NATURAL INTELLIGENCE as the basis of a trading system - page 60
You are missing trading opportunities:
- Free trading apps
- Over 8,000 signals for copying
- Economic news for exploring financial markets
Registration
Log in
You agree to website policy and terms of use
If you do not have an account, please register
Dreams are dreaming. I suppose this is not Proof of the existence of the mental (subtle) world,-)
Hi Sergei !
I can hardly say anything about SAC. Except that - presence in a qualifying list of anything whatsoever does not speak about anything and does not mean anything.
But I can tell you something as a physicist. I've recently read something somewhere about neutrinos and I was surprised to pay attention: the author wrote that the basic part of mass of dark matter of the Universe belongs to a neutrino gas. But I thought that neutrino is a particle with zero rest mass and moving at the speed of light. From this episode arose my desire to refresh a little my ideas about a modern state of science and a scientific view of the world. Which I did and I have to tell you that science (largely physics, astrophysics and cosmology) has progressed a lot. And, encouragingly, not only practical but also purely theoretical, the most fundamental questions, which in the language of philosophy could be reworded as: "Is there a God?"
The last thing I read for this purpose a couple of weeks ago was M. Zarechny's book "The Quantum-Mystical Picture of the World". It is written by a working physicist, an excellent expert in quantum mechanics, who knows well what he is talking about. It consists of two parts. The first deals with recent advances in physics relevant to fundamental ideas about the Universe, and the second deals with consciousness. I read the first one with sheer delight. What remarkable people there are in the world, what profound experiments have been carried out, and not for a Nobel Prize, but just to understand how the world works! And this after the fact that quantum mechanics has been around for about 100 years and it would seem that its concepts and interpretations should have been established long ago. This I strongly recommend to read. Then there will be a correct understanding of what fundamental science is engaged now, and why its representatives - the most that is the most conscious materialists - have now come close to a radical change of outlook (and many have already changed it long ago).
Personally, I have a negative attitude towards magic, profanation, charlatanism, duping and other abominations. Unfortunately, modern television does play the nightmarish role attributed to it by the quote from Science and Life. However, even more unfortunately, I must admit that the magazine, which should have been a source of knowledge, acts as a source of obscurantism and ignorance in that quote. Don't rely on it - "you'll be a goat." :-)
http://www.bagirovemil.ru/mag23_16.htm
==6. Recognition by the Higher Attestation Commission (HAC) of the Russian Federation of the results of Orlov N.I.'s research "Use of Psychoenergetic Methods to Improve Combat Readiness of Personnel" as a scientific achievement (the degree of Candidate of Science was awarded).
==
Another report and regalia of Orlov N.I. : http://www.aldana.ru/ekon.php?fid=47&text=14430:
Yes, no - not weak!
Dreams are dreaming. I suppose this is not Proof of the existence of the mental (subtle) world,-)
With all due respect.
I've been following your posts on the forum for a while now, and on the whole I've got a good impression.
And it's always a shame if thinking people don't want to rise above dogmas in their investigations.
--
It has been said many times before. There is no ultimate truth in principle. Truth cannot be reached intellectually. It can only be approached asymptotically. A qualification of truth can only be made on the basis of a set of concepts assimilated by the qualifying object.
This very set of concepts is the defining one.
In the Middle Ages, the French Academy of Sciences rendered the verdict that "there are no meteorites, as stones do not fall from the sky". That was their current basic set of concepts at the time. There was nothing else they could decide at the time.
Science is always at the back of the line. It is reluctant to accept a new qualification of truth. It's always been that way. And the reason for this phenomenon is not science itself, but the ambitions of these very "acknowledgeers", who do not want to part with the public recognition of their importance. And so it will be for a long time, as long as our culture is based on the idea of material values, rooted in rivalry and strife.
--
There is no need to judge the subtle worlds on the basis of "kitchen concepts".
And all sorts of crooks from the "queen of spades", the "starry calendar" or "science" are out of place here too.
You cannot draw conclusions on the question of the universe on the basis of a conviction of swindlers for cheating. That's not a good way to go about it.
--
The simplest example, which may, if not directly prove, but at least make you think.
A property of something cannot exist by itself. It is an attribute of a carrier. A tram and a tomato may be red, but red does not exist by itself. Red, a property, is an accessory of the carrier object, the tram.
How can we explain from this position that distant objects are attracted? Planets and stars, star clusters and galaxies are attracted. Attracted when there is a deep vacuum between them, a space devoid of matter.
Through this space somehow the property of objects to be attracted spreads.
What is the carrier of that property in the absence of a material carrier?
An immaterial carrier.
If to strain a little and develop this reasoning to the microcosm, to the level of elementary particles, it is easy to see that some concepts, such as "vacuum" and "temperature" lose their meaning. And the question about the carrier of properties of interaction is even more acute.
And the answer, bringing us closer to the truth, unbearably cuts our ego. And this is quite normal, because in order to rise to a new, "truer" understanding of the truth, it is necessary to throw off the husk of illusion.
As society develops, it will gradually abandon the idea of accumulation and competition and strive for creativity based on cooperation.
Terms of reference, project, technical project....
There was a problem how to connect the computers with each other, starting with the banal physical (network) interface.
One of the developers put forward and announced the idea that the machines must communicate with each other in the operator-human language.
This is now known as HTML.
But at that time, hypertexts were not yet known and nobody read Wirth's works and therefore the idea of the local inventor
was officially banned with the formulation "there is no science in it".
They were not even allowed to publish it, which is how the domestic priorities were lost.
However, on the other hand, why didn't this inventor put his idea into a streamlined form,
and blurted it out in a scientific society in common language - "machines must communicate with each other as a human communicates with them"
What scientist - science organizer would like such impudence of an unstudent upstart?))
...I can't remember the last time I had an argument on a serious philosophical or ideological issue.
Boris Borisych comes to mind:
I have a bad memory
And a nasty temper:
I can't take sides -
I don't know anyone who's wrong.
But there's something in the world,
That I can't drink or eat.
And if I say goodbye -
The day after tomorrow I'll be here again...
Много раз уже повторялось. Истины в последней инстанции не существует в принципе.
It has been said many times before. There is no ultimate truth in principle.
Do you understand what you have written?
to SK
I will try to make my point:
Много раз уже повторялось. Истины в последней инстанции не существует в принципе
This is exactly the reason why Neutron writes his thoughts on the subject. By the way, is there an answer to the author's question or not?