Posts from philosophy

Maybe it’s even a good thing; we, as the younger generation, will be able to make reality in the future the way we see it, the way everyone sees it, albeit in their own way, the way it should be...

P.S. Please don’t misinterpret the last sentence.

That's good.
Yes, I also learned a lot of new things about ethnic conflicts in the Tyumen region. And about the fact that the Buryats consider themselves descendants of the Atlanteans (not all of them, of course, only the most delusional ones), and the Khakass consider themselves the oldest Turkic people (similarly). No offense.

Alexey, that's an interesting theory, but the creation of The Restoration of Erathia and The Shadow of Death was primarily driven by the desire for perfection. We initially played Heroes 3 with great interest, but then we wanted something more, something new. Add-ons and chronicles appeared, but it wasn't quite what we were looking for. Heroes 4 came out, but it wasn't the same. WOG appeared and temporarily rekindled our interest, but it eventually became tiresome. We want to be able to refine and improve things ourselves, to get a little closer to the ideal. This applies not only to Heroes, but to many things.

Today, I conducted a test on ethnic self-identification and stereotypes across all fifth-grade classes in the school. I'm horrified! We are facing a generation of zombies, children with no imagination, living in a world of standards and stereotypes. I'm in cultural shock. I don't even want to process the questionnaires after this. But I have to; I'll try to write my thesis on this. And I'll also try to write an article. But I absolutely don't like this situation.
2 Saruman: Yes, we always strive for the ideal, but this is how we build quasi-realities. And it's good when we eventually return to reality, and not stay in them.

Today, I conducted a test on ethnic self-identification and stereotypes across all fifth-grade classes in the school. I'm horrified! We are facing a generation of zombies, children with no imagination, living in a world of standards and stereotypes. I'm in cultural shock. I don't even want to process the questionnaires after this. But I have to; I'll try to write my term paper on this. And I'll also try to write an article. But I absolutely don't like this situation.

I would like to see what they answered. Although, stereotypes and standards are constantly present on the blue screen all day long, and here's the result :( .

Example. The question is "who am I?". You need to write five associations regarding yourself. For instance, first and foremost, I would write my ethnicity; my girlfriend—how she perceives herself (a little sun, a little cloud, etc.). Among children, about 95% say "I am a Human," then "I am a boy/girl," then "I am a student," and only then the territorial-ethnic principle ("I am from Novosibirsk," "I am Russian"). And only after that do a few people say "I am a fish," "I am a tiger," etc. They simply don't know how to fantasize at all. Everything is standard, everything is as it should be.
Or another question: Draw a symbol of your people. In 90% of cases, it is a flag or a coat of arms. What about the Russian birch tree? Sarafan dresses, kokoshniks? A matryoshka, for goodness sake? Although sometimes these do appear. That' same an improvement. I honestly don't even know what conclusion to draw.

Children (and some adults) are now more self-conscious. Drawing the Russian flag is logical and correct because everyone will do it, but drawing a birch tree is already "dangerous"... Your girlfriend is not self-conscious, and that's why she says what she thinks, while children adapt to "everyone" or don't trust you enough.

Today, I read an article in the newspaper where proponents of creationism (the belief that everything was created by God about 6,000 years ago) try to convince readers that the Earth is no more than 10,000 years old, thus disproving Darwin's theory of evolution and the Big Bang theory. They do this using data from scientific observations. Arguments: 1. In 1999, astronomers confirmed that the Sun, with a circumference of 2,725,000 miles, is shrinking at a rate of 5 feet per hour – 1% every 1,000 years. If the Sun's size were to increase by 1% every 1,000 years, 20 million years ago, the Sun would have touched the surface of the Earth. 2. There is a correlation between the amount of radioactive carbon C-14 on Earth and the time of the Earth's formation. Since the rate of carbon-14 accumulation is known, and its amount is also known, the age of the Earth can be determined by dividing one by the other. Such a calculation shows that the current amount of C-14 on Earth formed in 8,000 years. 3. The Earth's rotation speed is constantly decreasing and is currently 1,600 km/h. If the Earth were billions of years old, it would have already stopped rotating. According to calculations, the rotation speed 5 billion years ago would have been so high that the planet, due to centrifugal force, would have simply taken the form of a flat pancake. 4. Since 1835, the Earth's magnetic field strength has decreased by 14%. Based on this data, it can be assumed that the "half-life" of the Earth's magnetic field is 1,400 years. If so, even 7,000 years ago, the Earth's magnetic field was 32 times stronger than it is now. And 20,000 years ago, the magnetic field would have contained energy capable of melting the Earth. 5. Comets, which are contemporaries of the Solar System, pass near the Sun and lose part of their mass (gas, dust, ammonia) each time. Losing mass at the current rate, they would have completely evaporated in about 10,000 years. But they still exist. Moreover, a cloud of comets outside the Solar System, which could be a source of replenishing the number of comets, has not been discovered. 6. Meteorites bombarding Saturn's rings at the current rate would have long destroyed them. This would have taken only 20,000 years. If the Solar System were as old as evolutionists claim, and the rings and meteorites formed billions of years ago, there would be no trace of the rings left. 7. At the current rates of erosion (soil runoff into the ocean), all the continents on Earth should have been "washed away" by rivers 440 times over several billion years. 8. If the rates of formation of volcanic rocks are calculated, it turns out that during the Cambrian period (570-500 million years ago), there was no land at all, since volcanic rocks formed in the required amount in a much shorter period. 9. In 2005, the Hubble telescope took a picture of "deep space." The image shows stars that formed after the universe began. But there were many fewer of them than expected. Either the activity of star formation was extremely low (which is inconsistent with the theory of the expanding universe), or the physics at that time was different from what it is now. It is quite possible that the birth of the Universe was not "hot," as scientists believed, that is, it occurred without nuclear reactions. And the state of the primordial matter at the first moment determines its age. If the birth of the Universe was not "hot," then the Universe (and the Earth with it) cools from much lower temperatures than previously thought. Consequently, this cooling requires much less time – not billions of years. End of the article: Perhaps it is still too early to say that the theory of evolution and the concept of the origin of the Universe have burst like a soap bubble. But there is something to think about. Should education ministers insist on old doctrines, or is it time to rewrite textbooks? Those who wish can think about this and look for errors, distortions, and misrepresentations of facts and mathematical calculations in the arguments presented above. Moreover, these errors can be found in almost every line of the text.

If they don't know what happened on Mars and why there's no life there, how can they claim their idiocy! And are the dinosaur bones found in the ground too quickly fossilized, or were they brought from space? And as a result of evolution, was a new species born every day from the previous one? Space is full of mysteries that we have yet to discover! So there's no need to listen to idiots who put forward their empty theories without thinking! IMHO!:smile29:

Regarding the failure of Darwin's theory – that's correct (he rejected it himself before his death), the rest is unlikely.

If they don't know what happened on Mars and why there is no life there, how can they assert their idiocy! And are the dinosaur bones that lie in the ground fossilized too quickly, or were they brought from space? And as a result of evolution, was a new species born every day from the previous one? Space is full of mysteries that we have yet to discover! So there's no point in listening to idiots who, without thinking, put forward their empty theories! IMHO!:smile29:

Unfortunately, these people are not as stupid as they seem. Similar articles often appear here and there. For a person who is not well-versed in physics and astronomy, such reasoning may seem (and they try to present it this way) as scientific facts. Why? It's a simple struggle for power and money between people (I think you understand who is interested in such publications). Regarding the "arguments," I can explain: 1. First, there is an error in the calculations here. Second, the circumference of the Sun is not a constant value in principle. 2. C-14 accumulated only up to the point of reaching an equilibrium concentration (the rate of formation = the rate of decay). 3. It does decrease, but not so quickly. 4. Observation over 200 years is not enough to draw conclusions: such a rate has always existed. In addition, the poles of the Earth's magnetic field have a tendency to sometimes change places, and now there are signs of such a change in the poles => instability of the magnetic field. "Half-life period of the magnetic field" - there is no such concept in physics at all. 5. How can such small bodies be detected outside the Solar System, where there is no source of light? And if this "comet belt" is outside the Solar System (that is, not part of it), then why is it claimed that the comets from it are the same age. In addition, the Solar System rotates around the center of the Galaxy, and wandering comets may come across on its path. 6. Saturn's rings are not contemporaries of the Solar System (but are the remnants of one of Saturn's moons), but they are indeed gradually being destroyed. 7. and 8. They simply contradict each other, so there is no point in considering them at all. 9. This is simply a lie. The higher the temperature of a substance (gas), the greater the mass required to form a star from it => the fewer stars are formed.

Yes, people come up with all sorts of things. And it's all because demand creates supply. Why do you think the ideas of Fomenko and others have become so popular? People want to create a history that completely suits them. One in which we are the strongest and most noble, and our enemies are miserable wretches. And the only way to defeat us is through betrayal, and then to slander everything. People try to escape from reality into their quasi-reality, and as a rule, it is not created by themselves. And it is very easy to control such people - with the help of various myths. So we need to fight against myths, tell people the truth, so that they start thinking!!!

Yes, people come up with all sorts of things. But the reason is that demand creates supply. Why do you think the ideas of Fomenko and others have become so popular? People want to create a history that completely suits them. One in which we are the strongest and most noble, and our enemies are miserable wretches. And we can only be defeated by betrayal, and even then, they will slander everything afterward. People are trying to escape from reality into their quasi-reality, and, as a rule, it is not created by them. And it is very easy to control such people – with the help of various myths. So, we need to fight against myths, tell people the truth, so that we can make them think!!!

I imagine what the KGB would do to me if I publicly talked about Darwin's rejection of his theory:)

I am an Orthodox Christian, I don't know much about physics (and I don't know much about religion either), but I have thought a lot about the Big Bang theory and the "Let there be light" phase. Apparently, ancient people understood the scripture too literally: why should light appear as a big bang or something like that? There is something to think about here.;). I don't remember exactly, but if you look carefully at the first chapters, it turns out that scientific theories about the fact that the first life originated in the ocean confirm what is written in the Bible. Of everything that scientists say, the scripture only disagrees with one thing – the origin of man from monkeys. The theory is complete nonsense, and it's not just about the arguments: if man came from monkeys, that is, evolved, then why are there still monkeys on Earth? Why didn't they evolve along with their brethren? According to scientific theories of evolution, a monkey came from a frog, so what does that mean, man came from a frog?! There are many shortcomings. In everything else, science only confirms the fact that life did not originate from nowhere, but through something higher...
By the way, the seven days of creation can be considered as seven periods, including the Jurassic. The ancients again understood the sacred scripture too literally.:)

If there was an explosion, then something huge must have exploded, but how did this something come into existence?

Actually, Darwin didn't say that humans evolved from monkeys. He said that humans and monkeys share common ancestors. Some of them evolved in the direction of humans, while others evolved in the direction of monkeys. That's how their paths diverged. And besides, various sacred texts depict different views on the creation of the world.