Psychiatrists Now Say Non-Conformity is a Mental Illness: Only the Sheeple are '

[Bit_Happy]

Psychiatrists Now Say Non-Conformity is a Mental Illness: Only the Sheeple are 'Sane'.

Modern psychiatry has become a hotbed of corruption, particularly the kind that seeks to demonize and declare mentally ill anyone who deviates from what is regarded as the norm. This is abundantly evident in the latest installment of the industry's Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, or DSM, which dubs people who do not conform to what those in charge declare to be normal as mentally insane.

The so-called "condition" for why a person might choose to resist conformity has been labeled by the psychiatric profession as "oppositional defiant disorder," or ODD. The new DSM defines this made-up disease as an "ongoing pattern of disobedient, hostile and defiant behavior," and also lumps it in alongside attention deficit hyperactivity disorder, or ADHD, another made-up condition whose creator, Dr. Leon Eisenberg, admitted it to be phony on his death bed.

As you might suspect from this type of open-ended description, almost any personal behavior perceived by someone else to be undesirable or strange might be categorized as symptomatic of ODD...   ~source

EDIT: I found it here:
http://www.lewrockwell.com/2015/01/no_author/are-you-odd


I don't trust most doctors, and this makes it worse. What do you think?
 

[1715208157]

1715208157

[1715208157]

1715208157

[1715208157]

1715208157

[1715208157]

1715208157

[commandrix]

Do you think such a desperate attempt to justify one's own existence as psychiatrists so often display could be a sign of mental illness?

[Lethn]

I don't trust most doctors, and this makes it worse. What do you think?

You can trust doctors because they're normally scientists and can properly explain to you what's going on with your body or why you would need certain medication, now psychiatrists on the other hand I would agree aren't always trustworthy. You could have picked a better website though to backup your feelings about psychiatrists though as there are plenty of other websites and even news journalists that have gone into this sort of thing.

[pedrog]

Sources for this article include:

http://breakingdeception.com

http://www.naturalnews.com

http://rense.com

http://jaapl.org

http://science.naturalnews.com

ROTFLMAO

[Bit_Happy]

I found it here:
http://www.lewrockwell.com/2015/01/no_author/are-you-odd

Why "attack" the source if the info/opinion is valid?

[Bit_Happy]

Let's see if Google can be trusted:

"Oppositional defiant disorder
Consult a doctor if you have a medical concern.
Oppositional defiant disorder is a pattern of disobedient, hostile, and defiant behavior toward authority figures."


ODD is another BS "medical condition" being used to control and sedate people...
A lot like the article in the OP says.

[BitCoinNutJob]

Psychiatrists Now Say Non-Conformity is a Mental Illness: Only the Sheeple are 'Sane'.

Its a dangerous philosophy, so we all are supposed to naturally accept being in a multi million person sized tribe and be the mean average of all these people.  Doesn't feel right.

[spazzdla]

Metal Illness crap is a pseudoscience.

THere is no proof of any of that crap just a bunch of people agreeing if you act a certian way you are "sick".. it is moronic. Alas almost no one knows this and things most of this made up shit is legit.

[BitCoinNutJob]

^ agree on mental illness labels basically being a waste of time, the pressure of being labelled mentally ill can make people mentally ill.

[Wilikon]

Psychiatrists Now Say Non-Conformity is a Mental Illness: Only the Sheeple are 'Sane'.

Modern psychiatry has become a hotbed of corruption, particularly the kind that seeks to demonize and declare mentally ill anyone who deviates from what is regarded as the norm. This is abundantly evident in the latest installment of the industry's Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, or DSM, which dubs people who do not conform to what those in charge declare to be normal as mentally insane.

The so-called "condition" for why a person might choose to resist conformity has been labeled by the psychiatric profession as "oppositional defiant disorder," or ODD. The new DSM defines this made-up disease as an "ongoing pattern of disobedient, hostile and defiant behavior," and also lumps it in alongside attention deficit hyperactivity disorder, or ADHD, another made-up condition whose creator, Dr. Leon Eisenberg, admitted it to be phony on his death bed.

As you might suspect from this type of open-ended description, almost any personal behavior perceived by someone else to be undesirable or strange might be categorized as symptomatic of ODD...   ~source

EDIT: I found it here:
http://www.lewrockwell.com/2015/01/no_author/are-you-odd


I don't trust most doctors, and this makes it worse. What do you think?
 

It means anyone who believes in the future of bitcoin is suffering from ODD...

[pedrog]

I found it here:
http://www.lewrockwell.com/2015/01/no_author/are-you-odd

Why "attack" the source if the info/opinion is valid?

C'mon, naturalnews.com is a crackpot website, don't waste your time with that, if you do, stay highly skeptical when reading that crap.

[TECSHARE]

Time to refurbish the gulags and confiscate the guns from the "loonies".

[Chef Ramsay]

In semi-related news:

Veteran’s Guns Seized Due to Insomnia Diagnosis Under New York’s SAFE Act

Navy veteran and former police officer Donald Montgomery filed a lawsuit in federal court on December 17 against New York state officials and Eastern Long Island Hospital after his guns were seized under the newly-passed SAFE Act following a doctor visit in which he sought treatment for insomnia.

More...http://benswann.com/veterans-guns-seized-due-to-insomnia-diagnosis-under-new-yorks-safe-act/

[username18333]

Psychiatrists Now Say Non-Conformity is a Mental Illness: Only the Sheeple are 'Sane'.

. . .

Its a dangerous philosophy, so we all are supposed to naturally accept being in a multi million person sized tribe and be the mean average of all these people.  Doesn't feel right.

Technically, this diagnosis could be avoided by claiming to conform with the GE government (and, accordingly, its laws).

[ObscureBean]

I really don't see why it's so hard for you people to understand this. This has been the path of the world since the dawn of 'civilization', this is how YOU choose to live.
The world doesn't need you to be happy (although it will try everything it can to make you think you're happy) or free, it only needs you to be a good little functional cog within the system and that's it. You get sick, it fixes you right up and throws you back into the machine but there is no feeling involved here. You rebel, 2 options: mental hospital or prison.
The 'world' is at its most powerful when you're growing up, that's when it will try its best to seduce you with everything under the sun. By the time you're working, the world relaxes its grips, it doesn't need to win you anymore, you're already hooked into the machine, now your actions have serious consequences. It has already replaced the 'freedom' you briefly knew as an infant with its own version it. You're entangled  
As much as you don't wanna hear this, I still gotta say it, every human on earth can be classified under 'Sheeple', even the most rebellious, non-conformists who've shunned society most of their lives.
Why pretend to rebel against laws, government or the world? you willfully choose to live this way.

[BADecker]

Who cares what they think or say? The only reason that some politician expresses what they think or say, is so that maybe you will be convinced that their stuff applies to you. If you believe it does, then it does. Why? Because it is your belief that condemns you or sets you free when you stand before government.

Now, I am not picking on Lew Rockwell. He is a terrific guy and his fight is a fight to help us all. His only problem is that he is fighting aimlessly, simply beating the air with some of the things he is doing. He needs to get down to the basics and see that most of the things he is doing aren't the things that apply to us. Rather, they are the things that apply to government and government people.

Government laws don't apply you. None of them do, except if you harm someone, damage his property, or contract with government, and then only with regard to the contract. It's in the Constitution. And it's built in such a way that you can use it to individually overcome the whole government if necessary.

Take a look at the info in the links listed at https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=916456.msg10079836#msg10079836, and see that government rights don't apply to you except if you are in government, or except if you want them to. Otherwise, you have the right to do ANYTHING AND EVERYTHING as long as you don't hurt someone, damage his property, or break a contract that you explicitly signed.

Psychiatrist blabber doesn't apply to you except if you let somebody talk you into BELIEVING that it DOES apply to you.

[iCEBREAKER]

Psychiatrists Now Say Non-Conformity is a Mental Illness: Only the Sheeple are 'Sane'.

Modern psychiatry has become a hotbed of corruption, particularly the kind that seeks to demonize and declare mentally ill anyone who deviates from what is regarded as the norm. This is abundantly evident in the latest installment of the industry's Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, or DSM, which dubs people who do not conform to what those in charge declare to be normal as mentally insane.
I don't trust most doctors, and this makes it worse. What do you think?

Psychology is a folk theory, not an empirical science.

It's being used to pathologize dissent, and has been since the days of the Soviets.

EG: https://duckduckgo.com/?q=global+warming+denial+mental+psychological
->
http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/hot-thought/201110/emotional-causes-climate-change-denial
http://www.climatechangejournal.com/category/psychology-of-denial/
http://www.spiked-online.com/newsite/article/6320
http://www.sott.net/article/179393-The-Psychologisation-of-Dissent-The-Global-Warming-Skepticism-Mental-Disorder

For the deep background, check out The Freudian Left at http://www.rankandfiler.net/freudian-left/ and get a copy from http://www.alibris.com/The-Freudian-Left-Paul-A-Robinson/book/10276642

It sucks to wade through this gobbledygook, but worth the effort to know the enemy.

The Frankfurt School didn't really disappear, they just moved to greener pastures after throwing Germany (and the rest of Europe) into bloody chaos.

Here is where they are now:  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wright_Institute (right across campus from Robert Reich's perch at the Goldman School).

[BADecker]

Psychiatrists have the disease of non-conformity to the rules of common law which have stood since the beginning of time, and which allow people to NOT be part of the government, but rather allow the people to do anything that they want as long as it harms no-one, damages no-one's property, and doesn't break a contract.

[username18333]

Psychiatrists have the disease of non-conformity to the rules of common law which have stood since the beginning of time, and which allow people to NOT be part of the government, but rather allow the people to do anything that they want as long as it harms no-one, damages no-one's property, and doesn't break a contract.

(Red colorization mine.)

It would follow, since “the rules of common law” (BADecker) had to be composed, that there was a when they had not yet been.

[BADecker]

Psychiatrists have the disease of non-conformity to the rules of common law which have stood since the beginning of time, and which allow people to NOT be part of the government, but rather allow the people to do anything that they want as long as it harms no-one, damages no-one's property, and doesn't break a contract.

(Red colorization mine.)

It would follow that, since “the rules of common law” (BADecker) had to be composed, there was a time before law (e.g., the time prior its composition).

Before there was government, there were only the laws of nature. As government came about, the laws of nature were adopted into the government, for the sake of fairness among the people. At their base, the common laws are the laws of nature regarding interaction of people... harm no-one, and don't damage property that belongs to someone else.

[username18333]

Psychiatrists have the disease of non-conformity to the rules of common law which have stood since the beginning of time, and which allow people to NOT be part of the government, but rather allow the people to do anything that they want as long as it harms no-one, damages no-one's property, and doesn't break a contract.

(Red colorization mine.)

It would follow, since “the rules of common law” (BADecker) had to be composed, that there was a when they had not yet been.

Before there was government, there were only the laws of nature. As government came about, the laws of nature were adopted into the government, for the sake of fairness among the people. At their base, the common laws are the laws of nature regarding interaction of people... harm no-one, and don't damage property that belongs to someone else.

(Red colorization mine.)

Black holes “do” all those things and, yet, are the epitome of the nature of the matter wherewith most earthly Homo sapiens sapiens are familiar.

[BADecker]

Psychiatrists have the disease of non-conformity to the rules of common law which have stood since the beginning of time, and which allow people to NOT be part of the government, but rather allow the people to do anything that they want as long as it harms no-one, damages no-one's property, and doesn't break a contract.

(Red colorization mine.)

It would follow, since “the rules of common law” (BADecker) had to be composed, that there was a when they had not yet been.

Before there was government, there were only the laws of nature. As government came about, the laws of nature were adopted into the government, for the sake of fairness among the people. At their base, the common laws are the laws of nature regarding interaction of people... harm no-one, and don't damage property that belongs to someone else.

(Red colorization mine.)

Black holes “do” all those things and, yet, are the epitome of the nature of the matter wherewith most terrestrial Homo sapiens sapiens are familiar.

Black holes are still theoretical. 

[username18333]

Psychiatrists have the disease of non-conformity to the rules of common law which have stood since the beginning of time, and which allow people to NOT be part of the government, but rather allow the people to do anything that they want as long as it harms no-one, damages no-one's property, and doesn't break a contract.

(Red colorization mine.)

It would follow, since “the rules of common law” (BADecker) had to be composed, that there was a when they had not yet been.

Before there was government, there were only the laws of nature. As government came about, the laws of nature were adopted into the government, for the sake of fairness among the people. At their base, the common laws are the laws of nature regarding interaction of people... harm no-one, and don't damage property that belongs to someone else.

(Red colorization mine.)

Black holes “do” all those things and, yet, are the epitome of the nature of the matter wherewith most terrestrial Homo sapiens sapiens are familiar.

Black holes are still theoretical.  

Only insofar as the limits of observation have denied the theory merit.

[BADecker]

Thank you for agreeing^^.   

[username18333]

Thank you for agreeing^^.   

Regardless, what one observes amid the conduct of bacteria is the conduct of biological animal nature (i.e., that nature whereto you were making reference). One does not observe "the rules of common law" (BADecker) among them but, merely, those functions required for their continued survival as both individuals and species (namely, cellular respiration and mitosis).

[BADecker]

Thank you for agreeing^^.   

Regardless, what one observes amid the conduct of bacteria is the conduct of biological animal nature (i.e., that nature whereto you were making reference). One does not observe "the rules of common law" (BADecker) among them but, merely, those functions required for their continued survival as both individuals and species (namely, cellular respiration and mitosis).

What does the conduct of bacteria have to do with the common laws of people interacting with other people? I get it. Some bacteria cause a person's back to itch, right where he can't reach to scratch it. It makes him so irritable that he goes out and breaks the common law by shooting his neighbor, right?

[username18333]

Thank you for agreeing^^.  

Regardless, what one observes amid the conduct of bacteria is the conduct of biological animal nature (i.e., that nature whereto you were making reference). One does not observe "the rules of common law" (BADecker) among them but, merely, those functions required for their continued survival as both individuals and species (namely, cellular respiration and mitosis).

What does the conduct of bacteria have to do with the common laws of people interacting with other people? I get it. Some bacteria cause a person's back to itch, right where he can't reach to scratch it. It makes him so irritable that he goes out and breaks the common law by shooting his neighbor, right?

Bottom line, if they (bacteria) don’t heed it, it’s only as “natural” as the culture (pun intended for rhetorical effect) that begot it.

[BADecker]

Thank you for agreeing^^.  

Regardless, what one observes amid the conduct of bacteria is the conduct of biological animal nature (i.e., that nature whereto you were making reference). One does not observe "the rules of common law" (BADecker) among them but, merely, those functions required for their continued survival as both individuals and species (namely, cellular respiration and mitosis).

What does the conduct of bacteria have to do with the common laws of people interacting with other people? I get it. Some bacteria cause a person's back to itch, right where he can't reach to scratch it. It makes him so irritable that he goes out and breaks the common law by shooting his neighbor, right?

Bottom line, if they (bacteria) don’t heed it, it’s only as “natural” as the culture (pun intended for rhetorical effect [here, absurd juxtaposition]) that begot it.

But really. Bacteria obey the laws of nature automatically. They don't have freedom of choice.

While scientists say that we have freedom of choice, and then say that we don't because everything operates by cause and effect, it still seems that we DO have freedom of choice. Hence, we need the common law while bacteria don't.

[username18333]

. . .

Bottom line, if they (bacteria) don’t heed it, it’s only as “natural” as the culture (pun intended for rhetorical effect) that begot it.

But really. Bacteria obey the laws of nature automatically. They don't have freedom of choice.

While scientists say that we have freedom of choice, and then say that we don't because everything operates by cause and effect, it still seems that we DO have freedom of choice. Hence, we need the common law while bacteria don't.

A bacterium obeys the interplay of its genes and its environment—as does a Homo sapiens sapiens; therefore, I relegate “the rules of common law” (BADecker) to culture—an artificial element of human environments.

[BADecker]

. . .

Bottom line, if they (bacteria) don’t heed it, it’s only as “natural” as the culture (pun intended for rhetorical effect) that begot it.

But really. Bacteria obey the laws of nature automatically. They don't have freedom of choice.

While scientists say that we have freedom of choice, and then say that we don't because everything operates by cause and effect, it still seems that we DO have freedom of choice. Hence, we need the common law while bacteria don't.

A bacterium obeys the interplay of its genes and its environment—as does a Homo sapiens sapiens. Hence, I relegate “the rules of the common law” (BADecker) to culture—an artificial element of human environments.

This is where religion comes in. God holds us with freedom of choice, even though it is in a small area. Then He produces and changes (if necessary) to the cause and effect that come about from the tiny freedom of choice that we have.

[username18333]

. . .

Bottom line, if they (bacteria) don’t heed it, it’s only as “natural” as the culture (pun intended for rhetorical effect) that begot it.

But really. Bacteria obey the laws of nature automatically. They don't have freedom of choice.

While scientists say that we have freedom of choice, and then say that we don't because everything operates by cause and effect, it still seems that we DO have freedom of choice. Hence, we need the common law while bacteria don't.

A bacterium obeys the interplay of its genes and its environment—as does a Homo sapiens sapiens; therefore, I relegate “the rules of common law” (BADecker) to culture—an artificial element of human environments.

This is where religion comes in. God holds us with freedom of choice, even though it is in a small area. Then He produces and changes (if necessary) to the cause and effect that come about from the tiny freedom of choice that we have.

(Prior enlightenment thought and its secular humanism, your Arminianism would be heresy.)

“Freedom” manifests itself within a bacterium as the random activation of its functions for the entropy of its molecules. Why would the “freedom” of a Homo sapiens sapiens be any different?

[BADecker]

. . .

Bottom line, if they (bacteria) don’t heed it, it’s only as “natural” as the culture (pun intended for rhetorical effect) that begot it.

But really. Bacteria obey the laws of nature automatically. They don't have freedom of choice.

While scientists say that we have freedom of choice, and then say that we don't because everything operates by cause and effect, it still seems that we DO have freedom of choice. Hence, we need the common law while bacteria don't.

A bacterium obeys the interplay of its genes and its environment—as does a Homo sapiens sapiens; therefore, I relegate “the rules of common law” (BADecker) to culture—an artificial element of human environments.

This is where religion comes in. God holds us with freedom of choice, even though it is in a small area. Then He produces and changes (if necessary) to the cause and effect that come about from the tiny freedom of choice that we have.

(Prior enlightenment thought and its secular humanism, your Arminianism would be heresy.)

“Freedom” manifests itself within a bacterium as the random activation of its functions for the entropy of its molecules. Why would the “freedom” of a Homo sapiens sapiens be any different?

Sorry. There isn't any random. Everything operates by cause and effect. We only use random and probability among ourselves because we are too weak in observing in detail, the causes of the effects. But it is still all cause and effect. No random exists.

[username18333]

. . .

(Prior enlightenment thought and its secular humanism, your Arminianism would be heresy.)

“Freedom” manifests itself within a bacterium as the random activation of its functions for the entropy of its molecules. Why would the “freedom” of a Homo sapiens sapiens be any different?

Sorry. There isn't any random. Everything operates by cause and effect. We only use random and probability among ourselves because we are too weak in observing in detail, the causes of the effects. But it is still all cause and effect. No random exists.

Entropy as a Measure of the Multiplicity of a System

The probability of finding a system in a given state depends upon the multiplicity of that state. That is to say, it is proportional to the number of ways you can produce that state. Here a "state" is defined by some measurable property which would allow you to distinguish it from other states. In throwing a pair of dice, that measurable property is the sum of the number of dots facing up. The multiplicity for two dots showing is just one, because there is only one arrangement of the dice which will give that state. The multiplicity for seven dots showing is six, because there are six arrangements of the dice which will show a total of seven dots.

One way to define the quantity "entropy" is to do it in terms of the multiplicity.

Multiplicity = W
Entropy = S = k lnW

where k is Boltzmann's constant. This is Boltzmann's expression for entropy, and in fact S = klnW is carved onto his tombstone! The k is included as part of the historical definition of entropy and gives the units Joule/Kelvin in the SI system of units. The logarithm is used to make the defined entropy of reasonable size. It also gives the right kind of behavior for combining two systems. The entropy of the combined systems will be the sum of their entropies, but the multiplicity will be the product of their multiplicities. The fact that the logarithm of the product of two multiplicities is the sum of their individual logarithms gives the proper kind of combination of entropies. The multiplicity for ordinary collections of matter is inconveniently large, on the order of Avogadro's number, so using the logarithm of the multiplicity as entropy is convenient.

For a system of a large number of particles, like a mole of atoms, the most probable state will be overwhelmingly probable. You can with confidence expect that the system at equilibrium will be found in the state of highest multiplicity since fluctuations from that state will usually be too small to measure. As a large system approaches equilibrium, its multiplicity (entropy) tends to increase. This is a way of stating the second law of thermodynamics.

[BADecker]

. . .

(Prior enlightenment thought and its secular humanism, your Arminianism would be heresy.)

“Freedom” manifests itself within a bacterium as the random activation of its functions for the entropy of its molecules. Why would the “freedom” of a Homo sapiens sapiens be any different?

Sorry. There isn't any random. Everything operates by cause and effect. We only use random and probability among ourselves because we are too weak in observing in detail, the causes of the effects. But it is still all cause and effect. No random exists.

Entropy as a Measure of the Multiplicity of a System

The probability of finding a system in a given state depends upon the multiplicity of that state. That is to say, it is proportional to the number of ways you can produce that state. Here a "state" is defined by some measurable property which would allow you to distinguish it from other states. In throwing a pair of dice, that measurable property is the sum of the number of dots facing up. The multiplicity for two dots showing is just one, because there is only one arrangement of the dice which will give that state. The multiplicity for seven dots showing is six, because there are six arrangements of the dice which will show a total of seven dots.

One way to define the quantity "entropy" is to do it in terms of the multiplicity.

Multiplicity = W
Entropy = S = k lnW

where k is Boltzmann's constant. This is Boltzmann's expression for entropy, and in fact S = klnW is carved onto his tombstone! The k is included as part of the historical definition of entropy and gives the units Joule/Kelvin in the SI system of units. The logarithm is used to make the defined entropy of reasonable size. It also gives the right kind of behavior for combining two systems. The entropy of the combined systems will be the sum of their entropies, but the multiplicity will be the product of their multiplicities. The fact that the logarithm of the product of two multiplicities is the sum of their individual logarithms gives the proper kind of combination of entropies. The multiplicity for ordinary collections of matter is inconveniently large, on the order of Avogadro's number, so using the logarithm of the multiplicity as entropy is convenient.

For a system of a large number of particles, like a mole of atoms, the most probable state will be overwhelmingly probable. You can with confidence expect that the system at equilibrium will be found in the state of highest multiplicity since fluctuations from that state will usually be too small to measure. As a large system approaches equilibrium, its multiplicity (entropy) tends to increase. This is a way of stating the second law of thermodynamics.

Thank you for the confirmation. 

[username18333]

. . .

Thank you for the confirmation. 

In which case, there is a universe for every state of every system ever.

[BADecker]

. . .

Thank you for the confirmation. 

In which case, there is a universe for every state of every system ever.

Sounds like parallel universes. Maybe we each have our own universe, and never really enter the universe of another person. Possibly the closest that we come to entering another's universe is when there is conception between a man and a woman.

[username18333]

. . .

Thank you for the confirmation.  

In which case, there is a universe for every state of every system ever.

Sounds like parallel universes. Maybe we each have our own universe, and never really enter the universe of another person. Possibly the closest that we come to entering another's universe is when there is conception between a man and a woman.

(Under my proposal, the "observation" of "multiplicity" is the observation of "parallel universes." However, it was not a serious one.)

"Random" is what you get when energy doesn't have constraints. Systems exhibit multiplicity because, at their most fundamental levels, the energy put into them is not constrained.

[BADecker]

. . .

Thank you for the confirmation.  

In which case, there is a universe for every state of every system ever.

Sounds like parallel universes. Maybe we each have our own universe, and never really enter the universe of another person. Possibly the closest that we come to entering another's universe is when there is conception between a man and a woman.

(Under my proposal, the "observation" of "multiplicity" is the observation of "parallel universes." However, it was not a serious one.)

"Random" is what you get when energy doesn't have constraints. Systems exhibit multiplicity because, at their most fundamental levels, the energy put into them is not constrained.

Except that we don't know this for sure. What we DO know is that everything that we know for sure operates by cause and effect without random.

[username18333]

. . .

(Under my proposal, the "observation" of "multiplicity" is the observation of "parallel universes." However, it was not a serious one.)

"Random" is what you get when energy doesn't have constraints. Systems exhibit multiplicity because, at their most fundamental levels, the energy put into them is not constrained.

Except that we don't know this for sure. What we DO know is that everything that we know for sure operates by cause and effect without random.

That's "theory" in much the same way black holes are, and theory in none of the ways that they are.

[BADecker]

. . .

(Under my proposal, the "observation" of "multiplicity" is the observation of "parallel universes." However, it was not a serious one.)

"Random" is what you get when energy doesn't have constraints. Systems exhibit multiplicity because, at their most fundamental levels, the energy put into them is not constrained.

Except that we don't know this for sure. What we DO know is that everything that we know for sure operates by cause and effect without random.

That's "theory" in much the same way black holes are, and theory in none of the ways that they are.

Right. And the greater the scientist, the more the cause and effect observation. Can't ever really prove anything, however.

[username18333]

. . .

(Under my proposal, the "observation" of "multiplicity" is the observation of "parallel universes." However, it was not a serious one.)

"Random" is what you get when energy doesn't have constraints. Systems exhibit multiplicity because, at their most fundamental levels, the energy put into them is not constrained.

Except that we don't know this for sure. What we DO know is that everything that we know for sure operates by cause and effect without random.

That's "theory" in much the same way black holes are, and theory in none of the ways that they are.

Right. And the greater the scientist, the more the cause and effect observation. Can't ever really prove anything, however.

I will explain my previous post.

Presently, black holes cannot be physically observed, but they can be mathematically observed; however, "universal causation" (let's say) can be neither physically observed nor mathematically observed.

[BADecker]

. . .

(Under my proposal, the "observation" of "multiplicity" is the observation of "parallel universes." However, it was not a serious one.)

"Random" is what you get when energy doesn't have constraints. Systems exhibit multiplicity because, at their most fundamental levels, the energy put into them is not constrained.

Except that we don't know this for sure. What we DO know is that everything that we know for sure operates by cause and effect without random.

That's "theory" in much the same way black holes are, and theory in none of the ways that they are.

Right. And the greater the scientist, the more the cause and effect observation. Can't ever really prove anything, however.

I will explain my previous post.

Presently, black holes cannot, by definition, be physically observed, but they can be mathematically observed. However, "universal causation" (let's say) can be neither physically observed nor mathematically observed.

Everything that we know about operates by cause and effect.  Since math produces answers that are pure in the mathematical form, there is no way to determine if reality has the same effect, since there are many operations in reality that may not be considered in math examples.

[username18333]

. . .

(Under my proposal, the "observation" of "multiplicity" is the observation of "parallel universes." However, it was not a serious one.)

"Random" is what you get when energy doesn't have constraints. Systems exhibit multiplicity because, at their most fundamental levels, the energy put into them is not constrained.

Except that we don't know this for sure. What we DO know is that everything that we know for sure operates by cause and effect without random.

That's "theory" in much the same way black holes are, and theory in none of the ways that they are.

Right. And the greater the scientist, the more the cause and effect observation. Can't ever really prove anything, however.

I will explain my previous post.

Presently, black holes cannot, by definition, be physically observed, but they can be mathematically observed. However, "universal causation" (let's say) can be neither physically observed nor mathematically observed.

Everything that we know about operates by cause and effect.  Since math produces answers that are pure in the mathematical form, there is no way to determine if reality has the same effect, since there are many operations in reality that may not be considered in math examples.

Mathematics is the language with which God wrote the Universe.

[BADecker]

Mathematics is the language of the universe.

Mathematics is a language of man... one that he uses to attempt to describe the universe.

[username18333]

. . .

Mathematics is the language with which God wrote the Universe.

Mathematics is a language of man... one that he uses to attempt to describe the universe.

Language is an adaptation of culture—one that man uses to attempt to describe mathematics.

[BADecker]

. . .

Mathematics is the language with which God wrote the Universe.

Mathematics is a language of man... one that he uses to attempt to describe the universe.

Language is an adaptation of culture—one that man uses to attempt to describe mathematics.

I always wondered why they couldn't, for example, find the answer to pi.