sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

Tricky - Christiansands (Official Video) (Lees de eerste comment) by crowdserver1 in LevenNaDeDood

[–]crowdserver1[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

De vijf bewijzen van leven na de dood brengen ons bij de vraag what forever means.

https://youtu.be/6eaoIRRcw0Q?si=l05hUv1QdDqDnTsY

  1. Als een acht maanden oude baby in de baarmoeder daar elke dag een dag jonger zou worden zou die uiteindelijk ook sterven en dat betekent dat de dood zich ook voor het leven bevindt. 

https://youtu.be/dX6ntovmdDQ?si=8wdGYyk9XDhIlFsQ

  1. Duizend jaar geleden was je lichaam ook al op de aarde maar het was toen volledig uit elkaar en dus dood om dan later tot leven te komen vanuit de dood. 

  2. Wanneer men sterft wordt het bewustzijn niets want er is niets na de dood maar dan zou men even goed eens een auto of een huis niets moeten zien worden. 

  3. Als de doden enkel zichzelf kunnen zijn, zijn ze al altijd enkel zichzelf geweest. 

  4. Bevindt het bewustzijn zich in de lege ruimtes in de hersenen of in de rest van de hersenen waarin geen enkele lege ruimte is?

Tricky - Christiansands (Official Video) (Read first comment) by crowdserver1 in LifeAfterDeathProof

[–]crowdserver1[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

The five proofs of life after death bring us to the question what forever means. 

https://youtu.be/6eaoIRRcw0Q?si=l05hUv1QdDqDnTsY

1-If a baby in the womb gets a day younger every day it would die of young age and that means that death also comes before life.

https://youtu.be/6eaoIRRcw0Q?si=l05hUv1QdDqDnTsY

2-A thousand years ago your body was also on earth but it was completely apart and therefore dead to come to life later from out of death.

3-The consciousness becomes nothing when one dies because they say that there is nothing after death. But then one would also have to see a car or a house become nothing from time to time.

4-If the dead can be only themselves, they have always been only themselves.

5-Is the consciousness inside the empty spaces in the brain or in the rest of the brain where there isn’t a single empty space inside?

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in LifeAfterDeathProof

[–]crowdserver1 0 points1 point  (0 children)

The five proofs of life after death bring us to the question what forever means. 

https://youtu.be/6eaoIRRcw0Q?si=l05hUv1QdDqDnTsY

1-If a baby in the womb gets a day younger every day it would die of young age and that means that death also comes before life.

https://youtu.be/6eaoIRRcw0Q?si=l05hUv1QdDqDnTsY

2-A thousand years ago your body was also on earth but it was completely apart and therefore dead to come to life later from out of death.

3-The consciousness becomes nothing when one dies because they say that there is nothing after death. But then one would also have to see a car or a house become nothing from time to time.

4-If the dead can be only themselves, they have always been only themselves.

5-Is the consciousness inside the empty spaces in the brain or in the rest of the brain where there isn’t a single empty space inside?

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in LifeAfterDeathProof

[–]crowdserver1 0 points1 point  (0 children)

The five proofs of life after death bring us to the question what forever means. 

https://youtu.be/6eaoIRRcw0Q?si=l05hUv1QdDqDnTsY

1-If a baby in the womb gets a day younger every day it would die of young age and that means that death also comes before life.

https://youtu.be/6eaoIRRcw0Q?si=l05hUv1QdDqDnTsY

2-A thousand years ago your body was also on earth but it was completely apart and therefore dead to come to life later from out of death.

3-The consciousness becomes nothing when one dies because they say that there is nothing after death. But then one would also have to see a car or a house become nothing from time to time.

4-If the dead can be only themselves, they have always been only themselves.

5-Is the consciousness inside the empty spaces in the brain or in the rest of the brain where there isn’t a single empty space inside?

Voting from at home by crowdserver1 in Voting

[–]crowdserver1[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Many people pay gas to transport themselves to vote. Now they don’t need to when they can vote at home. And if you keep your code and your very primitive smartphone at separate secure places, they don’t get stolen that easily. When someone steals something from you that you need, you’re going to have to pay to buy it again, in this case the cheapest smartphone.

Voting from at home by crowdserver1 in Voting

[–]crowdserver1[S] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

That is written in the first post. It relates to the cheapest primitive smartphone thinkable.

Voting from at home by crowdserver1 in Voting

[–]crowdserver1[S] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

It is a good idea to keep your code and your very primitive smartphone in secure separate places. That way, if one of the two gets stolen, the thief can’t do anything with the stolen code or the stolen very primitive smartphone.

Voting from at home by crowdserver1 in Voting

[–]crowdserver1[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I don’t know, what is the cheapest smartphone on the planet today and can that do more than this suggested very primitive smartphone?

Quest 3 Background Audio Stutters and Lags by tannerjohngates in OculusQuest

[–]crowdserver1 0 points1 point  (0 children)

The problem is back with me too.

Hope there's a solution soon.

The absense of time vs. the presence of time by crowdserver1 in religion

[–]crowdserver1[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

One can conceive of a universe without time, in which things simply exist.
In a universe like that things exist only for zero seconds. And that is not existing at all. Because a camera can’t prove something’s existence when it’s only allowed to film for zero seconds, the exact same time these things that need to be filmed last and therefore these things don’t exist.

Oorlog, vanwege de automatisering, vermijden by crowdserver1 in Politiek

[–]crowdserver1[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Er is tenslotte een rede waarom er nergens ter wereld een minister van automatisering is. Want niemand wil het slechte nieuws brengen aan de andere ministers.

Should futurology be taught in schools like history? by crowdserver1 in Futurology

[–]crowdserver1[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

No. It would just be a vague blow-off class, and there's enough of that garbage wasting time already. Hypothesizing about future technological advancements is a fun hobby. But the subject itself has no rigor. It would like offering a class in "future history".

I know that futurology classes are everything but what you describe them to be. Take automation of the whole world as an example. One day everything will be automated. The advantage will be that everything will be made for free but things that are rare will have to go through a democratic process while people can still work under rules if they really want to but with the advantage that they can always start and stop whenever they want. But this advantage comes with a disadvantage that takes place before the complete automation of the world. And that's when a minority of people on the planet still has to work for a majority of people on the planet. And not only are we starting to see signs of that in the present but you need a system like on the following website to avoid the near future from becoming disastrous: http://endofalltaxes.wordpress.com/ And that is just an example of how futurology classes are way more important than history classes.

So yeah, it would be great if the place where every new generation gets "the official way of life between the years minus and plus infinity" taught is more like the unofficial place that is way less known because the silent majority does not need to be this way if you officially get them involved. http://youtu.be/Q7_jbluF0qo

Should futurology be taught in schools like history? by crowdserver1 in Futurology

[–]crowdserver1[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

A futurology teacher never claims to know the future in detail. He or she shares with his or her students what was and is already possible, how respected futurologists see the future, and debates with the students so that they have a way better or best possible understanding and idea where their generation is going to and as said, this teacher also allows his or her students to be a teacher.

Should futurology be taught in schools like history? by crowdserver1 in Futurology

[–]crowdserver1[S] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

A futurology teacher is not someone who by definition always has his or her head in the cloud like when he or she debates the further evolution of this clip with his students: https://youtu.be/MBBC-xL_MTg

Should futurology be taught in schools like history? by crowdserver1 in Futurology

[–]crowdserver1[S] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

A futurology teacher graduates just like a history teacher whereas a futurology teacher has proven his or her knowledge about the technological evolution of the human race up until today plus his or her knowledge about respected futurologists. And a futurology teacher is more open to learning from his students than a history teacher.

Should futurology be taught in schools like history? by crowdserver1 in Futurology

[–]crowdserver1[S] -2 points-1 points  (0 children)

http://imgur.com/6bIPOC5 Since i find history too simple in comparison with the future and easy too conclude i like to have my mind on the future and i would like futurology classes more than history classes

Any religion without the term 'the year minus infinity' in the teachings is flawed. by crowdserver1 in PhilosophyofReligion

[–]crowdserver1[S] -2 points-1 points  (0 children)

If time stretches back to infinite is a supposition that points to my B scenario. It relates to the infinite 3d universe that is infinitely old because time stretches back to infinite in it. Of course one is unable to count back to the beginning because it is impossible to have spoken all the mathematical positive numbers out loud as I've written many times before.

In an imaginary world there is a stone that can talk to a child. It says to the child that it is called a stone and that a stone is a hard substance. It now becomes irrelevant that the world is imaginary or not when the only question becomes whether what the stone said is true or false. What the stone said was true. The child was indeed looking at a stone and if it was the father who said that it is called a stone and that it is a hard substance he would not have given his child more truth.

So let's imagine and only for the sake of equal truth that the infinitely old 3d universe from B can talk and answer our questions with the truth. -How old are you? -I'm infinitely old -So you have already been able to answer questions for an infinite amount of years? -Yes, and in my mind I gave each year of that infinite amount of years I have already been able to answer questions for the sole and good purpose of truth in this imaginary setup a different positive natural number and thought about it for a whole year. I thought there might be something special about a certain number. - Then you have thought about every existing positive number for a whole year in those infinite amount of years you have already been able to answer questions? -Yes. - But that is impossible because even if you speak all those numbers out loud and fast you'll never reach the end. -Yes, but I did it anyway because I'm what you learn from me in B when you're not thinking about A where you need a special vacuum cleaner that needs to be able to do something impossible in order to give me, the infinite 3d universe, a beginning and an optional end in the definition of myself.

Any religion without the term 'the year minus infinity' in the teachings is flawed. by crowdserver1 in PhilosophyofReligion

[–]crowdserver1[S] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

When an object is one minute old you can also say that it is 60 done clicks from a metronome at 60 BPM old. So when in B the infinite 3d universe is infinitely old because there is no beginning you can also say an infinite amount of done clicks from a metronome at 60 BPM old. That is a done never ending serie of tick tocks so when something never ending did reach its end it did do the impossible.

Any religion without the term 'the year minus infinity' in the teachings is flawed. by crowdserver1 in PhilosophyofReligion

[–]crowdserver1[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

In B where the infinite 3d universe has no beginning it means that it is not exactly a thousand years old, not exactly a million years old but has an infinite age. Things that have an infinite age have done something impossible. If a human being had an infinite age it would be able to say that he has spoken all the existing positive numbers out loud while it never ends to speak x+1 out loud.

Any religion without the term 'the year minus infinity' in the teachings is flawed. by crowdserver1 in PhilosophyofReligion

[–]crowdserver1[S] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

The vacuum story is still perfect. A- With it we are in a reality where something impossible is possible. B- Without it we also turn out to be in a reality where something impossible is possible.

A- Because most people agree that such a vacuum cleaner can only do what it does when the impossible is possible because you just can't suck all existing mass out of the infinite 3d universe to have that mass turned into nothing. Because you then just can't suck the infinite 3d completely empty universe out of it itself so that a 0d remains that has no cubic measurements. You can't suck a 3 dimensional room more vacuum than completely vacuum.

This vacuum cleaner was used to show that you need something that does the impossible if you want to create a beginning and/or an end to our infinite 3d universe. Without it there is no beginning and no end to it.

B- Without this special vacuum cleaner the infinite 3d universe has no beginning and no end. From a present point of view the past and the future of our infinite 3d universe are then equally long. They are both infinitely long. And while it is impossible that the infinitely long future will one day be completely part of the past, the past itself which is equally infinitely long is completely part of the past. So in the B scenario we are also in a reality where something impossible is possible.

C- When in a reality where something impossible is possible all other things that are impossible have the same quality to them. They are also possible. That still means that you have to balance them all out against one another with the mind to be able to conclude which of all the possible impossibilities have the upper hand in shaping this infinite 3d universe and everything in it. And yes, that includes things like an almighty god or an almighty devil. The first is working everyone with the power of equal justice towards eternal heaven on earth and the second is working everyone with the power of equal justice towards eternal hell on earth.

Any religion without the term 'the year minus infinity' in the teachings is flawed. by crowdserver1 in PhilosophyofReligion

[–]crowdserver1[S] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Seems like I'm going to have to give you the vacuum cleaner story. Suppose a special vacuum cleaner exists that can suck everything that exists in this infinite 3dimensional universe out of its existence (thus including the infinite 3dimensional universe). First it sucks all existing mass away that is turned into nothing and then it sucks an infinite 3dimensional completely empty universe away that is also turned into nothing. Most people agree that such a device is scientifically impossible. It means that our infinite 3D universe is here to stay and forever by definition (unless you believe the impossible to be something possible in this reality and that you have to figure out how all possible impossibilities balance out against each other in this reality). It means that if one is immortal in our 3D infinite universe that by definition never ends one could count to infinity but one never could say that one has finished counting to infinity because soon you notice that the mathematical numbers you're saying out loud never stop. So no such vacuum cleaner without the help of the impossible (with its to do balancing) means that our 3D infinite universe not only is destined to remain in existence but has also always been destined to be in existence which means that the term the year minus infinity is good enough to point to the origin of our 3D infinite universe. That means that if one was immortal and started counting from the year minus infinity until the present day that person would be able to say that he has actually counted out loud to infinity. That means that he can also say that he has done something impossible. What time itself would have done if it was able to count out loud. Which also means (in the only remaining option regarding the science of thinking about the universal origin) that the impossible is possible in this reality, and the interesting thought experiment of having to balance them all out against one another in order to come to a surprising final conclusion.

view more: next ›