energy and matter are neither created nor destroyed.. consequently, the building blocks of existence are actually finite parts.. to create things in "tomorrow" which are new, something has to be dismantled to leave spare parts for tomorrow's new thing.. the old thing deteriorates, (dies/disintegrates) and the parts become available to make the new thing.. time travel requires going to a place where today's parts are available to be rearranged.. some of today's things persist as they are, of course.
they only travel through time by persisting as they are.
(mountains, for example.).
For scientists measuring data the size of the group is what gives accuracy to the statistics. However, the "reality" of the individual components might not correspond to the data. That is why we can have contradictory elements we call "duality".
Did that help explain the concept of uncertainty to you?
energy and matter are neither created nor destroyed.. consequently, the building blocks of existence are actually finite parts.. to create things in "tomorrow" which are new, something has to be dismantled to leave spare parts for tomorrow's new thing.. the old thing deteriorates, (dies/disintegrates) and the parts become available to make the new thing.. time travel requires going to a place where today's parts are available to be rearranged.. some of today's things persist as they are, of course.
they only travel through time by persisting as they are.
(mountains, for example.).
A thing itself cannot BE uncertain. A thing is what it is.
At quantum levels, uncertainty IS a property of a thing. IOW, it will prove to be what it will prove to be. (JK about that last part).
Sort of like the average American family as 31/2 members. Statistically possible--but--what exactly is the reality of a 1/2 person??
Not exactly, but at the same time, sort of. Forget the question of what is the reality of 1/2 a person. Think more along the lines of having to measure a family to know how many kids are there. They have two. You only know this because you knocked on their door or called them and asked. So, you have to influence them somehow (get them to answer the door or the phone and talk to them). In doing so, you make them talk about their kids and in turn they decided to have another baby. Next time you measure a year later, they have three kids.
Your deciding to measure influenced in such a way that it changed the state of the.Now, they might have been considering having another child before you talked to them, maybe not. We just don't know. There is the uncertainty, despite the actual measurement.
That's not quite how things work, but just something to give you an idea.
energy and matter are neither created nor destroyed.. consequently, the building blocks of existence are actually finite parts.. to create things in "tomorrow" which are new, something has to be dismantled to leave spare parts for tomorrow's new thing.. the old thing deteriorates, (dies/disintegrates) and the parts become available to make the new thing.. time travel requires going to a place where today's parts are available to be rearranged.. some of today's things persist as they are, of course.
they only travel through time by persisting as they are.
(mountains, for example.).
One of the fallacies is called the Argument from Ignorance.
Not to be contrary, but i am not at all following your arguments. Physicists and cosmologist know very well what they mean when they are talking about engergy, just like I know what I mean when i talk about virtual pool rebalancing, jus like any of my peers would, or when like doctor mentions tachycardia to another doctor. You seem to be tossing that concept out because YOU don't know what it means and at one point invoked Plato or Aristotle to define something?
It's very difficult to follow your hypothsis because you're using non-traditional definitions and tossing out well defined concepts and replacing them with something you thought up or 2000 year old ideas.
Could you clearly re-state what you are trying to say?
so, as some of you may be aware, i got a job offer with an agency under the u.s. department of defense.
the other day i told a member of my family, and they nearly went apeshit.. my question: what reprecussions could this reasonably have?
does the wts speak of this in any of their publications?
Daniel-P, send me a PM and we can talk offline. At one point I got a security clearance to do work with SOCOM, I have many times had to navigate this treacherous area. I can offer some guidance. In fact, I am still navigating it.
for some days the web site www.jwbrothers.org is under maintenance, when i saw the april km at my in-laws place i noticed the article about circulating talks and web site s that distribute them.
do you think it is a coincident or do you think they give in.. the article said that old talks would be taken out of context if you did not know why some things where said.. like a governing body member saying that if you could you should pick up a copy of "angels and woman".
.
Of course. If you hear a talk without the right context, you might get the idea that the JW's are nutso. Just like how if you read the Bible without the GB holding your hand, you might get the idea that they are wrong.
i would describe my congregation on the whole as quite wooden ad robotic.
though there are some genuine sincere and loving brothers/sisters, there is overall something missing in my hall.
i dont feel incited to love and fine works by the brothers.. i find the boe as a whole - to be quite distant.
Everyone is annoyingly interested in everything I do. I supposed that is because I travel quite a bit, managed to get arrested and convicted of crime and have a good job(unlike most of the brothers who eschew the "things of the world" or an "education"). I suppose I am a bit of an oddity, but I am tired of questions about where i've been to, what i've been up to, etc.
thread for nasticanasta to have at with proof that it does..
However, if one insists that they have the authority to dictate that the Hebrew language word tsaphah can only mean "to peer into the distance" then they might have a point to make. However, since more scholarly authorities on the Hebrew language have written that the word tsaphah has an entire range of common meanings, I am forced to reject notverylikely as such an authority. In this instance, it is not the Bible which is mistaken or contradictory. Eli, though blind, was on watch for, anticipating, and waiting for the arrival of the ark.
So, your point is that I am wrong, even though I directly quoted the Bible, and to prove me wrong, you said that words have many differents meanings so how do we know which one is right? I am not the one insisting it has only one meaning, I am illustrating the point that NO one really knows which meaning was intended.
Also, if you don't like that example of the bible being contradictory, you can take your pick of others. Two examples are completely different numbers for the number of people killed because King David did a census or the bread and wine narrative. In Mathew and Mark, they get the info that someone is a betrayer and then they do the bread and wine, in Luke, they get the info and THEN eat.
thread for nasticanasta to have at with proof that it does..
Imagine the chaos in the world if every individual piece of evidence were immediately construed as an absolute proof of a suggested fact or conclusion.
So using this method, you haven't provided any proof that hell exists. Cool.
Hearsay, while not good evidence, is often used as such. Hearsay IS the core of what we call the grapevine. Some studies have shown grapevines in Fortune 500 companies to be about 75% accurate. The fact that people use grapevines and take action based on what they hear from grapevines demonstrates they accept the information as evidence and draw conclusions from the evidence (thus showing they see the accumulated evidence as proof).
You can cite the study, I am sure. Since we aren't talking about a Fortune 500 company, but a re-re-retranslated document 2000 years old written at least 40 years after the described events, it doesn't even count as hearsay.Translators can't even agree on exactly what it said, so at best it's sortofheardsay.
Even then, the conclusion may be rejected if the groupings of evidence are debateable and thus is not seen as provable.
Done and done.
thread for nasticanasta to have at with proof that it does..
Sign of Jonah referred to our Lord’s resurrection to come (Acts 2:22-36). Jonah was at the door of death, and God kept him alive with a miracle.
Why? How do we know it didn't refer to the bottle gourd miracle?
In spite of all Jesus did to prove who He was, using miraculous, unfathomable healings, and words of incredible wisdom that baffled the most learned of men, they still asked for a sign.
So jesus says there will be no miraculous sign, but then he performs miracles as a sign to prove that they should trust him when he says there will be no miraculous sign?
Any of that sound familair?
Yes, it reminds me of a lot of the Bible, but in particular 1 Samuel 4:13-15:
13 When he came, behold, ( N ) Eli was sitting on his seat by the road eagerly watching, because his heart was trembling for the ark of God. So the man came to tell it in the city, and all the city cried out.
14 When Eli heard the noise of the outcry, he said, "What does the noise of this commotion mean?" Then the man came hurriedly and told Eli.
15 Now Eli was ninety-eight years old, and ( O ) his eyes were set so that he could not see.
In verse 13 Eli was watching something, in verse 15 he was blind. So it reminds of a lot of the Bible, contradictory and self inconsistent.
thread for nasticanasta to have at with proof that it does..
Evidence is rarely conclusive.
EverAStudent, both definitions you provided suggest the opposite using words like "proof" and "fact".
What evidence do you have? Evidence is testable. Evidence is NOT hearsay.
