i mean really i cannot watch the end, it stops at 3:19/9:37 on part 6/6…

wtfffffffff

I just got home and read your Post. I knew at some point you would comment on the ridiculous insult throwing affair. I truely didn’t post here for that.

First off I love this site. Thank you.

After watching the video, I posted that I believe there are holes and inconsistancies with aspects of what was presented. Scientific holes. It has nothing to do with religion or philosophy.

So maybe that puts me in camp3. I believe in science. But I believe NOT all of the theoretical stuff is correct.

I posted to discuss where I found some of those inconsistancies, but unfortunatley spent most of the time correcting the barrage of misquotes( at least twenty) and fielding insults from a couple of people who took extreme offence to my original post and really never got past that.

I’ll admit some of the words I chose to describe aspects of some of the theories and how vehemently some people choose to defend them were provocative. I truely wasn’t trying to be personal in nature (calling some aspects poppycock). And never spoke of anyone specifically. Nonetheless offence was taken. Then things got personal. This was unintended.

The provocative nature of some of the wording was intended to provoke debate from people with some scientific knowledge. Not provoke a barrage of personal insults. This I regret and I did promise not to open a post this way again, however the insults continued.

I will promise to never return or respond to an insult again. They will be ignored.

I do appreciate and will respect your concerns and wishes.

Regarding the video…

I would still like to intelligently and maturely discuss specific aspects of this video and others with people on this forum. And I also welcome critique of specifics with any of my positions, that provide intelligent specific refute.

I would like to start again by discussing aspects of the theory(s) presented in this video starting with the first genlleman in the video.

I haven’t seen his math but I’d like to. If someone knows a way for me to get a look at it I’d appreciate it so I can have a stronger position to argue my points (or be corrected is fine too).

But in his first theory he suggests that all patterns repeat in nature.No matter how complexed.( please correct me if I’m wrong anywhere). He said the more complexed the pattern the futher you must travel to find an identical copy of this pattern.

He said this is true of every person. If we could travel far enough we would find an exact copy of each of us. He said he came up with a number that is one with a million trillion trillion zeros light years away. If we could travel this far we would find our exact copy down to the atomic level.

My argument is this (and please tell me if I become unscientific unmathematical or philosophical at any point) :

1) Given the suggestion of an exact duplicate of another person being produced in nature, we would have to consider what variables would be of influence for this pattern reproduction to occur.

2) Furthermore we would have to consider what we actually observe in nature. To actually prove this is possible.

So with respect to requirement #1 some of the variables in nature for a human to exist and grow::

What parents produced the human.(initial genetics)

The Temperature, pressure, available sustanance( food and water), gravity, suitable breathable atmosphere (this itself could have virtually infinite variations)., weather conditions, radiation exposure etc.
and infinite possible combinations of all these.

Furthermore there will be virtually infinite variables influencing the growth of this human pattern.

Therefor I believe we could say:

A) this human pattern is entirely a product of its environment.
B) That there are infinite variables in an environment suitable to produce this human pattern
C) That this environment( and all the infinite variable within) would be constantly changing.

If we assume these things as true( as observed in nature) we then should look at the math to see what the probability to produce an exact duplicate would be.

Given that there are infinite variables then we could only end up with a probability that would boil down to:

infinity divided by infinity = zero

Furthermore there is no evidence in nature demonstrating two life forms(of any kind) exist in nature with identical patterns down to the atomic level.

So I can only conclude that there is a zero probability of finding an exact duplicate of a human pattern down to the atomic level existing in nature(reality)

I welcome discussion on this.

Thanks again as usual for this forum Vladko

I will keep my promise :)

Time is essentially the recording of events. When you walk to the store you create a visual map in the fourth dimension from point A to when you stop moving.

Home ——————————-You—————————-> Store

All events prior to where you currently sit are in the “past” and the outcome of the event you are in is the “future”. remember that this is one long line of time.

But of course there is rarely a set timeline. Many choices will face you on your epic quest to the store. These alternate paths can be represented as branches.

Park
/
/
/
Home ——————————-You—————————-> Store

So, to sum it all up:
-No humans did not invent time, but we discovered the concept on our own
-We did invent the word “Time” through language
- When we find a new advanced civilization out there they will likely understand time as we do

…But I’m 17 years old what the f*** do I know