God for scientists
Offline Hi All 
Long time no see.
Here is my late "gift" for all atheists.
A little long but worth reading.
--
I’ll start with the famous question: “Did a falling tree in the forest made a sound if nobody heard it?”
The answer is NO. The tree didn’t make any sound but did produce vibration with frequency between 20 and 20000 hertz.
Sound appears to us (and some sentient beings) when we with our ears detect (observe) these vibration frequencies.
The same explanation stands for all observations we do.
We do not observe matter but patterns created by wave interferences.
Those patterns have to be observed in order to “turn in to” the thing, which we named "matter" in all its observable variations. If not observed everything is nothing but waves interfering with each other.
When Einstein heard about “consciousness causes the wave function to collapse”, he said - “Does that mean that if I don’t look at the moon it doesn’t exist?”
Now we have the answer for Einstein. The moon is still there as pattern from wave interference but it becomes the moon Einstein knows only when observed by Einstein.
To simplify it in simplified scientific language I’d say that by observing we make the wave function to collapse, making it possible for as to see the particle behavior exhibited in what we call matter.
Since the singularity is beyond any mathematical explanation, we don’t have mathematical proof for the Big Bang theory but that doesn’t stop science using this explanation for the creation of the universe.
I’ll use part of the Big Bang theory to make my point.
Science doesn’t have explanation for the first moments of the Big Bang but at one point all that Universe was is put in two words – photons and neutrons (wave-particles) and to be more scientifically precise I’ll add space and time..
Note that some of you can be deceived from the “particle” part in the “wave-particle” name.
That entity is not particle. It is entity said to behave either as wave or as particle, but behavior is not consistence.
Therefore, it would be safer to think of it as wave.
Every wave emission needs source and since the Universe was waves, it could not be the source for itself.
That missing source in the scientific theories is what people call God.
I would not call it emission source though.
I would call it “awareness-wave” which interferes with itself.
My favorite explanation about this interference is DREAM.
A mind creates dream by interfering with itself.
The dream is the pattern created by the interference
I can imagine the difficulties many of you would have comprehending my idea.
It is not that difficult to understand that your observation makes the things appear in their sensible nature. Your minds are like medium, in which the wave turns into particle and becomes interactive sensible part of your surrounding.
The mind as part of the “awareness-wave” (God) can observe its own interference thus creating delusion about existence out of the self.
From this point on, the science can be right in most of its conclusions, but also very wrong in some of its bases.
Religious people BELIEVE that God created the world.
Creation implies deliberate action, intention.
The world wasn’t intentionally created therefore we can not call it creation.
It is appearance.
God, which I already explained as “awareness-wave”, is not even aware of its “creation”, but we as part of the “awareness-wave” can become aware of the “fact” that we observe pattern of our self-interference and this state is known as “awaken”.
You read about many such awakened people who brought the knowledge for God in this world.
That knowledge was given in different times to people with different intellectual levels and the explanations about God had to mach the intellectual capability of the auditory.
People with low intellectuality tend to accept old explanation without questioning and become blind religious followers.
The need for salvation brings obedience to rules, which was (and still is) used by the church for self-interests.
Possible argument:
- We may not hear the sound but it is still there. We can not say that only what is heard is sound.
Answer to the above:
The “sound” word has no absolute value because it describes our perception for certain vibration frequency.
That is valid for any word, which describes our perceptions.
Why our senses have no absolute value?
Lets take “red” (the color) for example.
It is word for color.
We named a range of light spectrum with the name “red”.
We agree on the fact that most humans can recognize that certain range, but we can not know how each of us see the color with that name.
Therefore, we conclude that perceptions have no absolute value.
In other words, one must not put absolute value for what we see, hear, touch, taste and smell.
It is only our perception of the wave interference, which we call Universe.
To make it even more clearer I’ll reverse it: The Universe is wave interference and our senses are making us see it the way we see it.
And now to make it complete: The Universe is wave interference + conscious observation
We can not apply noise, and light as property of the Universe, because for sentient being without the ability to see and hear it is not noisy and visible.
To say that the noise and the light are still there is illogical knowing that we are using not absolute values.
The absolute values are in the length and the phase of the interfering waves not in our perception of those values.
Another possible argument:
- Do you know what “wave function collapse” is?
Answer to the above:
Yes I know.
In not simplified language, I mean that we as measuring (observing) tools are defining the value to which the set of calculated probabilities will collapse. All around us is set of systems interfering with each other and us. We are defining the values for the wave function collapse of all that systems.
- Login to post comments
Do not confuse the observation of the resultant pattern of the interference experiment with the 'observation' of individual electrons passing through one of the openings in the equipment. The effect of the device 'observing' the electrons directly was not dependent on whether the device was actually recording its 'observations' or passing them on to a conscious observer. It was only dependent on the ability, or sensitivity, of the device to detect passing electrons.
IOW, the human observers saw the interference pattern collapse even though they did not observe or record the path of individual electrons.
Wave-function collapse only requires physical observation, not conscious observation in any intelligible sense. That has now been demonstrated by that experiment.
Do not mix speculation with empirical data.
Favorite oxymorons: Gospel Truth, Rational Supernaturalist, Business Ethics, Christian Morality
"Theology is now little more than a branch of human ignorance. Indeed, it is ignorance with wings." - Sam Harris
The path to Truth lies via careful study of reality, not the dreams of our fallible minds - me
From the sublime to the ridiculous: Science -> Philosophy -> Theology
I think that the better we know the language the less attention we pay to the meaning in the words.
With the time, we accept the word as meaning, forgetting that it only opens the door to it.
If we have to be precise, we don’t observe quantum systems.
The apparatus gives us the data and we observe it later.
And by the way all observations give us past result due to the speed of light, path of the signal to the brain and processing time.
We don’t observe the present.
The thing is that if we want to detect the path of the photon we consciously (deliberately, by applying conscious will) place the detector which OBSERVES the system.
Because the interaction is deliberate (consciously applied) it is conscious interaction and if it is with the intention to observe, it is conscious (consciously applied) observation.
That is what collapses the wave function and it is us who give the value for that collapse by choosing the way and the place for the observation.
But we are NOT getting data from the little gadget. At the time or later. Never. It changes state temporarily when an electron goes past it. That's it. It does not record anything, or transmit that information to us.
The only aspect of this that is remotely mysterious or different from everyday causal interactions, like "if I place a brick here, it will stop the door closing", is just how the very slight interaction between the field of the electron and the device is sufficient to effect the interference pattern to such an extent.
Favorite oxymorons: Gospel Truth, Rational Supernaturalist, Business Ethics, Christian Morality
"Theology is now little more than a branch of human ignorance. Indeed, it is ignorance with wings." - Sam Harris
The path to Truth lies via careful study of reality, not the dreams of our fallible minds - me
From the sublime to the ridiculous: Science -> Philosophy -> Theology
The Big Bank is just a theory based on our ability to observe our three-dimensional world with our five
senses.
One of my main points is the fact that we deal with interpreted values.
The science use them as base for all theories, forgetting that we already know that matter is wave-particles, which are not particles in traditional sense but they have that name because science BELIEF that matter (particle) is one of the Universal foundations.
Theorized wave particles with theorized mass and energy is all we have as existence.
That is the TRUE existence, my friend.
The rest is our interpretation of the interference between those theorized wave-particles.
Do you understand what I’m saying?
Even if we don’t cause the wave function to collapse, we see our Universe with the ability given from five senses in three dimensions.
The light that should be in the universe even if we do not exist is your(our) interpretation.
That light might as well be sound (music) for other sentient being.
Do you think that we don’t here the music because there is no such sentient being or because the light cannot be perceived as sound (music).
If science came to the conclusion for more dimensions, why the same science is so ignorantly blind for the fact the we deal with interpreted values?
I know how difficult it is do comprehend the idea that what you see is not what it is.
It is even more difficult to accept that what you see is mind self-interference.
Not everyone can even understand what that means and that is why I use the dream explanation.
It is more logical to assume that a mind can create matter (as a dream) than to assume that matter can create mind.
The electrical impulses of the brain can explain the force which makes your hand move, but how do you explain the force which ignites the impulse when you WANT to move your hand.
How do you explain Love as impulse? Chemistry? No, not that “love”.
How science explain the abstract thinking? Also chemistry? Or electrical impulses?
If you can not find the answers in the dust what is stopping you to start searching in the eternal mind?
F’ck all rules - religious and scientific.
Be searcher, not follower and never use the “impossible” word.
@BobSpence1
Did I say that it is misterious?
I said that if you don't put the brick the door will not stop in it.
I said that you are need to put the brick in order to stop the dorr from closing.
And that is the "mistery" of the wave function collapse.
It will not collapse if there is no conscious being to put the brick.
Thanks for the help.
So the stuff about wave-function collapse does not add anything to our understanding of everyday events. Your basic premise is that matter cannot produce mind, but you present no evidence. You attempted to dredge some support from the science of Quantum Mechanics, but it has been shown the Wave-function collapse in QM does NOT require conscious observers, just something which will be affected at a minimal level by the event 'observed'.
Now you have retreated back to the more standard claims that Mind cannot come from non-mind, and justifications that our senses do not convey an accurate picture of the external world, which has been fully demonstrated mainly by Scientific studies.
Then you perpetrate the lie, or misundestanding, that Science does not take into account the imperfections of our perceptions. In fact the reverse is true, it is Science rather than other 'disciplines' which is distinguished by rigorous procedures to minimize the effects of not only our imperfect senses, but our imperfect thought processes, which have been shown many times to be even more misleading than our five senses. It is science which has revealed the errors of our intuitions, which had us believing the Earth is flat, that it is the centre of the Universe, that lightning is generated by Gods, etc, etc.
Yes Science paints an imperfect picture of reality, but at least it is based on evidence, and not just wild speculation which 'feels' intuitively correct, like virtually any other avenue of thought, like metaphysics, much philosophy, all theology, and so on.
Favorite oxymorons: Gospel Truth, Rational Supernaturalist, Business Ethics, Christian Morality
"Theology is now little more than a branch of human ignorance. Indeed, it is ignorance with wings." - Sam Harris
The path to Truth lies via careful study of reality, not the dreams of our fallible minds - me
From the sublime to the ridiculous: Science -> Philosophy -> Theology
@BobSpence1
Actually it does add a lot, but you’ll have to abandon your view about the wave function collapse and then you’ll understand my point.
The Universe is wave-particles, which interfere with each other.
The interference in the Universe EXISTS, but it is interference, not matter, sound, light, smell or taste.
The collapse has nothing to do with past time and with the state of the system or set of systems in the past.
It is about reveling to us the present state of the system or set of systems.
In other words, the collapse builds our interpreted value of the system for the “present” moment.
It is of no significance whether the system can collapse without our observation.
For us is important the collapse done by our given value.
We can give five values for the collapse and the interpreted values will be five and only those five values are “responsible for the state” of the Universe.
If we can provide more values for the wave function collapse, the Universe will not be the same.
If we have different values for the wave function collapse, the Universe will be different.
In other words, the observable (existing) Universe is dependent on the value to which we collapse the function.
If we have the ability to observe space, we collapse it to that value.
If we have the ability to observe time, we will collapse it to that value.
Our observable abilities are given (independently defined) before we start to use them.
In that regard the Universe is predetermined for us as appearance.
So, the wave function collapse is actually giving us the interpreted value of the system state in three-dimensional world.
The value of the collapse is dependent on our observational abilities.
We have to be here to give the value. The observable Universe depends on that value.
Ugh, let me try again and see if I can understand it.
You say that the universe depends on a value determined by our observational abilities. So, are you saying that the physical universe actually changes based on our abilities or simply our interpretation of the universe?
Our revels now are ended. These our actors, | As I foretold you, were all spirits, and | Are melted into air, into thin air; | And, like the baseless fabric of this vision, | The cloud-capped towers, the gorgeous palaces, | The solemn temples, the great globe itself, - Yea, all which it inherit, shall dissolve, | And, like this insubstantial pageant faded, | Leave not a rack behind. We are such stuff | As dreams are made on, and our little life | Is rounded with a sleep. - Shakespeare
The Universe doesn’t CHANGE.
Its real value is unchanged.
The interpretation of that real value varies according to the observational abilities.
Sound, light and matter are not real values.
They are interpreted values “real” only to us, and sentient beings who have the same observational abilities.Ridiculous. You're just making shit up.
Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.
I'm willing to give you the benefit of the doubt here, and say that this is a re-statement of Epicurus' statement about the conservation of matter. No problem.
This applied to observation at the quantum level is inappropriate, though, for reasons that Vastet, Bob, Jormungander and others have already mentioned.
Saint Will: no gyration without funkstification.
fabulae! nil satis firmi video quam ob rem accipere hunc mi expediat metum. - Terence
There is no evidence that anything like 'wave-function collapse' is applicable or easily detectable at any scale above that of atoms. The greater the number of sub-atomic particles involved in a particular interaction, the more the ordinary 'rules' of physics, chemistry, etc apply, with utterly negligible quantum fuzziness. This is precisely because of the purely random nature of quantum uncertainty and its purely probabilistic nature; as you average out the effects across many particles, they rapidly converge on the values predicted by applying the normal (classical) 'laws' of physics, etc.
So to use this language is quite inaccurate when describing the world we normally perceive, however imperfectly, through our senses.
The characteristics and attributes and potential of large collections of closely connected simple components are typically much more subtle and complex that that of any individual component. This is the ultimate source of higher order phenomena such as life and consciousness.
It used to be believed that even the basic phenomenon of life was due to some special type of energy or 'stuff', "elan vital". Similarly mind and soul were, and still are, for many, seen as some 'non-physical' thing or mysterious 'substance' which distinguished us from lower animals and things. This is naive but psychologically understandable.
The key insight from modern science is that at the lowest 'level', that of things like quarks, or possibly at the level of whatever they are composed of, we see ultimately simple entities, which individually follow the simplest possible 'laws' governing their behaviour and interaction. As you step back and consider ever more complex assemblages of such elements, from atoms to molecules to living cells and higher animals and human beings and societies, ever more subtle and complex attributes and possibilities emerge. Along the way, we move from wave-functions to clearly and unambiguously observable and measurable location and motion.
Rocks, let alone atoms, cannot, even in principle, have any attributes like life or mind, they require some minimum degree of complex structure. It is from such complexity of structure and the processes that such structure makes possible, that life and mind emerge.
It is only by thinking along these lines can we understand, in very broad terms, how the Universe and life came to be as we see them, emerging from some ultimately featureless, elementary, primordial substrate of reality. Any other idea, such as creation by some already complex and powerful entity, ultimately explains nothing, since it has not explained how power and thought arise from lesser origins, so leading to the worst form of 'infinite regress' problem, requiring ever greater creators to create the creators. Since we can observe and simulate and analyse all sorts of emergence of complexity from simpler elements, ie the 'lesser' giving rise to the 'greater', creator hypotheses are neither necessary, logical, nor capable of providing ultimate explanations.
So, Truden, what does your picture actually explain, what evidence is it based on?
Favorite oxymorons: Gospel Truth, Rational Supernaturalist, Business Ethics, Christian Morality
"Theology is now little more than a branch of human ignorance. Indeed, it is ignorance with wings." - Sam Harris
The path to Truth lies via careful study of reality, not the dreams of our fallible minds - me
From the sublime to the ridiculous: Science -> Philosophy -> Theology
I thought that Paisley's misunderstanding of quantum mechanics was the worst I would ever see. I was very wrong. This is all nonsense. Where did you get all of this from? Did you make it up yourself, or is someone spreading falsehoods about quantum mechanics and you learned from them? If you ever want to learn about real quantum mechanics rather than this nonsense you are posting, I can give you a link to powerpoint slides that were used for a college level introductory quantum mechanics course. I am really befuddled at where this is coming from. Am I the only one here that doesn't get how quantum mechanics was twisted into Truden's ramblings?
"You say that it is your custom to burn widows. Very well. We also have a custom: when men burn a woman alive, we tie a rope around their necks and we hang them. Build your funeral pyre; beside it, my carpenters will build a gallows. You may follow your custom. And then we will follow ours."
British General Charles Napier while in India
BobSpence, you are just proving my point.
You can not detach from the material complex of your mind.
Things are not sophisticated.
How could they be if there is wave in the core?
It is beautiful interference and that’s all it is.
What evidence do you need?
Do you need evidence that you are using interpreted values?
It is self-explanatory.
What evidence do you have for the scientific theories?
Do you have evidence for the abstract thought, or how mind works?
Do you have evidence how your will ignites the “spark” in your brain?
Perhaps you have evidence how theorized wave-particles create solid particles.
You don’t even have evidence that you live in present time?
You know, the cunning suggestion that we must trust science because we owe this civilization to it does not work when it comes to the origin of life.
You actually require FAITH in science.
You are not less religious than the last Christian sucker.
If you want my proof, you give me yours, or at least give me answers to my questions as I gave you.
There is no CREATION.
It is APPEARANCE.
You are free to live and die with your belief.
If you get in coherence, you’ll be The Source. (This is not an argument but helpful direction.)
Jormungander, this is not QM.
I use it to give you an explanation.
Yet you can not refute it.
It has been refuted. By no less than 5 seperate and distinct members of this site. Now you're pushing on as if you weren't proven wrong, despite being proven wrong. This shows a mental handicap. I suggest you get yourself evaluated at a psychiatric institution. You'll be given a warm bed, food, and a relatively safe place to stay while you work through the jumble of bullshit that has invaded your mind.
Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.
Is this a joke? What do you presume he can't refute? We don't even understand what you're talking about yet!
Saint Will: no gyration without funkstification.
fabulae! nil satis firmi video quam ob rem accipere hunc mi expediat metum. - Terence
Has anyone actually suggested that here?
I'm amazed this argument keeps coming up. Scientists constantly evaluate and criticize the works of other scientists. There is no faith involved. If you want to know if something is true, you can just research it. Faith is when you can't research something, you just believe it without evidence.
If you mean "faith" in the sense that you have "faith" in the process of scientific inquiry (i.e. you trust that the process yields good results) then yes, great faith can be placed in a system that has produced such success. We'll never have perfect knowledge, but the scientific method is as close as we have ever been.
Sigh. Wrong. See above.
Saint Will: no gyration without funkstification.
fabulae! nil satis firmi video quam ob rem accipere hunc mi expediat metum. - Terence
Edit: Formatting.
Okay.
Okay.
Let me see if I got this.
Sound can be referring to the vibrations themselves or what we perceive using our senses. The vibrations are real, but our interpretations of them, based on our senses, are not "real." Likewise, electromagnetic radiation is real, but what we perceive with our eyes is fleeting. Matter is not a real value? How so?
Again, it seems like you're just saying that our perception of a thing isn't the same as the thing itself. Well, of course. What's your point? I don't understand what else you're trying to say.
.........need a hanky?
Our revels now are ended. These our actors, | As I foretold you, were all spirits, and | Are melted into air, into thin air; | And, like the baseless fabric of this vision, | The cloud-capped towers, the gorgeous palaces, | The solemn temples, the great globe itself, - Yea, all which it inherit, shall dissolve, | And, like this insubstantial pageant faded, | Leave not a rack behind. We are such stuff | As dreams are made on, and our little life | Is rounded with a sleep. - Shakespeare
Jormungander don't you know by now that Paisley doesn't trust science at all nor any of it's observations or evidence UNLESS it some how agrees with his world view. If it contradicts it, then it's not proper scientific evidence. Paisley is a free thinker that believers that his ideas and opinions count as actual facts and evidence when trying to dispell or dismiss any scientific evidence presented to him. You will NEVER get any proper evidence from him because his opinion and ideas are the only evidence that is requried for him to dismiss scientific evidence.
I'm well aware that you aren't actually describing QM. Instead you are using terms that are usually used to describe QM and borrowing them to describe whatever it is you are trying to get across. You wrap your bullshit in terms such as "interference," "waves and particles" and "wave function collapse" as though you are talking about QM. The way you present this makes it seem as though you are telling us the meaning behind some physical phenomena that is described by QM. You even try and redefine what 'observer' means for wave collapse. So no, you aren't really describing QM, but you are trying to present your case as a twisted version of QM. You are trying to shoehorn QM into your ideology in order to pretend as though you are just clearing up the meanings behind QM for us.
You haven't given any meaningful explanations. If you made specific claims that could be tested, then they could be refuted. If you ramble on and on about vague ideas that make no sense, we can't refute them; but we could show how you are grossly misusing the terminology of QM in an attempt to give your ideas a scientific glean to them. Until you start making sense there can't be any refutations. You would have to make meaningful claims in order to have them refuted. Let us also not forget that you need to gather evidence to support your claims, rather than just throw them out there and demand the we refute them. "There is an invisible tea pot orbiting the sun somewhere in our solar system. Refute me if you dare!" Do you see how that doesn't work? No one can refute that statement, but it is still wrong. So first gather some evidence that you are correct and then we'll worry about refutations. So far you have just been spouting off evidence-free claims (ie: uniformed opinions).
Also: hearing is the perception that senses sound. If living things didn't exists there would still be sound (mechanical vibrations) but not hearing (a form of sensation that detects and interprets those vibrations). "Sound waves" and "light waves" are real things independent of our ability to perceive them. Things such as "pitch" for sound and "color" for light are the subjective perceptions that you are thinking of.
Edited to remove needless insult.
"You say that it is your custom to burn widows. Very well. We also have a custom: when men burn a woman alive, we tie a rope around their necks and we hang them. Build your funeral pyre; beside it, my carpenters will build a gallows. You may follow your custom. And then we will follow ours."
British General Charles Napier while in India
You are right. That is how "free thinkers" like Paisley operate. They don't buy into the dogma that is scientific evidence. He said so himself. Religious people like myself blindly accept evidence and don't think on our own enough to contradict all evidence presented to us. Instead I accept the baseless dogma of following the evidence to come to conclusions. If only he could teach you and me how to be a "free thinker" like himself.
"You say that it is your custom to burn widows. Very well. We also have a custom: when men burn a woman alive, we tie a rope around their necks and we hang them. Build your funeral pyre; beside it, my carpenters will build a gallows. You may follow your custom. And then we will follow ours."
British General Charles Napier while in India
How do you know this?
Those concepts of wave collapse and interference are all from scientific investigation and scientific theories, so if you are going to cast doubt on science, you are being wildly inconsistent.
You are apparently incapable of comprehending what I wrote.
"Wave at that core" is roughly consistent with the ideas of SCIENCE about the ultimate nature of fundamental particles, which in NO WAY means everything composed of such particles has to just like a "wave", anymore than a rock is anything like one of the individual atoms of which it is composed. If you can't grasp this simple FACT you are indeed unable to expand your mind to encompass broader truths about reality which I presented you with. See, I can make condescending remarks too.
I am not sure what you mean by "sophisticated", I assume you mean something like "complex", which is the word I used.
What makes you think things made of trillions of atoms are not vastly more complex than the waves or quarks they are composed of??
The universe most assuredly is not "simple".
The same evidence you presumably used to satisfy yourself that the bits of science you grabbed onto were valid.
Yes. Read Daniel Dennett, for a good start.
We have increasingly plausible theories of how brain processes give rise to our conscious experience - "will" is just how we experience the basic bias of our brain circuits toward fulfilment of wants and desires.
We certainly do have theories which describe the interactions of energy and fundamental particles and how they come together to form atoms and how collections of atoms collected in certain tight structures block other similar collections of atoms from merging with them, which is what we experience as "solid objects".
We live in the present time by definition. That's what "present time" means.
Now I have a broad understanding of these things, you obviously don't so I think it is obvious who lacks insight and understanding...
Favorite oxymorons: Gospel Truth, Rational Supernaturalist, Business Ethics, Christian Morality
"Theology is now little more than a branch of human ignorance. Indeed, it is ignorance with wings." - Sam Harris
The path to Truth lies via careful study of reality, not the dreams of our fallible minds - me
From the sublime to the ridiculous: Science -> Philosophy -> Theology
“We cannot make the mystery go away by explaining how it works. We will just tell you how it works.” (Richard Feynman)
Science can “create” H-7 (hydrogen isotope) by bombarding carbon-12 with helium-8 but can not reproduce one atom of hydrogen by joining one neutron with one proton (cannot recreate the mystery of having the elements carbon, hydrogen and so on.) To say that solid particle is made out of wave-particles is not an answer to the mystery, my friends.
Quote:
I’m trying to give you a clue about how it works.
Yes, it is not quantum mechanics because QM did not came yet to my explanation.
I’m using QM terms and knowledge to unfold part of the mystery and your nonacceptance is not PROOF of me being wrong.
Don’t give me different opinion as proof.
Don't tell me that there is answer and proof for the way the mind works.
It is not proof. It is an opinion.
If my explanation makes no sense to you, how does it make sense to have SOLID particle out of non solid entity (wave-particle).
Think deeply and you’ll see the mystery.
You don’t see it because you are not scientists like Richard Feynman.
You are ordinary people who took all explanations on FAITH and didn't’t even try to understand it.
Your thinking follows the pattern in the quote bellow:
For you the rock is “made” out of solid molecules and atoms. Only atoms (not the rock) are made from wave-particles, but because they are “particles” they create SOLID matter.
Another thinking pattern:
Just comes to prove my point. It is your perception for "present time" and the wrong definition obviously comes from your perception.
It is never present, but always the very near past (sped of light, speed of signal, processing speed)
The same way most of the scientific definitions are wrong, not taking in account the interpreted values which the mind uses.
It does not affect our everyday life, but can affect scientific conclusions.
@Butterbattle
The mind locks itself in its created understanding.
The wave which we perceive as light might as well be perceived as sound.
The waves which interference we perceive as matter can as well be perceived as light interference.
It all depends on the perception abilities. Not on the perfection of that abilities. Perfection has nothing to do here.
How that makes any difference?
Well, it makes the Universe different than the one you know.
It collapses all our theories about the Universe.
It supports my idea that we are observing self-interference. (The “awareness-wave” observes self-interference)
What on earth makes you think that we think that protons are 'solid?' Do you imagine that we are as confused as you are? 'Solid' is a phase that clusters of atoms can be in. You can not apply the term to a subatomic particle. Perhaps you are confusing wave properties with something else here. Individual protons are in no way 'solid' objects. But clusters of protons and neutrons surrounded by electrons (atoms) can group up with other atoms and, with the right kind of electrical interactions, they will form a solid. It is the electrons that actually hold together and give strength and rigidity to the solid. It boggles the mind that you would try and connect something being 'solid' with protons rather than with electron interactions.
This is exactly what I was talking about in my previous post. You are (very incorrectly) using terminology that is used to describe quantum mechanics, but you are using it all wrong. You are wrapping your nonsense in science terms. All it takes is a rudimentary comprehension of quantum mechanics to know how very wrong you are.
"You say that it is your custom to burn widows. Very well. We also have a custom: when men burn a woman alive, we tie a rope around their necks and we hang them. Build your funeral pyre; beside it, my carpenters will build a gallows. You may follow your custom. And then we will follow ours."
British General Charles Napier while in India
This is exactly what Richard Feynman is talking about.
You can explain (theorize) how it works, but the mystery (0+0=1 where 0 is non solid and 1 is solid) is still there.
I studied your explanation in grade eight. I know it.
How that refutes my statement that we are dealing with interpreted values?
And one more thing, I don't mind you being rude, but that makes you feel right.
Your sarcasm does not make me wrong, my friend.
It makes you feel supreme in knowledge and stops you from learning.
It is well known religious syndrome.
Some propositions are best dealt with through ridicule. It is like how many responded to the post-modernists/post-structuralists. They could not be beaten on their own terms. Their critics could not master their form of nonsense. But now that they are treated with derision, we all have a laugh at their expense and rob them of their air of superiority. I reserve the right to be rude and sarcastic if others choose to spew bullshit at us. I am polite when the situation warrants such behavior. Perhaps my bullshit tolerance has been spent on Paisley already and you are catching some of his flack.
And what mystery are you talking about? Non-solid subatomic particles (with wave properties) can reach a low energy state in some circumstances by being rather close to one another (the atoms reach an equilibrium distance to one another that gives their electrons a very low amount of free energy, by definition that is an equilibrium state). If they are moved closer or further apart it is energetically unfavorable (they are in their lowest free energy state already, moving them makes it worse). And so they resist being moved. That gives a large group of atoms bonded in such a way mechanical strength. We call such things solids. I don't see the mystery or paradox here. I don't mean to be condescending either, it is just that I can not clearly express myself here without describing rather simple concepts (perhaps similar to what you learned in grade school). If you would clearly show where the paradox in all this lies perhaps I could see it; but currently this all seems pretty straightforward.
I love passive-aggressive attacks like this. It is so nicely worded. It is a perfect mixture of smug condescention and superiority. The 'my friend' part really tied it all together. I'm not being sarcastic here. Matching my overtly snide comments with implicity snide comments is a good move. And of course you compare my attitude to a religious one. That was the weak point in it. If you are going to be passive-aggressive, you need to be more underhanded about it. Blatant insults ruin the vibe.
"You say that it is your custom to burn widows. Very well. We also have a custom: when men burn a woman alive, we tie a rope around their necks and we hang them. Build your funeral pyre; beside it, my carpenters will build a gallows. You may follow your custom. And then we will follow ours."
British General Charles Napier while in India
Sure.
Possibly.
I don't like this example. "Light" and "sound" can be tied to ways of perceiving i.e. sight and hearing, but matter cannot, unless you are referring to touch. Even then, I am quite skeptical about this.
Possibly.
The universe wouldn't be any different, only our perception of it.
Why do I feel like you're hinting at some variation of the problem of induction?
So, uh, how does God come into this?
Our revels now are ended. These our actors, | As I foretold you, were all spirits, and | Are melted into air, into thin air; | And, like the baseless fabric of this vision, | The cloud-capped towers, the gorgeous palaces, | The solemn temples, the great globe itself, - Yea, all which it inherit, shall dissolve, | And, like this insubstantial pageant faded, | Leave not a rack behind. We are such stuff | As dreams are made on, and our little life | Is rounded with a sleep. - Shakespeare
Lol.
Our revels now are ended. These our actors, | As I foretold you, were all spirits, and | Are melted into air, into thin air; | And, like the baseless fabric of this vision, | The cloud-capped towers, the gorgeous palaces, | The solemn temples, the great globe itself, - Yea, all which it inherit, shall dissolve, | And, like this insubstantial pageant faded, | Leave not a rack behind. We are such stuff | As dreams are made on, and our little life | Is rounded with a sleep. - Shakespeare
@Jormungander,
Let me use your attitude and explain in “your language” your intellectual weakness.
Some people are so f’ing stupid that they cannot even understand the meaning of the “mystery” word.
What mystery do you thing Richard Feynman was referring to?
Do you think that the mystery goes way only because we theoretically make the speed of light constant and top limit, and theoretically equalize the energy with the mass?
Do you understand that you are making yourself cleverer than Richard Feynman, by stubbornly insisting to EXPLAIN that there is no mystery?
Very often I try to explain to Christians that they don’t understand the words of Jesus, but their religious blindness and intellectual weakness shout in my face “No mystery in Jesus’ words”.
What is the difference between you and them if you cannot understand “your Jesus”?
You hate me for my kindness and love because they make me different from your kind.
You equalize the best human virtues with offensive “passive” aggression.
What better prove do you need for the virtues of atheism?
And if you want to “fix my belief in God” does it mean that you want to give me your virtues?
No, thanks. I’m better off with mine.
We associate matter more with boundaries than with touch.
(We walk and live in matter (air).)
The boundaries create for us not only matter but space as well.
Touch measures matter only as density.
The density of light pattern does not make it difficult to “penetrate”.
I know that it is difficult to imagine different density for matter, but that is only your perception.
I already said the same when I explained the Universe as interpreted value.
Saying “different Universe” I mean different definition.
You define Universe with your perceptions.
Different perceptions will give different definitions.
Okay.
Okay.
So where is the disagreement here? This discussion feels convoluted to me.
Our revels now are ended. These our actors, | As I foretold you, were all spirits, and | Are melted into air, into thin air; | And, like the baseless fabric of this vision, | The cloud-capped towers, the gorgeous palaces, | The solemn temples, the great globe itself, - Yea, all which it inherit, shall dissolve, | And, like this insubstantial pageant faded, | Leave not a rack behind. We are such stuff | As dreams are made on, and our little life | Is rounded with a sleep. - Shakespeare
Well, if you agree with the above, atheism loses ground for “empirical evidences”.
They will fall in to the “interpreted values” category.
The mind will be the main cause for the Universe in its defined properties.
Then our exit point will be mind, not matter.
Are you ready to discuss from that “exit point”?
How?
If everything is interpreted, then nothing has changed, the same process of induction. That's how it's always been; we have to assume that can correctly perceive the universe to make any progress.
What does that mean?
You mean we must trust logic over the senses?
Sure. Knock yourself out.
Our revels now are ended. These our actors, | As I foretold you, were all spirits, and | Are melted into air, into thin air; | And, like the baseless fabric of this vision, | The cloud-capped towers, the gorgeous palaces, | The solemn temples, the great globe itself, - Yea, all which it inherit, shall dissolve, | And, like this insubstantial pageant faded, | Leave not a rack behind. We are such stuff | As dreams are made on, and our little life | Is rounded with a sleep. - Shakespeare
Let me provide a fuller version of that Feynman quote:
Note the underlined: He is stating that we do understand how it works, The 'mystery' he refers to is the inability of our minds to grasp the reality that is described by the theory and it's equations. It means that the reality uncovered by Science has revealed that the nature of reality at this deep level exceeds the ability of our intuitive understanding to grasp, which is not a surprising result.
This is totally garbled "science". There is no 7H isotope of hydrogen. Hydrogen only has the common isotope 1H, which has just the proton and NO neutrons, 2H (also known as deuterium), and 3H (tritium), with two neutrons.
Helium has two isotopes, 3He and 4He (the more common), there is no 8He.
Common hydrogen is 'created' every time a beam of protons encounters electrons. Deuterium has been created in particle accelerators.
The only thing stopping us 'creating' any element would be the energies involved, nothing fundamental, no mystery.
As we have tried to explain to you before, "solid" is not a meaningful concept to apply to a sub-atomic particle, it really is an attribute that only makes sense when referring to normal scale objects.
As we look at the attributes of larger collections of elementary wave=particles, the wave-function uncertainties average out to quite sharply defined aggregate properties. There are no "solid particles".
So that whole quote was a collection of errors and misunderstandings.
And you did not understand the complete statement of Feynman, you misunderstood what the mystery was he was referring to.
And you continue to show the limitations of your understanding by persisting with this inability to grasp how macro-scale solid objects can be composed of elements which individually display this quantum fuzziness we describe mathematically by the wave-function.
More demonstration of your misunderstanding and even lack of reading skill.
For me the rock is NOT "made" of "solid" molecules, just molecules. The= atoms of which they are made do NOT create solid matter, they make up solid matter when assembled into closely bonded structures. In more loose associations, they make up liquid matter. Or as individual atoms and molecules, they make up gaseous 'matter'.
For consideration of biological and mental processes, the definition of 'present' is perfectly adequate, relativistic distinctions are irrelevant and merely distracting. When analysing mental events, the subjective aspect of time perception is always taken into account in a scientifically valid way.
Favorite oxymorons: Gospel Truth, Rational Supernaturalist, Business Ethics, Christian Morality
"Theology is now little more than a branch of human ignorance. Indeed, it is ignorance with wings." - Sam Harris
The path to Truth lies via careful study of reality, not the dreams of our fallible minds - me
From the sublime to the ridiculous: Science -> Philosophy -> Theology
@BobSpence
Very often people blame me for playing with the words but I never do it to dissolve a meaning.
Feynman’s words are self-explanatory and don’t need your “dissolving explanation”.
When first time I met psychic I asked her how does she know my name my family members names and mine and their past.
She told me that she goes in mind state, which she calls “semi-sleep”.
In that mind stage, she said, she could see time and me in the time.
If one knows quantum physics and the possibility to have time as dimension, that would be good explanation, which would not take the mystery away though.
I think that this is what Feynman had in mind, because this is the only true way to refer to mystery. Any other way wouldn’t need the “mystery” word.
I have quite good reading abilities, but I also have the ability to catch the source of understanding, which brings the words.
As for the hydrogen isotopes, it was only hypothetical example for making my point, but you can still check Google for “hydrogen isotopes”
Calling it self-explanatory doesn't actually solve anything. Clearly, it deserved an explanation if there was disagreement over its meaning.
Why is it the "true" way?
Why not?
It sounded like you were trying to describe real elements. Also, since BobSpence has already pointed out that there is no mystery to fusing sub-atomic particles, only energy, it's not a very good hypothetical example.
Our revels now are ended. These our actors, | As I foretold you, were all spirits, and | Are melted into air, into thin air; | And, like the baseless fabric of this vision, | The cloud-capped towers, the gorgeous palaces, | The solemn temples, the great globe itself, - Yea, all which it inherit, shall dissolve, | And, like this insubstantial pageant faded, | Leave not a rack behind. We are such stuff | As dreams are made on, and our little life | Is rounded with a sleep. - Shakespeare
Because it involves mystery
Because it wouldn't involve mystry.
The mystery is not in using two isotopes to create third by exchanging one electron.
That is why I said "to join two wave particles", not to "exchange".
The mystery is in the wave-particles before we have the chemical elements.
What is it, where it comes from, how a wave-particle can create so many different connections, why and how that happened, and many more questions without answers but only theories.
In that regard the EXPLANATION does not make the mystery go away
Read my previous comment to have an idea what mystery is and why it does not disappear by explaining it.
Yes Feynman's words are 'self-explanatory', which why it is sad that you still managed to misunderstand him.
Since many 'psychics' have been shown repeatedly to use quite non-mysterious techniques, even not fully realizing what they are doing themselves, to perform such feats, we would need independent verification to take anything in that account seriously.
I did use Google to track down the information that I referred to about Hydrogen and Helium isotopes. There is a Wikipedia article that mentions that higher isotopes have been synthesised, I see. However, to contradict your statement, it does not say we have not been able to "reproduce one atom of hydrogen by joining one neutron with one proton". This is wrong on two counts - we have been able to join 'one neutron with one proton', and that is not what is in a normal hydrogen atom anyway.
This seems a clear example of your poor reading ability, and ability to miss rather than 'catch' the 'source of understanding'.
You really ought to give up on this topic before you make even more obvious your poor understanding of these matters - it is clear my explanations have "gone right over your head"...
Favorite oxymorons: Gospel Truth, Rational Supernaturalist, Business Ethics, Christian Morality
"Theology is now little more than a branch of human ignorance. Indeed, it is ignorance with wings." - Sam Harris
The path to Truth lies via careful study of reality, not the dreams of our fallible minds - me
From the sublime to the ridiculous: Science -> Philosophy -> Theology
How about you just define it for us and save us all a lot of trouble. You obviously aren't using the actual meaning of the word.
Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.
Go for it.
It seems he sees mystery and scientific explanations to be two very different things. 'God' is the realm of mystery to explain what people don't currently understand and topics are removed from that mystery by formulating scientific descriptions of them. So what was that you were saying about mystery? Using Feynman's conception of the word 'mystery,' why don't you explain to us exactly what this 'mystery' is. And should there be a scientific explanation for it, it will be "tak[en] away from God" and no longer in the realm of mystery at all.
According to Richard Feynman's definition of 'mystery,' 'mystery' does go away once you explain it. So yes, that's exactly what I think. There isn't some mystery to how wave-particles make solids. Instead there is an explanation that relates potential energy of electrons versus the distance of atoms from one another. In some circumstances the electrons on atoms will reach a state of lowest potential energy if the atoms' nuclei are at a certain distance from one another. That makes atoms move to that distance and then stay there until perturbed out of it. It costs energy to perturb them out of that equilibrium state. That means that you must spend energy to perform work on a solid to deform it. So we can see here that we have gone from fuzzy wave-particles to solid objects with no mystery in between. In this case (as Richard Feynman believes), science has taken the mystery right out of this; leaving behind a non-mysterious explanation in its place.
Now you have it back. The 'fucking stupid' remark of yours made me think that you might have lost your passive-agressive attitude. But this quote is beautiful. You mix playing the victim with an announcement that you are kind and loving all in one sentence. Each sentence is a mix of an announcement that you are superior to us with some kind of condemnation of us. But rather than openly and crudely announcing that you are better and that we are worse, you make those statements with a little tact. But if you want to keep doing this, you should avoid any open agressions. The 'fucking stupid' comment takes most of the effect out of that quote of yours.
Oh yeah, and exactly where in that post did you "explain in '[my] language' [my] intellectual weakness?"
"You say that it is your custom to burn widows. Very well. We also have a custom: when men burn a woman alive, we tie a rope around their necks and we hang them. Build your funeral pyre; beside it, my carpenters will build a gallows. You may follow your custom. And then we will follow ours."
British General Charles Napier while in India
Thanks for digging up some more Feynman words on "mystery", which makes it even clearer he is very much on our side.
Where does he get this idea of us "hating" him? We are expressing impatience and frustration with his failure to see how he has got so much wrong, and are annoyed and offended by his condescending attitude, mocking us for our failure to accept his confused world-view.
Favorite oxymorons: Gospel Truth, Rational Supernaturalist, Business Ethics, Christian Morality
"Theology is now little more than a branch of human ignorance. Indeed, it is ignorance with wings." - Sam Harris
The path to Truth lies via careful study of reality, not the dreams of our fallible minds - me
From the sublime to the ridiculous: Science -> Philosophy -> Theology
Oh, I see you guys love catching me in wrong step.
People say different things in different time from their life.
Those who know me can also quote my words from 20 years ago - "There is no god"
Einstein said that God does not play dice, and the world will probably think that he was atheist, but the world doesn’t want to know that he also said:
“All the world renders homage to me and I render homage to the Master Petar Deunov from Bulgaria.”
(Petar Deunov was Bulgarian spiritual master and friend with Einstein)
For those of you who think that quantum physics is explaining trivial things and there is nothing mysterious about it I’d remind Niels Bohr’s words:
“Those who are not shocked when they first come across quantum physics cannot possibly have understood it.”
Now, about Bob’s comment:
I’ll go of topic with few lines.
Please don’t take it as preaching. It is part of my answer to Bob.
There are many researches going on even as we write in this forum.
Vanga (Bulgarian prophet) was blind woman who was monitored for decades from the Bulgarian institute for parapsychology.
Mystery was the only explanation.
She said that there is no past, present and future time. “All is one” – she said and she proved that she could see it.
She knew the past and the future for all people and their relatives who visited her to ask for help. To all people she reveal the past. She didn’t directly predict the future for those who will meet the worst.
For more than sixty years she helped people who were waiting every day with hundreds in front of her gate.
She didn’t say “I BELIEFE that there is God”. She said that people MUST KNOW that there is God and all that she has and give to people is from God.
Why you don’t know about her or about such people?
First because you don’t want to know such things.
Second because the church doesn’t want such people to be known.
Why? Vanga was taking people away from the church.
People started to see God in her, not in the church.
Third, because science does not want to be compromised.
Science cannot explain it and this kind of people don’t obey science.
At the end of her life, Vanga managed to fight the church leaders in Bulgaria and against their will to built a small church.
Her last words were: “Do not fight but love each other because you all are my children”
I understand your point and your fight.
I was on your site.
The difference between you and me is that my arguments didn't try to disprove but to understand the opponent.
You grossly misquoted someone and then ridiculed us for not getting the misquote. That's a little bit worse that being in wrong step. That is maliciously distorting the views of others. You misquote and then act like an ass when people won't view the misquote in the same way that you do. It was pretty bad behavior. So don't pretend like us mean ol' atheists are just getting you when you make a little mistake. You based your argument off of a mistake and then acted like an asshole. Don't even try to play the victim. After all this, there is no one here who will believe that we are treating you unfairly.
Didn't Vanga claim to be in contact with aliens? The fact that she claims to be a prophet is, to put it lightly, questionable. That fact that she claims to be a prophet and speak with aliens is just laughable. This thread is getting harder and harder to take seriously.
Keeping that smug attitude alive I see. This is what I was talking about. A remark like this here and there really brings out the jackass in you, but since it is not an open attack, it seems more socially acceptable.
"You say that it is your custom to burn widows. Very well. We also have a custom: when men burn a woman alive, we tie a rope around their necks and we hang them. Build your funeral pyre; beside it, my carpenters will build a gallows. You may follow your custom. And then we will follow ours."
British General Charles Napier while in India
Pseudo-pantheist? Spinoza's God.
Huh? Ahahahaha! *cough cough* Hahahahahaha.
Our revels now are ended. These our actors, | As I foretold you, were all spirits, and | Are melted into air, into thin air; | And, like the baseless fabric of this vision, | The cloud-capped towers, the gorgeous palaces, | The solemn temples, the great globe itself, - Yea, all which it inherit, shall dissolve, | And, like this insubstantial pageant faded, | Leave not a rack behind. We are such stuff | As dreams are made on, and our little life | Is rounded with a sleep. - Shakespeare
Please, accept my apologies for breaking your personal view with a quote.
To me that quote still sound the way it is written and not the way it is interpreted with the additional quote.
Do not forget that atheists are doing it all the time maliciously distorting believers view by interpreting the Bible in the wrong way.
Jormungander wrote:
Vanga did never claim that she speaks to aliens. This is people’s interpretation.
She said that she could see their ancestors and dead relatives in time and speak to them.
It actually doesn’t matter what she claimed or what people say (people talk sh’t). It matters the fact that she was never wrong and she new everything about people.
For more than sixty years she was the proof you are asking for.
There are many books describing many of her deeds ( “cases” ), thousands of witnesses including scientists, people from Bulgarian and foreign governments, people who believe and people who don’t believe in God.
Vanga is not the only one. There are others like her in the world who can do the same in different extent.
You are not even close to the mastery of psychological portraitist.
There is difference between creating psychological portrait and judging people from the point of your psychological values.
If you ever have the chance to come to South Africa, please come to visit me.
You’ll see how wrong you are and I promise you great time, and perhaps some proofs.
You aren't even close to an apprenticeship of psychological understanding, let alone mastery.
And what exactly is stopping you from showing us these so-called "proofs" right now?
Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.
You should know, Truden, that no such psychics who have been subject to carefully controlled tests, under conditions which they have agreed to, have been able to demonstrate that they do indeed have the powers they claim. (See James Randi). Of course, only a relative few have agreed to such conditions, but the very fact that they agreed shows that they were absolutely confident in their powers, but had plainly been deceiving themselves. You need to read the accounts to see just how 'ingeniously' they twist logic to explain away what impartial observers would see as failures. It is very illuminating on the psychology of both the 'psychics' and their followers, and also very sad.
This doesn't prove your example is fake, but it is why one should not take such accounts on face value.
The fact that you appear to take the idea of God and the authority of the Bible seriously, in addition to your dodges and misrepresentation of Feynman, and refusal and/or inability to take our rebuttals of your claims seriously, all point to you being terminally deluded...
Favorite oxymorons: Gospel Truth, Rational Supernaturalist, Business Ethics, Christian Morality
"Theology is now little more than a branch of human ignorance. Indeed, it is ignorance with wings." - Sam Harris
The path to Truth lies via careful study of reality, not the dreams of our fallible minds - me
From the sublime to the ridiculous: Science -> Philosophy -> Theology
Feynman went into detail describing what he meant by 'mystery'. You don't like his actual views on 'mystery,' so instead you quote mine him in order to make it seem as though he agrees with you. Refusing to take his lengthy description of what he means by 'mystery' into account is proof that you are quote mining. Only by selecting a very short quote of his and without considering any context for it, were you able to twist his views to support yours. You quote mined him. You were caught red-handed. Let it go.
I don't approve of distorting the views of believers. What those bad atheists do has nothing to do with your quote mining and distortion. The fact that some bad person is doing the same bad thing that you are does not make your wrong actions any better.
Six students from my university went to South Africa. Two were raped and the other four were robbed. So far every person that I know who has gone to South Africa has been brutalized in some way or another. No offense, I'm sure it is a nice country, but they seem to like raping and robbing tourists. So I'll just never go there. I know that a sampling size of six people is too small to form an accurate opinion off of, but I'll err on the side of caution for this one.
"You say that it is your custom to burn widows. Very well. We also have a custom: when men burn a woman alive, we tie a rope around their necks and we hang them. Build your funeral pyre; beside it, my carpenters will build a gallows. You may follow your custom. And then we will follow ours."
British General Charles Napier while in India
@Bob
That is another discussion, Bob, and I don’t want to go off topic.
As I said, I was on your side some 20 years ago (I am 52 now)
I had to study all their books including the Bible.
I went to meet people.
Met that psychic woman (not Vanga) and she didn’t know me and didn’t expect visitors.
She told me everything about me, my family, my wife, her family (names, events from the past, intentions).
Vanga was constantly under monitoring during the communism in Bulgaria. Communists are atheists and they wanted to prove that she is not the one she claims to be.
The couldn’t.
Instead they started to ask her for help.
I didn’t become BELIEVER only because I saw all that stuff.
Neither I started to BELIEV in the books, although they started to make some sense to me.
I even started to meditate to see what is it.
One evening I had my proof.
Then more proofs came.
Then I started to see past and feature.
When my first vision for the future happened I wanted to change at least my part in the happening but I couldn’t.
Then I understood that Vanga was right – future cannot be changed.
I healed my atheist friend and he still doesn’t believe.
I reviled the past and predicted the future to a Christian friend and he said that it is from the devil.
I know people. They have their BELIEF and without it they are naked.
@Jormungander,
I am Bulgarian but I love South Africa.
It is true that it is very dangerous country, but but people here don't live in fear.
OK, they take some precautions but you'll not see fear in South Africa.
They did try to shoot me in a hijacking.
The pistol magazine dropped out and that confused the guy.
You’ll say that I was lucky, but I knew that it is not my time to die.
The robber was “lucky” because I could kill him but I let him go.
So, don’t worry. You’ll not delay your time
Read this
It is about a woman who is still alive in my hometown in Bulgaria.
I doubt that you'll get lucky for an appointment with her.
She will send you to the professors who examined her.