 4-dimensional object, so how can we learn about one? Well, we could draw a tesseract on a piece of paper! This gives us some information about 4-dimensional objects. How? Because what we did is that we, as 3-dimensional beings, took conceptual, mathematical knowledge of 4-dimensional objects and quite literally thrust them into the 2nd dimension into a logical realm infinitely beneath our own. In this way, it is possible to talk about the Universe in an absolutely true way using a set of hologrammatically similar languages. |
|
|
|
We created God and he made us do it.
God : Universe :: Man : Thoughts |
|
|
|
Remember: there has never been a single fact, theory, or model that science has been able to prove beyond all doubt, and as long as the scientific method is utilized, this will remain the case forever.
Science can't prove shit. Never has, never will.
I know enough to know that I know nothing at all. I'm sorry, but I think that's a stupid thing to say. Of course you know things in some context or another, and you even know things absolutely in some context or another. You know you exist in the context of your experience. If you don't, you're insane. It's directly evident -- so evident, in fact, that you know this before you could even generate the electrical signal to generate the thought in your head that you know you exist. Direct experience. i.e. a direct subject/object relationship begets absolute information (and thus, absolute knowledge) about that relational system. It's there. All you need to do is stop being insane and acknowledge it. I'm honestly saying this respectfully, because I've said your exact words in the past...until I realized they were insane. |
|
|
|
Remember: there has never been a single fact, theory, or model that science has been able to prove beyond all doubt, and as long as the scientific method is utilized, this will remain the case forever.
Science can't prove shit. Never has, never will.
You do realize that a very small percentage of people understand this. Yes. Although, I find that quite a few people do 'say' they understand this, but then they treat the implications of this as irrelevant to their conclusions. Perhaps worse, some 'do' consider these implications in their conclusions, but they regard them as so insignificant because they're that doesn't directly play upon the senses (i.e. sensory experience is a priori assumed as 'more' valid). |
|
|
|
Their proof is that there is a limit to what can be conceived, and that limit is god? Well, it's not the Christian, Hebrew, or Muslim god. I don't really see how it's god at all, actually. Just a supreme limit that nothing can be conceived beyond...
By the way, scientists have disproven god a long time ago. Einstein said that god doesn't play dice with the universe, meaning that nothing is random and everything is planned and predetermined, and then quantum physics came out and proved that things in the universe are random and not planned out at all (maybe even killing a cat in the process, but we don't know), meaning god wasn't around to guide anything, or is just playing with dice, and thus was unimportant. Anyone can play with dice to make the universe completely random, or the universe can just be completely random on its own.
Ahh, but not all scientists have disproven God and this article shows that doesn't it? Could scientist be wrong? It seems completely illogical to think that the universe is random to me. How could something so complex as our universe happen by chance? This is the fundamental flaw with the idea of God. You cannot explain complexity by invoking prior complexity. Ask yourself if you think God is as least as complex as the universe. If you consider this to be true then you have moved the problem of where did complexity come from - and in fact, made the problem far harder because you now have monolithic complexity to explain. Complexity arising from self-organizing processes acting upon smaller units is seen throughout nature and has been performed experimentally. The real question is "How did the super-compressed ball of energy originate? The existence of a subject/object relationship is necessary to assert an object, or even a universe for that matter, to exist in the first place. Without a subject to perceive an object (even if that subject reflects upon itself as an object), it is invalid to ever assert that the object exists at all. A deeper exploration of systems, specifically the archetypal structure of language itself which lays the foundation for any and all systems to arise at all, leads to the inevitable conclusion that a global consciousness or "God" is an absolute necessity for this Universe to exist. Edit: @Rassah Option 1: Free-Will Option 2 : Determinism Option 3 that you ignored: "Free-determinism" or "Self-determinism" (latter coined by Christopher Langan). |
|
|
|
There is a difference between trolling and being abusive/destructive.
It is a very fine line and I'm glad I'm not the judge here, I don't know what I would do. But I will say in my opinion, Matthew N. Wright, the psychopathic repetitive scammer gone, makes the BTC world a better place. He has done far more harm than good to this community.
That being said I think everyone should be able to speak their minds as long as they do not harm others. Editing the results of a poll to make it look like people voted for something they did not really vote for, in my mind seems counterproductive and goes against the values of free speech.
Could the forum hire a mod just to follow him around and keep him from scamming and being abusive? It sure could. But the real question is, should it?
This is borderline libel/slander. I trust MNW more than 99% of people on this forum because of his actions. Dude makes a foolish bet causing himself to owe others tens of thousands of dollars that he was never prepared to pay...and to this day he is still honoring his debt. MNW has more balls than you'll ever have. And I follow your posts rather closely, fyi. I have for some time. |
|
|
|
|
Remember: there has never been a single fact, theory, or model that science has been able to prove beyond all doubt, and as long as the scientific method is utilized, this will remain the case forever.
Science can't prove shit. Never has, never will.
|
|
|
|
|
Rassah:
Do you believe there are non-empirical truths or undecideable truths (e.g. "This sentence is false") that are real?
If so, why do you not include at least minimal consideration of these truths in your model of understanding of the Universe?
If not, then why don't you believe these truths exist when they have been acknowledged by prestigious mathematicians, scientists, and philosophers (and especially when some are self-evidently real)?
|
|
|
|
|
iPhone fudged results. Accidentally submitted polytheist. Meant to put 'other' as I believe in dual-aspect monism.
|
|
|
|
If you and someone else are at different points on a number line, and you calculate that 0 is 6 numbers away,n while someone else calculates that 0 is 15 numbers away, the 0 is still at the same exact spot. So our calculations of the age of the universe may be earth-centric, but it still tells us when the universe popped into existence. So I'm not sure why you have a problem with the age.
Because the way things age is absolutely mind-fucking! And then to go ahead and tack a number to it that is presented as concrete does a complete injustice to the utility that can be gained by looking at the forest instead of the trees, or at basically any valid consideration outside a prima facie worldview. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
