Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...

[eukreign]

I'm sorry, but I am of the mind that if it cannot be explained to a 5 year old, it is complete trash.

‘You do not really understand something unless you can explain it to your grandmother.’

— Albert Einstein

5 year old, grandmother -same diff.

My point exactly!

Edit:

I think Bridget has good intentions but if you were to put her arguments and explanations on a ten point system 0 being grandma (or anyone else) can't understand and 10 being everyone understands completely, Bridgets posts would be a -10 at times. I just really hope that at least she understands all the stuff she says 

[ladyattis]

It seems that you are unable to follow a subject.  You started by referring to reversible computing but then switched to "reversible" nature, biology, physics, sciences as if being able to do something in a computer arcitecture has anything to do with real-world.

You obviously never read about Shannon Entropy. His measure for entropy in computations and physical systems follow the SAME CURVE. *ding* I win, you lose! Try citation of valid data. K?

Reversible computing is if you try a problem such as "(x && y) == 0, can you tell me what x and y are? No: it could be (0, 0) or (0, 1) or (1, 0). Therefore, the operation AND is not reversible.

Wrong...It has nothing to do with the logic of the computational operation. It has to do with how the logic circuits are designed that would allow for information stored in memory not to be destroyed but rather reverted to an INITIAL STATE. Stop trying to tell me about a field of study which is... MY MAJOR. MORON.

Reversible computing does not hapen by chance but requires a very intelligent source to "program" it to be able to work backward from the end to deduce the beginning.  For you to try to apply this principle to the physical is to say that we could look at a rock (or series of rocks) and "reverse compute" everything that has happened to them.  Such "pie in the sky" thinking is very much like have faith in God...

Wrong again moron... What do you think storms do? They computer reversibly. Inexplicibly storms just happen out of no where. Especially when conditions are ADVERSE to their formation. They take the funnel of cooling air coming down from the top of the troposphere, and the rising still warm air from the bottom of the troposphere, mixed with moisture to some how form an ordered state that is HIGHLY complex, yet it never really destroys the initial state from which it came.

Now, stop reading the Christian Apologetics. And stop lying. Or I might ask a few of my fellow compsci geeks to actually post some snips of papers on reversible computation they're working on.

It's your choice to be blown away Jeebus Moron.

-- Bridget

P.S. REVERSIBLE COMPUTATION ARTICLE

Landauer's principle (and indeed, the second law of thermodynamics itself) can also be understood to be a direct logical consequence of the underlying reversibility of physics, as is reflected in the general Hamiltonian formulation of mechanics, and in the unitary time-evolution operator of quantum mechanics more specifically.

In the context of reversible physics, the phenomenon of entropy increase (and the observed arrow of time) can be understood to be consequences of the fact that our evolved predictive capabilities are rather limited, and cannot keep perfect track of the exact reversible evolution of complex physical systems, especially since these systems are never perfectly isolated from an unknown external environment, and even the laws of physics themselves are still not known with complete precision; thus, we (and physical observers generally) always accumulate some uncertainty about the state of physical systems, even if the system's true underlying dynamics is a perfectly reversible one that is subject to no entropy increase if viewed from a hypothetical omniscient perspective in which the dynamical laws are precisely known.

You must like being pwned, CA. Cause I keep refuting you!!!

[ChristianAnarchist]

It seems that you are unable to follow a subject.  You started by referring to reversible computing but then switched to "reversible" nature, biology, physics, sciences as if being able to do something in a computer arcitecture has anything to do with real-world.

You obviously never read about Shannon Entropy, aka the infamous Shannon from IBM Labs. His measure for entropy in computations and physical systems follow the SAME CURVE. *ding* I win, you lose! Try citation of valid data. K?

Reversible computing is if you try a problem such as "(x && y) == 0, can you tell me what x and y are? No: it could be (0, 0) or (0, 1) or (1, 0). Therefore, the operation AND is not reversible.

Wrong...It has nothing to do with the logic of the computational operation. It has to do with how the logic circuits are designed that would allow for information stored in memory not to be destroyed but rather reverted to an INITIAL STATE. Stop trying to tell me about a field of study which is... MY MAJOR. MORON.

Reversible computing does not hapen by chance but requires a very intelligent source to "program" it to be able to work backward from the end to deduce the beginning.  For you to try to apply this principle to the physical is to say that we could look at a rock (or series of rocks) and "reverse compute" everything that has happened to them.  Such "pie in the sky" thinking is very much like have faith in God...

Wrong again moron... What do you think storms do? They computer reversibly. Inexplicibly storms just happen out of no where. Especially when conditions are ADVERSE to their formation. They take the funnel of cooling air coming down from the top of the troposphere, and the rising still warm air from the bottom of the troposphere, mixed with moisture to some how form an ordered state that is HIGHLY complex, yet it never really destroys the initial state from which it came.

Now, stop reading the Christian Apologetics. And stop lying. Or I might ask a few of my fellow compsci geeks to actually post some snips of papers on reversible computation they're working on.

It's your choice to be blown away Jeebus Moron.

-- Bridget

Again you seem to think you can impress someone by simply declaring it to be true.  You expect that once you put iit in print that somehow it is fact.  You are only proving how confused you really are.  It's not like you are the only one here who's "been there - done that".  Indeed, my life's experience is greater than yours.  It doesn't mean that I'm smarter but it does mean I have a greater "database" to draw from.  I've spent many years working on "stuff" too (don't suppose you've ever heard of Nevada Terawatt Facility).  I know many big names in the physics field personally and had these discussions with them (they are far smarter than you - or me).  One thing they pretty much all agree to is that they really don't have anywhere close to all the answers.  I guess they should get in contact with you so you can help them learn. 

As I've stated in the past, one thing you can GUARANTEE is that whatever "science" has to say today, it will be different tomorrow...

[ladyattis]

Again you seem to think you can impress someone by simply declaring it to be true.  You expect that once you put iit in print that somehow it is fact.  You are only proving how confused you really are.  It's not like you are the only one here who's "been there - done that".

But I understand it far more completely than you and can place it on a rational philosophy framework which is standing against any test. So unless you can show the ontological necessity for God in an Absolute Nature, I will not listen to whatever you have to say on the basis that you cannot even conceive there's a whole realm out there that not even you can touch. A realm not based on little baby-like angels punishing people for being queer or wearing mixed fabric clothing, but a realm beyond the simplest assertions of mystics. So until you acknowledge that, you're like those people that walk the tiled lines in churches, believing you're on a road to Jeruselem.

Indeed, my life's experience is greater than yours.  It doesn't mean that I'm smarter but it does mean I have a greater "database" to draw from.  I've spent many years working on "stuff" too (don't suppose you've ever heard of Nevada Terawatt Facility).

Doesn't matter to me. You're still an idiot.
 

I know many big names in the physics field personally and had these discussions with them (they are far smarter than you - or me).  One thing they pretty much all agree to is that they really don't have anywhere close to all the answers.

That's because they abandoned philosophy down the road for Marxian Scientism. Study a bit of history, k? 

I guess they should get in contact with you so you can help them learn.

Actually, one PhD earner thought I knew more about physics than even him. He thought I had the answers, oddly, even though we disagreed. It's strange that morons like you think science is monolithic and must adhere to one solution. Then again that's why you're HERE and not working anymore projects.

As I've stated in the past, one thing you can GUARANTEE is that whatever "science" has to say today, it will be different tomorrow...

Science isn't a body of work, it's a method of knowing. Just one method, with a myriad to use beside it. Science stems from philosophical empiricism and its practioner's, to this day, have expelled any philosophical frameworks from its camp, leaving them blind to the future and digusted with the past.

So try someone else Invisible Hank asskisser.

-- Bridget

[ChristianAnarchist]

Landauer's principle (and indeed, the second law of thermodynamics itself) can also be understood to be a direct logical consequence of the underlying reversibility of physics, as is reflected in the general Hamiltonian formulation of mechanics, and in the unitary time-evolution operator of quantum mechanics more specifically.

In the context of reversible physics, the phenomenon of entropy increase (and the observed arrow of time) can be understood to be consequences of the fact that our evolved predictive capabilities are rather limited, and cannot keep perfect track of the exact reversible evolution of complex physical systems, especially since these systems are never perfectly isolated from an unknown external environment, and even the laws of physics themselves are still not known with complete precision; thus, we (and physical observers generally) always accumulate some uncertainty about the state of physical systems, even if the system's true underlying dynamics is a perfectly reversible one that is subject to no entropy increase if viewed from a hypothetical omniscient perspective in which the dynamical laws are precisely known.

Wow!  "unknown external environment" and "hypothetical omniscient perspective".

Your logic fails.  Sounds like you are trying to prove MY point.  Keep it up.

[ladyattis]

Unknown does not mean Invisible Hank. It means Unknown. But you love to play the Argument from Ignorance Fallacy don't you?

It's like saying... "My keys are gone!? Therefore Pikachu stole them!" It doesn't logically following, asshole. Try again.

-- Bridget

[ChristianAnarchist]

I know many big names in the physics field personally and had these discussions with them (they are far smarter than you - or me).  One thing they pretty much all agree to is that they really don't have anywhere close to all the answers.

That's because they abandoned philosophy down the road for Marxian Scientism. Study a bit of history, k? 

Oh my, you judge these people without knowing them and all you have to go on is my word as to who or what they are.  Thanks for believing in me...

I guess they should get in contact with you so you can help them learn.

Actually, one PhD earner thought I knew more about physics than even him. He thought I had the answers, oddly, even though we disagreed.

Gosh, sorry, I didn't know you were Sooooooo Smart.  I'll have to rember that in the future.  By the way, do take care not to break that arm patting yourself on the back.

You have serious issues.  I do hope you work them out.

[ladyattis]

Oh my, you judge these people without knowing them and all you have to go on is my word as to who or what they are.  Thanks for believing in me...

I judge the general physics community as I see fit. You obviously some how think I must be all a cynic or whatever. Sorry, babe, try Objectivism sometime it might remove that Jesus Reindeer up your ass.

Gosh, sorry, I didn't know you were Sooooooo Smart.  I'll have to rember that in the future.  By the way, do take care not to break that arm patting yourself on the back.

I may be smart, but I know I'm not Invisible Hanker like you.

You have serious issues.  I do hope you work them out.

Spoken like a True Christian(tm)! Trying to infer being bisexual, transgendered, and etc is EVILLLLLLLLLLLLLSSSZZZZZ and thus I MUST BE EXORCIZZZZZZEDDDDDDDDDDED! YEHAWWWWW I'm Christian Anarchist, I WUVVVV to KISS HANK'S AZZZ!

-- Bridget

[ChristianAnarchist]

Unknown does not mean Invisible Hank. It means Unknown. But you love to play the Argument from Ignorance Fallacy don't you?

It's like saying... "My keys are gone!? Therefore Pikachu stole them!" It doesn't logically following, asshole. Try again.

-- Bridget

Nice try, no one said that Unknown means Invisible - but it certainly could.  By the way, if your arguments are so strong and infallible, why do you resort to diversion and namecalling?  Why not just dazzle us with your superior intellect?

[ladyattis]

Because you never earned it.

-- Bridget

[ChristianAnarchist]

Because you never earned it.

Thanks, I do try...

[ChristianAnarchist]

You have serious issues.  I do hope you work them out.

Spoken like a True Christian(tm)! Trying to infer being bisexual, transgendered, and etc is EVILLLLLLLLLLLLLSSSZZZZZ and thus I MUST BE EXORCIZZZZZZEDDDDDDDDDDED! YEHAWWWWW I'm Christian Anarchist, I WUVVVV to KISS HANK'S AZZZ!

Actually, I was referring to your "I am god and I know everything" attitude, but you can work on any issues you feel need attention...

[Tommy]

You have serious issues.  I do hope you work them out.

Spoken like a True Christian(tm)! Trying to infer being bisexual, transgendered, and etc is EVILLLLLLLLLLLLLSSSZZZZZ and thus I MUST BE EXORCIZZZZZZEDDDDDDDDDDED! YEHAWWWWW I'm Christian Anarchist, I WUVVVV to KISS HANK'S AZZZ!

Actually, I was referring to your "I am god and I know everything" attitude, but you can work on any issues you feel need attention...

Hey now, "can't we all just get along?"

[ChristianAnarchist]

You have serious issues.  I do hope you work them out.

Spoken like a True Christian(tm)! Trying to infer being bisexual, transgendered, and etc is EVILLLLLLLLLLLLLSSSZZZZZ and thus I MUST BE EXORCIZZZZZZEDDDDDDDDDDED! YEHAWWWWW I'm Christian Anarchist, I WUVVVV to KISS HANK'S AZZZ!

Actually, I was referring to your "I am god and I know everything" attitude, but you can work on any issues you feel need attention...

Hey now, "can't we all just get along?"

I'm willing...

[Tommy]

I'm willing...

Answer me this - doesn't the Bible say to follow the laws of the government? How then can one be an anarchist with Christian beliefs?