Probability - Fact or Fiction

Written by Johnny Fuctup

Continued from page 1

Heads again! Three in a row! That’s 12.5% chance given traditional views of probability. About 1/10, pretty lucky I guess, but not exceptionally improbable...

Next toss. Four heads in a row would be pretty unlikely, 6.25% chance, taking into accountrepparttar irrefutable laws of probability. Your confidence in this coin toss is not high at all... This time, it must be tails!

You toss again... Doh! Tails... told you! It’s just random.

But what if no-one had ever told you about probability? What if at schools, pupils were taught that nothing was random, but was merely configured byrepparttar 135772 consensus of conscious minds observing it, based upon their beliefs onrepparttar 135773 outcome?

Would those children, upon reaching adulthood, be able to toss a coin 1000 times and it come up heads every single time?

Maybe, maybe not. But my point is that seemingly provable scientific experiments may have their results contaminated byrepparttar 135774 belief ofrepparttar 135775 persons doingrepparttar 135776 experimentation.

If scientists believe that they are unable to influence probability, thenrepparttar 135777 results they will glean will support this belief, whether that is because they are right, or because they are wrong but believe they are right.

Imagine if everybody inrepparttar 135778 country putrepparttar 135779 same numbers onrepparttar 135780 lottery, and watchedrepparttar 135781 draw convinced “I’m going to win this week I can feel it!”

Wouldrepparttar 135782 chances of those numbers coming out still be millions to one?

Maybe, maybe not.

But then again, scientists will freely accept that quantum particles can be influenced merely by our observations and expectations. So why not visible matter constructed of these quantum particles? Because its easier for them to accept strange goings-on with an invisible sub-atomic particle than it is with something they can see, feel, taste, and touch like a coin or a dice. If they don’t see anything that supports this belief, they will not believe it. But if belief is what makes it happen, then they are never going to see it in experimentation.

If belief isrepparttar 135783 key to defining our reality, then while we retain a steadfast and narrow belief system, be that religion, science, or a combination ofrepparttar 135784 two, then we are severely narrowingrepparttar 135785 possibilities open to us in this reality. We need to reset our brains back to zero. View everything from “provable” and “observable” science to religious or spiritual philosophies as a child would, from a neutral place where you can freely explore them as possibilities, but be in a place where you can also explorerepparttar 135786 other conflicting areas of possibility without contaminating them, or rendering them invisible, with your own preconceptions.

If you get in to a reality too deeply, you will believe in that reality torepparttar 135787 point where you will automatically dismiss any other reality presented to you... this is dangerous, especially when you consider thatrepparttar 135788 reality you are part of may have been devised with a malevolent intent.

Johnny Fuctup looks at everything from a neutral point. Breaking down rigid belief systems and being open to many alternative possibilities of reality is paramount to understanding the universe we live in, and also to assuring that we are not being maniuplated into buying into a bogus belief system, be that religions or sciences.

Mail him on with any comments on this article.

Does Clean Mean Extreme Green?

Written by Bill Knell

Continued from page 1

The environmental movement now insists that we leaverepparttar Earth alone. If we take them at their most radical, we should all just kill ourselves and make sure animals are around to eat what’s left of our decaying flesh. There’s just no other way to look at it. No matter where we try and cut trees, drill for oil, pump gas out ofrepparttar 134920 ground or build homes, we are inrepparttar 134921 wrong.

There is a difference between being good stewards of our environment and abandoning it. People are here to stay and we all need places to live, ways to get around and things to eat. Learning from past mistakes, we now produce less pollution and live in a cleaner environment. We use items that place less of a strain on earth resources. We have even found ways to help save other living things that were disappearing on their own from our world. By cutting forests, we forestall inevitable fires, save wildlife and gain a needed source of lumber.

Green Extremists are not environmentalists. They are self-hating humans who feel we a plague onrepparttar 134922 planet. People have not always been wise inrepparttar 134923 way they have dealt withrepparttar 134924 environment, however they may also berepparttar 134925 world’s best hope. Many scientists tell us that without people andrepparttar 134926 natural progression of their development,repparttar 134927 world would fall into an environmental stalemate. If dinosaurs were around today, most people would do everything possible to save such rare and exotic animals from extinction.

Humans have always been fascinated with animals. President Teddy Roosevelt was a hunter, but he also sawrepparttar 134928 need to protect wild animals andrepparttar 134929 environment. He did this by creating refuges and special areas that were protected byrepparttar 134930 federal government against overuse or abuse by people. In short, Roosevelt was a sensible environmentalist. He helped create a way for humans, animals and nature to co-exist. Today’s extreme green fanatics could and should take a lesson from Teddy.

Title: Does Clean Mean Extreme Green? Topic: Science Author: Bill Knell Author's Email: Author's Website: Author's Phone: 480-632-7909 Word count : 828 Terms To Use Article: Permission is granted to use this article for free online or in print. Please add a link to or print my website address of

    <Back to Page 1 © 2005
Terms of Use