Science theory that is proven to be true becomes science law. It is a fact that science theories are science theories. Many science theories have become fact, know as science law. Big bang is not know to be factual, scientifically. It remains theory. While the observations prove that black holes are factual, the theory that explains them is known to be the false because of discrepancies with regard to science law. Evolution as explained by evolution theory is known to not be factual. Cause and effect science law prove this. While some of the chemical elements in our bodies probably have come from space in the form of meteorite dust and our assimilation of it, it is not a known fact that all material on earth came from space. Where do you think it came from? Heaven? The waters outside the dome? Of course every chemical element you see on Earth came from space. Including the elements within us. Wherever "it" came from, nobody knows factually. Elements were either created in the Big Bang, or are created in suns. |
|
|
|
I learnt that squirrels wipe its ass like a dog after taking a shit when I witnessed one dragging its hindquarter across the lawn. A little later I saw a squirrel take a sand bath like a bird does.
Either that or there's a red-light special on squirrel costumes for dogs and birds. |
|
|
|
What I have learnt today is that I have to post a lot and wait to get a higher rank. Its because for my rank I still need to wait patiently because I will get only a high amount of post once I have a higher rank. Somehow this motivates to continue to wait and wait patiently while keep posting to earn..
It's easier if you have something to say  Maybe I was not able to review this post. I didnt even realize that I continue saying the same word. You may find this really funny, but somehow I know I will able to do better once I have made myself familiar with all this terms and learn more about it.. Sorry, that came out really rude. It was self deprecating. I tend to write a LOT when I get interested in something. I made " hero legendary member" because I talk too much I had no idea my post count was so high till the day I got the notification. FTFY |
|
|
|
When you examine anything that expresses something, you find that the people who are doing the expressing have a religion going for themselves. Dictionary.com, as I have shown above, lets us know that if for no other reason, blatant expressing is a religion under #6 which says, "something one believes in and follows devotedly; a point or matter of ethics or conscience: to make a religion of fighting prejudice." Atheism is alive and active. It is a religion. So is looking things up in the dictionary, apparently. |
|
|
|
No, I was quoting a post as you are well aware. If you think that quoting a post is the same as posting, then you're an atheist because you've quoted people who are.
How about you just apologise, accept your mistake and move on.
Well, your reply post didn't simply jump up there all by itself, did it?  So, everything you post you agree with then? Everything in one of your posts you support? This is another example of you painting yourself into a corner and then resorting to more and more bizarre arguments before giving up in a flood of crankiness. Often I am leery of re-posting things in other peoples posts that I don't agree with. If I re-post them, that doesn't necessarily mean that I agree with them. What about you? You re-posted some of my commenting. That doesn't mean you necessarily agree with what I say, right? You're making my point for me. You wrote that I posted something, but I'd actually quoted it. At least I don't lie about the fact that I post other people's things when I re-post their things.
You lie about other people posting things, instead. Oh, btw, lots of people have pained themselves into corners. They don't all sit their and wait for the paint to dry. Some of them simply paint themselves out over the wet paint. Yes, that's what you do. Argue the unarguable and then look silly - that is to say you paint yourself into a corner, and then end up covered in paint. What's the big deal? You posted the quote. So, you posted it. No big deal. I just hadn't realised you were an atheist. |
|
|
|
No, I was quoting a post as you are well aware. If you think that quoting a post is the same as posting, then you're an atheist because you've quoted people who are.
How about you just apologise, accept your mistake and move on.
Well, your reply post didn't simply jump up there all by itself, did it? So, everything you post you agree with then? Everything in one of your posts you support? This is another example of you painting yourself into a corner and then resorting to more and more bizarre arguments before giving up in a flood of crankiness. Often I am leery of re-posting things in other peoples posts that I don't agree with. If I re-post them, that doesn't necessarily mean that I agree with them. What about you? You re-posted some of my commenting. That doesn't mean you necessarily agree with what I say, right? You're making my point for me. You wrote that I posted something, but I'd actually quoted it. At least I don't lie about the fact that I post other people's things when I re-post their things.
You lie about other people posting things, instead. Oh, btw, lots of people have pained themselves into corners. They don't all sit their and wait for the paint to dry. Some of them simply paint themselves out over the wet paint. Yes, that's what you do. Argue the unarguable and then look silly - that is to say you paint yourself into a corner, and then end up covered in paint. |
|
|
|
No, I was quoting a post as you are well aware. If you think that quoting a post is the same as posting, then you're an atheist because you've quoted people who are.
How about you just apologise, accept your mistake and move on.
Well, your reply post didn't simply jump up there all by itself, did it? So, everything you post you agree with then? Everything in one of your posts you support? This is another example of you painting yourself into a corner and then resorting to more and more bizarre arguments before giving up in a flood of crankiness. |
|
|
|
Blah blah blah
Once again, Atheism is not a religion, and does not believe anything beyond, "Your God does not exist" Once again, there is even a post where I stood the dictionary definition of "religion" up against atheism, and showed that atheism is a religion. Since anyone can do this except, obviously, you... mwahahahahaha. Only one of the dictionary definitions. None of the other definitions show that. Here's one that shows that atheism quite clearly is *not* a religion: http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/religion"The belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power, especially a personal God or gods" Your definition might be in dictionaries, but it's not the common definition. So now you are essentially saying that people are idiots, and don't read the dictionary. Like they listen to you rather than the dictionary. That's okay, though. Since it seems to make you feel better - at least on the outside. No, that's not what I'm saying, as you're well aware. Don't just believe me - I gave you a link to the dictionary, use it. |
|
|
|
Alright! You are not an atheist then. What's the point? All your quoting doesn't prove or disprove the fact that atheism is poison. If it does, how? The quoting of Jesus shows that God exists. Atheists are actually able to say "Jesus" and recite quotes from the bible -- it's not a solely Christian ability. You need to learn what an atheist is. https://atheists.org/activism/resources/what-is-atheismWHAT IS ATHEISM?
No one asks this question enough.
The reason no one asks this question a lot is because most people have preconceived ideas and notions about what an Atheist is and is not. Where these preconceived ideas come from varies, but they tend to evolve from theistic influences or other sources.
Atheism is usually defined incorrectly as a belief system. Atheism is not a disbelief in gods or a denial of gods; it is a lack of belief in gods. Older dictionaries define atheism as "a belief that there is no God." Some dictionaries even go so far as to define Atheism as "wickedness," "sinfulness," and other derogatory adjectives. Clearly, theistic influence taints dictionaries. People cannot trust these dictionaries to define atheism. The fact that dictionaries define Atheism as "there is no God" betrays the (mono)theistic influence. Without the (mono)theistic influence, the definition would at least read "there are no gods."
Why should atheists allow theists to define who atheists are? Do other minorities allow the majority to define their character, views, and opinions? No, they do not. So why does everyone expect atheists to lie down and accept the definition placed upon them by the world’s theists? Atheists will define themselves.
Atheism is not a belief system nor is it a religion. While there are some religions that are atheistic (certain sects of Buddhism, for example), that does not mean that atheism is a religion. Two commonly used retorts to the nonsense that atheism is a religion are: 1) If atheism is a religion then bald is a hair color, and 2) If atheism is a religion then health is a disease. A new one introduced in 2012 by Bill Maher is, "If atheism is a religion, then abstinence is a sexual position."
The only common thread that ties all atheists together is a lack of belief in gods and supernatural beings. Some of the best debates we have ever had have been with fellow atheists. This is because atheists do not have a common belief system, sacred scripture or atheist Pope. This means atheists often disagree on many issues and ideas. Atheists come in a variety of shapes, colors, beliefs, convictions, and backgrounds. We are as unique as our fingerprints.
You need to learn what atheism is not. The major thing it is not is, atheism is not truth. In your picture, above, you have falsely quoted the things that Jesus said. Do you really know the things that Jesus said? Have you really gotten into the Bible? Wake up. Your atheism dream religion (yes, religion; see the atheism dogma you quoted above) is the exact thing that is killing you. What? I quoted nothing except an excerpt from an atheism website. I'm certain none of it consists of Jesus' quotes. But you quoted it from the standpoint that sounded like you were agreeing with it, the things in the atheism website. Those things are part of the dogma of the atheism religion. And you seem to agree with them. And you said they were quoting Jesus. Your point? As usual, you intentionally misunderstand. In the picture of Jesus, above, the words are not quotes of Jesus found in the Bible. The things in the referenced atheism site are the dogma of the atheism religion. Do you have a point? You know quite well I didn't post any Jesus pictures and yet you try to convince everyone that I did. My point is you were either lying or covering up your own confusion or trying to confuse other people. You made things up and then back-peddled. Again. But you DID post it. And you know quite well you did post it. It is posted right above in one of your reply posts, if nowhere else. So, YOU DID post it after all. And you want to lie about it? And badmouth me on top of your lies? Mwahahahahahaha. You can't get away with it, no matter how hard you try. Even deleting the post will only show you to be a liar more firmly. No, there's no post from me where I quote Jesus or post pictures of him. Are you confused or lying? If I am lying it is by accidental mistake. This is nothing when compared with all the deceitful lying that you do constantly... to yourself if to nobody else. EDIT: Oh looky, looky. You DID post it in your reply post here https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1373864.msg14099518#msg14099518. No, I was quoting a post as you are well aware. If you think that quoting a post is the same as posting, then you're an atheist because you've quoted people who are. How about you just apologise, accept your mistake and move on. |
|
|
|
Blah blah blah
Once again, Atheism is not a religion, and does not believe anything beyond, "Your God does not exist" Once again, there is even a post where I stood the dictionary definition of "religion" up against atheism, and showed that atheism is a religion. Since anyone can do this except, obviously, you... mwahahahahaha. Only one of the dictionary definitions. None of the other definitions show that. Here's one that shows that atheism quite clearly is *not* a religion: http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/religion"The belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power, especially a personal God or gods" Your definition might be in dictionaries, but it's not the common definition. |
|
|
|
Alright! You are not an atheist then. What's the point? All your quoting doesn't prove or disprove the fact that atheism is poison. If it does, how? The quoting of Jesus shows that God exists. Atheists are actually able to say "Jesus" and recite quotes from the bible -- it's not a solely Christian ability. You need to learn what an atheist is. https://atheists.org/activism/resources/what-is-atheismWHAT IS ATHEISM?
No one asks this question enough.
The reason no one asks this question a lot is because most people have preconceived ideas and notions about what an Atheist is and is not. Where these preconceived ideas come from varies, but they tend to evolve from theistic influences or other sources.
Atheism is usually defined incorrectly as a belief system. Atheism is not a disbelief in gods or a denial of gods; it is a lack of belief in gods. Older dictionaries define atheism as "a belief that there is no God." Some dictionaries even go so far as to define Atheism as "wickedness," "sinfulness," and other derogatory adjectives. Clearly, theistic influence taints dictionaries. People cannot trust these dictionaries to define atheism. The fact that dictionaries define Atheism as "there is no God" betrays the (mono)theistic influence. Without the (mono)theistic influence, the definition would at least read "there are no gods."
Why should atheists allow theists to define who atheists are? Do other minorities allow the majority to define their character, views, and opinions? No, they do not. So why does everyone expect atheists to lie down and accept the definition placed upon them by the world’s theists? Atheists will define themselves.
Atheism is not a belief system nor is it a religion. While there are some religions that are atheistic (certain sects of Buddhism, for example), that does not mean that atheism is a religion. Two commonly used retorts to the nonsense that atheism is a religion are: 1) If atheism is a religion then bald is a hair color, and 2) If atheism is a religion then health is a disease. A new one introduced in 2012 by Bill Maher is, "If atheism is a religion, then abstinence is a sexual position."
The only common thread that ties all atheists together is a lack of belief in gods and supernatural beings. Some of the best debates we have ever had have been with fellow atheists. This is because atheists do not have a common belief system, sacred scripture or atheist Pope. This means atheists often disagree on many issues and ideas. Atheists come in a variety of shapes, colors, beliefs, convictions, and backgrounds. We are as unique as our fingerprints.
You need to learn what atheism is not. The major thing it is not is, atheism is not truth. In your picture, above, you have falsely quoted the things that Jesus said. Do you really know the things that Jesus said? Have you really gotten into the Bible? Wake up. Your atheism dream religion (yes, religion; see the atheism dogma you quoted above) is the exact thing that is killing you. What? I quoted nothing except an excerpt from an atheism website. I'm certain none of it consists of Jesus' quotes. But you quoted it from the standpoint that sounded like you were agreeing with it, the things in the atheism website. Those things are part of the dogma of the atheism religion. And you seem to agree with them. And you said they were quoting Jesus. Your point? As usual, you intentionally misunderstand. In the picture of Jesus, above, the words are not quotes of Jesus found in the Bible. The things in the referenced atheism site are the dogma of the atheism religion. Do you have a point? You know quite well I didn't post any Jesus pictures and yet you try to convince everyone that I did. My point is you were either lying or covering up your own confusion or trying to confuse other people. You made things up and then back-peddled. Again. But you DID post it. And you know quite well you did post it. It is posted right above in one of your reply posts, if nowhere else. So, YOU DID post it after all. And you want to lie about it? And badmouth me on top of your lies? Mwahahahahahaha. You can't get away with it, no matter how hard you try. Even deleting the post will only show you to be a liar more firmly. No, there's no post from me where I quote Jesus or post pictures of him. Are you confused or lying? |
|
|
|
Alright! You are not an atheist then. What's the point? All your quoting doesn't prove or disprove the fact that atheism is poison. If it does, how? The quoting of Jesus shows that God exists. Atheists are actually able to say "Jesus" and recite quotes from the bible -- it's not a solely Christian ability. You need to learn what an atheist is. https://atheists.org/activism/resources/what-is-atheismWHAT IS ATHEISM?
No one asks this question enough.
The reason no one asks this question a lot is because most people have preconceived ideas and notions about what an Atheist is and is not. Where these preconceived ideas come from varies, but they tend to evolve from theistic influences or other sources.
Atheism is usually defined incorrectly as a belief system. Atheism is not a disbelief in gods or a denial of gods; it is a lack of belief in gods. Older dictionaries define atheism as "a belief that there is no God." Some dictionaries even go so far as to define Atheism as "wickedness," "sinfulness," and other derogatory adjectives. Clearly, theistic influence taints dictionaries. People cannot trust these dictionaries to define atheism. The fact that dictionaries define Atheism as "there is no God" betrays the (mono)theistic influence. Without the (mono)theistic influence, the definition would at least read "there are no gods."
Why should atheists allow theists to define who atheists are? Do other minorities allow the majority to define their character, views, and opinions? No, they do not. So why does everyone expect atheists to lie down and accept the definition placed upon them by the world’s theists? Atheists will define themselves.
Atheism is not a belief system nor is it a religion. While there are some religions that are atheistic (certain sects of Buddhism, for example), that does not mean that atheism is a religion. Two commonly used retorts to the nonsense that atheism is a religion are: 1) If atheism is a religion then bald is a hair color, and 2) If atheism is a religion then health is a disease. A new one introduced in 2012 by Bill Maher is, "If atheism is a religion, then abstinence is a sexual position."
The only common thread that ties all atheists together is a lack of belief in gods and supernatural beings. Some of the best debates we have ever had have been with fellow atheists. This is because atheists do not have a common belief system, sacred scripture or atheist Pope. This means atheists often disagree on many issues and ideas. Atheists come in a variety of shapes, colors, beliefs, convictions, and backgrounds. We are as unique as our fingerprints.
You need to learn what atheism is not. The major thing it is not is, atheism is not truth. In your picture, above, you have falsely quoted the things that Jesus said. Do you really know the things that Jesus said? Have you really gotten into the Bible? Wake up. Your atheism dream religion (yes, religion; see the atheism dogma you quoted above) is the exact thing that is killing you. What? I quoted nothing except an excerpt from an atheism website. I'm certain none of it consists of Jesus' quotes. But you quoted it from the standpoint that sounded like you were agreeing with it, the things in the atheism website. Those things are part of the dogma of the atheism religion. And you seem to agree with them. And you said they were quoting Jesus. Your point? As usual, you intentionally misunderstand. In the picture of Jesus, above, the words are not quotes of Jesus found in the Bible. The things in the referenced atheism site are the dogma of the atheism religion. Do you have a point? You know quite well I didn't post any Jesus pictures and yet you try to convince everyone that I did. My point is you were either lying or covering up your own confusion or trying to confuse other people. You made things up and then back-peddled. Again. |
|
|
|
|
@CoinCube - does it bother you that you're simply making Religion a utilitarian necessity? "If you follow a religion, you'll be happier. healthier, etc". It doesn't matter if there's a god or not, right, as long as you're better off in a religion?
And then that the reverse is also true -- that if you're unhappier and unhealthier in a religion, you'd be better off not being in a religion?
|
|
|
|
It is easily possible to prove something that does not exist.
I have no elephants in my house. Or I am not drinking alcohol.
Only true in the trivial cases where something is provable, but not true for all cases. Do you have invisible microscopic elephants that run from you when you attempt to investigate them? Have you drunk alcohol that tastes and smells like like water and does not get you drunk and that someone has been putting in your water pipes? This is an illustration of why the burden of proof regarding the existence of god is with those who claim a god or gods to exist. Since when are provable arguments trivial? Trivially provable compared to that which is in principle unprovable. When the definition of elephant includes "invisible microscopic elephants" and the definition of alcohol includes "alcohol that tastes and smells like like water and does not get you drunk" then you may have a point.
But currently neither are true so your argument fails as a strawman.
Firstly, prove that you do or don't have completely undetectable elephants in your house. You can't. Why? They cannot be detected. Therefore you cannot prove they are there. Or not. It's not a strawman argument. I'm not claiming this is your idea, I'm adding new concepts. The point being that it is possible to prove a negative.
Perhaps in some well defined cases, but not in all or even most cases. This does not mean that it is possible that God does or does not exist, unless you define God as such that such a statement actually becomes provable.
Given that there is no universally consistent set of properties attributable to God that does make it harder to prove anything.
Quite true - definitions are everything in this case. Terms have to be explicit, including what is meant by "God". This varies so much it's practically idiosyncratic with every person defining "god" or "gods" in their own way, slightly different to the next person. If you define your terms to suit, you can prove god exists or doesn't exist. In summary: God may or may not exist, for values of ominpotence between 0 and 1. |
|
|
|
What? I quoted nothing except an excerpt from an atheism website. I'm certain none of it consists of Jesus' quotes.
But you quoted it from the standpoint that sounded like you were agreeing with it, the things in the atheism website. Those things are part of the dogma of the atheism religion. And you seem to agree with them. And you said they were quoting Jesus. Your point? |
|
|
|
Now you are touting a particular religion other than atheism?  Fickle. This is not new... I have been quoting Jesus to you for months... since you clearly have no clue what the man said in the bible Alright! You are not an atheist then. What's the point? All your quoting doesn't prove or disprove the fact that atheism is poison. If it does, how? The quoting of Jesus shows that God exists. Atheists are actually able to say "Jesus" and recite quotes from the bible -- it's not a solely Christian ability. You need to learn what an atheist is. https://atheists.org/activism/resources/what-is-atheismWHAT IS ATHEISM?
No one asks this question enough.
The reason no one asks this question a lot is because most people have preconceived ideas and notions about what an Atheist is and is not. Where these preconceived ideas come from varies, but they tend to evolve from theistic influences or other sources.
Atheism is usually defined incorrectly as a belief system. Atheism is not a disbelief in gods or a denial of gods; it is a lack of belief in gods. Older dictionaries define atheism as "a belief that there is no God." Some dictionaries even go so far as to define Atheism as "wickedness," "sinfulness," and other derogatory adjectives. Clearly, theistic influence taints dictionaries. People cannot trust these dictionaries to define atheism. The fact that dictionaries define Atheism as "there is no God" betrays the (mono)theistic influence. Without the (mono)theistic influence, the definition would at least read "there are no gods."
Why should atheists allow theists to define who atheists are? Do other minorities allow the majority to define their character, views, and opinions? No, they do not. So why does everyone expect atheists to lie down and accept the definition placed upon them by the world’s theists? Atheists will define themselves.
Atheism is not a belief system nor is it a religion. While there are some religions that are atheistic (certain sects of Buddhism, for example), that does not mean that atheism is a religion. Two commonly used retorts to the nonsense that atheism is a religion are: 1) If atheism is a religion then bald is a hair color, and 2) If atheism is a religion then health is a disease. A new one introduced in 2012 by Bill Maher is, "If atheism is a religion, then abstinence is a sexual position."
The only common thread that ties all atheists together is a lack of belief in gods and supernatural beings. Some of the best debates we have ever had have been with fellow atheists. This is because atheists do not have a common belief system, sacred scripture or atheist Pope. This means atheists often disagree on many issues and ideas. Atheists come in a variety of shapes, colors, beliefs, convictions, and backgrounds. We are as unique as our fingerprints.
You need to learn what atheism is not. The major thing it is not is, atheism is not truth. In your picture, above, you have falsely quoted the things that Jesus said. Do you really know the things that Jesus said? Have you really gotten into the Bible? Wake up. Your atheism dream religion (yes, religion; see the atheism dogma you quoted above) is the exact thing that is killing you. What? I quoted nothing except an excerpt from an atheism website. I'm certain none of it consists of Jesus' quotes. |
|
|
|
Now you are touting a particular religion other than atheism? Fickle. This is not new... I have been quoting Jesus to you for months... since you clearly have no clue what the man said in the bible Alright! You are not an atheist then. What's the point? All your quoting doesn't prove or disprove the fact that atheism is poison. If it does, how? The quoting of Jesus shows that God exists. Atheists are actually able to say "Jesus" and recite quotes from the bible -- it's not a solely Christian ability. You need to learn what an atheist is. https://atheists.org/activism/resources/what-is-atheismWHAT IS ATHEISM?
No one asks this question enough.
The reason no one asks this question a lot is because most people have preconceived ideas and notions about what an Atheist is and is not. Where these preconceived ideas come from varies, but they tend to evolve from theistic influences or other sources.
Atheism is usually defined incorrectly as a belief system. Atheism is not a disbelief in gods or a denial of gods; it is a lack of belief in gods. Older dictionaries define atheism as "a belief that there is no God." Some dictionaries even go so far as to define Atheism as "wickedness," "sinfulness," and other derogatory adjectives. Clearly, theistic influence taints dictionaries. People cannot trust these dictionaries to define atheism. The fact that dictionaries define Atheism as "there is no God" betrays the (mono)theistic influence. Without the (mono)theistic influence, the definition would at least read "there are no gods."
Why should atheists allow theists to define who atheists are? Do other minorities allow the majority to define their character, views, and opinions? No, they do not. So why does everyone expect atheists to lie down and accept the definition placed upon them by the world’s theists? Atheists will define themselves.
Atheism is not a belief system nor is it a religion. While there are some religions that are atheistic (certain sects of Buddhism, for example), that does not mean that atheism is a religion. Two commonly used retorts to the nonsense that atheism is a religion are: 1) If atheism is a religion then bald is a hair color, and 2) If atheism is a religion then health is a disease. A new one introduced in 2012 by Bill Maher is, "If atheism is a religion, then abstinence is a sexual position."
The only common thread that ties all atheists together is a lack of belief in gods and supernatural beings. Some of the best debates we have ever had have been with fellow atheists. This is because atheists do not have a common belief system, sacred scripture or atheist Pope. This means atheists often disagree on many issues and ideas. Atheists come in a variety of shapes, colors, beliefs, convictions, and backgrounds. We are as unique as our fingerprints.
|
|
|
|
Are you sure about that last part?
Yes. I think you meant block change response rather than block propagation. Block propagation is different to a pool's response to block changes. Block propagation is related to how connected a pool is to the network, block change response seems to be a software issue. I've read that Kano's response to block changes is very quick, but I haven't read that Kano's block propagation times are that much better than any one elses. If I'm wrong, please post a link. |
|
|
|
empty blocks result from bursts
Uh, what is a "burst"? Whatever it is, it's not why empty blocks happen. Empty blocks come from bad/lazy coders looking for a shortcut. A empty block will propagate faster through the network and a full block would most likely get orphaned (if both are solved in similar times).
Not true at all, kano.is has about the fastest network block propagation and never mines empty blocks. Are you sure about that last part? |
|
|
|
Now, now. Relax. Your use of expletives shows that you are having trouble understanding even the things that you write. Did you make that definition up? I see no reference for it. Tell me what part of the universe or nature exists without thermodynamic energy. Even absolute zero is only theoretical, since nobody has been able to confirm that they have attained it in the lab, or found it in nature. Look in your definition, above. A "degree of disorder" is a dissolving/dispersing/dissipating/diffusing of thermodynamic energy. Since thermodynamic energy is in everything, entropy is a dissolving/dispersing/dissipating/diffusing of of everything. When you have complexity, if it is dissolved/dispersed/dissipated/diffused, it becomes less complex. This is happening all the time in the universe around us. The term "randomness" in your definition is misleading. Randomness as we understand it pertains to our guesswork of how tiny quantities of material and/or energy might be working. This is what quantum mechanics is all about. Because we are so limited in our abilities, we can't measure all the forces and energies that act on anything. In the lab, we might think that we have, if that is what we are really trying to do, like with microcalorimetric functions. But even there we can't be sure. This is why quantum mechanics is a probability operation, rather than a reality operation. True randomness doesn't exist. Everything acts according to the laws of cause and effect as upheld by Newton's 3rd Law. There is no random in the universe outside of our own usage of a virtual random because we are so inadequate in understanding the precision works of the laws of the universe. What are you going to do now? Are you going to attempt to prove your ignorance more than you have already? You still don't provide a definition of complexity, so you haven't answered the question. You must really know how to use the Bitcointalk spell-checker really well. For somebody who doesn't know how to use the dictionary, your spelling is quite good. organofcorti asked you to provide a definition of complexity. (how is it related to entropy?) Do you get a bigger Bitcointalk rating for repeating other people's questions: There are no dictionary definitions of complexity that mention entropy, or relate to other things you discuss. The wiki entry: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Complexity does discuss complexity in such a way and provides competing explanations. I want to know which of these definitions you are using. To everyone else: What will BADecker's next post be? a) infantile name calling b) changing the subject c) a long incomprehensible ramble about complexity that still doesn't leave anyone any the wiser. I think each of those have about the same probability of occurring. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
