1

Topic: The main output of a science - in what there is no sense, all of us die

The science not especially touches philosophy questions. That that you sleep in warmer house,  in a bowl which allows to wash off water excrement, play toys on the smart phone - life questions does not influence in any way. And without it people lived thousand years. The main questions of life: 1. This world that is an original cause Whence undertook. 2. The reasonable person whence undertook. 3. The answer to correlation of consciousness and a matter (that that  names "a consciousness challenge" and to what on an iota did not come nearer). 4. What sense of existence what will be further? The science does not answer the first question, only smears about "the big explosion". On the second question smears about  and evolution though exact numbers does not result. On the third question - is silent. Even hypotheses are not present. And here - the drumbeat - answers the fourth question. The sense in what is not present, further in the long term comes thermal death and all of us we die as the mankind, no chances to save conscious life are present. Death of the earth, solar system and all Universe - . And time  - that we will in the long term be destroyed and it is not so important that you did also that reached. So? So. We cannot check up it is a science speaks. How I can be convinced that it is truth? Suddenly there will be no thermal death? In any way - it is necessary to trust simply. And this faith influences life of people. Already there is no the higher sense, already there is no mission. All a decay.

2

Re: The main output of a science - in what there is no sense, all of us die

S> Already there is no the higher sense, already there is no mission. All a decay. Generally the purpose is: take pleasure... [a; b] - life y - pleasure the Purpose: area maximization under curve functions which depends on set of parameters in life...

3

Re: The main output of a science - in what there is no sense, all of us die

Hello, Bjorn Skalpe, you wrote: BS> Generally the purpose is: take pleasure... Then it is necessary for all to sit down on ?

4

Re: The main output of a science - in what there is no sense, all of us die

Hello, Shmj, you wrote: S>...  in a bowl which allows to wash off water excrement... And you  on ... http://rsdn.org/poll/6512 the Author: BOBKA_XPEH Date: 06.03 01:07 Question: Shmj produced a heap that with absolute , for example the plane earth why the Russian Federation does not enter the NATO, technical progress and so forth All it is created to present only Ukrainians stupid idiots. But what for it is necessary for it?

5

Re: The main output of a science - in what there is no sense, all of us die

Hello, Shmj, you wrote: S> And here - the drumbeat - answers the fourth question. The sense in what is not present, further in the long term comes thermal death and all of us we die as the mankind, no chances to save conscious life are present. Thermal death - the out-of-date concept. According to all available information, we are waited by the Big Rupture S> And time  - that we will in the long term be destroyed and it is not so important that you did also that reached. S> so? So. Not so. From what you took that time the end is predetermined,  what will be before? I will die, but me not  as I will live life.

6

Re: The main output of a science - in what there is no sense, all of us die

Hello, 0x7be, you wrote: 0> Thermal death - the out-of-date concept. According to all available information, we are waited by the Big Rupture And a difference? All the same without chances of eternity. 0> not so. From what you took that time the end is predetermined,  what will be before? 0> I will die, but me not  as I will live life. Because you think that children after you remain. Or affairs of your hands will be useful to mankind. But if to check that once 100 % all ends without variants and there will be only an emptiness... That what for?

7

Re: The main output of a science - in what there is no sense, all of us die

Hello, Shmj, you wrote: S> 1. This world that is an original cause Whence undertook. This question implies presence of a certain source of this world ("whence"), any original cause. To ask such question - means in advance to restrict itself in the answer (and to provoke the recursive question "and whence undertook (pra-pra-pra-) god"). The science answers this question as can. At present the big explosion is the most authoritative theory. S> 2. The reasonable person whence undertook. S> on the second question smears about  and evolution though exact numbers does not result. It from what you took? You can simply in biology be not strong? I here too am not strong and at narrow-minded level I will not explain, but I do not doubt that the good expert gives you all calculations with all exact numbers. S> 3. The answer to correlation of consciousness and a matter (that that  names "a consciousness challenge" and to what on an iota did not come nearer). There is no consciousness from the scientific point of view. The consciousness is brain game, no more. How it is possible to study a chimera? Well i.e. it is possible to study, of course, at the same level, as a schizophrenia (simply mental disease "at me is consciousness" is norm for the majority of people), but to connect these glitches human  to a matter simply there is no sense. Actually that fact that systems of AI carry out any practical task on orders better the person without any consciousness, only confirms it. S> 4. What sense of existence what will be further? S> And here - the drumbeat - answers the fourth question. The sense in what is not present, further in the long term comes thermal death and all of us we die as the mankind, no chances to save conscious life are present. Death of the earth, solar system and all Universe - . And time  - that we will in the long term be destroyed and it is not so important that you did also that reached. And you generally in Wikipedia read this article? In the same place it is in black and white written: "In the modern cosmology the gravitation registration leads to an output that homogeneous isothermal allocation of substance in the Universe is not the most probable and does not correspond to an entropy maximum.". S> and this faith influences life of people. Already there is no the higher sense, already there is no mission. All a decay. All a decay and it is fine. I am not obliged to beat off a forehead a corner under an icon, I can simply live happily and do that I want.

8

Re: The main output of a science - in what there is no sense, all of us die

S> We cannot check up it is a science speaks.

9

Re: The main output of a science - in what there is no sense, all of us die

BS>> Generally the purpose is: take pleasure... S> Then it is necessary for all to sit down on ? To any drugs there is an accustoming and effect easing... And [a; b] it is reduced... As consequence the area under a curve is less, than without . The task as you remember: area maximization... Instead of amplitudes...

10

Re: The main output of a science - in what there is no sense, all of us die

Hello, Shmj, you wrote: S> But if to check that once 100 % all ends without variants and there will be only an emptiness... That what for? And why you yet did not release a place and smoke air?

11

Re: The main output of a science - in what there is no sense, all of us die

Hello, Shmj, you wrote: S> Then it is necessary for all to sit down on ? Who then the expert...

12

Re: The main output of a science - in what there is no sense, all of us die

Hello, vsb, you wrote: vsb> This question implies presence of a certain source of this world ("whence"), any original cause. To ask such question - means in advance to restrict itself in the answer (and to provoke the recursive question "and whence undertook (pra-pra-pra-) god"). The science answers this question as can. At present the big explosion is the most authoritative theory. Whence here so simply from anything the big explosion undertook? This theory does not answer on what. S>> 2. The reasonable person Whence undertook. S>> on the second question smears about  and evolution though exact numbers does not result. vsb> it from what you took? You can simply in biology be not strong? I here too am not strong and at narrow-minded level I will not explain, but I do not doubt that the good expert gives you all calculations with all exact numbers. Who is blissful believes S>> 3. The answer to correlation of consciousness and matter (that that  names "a consciousness challenge" and to what on an iota did not come nearer). vsb> There is no consciousness from the scientific point of view. The consciousness is brain game, no more. How it is possible to study a chimera? Well i.e. it is possible to study, of course, at the same level, as a schizophrenia (simply mental disease "at me is consciousness" is norm for the majority of people), but to connect these glitches human  to a matter simply there is no sense. Actually that fact that systems of AI carry out any practical task on orders better the person without any consciousness, only confirms it. You in error. This question officially is the major unresolved question  (see . Wiki). vsb> And you generally in Wikipedia read this article? In the same place it is in black and white written:" In the modern cosmology the gravitation registration leads to an output that homogeneous isothermal allocation of substance in the Universe is not the most probable and does not correspond to an entropy maximum. ". Well here prompted," great rupture "is more exact. The same essence - all we die and there is no chance of rescue. S>> and this faith influences life of people. Already there is no the higher sense, already there is no mission. All a decay. vsb> All a decay and it is fine. I am not obliged to beat off a forehead a corner under an icon, I can simply live happily and do that I want. Aha. Here it also defines your life. And unless that that is the chance of rescue - no more perfectly? You rejoice DEATH. And your life is filled by a faith in death, a faith in death. All your actions are defined by that inevitable death without chance of rescue approaches. Here it also is a difference - the believer trusts in life! In rescue! And you trust in death, in death!

13

Re: The main output of a science - in what there is no sense, all of us die

Hello, Bjorn Skalpe, you wrote: BS>>> Generally the purpose is: take pleasure... S>> Then it is necessary for all to sit down on ? BS> To any drugs there is an accustoming and effect easing... No, to  there is no accustoming is an analog , the natural media torus. You simply consume a high in the pure state. BS> and [a; b] it is reduced... As consequence the area under a curve is less, than without . The task as you remember: area maximization... Instead of amplitudes... No, it is not reduced. See how many inventor  who used it till the end of life lived. So, what? All of you still want to sit down on ? After all a high it will be unambiguous more? And here in such setting of a question people understand - sense not in a high, sense in the future. The sense in knowledge, of deeper understanding of the world and as promoting it (at least pies to bake that who is capable to learn not to distract them on ). And the knowledge can help to understand this world and how to avoid universal death.

14

Re: The main output of a science - in what there is no sense, all of us die

Hello, Shmj, you wrote: S> Whence here so simply from anything the big explosion undertook? This theory does not answer on what. Anywhere. The concept "whence" is senseless to  as spaces did not exist. You ask a question not to that theory. (An error typical for you.) S> who Is blissful you believe Here is blissful? And meanwhile you sincerely believe in that  that consider as a biological science. Tens people could not overpersuade you. S>>> 3. The answer to correlation of consciousness and a matter (that that  names "a consciousness challenge" and to what on an iota did not come nearer). Come nearer, slowly-slowly. vsb>> All a decay and it is fine. I am not obliged to beat off a forehead a corner under an icon, I can simply live happily and do that I want. S> aha. Here it also defines your life. And unless that that is the chance of rescue - no more perfectly? If that chance also is, the science gives it to us only. S> and you trust in death, in death! And you substitute chance of rescue by a faith in chance of rescue.

15

Re: The main output of a science - in what there is no sense, all of us die

Hello, Shmj, you wrote: S> And this faith influences life of people. Already there is no the higher sense, already there is no mission. All a decay. In case of religion is still worse. Theoretically there is a probability to open laws of physics which can overcome thermal death of the local Universe and use other Universe. In case of religion the mankind is doomed to be a toy of another's reason.

16

Re: The main output of a science - in what there is no sense, all of us die

Hello, anonymous, you wrote: A> Anywhere. The concept "whence" is senseless to  as spaces did not exist. You ask a question not to that theory. (An error typical for you.) Looked . The priest. A film, there a certain scientist told that earlier too spoke it "is not meaningful". And then doubted it, there was a new hypothesis. And now speaks that the question makes sense but has no answer. And you already had time to build the belief on the basis of unchecked data S>> who Is blissful you believe A> Here is blissful? And meanwhile you sincerely believe in that  that consider as a biological science. Tens people could not overpersuade you. Matter is not in tens or one hundred - the mass solves nothing. Digits are necessary simply. Nobody could give digits - that's all. S>>>> 3. The answer to correlation of consciousness and a matter (that that  names "a consciousness challenge" and to what on an iota did not come nearer). A> come nearer, slowly-slowly. No, any hypothesis is not present. vsb>>> all a decay and it is fine. I am not obliged to beat off a forehead a corner under an icon, I can simply live happily and do that I want. S>> aha. Here it also defines your life. And unless that that is the chance of rescue - no more perfectly? A> if that chance also is, the science gives it to us only. And unless the science leaves chance? S>> and you trust in death, in death! A> and you substitute chance of rescue by a faith in chance of rescue. I do not replace. Speech about outlook. When you trust that all will be inevitably destroyed, has nothing sense - you and live in appropriate way.

17

Re: The main output of a science - in what there is no sense, all of us die

Hello, Trotsky, you wrote: Theoretically there is a probability to open laws of physics which can overcome thermal death of the local Universe and use other Universe. On an example what? In case of religion the mankind is doomed to be a toy of another's reason. The religion rebuilds outlook - you make sense.

18

Re: The main output of a science - in what there is no sense, all of us die

19

Re: The main output of a science - in what there is no sense, all of us die

Hello, Shmj, you wrote: S> On an example what? Without researches it is impossible. Your question is similar to a question to researchers of the seas in the Middle Ages - "what islands you plan to open">> In case of religion mankind is doomed to be a toy of another's reason. S> the religion rebuilds outlook - you make sense. What sense the person if god can create and destroy it at any time has? Obviously, value the person in a a case aspires to zero.

20

Re: The main output of a science - in what there is no sense, all of us die

S> Is not present, to  there is no accustoming this false statement that accustoming is less, than at heroin, does not mean that it is not present. BS>> and [a; b] it is reduced... As consequence the area under a curve is less, than without . The task as you remember: area maximization... Instead of amplitudes... S> Is not present, it is not reduced. This false statement as abbreviation takes place to be, without saying already about that there is a control over a body and risks raise to perish. S> so, what? All of you still want to sit down on ? After all a high it will be unambiguous more? The high will be temporary, then ceases to operate or will operate it is less. No because it reduces the area under a curve...

21

Re: The main output of a science - in what there is no sense, all of us die

Hello, Bjorn Skalpe, you wrote: BS> this false statement that accustoming is less, than at heroin, does not mean that it is not present. Look at the table - accustoming less than to coffee, and in times. Harm too is less. BS>>> and [a; b] it is reduced... As consequence the area under a curve is less, than without . The task as you remember: area maximization... Instead of amplitudes... S>> Is not present, it is not reduced. BS> this false statement as abbreviation takes place to be, without saying already about that there is a control over a body and risks raise to perish. Hofman, Albert lived 102 years and for the rest of the natural used . The fact. Your theory disperses from practice and you will deny all facts. S>> so, what? All of you still want to sit down on ? After all a high it will be unambiguous more? BS> the High will be temporary, then ceases to operate or will operate it is less. BS> Is not present, because it reduces the area under a curve. . No, accustomings will not be, the dose does not need to be increased. Only  that high is necessary? He can achieve and   - to become blissful and eternally happy for no reason at all. But an essence that not in it...

22

Re: The main output of a science - in what there is no sense, all of us die

Hello, BOBKA_XPEH, you wrote: BOB> Hello, Shmj, you wrote: S>>...  in a bowl which allows to wash off water excrement... BOB> And you  on ... And?

23

Re: The main output of a science - in what there is no sense, all of us die

Hello, Vanja Pervachev, you wrote: > and itself? You offer me and you and to Shmzhe to wipe up ?

24

Re: The main output of a science - in what there is no sense, all of us die

25

Re: The main output of a science - in what there is no sense, all of us die

Hello, Shmj, you wrote: S> Then it is necessary for all to sit down on ? At once the Religion - opium for the people "is recalled classical".