The control of one subatomic particle

@fresco,

Dear readers here, in most particular Fresco and all atheists, do you at all never notice that you atheists think without attending to the whole big picture of existence, at all?

Your thinking is at its most inner core bereft of any contact with the head and tail of an issue, like in the present thread, The control of one subatomic particle.

The head of this question is existence, and the tail of this question again is also existence, i.e. what kind of existence a single subatomic particle is into, and how it got there.

Oh ye atheists, you talk like you are shooting empty blank bullets indifferently in space, and feeling so smug that you are saying anything at all that makes any sense to people who do think according to truths, facts, logic, and the best thoughts of mankind from since the dawn of man's conscious intelligence.

Now that you are cornered in your vacuous, inane, irrational, stupid spot, owing to your talking without any head nor tail of an issue, you resort to as with self-spoiled brats, you resort to behave even worse, hurling cusses and talking even more to your discredit as any serious thinkers at all, namely, making flippant stupid remarks and also resorting to pictorial utterances.

So, you feel still feel so smug, with making spoiled fools of yourselves?

Get busy, at least tell me what you know about existence, from thinking for yourselves, grounding yourselves on truths, facts, logic, and the best thoughts of mankind from since the dawn of man's conscious intelligence.

No more name-dropping, and no more technical-terms-dropping.

You do not notice it, but you are now at the stage of seeking to embroil me into your stupid, immature, monkey-business of hurling insults between and by you and me.

Please, do yourself some self-respect:

Think on what is existence, by surveying all your experiences of existence, and then think about them, what is the common denominator of all these experiences.

When you write again to react to my request to you in this post, as in all my posts to you, Oh ye atheists here, I hope to see what serious thinking on experiences about what you have come, what you have come to, of any from your self-thought out concept of what is existence, and accompany your concept with at least four examples.

See if you can get some tips from my concept of what is existence:

Quote:

"Existence is anything at all we know to be real from our conscious experience and reason, for example: the nose, the sun, babies, roses, etc." (25 words)

Dear readers here, let us sit back and await to witness whether Fresco and his fellow atheist here will get busy and do genuine thinking, or again continue in their unruly cavalcade of flippancies or worse cusses.

0 Replies

Dear readers here, I invite you and me to do thinking about the control of one subatomic particle, starting from what we know from our experiences of existence; so in regard to subatomic particle, what kind of existence is a subatomic particle into, and how it got into existence.

You see, scientists unanimously tell us subatomic particles exist.

On the other hand, scientists, sad to say this: they are not very brave in coming forward to tell mankind what is for them existence.

So, let us continue to think for ourselves, in regard to the existence of a subatomic particle: start with just one, so that we can handle the issue with some measure of focus.

Tell me, if I am correct or not:

Scientists have not yet found all the subatomic particles they want to reach as to complete their enumeration of subatomic particles.

The way they are going about it, they will not have completed their discovery of all subatomic particles; and until then, it is impossible for them to even dream about any theory of everything.

How can they arrive if ever at all to a theory of everything, when they are still, read this attentively, still colliding subatomic particles, thereby discovering more sub-subatomic particles.

And they have already a very big machine to collide subatomic particles in order to get to more sub-subatomic particles, endlessly(?).

Eventually after they get tired of their present very very very very massive particle colliding toy err machine, the present Hadron Large Collider,* they will clamor to get from tax payers money for another still bigger subatomic particle collider, to produce err discover more sub-subatomic particles - when will they if ever at all complete their much sought after list of all sub-sub-sub-subatomic particles?

Time for them to do some very serious and down to earth thinking on what is existence, and how subatomic particles get to their existence.

*The LHC is a large circular tunnel with a circumference of 27 kilometers (17 miles), buried in the ground under an average of 100 m (328 ft) of dirt and rock. In particle physics, hadron is a family of subatomic particles made of quarks and held together by the strong force*.
https://www.google.com/search?q=size+of+the+hadron+large+collider&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8

0 Replies

Provisionally, I will say that scientists are into what I call their mental fallacy of infinite regress into splitting sub-subatomic particles to 'discover' further sub subatomic particles.

With the expectation that they will get to come to the complete list of all subatomic particlds by their mental infinite regress of colliding sub subatomic particles, all in their mental excogitation, via their invented mathematics which is also all inside their mind.

Scientists should already come out from their mental infinite regress search possible at all because it is all inside their mind, I mean their infinite repeating asking themselves what new sub subatomic particles will they turn up, with their deep deep deep mathematics - all in their mind.

It is time to do genuine thinking outside their mind, that the universe exists outside and independent of their mental infinite regress of colliding with their mental splitting of sub subatomic particles, by way of deep deep deep also their invented mathematics.

It is time to go outside their mind and observe the universe exists, their nose exists, babies and roses exist, the sun and the moon exist, subatomic particles do exist in the abyss of the quantum domain, massive galaxies exist in distant space.

So in objective reality outside their mental infinte repetition of mental splitting of sub subatomic particles, the particles outside have already come into their complete list:

THAT IS WHY WE ARE ALREADY EXISTING SO ALSO EVERYTHING WE MEET IN THE UNIVERSE, AND THE UNIVERSE ITSELF WE SEE EXISTING ALREADY!

Even though they are still inside their mind splitting subatomic particles, and outside their mind clamoring for money to construct another still larger toy to collide subatomic particles, and hope to bring up more fragments of subatomic particles, which are also subatomic particles in turn.

Cease and desist already with their on and on and on splitting sub subatomic particles, all in their mind only.

Time for them to do thinking on the upper level of research on existence.
________________________________

About able2know

Able2know's mission is to help connect people, knowledge and resources.

Able2know is committed to providing these services free of charge. We believe the costs of developing and providing these services should be defrayed primarily with ethical advertising -- that is, an avoidance of pop-ups, spam, or other unreasonably obtrusive forms of advertising.

We seek to maximize the opportunities for people with similar interests and goals to connect, gather information, and network through the able2know service.
https://able2know.org/about/

0 Replies

@Susmariosep,

Quote:

Dear Tom, I am waiting for your presentation of something with a function but without a designer.

Susmario,
I am very disappointed in you. You are incapable of a simple conversation. And so with your inability to listen to another point of view and your refusal to even respond intelligently I fear conversation with you is a pointless waste of time. You have one idea (not original and not very well thought out) that you repeat endlessly and with which you demand agreement from others. That is not a discussion. Why bother asking questions? Just make your statements and be gone. I just hope that in whatever backwater you live in you don't have any influence on young people.

2 Replies

@TomTomBinks,

[ Dear everyone, I have to make a decision to not any further read Tom, for he is now into nothing but to just put in a presence that is simply intended to be a disturbance to everyone's focus on a rational productive conversation.

So, when dear readers here, you notice I don't respond to him anymore, it is because I have decided not to be disturbed by his precise intention to disturb everyone here including of course yours truly.

Glennn recently just now in fact is into an exchange with me on reason, though he seems to not get my thought correctly; but that is all right, we are here to get to understand each other rationally and thus productively as is the purpose of this forum a2k. ]
__________________________

Dear readers here, I tell you Tom is into again evasion.

I asked him and will ask him again and again and again to present a thing with a function that is without a designer.

And now he goes into telling himself so many words, hoping that readers including me will be distracted from my challenge to him to present a thing with a function but with no designer.

The man does not even know the meaning of the word function, see Annex below, the underscored text.

Annex

Quote:

From Susmariosep:
@fresco,
Dear Fresco, do you notice that Tomtomlinks has presented the nose as something with a function but without a designer.

He says:
But OK, an example of a thing that has a function but no designer is the nose on your face. (1) Look at it closely. It has openings to let in the air, sinus cavities and mucous membranes to warm and humidify the air, hairs to trap dust and sensory surfaces to detect odors. (2) Yet it had no designer.
________________________

Let us, dear Fresco, you and me and everyone atheists and theists and whatever else human 'ists' work together, to do commentaries on statements (1) and (2) from Tomtomlinks.

On statement (1): Look at it [nose] closely. It has openings to let in the air, sinus cavities and mucous membranes to warm and humidify the air, hairs to trap dust and sensory surfaces to detect odors.

Tom enumerates some steps or actions of the nose, but woeful is his intelligence, for he does not know really know what is a function, namely, a function is destined to achieve a purpose.

[Addendum: Okay, Tom, when you return, tell mankind what is the function of the nose, namely, stating clearly its purpose or role in the whole organism that is a human being.]

On statement (2): Yet it had no designer.

Dear everyone, let us ask Tom, How did you come to the idea that the nose has no designer, please explain; otherwise we will dismiss that statement from you as coming from a poster with a woeful intelligence, for you can't explain how ever you came to your idea.

Okay, dear readers here, let us all sit back to await with bated breath for Tom to show us his intelligence is not woeful, by explaining how ever he came to the idea that the nose has no designer.

[...]

________________________________

About able2know

Able2know's mission is to help connect people, knowledge and resources.

Able2know is committed to providing these services free of charge. We believe the costs of developing and providing these services should be defrayed primarily with ethical advertising -- that is, an avoidance of pop-ups, spam, or other unreasonably obtrusive forms of advertising.

We seek to maximize the opportunities for people with similar interests and goals to connect, gather information, and network through the able2know service.
https://able2know.org/about/

0 Replies

@TomTomBinks,

Trolls don't care what you think of them. Any response is sufficient to perpetuate their egotistic ramblings. This one has already done the rounds of other forums and is now inflicting itself on this one. It will be here for as long it thinks it has an audience.
Several years ago I opened a thread on the futility of 'existence of God 'arguments from the point of view of philosophical pragmatism which equates 'existence' with 'social contextual utility'. As an atheist I am quite hqppy to agree thst 'God exists' for those that can make use of a 'God' concept, provided they don't try to impose the social consequences of their belief on my life.
Unfortunately history shows that religious belief which is useful fo many at the psychological level, can become pernicious at the social level. The current social intransigence exhibited by our troll is indicative of that perniciousness.
The troll is of course likely to try feed off even this post, so desperate is its need to constantly reinforce its crude dabbling into what it thinks 'rationality' should be about.

1 Reply

@fresco,

fresco wrote:

Trolls don't care what you think of them. Any response is sufficient to perpetuate their egotistic ramblings. This one has already done the rounds of other forums and is now infesting this one.

Some of us care.

1 Reply

@maxdancona,

You don't consider yourself a troll do you ?

1 Reply

@fresco,

Of course I consider myself a troll. (Did you notice my avatar?)

I post provocative arguments that I know will upset people. I try poke holes in what many people believe to be the truth. If there is a general belief in something that can't be questioned... I question it. I have questioned organic food and ideas about sexual consent... I have even suggested that female circumcision might be viewed as appropriate in certain cultural contexts.

If I were to defend myself, I would suggest that this is the way to have truly interesting discussions and that questioning is the best way to understand ones own belief.

But, yes. I consider myself a troll. And in this world of ideological bubbles, I think the world needs more trolls.

2 Replies

@maxdancona,

Well that's not my understanding of the word ! Your contributions appear to be relatively informed, sane and unrepetitive, which is not the case for Sus, and crucially you seem prepared to engage in an exchange of ideas even if you are playing Devil's Advocate in some cases.

(It may be of interest, perhaps, that the controversial philosopher Derrida adopts what seem to be your tactics in the operation he calls 'deonstruction'. For example he takes a topic like 'charity' and points out that it can never truely be 'selfless'. His general conclusion is that no assertion can be semantically free from its negation - 'meaning' resides in the union of the two, never in either polarity alone. Selection of one side is termed 'privileging' and its semantic 'debt' to the other side is usually ignored or never considered. Mainstream philosophers hated him ! )

0 Replies

@maxdancona,

About able2know

Able2know's mission is to help connect people, knowledge and resources.

[…]

We seek to maximize the opportunities for people with similar interests and goals to connect, gather information, and network through the able2know service.
https://able2know.org/about/
_______________________

So, Oh ye useless posters here, please change for the better.
_______________________

Dear Max, welcome back, for we had a dialogue previously but you ran away, so I am glad you have returned - I hope to now have a rational productive dialogue with me.

Notice to readers here: Max is an atheist, and I tell you, he will eventually run away, as is true of all dyed in the wool atheists, when the dialogue gets serious and they realize that they are being exposed nakedly as into nothingness but inanity, vacuity, stupidity, they will run away and keep away, but later on when the coast is clear, they will return.

And what? And resume their inanity, vacuity, stupidity, in pursuit of evasiveness for the sake of their Acquired Intelligence Deficiency Syndrome.

Now, dear Max, as Fresco has obviously run away, as per his already routine of evasiveness i.e. running away to nurse his Acquired Intelligence Deficiency Syndrome, when my dialogue with him gets serious as to expose his naked inanity, vacuity, and stupidity, please dear Max take over from Fresco [and Tomtombinks].

And react to my last post to Fresco, so that my thought, now will continue with you, we will have a rational productive dialogue between you and me, on the issue earlier pursued between me and Fresco [and Tomtombinks], namely, whether anything at all with a function has or has not a designer.

Dear Max, see the last post from me to Fresco [and Tom], and take over from them.

Dear readers here, let us sit back to witness whether Max will turn a new leaf, and do some genuine thinking, as to engage in rational productive dialogue with me, on the extant present issue between Fresco [and Tom] and me, namely: a thing with a function has or does not have a designer, see quote from me below.

Quote:

• Post: # 6,468,377 • Susmariosep • Thu 20 Jul, 2017 08:39 pm

Quote:
@TomTomBinks,
[ Dear everyone, I have to make a decision to not any further read Tom, for he is now into nothing but to just put in a presence that is simply intended to be a disturbance to everyone's focus on a rational productive conversation.

So, when dear readers here, you notice I don't respond to him anymore, it is because I have decided not to be disturbed by his precise intention to disturb everyone here including of course yours truly.

Glennn recently just now in fact is into an exchange with me on reason, though he seems to not get my thought correctly; but that is all right, we are here to get to understand each other rationally and thus productively as is the purpose of this forum a2k. ]
__________________________

Dear readers here, I tell you Tom is into again evasion.

I asked him and will ask him again and again and again to present a thing with a function that is without a designer.

And now he goes into telling himself so many words, hoping that readers including me will be distracted from my challenge to him to present a thing with a function but with no designer.

The man does not even know the meaning of the word function, see Annex below, the underscored text.

From Susmariosep:

@fresco,
Dear Fresco, do you notice that Tomtomlinks has presented the nose as something with a function but without a designer.

He says:
But OK, an example of a thing that has a function but no designer is the nose on your face. (1) Look at it closely. It has openings to let in the air, sinus cavities and mucous membranes to warm and humidify the air, hairs to trap dust and sensory surfaces to detect odors. (2) Yet it had no designer.
________________________

Let us, dear Fresco, you and me and everyone atheists and theists and whatever else human 'ists' work together, to do commentaries on statements (1) and (2) from Tomtomlinks.

On statement (1): Look at it [nose] closely. It has openings to let in the air, sinus cavities and mucous membranes to warm and humidify the air, hairs to trap dust and sensory surfaces to detect odors.

Tom enumerates some steps or actions of the nose, but woeful is his intelligence, for he does not know really know what is a function, namely, a function is destined to achieve a purpose.

[Addendum: Okay, Tom, when you return, tell mankind what is the function of the nose, namely, stating clearly its purpose or role in the whole organism that is a human being.]

On statement (2): Yet it had no designer.

Dear everyone, let us ask Tom, How did you come to the idea that the nose has no designer, please explain; otherwise we will dismiss that statement from you as coming from a poster with a woeful intelligence, for you can't explain how ever you came to your idea.

Okay, dear readers here, let us all sit back to await with bated breath for Tom to show us his intelligence is not woeful, by explaining how ever he came to the idea that the nose has no designer.

[...]

________________________________

About able2know

Able2know's mission is to help connect people, knowledge and resources.

Able2know is committed to providing these services free of charge. We believe the costs of developing and providing these services should be defrayed primarily with ethical advertising -- that is, an avoidance of pop-ups, spam, or other unreasonably obtrusive forms of advertising.

We seek to maximize the opportunities for people with similar interests and goals to connect, gather information, and network through the able2know service.
https://able2know.org/about/

0 Replies

SHEILA :Hey Bruce. There's another drongo out there preaching to the sheep !

BRUCE: Streuth ! I'll give Straightdope.com a ring and check if one of their dopes has escaped. Maybe they'll send Wally round to sort him out!

1 Reply

@fresco,

His not getting any social consensus from you eh... Very Happy

1 Reply

@Fil Albuquerque,

Goodonya !

1 Reply

@fresco,

About able2know

Able2know's mission is to help connect people, knowledge and resources.

[…]

We seek to maximize the opportunities for people with similar interests and goals to connect, gather information, and network through the able2know service.
https://able2know.org/about/
_______________________

So, Oh ye useless posters here, please change for the better.
_______________________

Dear readers here, I ask you, Is it at all possible to talk with internet atheists, whom I might call atheists who write in the internet, in particular in net forums, on the issue God exists or not.

My insight is that they eventually sooner than later go into inanity, vacuity, stupidity, rather than talk on the grounds of truths, facts, logic, and the best thoughts of mankind from since the dawn of man's intelligence.

Take notice now, dear readers here, this is my challenge to atheists here:

"Oh ye atheists, please tell me something that you know to be grounded on truths. facts, logic, and the best thoughts of mankind from since the dawn of man's conscious intelligence."

Just in case atheists here will challenge me in turn to tell them something grounded on truths, facts, logic, and the best thoughts of mankind from since the dawn of man's conscious intelligence, here it is as follows:

"The default status of things in the totality of reality is existence."

Dear readers here, let us now sit back to await with bated breath to read, how atheists will react to my challenge to them, which is the following:

"Oh ye atheists, please tell me something that you know to be grounded on truths. facts, logic, and the best thoughts of mankind from since the dawn of man's conscious intelligence."

_______________________
About able2know

Able2know's mission is to help connect people, knowledge and resources.

[…]

We seek to maximize the opportunities for people with similar interests and goals to connect, gather information, and network through the able2know service.
https://able2know.org/about/

0 Replies

BRUCE: It seems Wally had a word with his nurse. This drongo tends to go regular walkabout around now when the donk wears off.

SHEILA: Okay...as long as he just sticks to bleating and doesn't actually interfere with the sheep. Barry will go rank if anybody touches his Dolly.

BRUCE: Too right !

0 Replies

"The control of one subatomic particle," that is the topic of this thread from yours truly.

Before there can be any question of controlling a one single subatomic particle, it must first exist: yes, no?

It must first be in existence.

Suppose dear readers here, let us think of what is "zero existence" and what is plain "non-existence"?

Here, I will go to google and find out what hits google brings up on the terms: "zero existence" and "non-existence".

You all do the same.

And don't mind one Maxdonan whatever his name, because he wants to tell us that going to google is no argument whatsoever on any issue.

Who is talking about arguing on anything at all?

Google is a very useful tool to know what is currently in the mind of mankind, in regard to a question, like what I am into, the distinction between "zero existence" and "non-existence" - if humans any at all do use their brain to think about them.

For there are two or three words involved in zero existence and non-existence, to wit: zero, existence, non-existence.

Wherefore there are concepts in man's mind expressed in those three words, and also there are if there be indeed, entities in objective reality outside and independent of our mind, corresponding to the concepts/words, zero existence and non-existence.

This now what I am dealing with, it has to do with the topic of this thread, on "The control of one subatomic particle."

Okay, let us all go to google to look up these two entries: "zero existence" and "non-existence".

And report back here.

0 Replies

Dear readers here and in most particular atheists, please correct me when you notice me to be into wrong thinking in the present post and subsequent posts from me.
_______________________

So, I looked up with google on the phrase, “zero existence,” and you know what?

It appears that google exhibits pages of hits with the phrase, “zero existence,” BUT in connection with a US band called Execration on its recent CD entitled, “The Acceptance of Zero Existence.”

And further search led me to this hit on the CD:

Quote:

Search Results
Execration - The Acceptance of Zero Existence - Reviews ...
https://www.metal-archives.com/reviews/Execration/The...Zero_Existence/352178/
The Acceptance of Zero Existence, their sophomore album through Comatose Music ... Execration is a band one will listen to more for its brutality than musicality.

So, dear readers here, in particular atheists, please accept my regrets that I did not land into hits from google on the precise phrase, “zero existence’ – to be linked to my purpose: to read from what scientists have to tell mankind about the difference between “zero existence” and “non-existence”.

See next post from yours truly.

0 Replies

You see, dear readers and in particular atheists, you and I know that in most particular atheist scientists insist on everything in existence is matter, period, then start of story and conversation, namely, on matter as the only stuff of existence.

Now, dear atheists, when you want to be uselessly trouble-some by disingenuously insisting that I present concretely named atheist scientists who do say that the only thing in existence is matter, I will tell you:

"Go away and jump in the lake of total evasiveness to continuously nurse your Acquired Intelligence Deficiency Syndrome.”

Or – and I hope not, get drowned in the lake.

Okay, let me continue.

Atheist scientists tell us that in the first minute-issimal fraction of a second in the Big Bang, there was as much matter as anti-matter, wherefore the result from the inevitable clash between them is zero matter, which they understand to be non-existence or nothing.

Wherefore they tell us, the universe comes from nothing.

I tell you, dear readers here in most particular, the atheists here, the universe comes forth from nothing in your brain.

The trouble with these atheists is that they cannot deny the the asymmetry in the universe, meaning, from atheist scientists themselves, there is a minute-issimal 'piece' of matter more than anti-matter.

That is why there is still matter, no matter [irony intended] that the clash of matter and anti-matter should have ended in extinction of matter, i.e. non-existence - if there were no minute-issimal more matter than anti-matter.

Anyway, to date scientists are still working for a better explanation for the survival of matter, than the simplistic one of there just happens to be some minute-issimal fragment of matter more than anti-matter.

What is the solution for the asymmetry?

Sample:

It is because the default status of things in the totality of reality is existence, and existence means from the part of humans thinking on truths facts, logic, and the best thoughts of mankind from since the dawn of man’s conscious intelligence, is the following [from my conscious thinking in adherence to intelligence]:

Quote:

Here is again my concept of what is existence:
Quote:
"Existence is anything at all we know to be real from our conscious experience and reason, for example: the nose, the sun, babies, roses, etc." (25 words)
https://able2know.org/topic/397276-5#post-6467739. et passim

So existence is broader than matter, that is why there cannot ever be any anti-matter 'in existence' that is equal quantitavtively to matter: because there is always more existence than 'non-existence'.

0 Replies

Dear readers here, you know what?

You visit this thread where I am interested in but don't meet anyone at all after 24 hours, i.e. anyone who wanted to exchange thoughts with me, and with you, of course.

And so neither have you contributed any post to it.

Why then did you at all view this thread from yours truly, at all?

You are looking for something of course, but you do not find it in my post, which will motivate you to write as to contact me for me to react to you.

This thread is intended by its author, me one Susmariosep, to get people to talk with me on existence, by centering on the control of one single subatomic particle.

So, I ask you everyone who know me to be in existence here in a2k: Next time please tell me what you want to read at all, and perhaps we can get to exchange thoughts, and we both learn something useful to us both.

What do you say about that?

Okay, dear readers here, let us all sit back and await with bated breath to witness, if at all anyone turn up in this thread to interact with me, me now the last poster to have contributed a post to it.

0 Replies

The control of one subatomic particle

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know