Yeah, I got that. Why do you do it?
Because just like you said pal, he has the mind of a child. Probably why he finds children attractive in the first place.
This from a guy who literally admitted he is addicted to child pornography.
Lol. Notice how he immediately shuts his stupid face when you bring up his past. Thanks for exposing him.
Its hilarious watching you back track
It's hilarious watching you pretend to be laughing while you simultaneously ban every account which argues with you.
ROFLMAO. Your desperation is pathetic. You are a pitifully fucking stupid Irish lowlife and a barefaced liar.
A lib saying there's evidence
Stop lying for thirty seconds you farcically stupid wanker. No lib has claimed there is evidence. YOU, a NEO-NAZI and COMPULSIVE LIAR, claimed that "libs still have found nothing on him". You are brazenly trying to shift the burden of prrof for your own claim onto other people because you are a LUDICROUSLY stupid and filthily dishonest, sad little Nazi wanker.
There are no laws that govern the peniton particle because there is no such thing as a peniton particle.
Let me try to illustrate why this analogy is false.
Imagine you lived 10,000 years ago.
Would it be true to say: there are no laws which govern the movement of the wheel because there is no such thing as a wheel?
Spacetime is physical
No, space-time is a mathematical construct used to explicate the standard model of the universe. To call perfect emptiness "physical" is a contradiction in terms (i.e. a paradox).
If material doesn't exist, then the laws that govern it does not exist.
Wrong. You are conflating causes with effects, which I have already tried to explain to you once. If there were no water anywhere in the universe, then that would not stop H2O being the chemical rule for creating water. If there were no cars anywhere in the universe, then that would not change the rules one has to follow in order to build a car.
There are no laws that govern the peniton particle because there is no such thing as a peniton particle.
This is a false analogy. There are laws which govern all particles, regardless of what you decide to name those particles. Were your premise correct that the laws governing them simply vanish when one removes them all, then it would be quite an astounding coincidence when one puts them all back and the exact same laws begin to take effect, would it not?
Obviously, if one returns all the particles to their original positions, and the initial effects are repeated, that proves the universe has retained information absent all physical matter.
Yes. No religious zealots and no political extremists.
Which would rule out 97 percent of this website.
I did and you removed it and pretended you couldn't see it.
I intend to file a formal complaint with your alien overlords.
Gravity, for example, does not exist in a universe devoid of mass.
I am afraid that you are confusing the law of gravity with the effects of gravity. The law of gravity would still exist if all the mass were removed from the universe, but it would not affect anything because its effects are dependent on mass.
Similarly, if you removed everything from the universe which has colour, it would not change the rule which governs colour.
There is no information without interpretation. That requires an interpreter.
Edit: I just saw and responded to your post in the other side. I’ve never thought about it in the way you described. It wouldn’t necessarily be accurate to say that matter is an interpreter, but the information still relies on the physical for existence.
I understand why you might think so, but as strange as it might sound to you, it is actually the other way around. A hundred years of quantum experiments have yielded the repeated observation that, without an interpreter, the physical itself ceases to exist, and becomes only information. Without an interpreter, reality itself deteriorates into a set of mathematical probabilities.
I can certainly agree with you that there is a symbiotic relationship between (certain types of) information and interpreters, but simply because they both exist simultaneously (and depend upon one another) doesn't necessarily mean they both have to be physical.
Those laws, which are information, are properties of the physical universe.
Well, your statement is sort of true, but firstly, let's discuss your loaded language. If you remove everything from the universe which defines it as physical, then how can the universe still be physical? That is a paradox. If information remains in a perfect vacuum then obviously that information is not physical and your claim that "all information is physical" is false.
Secondly, while I again acknowledge your statement to be partly true, what is not true is that this gives these laws any physical form. Whether they are properties of the universe or not, they still do not exist in the physical sense. You could not burn the law of gravity onto a hard drive and take it with you to another universe.
I mean no. Information and the experience thereof is strictly physical.
No. If you removed all the matter and energy from the universe you would still be left with a universe which has laws. Those fundamental laws represent an example of information which is not physical, yet nevertheless must exist in order for the universe to adhere to them.
The fact that information relies completely on matter does not make matter less real.
Matter is information. Everything in the universe is information. There is nothing except information.
I plan to be a robotics engineer so I think I can add insight.
I plan to be supreme ruler of the potato people so I think I can counter your insight.
A.I may never get advanced to the point of being destructive.
Then again it may. In fact, it probably will. This can be ascertained simply by observing the fact that it is becoming more advanced with time, and adding on ten thousand years.
Most is primitive and harmless
Yes, but time doesn't stand still. AIs are becoming more advanced every year. Plus -- and potentially most importantly -- developments in technology tend to be exponential rather than linear. We learn twice as fast when we know twice as much.
As long as we don't give it significant control, we should be fine.
I think that if we ever reach the level of AI where the decision has to be made whether or not to give it control, at that point it becomes inevitable that it will happen. Again, because of the passage of time, and the curiosity of human beings, eventually someone will try it just to see what happens.
Bill Maher thinks Islam is dangerous and psychopathic.
Donald Trump thinks poor people were black in a previous life and God is punishing them.
You think it's nuts need rubbed.
You think children are sexually attractive.
And banned.
Pretty simple Nom. Would you like pictures?
Your picture seems to evidence that America does indeed have a national ideology, which means you are contradicting yourself.
We have left wing, moderate, and right wing press
All press is supposed to be politically neutral you fucking retard. You furthermore do not have a "left wing" press. You are deliberately conflating the left (i.e. Marxism) with the American left (i.e. liberal capitalism). The fact that America has politicised the press to be biased in favour of capitalism literally proves the other guy's point.
He works for MSNBC.
And he was viciously attacked by the American press on the basis of the allegation that he once voted communist, so what is your point?
Please define the word "handled"
I volunteer for that task, Herr Bronto.
We are further along with North Korea than under Barack Obama.
If you consider "further along" to be threatening to start a nuclear war with them:-
Trump Threatens Use of Nukes While Canceling North Korean Nuke Summit
The Nobel committee will have to keep the president’s peace prize on ice
We are no longer funding Iran.
Trump killed a deal which forced Iran to reduce its uranium stockpile by 98 percent:-
Iran's uranium stockpile was reduced by 98%
It is highly suspect that you can make a sandwich or get your pants on without assistance
That's hilarious Bronto. But it doesn't explain why you think I can time travel.
"There is no source validating this claim"
In the post I was replying to, fuckwit.
You need to give us the source to your lack of sources.
That makes no sense. Your claims = your responsibility to prove them.
Thanks retard. Bye.
Hmmm. Trump has a Jewish son-in-law.
Who is an Israeli nationalist with property in the West Bank and who was implicated in the Russian collusion scandal. Kushner is as corrupt as they actually come mate.
Guess that killed your "Trump's a Nazi" theory.
On the contrary, several high-ranking members of the Nazi Party were also Jewish. See:-
Notably, there were several high-ranking Nazis of Jewish descent.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ListofNazisofnon-Germanicdescent
Also see:-
Cambridge University researcher Bryan Rigg noted that there were two field marshals and fifteen generals (two full generals, eight lieutenant generals, five major generals) who were Jews or of Jewish descent.[2] Rigg estimated that there were 150,000 men of Jewish descent that served German armed forces during World War II
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ListofNazisofnon-Germanicdescent
Try again.
Dow's 35 all-time-high closes in 2017 put it halfway toward a record
There are sources.
I didn't say there are no sources. I said your sources are bunk, which they are.
I guess you didn't do much of a search.
I didn't do any search because they were not my claims. Your attempt to hold me responsible for evidencing claims made by yourself only illustrates what a thoroughly dishonest troll you are.
https://www.google.com/amp/s/
I did not dispute this claim. I pointed out that you did not provide any source validating it. I also pointed out that Obama himself appointed two Supreme Court Judges.
I showed you that it is true.
You had not shown me it was true at the point I wrote my comment you annoying cretin. Do you think I can time travel?
Obama was President 8 years.
Your comment had nothing to do with how long Obama was president for, therefore this is a stupid and bizarre attempt at misdirection.
Furthermore, you have responded only to one sentence in my post with you personally cherry-picked, and ignored the other 95 percent of my post in which I meticulously pointed out the fact that your sources did not match the claims you made.
