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

[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.