[Br Cornelius]

flyingswan, on 27 October 2009 - 04:47 PM, said:

No, you're still missing the point. You've got to be able to answer Peter's question: "Would anything convince you that They aren't out to get you?" If there isn't an answer, the theory has no merit. In terms of your example, there are two rival theories:
1) The people meeting up in secret are out to get you
2) The people meeting up in secret have reasons of their own for doing so that have nothing to do with being out to get you
The second is falsifiable if such meetings can be shown to cause you harm. What would falsify the first theory?

Since in neither case will you likely have access to enough information to draw a definate conclusion neither conclusions can be drawn and so the nice safe conclusion that they are just friends is no more likely. You have falsified neither, and you are unlikely to be able to falsify either to a satisfactory end point. You are I believe trying to equate the absense of adequate evidence with proof of absence of a motive. Schrodingers cat is both alive and dead and he will probably stay that way.

You are equating scientific proof with social constructs which are clearly not the same thing at all. The fundamental difference is that those who are meeting are deliberately concealing evidence in order conceal their motive - you will never know what they are planning unless you are within that room with them. Does that mean that they could never conspire against you. This is what you are asking me to accept. The absense of secret meeting without publicly scrutinizable minuites would be the only thing which would satisfy me of their good intentions. I believe this is a reasonable conclusion in the face of concealment.

this is the problem I keep coming back to - in the presence of omnipresnt lies and concealment, what truthful conclusions can reasonably be drawn. We are literally living within a mad society which forces us all to face madness on a daily basis.

Br Cornelius


Br Cornelius

This post has been edited by Br Cornelius: 27 October 2009 - 05:12 PM

[marabod]

Br Cornelius, on 28 October 2009 - 05:09 AM, said:

Since in neither case will you likely have access to enough information to draw a definate conclusion neither conclusions can be drawn and so the nice safe conclusion that they are just friends is no more likely. You have falsified neither, and you are unlikely to be able to falsify either to a satisfactory end point. You are I believe trying to equate the absense of adequate evidence with proof of absence of a motive. Schrodingers cat is both alive and dead and he will probably stay that way.

You are equating scientific proof with social constructs which are clearly not the same thing at all. The fundamental difference is that those who are meeting are deliberately concealing evidence in order conceal their motive - you will never know what they are planning unless you are within that room with them. Does that mean that they could never conspire against you. This is what you are asking me to accept. The absense of secret meeting without publicly scrutinizable minuites would be the only thing which would satisfy me of their good intentions. I believe this is a reasonable conclusion in the face of concealment.

this is the problem I keep coming back to - in the presence of omnipresnt lies and concealment, what truthful conclusions can reasonably be drawn. We are literally living within a mad society which forces us all to face madness on a daily basis.

Br Cornelius


Br Cornelius

For start Schroedinger's cat is not existing, as it is a joke, and joke hardly can be used as an example or justification.

Secondly - you have all chances to personally join one of many modern conspiracies, and learn if it actually conspires against the people. National elites are not invaders from Mars, they are just we ourselves, but a bit smarter then the majority. If one consumes less mental energy for investigating conspiracies without having a single fact in the hands, then this saved time and power of thought can be applied to own personal social advancement, which eventually would place the investigator among that very elite under investigation. Would you say a factory manager conspires to get the person who cleans his office daily?

[Br Cornelius]

marabod, on 27 October 2009 - 05:57 PM, said:

For start Schroedinger's cat is not existing, as it is a joke, and joke hardly can be used as an example or justification.

Secondly - you have all chances to personally join one of many modern conspiracies, and learn if it actually conspires against the people. National elites are not invaders from Mars, they are just we ourselves, but a bit smarter then the majority. If one consumes less mental energy for investigating conspiracies without having a single fact in the hands, then this saved time and power of thought can be applied to own personal social advancement, which eventually would place the investigator among that very elite under investigation. Would you say a factory manager conspires to get the person who cleans his office daily?

Interesting idea.
Schrodingers cat conveys an important philsophical perspective on what can and can be known. Since I am not in the conspiritors room only certain things can ever be infered from observed consequences.

I wish you luck on getting access to those hidden rooms

Br Cornelius

[preacherman76]

Br Cornelius, on 27 October 2009 - 02:09 PM, said:

Since in neither case will you likely have access to enough information to draw a definate conclusion neither conclusions can be drawn and so the nice safe conclusion that they are just friends is no more likely. You have falsified neither, and you are unlikely to be able to falsify either to a satisfactory end point. You are I believe trying to equate the absense of adequate evidence with proof of absence of a motive. Schrodingers cat is both alive and dead and he will probably stay that way.

You are equating scientific proof with social constructs which are clearly not the same thing at all. The fundamental difference is that those who are meeting are deliberately concealing evidence in order conceal their motive - you will never know what they are planning unless you are within that room with them. Does that mean that they could never conspire against you. This is what you are asking me to accept. The absense of secret meeting without publicly scrutinizable minuites would be the only thing which would satisfy me of their good intentions. I believe this is a reasonable conclusion in the face of concealment.

this is the problem I keep coming back to - in the presence of omnipresnt lies and concealment, what truthful conclusions can reasonably be drawn. We are literally living within a mad society which forces us all to face madness on a daily basis.

Br Cornelius


Br Cornelius

I think the bible sums it up pretty good when it says, "What can light have to do with darkness?" "Those who do evil do so in the dark, that the light wont expose thier sin".

[conspiracybeliever]

preacherman76, on 27 October 2009 - 07:08 PM, said:

I think the bible sums it up pretty good when it says, "What can light have to do with darkness?" "Those who do evil do so in the dark, that the light wont expose thier sin".

I think this is a large part of why so many people believe in the bible. It's so beautiful, so poetic, you just want to believe.

[preacherman76]

conspiracybeliever, on 27 October 2009 - 03:18 PM, said:

I think this is a large part of why so many people believe in the bible. It's so beautiful, so poetic, you just want to believe.

To me, its little phrase's like that, that just show the profound truth and wisdom in it. Who here can say they havent experianced this truth first hand, no matter which side (the dark or the light) of that phrase you might be on? In nearly any given situation. Thats for another thread though.

This post has been edited by preacherman76: 27 October 2009 - 06:52 PM

[Rock Slinger]

God knows it will only be a very small percent of people willing to lay it on the line like our forefathers did. I looked up what happened to the founding fathers and most of the rest of their lives were made miserable by the British- lives destroyed. They could have lived their lives out comfortably but they saw how bad it could get. Hopefully the true Brave Patriots out there today are going to be with us as always and not let any of the evil **** that has been promised by conspirists to ever happen. Never!

Here is that group. The guy in Providence was no joke.

Below is our declaration of orders we will NOT obey because we will consider them unconstitutional (and thus unlawful) and immoral violations of the natural rights of the people. Such orders would be acts of war against the American people by their own government, and thus acts of treason. We will not make war against our own people. We will not commit treason. We will defend the Republic.

Oath Keepers
Declaration of Orders We Will NOT Obey

Recognizing that we each swore an oath to support and defend the Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic, and affirming that we are guardians of the Republic, of the principles in our Declaration of Independence, and of the rights of our people, we affirm and declare the following:

1. We will NOT obey any order to disarm the American people.

The attempt to disarm the people on April 19, 1775 was the spark of open conflict in the American Revolution. That vile attempt was an act of war, and the American people fought back in justified, righteous self-defense of their natural rights. Any such order today would also be an act of war against the American people, and thus an act of treason. We will not make war on our own...

Please see all the promises at the link below and comment if you will.

http://oath-keepers....-orders-we.html

[marabod]

Br Cornelius, on 28 October 2009 - 06:06 AM, said:

Interesting idea.
Schrodingers cat conveys an important philsophical perspective on what can and can be known. Since I am not in the conspiritors room only certain things can ever be infered from observed consequences.

I wish you luck on getting access to those hidden rooms

Br Cornelius

Schroedinger's cat conveys a joke by drunk Schroedinger, addressed to a group of drunk Physicists at a party. This is a parody on Uncertainty Principle by Heisenberg, having nothing to do with science at all. "Philosophical" usage of this joke shows only that any ignoramus has a right to talk about science. Please do not take it personally, as you are not alone among those who have no idea of Quantum Physics. If you still experience any doubts, simply learn what "de Broigle wavelength" means, calculate such wavelength for an average weight cat, and then you would see, that for a cat to become a subject of Quantum Physics, its speed must be at least a dozen times exceeding the speed of light.

[Br Cornelius]

marabod, on 27 October 2009 - 07:38 PM, said:

Schroedinger's cat conveys a joke by drunk Schroedinger, addressed to a group of drunk Physicists at a party. This is a parody on Uncertainty Principle by Heisenberg, having nothing to do with science at all. "Philosophical" usage of this joke shows only that any ignoramus has a right to talk about science. Please do not take it personally, as you are not alone among those who have no idea of Quantum Physics. If you still experience any doubts, simply learn what "de Broigle wavelength" means, calculate such wavelength for an average weight cat, and then you would see, that for a cat to become a subject of Quantum Physics, its speed must be at least a dozen times exceeding the speed of light.

The cat is killed or not killed by a quantum event which is detected by a quantum detector. The size of the cat is immaterial because the quantum detector triggers the release of a macro poison dispensor. Since quantum events can only be determined by collapsing the probability field, ie opening the box - the only way to know if the cat is alive of dead is to enter the box. until that event the nature of quantum mechanics dictates that the cat is neither alive or dead - but in a state of probability.

It is a thought experiment on the nature of what can be known and as such should be treated as a product of the mind. It is appropriate to this discussion because until you or I enter the room of conspiracy it is not possible to know anything of their conspiracy. Of course by the members leaving the room the potential field is collapsed and the whole thing stops been useful. It is a thought experiment, a metaphor - a tool of understanding and that is all it ever was and is.

Br Cornelius

This post has been edited by Br Cornelius: 27 October 2009 - 10:19 PM

[marabod]

Br Cornelius, on 28 October 2009 - 10:17 AM, said:

The cat is killed or not killed by a quantum event which is detected by a quantum detector. The size of the cat is immaterial because the quantum detector triggers the release of a macro poison dispensor. Since quantum events can only be determined by collapsing the probability field, ie opening the box - the only way to know if the cat is alive of dead is to enter the box. until that event the nature of quantum mechanics dictates that the cat is neither alive or dead - but in a state of probability.

It is a thought experiment on the nature of what can be known and as such should be treated as a product of the mind. It is appropriate to this discussion because until you or I enter the room of conspiracy it is not possible to know anything of their conspiracy. Of course by the members leaving the room the potential field is collapsed and the whole thing stops been useful. It is a thought experiment, a metaphor - a tool of understanding and that is all it ever was and is.

Br Cornelius

If you allow me, I would save this your answer in my files, as it is something which I have never encountered yet through my entire life. One off.

Did you ever try to simply find out from a uni textbook what Quantum Physics is about and which exactly material objects it deals with? There is a solid definition, by the way!I mean if persisting in own ignorance is a virtue in the philosophical outlook, this dead cat concept belongs to, then of course it is my own ignorance, which keeps me unaware of such philosophy existing...

[ReincarnatedNobody]

conspiracybeliever, on 27 October 2009 - 12:55 PM, said:

Ok so it was known that slavery was "low-productive". So maybe now they convince us we aren't slaves, that we actually have rights and that we are actually making our own decisions when in reality we aren't. For instance the vote. They've convinced the masses that they are deciding who will run this country. I don't believe it. I think there are a few that are making that decision. I think they know way before the election who is going to win and it has nothing to do with two sides with two different ideas. I think it's one group of people deciding how they can make us follow with as few questions or protest as possible. Do I think there is a way to turn it all around at this point, no. Not until the majority of us are in chains. Then we may stand together and fight. We're all cowards. We're all afraid of losing what we have if we stood up to them. We don't want to be the minority. We don't want to be the new niggers. People will just hide in their little spaces and hope something will happen or someone else will do something.

Bravo.

[marabod]

ReincarnatedNobody, on 28 October 2009 - 04:26 PM, said:

Bravo.

Bravo to what??? A slave is not a Consumer. A slave does not do a weekly shopping at all - first, a slave has no money, and second, a slave has all, needed for surviving for free. Why bother busting the guts working? Those on social security - do they work? Nope! Why would they if there is a weekly dwelling paid for with a warranty, there is food on the table, there are cheap clothes in Salvos, there is a free dental or medical service? What else a human needs to live? Oh, if there are some extras needed, it is always possible to steal a bit or to make an extra hundred on a flea market!

"Money" is not existing by itself. Money is a Universal Commodity, which allows to swap it for any other commodity. The only real known Universal Commodity is Gold, the paper money are only bank cheques, promising to be exchanged for Gold, or for other equivalent goods. A filthy-rich person (a Bilderberger?) makes money only because this money can be swapped for the other commodities or consumables (personal castles, private islands, sessna planes, rolls royces, extra-super-best medical services, super-education for children, unbelievably expensive foods and drinks, private armies, advanced sex-on-demand, platinum mobile, etc). Remove all these stimuli - and money is not needed!

OK, I am the one like that. I have earned all money, existing in the country, can live better than anyone else. You can afford one Big Mac, I can feast on a thousand - whoops! my tummy can only accommodate 3... OK. I would give another 300 to my bodyguards and family... What to do with the rest? Toss them? I have ALL money, what's next? All others have no money at all, they are my slaves. I don't pay to my slaves, they work for free - what do I need the money for then? To chew them?

A Consumer cannot be forced to buy, because being a Consumer suggests the choice of Quality, Quantity and Price. The Money has no sense without a Consumer, as any market suggests TWO sides, a Seller and a Buyer. One always sells for too cheap and the other always pays too much. However as a result they are both happy - one got money and another got goods. Destroy this order by enslaving the Consumer, and you end up giving everything away for FREE, as the slave is your property, and you need to maintain it, otherwise you would stay alone on the planet, while your slaves would die starving. And staying alone on the planet suggests No Dentals, No Ambulance, No Education for your kids, No Electricity, No Nothing. Because one has to pay for all this, but you have just destroyed the Market.

Wake up and smell the roses - no one in this world is interested in enslaving you, do not even hope for this, as everyone only wants you to EARN money and pay for what you want and need. The more you pay - the happier the world around you become. And to pay more you need to EARN more, so they allow you to do it.

[Br Cornelius]

marabod, on 27 October 2009 - 10:41 PM, said:

If you allow me, I would save this your answer in my files, as it is something which I have never encountered yet through my entire life. One off.

Did you ever try to simply find out from a uni textbook what Quantum Physics is about and which exactly material objects it deals with? There is a solid definition, by the way!I mean if persisting in own ignorance is a virtue in the philosophical outlook, this dead cat concept belongs to, then of course it is my own ignorance, which keeps me unaware of such philosophy existing...

You may not have studied Quantum Mechanics (and your statements indicate such), but I am currently am studying Physics and in the nature of physics that means I am studying Quantum Physics to a small degree. I have also undertaken personal research in the field for many years. I think you will find my explanation a perfect description of the Schrodinger cat thought experiment. Thank you.

Br Cornelius

[preacherman76]

marabod, on 28 October 2009 - 03:25 AM, said:

Wake up and smell the roses - no one in this world is interested in enslaving you, do not even hope for this, as everyone only wants you to EARN money and pay for what you want and need. The more you pay - the happier the world around you become. And to pay more you need to EARN more, so they allow you to do it.

Sure they are. The common man/women in this country works nearly half the year just to pay a wide range of taxes.

[flyingswan]

Br Cornelius, on 27 October 2009 - 05:09 PM, said:

Since in neither case will you likely have access to enough information to draw a definate conclusion neither conclusions can be drawn and so the nice safe conclusion that they are just friends is no more likely. You have falsified neither, and you are unlikely to be able to falsify either to a satisfactory end point.

If there is a harmful outcome, the "no conspiracy" theory is disproven. I want to know what will falsify the conspiracy theory.

You are now claiming that there will be no outcome at all, that the NWO is holding these unspeakably evil secret meetings, but there will never be any obvious effect on the world at large? If there will never, ever be a harmful outcome for you from these meetings, why are you so concerned about them?