Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

$$$

Regulars
  • Content Count

    81
  • Joined

  • Last visited

2 Followers

About $$$

  • Rank
    Junior Member

Previous Fields

  • Country
    Canada
  • State (US/Canadian)
    Ontario
  • Copyright
    Public Domain

Contact Methods

  • Website URL
    http://music.download.com/thelackey

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male
  • Location
    Toronto
  1. My understanding of the term universe was incorrect. I now accept that it means, all that exists. When scientists talk about multiple universes, I have to assume they are using the term universe incorrectly, or are stating incorrectly that there can be multiples of "all that exists". If Existence exists (it does) then it has identity. If the universe exists (it does) it has identity. The two identities are different? (Of course , if the universe is all that exists, and existence exists, then existence can not exist without the universe.) I know I'm having trouble trying to ask my question... Is existence a real different thing from the universe?
  2. I could imagine a universe similar to ours except that gravity acts at a different speed? I'm confused on the concept of existence and universe being the same thing. If universe implies everything in existence, does that mean universe and existence are different?
  3. You have confused me, or I have confused you. Is existence the same as the universe? If existence exists does it exist independently of a universe?
  4. or is it that, to say there is existence means that there is a universe?
  5. When people say universe, I assume "our" universe as in the stars, planets, natural laws, matter as we know it, etc... I have no direct proof of multiple universes, and I'm not sure anyone does. If I am able to grasp the idea that there could be another universe with it's own natural laws, then isn't the idea of universe different from existence? Any other universe would be in existence. Existence would exist with or without our universe. If the term universe is the same as existence then wouldn't the following sentences make sense?: Something came into universe today. Something came into the existence today. Even if there is one universe and it's definition is everything that is "in existence" , you have two different ideas there - existence and everything that is in it. (I don't want to get hung up on the multiple universe thing here. I can fully appreciate the idea that if we find another "something" that has it's own natural laws it is part of the "universe" as a whole. I don't see that the concept of "everything in existence" is the same as the concept of existence itself) Let me know your thoughts, thanks.
  6. This seems completely wrong to me. Existence is not universe. There is only one existence, while there potentially could be many universes. It seems that we are pretty certain our universe came into existence. Therefore existence is different from universe.
  7. Pakistan is a failed state. At some point we are going to have to secure their nuclear weapons by force. I'm not sure if it needs to be done now, or if it is better to wait until Pakistan descends into more chaos. Probably it is better to wait a bit, there is always the chance the country could improve and if the country is chaotic it allows more of an excuse for action, and maybe even get support from other islamic nations. In either case, Pakistan as it is today, and was 10 years ago, should not be allowed to have nuclear weapons. A good chunk of their military are our enemy already. uh...ok, Pakistan is going to become a first world nation by 2015 and we have nothing to worry about. All these stupid studies intelligence agencies do, totally no use... I remember in 1996 when the taliban effectively took over Afghanistan and I told people we needed to overthrow them. I was told it would start WW3 and there was no good reason. It doesn't take rocket science to know that a religious run nation that obesseses about destroying the west would eventually do some damage. I'm pretty sure Objectivists had been saying that kind of logic long before 1996. Kind of like predicting that the USSR, with it's worldwide communist constitution, would probably try to control the world. Or Nazi Germany with it's racist anti-west doctrine would start a war. But hey, how can you know...How can we know that a nation where a good chunk of it's military support the Taliban, how can we know they will use nuclear weapons and material against the West? More likely they will see the light, or at least say to themselves, hey, using nuclear weapons against the west that just isn't nice you know. Lets just stick to regular bombs. In 2001 I was told invading would lead to ww3, and Iraq would too. No one would support the USA. Meanwhile as a coalition of what, 30+ nations?, landed in Iraq...no peep from the militaries of any islamic nation, Iran and perhaps Syria being the exception and even then, covertly. Russia, China and the EU and every single government would secretly breath a sign of relief if the USA took care of these problems. They'll raise a stink and people will march for anti-war and achieve the same results we see today, nothing. Probably better to wait until they develope longer range missiles I guess. Lets wait until they arm the nuclear launching subs they bought from France a few years ago, the Agosta 90B. They are silent runners that can sit off the coast of Asia, North America and Europe. A couple of well placed Al qaida and Taliban crew will be able to dictate their terms to us and we shall surrender our we'll be nuked. but what do I know, I have no proof this will happen, just like I had no proof in 1996 about the taliban being able to do anything to the West. better to wait and see I guess. what can one do. nothing. defeat.
  8. No room for exaggeration on these forums! Should have known better. There is no need to start a full WW3. We just need to be able to secure Pakistan if it descends into chaos. Interesting that some of you decided WW3 means attacking all islamic nations. I guess there is no reason to stop Iran from getting nuclear power either since it's obviously a peaceful venture? I'm sure our governments know how best to deal with all these problems. well I'm off to a holiday inn apparently...
  9. "In early 2005, a joint security assessment by the CIA and the U.S. National Intelligence Council predicted Pakistan would become "a failed state, ripe with civil war, bloodshed, inter-provincial rivalries and a struggle for control of its nuclear weapons and complete Talibanisation" by 2015." There is no doubt in my mind now that al Qaida will get a hold of nuclear material and blast dozens of cities with dirty bombs around the world on the same day in the near future. I hate to say it, but we need to start WW3 before that happens. Pakistan should not be allowed to have nuclear weapons, nor Iran. There can be no excuses.
  10. Kind of related to shutting up atheists, I just read this stupid editorial: http://www.nationalpost.com/news/story.html?id=194951 "the very belief being attacked was absolutely and abundantly true. More than this, the reason it was under attack in the first place was precisely because it was true." So atheists are proof of his god's existence... "God makes himself just sufficiently evident to allow us freedom. If He were easy to find, we'd all believe and thus have no real choice." hahaha, I don't know what to say, hahahahahahahaha "absence of God could be an invention -- by scared and threatened people who are too weak to follow His laws and are terrified of judgement." "Be careful with the notion that knowledge means wisdom. 1930s Germany was one of the most educated and sophisticated cultures in human history." I'm guessing he has no knowledge of 1930s Germany. I've never heard such a statement, ever. "Thanks for the non-believers, the God-haters, the atheists and all of their kind. Yes, the greatest joke of all. " Kind of sounds like he is the one afraid.
  11. Perhaps religion is more important today, however that statement almost gives the impression that more people are religious today as well. Surveys are finding an increasing number of non-religious people in the USA, and in other western nations. For example (USA) NONRELIGIOUS 8% (1990) (14.3 million) 14.3% (29.4 million)(2002) So, don't give up hope. It may also be religion is more important because more people are becoming non-religious.
  12. $$$

    Loonie=$1.0

    I can not count the number of "economic experts" (co-workers, bloggers, etc...) up here in Canada who were so happy our dollar was at par and "beat" the American dollar. As even saying anything nice about America up here makes you a pro-American who deserves verbal abuse, I had people laughing at me for liking America now that our currency was "better". America is going down the tubes, it's over, it's "empire" is falling, blah blah blah... Well it took 30 years for the Canadian dollar to get to par, and it lasted about 2 months. Dollar is under par now. What a "victory".
  13. "On Wednesday, Mr. Chavez broke off diplomatic ties with neighbouring Colombia and accused CNN of instigating his assassination, while his foreign minister threatened to expel a U.S. embassy official." It's only a matter of time until Chavez brings up some border dispute with Colombia and declares war. After his next few shipments of Russian made weapons perhaps.
×
×
  • Create New...