Paper "AMERO" will replace the dollar by spring!? - page 76
You are missing trading opportunities:
- Free trading apps
- Over 8,000 signals for copying
- Economic news for exploring financial markets
Registration
Log in
You agree to website policy and terms of use
If you do not have an account, please register
Yeah, our ideas about the world are so far apart that it's not even worth starting a discussion.
By and large, behind everything you say is the idea of someone else's evil intent, of someone else's evil, hidden, superior power. No, I really don't share that.
The only thing I don't understand is why you brought physics into it. As a physicist I inform you that it is in this science, particularly in the field of quantum mechanics, that in the last two decades fundamental experiments have been set up that tell a lot to someone who poses questions of principle. There have been no disappointments or refutations in the last 100 years, just physicists seeing the limits of physical knowledge. For some, this is like a death sentence - science means it is not omnipotent. And for some, it's quite natural - no need to absolutise either man or any human activity.
I can imagine how surprised you will be when your time to wait is up and it's your turn to be convinced. :-)
No, there is one chaos worthy of having a name of its own - Chaos. Everything else is a manifestation of this great and incomprehensible. :о) Yes there is no sense to argue about it - it is enough to look literally at the dynamics of changes of views in physics for the last 100 years and everything becomes absolutely clear - we know nothing about anything and nobody. It is enough just to have patience and wait to be convinced in it once again.
I agree. At every stage of civilisation there are different perspectives: trending, counter-trending and sideways, with different proportions and horizons. Those who turn out to be wrong at the next stage become "fuel" or "cannon fodder" for further development (including reversal) of trends. During a correction, the amount of "fuel" increases rapidly, stocks overflow, many modern models of a system based on the notion of equilibrium (balance) give signals of overload, becoming a precursor, either (a) or (b):
(a) serious positive or negative acceleration of civilisation, according to the current system
(b) replacing some models in the system or the system as a whole.
It must be noted that (b) happens quite rarely as a global trend change, but it consumes a lot of victims, "cannon fodder" - the adherents of (a).
Accordingly point (a) occurs more often, consuming victims from (b) of which there are usually fewer.
So here is the big question (for all of us): Are you in the (a) or (b) camp?
to Yurixx
«Дааа, наши стобой представления о мире настолько далеки друг от друга, что не стоит даже начинать дискуссию.»
What's the point of starting a discussion if the perceptions are no different? It's not a discussion, it's an agreement. But as you say, the only thing is a few comments... :o)
"By and large behind everything you say is the idea of someone's evil intent, of someone's evil, hidden, superior power. No, I really don't share that."
I wrote about a little bit different - about fear embedded in us, not an evil force. Another thing is that there are caring uncles who can take advantage of it - and take advantage of it. The term 'writing' only makes sense when applied to the term 'reading' :o). Watch TV (I personally don't watch it for a few years now, but I don't think anything has changed conceptually, it's unlikely to show great stuff all the time). And let's count on our fingers the number of wars that have just ended or are still going on. And do you think there are enough fingers to count the dead? And how many of them on religious grounds? And how many because of resources?
And you think that all these wars are accidental? And that Nature's revenge on people with hurricanes and other disasters isn't accidental? But that's ridiculous - natural disasters predate the advent of man (by the way, how did he come to be, if about science, which has no idea where this inquisitive mind, thinking where he came from :o), came from. There are cataclysms now and will remain after us.
Why give importance to Mayan predictions? Because every 52 years someone is bound to kill someone, or something will fly over, bang, etc... And you should be extremely lazy not to shout the end of the world, the end of the world and so on.
What about the new economic system? What makes you think that those who will theoretically take (or share) the position of the Americans will be better than them in the new order? Will the Chinese be better? - Never! They will only be worse.
"In the field of quantum mechanics in particular, the last two decades have produced fundamental experiments that say a lot to anyone who poses fundamental questions. There have been no disappointments or refutations in the last 100 years, it's just that physicists have seen the limits of physical knowledge. For some, this is like a death sentence - science means it is not omnipotent. And for some, it's quite natural - there's no need to absolutise either man or any human activity."
It makes sense to talk about this in about 120-150 years, when physicists will see new facets and as a fact change one understanding to another. I'm not writing that this is a bad thing - I'm writing that it's rather presumptuous to claim that now that's it, we all know. And so all the time: every time someone will say type excrement - now he knows everything and every time Great Mother Nature explains to this bully that he knows nothing. The great Tesla at the end of his life said "I don't know what electricity is", though he knew as much about it, and I think more than is known now.
I can imagine how surprised you will be when your time to wait is over and it's your turn to be convinced. :-)
But try to look on the other hand - maybe it is not for me, but for you to wait to make conclusions, at least stop bragging about your science, which, by the way, cannot do a lot. Maybe there is something deeper, more fundamentally human (that's what we're talking about) that you don't see yet. Or maybe that's what I'm writing about - something that wasn't there in Eden, but was rewarded in exile? Or let's put it this way, even simpler: the human body is made for vegetarian food, it's a proven medical fact. Primitive humans acted that way - and it's proven. So what made them start killing each other? Instinct? But it is not so - a mentally healthy person does not have such an instinct - to kill. And that having started to kill each other and make sacrifices - we are now able to build a good financial system - will we share coconuts honestly? Yeah, Russia sells priceless gas and oil for paper, literally.
PS: In short, I failed to get across what I wanted to say. But that's alright. :o I lacked words and the ability to string them together, but okay
to Galaxy
"I agree. At every stage of civilisation there are different perspectives: trending, counter-trending and sideways, with different proportions and horizons. Those who turn out to be wrong at the next stage become "fuel" or "cannon fodder" for further developments (including reversals) of trends..."
Quite unusual, but well deserving of the right to life. By the way, it comes to mind - here
http://www.alpari.ru/ru/ew_article/25725.html
Very interesting, if you haven't read it - I recommend it. It seems to me - there is a conceptual similarity.
Not at all a supporter of the E-waves, but a picture in the spirit of the argument (one from the article): No worse than the Maya predictions
How to spend a million - Profession Reporter
I think it is....
As a physicist I inform you that it is in this science, particularly in the field of quantum mechanics, that in the last two decades fundamental experiments have been set up which tell a lot to someone who poses fundamental questions. There have been no disappointments or refutations in the last 100 years, just physicists seeing the limits of physical knowledge. For some, this is like a death sentence - science means it is not omnipotent. And for some, it is quite natural - no need to absolutise either man or any human activity...
True, some physicists on quantum mechanics have seen the limits of physical knowledge.
For others everything is just beginning: The geometry of space
And what is the point of starting a discussion if perceptions are no different? It's not a discussion, it's an agreement. But as you say, the only thing is a few comments... :o)
If the perceptions are the same, then there is no discussion. But if they differ too much, there is no chance of understanding each other. You and I even have a different conceptual apparatus. If you even start something, you must first agree on concepts, language and terms. Otherwise it will be a talk of dumb and deaf. :-)
I was writing about a little bit different - about the fear inherent in us, not about the evil force.
Judging by it, you think that fear is born in a man, that is, that it is a property of human nature. That is, that a person does not even need a reason to be afraid. This is the difference that makes the discussion senseless. I think that fear is essentially a reaction, and it always has a reason. Especially I don't agree that fear is intrinsic to humans. If we have different axiomatics, what are we talking about ?
And you think that all these wars are accidental?
That's what I'm saying: a conversation between a mute and a deaf. It's written in black and white: everything is subject to the Laws of Genesis. Including wars and cataclysms and everything else. Only these are different laws. Wars are related to the processes of mankind, cataclysms are related to the geoclimatic processes, etc. Each process has its own laws, its own causes. And all these are still connected to each other through other plans. We only know the tip of the iceberg, which we have already explored a bit. If I wrote that the crisis is not accidental, how can wars be accidental?
Why give importance to Mayan predictions? Because every 52 years somebody kills somebody, or something flies over, bangs, etc.. And you have to be extremely lazy not to scream - end of the world, end of the world and so on.
And that's all the grounds you see? That's weird. And why 52? Did you just claim it happens all the time ?
What about the new economic system? Why do you think that those who will theoretically take (or share) the position of the Americans will be better than them in the new order ? The Chinese will be better? - Never! They will only be worse.
And that just goes to show that you can't even imagine a system that's any different from the American one. All the difference you allow is who will be at the top - the Americans or the others. So dare I disappoint you. It's not a new system, it's an old one. So old that it's already disgusting. Maybe that's why you're implicitly convinced there can't be another?
It makes sense to talk about it in 120-150 years, when physicists will see new sides and will change one understanding for another as a fact. I do not write that it is bad - I write that it is rather presumptuous to claim that now we all know. And so all the time: every time someone will say type excrement - now he knows everything and every time Great Mother Nature explains to this bully that he knows nothing. The great Tesla at the end of his life said "I don't know what electricity is", though he knew as much about it, and I think more than people know now.
That's nonsense again. Where did I say "we all know"? You do not even know what experiments we are talking about, and what has become clear from them, but you rush into battle with your teachings.
Let me explain again. The said experiments showed that there are phenomena that are beyond existing knowledge, and generally beyond the scope of physical knowledge. That last one, highlighted, isn't the only one you haven't eaten. Therefore, elaborate. Every science has its own field of applicability. The same is true for any theory. Chemistry, for example, works with atoms, molecules and above. But it does not work with particles, space-time. Biology works with the living cell and above, but it does not work with atoms and molecules. There is a lower limit, where a particular science doesn't go, because it is beyond its scope. It used to be thought that physics was the most fundamental. Now it has become clear that it too has a limit - where matter and space-time end.
And try to look at it from the other side - maybe not me, but you should wait to draw conclusions, at least stop bragging about your science, which, by the way, can't do many things. Maybe there is something deeper, more fundamentally human (that's what we're talking about) that you don't see yet.
25 again. Where did I brag about my science ? Quote ! I realized a long time ago that it's not science that "saves the world" but something else entirely. Nevertheless, I continue to have great respect for science. I simply understand now its place, its functions, its limitations. And scientific facts are the best argument with those who need proof, who still think that science is the only source of knowledge.
As for conclusions - I always do and always will. But I am also aware of the relativity of my conclusions, their temporary nature. Because they will be replaced by other, more profound and appropriate conclusions. And the phrase about waiting was in response to yours. Apparently, you just didn't understand me, so I repeat in conjunction:
grasn wrote(a) >> Just have patience and wait to see it again.
Yurixx wrote(a) >> I can imagine how surprised you'll be when your time to wait is up and it's your turn to be convinced. :-)
You probably meant just wait, I meant quite another wait. :-)
In any case, we coincide with you, concerning the fact that there is something more profound, more fundamental. And whether it is human or not... we'll wait and see. :-)))
«Судя по этому, ты полагаешь, что страх заложен в человеке с рождения …»
No, I don't know where it comes from, but it is part of the Laws of Genesis, maybe the most important part philosophically and humanly.
"Written in black and white: everything is subject to the Laws of Being..."
Taki I totally agree and I also write about the Laws of Being, but all this time I thought we would somehow clarify those Laws. It's at least interesting to understand the nature, that's what we're talking about.
"...And why 52..."
Could be confused, 52 years is the length of a Mayan century. It's kind of like the average human life span. The Mayans have a really interesting view of time, by the way - I use it in my strategy. They believed that everything comes back, everything repeats. And I think so too, just to clarify that it repeats with slight variations.
"And that just goes to show that you can't even imagine a system that is different from the American one. All the difference you allow is who would be at the top - Americans or others. So dare I disappoint you. It's not a new system, it's an old one. So old that it's already disgusting. Maybe that's why you've implicitly formed the belief that there can't be another?"
You didn't understand anything of what I wrote about. No fundamentally different system can be created in an existing environment. It cannot. Even if such a fair system is born in your bright head - it will never be implemented. In the current situation - never. History is full of evidence of this, the same utopians. About this, in fact, Kabbalah also writes, giving 230 years for eradication of egoism. Exactly for this reason. The current system at its initialization has not the worst characteristics - and look what it has turned into. It could not have been otherwise.
"I explain again. The said experiments showed..."
Hmm, but that's what I meant. Exactly what you wrote :o)
"And as for the conclusions - I always do them and I will do them."
And that's overdoing it, I wasn't trying to "eliminate" the source of the conclusions. They must be drawn :o)
"Anyway, we agree with you about something deeper, more fundamental..."
Yes, we have reached a consensus after all. :о)))))
Enough of this bullshit, you've gone off the rails.
defender of western ideology, you're one of the people I asked to refute the material in Perkins' book.
and Investigating from the ground up if you can.
there was a story on the news yesterday about computer games about shooters, it said that many shooters were released under the control of the u.s. defense department
in particular in 2001 there was a shooter based on a scenario where Russia allegedly attacked Georgia... and by a strange coincidence in 2008
you say you have a math degree... i don't believe you))
you are a first year student who recently played these shooters and your mum scolded you for doing your homework
Yes, we have reached a consensus after all. :о)))))
Well, thank God for that. The main thing is that it was quick and without a beating. :-)
Taki, I completely agree and I also write about laws of being, but all this time I thought that we will specify those Laws somehow. It is at least interesting to understand the nature, that's what we are talking about.