Yiuel
-
Posts
2.149 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by Yiuel
-
-
OT: If you can create matter from energy, why not energy from matter?
This is because energy is not "matter", but a combination of matter and anti-matter. To create energy from matter, you need its exact opposite (anti-matter). This is why there's not that much energy created in this fashion, anti-matter is very scarce, and the only anti-particles we have seen, we made them out from energy, artificially.
-
The only thing you need to create new water is hydrogen and oxygen. You burn them together, and you have water left. The only thing, as far as science permits, that cannot be created is energy ex-nihilo. The Universe, as far as we know, has a strict amount of energy. (You can create matter from energy though, and later you create water with it, but, it's way complicated.)
-
Holy Books, one of the reasons why I cannot believe one faith over another. This because there are dozens of religions.
This is actually the first reason why Asian Greeks began to think that there must be a physical (natural) reason behind the Universe : In their own continental Greece, they only experienced the Greek Gods, but in Asia, they were given insights about the Egyptian gods, the Hebrew God, the Phenician Gods etc etc etc. Tons of stories talking about the same remote time, and those stories not concording, they were at least puzzled, at most, completely lost. All claimed to be correct, but, obviously, from all those stories, not all could be correct. So, those first "physicians", instead of looking in myths (Stories), looked directly Nature...
-
An Atomic bomb , as we know it now, has devastationg effects over time. Ibakusha (victims of the bombs) are still living with diseases...
As for who began the war, it is clear that, in the Pacific, it was Japan. I also explained how the evolution is nothing exceptional : they were trying to have their own colonies, something NORMAL (yes, Normal) in the beginning of the century (Korea was taken in 1910). A lot of countries has done the same thing in their own colonies (must not forget the Amerindian wars in Canada, must not), and, in the end, it wasn't as much different.
In the end, everyone lost their colonies (some countries tried to make them national territory, but it hardly worked), and sometimes, bloodily.
Japan evolved from a country that was seeking a colonies to a country that was seeking the control of a part of the world when the war in China was getting worse and worse. There are also other issues (one being of "unfairness" in some treaties) which didn't help. The final blocade of the United States on Japan was probably the last action that decided Japan into that full scale war : when it happened, they needed all what they could take in the Pacific in order to "survive" in what they had begun, and Pearl Harbour was a final hope to make sure the United States couldn't backfire (again). Yet, they did, and we know the results.
-
-
Perfect, yet it wasn'T perfect on my side.
-
The correct form is Seppuku. Harakiri is a common occidental misreading. Seppuku is part of Bushido, that is, mostly of Chinese influence, the idea of Seppuku is not found before the rise of Chinese influence in Japan. Hence, the reading shall be "Seppuku". (Harakiri might come from an explanation of the word from a Japanese though, as Kanji are explained by their kun (Japanese) reading, which Harakiri is.)
Katana is avery generic term. Not only does it mean "sword", but it also have the meaning of "knife". In fact, the lexeme associated with Katana is "object in metal that slices" (Nowadays, Japanese will use "naifu" if the meaning intended is a knife, but only as a kitchen or dish tool). Yet, what we think as a Katana is only the long sword, usually coming in pair : the long sword was used for fighting, where the smallest was use to decapitate when one was defeated. Their use is reverted in the Seppuku, the Seppukuing one devastating his own body with the small, a friend using the long for head-cutting, to relieve from pain.
The dishonor itself is not the execution. As such, there was nothing felt as bad in the execution (except perhaps relating to deads...) What was the actual dishonour was unrighteousness. One that had made a mistake (going as far as a misleading in warfare) was someone dishonoured, and as such, to clean himself, he commited Seppuku to clear his soul of this dishonour. (This is actually why the suicide rate is so high in Confucean countries : they have problems accepting mistakes. This also applies to school.) This is also related to the idea of "Mottainai" : uselessness. (As one has made a mistake, or took and obviously useless path, it is shameful. Mottainai.)
--
Japan is not identical to Germany.I think you discount the military's fanatical stance - even if just the military is fanactical, they are the ones with power (and guns) in a country.In a lot of ways, where Germany totally changed within two decades, in Japan, the process had begun with Meiji itseld.
Under the Meiji Constitution, the military were directly under the Emperor's command, having nothing to answer to the government, or almost nothing (the military's budget was decided by the government, after all).Yet, the military were brilliant enough to take control of Education : they made school a strict place, with military discipline.
As such, there also have never been an ideology strikingly different from the beginning of Meiji : the idea of being the Libertor of Asia was the main idea ever since Japan got rid of the unequal treaties (before the first world war). The main idea was "mere" colonization : they had no idea of "purity" of the race, or if they had, it was the same as the pride all Europeanids had with their blood againt the uncivilised "rest of the world". They were building an Empire, not a lebensraund (SP?), to equal the colonial empires of Occident. Though some atrocities are clearly modern (Area 753 in Mandchouria, the Confort Women), most of the war crimes were somehow commited in colonial expansion of Europe as well. exploitation of this Empire was their main goal, not Japanization (though it became a point later as much as there have been francization in French colonies).
Those who were ultimately guided by those ideas had gained desillusion when Iwo Jima had been lost to the United States. They lost their dominion.
Personally I would rather had a non-populated area in Japan been bombed first, such that is was in plain view (a high mountain perhaps?).Japan had not enough unpopulated land : emptiness is nowhere to be found in 1945 Japan. Devastation, but not emptiness.
-
Oops! ;P At least, you understood the code
-
I am biased about this, as i have some link with the Japanese, somehow, and still have problems with it.
I wouldn't say it was necessary though. There could probably be a peace agreement in a few days : Japan was already loosing, and the ministers in Japan knew it well, and few were as fanatic as the military itself. As far as we know, the only demand of Japan was "don't touch to the Emperor, anything else we are willing to follow".
This leads me to question the "fanatism" of Truman, or his men, instead : they were so cranked by the victory in Germany that they would ask everything in the world, and they thought they would get it, especially with the bomb? In Japan, getting rid of the Emperor was like getting rid of the Pope in Europe (especially when you know that the Emperor's line is more than 1500 years old) . It is a touchy action.
In the war against Japan, it was useless. (And the Nagasaki one is probably the worst between the two : information about the first bomb had not come to the leaders in Tokyo, or it was poorly understood, so the second was too quick.)
Yet, in another way, it was useful against URSS. This was the beginning of the cold war, but now, you knew what could happen if you tried to invade. An example. It proved two have a counter-effet : now, having the bomb is felt as a danger. We have to live with it...
-
This is why i added my last comment, as, basically, you cannot even know it. This is agnosticism
You cannot be sure of what you cannot observe. -
We don't know how future will be like, and it would take a few myriads of years before I look really different from those future beings (remember that, basically, Cro-Magnon man, if well shaved, would look like us
) I am sure I would be able to learn their language.I would not go under cryogeny, as for now, such technology can actually kill all your cells in the process, thus killing you.
-
日本は未だです。
This is how it is written in genuine Japanese.
At least, as a consolation, I had a great experience thursday. I went to my mother's friend house, and there lives a Japanese, and there were two young Japanese visiting as well. At first, both I and them were shy, and the one who lived there (Yoshimi), couldn't believe it at first (as all Japanese I met, she kept on saying "Sugoi! Sugoi!"). And we had a susi-pâtî, I made most of the sushi
And then, everything went better, and we could speak at last Japanese a little 
. -
I never needed someone to punish me to be someone with a moral straightness. It's even strange to some people how much I can follow strict ethic rules if needed. Though I chose a lot what I would follow, what I have chosen I follow it straightforwardly. It's funny though how much my ethical rules differ from mainstream ways. (And how, deeply, I can find some rules deeply stupid...)
-
I would indeed like to go forward in time, deep in the future : it wouldn't bother not being able to come back, I will someone (something
) interesting for the future, and future will be interesting for me. I'll just have crossed a few millenia without actually living them... -
Mithrandil :
What I say is that the said being has no influence, it has no effect. My life, even though with the limits of out sensibility, you cannot directly sense it (as those exoplanets), I have some (very small) influence in this world, and you will indirectly feel it (at least through this post...Yet, for the sake of my point, let's imagine that even though it exists, it has NO influence on what I live.). That mythical being, I said it had no influence over something in this Universe. You somehow know it exists, but it has no influence (there is no energy exchange with the Universe). So, is it still relevent to know it exists? (And yet, I would wonder, how did you know if it has no influence...)
-
And guess what the Laws of Logic falls under? Immaterial. You can't feel, smell, see, taste, or hear them. Like I said, the Laws of Logic reflect the thinking of God. So, basically, you are borrowing from my worldveiw to explain yours.
Oh? And how can you use logic, since obviously there is nothing immaterial in the universe.
In Another Thread, I have shown that Logic (and Mathematics) is part of observation. I don't mind things that has no mass, in fact, light has no mass at all, being energy (full-spinned particles). I can see and sense logic and maths. The Universe is not only matter, but also the interaction thereof. (This explain how come I do think the mind and the soul exist, but in a different manner) In fact, i might argue that my own existence is "immaterial", being only a by-product of interacting matter in my brain, yelding relation between informations, leading to my actual mind.
Where do you get that?And what makes you think that the universe is all that there is? After all, the definition, (according to you) was coined by man, who, as we all know, does not know nearly all there is to know. So, here you are taking definitions from ignorant sources (man).
"Universe" is a strange word. There are tons of definitions of it. The one I actually use is "What that is", so, everything that exist is part of the Universe, and no thing can be metauniversal (out of the Universe). I could restrict it to Nature (Greek Physica). But, in the Physic Universe, I say that it is "All that influences our existence", because its influence could be sensored somehow.
Really? Like I said, the laws of logic are immaterial; you cannot sense them. Does this mean we cannot use them? Does this mean they do not affect us? Absolutely not! That is not a valid argument.You misunderstood me. What I was dismissing as irrelevant to my own existence is something that has no influence on me (not something immaterial). Let's imagine a little, to understand what I mean. Let's say that there exist that magnificient mythical being, and it exists right on the other side of my window. Yet, for the sake of my point, let's imagine that even though it exists, it has NO influence on what I live. That it cannot influence anything in my own existence, not even a single quark of my smallest toe. Is it then relevant to my own existence? No. Because it influences nothing : if it wasn't there, there wouldn't be anydifference at all, since even existing, the being had no influence (so, without being, nothing changes, except its own existence, but it had no influence on me)
What makes you think that this god would think you important enough to do so? What bearing does this have on whether a god is out there or not?Well, if It doesn't think of me as relevant in Its existence, I have nothing more to ask him. "Help yourself and the gods will help you", said the Nymph Calypso. This is what I sought for : helping myself instead of asking, it proved to be quite correct
What is hope? : A feeling that speculates there can be a better existence.
-
How do you know?
Never saw one thing and another such thing being put together and be three things. If you know one such occurence, please tell me
Also, many promonent scientists also say that evolution is a non-falsifiable theoryBut I will say it is, and in dozens of way. If one finds a dinosaur in a layer dated before a layer where the first archosaurs are found, this completely destructs the evolution theory. (Or finding birds predating the avenment of theropodes, or reptiles before the first amphibians, or amphibians before the first fishes, or fishes before the first chordea...) It's quite easy, theoretically, to find : look through the layers, and find some! This hasn't been found, it seems.
All I need to do to prove something is to prove the impossibility of the contrary.What would then be impossible? The lack of some Creator?
As in another post, I went on with the ad absurdem logic : Then, the lack of Creator to that Creator is also impossible, and this, until one gets bored of all the Creators that preceeded our own... That means we have a conceptual problem here : or there is an infinity, and that, because of this, there is no final answer, or there is at some point "self-explanatoriness" (EO Memestigeco) hence also leading to no possible answer. Where some people will take that "Memestigeco" unto the Creator level, I stop right at the Universe : the Universe itself is self-explanatory.
If evolution is based on observation then why is there such a lack of it?To me, there is no lack of observation. In fact, I can find by my own tons of observations in books, and, if I want, I can arrange a trip to Miguasha QC (or Dinosaur National Park AB) and study the rocks there and see by myself. Or perhaps, shall I go to Jamésie and see the wonderful speciation of some ants, or maybe, as a final resort, find my way to Galapagos and look at what Darwin saw on his Beagle tour. Along this thread, I have also gained some knowledge about evolution as well, and further detailed my own Theory of Evolution. Evidence is quite easy to find.
-
To me, personally, it wouldn't change anything at all. Or maybe yes, finally be sure that he doesn't exist (since I'm agnostic).
In some regions where laicism, not to say areligiousness, is common place, religion has been replaced already. This is true especially in Quebec, to younger people. People have replaced their goal in life : if there is no afterlife, why then wait for it? A lot will come to actually live and enjoy their life. There might be a lot of chaos at first, and this chaos will take care of a lot of problems. We might loose some people in the process, if it goes wild, but, in the end, people will come to be able to live their life without problem. Our lifes will only be based on other axioms, and, if we want to have fun (my own answer to the non-existence of God), well, we'll find ways to have fun.
-
Could you prove the laws of mathamatics and the laws of logic for me, mate? You seem to be using them quite a bit and yet they have no "Scientific" definition, so, technically they do not fit your worldview.
To me, what is important is observation, not materialism. What I can see (sense, to be precise) is what I think exists.
So, what I see is one apple. In it, I can see trillions of atoms. It is one apple. I can see all the links between the trillions to form one apple. Then, I can see another apple. And then, I see one and another apple, together, I see two apples, and two sets of trillions of atoms, forming two apples. And then, I could see one banana and a second banana, and then see them together, and there are two bananas. And then, I see two peaches, two etc... And together, they form a number of pairs of fruits.
I see that an apple will come from a tree. All apples will come from a certain kind of tree, and not of another kind. That tree has come from a seed I planted a few years ago, this seed being a part of another apple, that came before the tree was even there. I see an apple and a peach, and if I look it, I see that they have close characteristics : seeds, and the fruit flesh. They must be somewhat alike, and I see that they both come from trees, some plant that has some characteristics. And those are fruits.
By seeing, I also hear, I sense in a lot of way. And when I see something, sometimes, it will always be linked to a sound. The sight of my mother and her voice, I linked them when I was younger. So, whenI hear her voice, I can link the sight of her, and, at one point, the sight of her becomes a synonym of her.
All this is observation of mathematics and logic. This is why our reflexions rely on this, because it has proven to always be true : 1 something + 1 something will always be 2 somethings (never 3). If something is related to something else, if I sense that something else, I can relate it to the something. (Yet I cannot relate it to another something else) This is generalization.
-
I am basically "agnostic", which means that "on subjects that goes beyond my senses (out of physics, metaphysics, outside of what is felt), I can have no knowledge". That is, I cannot, by reasoning, either believe in the existence of YHWH, gods, kami or the non-existence thereof. I have no possibility to be sure about one side or another, because I cannot observe its existence.
Yet, when you are agnostic, you usually choose one side or another. Kant has been famous to choose the theistic view : though he could not be sure, he took no chance and believed in God, yet which one cannot be clear. I am of the opposite side : "atheistic agnosticism". To me, the Universe is ultimately self-explanatory : by definition, it is "what contains all", and cannot involve something else (or it would also be part of the Universe). So, to me, there is no reason to have something metauniversal (beyond the Universe), as it is meaningless, logically and physically :
It is meaningless logically because of the said definition of the Universe : "All that is.". One would retaliate "But if we speak about the observable Universe...", but then, I would say : But then we could speak about God itself, where do This come from, and that, where do That come from etc. ad absurdem. Or if God is itself self-explanatory, then why not the Universe itself? And this is my final belief, that the Universe, when it will be fully understood, will be self-explanatory. Or, as said Lamarck to Napoleon : "Dieu, dites-vous, mais je n'ai pas eu besoin de cette hypothèse." (God, do you say, yet I did not need this hypothesis.)
Physically, one has to know if something "metauniversal" can have any influence over the Universe. Logically, it cannot : if one can observe something, it is automatically "of the Universe", because we can sense it. So, if something stays strictly metauniversal, it has no influence over the Universe itself, so, even if "it has some existence out of the Universe" (even though such sentence is language abuse), it is irrelevant to our existence, to this world. And, because it has no influence within the Universe (or, some would say so, This actions are hidden in the formulas of the Universe), it adds nothing to the Universe.
And if This do exists, well, I tell this : "come to me and say it to me". (and it must be him, and no prophet or messenger, as I would then say, you are prophet of who, he shall come to me, there are so many who have told me that "I am the messenger of God(s)")
-
Imho we really have no idea how the world will look, it very much depends on the leaders that come to power and what movements strike the peoples of earth. The political lines will be completely rewritten, empires will have risen and fallen. Countries really are rather temporary things.
Politicians of our time tries to tall us that they never change, will never change, and that it has to be so for the sake of goodness. I'm happy at least historians agrees with me that States and peoples can change, not to use the verb "evolve"...
-
The reason why I don't specify the actual war in my stories is that I'm not sure where it will begin.
I suppose Asia, but my best guest would be Taiwan proclaiming final independance from both the Nationalists and the Communists. The reason why I do not believe in the North Korea issue is that it is almost becoming a problem for China as well. If they can get it out of the way, it would be something positive. With Taiwan, you also have the double issue of both China and US wanting to "protect" it, so they then automatically clash. What is left is a series of alliances : South Korea and Japan will go with the US, as all of the OTAN, and possibly some other countries. The Jokers are then here India and Pakistan : will they ally, or will they be enemies? Which one on which side? Neutrality will almost be impossible, I suppose Russia will try, but will later be drawn in. (I suppose that the Middle-East will be a secondary bloody center...)
I suppose that a lot of dammage will occur, but that the nuclear weapon will not be used at the beginning. Hiroshima is still too well remembered, and it wouldshock everyone. But, maybe, it will eventually be used, and then, all games are set. In this, I suppose that the few survivors will be pacifist and passive people, either fleeing the war (Melville), hiding from it (Elkebek) or not involved. I suppose that China will be the ultimate winner of all this, but will be finally destroyed by the last resort, nuclear weapon, leading to the End of the World as We Know It.
Does anybody have any sort of idea the radius of radiation comming from a nuclear weapon?It is never the same : it depends on the strenght, on the winds when it happens. Tchyernobil is in Ukraine, yet, the most problematic lands are in Belarus (north of Ukraine), and some problems even reached eastern France. In Hiroshima and Nagasaki, a radius of about ten kilometers was problematic, but there are less problem, as the bombs were "small", compared to what we can now use.
-
A thousand years is quite far away, and futurology is not the best predicting mean ever.
We never what might happen within all those years.
In my story Ie Ien (which setting describes the evolution of the world in a thousand years from "today"), most institutions collapse in front of a wide world war, worse than the first and second together. I'm not sure where the beginning of the war is, but I'm pretty sure it is eastern or southern Asia, involving either China or India. Because of the war, most States that now exist are no longer extent. North America is no more Canada and US : they both disappeared in the course of war, even probably because they were enemies in that war, ultimately. This erases most cities and most features : it is a miracle that the Golden Gate in San Franscisco is still viable after 500 years.
Indeed, humankind itself survives, and some communities more than survive, they actually rebuild. In North America, I have largely described the case of Elkebek (clearly from Québec) and of Melville.
In the first case, Quebeckers were so afraid of the war that some fled in the emptiness of central Quebec and builded a refuge, later going back to Montréal establishing a new Québec (known now as Elkebek (pronounce : "olkaybek")). Indeed, not all Québec survived : only the most nationalist people, leading to a very strong national sense in later Elkebek (they will be the only people to form an actual strong community league).
In the second case, you also have Quebeckers involved : a few Quebeckers departed Québec during the war, under the (weak) leadership of Yiuel. This exposed those Quebeckers to the harshness of war : they were trying to survive in the battlefield, trying to join a place known as "Cévé". They barely survived, and they finally entered the realm of Cévé. (It actually is the Delta of the Fraser, where is Vancouver BC). There, they will meet the Hosts of the World, groups from everywhere who alsofled as they could their homeland in hope of that peace. They reported being called by Yiuel, and Yiuel was their leader. In order to avoided discord, Yiuel will create the "Communities", villages that are completly independant, with the only exception of "human rights", "inter-communal-diplomaty" and "defense of the Valley". This will evolve into a single yet multicultural city called Cévé, in a state that will bear the surname Yiuel gaved it : Melville.
Indeed, there are more countries and evolutions, but this is as far as I went. (Eventually, the State of Melville will come to be a continent-wide State, covering most of North America at the end of the classical period.
I have the idea that a great war will occur in the near future, it will change our world, and if possible, I'll be that Yiuel calling his friends to create a community where all could live in those dark years.
Religion: In Melville, I can't say : each has the freedom to think all one wants, unless they grant the same freedom to all. There may be people who think that some Christian faith or Islam faith is right, but it is unlikely that they will impose the view on others or actually proselyte about their beliefs : they will discuss a lot the issue, and when coming to an unverifiable dogm, they will achieve the limit of faith, which limit they will not cross. New faiths and beliefs will arise : it is even encouraged, indirectly. Atheism will be an option as others, but most will be agnostic : they cannot know about Outside the Universe, they can only believe.
- Space Exploration: Ie Ien speaks about the NECESSITY of space exploration for Melvillians : they are being kicked out of Earth, slowly. I expect Melvillians (Arthabaskiarians, if we are to be precise) to achieve space flight around 600-700, and a possible colonisation of Mars in 980 (all dates are in P.S. ("Post Sevo", After Sevy)) This slowliness is not due to knowledge : the actual knowledge was there at least from year 30-40 : they had other priorities before, as to live...
. Indeed, the whole plot of Ie Ien is the possibility to colonize another planet, light-years away from Earth, an they will there encounter their first alien species (The Tasawegenevabom, "Children of Starling Being of Earth and Sea"). One hybrid will even come out of it... - Technology: I can't say, but I'm sure some basic necessities will be easier to have.
- Healthcare: Cancer is still a problem, but is now well understood, HIV is no more extent (well, it is, but simply as a common virus to which Melvillians are somewhat immune or tolerant). I expect exogene sicknesses to have changed a lot, while endogene ones will still be occuring, but way better understood.
-
No, romanized Japanese
Hiroshima
in Hall of Intellectuals
Posted
Indeed a great read.
I tend to treat the beginning of the Pacific war in 1910 with the annexion of Korea, because the whole process cannot be understood otherwise. (This is why I say that the bombing of Pearl Harbour is its climax, not its beginning.) This doesn't mean I agree with what either sides did, it just puts them in a wider explainable context.
And, with the whole point, I can hardly disagree. The only thing we'd have to verify is this larger part :
The reason why is that in all texts that I have read, is that the Peace faction wasn't that small. This is probably the most problematic point in the whole issue, which could seal everything. Was the Peace faction small or big. What was in the head of all those people. There seems to be credits to both sides.
We'll probably never know, but, now, I'd say "who cares". i shed a tear when reading all this, and said to myself, what a desesperating world, then, thinking : "In hope we have learned of all this." The result of the war has shown somehow durable in Japan, as they are now a majority in Japan who favors no warfaring at all... (Even though there are some militaristic and negationist movements, mostly represented by the Tokyoite mayor and the prime Minister Koizumi. But this is everywhere.)
EKen132:
The exact quote is
And this is probably true. The winners would have trialed before some kind of "Washington", "London" and "Moscow" trials. The "winner's ruling"?