Complete heart transplant; rethink your faith!

[Ishmael]

Speaking of mungu mwenye uwezo wote, ukiwamo wa kuwapa afya njema viumbe vyake wote, na upendo wote.

Kwa nini awabanie?

Kwa nini asiwape afya njema viumbe wake wote wakati wote?

Did you ask Him na akakataa? Don't use assumption katika majibu yako kama facts. Unayo haki ya kuweka opinion lakini huna haki ya kufanya opinion kuwa empirical fact. Labda utupe ushaidi wa opinions zako na tuzipime kama ni watertight.

 

[Mkuu wa chuo]

Hilo nimekuelewa.

Nikakuuliza swali ambalo hujalijibu.

Kitu gani kinaonekana chenyewe na siyo effect tu?

nguzo ya umeme inaonekana yenyewe...

 

[TanzaniaLaw]

Inherently I do not have a problem with faith.

As you have noted, assumption is a face of faith, and as I have noted, it is irrational to repudiate all forms of faith.

Only a blatant liar or a complete ignoramus can tell you that he repudiate faith completely, for reasons given above.

Is it irrational to plan for tomorrow on the faith that the sun will rise and you will not die suddenly in your sleep?

No.

To the contrary, under normal circumstances, it is irrational not to plan for tomorrow due to the fear that the sun will not rise or that one will die in ones sleep.

So the assumption that I am.against faith per se, is erroneous at best. Every human must engage in a form of faith in one form or another. Just walking is an act of faith. By walking, one professes the faith that the ground will not give in under his weight, which is not a total impossibility. Floridians are known to have the earth open up and swallow whole houses.

So the auestion then.becomes, how much faith, in what, and by which principles?

Here is where some choose to have total faith in an invisible god while others choose to have only a minimal amountnof faith based on.rationality and gradually converge towards knowledge.

Bingo. So you do believe, don't you?

 

[Kiranga]

vipi kuhusiana na assumptions haziruhusiwi?

Mbona unauliza swali ambalo nishalijibu hapo juu?

Sijaongelea kwamba assumptions (aka faith) haziepukiki, na kwamba ukikanyaga chini tu ushafanya assumption kwamba ardhi haitafunguka na kukumeza?

Sijasema kwamba sina tatizo na assumption/ faith, as long as it is logical and rational?

Tatizo langu si assumption au faith. Mtu anayesema hakubali assumption/ faith 100% atakuwa ama ni mjinga au muongo.

Tatizo langu ni, assumption/ faith gani? Inayopatikana kwa mfumo gani? Kwa principles gani?

Kwa mfano. Mtu kupiga pasi shati lake la kuvaa kazini kesho ni bonge la assumption, ana assume kwamba hatakufa usingizini, ana assume kwamba jua halitapasuka na kuiunguza dunia nzima.

Je hizi assumptiuons ni rational au irrational?

Now let's say the same person does not iron his shirt, simply saying that he cannot assume that the earth will be there tomorrow. You will see that in not trying to assume, he is already assuming.

Kwa hiyo habari ya assumption/ faith mara nyingine haiepukiki.

Swali ni, unatumia misingi gani kuamua hapa nitakanyaga ardhi tu kwa sababu sijawahi kuona ardhi ikishindwa kunihimili. Au nitapiga pasi tu shati la kuvaa klazini kesho kwa sababu sijawahi kusikia siku ambayo jua limeshindwa kuchomoza.

Lakini kusema sitapiga pasi shati, nitaomba mungu aliye mbinguni atume malaika aje kunipigia pasi. Najua mungu yupo, ana uwezo, ananipenda na anajua nimechoka. Kwa hiyo na assume atanisaidia.Hii ni rational assumption?

 

[Kiranga]

Bingo. So you do believe, don't you?

I am allergic to belief.

I would rather know, thank you very much.

 

[TanzaniaLaw]

I am allergic to belief.

I would rather know, thank you very much.

That is the "minimal amount of faith", are you as well allergic to that?

 

[Kiranga]

nguzo ya umeme inaonekana yenyewe...

Wrong, nguzo ya umeme haionekani yenyewe.

Wewe unaona photons zinazosafiri kutoka kwenye nguzo ya umeme na kufika kwenye macho yako. Unaiona nguzo ya umeme si kama ilivyo sasa, bali kama ilivyokuwa hapo photons zilipotoka.

Kama mtu anaweza kwenda kwa kasi sana, anaweza kwenda kwenye nguzo ya umeme akaiondoa kabla ya particles zinazokuonyesha nguzo ya umeme ilipo hazijakufikia machoni, nguzo ya umeme isiendelee kuwapo, lakini wewe ukaona ipo.

To illustrate better this example, I will use the sun.

Tunapoangalia jua, hatulioni kama lilivyo sasa, bali kama lilivyokuwa dakika nane na sekunde ishirini zilizopita. Kwa maana huo ndio muda ambao mwanga unatumia kusafiri kutoka kwenye jua mpaka duniani kwenye macho yetu.

Kwa hiyo, jua likizimika ghafla sasa hivi, hatutajua kwamba jua limezimika mpaka zipite dakika nane na sekunde ishirini.

Hatuoni vitu kama vilivyo directly, tunaona effect ya vitu hivyo inavyotufikia kwa photons zinazosafiri kwa speed ya mwanga.

Basic relativity theory.

Nyota nyingine unazoziona usiku hazipo hapo zinapoonekana kuwapo. Zilishanyauka na kulipuka mamilioni ya miaka iliyopita.

Lakini unaziona hapo zilipo kwa sababu mwanga wake ndio kwanza unatufikia.

Hatuoni nyota, tunaona effect. Vivyo hivyo kila tunachokiona tunaona effect tu. Hakuna tunachokiona directly.

 

[Ishmael]

That is the "minimal amount of faith", are you as well allergic to that?

The person committed perjury or may be "Assumptions = Faith".

 

[Kiranga]

That is the "minimal amount of faith", are you as well allergic to that?

I can barely tolerate it for practical reasons linked to it's current inescapable nature as pointed above. That is, in order to eradicate it, one has to barely accommodate it, and converge towards it's gradual eradication methodically.

Experimentation, peer review and observation in a corrective and critically reflective culture (the opposite of faith) would eventually converge towards less belief and more knowledge.

That is how science advances.

 

[Mkuu wa chuo]

Wrong, nguzo ya umeme haionekani yenyewe.

Wewe unaona photons zinazosafiri kutoka kwenye nguzo ya umeme na kufika kwenye macho yako. Unaiona nguzo ya umeme si kama ilivyo sasa, bali kama ilivyokuwa hapo photons zilipotoka.

Kama mtu anaweza kwenda kwa kasi sana, anaweza kwenda kwenye nguzo ya umeme akaiondoa kabla ya particles zinazokuonyesha nguzo ya umeme ilipo hazijakufikia machoni, nguzo ya umeme isiendelee kuwapo, lakini wewe ukaona ipo.

To illustrate better this example, I will use the sun.

Tunapoangalia jua, hatulioni kama lilivyo sasa, bali kama lilivyokuwa dakika nane na sekunde ishirini zilizopita. Kwa maana huo ndio muda ambao mwanga unatumia kusafiri kutoka kwenye jua mpaka duniani kwenye macho yetu.

Kwa hiyo, jua likizimika ghafla sasa hivi, hatutajua kwamba jua limezimika mpaka zipite dakika nane na sekunde ishirini.

Hatuoni vitu kama vilivyo directly, tunaona effect ya vitu hivyo inavyotufikia kwa photons zinazosafiri kwa speed ya mwanga.

Basic relativity theory.

kwa hiyo kwa hiyo mantiki unataka kusema hakuna kitu ambacho hakionekani? ila kipo ambacho hakijulikani?

 

[Kiranga]

kwa hiyo kwa hiyo mantiki unataka kusema hakuna kitu ambacho hakionekani? ila kipo ambacho hakijulikani?

Define kuonekana.

Nilichokwambia hapo ni kwamba, kwa sababu mwanga unasafiri kwa speed maalum, na kwa kuwa tunaona kwa photons kugota machoni mwetu kutoka kwa vitu vilivyo sehemu tofauti na tulipo, habari nzima ya kuona kitu directly ni ndoto tu.

Utakiona kitu kama kilivyokuwa hapo photons zilipotoka kwenye hicho kitu, huwezi kukiona kitu kama kilivyo sasa hivi kwa sababu that would violate the speed of light.That would imply photons can leave nguzo ya umeme at time t and reach your eyes instantaneously at the same time t, which violates the speed of light (electromagnetism) speed limit.

Kwa hiyo kila kitu kinaonekana effect yake tu, si kitu halisi.

Not sure if you saw this. Niliongezea haya ya chini kwenye last post for better illustration. The intestellar scales help illustrate the effect better.

Nyota nyingine unazoziona usiku hazipo hapo zinapoonekana kuwapo. Zilishanyauka na kulipuka mamilioni ya miaka iliyopita.

Lakini unaziona hapo zilipo kwa sababu mwanga wake ndio kwanza unatufikia.

Hatuoni nyota, tunaona effect. Vivyo hivyo kila tunachokiona tunaona effect tu. Hakuna tunachokiona directly.

Einstein's Relativity 101.

 

[Mkuu wa chuo]

Define kuonekana.

Nilichokwambia hapo ni kwamba, kwa sababu mwanga unasafiri kwa speed maalum, na kwa kuwa tunaona kwa photons kugota machoni mwetu kutoka kwa vitu vilivyo sehemu tofauti na tulipo, habari nzima ya kuona kitu directly ni ndoto tu.

Utakiona kitu kama kilivyokuwa hapo photons zilipotoka kwenye hicho kitu, huwezi kukiona kitu kama kilivyo sasa hivi kwa sababu that would violate the speed of light.

Kwa hiyo kila kitu kinaonekana effect yake tu, si kitu halisi.

Hiyo mantiki yako sijui imekaa vipi? au yenyewe haitegemei na umbali wa muangaliaji na kitu halisi kilipo? kwa mantiki yako hiyo hata tukiwa tunaangalia mpira uwanja wa Taifa inamaana kuna wengine wanaanza kuona wengine wanafuata?

nilikuwa nataka nijue je vitu kama O[SUB]2[/SUB] , upepo na vyenyewe vinaonekana? na ile nguvu inayosafiri kutoka kwenye remote control mpaka kwenye TV na yenyewe inaonekana kwa kutumia hiyo hiyo concept yako...

 

[Kiranga]

Hiyo mantiki yako sijui imekaa vipi? au yenyewe haitegemei na umbali wa muangaliaji na kitu halisi kilipo? kwa mantiki yako hiyo hata tukiwa tunaangalia mpira uwanja wa Taifa inamaana kuna wengine wanaanza kuona wengine wanafuata?

nilikuwa nataka nijue je vitu kama O[SUB]2[/SUB] , upepo na vyenyewe vinaonekana? na ile nguvu inayosafiri kutoka kwenye remote control mpaka kwenye TV na yenyewe inaonekana kwa kutumia hiyo hiyo concept yako...

Kila kitu kinachoonekana kwa macho, kinaonekana kwa kufuata limit ya speed of light, na hivyo hakiwezi kuonekana directly, unaona effect yake tu.

Kuonekana directly maana yake ni kuona vitu instantaneously, which violates the speed of light limit.

Ushasoma Einstein's relativity?

Sababu inayokufanya ushangae ni kutokana na ukweli kwamba unafikiri katika large scale framework na ku neglect the real granularity of spacetime.

 

[Mkuu wa chuo]

Kila kitu kinachoonekana kwa macho, kinaonekana kwa kufuata limit ya speed of light, na hivyo hakiwezi kuonekana directly, unaona effect yake tu.

Kuonekana directly maana yake ni kuona vitu instantaneously, which violates the speed of light limit.

Ushasoma Einstein's relativity?

Sababu inayokufanya ushangae ni kutokana na ukweli kwamba unafikiri katika large scale framework na ku neglect the real granularity of spacetime.

Hiyo Einstein's relativity nilishasoma hiyo

nimeuliza vitu ambavyo havionekani hata kwa hiyo mantiki vyenyewe tunasemaje?

 

[Kiranga]

Hiyo Einstein's relativity nilishasoma hiyo

nimeuliza vitu ambavyo havionekani hata kwa hiyo mantiki vyenyewe tunasemaje?

Nina mashaka kama umesoma, ama kama umesoma umeelewa, au kama ulielewa bado unakumbuka relativity.

Halafu swali lako hapa linaonyesha hata mimi hujanielewa, na labda huwezi kunielewa. Labda kwa sababu huna msingi mzuri wa uelewa wa the basics of Einstein's relativity.

Usipoelewa the basics of Einstein's relativity, ku grasp concept ya kwamba hatuoni vitu kama vilivyo sasa (indeed "sasa" is highly subjective as to make it meaningless outside of a relativistic franework, but that is adding complications to a concepts whose basics are not understood) , bali kama vilivyokuwa muda uliopita, ni vigumu sana.

Ukielewa the basics of Einstein's relativity, kuelewa hili ni rahisi sana.

Nilichokwambia ni kimsingi kwamba hakuna kinachoonekana directly, tunaona effects tu. Nimeelezea vizuri habari za photon, speed of light and why direct observation is impossible due to the speed of light limit. Make that "universal speed limit". At least in the context of carrying information, far removed from any "spooky action at a distance" phenomena.

Hapo hapo unaniuliza upepo, O2 na infrared inayitoka kwenye remote inaonekana?

Mimi nakwambia tai zangu zote ni za bluu, sina tai nyekundu.

Wewe unaniyliza "hata tai zako za kwendea kazini ni nyekundu?".

Nishakwambia sina tai nyekundu, kwa nini unauliza kama tai za kazini ni nyekundu?

Nishakwambia hakuna kinachoonekana directly, kila tunachoona tunaona effect tu, kwa sababu nikizozitaja hapo juu.

Halafu wewe bado unaniuliza kama upepo , O2 na infrared vinaonekana!

 

[Mkuu wa chuo]

Nina mashaka kama umesoma, ama kama umesoma umeelewa, au kama ulielewa bado unakumbuka relativity.

Halafu swali lako hapa linaonyesha hata mimi hujanielewa, na labda huwezi kunielewa.

Nilichokwambia ni kimsingi kwamba hakuna kinachoonekana directly, tunaona effects tu. Nimeelezea vizuri habari za photon, speed of.light and why direct observation.is impossible due to the speed of light limit.

Hapo hapo unaniuliza upepo, O2 na infrared inayitoka kwenye remote inaonekana?

Mimi nakwambia tai zangu zote ni za bluu, sina tai nyekundu.

Wewe unaniyliza "hata tai zako za kwendea kazini ni nyekundu?".

Nishakwambia sina tai nyekundu, kwa nini unauliza kama tai za kazini ni nyekundu?

Nishakwambia hakuna kinachoonekana directly, kila tunachoona tunaona effect tu, kwa sababu nikizozitaja hapo juu.

Halafu wewe bado unaniuliza kama upepo , O2 na infrared vinaonekana!

Hiyo mantiki yote nimeipata ya kuelezea kwamba hakuna tunachoona direct na nimeelewa kwa kutolea mfano wa hivi vitu ambavyo hudhaniwa tunaona direct kumbe hatuoni direct ndio umetoa mfano wa Mwanga wa jua, kwamba tunauona baada ya dakika kadhaa...

sasa nafikiri hatuelewani, wewe umenielezea kwa concept ya hivi vitu ambavyo kiuhalisia tunaviona, sasa ndio najiuliza inamaana hakuna vitu ambavyo havionekani? kwa kutumia hiyo hiyo concept yako... kwa sababu uliniuliza kitu gani ambacho kinaonekana chenyewe, nikakwambia nguzo ya umeme inaonekana we ukaniambia hapana nguzo ya umeme hauioni yenyewe ninachoona ni particle ukasema kama nikiiona yenyewe nitakuwa nime violate speed of light...

ukasema hakuna kitu ambacho kinaonekana chenyewe, sasa nikaanza kuwaza vitu vingine, ndio maana najiuliza je ambavyo havionekani kama hivyo nilivyokwambia vyenyewe inakuwaje, maana ulichoelezea ni hivi unavyosema hatuoni direct

 

[Kiranga]

Hiyo mantiki yote nimeipata ya kuelezea kwamba hakuna tunachoona direct na nimeelewa kwa kutolea mfano wa hivi vitu ambavyo hudhaniwa tunaona direct kumbe hatuoni direct ndio umetoa mfano wa Mwanga wa jua, kwamba tunauona baada ya dakika kadhaa...

sasa nafikiri hatuelewani, wewe umenielezea kwa concept ya hivi vitu ambavyo kiuhalisia tunaviona, sasa ndio najiuliza inamaana hakuna vitu ambavyo havionekani? kwa kutumia hiyo hiyo concept yako... kwa sababu uliniuliza kitu gani ambacho kinaonekana chenyewe, nikakwambia nguzo ya umeme inaonekana we ukaniambia hapana nguzo ya umeme hauioni yenyewe ninachoona ni particle ukasema kama nikiiona yenyewe nitakuwa nime violate speed of light...

ukasema hakuna kitu ambacho kinaonekana chenyewe, sasa nikaanza kuwaza vitu vingine, ndio maana najiuliza je ambavyo havionekani kama hivyo nilivyokwambia vyenyewe inakuwaje, maana ulichoelezea ni hivi unavyosema hatuoni direct

Very interesting question.

Inawezekana kabisa kwamba kuna vilivyopo ambavyo hatuvioni.

After all, kabla ya scientific advancement hatukuweza kuona effects za radio waves, gamma rays etc. Mpaka tulipogundua sayansi za kuviona (indirectly)

Sasa tutajuaje kwamba kuna vitu ambavyo havionekani na hatujapata namna ya kuviona tu?

Na tutajuaje kwamba tunaendekeza hadithi tu kwa kufikiri kwamba kuna vitu visivyoonekana (kama mungu)?

Ni kwa uchunguzi na ugunduzi na utafiti na udadisi, polepole tutajua.

Mimi siamini mungu wa Judeo Christian traditions kwanza kwa sababu ana an inherently self contradicting nature which makes him inconsistent in an ungodly way. By his own standards.

Basic stuff.

 

[NgumiJiwe]

Ngoja nikufumbue macho kidogo:

1. Mgonjwa "a" wa Saratani ya ubongo, katibiwa na Doctor "q" akapona Saratani.
2. Mgonjwa "b" wa Saratani ya ubongo, katibiwa na Doctor "q" akafa kwasababu ya Saratani ya ubongo.
3. Kama dawa ndio inaponya Saratani, KWANINI MGONJWA "b" hakupona baada ya kutibiwa na Doctor "q"?

Saratani ziko za aina nyingi.Hivyo na tiba pia zinatofautiana kulingana na aina ya saratani,mahali ilipo,stage/grade iliyofikia,umri wa mgonjwa,hali ya kiafya ya mgonjwa kiujumla nk.Tiba inaweza kuwa ni upasuaji,mionzi,tiba ya kemikali au madawa.

Saratani za ubongo zipo za aina nyingi pia kulingana na aina ya cells za ubongo zilizotengeneza ile saratani au hata saratani zinazotoka sehemu nyingine ya mwili na kusambaa na kwenda kujipandikiza kwenye ubongo.Hivyo wagonjwa wawili wa saratani ya ubongo wanaweza kuwa na aina tofauti za saratani ya ubongo zenye kuhitaji aina tofauti za matibabu.Pia wagonjwa wawili wa saratani ya ubongo wanaweza kupata matibabu yasiyofanana hata kama saratani zao zinafanana kwa sababu ya stage/grade ya saratani,afya ya mgonjwa,preference ya mgonjwa nk.

Kwahiyo mgonjwa a na b wanaweza wote wakawa na saratani za ubongo lakini kumbe ni za aina tofauti na hivyo kumfanya Dr.q kutumia dawa(matibabu) tafauti kwa mgonjwa a na b,na matokeo yakawa tofauti.Au mgonjwa a na b inawezekana wakawa na aina moja ya saratani ya ubongo,na Dr.q akawatibu kwa aina moja ya dawa(matibabu) lakini matokeo yakawa tofauti kwavile saratani ya mgonjwa a ilikuwa kwenye stage tofauti na mgonjwa b,au mgonjwa a pamoja na saratani yake ya ubongo,alikuwa na magonjwa mengine sugu(kama ya moyo,figo,ini au kansa katika kiungo kingine,upungufu wa damu nk)ambayo mgonjwa b hakuwa nayo,na hayo magonjwa mengine sugu ndiyo yaliyomsababishia kifo mgonjwa a hata baada ya kupata matibabu sahihi ya kansa yake ya ubongo.

Nadhani nimekujibu swali lako

 

[TanzaniaLaw]

I can barely tolerate it for practical reasons linked to it's current inescapable nature as pointed above. That is, in order to eradicate it, one has to barely accommodate it, and converge towards it's gradual eradication methodically.

Experimentation, peer review and observation in a corrective and critically reflective culture (the opposite of faith) would eventually converge towards less belief and more knowledge.

That is how science advances.

1. You don't have to accommodate something which is not provable according to your fallacy, in contrast, now FAITH is PART OF SCIENCE.

2. How much Science is accommodating "GOD"?

3. The same issue of the "Negative God" now is "the opposite of faith". When will you stop copying from theists? Does, it means, without "theists" there is no "non theists"?

4. That is why Ishmael said Sayansi ni TEGEMZI. You have proved the words of Ishmaels as authentic.

 

[TanzaniaLaw]

The person committed perjury or may be "Assumptions = Faith".

I can see that..