Even though there is currently no combo listed, im pretty sure the answer is a resounding "yes". Most things have been done before, by someone.
Well of course most "things" like infinite mil have been done before, but has this specific combo been done before?
It seems like it would be better than the sliver one since it's cheaper mana-wise and price-wise and less colors. I've only heard of all the other infinite mil except this one.
You consistently refer to the wave-like properties of matter, but you seem to not grasp what that means. When you observe the position of a particle you are taking a snapshot of the point it decoheres to. As I've said before the particle's position is by necessity inherently probabalistic and inherently unstable. It is not "teleporting" because within those quantum bounds that it "jumps around" in, it never had an exact position in the first place. As an aside, you also have a misunderstanding of the Heisenberg Uncertainty principle. It is a matter of ratios, not an "on or off" dichotomy. You can measure both the momentum and position of a particle at some given point (this is how speed detectors work. This is how you being able to say "I hit 90 mph as I passed the interesection of Oak Blvd and Courthouse Rd last night" works). What the uncertainty principle states is that increasing the precision of one of a list of properties comes at the loss of precision in correlary measurements.
Are you trying to say with the snapshot thing that an electron still has wave properties when your observing it (since being indetermined or unstable is a property of a wave not having a single position)? Also, how doesn't it have a defined location if your observing it in a specific location?
It decoheres, but then why does to just as easily go back to having an undefined location unless it already had that potential the entire time?
Also, if I know the exact momentum though, doesn't that mean I'm only looking at the wave part because then I'm deducing what energy level its in? Like if I know the momentum so well, wouldn't I just have a sine wave to describe the particle, and since a wave doesn't occupy a single position, wouldn't I not actually know the single position of an electron?
Unless your saying you can know the "general" area of where an electron is in while you know its energy, which makes sense.
Please do research before posting such. 90% of Millionaires are self made. A Higher percentage of Billionaires are self made. This silver spoon theory only goes so far.
Better arguments exist that more of them came from families who knew how to educate them properly rather than absentee parents and ghetto public schools, but then you just get into an argument on how to fix public education which goes a lot deeper than spending.
Well many rich people still got opportunities that probably many people have not or never will get. Not everyone get's the chance to become a CEO or even a vice president, or not everyone has enough money to buy an agent to invest money for them or even enough resources to look into investing things on their own.
I don't understand Bzero, The above was my opinion that I would die to grant the wish, et al.
?????
Are you refering to the situation where the genie tells me it HAS TO BE someone else?
Also...
No one HAS TO die for my opinion. That's kind of the point of the immorality of it right?
Or is it not?
Well you were saying that you would want to be killed because it would help something, which means in your opinion people should die if it helps someone. If you don't actually think that, that's fine.
Or are you saying it's immoral not to give yourself up to save others?
Yes; a victim of his controller. If the unlikely circumstance arises that there's a clear and obvious choice between your life and his, you should choose for there to be one victim instead of two.
So if you knew you were going to be mind controlled and you knew all that would have to happen for it to stop was to stop the controller, you'd be just fine with someone else killing you while your mind controlled so that you don't hurt that other person?
Yes. 100% absolutely.
In fact, I think I said this before, but if the hypothetical genie would take MY life and still grant the wish, I'd choose that option entirely over killing anyone else.
If my death would grant a cure for cancer, or 100billion dollars that would be put to an overwhelmingly altruistic use...sure, I'd die for that. Better than dying of cancer, or old age peeing on myself. Better than dying a wrinkled old fart on an oxygen tank.
Of course, that is just my opinion.
But why should someone have to die just because of your opinion? So what if you have an opinion? Why the hell should that determine the fate of someone?
The problem with rich people giving taxes is usually that they think what they earned and deserve is being taken from them greedily, even though around half of them are probably rich just because they were born into rich families. In order for rich people to happily pay lots taxes, there has to be some benefit directly for them.
Suppose another person - ostensibly a victim like yourself - was drugged or brainwashed or otherwise mentally enslaved (say it's in a manner potentially reversible in the future) and forced to attack and kill you. Let's stipulate that it is difficult (but still possible) at some point in the future to fight with the agents responsible for this situation.
How hard should you have to try to avoid the attacker's death at risk of losing your own?
Suppose it's very difficult (though still possible) to reverse the mental changes.
Or suppose you were in a war against an army of these drugged victims.
Or suppose you were part of only a very small group.
How does the acceptable level (if any) of collateral damage vary with parameters of the situation?
What's weird is this isn't much different from interactions with animals like anacondas. Not that they are drugged, but they don't really have the capacity to chose not to kill something they want to eat unless you somehow scare them away, yet we still kill all those animals anyway.
So, is there actually a right or wrong if something can't help itself?
I'm pretty sure there's always a way to get around these things without getting anyone getting hurt, but...how far are people willing to go for it? How much effort are people willing to put into it? Which I guess can be determined by how much something values the life of something else.
I know this because matter has infinite possible position, which means one possible position for a dagger is not in someone's chest.
Millions have died for freedom
Millions have died for democracy
Millions have died for erroneous beliefs in god(s)
Thousands die every year because some company wanted to make 2.1% more profits.
Thousands die every year just because someone else wanted what they had.
If (according to you) it is wrong to kill someone for the cure to cancer...isn't also wrong to kill someone for freedom? Democracy?
I guess we shouldn't have killed any nazi's then right?
Where's the line? What IS worth someone's life?
We waged a war that costed over a million lives, in order to preserve our Union, and *free slaves (*sorta - I mean, it was part of the reason)
We waged a war that costed nearly 400,000 lives so that a tyrant wouldn't conquer europe and *murder an entire race of people (*that was just part of it too), oh, and because Japan attacked us
The total dead in WW2 is something like 70 million. The Tyrant indirectly or directly caused the deaths of nearly 50 million so that his nation of superior race could rule europe, or something along those lines.
Again, to promote democracy we got involved in a war that claimed another 170,000 lives. For what? To help protect the establishment of a form of government? Okay.
"Murder for hire"
Hah...
Every single soldier, foreign or domestic, who has shot an enemy was a hired gun. Every cop, every FBI agent who has pulled the trigger. Every pilot who has dropped a bomb. Every admiral who has launched a missile. All hired guns, hired to uphold someone else's authority. Hired to enforce someone else's rules. They got paid didn't they? They take care of their family with the money they made killing someone else, right? Sometimes for reasons not even remotely as righteous as you think.
So I kill ONE person, in order to wish the whole world into a better form of existence, or to gain an amount of money that when properly used could improve the lives of hundreds of thousands of less fortunate.
and I'm a MURDERER! MURDERER!
Seriously.
Wake up.
People die against their will everyday, every 5 minutes of every day. For what? $20 in a register, a car, a drug deal, adultery, anger, hate, racism, rebellion, tribal disputes, territory, wrong place wrong time...
You name it and someone has died for it. Many many many times, for NO reason at all. Against their will, and sometimes so violent and absurd is the method in which they were killed that they would not show the pictures on television.
This world is incredibly ****ed up. But whats even more ****ed up, is that IN such a world...someone like you can look at one hypothetical death in disgust, while ignoring the cemetary being built around them.
Um, just because something "can" happen doesn't mean it "HAS" to happen, with the exception of things going wrong of course.
Let's say I want to run a business from my house. Say I'm going to sell Magic products. Suppose that my business takes off and I'm doing very well. Now suppose that I receive a letter saying I need to the sales taxes and the income taxes and whatever other myriad of taxes the State has imposed. And suppose I refuse to do so.
In what way have I aggressed against anyone?
Well, government is the reason you can start a business and make it successful. If people don't contribute to a government, then it just won't work. So if you don't contribute, you could be hurting other people who depend on it, because honestly you can't really hunt wild birds and rabbits in a large city even if you wanted to feed your family with it. And then, if others who think like you don't contribute, well then you couldn't have been in a secure enough environment to start a business.
1.yes. For $100 billion, no repercussions of any kind they have no family absolutely.
2.Again yes. Wish for a global cure for all human aliments IE: Cancer, aids, etc permanently
3.Yes, with no hesitation. wish for the world to be free from war and corruption til the end of time.
But again, why should someone else have to die just because of some individual's desire (or collection of them)? So what if there's a vaccine for cancer, how does that automatically mean they don't deserve to survive?
Also, I just think its a bad habit to regard objects over living things. Usually just leads to something tragic anyway.
@dcartist
I believe that we live in a virtual reality were we are the creators. I say this because even if you go on a plane and it crashes near a remote island, and no one ever finds you again, but you manage to stay alive. Your reality is different than theirs, and your the reason for that.
@Backupzero
With what little knowledge of the double slit experiment, I looked it up at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Double_slit_experiment I found like all science you need an observer, to observe the given phenomenon. Also for this reason I do not believe that science proves anything, that is a job left to the pure mathematician.
It is possible that I have worded my question poorly, but what I meant to say is that is reality subjective meaning that without humans or any life to observe the phenomena such as (gravity, electrons, and objects), would they exist? Or do our observations enable to exist in our "world"? Because even with our observations, things change what is accepted now may be disproved by science 100 years down the road.
I don't think you looked into the double slit experiment or my posts enough because the double slit experiment should show you that an observer CANNOT interfere with the experiment otherwise they will NOT see an interference pattern. I stated that you can see the INDIRECT results of matter when it is not observed from this experiment, which is true.
Also, the reason "bad" things happen to "good" people is because ultimately the universe itself doesn't really care about life. Maybe living things can care about other living things, but I don't think the meteor which was probably formed before life originated that also killed the dinosaurs really cared about all of this. I don't really see a reason for any sort of object to not exist just because a living thing wasn't watching it. Without forces like gravity, we wouldn't exist and the universe would probably just be a collection of energy (probably photons) that just perpetually shoots away form wherever it originated into the infinite nothingness.
We are built form the same matter that makes up everything around us. There is no reason to think we are somehow "above" or "different" from other matter just because we can happen to respond to photons hitting in certain places.The carbon 36 atoms that make up your body are the same as every other carbon 36 atom in the universe.
Virtual electrons appear when quantizing electromagnetic field interactions. That is not the same thing as "classical" electrons, even described in quantum terms, "becoming" virtual particles. That's nonsense, not in a "very unlikely, I disagree" way, but in a "complete misunderstanding of the concepts" way.
An indeterminant path is not the same thing as teleportation. If I look at my cat, close my eyes, and open them again to find the cat in a new position I do not describe that as my cat "teleporting."
Maybe I'm thinking of some abstract definition of superposition, but what I mean by teleportation is "its there, then all of a sudden its over there". That HAS to be whats happening because if we saw an electron actually moving rather than "jumping fast", then that means we are observing its momentum AND position simultaneously, which as the uncertainty principal states, is impossible. We cannot measure the particle of an electron traveling distance in a specific time because then we would be calculating its momentum while we knew its exact position.
For the final time, quantization is different from value-constants. No one disputed that discrete quantization requires whole numbers, because that is the basic definition. What's being disputed is your insane claim that fundamental constants must hold the values they currently do. Your repeated calls to "the quantum mechanical equations" and "stuff some scientists did a while ago" underscore a fundamental ignorance about... essentially everything you're trying to argue. I've been trying to hold my tongue because I don't want to come off as elitist, but you're just spouting pure gibberish. Again, not in a "I disagree" sort of way, but in they way where most of what you say is impossible to discuss, because you're throwing in terms and half-understood concepts where they simply don't apply or even have any sensible context.
Ok, if matter can ONLY exist in SPECIFIC values, then it CANNOT exist in just ANY value, correct? A given atom cannot have an electron in just any energy level (which determines average distance), correct? If an electron can only be a multiple of x away from object y, then it can't be a decimal away from object y, correct? That's what I'm saying. Mathematically, that JUST how it works out. Otherwise, show me evidence I can have a 2.35354566754 orbital in hydrogen. In a given atom, matter JUST CAN'T exist in non integer distances away from the nucleus. We can come up with "some kind" of explanation for this by seeing what WOULD happen mathematically IF we DID use a decimal. So, an electron has integer energy levels because it just can't have a decimal energy level, otherwise, why wouldn't it?
Well no math doesn't have to be based on reality. You could have equations for how the price of a product changes over time in a store, and not have the product nor the store exist. Math is just based on what makes sense for a given situation. Some situations are reality, but since we don't know all the components of reality, even things like quantum mechanics could be wrong in some way, they may not necessarily be based on reality since there isn't a lot of observable evidence I guess except for the wave function.
Well of course most "things" like infinite mil have been done before, but has this specific combo been done before?
It seems like it would be better than the sliver one since it's cheaper mana-wise and price-wise and less colors. I've only heard of all the other infinite mil except this one.
Altar of Dementia
Sigil Captain
Safehold Elite
Are you trying to say with the snapshot thing that an electron still has wave properties when your observing it (since being indetermined or unstable is a property of a wave not having a single position)? Also, how doesn't it have a defined location if your observing it in a specific location?
It decoheres, but then why does to just as easily go back to having an undefined location unless it already had that potential the entire time?
Also, if I know the exact momentum though, doesn't that mean I'm only looking at the wave part because then I'm deducing what energy level its in? Like if I know the momentum so well, wouldn't I just have a sine wave to describe the particle, and since a wave doesn't occupy a single position, wouldn't I not actually know the single position of an electron?
Unless your saying you can know the "general" area of where an electron is in while you know its energy, which makes sense.
Well many rich people still got opportunities that probably many people have not or never will get. Not everyone get's the chance to become a CEO or even a vice president, or not everyone has enough money to buy an agent to invest money for them or even enough resources to look into investing things on their own.
Well you were saying that you would want to be killed because it would help something, which means in your opinion people should die if it helps someone. If you don't actually think that, that's fine.
Or are you saying it's immoral not to give yourself up to save others?
So if you knew you were going to be mind controlled and you knew all that would have to happen for it to stop was to stop the controller, you'd be just fine with someone else killing you while your mind controlled so that you don't hurt that other person?
But why should someone have to die just because of your opinion? So what if you have an opinion? Why the hell should that determine the fate of someone?
What's weird is this isn't much different from interactions with animals like anacondas. Not that they are drugged, but they don't really have the capacity to chose not to kill something they want to eat unless you somehow scare them away, yet we still kill all those animals anyway.
So, is there actually a right or wrong if something can't help itself?
I'm pretty sure there's always a way to get around these things without getting anyone getting hurt, but...how far are people willing to go for it? How much effort are people willing to put into it? Which I guess can be determined by how much something values the life of something else.
I know this because matter has infinite possible position, which means one possible position for a dagger is not in someone's chest.
Um, just because something "can" happen doesn't mean it "HAS" to happen, with the exception of things going wrong of course.
Well, government is the reason you can start a business and make it successful. If people don't contribute to a government, then it just won't work. So if you don't contribute, you could be hurting other people who depend on it, because honestly you can't really hunt wild birds and rabbits in a large city even if you wanted to feed your family with it. And then, if others who think like you don't contribute, well then you couldn't have been in a secure enough environment to start a business.
By why should they have to die just because of what "you" want to do with the money?
But again, why should someone else have to die just because of some individual's desire (or collection of them)? So what if there's a vaccine for cancer, how does that automatically mean they don't deserve to survive?
Also, I just think its a bad habit to regard objects over living things. Usually just leads to something tragic anyway.
I don't think you looked into the double slit experiment or my posts enough because the double slit experiment should show you that an observer CANNOT interfere with the experiment otherwise they will NOT see an interference pattern. I stated that you can see the INDIRECT results of matter when it is not observed from this experiment, which is true.
Also, the reason "bad" things happen to "good" people is because ultimately the universe itself doesn't really care about life. Maybe living things can care about other living things, but I don't think the meteor which was probably formed before life originated that also killed the dinosaurs really cared about all of this. I don't really see a reason for any sort of object to not exist just because a living thing wasn't watching it. Without forces like gravity, we wouldn't exist and the universe would probably just be a collection of energy (probably photons) that just perpetually shoots away form wherever it originated into the infinite nothingness.
We are built form the same matter that makes up everything around us. There is no reason to think we are somehow "above" or "different" from other matter just because we can happen to respond to photons hitting in certain places.The carbon 36 atoms that make up your body are the same as every other carbon 36 atom in the universe.
Maybe I'm thinking of some abstract definition of superposition, but what I mean by teleportation is "its there, then all of a sudden its over there". That HAS to be whats happening because if we saw an electron actually moving rather than "jumping fast", then that means we are observing its momentum AND position simultaneously, which as the uncertainty principal states, is impossible. We cannot measure the particle of an electron traveling distance in a specific time because then we would be calculating its momentum while we knew its exact position.
Ok, if matter can ONLY exist in SPECIFIC values, then it CANNOT exist in just ANY value, correct? A given atom cannot have an electron in just any energy level (which determines average distance), correct? If an electron can only be a multiple of x away from object y, then it can't be a decimal away from object y, correct? That's what I'm saying. Mathematically, that JUST how it works out. Otherwise, show me evidence I can have a 2.35354566754 orbital in hydrogen. In a given atom, matter JUST CAN'T exist in non integer distances away from the nucleus. We can come up with "some kind" of explanation for this by seeing what WOULD happen mathematically IF we DID use a decimal. So, an electron has integer energy levels because it just can't have a decimal energy level, otherwise, why wouldn't it?