I made the program for me, but I thought it might be useful to a few other students…

It is available from here.

I hope somebody finds it useful!

Sam

Anyway, I’ll try and post something useful soon I promise!

Sam

The Theory

1. In every event in life, there is a multitude of resulting data and factors that caused said event.

1.1 In certain cases, these causes and results (from now, simply referred to as ‘the data’) are out of the ordinary.

1.2 As the complexity of the event grows, the size of the data grows too.

2. All the ‘evidence’ called upon in conspiracy theories could have been freak coincidence.

2.1 In the majority of cases, the events that are theorised about are of great complexity and subsequently have large data pools.

Intermediate Conclusion: As the amount of data surrounding events is large, the number of datum will be high.

Conclusion: Simply because an event has many freak causes and results, we should not necessarily abandon our current perception of the event.

The Experiment

I am going to (virtually, but this is besides the point) simulate an event, then observe the anomalous data.

I throw a red ball at a white surface. It bounces off and rolls to a stop. All seems normal.

Upon closer inspection, it can be seen that the ball was thrown at the wall at an angle of 87 deg. Now, as angle of incidence = angle of reflection, the ball should have rolled off at an angle of 87 deg. It appears this is not the case and the ball is 82 deg from the point of incidence. You find it is clear that some external entity must have tampered with the data and is keeping there reason for doing so from you.

No mark was left on the wall, so did the collision even happen after all?

The PSI of the ball is the same after the event than before – more evidence that the collision did not occur.

In actuality, the first issue pointed out here is solved by the fact no ball is entirely spherical and this one was from poundland. This caused the ball to refract incorrectly.

The latter two points are solved by the fact the ball simply wasn’t thrown that hard, the wall is well painted and the ball (despite it’s poundland origins) is well sealed.

The point

It is clear that certain datum in the ball and wall test case is odd, however these oddities all have freak causes.

The ball and wall event is relatively simple but yet contains three (if not many more) reasons to doubt the entire event happened. So what about an event as large as 9/11 or the JFK assassination? The data pool is huge, which has led to people finding reasons to doubt the event in question occurred as they are told. But these anomalous datum are actually as natural as the sunrise; not a real source of doubt.

Anyway, I hope that was worth the read, any comments (as ever) greatly appreciated.
Sam

Back when this blog was only really for me, I could write about both philosophy and computing on the same pages and that was ok, because nobody read any of them anyway! However, recently ITBR has become more popular due most likely to publicity caused by the recent release of the AppShell beta.

My proposed solution is to split ITBR, computing, philosphy and ‘everything’ sections. More on this soon.

Sam

1. Those that claim to have had numinous experiences talk of an entity greater than it is capable to describe through language strucures.
   1. Other such concepts exist (Example: Love).
      1. These concepts are exclusively ones of perfection (in their purest forms).
2. God is a perfect being.
   1. It is more perfect to exist as the only being of perfection, than one of many.

Intermediate-Conclusion 1: Therefore, God is the only perfect being.

Conclusion: The subject of numinous experiences is God.

Debate greatly appreciated.

The issue is that you can have a blog worthy thought, the likelihood is your either too far from a PC to write it up (and you’ll forget by the time you are), or you are too busy to write it.

Such is life. More news soon,

Sam

Don’t get me wrong, I’m not religious. But seriously, think of the time before there was anything, if such a thing can exist. What happened in this true void that sparked the creation of…. something?

The issue here is that for that something to be sparked another object is required to spark it. Subsequently we encounter the need for a universal constant – something that simply… is.

Define God:

• The supernatural being conceived as the perfect and omnipotent and omniscient originator and ruler of the universe; the object of worship in …

Does this universal constant subsequently have to be a god?

It is true that the universal constant, whatever it may be is indeed the originator of the universe, but is it a ruler?

Hohum… what’s your opinion on this? It would indeed be interesting to hear from some of my very limited in number readers

Sam

With that jolly feeling in my heart I’m glad to present you; LSharp.net IDE!

It now has it’s own page reachable from the right sidebar. I hope atleast someone enjoys using it at some point.

Anyway, more generalised blog content soon.

Sam