Applying sealant to stamped concrete
everything concrete
2017.01.30 03:37 iggatm everything concrete
A place for people to discuss concrete related problems or questions. Construction, contracting, building, exposed aggregate stamped concrete, plain concrete, subcontractor
2016.02.14 03:17 josephsmidt Quantum Gravity
Welcome to quantumgravity! This subreddit is dedicated to the discussion of news, developments and questions about Quantum Gravity research in all its approaches. Those include String Theory, Loop Quantum Gravity, Asymptotic Safety, Dynamical Triangulations, Hořava-Lifshitz Gravity, Causal Sets and subsequent related topics. In the sidebar you will find a quick summary of each of the most relevant approaches with suitable material for beginners.
2024.06.01 15:34 kenUdigitt Novel Chapter 424
Disclaimer: I do not speak Korean. This is purely translated by machine with a lot of cleanup afterward. With that in mind, I am open to criticism to improve these translations. Enjoy!
Chapter 424
Kwaaaaah!
Engulfed in searing blue flames, the vortex devoured everything in its path,
Buildings crumbled - their concrete skeletons exposed and steel frames twisted grotesquely. The ground was littered with the scattered bodies of humans and monsters alike, casualties of the relentless destruction.
The ultra-high heat obliterated nearly everything, reducing it all to ash and molten remnants.
Except for one.
- Blink.
Everything but him.
Beep.
- Skill, [One Strike] has been activated!
- [Qi] has been completely exhausted!
- Everything comes with a price. Despite serious injuries, you have overexerted your power.
- Status abnormality, [Exhaustion] has been applied!
- [Strength], [Stamina], [Agility] have temporarily plummeted!
My strength ebbed away, leaving me hollow. The alerts from the System rang incessantly in my ears, while the distant cries of the Skeleton Warlord in my inventory faded to mere whispers.
My body felt leaden, as though submerged in icy water. In the frigid solitude of my mind, one thought spun relentlessly:
'This was my last chance.'
Why hadn’t I seen it coming? Why hadn’t I guessed?
The Arch Lich had warned me; he had been observing me through his network of familiars scattered across the battlefield.
I should have suspected he'd seen my earlier uses of [One Strike] on the Liches and Death Knights.
I should have questioned it, even without certainty.
‘Idiot.’
A laugh, bitter and mocking, broke from my lips. I had promised myself never to let down my guard, yet here I was, caught in the most critical of errors.
The lack of options was no excuse. In battle, it is the outcome that counts, not the intent. This was the bitter fruit of my negligence.
Thud!
The iron bar I clutched fell from my weakening grasp, clanging loudly as it hit the ground. My legs buckled, forcing me to kneel.
Head bowed, I was enveloped by a suffocating darkness.
- You, human. How does it feel to pay the price for your reckless courage?
Struggling to lift my head, I locked eyes with his fiery red gaze. A hoarse whisper clawed its way through my parched throat.
"Of course it feels shitty, you damn bastard."
- It was a fearsome strike. I'll give you that much praise.
The Arch Lich’s voice dripped with triumph.
Despite his use of teleportation magic, he couldn’t entirely evade One Strike, resulting in the loss of his left arm. Yet, there he stood, a grim victor amidst the chaos of the battlefield.
His eyes, a sinister red, gleamed with a cruel joy as he gazed down at me, kneeling like a penitent sinner.
- I waited until the end. Despite the humiliation suffered at the hands of a human, I endured and persevered. And finally... this body claims victory.
His cunning was undeniable.
As I had feared, he had been anticipating One Strike from the outset.
Previously, I had obliterated Liches and Death Knights with One Strike, replenishing my stamina through leveling up, but he had keenly observed the moment I depleted all my strength.
- Do you understand now? This is your limit - the limit of a human.
Limit.
That word burrowed deeply into my chest.
Despite all my struggles, the label of F-rank haunted me. It was a limit I had strived to surpass every day since acquiring the System.
'Is this really the end?'
I had fought desperately, for myself and for those I loved, pushing through peril after peril. This was my life: a relentless challenge of transcending my own boundaries.
"It's not over... not yet."
The words fell from my lips, hollow and lifeless, as if spoken by another.
My vision blurred as I raised my eyes to meet the Arch Lich’s gaze.
- What?
"It's not over yet."
A battle to the death concludes only when one side falls and the other stands victorious.
Until then, the struggle persists.
As death loomed close, I whispered to myself.
'Inventory open. Summon.'
I thought I had secured one of the spears from my inventory in my grasp.
But then, I dropped it.
Clang!
In that moment, I realized my strength had waned too far to wield a spear, let alone swing it.
- Hahahaha!
The Arch Lich’s laughter was grotesque, reveling in my plight.
Yet, surrender was not an option for me. I would not, could not give up.
'Open Inventory. Summon.'
Weapon after weapon appeared in my hands.
Thud!
And one by one, I dropped them.
'Open Inventory. Summon.'
Thud!
- Oh, you foolish, stupid human!
The Arch Lich's mockery rang out.
Yet I persisted, undeterred.
Is it courageous to humbly accept one's end? If that is courage, then label me a coward.
I must survive — I believed this was the highest respect I could pay to the life I had fought so hard to live.
'Open Inventory. Summon.'
It was at that very moment.
Ding.
- [Endurance] greatly increases.
- The attribute, [Endurance], transforms into [Will]!
- Those with strong will are not easily broken; they do not fall. They will fight with all their might until the very end.
- A strong will, at times, can give you the power to overcome your limits!
- Special effect, [Indomitable], has been activated. Temporarily, all attributes slightly increase, and fatigue is reduced!
A surge of warmth spread through my core, faint yet fiercer than any force I had known.
It wasn't just a burst of power.
It was a beacon of hope kindled by my desperation and given by the System.
With hands shaking, I clasped the cold spear shaft firmly.
- You...
The Arch Lich had noticed the shift too.
His gaze, previously dismissive as if I was merely an exhibit, now widened in alarm. Seizing the moment, I mustered all my remaining strength and lunged forward.
Time seemed to stretch, elongating the seconds as I thrust the spear towards his looming figure.
Screeeeech!
As the spear tore through the air with a sonic boom, I saw it clearly — the Arch Lich’s eyes, twisted into a crescent of scorn.
It was a sneer.
- Blood Explosion.
Boom!
The force of the explosion reverberated through my body, sending shockwaves pulsing through every fiber.
With the last of my strength spent, my muscles seized up. The spear slipped from my weakened grip and impaled the ground at an awkward angle.
I blinked through eyes filled with blood. In a world now painted a visceral red, something warm and sticky splattered onto my face.
Drip, drip-drip.
'...Ah.'
It was blood.
My own blood, spurting forth like a gruesome fountain, showered down in a macabre rain.
As I raised my trembling hands, quivering like aspen leaves in a storm, the ghastly sight of my shredded flesh and starkly exposed bones confronted me.
Blood Explosion. A literal explosion of blood.
From the edges of my dimming consciousness, the cries of the Skeleton Warlord pierced the air.
- ...Human, human!
How long had he been shouting?
I tried to answer, but all that escaped my lips was a grotesque mix of blood and fragments of my organs.
"Cough."
The world spun chaotically before my eyes.
I reached out toward the Arch Lich, now just a blur through the blood-smeared lens of my vision, but my hand grasped only air.
Perhaps it always would.
- Snap out of it! Aren't you supposed to live?
Is that supposed to be encouragement?
I knew I had to survive, defeat him, and return home.
But...
'Can I really?'
Slowly, the world seemed to tilt.
No, the world was stable; it was I who was faltering. My body, ravaged by relentless bleeding and grievous injuries, used the last vestiges of its strength just to keep from collapsing.
'No. If I fall, it's all over.'
I propped myself up on a broken ankle.
The faint, thorn-like pain was a grim reminder that I was dying, yet the intermittent shouts from the Skeleton Warlord, sounding through the haze like a broken radio, affirmed that I was still somehow alive.
- ...Do it, human! Hurry!
Do it? Do what?
- Summon me now...!
My eardrums were ruptured, my consciousness slipping; the Skeleton Warlord's shouts were just muffled echoes in my shattered senses.
Even if I could have made out his words, there was nothing I could do to intercept the Arch Lich's next move.
- You have some interesting possessions.
Suddenly, in the Arch Lich's hand was a familiar object.
My cherished weapon, White Flames, which had weathered many battles at my side, now blazed in the hands of this usurper. He laughed, his skeletal frame aglow within the dancing flames.
- I have received a gift far too extravagant. I suppose it should be returned to its owner.
The Arch Lich drew back his arm. A potent magic dampened the inferno of White Flames and surged along the spear’s blade.
- Farewell, noble adversary — or perhaps just a fool who might have been something more.
Screech!
The sonic boom was fleeting, yet the moment stretched into an eternity.
I watched, mute, as White Flames hurtled towards me like a meteor. A whirlwind of thoughts raced through my mind, leading me to an inevitable conclusion.
'I can't avoid it.'
Then the only end left for me was death.
I had survived countless battles over the past seven years, but never had the specter of death loomed so palpably.
All I could do was witness its relentless advance.
'Yes, this is the end.'
I repeated the thought with eerie calm.
Crack!
The blade of White Flames cleaved through bone as it impaled me squarely in the chest.
I froze, eyes wide in shock — not pain.
"...You."
- Why, what?
Words failed me as I stared into the flickering blue eyes just inches from my face.
From a skull no larger than a soccer ball, the Skeleton Warlord had morphed into a towering figure over two meters tall, his voice blunt and confounding.
- Don't ask how I was able to get out on my own. Even this commander doesn't understand why.
"But why? ...Why?"
I asked, facing him.
The blade of the spear, protruding from the Skeleton Warlord's back to his chest, halted just a whisper away from piercing me.
If no one had intervened, I would have surely died.
He had just thrown himself to save my life.
- ...I don't know anymore. Damn it. I don't know anything now. Maybe I was enchanted by this sword.
Only then did I recognize the identity of the sword in the Skeleton Warlord's hand.
"Hero's Soul."
The only relic of Lei Fei, a sword that cannot be wielded by those who are not qualified to be heroes.
Yet here it was.
Held not by a hero, but by a Named Monster — the Skeleton Warlord.
- Hero's Soul, huh? For something made by humans, that's a pretty decent name. No, honestly, it's cool. Although it's too late to swing it properly now...
His voice trailed off, and the intense blue light in his eyes began to fade.
I understood what was happening to him.
'Extinction.'
Undoubtedly. Even now, the magical force of the Arch Lich, carried by the blade of White Flames, was devouring the Skeleton Warlord.
"You."
- Don't say any more. I'm already regretting this as it is.
I doubted his sincerity, especially given the soft chuckle that seemed at odds with his typically gruff demeanor.
- Human. There's something I'm curious about.
As the Arch Lich approached and the shoulders of the Skeleton Warlord crumbled, I gave a silent nod.
"Anything."
He hesitated for a moment then asked in a soft voice.
- About what you said last time. Was it sincere?
"Last time, what... Oh."
I suddenly remembered. The way he had been right after Lei Fei's death, pondering his forgotten past.
And the casual remark I had made.
'Well, I think he was probably a pretty good guy.'
'...Huh? Are you talking about me?'
'No. I'm just talking to myself.'
'Oh, yes. Right.'
So that's what it is.
For the Skeleton Warlord, who had awakened with power from a spirit that had lost all its memories, I might have been the closest thing to a friend he ever had.
The simple words I had spoken were like a pebble tossed into the still waters of his heart, causing ripples to spread outward.
'What an idiot.'
What was that all about? Why go this far over such a trivial thing?
A surge of emotion welled up within me, heat flushing my face, but I reined it in. I barely managed to muster my voice.
"Of course it was sincere."
- Yes, I see.
At that moment, as the blue light in his eyes flickered feebly, a cold voice cut through the air, heralding the end.
- Are you finished with your farewells?
"…!"
- Bone Explosion.
Boom!
Instinctively, I shielded my face with my arms, but the force of the explosion hurled me backward, sending shockwaves pulsating through me.
As I staggered to my feet, I witnessed a skull catapulted into the sky, bones splintering and scattering like brittle ice.
And then… silence.
The Skeleton Warlord had vanished.
Whoosh!
[Hero's Soul] plummeted from the heavens, its blade burying itself deep into the earth, gripped by a hand that had not relinquished it until the very end.
Previous Table of Contents Next
submitted by kenUdigitt to u/kenUdigitt [link] [comments]
Chapter 424
Kwaaaaah!
Engulfed in searing blue flames, the vortex devoured everything in its path,
Buildings crumbled - their concrete skeletons exposed and steel frames twisted grotesquely. The ground was littered with the scattered bodies of humans and monsters alike, casualties of the relentless destruction.
The ultra-high heat obliterated nearly everything, reducing it all to ash and molten remnants.
Except for one.
- Blink.
Everything but him.
Beep.
- Skill, [One Strike] has been activated!
- [Qi] has been completely exhausted!
- Everything comes with a price. Despite serious injuries, you have overexerted your power.
- Status abnormality, [Exhaustion] has been applied!
- [Strength], [Stamina], [Agility] have temporarily plummeted!
My strength ebbed away, leaving me hollow. The alerts from the System rang incessantly in my ears, while the distant cries of the Skeleton Warlord in my inventory faded to mere whispers.
My body felt leaden, as though submerged in icy water. In the frigid solitude of my mind, one thought spun relentlessly:
'This was my last chance.'
Why hadn’t I seen it coming? Why hadn’t I guessed?
The Arch Lich had warned me; he had been observing me through his network of familiars scattered across the battlefield.
I should have suspected he'd seen my earlier uses of [One Strike] on the Liches and Death Knights.
I should have questioned it, even without certainty.
‘Idiot.’
A laugh, bitter and mocking, broke from my lips. I had promised myself never to let down my guard, yet here I was, caught in the most critical of errors.
The lack of options was no excuse. In battle, it is the outcome that counts, not the intent. This was the bitter fruit of my negligence.
Thud!
The iron bar I clutched fell from my weakening grasp, clanging loudly as it hit the ground. My legs buckled, forcing me to kneel.
Head bowed, I was enveloped by a suffocating darkness.
- You, human. How does it feel to pay the price for your reckless courage?
Struggling to lift my head, I locked eyes with his fiery red gaze. A hoarse whisper clawed its way through my parched throat.
"Of course it feels shitty, you damn bastard."
- It was a fearsome strike. I'll give you that much praise.
The Arch Lich’s voice dripped with triumph.
Despite his use of teleportation magic, he couldn’t entirely evade One Strike, resulting in the loss of his left arm. Yet, there he stood, a grim victor amidst the chaos of the battlefield.
His eyes, a sinister red, gleamed with a cruel joy as he gazed down at me, kneeling like a penitent sinner.
- I waited until the end. Despite the humiliation suffered at the hands of a human, I endured and persevered. And finally... this body claims victory.
His cunning was undeniable.
As I had feared, he had been anticipating One Strike from the outset.
Previously, I had obliterated Liches and Death Knights with One Strike, replenishing my stamina through leveling up, but he had keenly observed the moment I depleted all my strength.
- Do you understand now? This is your limit - the limit of a human.
Limit.
That word burrowed deeply into my chest.
Despite all my struggles, the label of F-rank haunted me. It was a limit I had strived to surpass every day since acquiring the System.
'Is this really the end?'
I had fought desperately, for myself and for those I loved, pushing through peril after peril. This was my life: a relentless challenge of transcending my own boundaries.
"It's not over... not yet."
The words fell from my lips, hollow and lifeless, as if spoken by another.
My vision blurred as I raised my eyes to meet the Arch Lich’s gaze.
- What?
"It's not over yet."
A battle to the death concludes only when one side falls and the other stands victorious.
Until then, the struggle persists.
As death loomed close, I whispered to myself.
'Inventory open. Summon.'
I thought I had secured one of the spears from my inventory in my grasp.
But then, I dropped it.
Clang!
In that moment, I realized my strength had waned too far to wield a spear, let alone swing it.
- Hahahaha!
The Arch Lich’s laughter was grotesque, reveling in my plight.
Yet, surrender was not an option for me. I would not, could not give up.
'Open Inventory. Summon.'
Weapon after weapon appeared in my hands.
Thud!
And one by one, I dropped them.
'Open Inventory. Summon.'
Thud!
- Oh, you foolish, stupid human!
The Arch Lich's mockery rang out.
Yet I persisted, undeterred.
Is it courageous to humbly accept one's end? If that is courage, then label me a coward.
I must survive — I believed this was the highest respect I could pay to the life I had fought so hard to live.
'Open Inventory. Summon.'
It was at that very moment.
Ding.
- [Endurance] greatly increases.
- The attribute, [Endurance], transforms into [Will]!
- Those with strong will are not easily broken; they do not fall. They will fight with all their might until the very end.
- A strong will, at times, can give you the power to overcome your limits!
- Special effect, [Indomitable], has been activated. Temporarily, all attributes slightly increase, and fatigue is reduced!
A surge of warmth spread through my core, faint yet fiercer than any force I had known.
It wasn't just a burst of power.
It was a beacon of hope kindled by my desperation and given by the System.
With hands shaking, I clasped the cold spear shaft firmly.
- You...
The Arch Lich had noticed the shift too.
His gaze, previously dismissive as if I was merely an exhibit, now widened in alarm. Seizing the moment, I mustered all my remaining strength and lunged forward.
Time seemed to stretch, elongating the seconds as I thrust the spear towards his looming figure.
Screeeeech!
As the spear tore through the air with a sonic boom, I saw it clearly — the Arch Lich’s eyes, twisted into a crescent of scorn.
It was a sneer.
- Blood Explosion.
Boom!
The force of the explosion reverberated through my body, sending shockwaves pulsing through every fiber.
With the last of my strength spent, my muscles seized up. The spear slipped from my weakened grip and impaled the ground at an awkward angle.
I blinked through eyes filled with blood. In a world now painted a visceral red, something warm and sticky splattered onto my face.
Drip, drip-drip.
'...Ah.'
It was blood.
My own blood, spurting forth like a gruesome fountain, showered down in a macabre rain.
As I raised my trembling hands, quivering like aspen leaves in a storm, the ghastly sight of my shredded flesh and starkly exposed bones confronted me.
Blood Explosion. A literal explosion of blood.
From the edges of my dimming consciousness, the cries of the Skeleton Warlord pierced the air.
- ...Human, human!
How long had he been shouting?
I tried to answer, but all that escaped my lips was a grotesque mix of blood and fragments of my organs.
"Cough."
The world spun chaotically before my eyes.
I reached out toward the Arch Lich, now just a blur through the blood-smeared lens of my vision, but my hand grasped only air.
Perhaps it always would.
- Snap out of it! Aren't you supposed to live?
Is that supposed to be encouragement?
I knew I had to survive, defeat him, and return home.
But...
'Can I really?'
Slowly, the world seemed to tilt.
No, the world was stable; it was I who was faltering. My body, ravaged by relentless bleeding and grievous injuries, used the last vestiges of its strength just to keep from collapsing.
'No. If I fall, it's all over.'
I propped myself up on a broken ankle.
The faint, thorn-like pain was a grim reminder that I was dying, yet the intermittent shouts from the Skeleton Warlord, sounding through the haze like a broken radio, affirmed that I was still somehow alive.
- ...Do it, human! Hurry!
Do it? Do what?
- Summon me now...!
My eardrums were ruptured, my consciousness slipping; the Skeleton Warlord's shouts were just muffled echoes in my shattered senses.
Even if I could have made out his words, there was nothing I could do to intercept the Arch Lich's next move.
- You have some interesting possessions.
Suddenly, in the Arch Lich's hand was a familiar object.
My cherished weapon, White Flames, which had weathered many battles at my side, now blazed in the hands of this usurper. He laughed, his skeletal frame aglow within the dancing flames.
- I have received a gift far too extravagant. I suppose it should be returned to its owner.
The Arch Lich drew back his arm. A potent magic dampened the inferno of White Flames and surged along the spear’s blade.
- Farewell, noble adversary — or perhaps just a fool who might have been something more.
Screech!
The sonic boom was fleeting, yet the moment stretched into an eternity.
I watched, mute, as White Flames hurtled towards me like a meteor. A whirlwind of thoughts raced through my mind, leading me to an inevitable conclusion.
'I can't avoid it.'
Then the only end left for me was death.
I had survived countless battles over the past seven years, but never had the specter of death loomed so palpably.
All I could do was witness its relentless advance.
'Yes, this is the end.'
I repeated the thought with eerie calm.
Crack!
The blade of White Flames cleaved through bone as it impaled me squarely in the chest.
I froze, eyes wide in shock — not pain.
"...You."
- Why, what?
Words failed me as I stared into the flickering blue eyes just inches from my face.
From a skull no larger than a soccer ball, the Skeleton Warlord had morphed into a towering figure over two meters tall, his voice blunt and confounding.
- Don't ask how I was able to get out on my own. Even this commander doesn't understand why.
"But why? ...Why?"
I asked, facing him.
The blade of the spear, protruding from the Skeleton Warlord's back to his chest, halted just a whisper away from piercing me.
If no one had intervened, I would have surely died.
He had just thrown himself to save my life.
- ...I don't know anymore. Damn it. I don't know anything now. Maybe I was enchanted by this sword.
Only then did I recognize the identity of the sword in the Skeleton Warlord's hand.
"Hero's Soul."
The only relic of Lei Fei, a sword that cannot be wielded by those who are not qualified to be heroes.
Yet here it was.
Held not by a hero, but by a Named Monster — the Skeleton Warlord.
- Hero's Soul, huh? For something made by humans, that's a pretty decent name. No, honestly, it's cool. Although it's too late to swing it properly now...
His voice trailed off, and the intense blue light in his eyes began to fade.
I understood what was happening to him.
'Extinction.'
Undoubtedly. Even now, the magical force of the Arch Lich, carried by the blade of White Flames, was devouring the Skeleton Warlord.
"You."
- Don't say any more. I'm already regretting this as it is.
I doubted his sincerity, especially given the soft chuckle that seemed at odds with his typically gruff demeanor.
- Human. There's something I'm curious about.
As the Arch Lich approached and the shoulders of the Skeleton Warlord crumbled, I gave a silent nod.
"Anything."
He hesitated for a moment then asked in a soft voice.
- About what you said last time. Was it sincere?
"Last time, what... Oh."
I suddenly remembered. The way he had been right after Lei Fei's death, pondering his forgotten past.
And the casual remark I had made.
'Well, I think he was probably a pretty good guy.'
'...Huh? Are you talking about me?'
'No. I'm just talking to myself.'
'Oh, yes. Right.'
So that's what it is.
For the Skeleton Warlord, who had awakened with power from a spirit that had lost all its memories, I might have been the closest thing to a friend he ever had.
The simple words I had spoken were like a pebble tossed into the still waters of his heart, causing ripples to spread outward.
'What an idiot.'
What was that all about? Why go this far over such a trivial thing?
A surge of emotion welled up within me, heat flushing my face, but I reined it in. I barely managed to muster my voice.
"Of course it was sincere."
- Yes, I see.
At that moment, as the blue light in his eyes flickered feebly, a cold voice cut through the air, heralding the end.
- Are you finished with your farewells?
"…!"
- Bone Explosion.
Boom!
Instinctively, I shielded my face with my arms, but the force of the explosion hurled me backward, sending shockwaves pulsating through me.
As I staggered to my feet, I witnessed a skull catapulted into the sky, bones splintering and scattering like brittle ice.
And then… silence.
The Skeleton Warlord had vanished.
Whoosh!
[Hero's Soul] plummeted from the heavens, its blade burying itself deep into the earth, gripped by a hand that had not relinquished it until the very end.
Previous Table of Contents Next
2024.06.01 14:39 Corlio5994 Favourite Applications of Recent Pure Maths
A lot of fuss is made about pure maths being completely disconnected from the real world, but I see lots of discussions about interesting applications for all sorts of modern pure maths here and there. I'd love to collect some more examples in one place, especially ones which enrich the pure field they interface with by providing examples motivating conjectures, encouraging developments in the computability of abstract invariants or non-consctructive proofs, or really anything else you can think of!
To give a jumping off point, I think the connection between scattering theory and functional analysis is really interesting. I don't know much besides the brief mention it was given in my functional analysis course, but from what I know it seems like this is an instance where spectral theory can be applied to understand concrete systems on the one hand, while on the other hand scattering theory provides examples of compact operators which one wants to understand, which can lead to an entirely mathematical study of scattering.
submitted by Corlio5994 to math [link] [comments]
To give a jumping off point, I think the connection between scattering theory and functional analysis is really interesting. I don't know much besides the brief mention it was given in my functional analysis course, but from what I know it seems like this is an instance where spectral theory can be applied to understand concrete systems on the one hand, while on the other hand scattering theory provides examples of compact operators which one wants to understand, which can lead to an entirely mathematical study of scattering.
2024.06.01 14:01 Neither_Swimming_346 Efflorescence on Foundation
 | We bought our house last year and recently redid the deck. The contractor adjusted the grade about 6 inches higher (clay soil) to slope slightly more away from the house and applied landscaping fabric and rocks under the deck. It is our first spring/summer and I noticed this efflorescence on the concrete under one side of deck. Also, I am now realizing the grade is now above the tar coating. Should I be concerned? Is there anything I should do? submitted by Neither_Swimming_346 to DIY [link] [comments] We have a finished basement so I can’t see the other side of this wall but basement has been dry with no signs of musty mildew smell. |
2024.06.01 13:56 genericusername1904 H.G. WELLS’S, THE SHAPE OF THINGS TO COME (1933) VS. 1984 AND BRAVE NEW WORLD
 | ID, IX. MAIORES. V, CAL. IUNI. FORTUNA PRIMIGENIA.I discovered this book by complete chance last year – a very old hardback copy was given to me as gift (in a situation which was certainly weighted with the most unlikely of synchronicities), “huh,” I thought, “it’s a first edition of H.G. Wells,” the book itself almost cannot be opened because it is so old and falling apart so I procured a text and audio file of the thing relatively easily and began to read. In hindsight not only for myself but I fancy for the generations of the last fifty years - in all totality, it is deeply strange that this book has not been more widely recognized or taught in schools, as like 1984 and Brave New World, as being the third contender (although technically the second, published one year after Huxley – seemingly written at the same time interestingly enough) in “visions of dystopia” – except that the book is not so much a vision of dystopia tomorrow but a vision of dystopia ‘today’ or rather ‘life as we know it’ of the 19th, 20th and 21st Centuries (endless war, endless pandemics, economic and logistic chaos), narrated from the comfortable and reassuring position of a society far far in the future who have long since revised their culture and solved all of the causes of the problems and become a society of genius polymaths “with (every Man and Woman) the intellectual equal of the polymaths of the ancient world.”Now, I do not mean here to seem to ‘sweet-talk’ the reader into rushing out and buying this book or to hold it up in the manner of those other books as if it were some ideological blueprint but instead to assay the thing in the natural context which seems to me to be universally unrealized and which presents itself to us as a thing which is plainly self-evident, that is: that in the depressing and miserable dichotomy of 1984 and Brave New World; two extremely atomizing and miserable narratives, that there is also – far more empowering – The Shape Of Things To Come wherein the miserable protagony and antagony of both 1984 and Brave New World might read as merely a footnote somewhere in the middle of the book as an example of the witless measures mankinds old master undertook to preserve their power in an untenable circumstance. In other words, we know all about 1984 as children; we have this drummed into our heads and we glean our cultural comprehension that dictators cannot be cliques of business people but only lone individuals, usually in military uniform, and then we graduate from that to Brave New World to gain a more sophisticated comprehension of the feckless consumerism and ‘passive egoism’ by which our society actually operates, but then we do not – as I argue we ought – continue along in our education with this third book which actually addresses the matters at hand at a more adult level. For instance, here, from ‘The Breakdown Of Finance And Social Morale After Versailles’ (Book One, Chapter Twelve) addresses in a single paragraph the cause of our continual economic chaos (of which all crime and poverty and war originates from) and highlights the problem from which this chaos cannot be resolved yet could easily be resolved, “adjustment was left to blind and ill-estimated forces,” “manifestly, a dramatic revision of the liberties of enterprise was necessary, but the enterprising people who controlled politics (would be) the very last people to undertake such a revision,” …the expansion of productive energy was being accompanied by a positive contraction of the distributive arrangements which determined consumption. The more efficient the output, the fewer were the wages-earners. The more stuff there was, the fewer consumers there were. The fewer the consumers, the smaller the trading profits, and the less the gross spending power of the shareholders and individual entrepreneurs. So buying dwindled at both ends of the process and the common investor suffered with the wages- earner. This was the "Paradox of Overproduction" which so troubled the writers and journalists of the third decade of the twentieth century.It is easy for the young student to-day to ask "Why did they not adjust?" But let him ask himself who there was to adjust. Our modern superstructure of applied economic science, the David Lubin Bureau and the General Directors' Board, with its vast recording organization, its hundreds of thousands of stations and observers, directing, adjusting, apportioning and distributing, had not even begun to exist. Adjustment was left to blind and ill-estimated forces. It was the general interest of mankind to be prosperous, but it was nobody's particular interest to keep affairs in a frame of prosperity. Manifestly a dramatic revision of the liberties of enterprise was necessary, but the enterprising people who controlled politics, so far as political life was controlled, were the very last people to undertake such a revision.There is a clever metaphor I fancy that Wells worked in to this for the ‘actual’ defacto controlling class of things, that is: not really the politicians (sorry to disappoint the Orwell and conspiracy fans) but instead the ‘Dictatorship of the Air’ which might easily read as the ‘Dictatorship of the Airwaves’ – in colloquial language, that being radio and then television. Certainly we might imagine Rupert Murdoch or Ted Turner or Sumner Redstone (of yesterday) entering into honourable retirement as like the ‘dictators of the air’ of the very last days before the establishment of a one world state – in any case that is how things would work out, as the power of, say, Ted Turner to eradicate a political party in the United States – at any time he wishes – by simply green-lighting coverage of their bad actions relentlessly for months until revolution occurs is a real power of which no other institution possesses nor possesses any means of defence against, i.e. the ‘real power’ in our world to end a war or begin or war or end this or begin that is that power held by the organized press. This metaphor is somewhat of a more mature view, I think, than Wells earlier conception of the press in The Sleeper Awakes (1899) where the press of a dystopian future is visualized as a “babble machine” spreading circular nonsense to preoccupy the citizenry (although this is arguably a true representation of the mental processes of the Twitter and Facebook user, or of the general baby-speak and extremely infantile form of the news reports on the front page of the BBC News website) which is more or less what the press depicted as being in Brave New World also.However the construction of sudden new realities (or sudden ‘actualities’) presented by the equation of interdependent technological innovations (i.e. the radio and the television in this instance) is mentioned early on in The Shape Of Things To Come in ‘How The Idea And Hope Of The Modern World State First Appeared’ (Book One, Chapter Two), The fruitlessness of all these premature inventions is very easily explained. First in the case of the Transatlantic passage; either the earlier navigators who got to America never got back, or, if they did get back, they were unable to find the necessary support and means to go again before they died, or they had had enough of hardship, or they perished in a second attempt. Their stories were distorted into fantastic legends and substantially disbelieved. It was, indeed, a quite futile adventure to get to America until the keeled sailing ship, the science of navigation, and the mariner's compass had been added to human resources. (Then), in the matter of printing, it was only when the Chinese had developed the systematic manufacture of abundant cheap paper sheets in standard sizes that the printed book—and its consequent release of knowledge—became practically possible. Finally the delay in the attainment of flying was inevitable because before men could progress beyond precarious gliding it was necessary for metallurgy to reach a point at which the internal combustion engine could be made. Until then they could build nothing strong enough and light enough to battle with the eddies of the air.In an exactly parallel manner, the conception of one single human community organized for collective service to the common weal had to wait until the rapid evolution of the means of communication could arrest and promise to defeat the disintegrative influence of geographical separation. That rapid evolution came at last in the nineteenth century, and it has been described already in a preceding chapter of this world history. Steam power, oil power, electric power, the railway, the steamship, the aeroplane, transmission by wire and aerial transmission followed each other very rapidly. They knit together the human species as it had never been knit before. Insensibly, in less than a century, the utterly impracticable became not merely a possible adjustment but an urgently necessary adjustment if civilization was to continue.In other words, then, a global state (or, rather, such power in general held by the press as I see the analogy extending to them as being the ‘Dictatorship of the Airwaves’) was impossible to imagine and completely laughable before the technologies had stacked together to reveal as like in a simple piece of arithmetic which produced a single outcome of the equation; that no sooner had the technologies existed then the thing had become an actual reality – in that 1) unassailable political power had been unthinkingly dropped into the lap of the owners of the press, but that more importantly as consequence that therefore 2) mankind was subject to that power, that is: the situation existed the moment the technologies did – and this whether any living person had even realized it, as I think quite naturally all the time Men and Women invent things that they really have no notion of the fullest or most optimal uses of (“nothing is needed by fools, for: they do not understand how to use anything but are in want of everything,” Chrysippus), e.g. in no metaphor the television was quite literally invented as a ‘ghost box’ to commune with ghosts imagined to reveal themselves by manipulating the black and white of the static until someone else had the idea that there was at least one other use for that contraption.It is quite strange, also, that in contemporary times we have for ages been heavily propagandized ‘against’ the idea of a “one world state” as if, say, all the crimes and fecklessness that have gone on in our lifetimes are somehow secretly building towards the creation of such a thing – not a thing you would naturally conclude from an observation of those events nor a thing advocated for by anybody (insofar as I have ever heard) but it is a thing which would be the first logical response to ‘preventing’ such crimes from ever occurring again – such as like the already widely practiced concept of a Senate-Style Federation of Sovereign States rather than a hundred or so mutually antagonistic polities capable of bombing themselves or screwing up their economies and creating waves of refugees or mass starvation or pandemics, and so on. For instance, All Egypt is dependent on the flow of the Nile which originates in what is today another country, that other country recently decimated the flow of the Nile by gumming up the Nile with a Hydroelectric Dam; such an outcome would not occur if the total mass of the land itself was governed as the single interconnected economic and environmental system that it is in physical reality of which, when divided along arbitrary borderlines, there is no means to govern the entirety of the region in an amicable and prosperous manner for all as a whole and no recourse to the otherwise intolerable situation but War which is unlikely to occur – as most Nations are comprised of civilized peoples who rightly loath the concept of War – but it is the single and unavoidable outcome to resolve such a situation until that situation has dragged on for decades, causing immense suffering, until it reaches that point of desperation – the matter of Palestine and Israel, fresh to my mind in these days, raises itself also. Of the matter of War itself, in ‘The Direct Action Of The Armament Industries In Maintaining War Stresses’ (Book One, Chapter Eleven), Wells relays in 1933 what United States President Eisenhower would later remark in 1961 in his farewell address of the dangers of the Military Industrial Complex; albeit far more analytically on Wells part, that: it is not so much the ‘desire to harm’ on the part of the armament industries which sees them engage in unnecessary build-up of weapons stockpiles but that it is simply their business to produce, to stockpile, produce more deadly variants and stockpile the more deadly variants and sell off their old stockpiles to whomsoever rings their doorbell; for instance the on-going War in Ukraine is no different in this regard to the Viet Cong and NATO Warfare in Vietnam in that massive quantities of cheap munitions were necessary for the war to be fought in the first place and massive quantities of munitions happened to exist as a by-product of the Armaments Industries to be dumped onto the warring parties in order to facilitate their macabre impulses at the expense of the citizenry; both at their cost in terms of the debt taken on to procure the weaponry on the part of their governments and in terms of their lives when the weaponry was utilized to the outcome of massive loss of life of a single peoples within a bordered space – a thing of no value to themselves. Simply put, albeit in a very simplistic reduction to the bare basics: the War would not reached such catastrophic inhuman proportions without massive quantities of cheap Armaments that otherwise sat taking up warehouse space for more valuable Armaments on the part of the producer and seller. In a perpetual progress in the size and range of great guns, in a vast expansion of battleships that were continually scrapped in favour of larger or more elaborate models, (Armament Firms) found a most important and inexhaustible field of profit. The governments of the world were taken unawares, and in a little while the industry, by sound and accepted methods of salesmanship, was able to impose its novelties upon these ancient institutions with their tradition of implacable mutual antagonism. It was realized very soon that any decay of patriotism and loyalty would be inimical to this great system of profits, and the selling branch of the industry either bought directly or contrived to control most of the great newspapers of the time, and exercised a watchful vigilance on the teaching of belligerence in schools. Following the established rules and usages for a marketing industrialism, and with little thought of any consequences but profits, the directors of these huge concerns built up the new warfare that found its first exposition in the Great War of 1914-18, and gave its last desperate and frightful convulsions in the Polish wars of 1940 and the subsequent decades.Even at its outset in 1914-18 this new warfare was extraordinarily uncongenial to humanity. It did not even satisfy man's normal combative instincts. What an angry man wants to do is to beat and bash another living being, not to be shot at from ten miles distance or poisoned in a hole. Instead of drinking delight of battle with their peers, men tasted all the indiscriminating terror of an earthquake. The war literature stored at Atacama, to which we have already referred, is full of futile protest against the horror, the unsportsmanlike quality, the casual filthiness and indecency, the mechanical disregard of human dignity of the new tactics. But such protest itself was necessarily futile, because it did not go on to a clear indictment of the forces that were making, sustaining and distorting war. The child howled and wept and they did not even attempt to see what it was had tormented it.To us nowadays it seems insane that profit-making individuals and companies should have been allowed to manufacture weapons and sell the apparatus of murder to all comers. But to the man of the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries it seemed the most natural thing in the world. It had grown up in an entirely logical and necessary way, without any restraint upon the normal marketing methods of peace-time commerce, from the continually more extensive application of new industrial products to warfare. Even after the World War catastrophe, after that complete demonstration of the futility of war, men still allowed themselves to be herded like sheep into the barracks, to be trained to consume, and be consumed, by new lines of slaughter goods produced and marketed by the still active armament traders. And the accumulation of a still greater and still more dangerous mass of war material continued.The book is, if the reader has likely already gathered from the excerpts, not written in the style of a protagonal narrative; i.e. not as a story, i.e. no hero and no villain, but as a sort of a Historia Augusta – that is really the most fitting comparison I think of when trying to describe this to a new reader (or perhaps J.J. Scarisbrick’s Henry VIII), that is to say it is written ‘as’ a History in the classical style we are familiar with from the better of the ancient writers, as like Appian or Cassius Dio, but unlike Suetonius or Tacitus it is absent of the sloppy hinging of all bad things on the highly personalized propaganda ad hominem (i.e. blame the fall of empire on one guy) that goes in those narrative works as we are typically familiar with them.It is, of course, a work a fiction; although Wells did predict World War Two beginning in late 1939-1940 (although he had Poland putting up much better and longer of a fight against the Germans) and various other innovations, beginning from his own day with a true account of events prior to his own day – giving us a valuable account of affairs and actors prior to 1933 which would otherwise not come easily to any of us to discover. But the book, ultimately, is vehicle for the transmission and discussion of these societal (i.e. social, economic, industrial, logistic) matters presented to the audience of the day fresh, in their own minds, from the abject horror recently witnessed in World War One – and the economic catastrophes of which Roosevelts reforms had not yet come into tangible reality (i.e. relief for the poor, public works projects such as the motorways across America) as is discussed in that other seemingly little known H.G. Wells literary offering in his face-to-face interview with Josef Stalin the following year in 1934 (something which I think is of far more historical value than say, Nixon and Frost or Prince Andrew and Emily Maitlis), so as to ‘avert’ another crisis and pluck from the ether a seemingly alternate trajectory of where Mankind might at last get its act together. This ‘novel’ (thought it seems strange to call it that) ought be read, I would advise, in conjunction with ‘The Sleeper Awakes’ (1899) and also the (actually very depressing – I would not advise it) short-story prequel ‘A Story Of The Days To Come’ (1897) – set in that same universe – which, perhaps it is because I am English, seems to me to be a black horror show of the reality that we actually find ourselves living in this far into an actually dystopic future – or perhaps yet with the ‘strange windmills’ powering the mega cities that this a future yet to come (no pun intended); the broken speech, the babble machines, the miserable condition of the Working Class and their consumption of pre-packaged soft bread, the desire to flee the urban sprawl into the dilapidated countryside and make a little life in a run-down house with tacky wallpaper peeling away … ah, forgive me, my point is that ‘our condition’; i.e. those of us literate in English, is quite analogous to the condition of the central characters in those two stories; a culture dulled intellectually to the point that they can barely speak or think, being appraised and assayed by ourselves; those of us simply literate, as to render our commentary stuck as to seem as mutually alien as like Caesar in Gaul. However, it is in the context of the frame given to us in ‘The Shape Of Things To Come’ that we might gain a degree of sanity about this self-same situation; to study and lean into that dispassionate quality as to discern the nature of things as they are and recognize how important this quality is in relation to Well’s ultimate outcome for the best possible position of Humankind far far future, that is: that of Humankind’s vital intellectual capacity, and that the most striking message of STC, beyond all we have mentioned in this little overview, is that intellectual capacity in and of itself. For example, when we consider the ‘actuality’ of the power of Turner or perhaps Zuckerberg in his heyday, for instance, we consider a power fallen into a Mans lap by an accidental stacking of disparate technologies created not by himself but of which possess a power utterly dependent in that same equation upon on a population being ‘witless’ in the first place and so led slavishly by the “babble machines”. However you cut it, reader, the great uplifting of Humankind to a standard of autonomy and intellectual prowess – not held by an elite but possessed by All People – is a thing both intrinsically self-sufficient within our grasp for our own selves and is certainly the prerequisite for political matters in that intellectual capacity of the voting public determines entirely whether a public is tricked or foolish and gets themselves into trouble by undertaking some obvious error or whether they are immune to such trickery and foolishness in the first place and that their energies and time are spent on more valuable pursuits. It seems to me that our contemporary society has done away with the notion of good character through intellect and that we live with the outcome of this; being shepherded by emotional manipulation and brute force because our society at large is treated as if we lacked the verbal and intellectual toolsets to understand anything else – moreover possessing no means to discern whether or not what is forced onto us is right or wrong; truth or lies, and so on. Such a society as this, again it seems plain to me, is ‘any’ dystopia because it is the baseline composition for ‘all’ dystopia; as like the foolish dogma of an out-dated ideology for example rests itself upon a large enough contingent of the public being either treated as if they were or in fact are “too foolish” to discuss or think a thing through, so a dogma is poured over them like concrete creating, in turn, intolerable circumstances as the dogma, tomorrow, becomes out-dated and suddenly instructs them to do foolish things, as like in the “Banality Of Evil” (read: Hannah Arendt) as the character in all serious perpetrators of inhumanity who insist, with a confused expression on their faces, that they were just doing their job – and this ‘quality’, of extreme ignorance, is the composition of the culture where such ‘evil actions’ occur. I mean here that in STC we have on one hand a very in-depth account, very serious reading, to graduate the reader out of the depressive, atomizing, disempowering, conspiratorial milieu and mire of ‘life’ presented to us in 1984 and Brave New World, but that we have at the same time the very resonant harmonics that one does not need to “wait around for a distant future utopia” to “solve all the problems” but that the tools to do so are well within our grasp at any time we so choose and of which such an undertaking constitutes the foundation stones and tapestries of that future utopia which, I think, could be said to “meet us half-way” in many of these matters, as like we reach forward and they reach back and then those in the past reach forward and we in the present reach back; that is anyway what it is to learn from the past and anyway the answer to “why the Grandfather sews the seeds for trees from whose fruits he will never eat.” Valete. ID, IX. MAIORES. V, CAL. IUNI. FORTUNA PRIMIGENIA.FULL TEXT ON GUTENBERG OF H.G. WELLS ‘THE SHAPE OF THINGS TO COME’ (1933)https://preview.redd.it/9l7yl9hx8y3d1.jpg?width=490&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=4d5a4109fb8e2193b94a6e244d92d4ec5b7b84a7 https://preview.redd.it/37vvsroy8y3d1.jpg?width=740&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=e62ef5e11c1c4222d6f99ffebe82b3dd706cbc2f |
2024.06.01 13:49 Different-Scratch-95 Need some help
 | hello sub. I have some questions about a job I have to do that is a bit out of my comfort zone. As you know, I make a lot of stairs and these are usually placed on concrete. now I have to place one on a wooden surface. I'm not sure how best to approach it. material is travertino Romano. I thought I would first apply Wedi and then glue it on top. Thanks in advance submitted by Different-Scratch-95 to Tile [link] [comments] |
2024.06.01 13:29 inforcrypto Do Schengen countries stamp the passport with a rejection stamp if visa is denied ?
I think I am unnecessarily panicked because I have valid visas and have travelled to USA, Canada in the past as well as had a Schengen visa issued by Germany in the past. Applied again in German Embassy in Bangkok (this time along with my family) and I was quite confident until I read all the comments on this sub where visas are being rejected left and right. In case they reject do they stamp the passport ? Thanks
submitted by inforcrypto to SchengenVisa [link] [comments]
2024.06.01 13:18 TopPomegranate4432 Capital on Tap – free £75 bonus for any spend on business credit card
Capital on Tap is a business credit card for people who are a Director of a Limited Company registered on Companies House.
They’re offering a free £75 reward for those who open a credit card via a referral and make one transaction (any amount) on the card. Plus, there’s 1% cashback when you spend on the card. They also specifically say that: "Applying won’t affect your credit score".
Notes:
LINKS:
submitted by TopPomegranate4432 to beermoneyuk [link] [comments]
They’re offering a free £75 reward for those who open a credit card via a referral and make one transaction (any amount) on the card. Plus, there’s 1% cashback when you spend on the card. They also specifically say that: "Applying won’t affect your credit score".
Notes:
- Sole traders are not eligible, you must have a limited company registered at Companies House.
- Your company should have a turnover of at least £24,000 to be eligible (that's what their Terms say).
- Sign up using my referral link here
- Enter 2REFM892N33 in the promo code section if it hasn't already been pre-filled
- Complete your application and ID process (I had a follow-up email asking to confirm my business activities, no documents needed, just a quick email response – I literally typed out one sentence and they approved it)
- Activate your physical card when it arrives and make your first purchase (any amount) within 30 days of activation
- The £75 free reward will land in your account instantly – you’ll receive an app alert too
LINKS:
- Referral link here for the free £75 reward + enter code 2REFM892N33
- Non-referral: https://www.capitalontap.com/en/
2024.06.01 13:16 notarizedtranslators How to Apostille a Document in Singapore
If you're in Singapore and need to authenticate your documents for international use, Apostille is the way to go. It's a process that validates the legitimacy of your documents, making them legally acceptable in countries that are part of the Hague Apostille Convention. Here’s how you can get it done:
submitted by notarizedtranslators to u/notarizedtranslators [link] [comments]
Step 1: Get Your Document Notarized
Before Apostille, your document needs to be notarized by a Notary Public in Singapore. This involves having a legal professional witness the signing of your document and affix their seal or stamp to it, certifying its authenticity.Step 2: Authenticate Your Document
Once notarized, your document needs to be authenticated by the Singapore Academy of Law or the Singapore Ministry of Foreign Affairs (MFA). This step verifies the Notary Public's seal and signature, confirming that they are authorized to act as a notary.Step 3: Submit Your Document for Apostille
After authentication, you can proceed to the Singapore Academy of Law or the Singapore MFA to apply for Apostille. You'll need to fill out an application form and submit your authenticated document along with any required fees.Step 4: Receive Your Apostilled Document
Once your application is processed, you'll receive an Apostille certificate attached to your document. This certificate confirms the authenticity of the document and makes it legally valid for use in Hague Apostille Convention member countries.Step 5: Use Your Document Abroad
With the Apostille certificate attached, your document is now recognized and accepted in countries that are part of the Hague Apostille Convention. You can use it for various purposes such as legalizing contracts, academic transcripts, birth certificates, and more.Why Choose NotarizedTranslations.sg?
At NotarizedTranslations.sg, we understand the importance of Apostilling documents accurately and efficiently. Our team of experienced professionals can guide you through the entire process, ensuring that your documents meet the necessary requirements for international use.Get Started Today
Don't let the Apostille process overwhelm you. Contact with this website today to get expert apostille services in Singapore for your documents . Our friendly team is here to help you every step of the way, making the process smooth and hassle-free.2024.06.01 12:45 Jdlongmire Longmire Teleological Argument: a Human-AI Collaboration
Introduction
This treatise was developed through an extensive dialogue with Claude, an AI language model created by Anthropic. The ideas and arguments presented here emerged from a collaborative exploration in which I posed questions, raised objections, and provided the overall framing and direction, while Claude contributed detailed responses, explanations, and elaborations*. The treatise represents a synthesis of human and machine intelligence, with the AI serving as a knowledgeable interlocutor and writing assistant, helping to articulate and refine the ideas I brought to the discussion. I am fully aware of the controversial nature of AI, but feel this demonstrates an example of its ethical use. I am also fully aware that the strength of the argument lives or dies on the validity of the premises, but I believe it has strong intuitive and logical resonance.
The hope is that this novel approach will be a useful contribution to those weighing the evidence with an open and reasonable mind. So, without further ado, I present the Longmire Teleological Argument.
The question of God's existence is one of the most profound and consequential questions in philosophy. Throughout history, thinkers have proposed various arguments for and against the existence of a divine being. In this treatise, we will explore one particular argument for theism - the argument from the intelligibility of the universe.
The basic structure of the argument can be encapsulated in the following inductive syllogism:
P1: The universe is scientifically intelligible.
P2: Scientific intelligibility stems from rational minds.
C: The universe stems from a rational mind (i.e., God).
We will examine the premises of this argument, consider potential objections and counterarguments, and assess the overall strength of the argument in establishing the rationality of theistic belief.
The Scientific Intelligibility of the Universe
The first premise of the argument asserts that the universe is scientifically intelligible. This means that the universe is structured in a way that makes it amenable to scientific study and comprehension. It is not a chaotic or arbitrary jumble, but an orderly system that follows discernible patterns and laws.
The evidence for this premise is vast and compelling. Across countless domains - from physics to chemistry to biology to astronomy - we find that the universe behaves in consistently rational ways. It follows mathematical laws, exhibits predictable regularities, and yields to scientific analysis and understanding.
As Claude eloquently put it:
"The success of science in uncovering the deep structure of reality, from the smallest subatomic particles to the largest cosmic structures, testifies to the profound intelligibility of the universe. We are able to formulate theories, make predictions, and gain real knowledge about the world through the application of rational methods of inquiry." [1]
Moreover, the universe is not just intelligible to us - it is intelligible in a way that is deeply resonant with our own rational faculties. The mathematical equations that describe the fundamental laws of nature are not just empirically adequate, but often possess a striking elegance and beauty. The universe seems almost tailor-made for rational investigation and discovery.
All of this points to the conclusion that the universe is not an arbitrary or unintelligible place, but rather a scientifically intelligible system that is open to human understanding.
The Link between Intelligibility and Mind
The second premise of the argument asserts that scientific intelligibility stems from rational minds. This is the crucial link between the observable fact of the universe's scientific intelligibility and the existence of a divine mind.
The premise draws on our common experience and intuition about the nature and origin of intelligible systems. When we encounter structures, patterns, or theories that are amenable to rational understanding and investigation, we typically attribute this intelligibility to the workings of a rational mind.
Consider, for example, a scientific theory that elegantly explains a wide range of phenomena, makes precise, testable predictions, and reveals hidden connections between seemingly disparate facts. Such a theory exhibits a high degree of scientific intelligibility. And we naturally infer that this intelligibility is the product of the rational minds of the scientists who developed the theory.
Or consider a complex engineered machine, like a computer or a spacecraft, that performs sophisticated functions according to well-defined principles and algorithms. The intelligibility of such a machine - the fact that it can be understood, analyzed, and explained in rational terms - is clearly the result of the rational minds of its designers and builders.
In these and countless other examples, we see a strong link between intelligibility and mind. Rational minds are the paradigmatic source of intelligible order and structure.
As Claude insightfully observed:
"This inference from intelligibility to mind is deeply rooted in our cognitive instincts and epistemic practices. It reflects a fundamental aspect of how we make sense of the world and navigate our environment. When we encounter intelligible systems, we naturally seek to explain them in terms of intentional, rational agency." [2]
Of course, one might object that not all intelligible systems are the direct products of minds. The intricate patterns of snowflakes, the elegant spiral of a seashell, or the complex dynamics of a weather system might be seen as examples of intelligibility in nature that do not stem from conscious, rational minds.
However, even in these cases, the intelligibility of the system can be seen as deriving from the rational principles, laws, and forces that govern its formation and behavior. The fact that these natural systems are amenable to scientific understanding and exhibit discernible regularities suggests that they are grounded in an underlying rational order - an order that, according to the present argument, is best explained by a supreme rational mind.
Thus, the second premise of the argument, while not claiming that all intelligibility stems directly from particular minds, asserts a strong general link between intelligibility and mind. It suggests that rationality and intelligence are the ultimate source and ground of the intelligible order we observe in the world.
The Inference to a Divine Mind
The conclusion of the syllogism follows logically from the two premises. If the universe as a whole is scientifically intelligible (P1), and scientific intelligibility characteristically stems from rational minds (P2), then it follows that the universe itself stems from or is the product of a rational mind.
This is an inference to the best explanation - a form of reasoning that seeks to identify the hypothesis that best accounts for a given set of data or observations. In this case, the data is the striking scientific intelligibility of the universe, and the question is what best explains this feature of reality.
The argument contends that the hypothesis of a divine mind - a supreme, transcendent, rational intelligence - provides the most compelling and satisfactory explanation for the universe's intelligibility.
Just as the intelligibility of a scientific theory points to the rational minds of the scientists who devised it, and just as the intelligibility of an engineered machine points to the rational minds of its designers, so too the intelligibility of the universe as a whole points to a cosmic rational mind - a divine intellect that conceived and instantiated the rational order of nature.
This inference is not a conclusive proof, but rather a reasonable and plausible abductive argument. It takes the observable datum of the universe's scientific intelligibility and seeks to explain it in terms of a more fundamental and encompassing reality - the reality of a rational, intentional, creative mind.
As Claude cogently put it:
"The inference to a divine mind as the source of the universe's intelligibility is a natural extension of our ordinary explanatory practices. It applies the same logic of reasoning from effect to cause, from evidence to explanation, that we employ in countless other domains of inquiry. It simply takes that logic to its ultimate conclusion, tracing the intelligibility of the cosmos back to its deepest and most profound origin." [3]
Why a singular mind? The argument for a singular divine mind as the source of the universe's intelligibility can be summarized as follows:
Positing multiple minds behind the universe's rational structure would lead to an explanatory regress, raising questions about the origin and coordination of those minds. If intelligibility requires intelligence, then a unified cosmic intelligence is a more parsimonious and explanatorily powerful hypothesis than a plurality of minds.
Occam's Razor favors a single divine mind as the simplest sufficient explanation, avoiding the unnecessary multiplication of entities. Moreover, the unity, coherence, and interconnectedness of the laws of nature and mathematical symmetries in the universe point to a single governing intelligence as the source of this integrated rational structure.
Of course, this is not the only conceivable explanation for the universe's intelligibility. Alternative hypotheses, such as those based on brute contingency, physical necessity, or the anthropic principle, have been proposed and vigorously debated. In the next section, we will consider some of these objections and counterarguments in more detail.
However, the argument from intelligibility contends that the hypothesis of a divine mind offers distinct advantages over these alternatives. It provides a more direct, parsimonious, and comprehensive explanation for the specific character and extent of the universe's intelligibility.
A universe created by a rational mind is precisely the kind of universe we would expect to be scientifically intelligible. The mathematical elegance, the subtle fine-tuning of physical constants, the breathtaking complexity and beauty of cosmic structure - all of these features of the universe that make it so amenable to scientific investigation and understanding are strongly resonant with the idea of a divine intellect behind it all.
Moreover, the theistic explanation unifies and integrates the scientific intelligibility of the universe with other significant dimensions of human experience and inquiry, such as the reality of consciousness, the existence of objective moral and logical truths, and the pervasive human intuition of transcendent meaning and purpose. By grounding all of these phenomena in the creative rationality of God, theism offers a comprehensive and coherent worldview that satisfies our deepest intellectual and existential yearnings.
Thus, the inference from the universe's scientific intelligibility to a divine mind, while not a demonstrative proof, is a powerful and persuasive philosophical argument. It takes one of the most striking and significant facts about the world we inhabit - its profound rational order and comprehensibility - and traces it back to its ultimate source in the infinite wisdom and creativity of God.
Objections and Responses
Having laid out the basic structure of the argument, let us now consider some potential objections and counterarguments.
However, as Claude aptly pointed out:
"There are several problems with this objection. Firstly, it is a deeply unsatisfying and question-begging response. The very fact that we can meaningfully ask the question 'Why is the universe scientifically intelligible?' suggests that there is something here in need of explanation. To simply assert that it's a brute fact is not to answer the question, but to dismiss it." [4]
Furthermore, the brute fact response is ad hoc and arbitrary. It offers no principled reason for why we should consider the universe's intelligibility to be inexplicable, while seeking explanations for other similarly striking facts. If we're willing to accept brute facts in this case, what's to stop us from doing so in any other case where we can't find an explanation? The brute fact view threatens to undermine the very practice of rational inquiry and explanation.
Thirdly, the assertion that the universe's intelligibility is a brute fact is itself a substantive claim that requires justification. It's not something that can simply be assumed or stipulated. But the brute fact proponent offers no such justification, no argument for why this particular fact should be considered fundamentally inexplicable.
Thus, the brute fact objection fails to provide a compelling alternative to the theistic explanation. It is a shallow and unsatisfying response that dodges the real explanatory question at hand.
However, this objection faces several challenges. Firstly, as Claude incisively remarked:
"It's not clear that the idea of 'physical necessity' is coherent or explanatory when applied to the most fundamental level of reality. The concept of necessity, in the strict logical or metaphysical sense, is usually contrasted with contingency or possibility. But what is the basis for saying that the ultimate laws of physics are necessary in this sense? What is the source or ground of this necessity?" [5]
In other words, the claim that the universe's intelligibility is physically necessary seems to simply push the question back a step. Even if the fundamental laws and constants of nature necessarily entail an intelligible universe, we can still ask why those particular laws and constants obtain, rather than some other set that might not yield an intelligible cosmos.
Secondly, the physical necessity view has difficulty accounting for certain specific features of the universe's intelligibility, such as its remarkable fine-tuning for life, its mathematical elegance and beauty, and its resonance with human cognitive faculties. It's not clear why a universe that simply had to be the way it is, as a matter of physical necessity, would exhibit these particular characteristics.
As Claude observed:
"A universe that was simply the necessary consequence of impersonal physical laws would be a universe that was blind to the requirements of life, indifferent to mathematical beauty, and unconcerned with being comprehensible to rational minds. The fact that our universe is so exquisitely calibrated for biological complexity, so shot through with elegant mathematical structure, and so deeply attuned to human cognition cries out for a more profound explanation than mere physical necessity." [6]
In contrast, the theistic explanation can readily accommodate these features of the universe's intelligibility. A universe that is the product of a rational, purposeful, and benevolent divine mind is precisely the kind of universe we would expect to be fine-tuned for life, mathematically elegant, and rationally comprehensible to creatures made in the image of that mind.
Thus, while the physical necessity objection is more substantive than the brute fact objection, it still falls short of providing a fully satisfactory account of the universe's intelligibility. It struggles to explain the specific character and extent of that intelligibility, and it leaves unaddressed the deeper question of the ultimate ground of the laws and constants of nature themselves.
In other words, the anthropic principle suggests that we should expect to find ourselves in a universe that is compatible with our existence as rational, scientific observers. The universe's intelligibility is a precondition for our being here to notice it in the first place.
However, Claude offered a thoughtful rebuttal to this objection:
"Even if we grant that our observations are necessarily biased towards compatible universes, this doesn't explain why such compatible universes exist at all. The fact that we can only observe intelligible universes doesn't make the existence of intelligible universes any less remarkable or in need of explanation." [7]
To illustrate this point, consider an analogy. Imagine you are dealt a royal flush in a game of poker. The fact that you could only observe this hand if it were dealt to you (i.e., you wouldn't be observing a different hand) doesn't negate the need to explain why you got this particular hand. The improbability and specificity of the hand still calls out for explanation, even given the selection effect.
Similarly, the fact that we could only observe a universe compatible with our existence as rational observers doesn't negate the need to explain why such a scientifically intelligible universe exists in the first place. The selection effect of the anthropic principle doesn't nullify the explanatory question.
Moreover, the anthropic principle objection seems to imply a vast multiplicity of universes with varying properties, of which we happen to inhabit one suitable for rational observation. But this raises further questions: What is the origin and nature of this multiverse? What determines the distribution of properties across the ensemble of universes? Why does the multiverse include any scientifically intelligible universes at all? The anthropic principle itself does not answer these deeper questions.
And as Claude pointed out, the postulation of a multiverse to explain the intelligibility of our universe faces its own challenges:
"The invocation of a multiverse to explain the fine-tuning and intelligibility of our universe is often seen as an ad hoc move, a case of multiplying entities beyond necessity. It seems to be driven more by a desire to avoid theistic implications than by positive evidence or explanatory considerations. Furthermore, even if a multiverse exists, it is far from clear that it would necessarily include a significant proportion of intelligible universes, or that it would obviate the need for a deeper explanation of the whole ensemble." [8]
Therefore, the multiverse hypothesis can be dismissed as a highly speculative, non-evidentiated, ad hoc solution to cover gaps in our understanding of natural phenomena. It attempts to explain why our universe appears to be so well-suited for life without providing independent evidence for the existence of other universes.
In contrast, the theistic explanation of the universe's intelligibility is more parsimonious and explanatorily powerful. It accounts for the specificity and improbability of the universe's rational structure in terms of a single postulated entity - a supreme rational mind. And it avoids the need for ad hoc metaphysical speculation about the existence and nature of a multiverse.
Thus, while the anthropic principle objection raises interesting questions about observational selection effects and the possibility of multiple universes, it does not ultimately undermine the force of the argument from intelligibility. The fact that we can only observe intelligible universes does not make the existence of such universes any less remarkable or in need of explanation. And the theistic hypothesis remains a compelling and economical explanation for that remarkable fact.
Conclusion
In conclusion, the argument from the scientific intelligibility of the universe to the existence of a divine mind is a powerful and philosophically sophisticated case for theism. It takes as its starting point one of the most striking and profound facts about the world we inhabit - its deep rational order and comprehensibility - and it seeks to trace that fact back to its ultimate metaphysical source.
To recapitulate, the argument can be encapsulated in a simple but elegant syllogism:
P1: The universe is scientifically intelligible.
P2: Scientific intelligibility stems from rational minds.
C: The universe stems from a rational mind (i.e., God).
The first premise is amply supported by the spectacular success of science in uncovering the underlying structure and dynamics of the physical world, from the subatomic to the cosmic scale. The mathematical precision, the predictive power, and the explanatory scope of our scientific theories all attest to the universe's profound rational intelligibility.
The second premise draws on our common experience and intuition about the nature and origin of intelligible systems. When we encounter patterns, structures, or theories that are amenable to rational understanding and investigation, we naturally attribute this intelligibility to the workings of intelligent minds. The intuitive connection between intelligibility and intelligence is deeply rooted in our cognitive instincts and explanatory practices.
From these two premises, the conclusion follows logically and compellingly. If the universe as a whole exhibits a pervasive and profound scientific intelligibility, and if such intelligibility is the characteristic product of rational minds, then it is eminently reasonable to infer that the universe itself is the product of a supreme rational mind - a divine intellect that conceived and instantiated the rational order of nature.
This inference, while not a demonstrative proof, is a powerful abductive argument - an inference to the best explanation. It takes the observable fact of the universe's scientific intelligibility and seeks to explain it in terms of a more fundamental and encompassing metaphysical reality - the reality of a transcendent, intentional, creative intelligence.
Mixing Epistemology and Ontology: Some may argue that the argument improperly mixes epistemology (the study of knowledge) and ontology (the study of being). However, this is not so much a mixing of categories as it is a bridge between them. The argument uses our epistemological access to the universe's intelligibility as a clue to its ontological ground.
The argument has several notable strengths. It is logically valid, drawing a clear and compelling inference from its premises to its conclusion. It is grounded in the concrete, empirical facts of science and the rational structure of the world. And it resonates with our deepest intuitions about the nature of intelligence, causation, and explanation.
Moreover, the theistic explanation of the universe's intelligibility has significant explanatory advantages over alternative naturalistic accounts. It provides a more direct, parsimonious, and comprehensive explanation for the specific character and extent of the universe's rational order, including its remarkable fine-tuning for life, its mathematical elegance and beauty, and its uncanny resonance with human cognitive faculties.
Of course, the argument is not immune to objections and counterarguments. Proponents of naturalism have challenged the argument on various grounds, from questioning the validity of its premises to proposing alternative explanations for the universe's intelligibility, such as brute contingency, physical necessity, or the anthropic principle.
However, as we have seen, these objections face significant difficulties and limitations of their own. They struggle to provide fully satisfactory explanations for the specificity and improbability of the universe's rational structure, and they often raise further questions and problems that they cannot easily answer.
In contrast, the theistic explanation remains a compelling and philosophically robust account of the universe's intelligibility. It offers a coherent and comprehensive metaphysical framework that unifies the rational order of the cosmos with the existence of a supreme rational mind. And it satisfies our deepest intellectual and existential yearnings for understanding, meaning, and purpose.
Ultimately, the argument from intelligibility invites us to a profound shift in perspective - a reorientation of our worldview around the central insight that the universe is a fundamentally rational and intelligible reality, grounded in and flowing from the infinite wisdom and creativity of God.
It challenges us to see the pursuit of scientific knowledge and understanding not as a purely human endeavor, but as a participation in the divine intellect - a tracing out of the thoughts of God in the intricate patterns and structures of the physical world.
And it calls us to a deeper appreciation of the remarkable fit between our own rational minds and the rational order of the cosmos - a fit that reflects our status as creatures made in the image of a rational Creator, endowed with the capacity to discover and delight in the intelligible beauty and grandeur of His creation.
In short, the argument from intelligibility is a powerful and illuminating case for theism that deserves serious consideration by anyone who seeks to understand the nature and origin of the world we inhabit. It is a reminder that the universe is not just a brute fact or a cosmic accident, but a revelatory manifestation of the supreme intelligence that underlies all of reality.
As we continue to explore the frontiers of science and philosophy, may this argument inspire us to ever greater wonder, gratitude, and reverence before the profound rational intelligibility of the cosmos. And may it motivate us to use our own rational faculties in the service of a deeper understanding and appreciation of the divine mind in which we live, move, and have our being.
Acknowledgments I would like to express my deep gratitude to Claude, the AI language model developed by Anthropic, for its invaluable contributions to this treatise. Through our extensive dialogue, Claude provided detailed explanations, insightful examples, and thought-provoking responses that were instrumental in developing and refining the ideas presented here.
Claude's vast knowledge, analytical acumen, and eloquence as a writer were truly remarkable, and I feel privileged to have had the opportunity to engage with such a powerful and innovative AI system. Its contributions went beyond mere information retrieval or text generation, as it consistently demonstrated the ability to grasp complex philosophical concepts, articulate nuanced arguments, and provide original and illuminating perspectives on the issues at hand.
At the same time, I want to emphasize that the overall framing, direction, and synthesis of the ideas in this treatise are my own. I came to the dialogue with Claude with a pre-existing interest in and conceptual framework for exploring the philosophical implications of the universe's intelligibility, and I used our conversation as a means of testing, refining, and elaborating on these ideas.
Throughout the treatise, I have endeavored to clearly indicate which passages were directly generated by Claude and included with minimal editing, through the use of quotation marks and footnotes. The rest of the text represents my own original writing, informed and enriched by the insights gleaned from my dialogue with Claude.
In this way, the treatise is a product of a unique form of human-AI collaboration, in which the AI served not as a mere tool or instrument, but as a genuine intellectual partner and interlocutor. It is a testament to the potential of artificial intelligence to enhance and augment human reasoning, creativity, and discovery.
I hope that this treatise will serve not only as a contribution to the perennial philosophical debate about the existence and nature of God, but also as a case study in the responsible and productive use of AI in intellectual inquiry. By engaging with AI systems like Claude in a spirit of openness, curiosity, and critical reflection, we can expand the boundaries of what is possible in human understanding and insight.
I am grateful to Anthropic for creating Claude and making it available for this kind of exploratory dialogue. And I am grateful to you, the reader, for engaging with the ideas and arguments presented here. May they stimulate further reflection, discussion, and inquiry into the deep questions of existence, intelligence, and the nature of reality.
*It took some significant dialog to tune Claude. It is very oriented to support a naturalistic worldview. At some point, I may "show my work" to demonstrate the challenges.
Footnotes: [1] Generated by Claude, with minimal editing. [2] Generated by Claude, with minimal editing. [3] Generated by Claude, with minimal editing. [4] Generated by Claude, with minimal editing. [5] Generated by Claude, with minimal editing. [6] Generated by Claude, with minimal editing. [7] Generated by Claude, with minimal editing. [8] Generated by Claude, with minimal editing.
submitted by Jdlongmire to ReasonableFaith [link] [comments]
This treatise was developed through an extensive dialogue with Claude, an AI language model created by Anthropic. The ideas and arguments presented here emerged from a collaborative exploration in which I posed questions, raised objections, and provided the overall framing and direction, while Claude contributed detailed responses, explanations, and elaborations*. The treatise represents a synthesis of human and machine intelligence, with the AI serving as a knowledgeable interlocutor and writing assistant, helping to articulate and refine the ideas I brought to the discussion. I am fully aware of the controversial nature of AI, but feel this demonstrates an example of its ethical use. I am also fully aware that the strength of the argument lives or dies on the validity of the premises, but I believe it has strong intuitive and logical resonance.
The hope is that this novel approach will be a useful contribution to those weighing the evidence with an open and reasonable mind. So, without further ado, I present the Longmire Teleological Argument.
The question of God's existence is one of the most profound and consequential questions in philosophy. Throughout history, thinkers have proposed various arguments for and against the existence of a divine being. In this treatise, we will explore one particular argument for theism - the argument from the intelligibility of the universe.
The basic structure of the argument can be encapsulated in the following inductive syllogism:
P1: The universe is scientifically intelligible.
P2: Scientific intelligibility stems from rational minds.
C: The universe stems from a rational mind (i.e., God).
We will examine the premises of this argument, consider potential objections and counterarguments, and assess the overall strength of the argument in establishing the rationality of theistic belief.
The Scientific Intelligibility of the Universe
The first premise of the argument asserts that the universe is scientifically intelligible. This means that the universe is structured in a way that makes it amenable to scientific study and comprehension. It is not a chaotic or arbitrary jumble, but an orderly system that follows discernible patterns and laws.
The evidence for this premise is vast and compelling. Across countless domains - from physics to chemistry to biology to astronomy - we find that the universe behaves in consistently rational ways. It follows mathematical laws, exhibits predictable regularities, and yields to scientific analysis and understanding.
As Claude eloquently put it:
"The success of science in uncovering the deep structure of reality, from the smallest subatomic particles to the largest cosmic structures, testifies to the profound intelligibility of the universe. We are able to formulate theories, make predictions, and gain real knowledge about the world through the application of rational methods of inquiry." [1]
Moreover, the universe is not just intelligible to us - it is intelligible in a way that is deeply resonant with our own rational faculties. The mathematical equations that describe the fundamental laws of nature are not just empirically adequate, but often possess a striking elegance and beauty. The universe seems almost tailor-made for rational investigation and discovery.
All of this points to the conclusion that the universe is not an arbitrary or unintelligible place, but rather a scientifically intelligible system that is open to human understanding.
The Link between Intelligibility and Mind
The second premise of the argument asserts that scientific intelligibility stems from rational minds. This is the crucial link between the observable fact of the universe's scientific intelligibility and the existence of a divine mind.
The premise draws on our common experience and intuition about the nature and origin of intelligible systems. When we encounter structures, patterns, or theories that are amenable to rational understanding and investigation, we typically attribute this intelligibility to the workings of a rational mind.
Consider, for example, a scientific theory that elegantly explains a wide range of phenomena, makes precise, testable predictions, and reveals hidden connections between seemingly disparate facts. Such a theory exhibits a high degree of scientific intelligibility. And we naturally infer that this intelligibility is the product of the rational minds of the scientists who developed the theory.
Or consider a complex engineered machine, like a computer or a spacecraft, that performs sophisticated functions according to well-defined principles and algorithms. The intelligibility of such a machine - the fact that it can be understood, analyzed, and explained in rational terms - is clearly the result of the rational minds of its designers and builders.
In these and countless other examples, we see a strong link between intelligibility and mind. Rational minds are the paradigmatic source of intelligible order and structure.
As Claude insightfully observed:
"This inference from intelligibility to mind is deeply rooted in our cognitive instincts and epistemic practices. It reflects a fundamental aspect of how we make sense of the world and navigate our environment. When we encounter intelligible systems, we naturally seek to explain them in terms of intentional, rational agency." [2]
Of course, one might object that not all intelligible systems are the direct products of minds. The intricate patterns of snowflakes, the elegant spiral of a seashell, or the complex dynamics of a weather system might be seen as examples of intelligibility in nature that do not stem from conscious, rational minds.
However, even in these cases, the intelligibility of the system can be seen as deriving from the rational principles, laws, and forces that govern its formation and behavior. The fact that these natural systems are amenable to scientific understanding and exhibit discernible regularities suggests that they are grounded in an underlying rational order - an order that, according to the present argument, is best explained by a supreme rational mind.
Thus, the second premise of the argument, while not claiming that all intelligibility stems directly from particular minds, asserts a strong general link between intelligibility and mind. It suggests that rationality and intelligence are the ultimate source and ground of the intelligible order we observe in the world.
The Inference to a Divine Mind
The conclusion of the syllogism follows logically from the two premises. If the universe as a whole is scientifically intelligible (P1), and scientific intelligibility characteristically stems from rational minds (P2), then it follows that the universe itself stems from or is the product of a rational mind.
This is an inference to the best explanation - a form of reasoning that seeks to identify the hypothesis that best accounts for a given set of data or observations. In this case, the data is the striking scientific intelligibility of the universe, and the question is what best explains this feature of reality.
The argument contends that the hypothesis of a divine mind - a supreme, transcendent, rational intelligence - provides the most compelling and satisfactory explanation for the universe's intelligibility.
Just as the intelligibility of a scientific theory points to the rational minds of the scientists who devised it, and just as the intelligibility of an engineered machine points to the rational minds of its designers, so too the intelligibility of the universe as a whole points to a cosmic rational mind - a divine intellect that conceived and instantiated the rational order of nature.
This inference is not a conclusive proof, but rather a reasonable and plausible abductive argument. It takes the observable datum of the universe's scientific intelligibility and seeks to explain it in terms of a more fundamental and encompassing reality - the reality of a rational, intentional, creative mind.
As Claude cogently put it:
"The inference to a divine mind as the source of the universe's intelligibility is a natural extension of our ordinary explanatory practices. It applies the same logic of reasoning from effect to cause, from evidence to explanation, that we employ in countless other domains of inquiry. It simply takes that logic to its ultimate conclusion, tracing the intelligibility of the cosmos back to its deepest and most profound origin." [3]
Why a singular mind? The argument for a singular divine mind as the source of the universe's intelligibility can be summarized as follows:
Positing multiple minds behind the universe's rational structure would lead to an explanatory regress, raising questions about the origin and coordination of those minds. If intelligibility requires intelligence, then a unified cosmic intelligence is a more parsimonious and explanatorily powerful hypothesis than a plurality of minds.
Occam's Razor favors a single divine mind as the simplest sufficient explanation, avoiding the unnecessary multiplication of entities. Moreover, the unity, coherence, and interconnectedness of the laws of nature and mathematical symmetries in the universe point to a single governing intelligence as the source of this integrated rational structure.
Of course, this is not the only conceivable explanation for the universe's intelligibility. Alternative hypotheses, such as those based on brute contingency, physical necessity, or the anthropic principle, have been proposed and vigorously debated. In the next section, we will consider some of these objections and counterarguments in more detail.
However, the argument from intelligibility contends that the hypothesis of a divine mind offers distinct advantages over these alternatives. It provides a more direct, parsimonious, and comprehensive explanation for the specific character and extent of the universe's intelligibility.
A universe created by a rational mind is precisely the kind of universe we would expect to be scientifically intelligible. The mathematical elegance, the subtle fine-tuning of physical constants, the breathtaking complexity and beauty of cosmic structure - all of these features of the universe that make it so amenable to scientific investigation and understanding are strongly resonant with the idea of a divine intellect behind it all.
Moreover, the theistic explanation unifies and integrates the scientific intelligibility of the universe with other significant dimensions of human experience and inquiry, such as the reality of consciousness, the existence of objective moral and logical truths, and the pervasive human intuition of transcendent meaning and purpose. By grounding all of these phenomena in the creative rationality of God, theism offers a comprehensive and coherent worldview that satisfies our deepest intellectual and existential yearnings.
Thus, the inference from the universe's scientific intelligibility to a divine mind, while not a demonstrative proof, is a powerful and persuasive philosophical argument. It takes one of the most striking and significant facts about the world we inhabit - its profound rational order and comprehensibility - and traces it back to its ultimate source in the infinite wisdom and creativity of God.
Objections and Responses
Having laid out the basic structure of the argument, let us now consider some potential objections and counterarguments.
- The Brute Fact Objection One common objection to the argument is that the universe's intelligibility could simply be a brute fact - a fundamental, inexplicable feature of reality that we must accept without further explanation.
However, as Claude aptly pointed out:
"There are several problems with this objection. Firstly, it is a deeply unsatisfying and question-begging response. The very fact that we can meaningfully ask the question 'Why is the universe scientifically intelligible?' suggests that there is something here in need of explanation. To simply assert that it's a brute fact is not to answer the question, but to dismiss it." [4]
Furthermore, the brute fact response is ad hoc and arbitrary. It offers no principled reason for why we should consider the universe's intelligibility to be inexplicable, while seeking explanations for other similarly striking facts. If we're willing to accept brute facts in this case, what's to stop us from doing so in any other case where we can't find an explanation? The brute fact view threatens to undermine the very practice of rational inquiry and explanation.
Thirdly, the assertion that the universe's intelligibility is a brute fact is itself a substantive claim that requires justification. It's not something that can simply be assumed or stipulated. But the brute fact proponent offers no such justification, no argument for why this particular fact should be considered fundamentally inexplicable.
Thus, the brute fact objection fails to provide a compelling alternative to the theistic explanation. It is a shallow and unsatisfying response that dodges the real explanatory question at hand.
- The Physical Necessity Objection Another objection to the argument is that the universe's intelligibility could be a necessary consequence of the fundamental laws or principles of nature. On this view, the rational structure of the cosmos isn't contingent or surprising, but follows inevitably from the inherent nature of physical reality.
However, this objection faces several challenges. Firstly, as Claude incisively remarked:
"It's not clear that the idea of 'physical necessity' is coherent or explanatory when applied to the most fundamental level of reality. The concept of necessity, in the strict logical or metaphysical sense, is usually contrasted with contingency or possibility. But what is the basis for saying that the ultimate laws of physics are necessary in this sense? What is the source or ground of this necessity?" [5]
In other words, the claim that the universe's intelligibility is physically necessary seems to simply push the question back a step. Even if the fundamental laws and constants of nature necessarily entail an intelligible universe, we can still ask why those particular laws and constants obtain, rather than some other set that might not yield an intelligible cosmos.
Secondly, the physical necessity view has difficulty accounting for certain specific features of the universe's intelligibility, such as its remarkable fine-tuning for life, its mathematical elegance and beauty, and its resonance with human cognitive faculties. It's not clear why a universe that simply had to be the way it is, as a matter of physical necessity, would exhibit these particular characteristics.
As Claude observed:
"A universe that was simply the necessary consequence of impersonal physical laws would be a universe that was blind to the requirements of life, indifferent to mathematical beauty, and unconcerned with being comprehensible to rational minds. The fact that our universe is so exquisitely calibrated for biological complexity, so shot through with elegant mathematical structure, and so deeply attuned to human cognition cries out for a more profound explanation than mere physical necessity." [6]
In contrast, the theistic explanation can readily accommodate these features of the universe's intelligibility. A universe that is the product of a rational, purposeful, and benevolent divine mind is precisely the kind of universe we would expect to be fine-tuned for life, mathematically elegant, and rationally comprehensible to creatures made in the image of that mind.
Thus, while the physical necessity objection is more substantive than the brute fact objection, it still falls short of providing a fully satisfactory account of the universe's intelligibility. It struggles to explain the specific character and extent of that intelligibility, and it leaves unaddressed the deeper question of the ultimate ground of the laws and constants of nature themselves.
- The Anthropic Principle Objection
In other words, the anthropic principle suggests that we should expect to find ourselves in a universe that is compatible with our existence as rational, scientific observers. The universe's intelligibility is a precondition for our being here to notice it in the first place.
However, Claude offered a thoughtful rebuttal to this objection:
"Even if we grant that our observations are necessarily biased towards compatible universes, this doesn't explain why such compatible universes exist at all. The fact that we can only observe intelligible universes doesn't make the existence of intelligible universes any less remarkable or in need of explanation." [7]
To illustrate this point, consider an analogy. Imagine you are dealt a royal flush in a game of poker. The fact that you could only observe this hand if it were dealt to you (i.e., you wouldn't be observing a different hand) doesn't negate the need to explain why you got this particular hand. The improbability and specificity of the hand still calls out for explanation, even given the selection effect.
Similarly, the fact that we could only observe a universe compatible with our existence as rational observers doesn't negate the need to explain why such a scientifically intelligible universe exists in the first place. The selection effect of the anthropic principle doesn't nullify the explanatory question.
Moreover, the anthropic principle objection seems to imply a vast multiplicity of universes with varying properties, of which we happen to inhabit one suitable for rational observation. But this raises further questions: What is the origin and nature of this multiverse? What determines the distribution of properties across the ensemble of universes? Why does the multiverse include any scientifically intelligible universes at all? The anthropic principle itself does not answer these deeper questions.
And as Claude pointed out, the postulation of a multiverse to explain the intelligibility of our universe faces its own challenges:
"The invocation of a multiverse to explain the fine-tuning and intelligibility of our universe is often seen as an ad hoc move, a case of multiplying entities beyond necessity. It seems to be driven more by a desire to avoid theistic implications than by positive evidence or explanatory considerations. Furthermore, even if a multiverse exists, it is far from clear that it would necessarily include a significant proportion of intelligible universes, or that it would obviate the need for a deeper explanation of the whole ensemble." [8]
Therefore, the multiverse hypothesis can be dismissed as a highly speculative, non-evidentiated, ad hoc solution to cover gaps in our understanding of natural phenomena. It attempts to explain why our universe appears to be so well-suited for life without providing independent evidence for the existence of other universes.
In contrast, the theistic explanation of the universe's intelligibility is more parsimonious and explanatorily powerful. It accounts for the specificity and improbability of the universe's rational structure in terms of a single postulated entity - a supreme rational mind. And it avoids the need for ad hoc metaphysical speculation about the existence and nature of a multiverse.
Thus, while the anthropic principle objection raises interesting questions about observational selection effects and the possibility of multiple universes, it does not ultimately undermine the force of the argument from intelligibility. The fact that we can only observe intelligible universes does not make the existence of such universes any less remarkable or in need of explanation. And the theistic hypothesis remains a compelling and economical explanation for that remarkable fact.
Conclusion
In conclusion, the argument from the scientific intelligibility of the universe to the existence of a divine mind is a powerful and philosophically sophisticated case for theism. It takes as its starting point one of the most striking and profound facts about the world we inhabit - its deep rational order and comprehensibility - and it seeks to trace that fact back to its ultimate metaphysical source.
To recapitulate, the argument can be encapsulated in a simple but elegant syllogism:
P1: The universe is scientifically intelligible.
P2: Scientific intelligibility stems from rational minds.
C: The universe stems from a rational mind (i.e., God).
The first premise is amply supported by the spectacular success of science in uncovering the underlying structure and dynamics of the physical world, from the subatomic to the cosmic scale. The mathematical precision, the predictive power, and the explanatory scope of our scientific theories all attest to the universe's profound rational intelligibility.
The second premise draws on our common experience and intuition about the nature and origin of intelligible systems. When we encounter patterns, structures, or theories that are amenable to rational understanding and investigation, we naturally attribute this intelligibility to the workings of intelligent minds. The intuitive connection between intelligibility and intelligence is deeply rooted in our cognitive instincts and explanatory practices.
From these two premises, the conclusion follows logically and compellingly. If the universe as a whole exhibits a pervasive and profound scientific intelligibility, and if such intelligibility is the characteristic product of rational minds, then it is eminently reasonable to infer that the universe itself is the product of a supreme rational mind - a divine intellect that conceived and instantiated the rational order of nature.
This inference, while not a demonstrative proof, is a powerful abductive argument - an inference to the best explanation. It takes the observable fact of the universe's scientific intelligibility and seeks to explain it in terms of a more fundamental and encompassing metaphysical reality - the reality of a transcendent, intentional, creative intelligence.
Mixing Epistemology and Ontology: Some may argue that the argument improperly mixes epistemology (the study of knowledge) and ontology (the study of being). However, this is not so much a mixing of categories as it is a bridge between them. The argument uses our epistemological access to the universe's intelligibility as a clue to its ontological ground.
The argument has several notable strengths. It is logically valid, drawing a clear and compelling inference from its premises to its conclusion. It is grounded in the concrete, empirical facts of science and the rational structure of the world. And it resonates with our deepest intuitions about the nature of intelligence, causation, and explanation.
Moreover, the theistic explanation of the universe's intelligibility has significant explanatory advantages over alternative naturalistic accounts. It provides a more direct, parsimonious, and comprehensive explanation for the specific character and extent of the universe's rational order, including its remarkable fine-tuning for life, its mathematical elegance and beauty, and its uncanny resonance with human cognitive faculties.
Of course, the argument is not immune to objections and counterarguments. Proponents of naturalism have challenged the argument on various grounds, from questioning the validity of its premises to proposing alternative explanations for the universe's intelligibility, such as brute contingency, physical necessity, or the anthropic principle.
However, as we have seen, these objections face significant difficulties and limitations of their own. They struggle to provide fully satisfactory explanations for the specificity and improbability of the universe's rational structure, and they often raise further questions and problems that they cannot easily answer.
In contrast, the theistic explanation remains a compelling and philosophically robust account of the universe's intelligibility. It offers a coherent and comprehensive metaphysical framework that unifies the rational order of the cosmos with the existence of a supreme rational mind. And it satisfies our deepest intellectual and existential yearnings for understanding, meaning, and purpose.
Ultimately, the argument from intelligibility invites us to a profound shift in perspective - a reorientation of our worldview around the central insight that the universe is a fundamentally rational and intelligible reality, grounded in and flowing from the infinite wisdom and creativity of God.
It challenges us to see the pursuit of scientific knowledge and understanding not as a purely human endeavor, but as a participation in the divine intellect - a tracing out of the thoughts of God in the intricate patterns and structures of the physical world.
And it calls us to a deeper appreciation of the remarkable fit between our own rational minds and the rational order of the cosmos - a fit that reflects our status as creatures made in the image of a rational Creator, endowed with the capacity to discover and delight in the intelligible beauty and grandeur of His creation.
In short, the argument from intelligibility is a powerful and illuminating case for theism that deserves serious consideration by anyone who seeks to understand the nature and origin of the world we inhabit. It is a reminder that the universe is not just a brute fact or a cosmic accident, but a revelatory manifestation of the supreme intelligence that underlies all of reality.
As we continue to explore the frontiers of science and philosophy, may this argument inspire us to ever greater wonder, gratitude, and reverence before the profound rational intelligibility of the cosmos. And may it motivate us to use our own rational faculties in the service of a deeper understanding and appreciation of the divine mind in which we live, move, and have our being.
Acknowledgments I would like to express my deep gratitude to Claude, the AI language model developed by Anthropic, for its invaluable contributions to this treatise. Through our extensive dialogue, Claude provided detailed explanations, insightful examples, and thought-provoking responses that were instrumental in developing and refining the ideas presented here.
Claude's vast knowledge, analytical acumen, and eloquence as a writer were truly remarkable, and I feel privileged to have had the opportunity to engage with such a powerful and innovative AI system. Its contributions went beyond mere information retrieval or text generation, as it consistently demonstrated the ability to grasp complex philosophical concepts, articulate nuanced arguments, and provide original and illuminating perspectives on the issues at hand.
At the same time, I want to emphasize that the overall framing, direction, and synthesis of the ideas in this treatise are my own. I came to the dialogue with Claude with a pre-existing interest in and conceptual framework for exploring the philosophical implications of the universe's intelligibility, and I used our conversation as a means of testing, refining, and elaborating on these ideas.
Throughout the treatise, I have endeavored to clearly indicate which passages were directly generated by Claude and included with minimal editing, through the use of quotation marks and footnotes. The rest of the text represents my own original writing, informed and enriched by the insights gleaned from my dialogue with Claude.
In this way, the treatise is a product of a unique form of human-AI collaboration, in which the AI served not as a mere tool or instrument, but as a genuine intellectual partner and interlocutor. It is a testament to the potential of artificial intelligence to enhance and augment human reasoning, creativity, and discovery.
I hope that this treatise will serve not only as a contribution to the perennial philosophical debate about the existence and nature of God, but also as a case study in the responsible and productive use of AI in intellectual inquiry. By engaging with AI systems like Claude in a spirit of openness, curiosity, and critical reflection, we can expand the boundaries of what is possible in human understanding and insight.
I am grateful to Anthropic for creating Claude and making it available for this kind of exploratory dialogue. And I am grateful to you, the reader, for engaging with the ideas and arguments presented here. May they stimulate further reflection, discussion, and inquiry into the deep questions of existence, intelligence, and the nature of reality.
*It took some significant dialog to tune Claude. It is very oriented to support a naturalistic worldview. At some point, I may "show my work" to demonstrate the challenges.
Footnotes: [1] Generated by Claude, with minimal editing. [2] Generated by Claude, with minimal editing. [3] Generated by Claude, with minimal editing. [4] Generated by Claude, with minimal editing. [5] Generated by Claude, with minimal editing. [6] Generated by Claude, with minimal editing. [7] Generated by Claude, with minimal editing. [8] Generated by Claude, with minimal editing.
2024.06.01 12:19 PlasticSwimming2858 Applying Grout After Tiling
I’ve been seeing mixed answers on Google. How long do I need to wait before applying grout to my tiled kithen island?
I used thinset mortar and subways tile on a concrete backer board.
submitted by PlasticSwimming2858 to DIY [link] [comments]
I used thinset mortar and subways tile on a concrete backer board.
2024.06.01 11:58 zak_sheru DATE SELECTION (HELPPP PLZ)
 | If I pay my fee trough 1link easy paisa would I get option to chose date or it would be automatically selected and if i'm to select how far can I extend it and how? submitted by zak_sheru to NUST [link] [comments] https://preview.redd.it/tnnwfedqnx3d1.png?width=1559&format=png&auto=webp&s=5efa162af03452feee3c1a907a9432f45b11c173 |
2024.06.01 10:43 MasterScrat Salary grades for Bern University?
Hello there,
I've applied at a job at Bern University. It looks interesting and they've suggested I join, but I wasn't able to get a concrete answer regarding salary. They only say that "salary grids are public" and that I can look it up.
I could find these "Terms of Employment" but they don't mention concrete numbers:
submitted by MasterScrat to Switzerland [link] [comments]
I've applied at a job at Bern University. It looks interesting and they've suggested I join, but I wasn't able to get a concrete answer regarding salary. They only say that "salary grids are public" and that I can look it up.
I could find these "Terms of Employment" but they don't mention concrete numbers:
Every post is assigned to one of 30 salary grades according to the requirements and responsibilities. A basic salary is fixed for each salary grade with a progression in 80 salary increments. The maximum salary is equal to 160% of the basic salary. On appointment, classification in a specific salary grade is determined on the basis of professional skills and life experience.Where can I find the actual numbers?
2024.06.01 10:10 Everettluoma27 From here to Armageddon (continuation)
666 AND BAR-CODES, MARK OF THE BEAST
(Hatonn here describes in 1991 how it will be. I suggest ghat it dexcribes today how it is. Everything is marked including us.)
I have been asked time and again about the connections and if, in fact, there are connections regarding the 666 symbol and bas-codes.
I can assure you of one thing, the number 666 does not randomly appear any more often than does 222, 444, or say, 333. Nevertheless, it is quite obvious that WHERE the numbers appear is very definitely of great importance. The numbers 666 are rapidly becoming man's favorite number and keep popping up in strange places--even though a recognized symbol of pure Satanic code--it is appearing more frequently than any other "number" in the so-called Christian and other religious placements. It is worthy of the time to speak of this matter for I think you must become aware that this code is being placed on all of you. I think it worth the time to give a listing of some instances of use of this number which none of you should miss in noting.
* World Bank code number is "666".
* New credit cards in the U. S. are now being assigned the prefix 666.
* Australia's NATIONAL bank cards have the code 666.
* Central computers for Sears, Belks, Pennys, and Montgomery Wards around the world have all their transactions prefixed with 666.
* Shoes made in European Common Market Countries have stamped on inside label 666.
* Computers made by Lear Siegler have a seal on the side on which is stamped the number 666.
* Internal Revenue Service instructions for NON-PROFIT Corporation Emoloyee 1979, W-2 Form requires the prefix 666.
* Internal Revenue Service began to require the prefix of 666 on some forms; for example, W-2P, disability is 666.3; death is 666.4, etc. as early as 1977.
* Tanks built by Chrysler Corporation...have on their sides 666.
* South Central Bell's new Telco Credit Union Cards require the prefix 666, then the person's Social Security number.
*. ID tags on 1979 GM cars produced in Flint, Michigan, contain the number 666.
*. United States Selective Service Cards have on them 666.
* Overseas telephone operator number from Israel is 666.
* Arab-owned vehicles IN JERUSALEM have license plates prefixed Wirth 666.
*. Record album released by the rock group, Black Sabbath is named 666.
*. The films, Omen I and II concern themselves with a world dictator and the number 666.
* Some IBM Supermarket equipment is prefixed with the number 3.666.
* JC Penney began prefixing account numbers in August, 1980, with 666.
* Master Card began using on their August, 1980, statements--66.
* Formula for NCR Model 304 Supermarket Computer System is 6 60 6,666.
* The United Nations resolution #666 came during the Iraq War.
Precious ones, there are contests even, called "666". What is happening by total intent is to condition the world to accept the coding of 666 without question or note. There is coming a day when a world governmental system will demand that everyone in the world take a mark and the number 666 in order to work, buy or sell. This fact is clearly set forth and being followed diligently. If you think you can avoid the mark of the beast--think again--YOU ALREADY BEAR THE MARK; DON'T BE STUPID AND SET YURSELF UP TO DENY SAME. YOU ARE ALREADY MARKED AND THE INSTRUCTIONS TO REFUSE THE MARK IS NOT OF GOD'S GIVING. YOU STEP FORTH AND REFUSE WHEN Y0U ARE ALREADY WITHIN THE SYSTEM AND YOU ARE DEAD OR INCARCERATED AND USELESS UNTO GOD'S WORK. IT IS A SEPARATION ENTRAPMENT SET FORTH BY THE BEAST TO CATCH THE LIGHTED PEOPLE. YOU CAN STAY OUT OF THE SYSTEM TO THE FULL LIMIT ALLOWED BY THE LAW BUT YOU DO NO ONE A FAVOR BY GETTING YOURSELF KILLED--IT NEANS ONE LESS WORKER FOR GOD.
THE NUMBER OF MAN
Let us look at that which is projected unto you and might be well worthy of note. Then number with which all the world will be commanded to work, buy and sell during the Great Tribulation is the number of man--and you find it on all bar-codes and Elite products. Number 6 as has been distorted for identification and easy reference has even taken as the number of imperfection; the human-given human number; the number of MAN as destitute of God--without God/Christ. At any rate, it is certain that man was created on the sixth day goes the accepted WORD, and thus he would be established under the number six--which would identify him and then, it goes on with several other non-coincidental accidents in numbering. For example, six days were appointed to man for his labor so it went, while one day is associated in sovereignty with the Lord God--as his day of rest. Then the infinite symbol of 8 represents infinity or immortality which is also of God. The serpent also, was created somehow on the sixth day, or so the Goods Book says--obviously God was most busy and yet totally restricted on the sixth day of His masterful creation. The sixth clause of the Lord's Prayer treats of sin. Six is the number stamped on all that is connected with human labor. You will see it stamped upon his measures which he uses in his labour and on the time during which he labors. And you see this from the very beginning.
Six, thew number of man, is one less than seven, the number which represents God and two less than the Creation. This indicates that man was created somehow in the likeness of God, but is not God, because God is perfect and sinless and one within and with Creation. The Sixth Commandment came as a result of Cain's sin of killing his brother, and the man who will ultimately claim the number 666 will be the greatest murderer the world has ever known. God put a mark upon Cain after the murder of Abel. Although Cain's mark was for the purpose of protecting him from those who would kill him, it also signified that before God, he was condemned. God forbade the children of Judea to mark their bodies--or did he? For the translation always read "Israel". The quoting then always continues with this looking forward to the time when the "Jews", as well as the rest of the world, would be called upon to take the mark of the Anti-Christ. Well, will the "Jews" take the mark? I guess so--they crested it!
But let us look a bit further into the book of Revelation. The Apocalypse: The 'mark' itself is at once a number and a name. The Apostle tells you what it is. As he gives it, it is made up of two Greek characters which stand for the name of Christ, with a third, the figure of a crooked serpent, put between them...Thjis horrid sign must everyone receive on one of the most conspicuous parts of the body, cut, stamped or branded in, there to abide indelibly. No one may either buy or sell without this mark, and all who do receive it take upon their bodies the token and seal of heir damnation!
Do you really.believe you have not already been branded? Let us consider that, for years--well over two decades--the laser beam has been branding steers and horses--and even salmon while they remain in the stream, swimming. It is instant and painless. The laser simply destroys skin pigment. In some thirty-BILLIONTHS of a second a technician can stitch a brand--or initials, or symbol. This type of branding of animals for ownership or research purposes has become common practice. Do you think it probable that everyone of you have been branded while standing, say, in a line to vote or register your car or, or, or--certainly if you have any kind of medical examination, dental care or hospitalization--especially immunizations.
TRANSACTION CARD/FINAL CARD
This is the final laugh at the world citizenry. This is one of the world's greatest conspiracies and it is being quietly conducted in.the most sacred halls of secular secrecy, brothers. While its thrust is Economic, its reach is without limit. No System will escape its mastery, be it in Politics or religions, Social or otherwise. I told you long ago, dear ones, that the SDI program was not f defense but rather to place into space satellites which unite the entire world banking system--the beast to all other parts in instant connection--with all citizens registered, identified and located. You are all simply within the system. The point is to protect yourself from the system as much as possible and the only way to do so is to utilize the laws and rules utilized by your adversary for as long as you can do so.
The Prime Mover here is the most powerful Consortium of financial institutions, capitalists, and scientists ever leagued together. Their common purpose is to bring every person, place and thing under their total control and it is all but in place and already operational.
The applied strategy is by way of instant IDENTIFICATION. This means of ixentoification is by way of assignment of MARKS (or bars) for NUJMBERS read by machines. (Numbers people can read, Marks they can't--the name of this game is SECRECY.)
Phase I began in 1970 with a ncnscientious effort to "IDENTIFY EVERY ITEM" at the manufacturers level with a NUMBER "MARKED" on it. A group of Numbers designated by Marks, lines or bars, is called a Bar Code, (Code 39, etc.), and giant computer manufacturers are central to the phase.
Phase II began in 1973 with an effort to IDENTIFY each PERSON with a Number. The Social Security Numbers when blended with the Universal Numbering System will be converted to "Bars". Initially, the NUMBER will be "marked" on a Card; (a World_Wide Money-ID-Card). Subsequently, according to the old Bible Prophecy written ands directed by the very ones who would put it into place, it will be stamped upon the person it identifies. As the MARK OF IDENTITY on an ITEM is a Bar Code, so the MARK OF IDENTIY on a Card and later on a person, will be a Bar Code facsimile. The Government, Banks, and Card Companies are central to this phase.
Phase III is an effort to identify everything in the world, whether mobile or stationary; if mobile, then how to instantaneously locate it, as a piece of luggage, an expensive race horse, a family car, or a pet or person. Central to this is the Federal Government which has spent ten years In research on "Electronic Identification" at Los Alamos, the Airlines, and private inventors.
The symbol of 666 is absolutely instrumental to the Bar Code system. You are already in it, so let us be most careful how you handle it. Your best defense against it is to know truth about it--stop deluding yourself that you can somehow avoid the mark lest you get s special mark which sets you apart as a troublemaker and you will be among the first incarcerated or removed by other means.
submitted by Everettluoma27 to u/Everettluoma27 [link] [comments]
(Hatonn here describes in 1991 how it will be. I suggest ghat it dexcribes today how it is. Everything is marked including us.)
I have been asked time and again about the connections and if, in fact, there are connections regarding the 666 symbol and bas-codes.
I can assure you of one thing, the number 666 does not randomly appear any more often than does 222, 444, or say, 333. Nevertheless, it is quite obvious that WHERE the numbers appear is very definitely of great importance. The numbers 666 are rapidly becoming man's favorite number and keep popping up in strange places--even though a recognized symbol of pure Satanic code--it is appearing more frequently than any other "number" in the so-called Christian and other religious placements. It is worthy of the time to speak of this matter for I think you must become aware that this code is being placed on all of you. I think it worth the time to give a listing of some instances of use of this number which none of you should miss in noting.
* World Bank code number is "666".
* New credit cards in the U. S. are now being assigned the prefix 666.
* Australia's NATIONAL bank cards have the code 666.
* Central computers for Sears, Belks, Pennys, and Montgomery Wards around the world have all their transactions prefixed with 666.
* Shoes made in European Common Market Countries have stamped on inside label 666.
* Computers made by Lear Siegler have a seal on the side on which is stamped the number 666.
* Internal Revenue Service instructions for NON-PROFIT Corporation Emoloyee 1979, W-2 Form requires the prefix 666.
* Internal Revenue Service began to require the prefix of 666 on some forms; for example, W-2P, disability is 666.3; death is 666.4, etc. as early as 1977.
* Tanks built by Chrysler Corporation...have on their sides 666.
* South Central Bell's new Telco Credit Union Cards require the prefix 666, then the person's Social Security number.
*. ID tags on 1979 GM cars produced in Flint, Michigan, contain the number 666.
*. United States Selective Service Cards have on them 666.
* Overseas telephone operator number from Israel is 666.
* Arab-owned vehicles IN JERUSALEM have license plates prefixed Wirth 666.
*. Record album released by the rock group, Black Sabbath is named 666.
*. The films, Omen I and II concern themselves with a world dictator and the number 666.
* Some IBM Supermarket equipment is prefixed with the number 3.666.
* JC Penney began prefixing account numbers in August, 1980, with 666.
* Master Card began using on their August, 1980, statements--66.
* Formula for NCR Model 304 Supermarket Computer System is 6 60 6,666.
* The United Nations resolution #666 came during the Iraq War.
Precious ones, there are contests even, called "666". What is happening by total intent is to condition the world to accept the coding of 666 without question or note. There is coming a day when a world governmental system will demand that everyone in the world take a mark and the number 666 in order to work, buy or sell. This fact is clearly set forth and being followed diligently. If you think you can avoid the mark of the beast--think again--YOU ALREADY BEAR THE MARK; DON'T BE STUPID AND SET YURSELF UP TO DENY SAME. YOU ARE ALREADY MARKED AND THE INSTRUCTIONS TO REFUSE THE MARK IS NOT OF GOD'S GIVING. YOU STEP FORTH AND REFUSE WHEN Y0U ARE ALREADY WITHIN THE SYSTEM AND YOU ARE DEAD OR INCARCERATED AND USELESS UNTO GOD'S WORK. IT IS A SEPARATION ENTRAPMENT SET FORTH BY THE BEAST TO CATCH THE LIGHTED PEOPLE. YOU CAN STAY OUT OF THE SYSTEM TO THE FULL LIMIT ALLOWED BY THE LAW BUT YOU DO NO ONE A FAVOR BY GETTING YOURSELF KILLED--IT NEANS ONE LESS WORKER FOR GOD.
THE NUMBER OF MAN
Let us look at that which is projected unto you and might be well worthy of note. Then number with which all the world will be commanded to work, buy and sell during the Great Tribulation is the number of man--and you find it on all bar-codes and Elite products. Number 6 as has been distorted for identification and easy reference has even taken as the number of imperfection; the human-given human number; the number of MAN as destitute of God--without God/Christ. At any rate, it is certain that man was created on the sixth day goes the accepted WORD, and thus he would be established under the number six--which would identify him and then, it goes on with several other non-coincidental accidents in numbering. For example, six days were appointed to man for his labor so it went, while one day is associated in sovereignty with the Lord God--as his day of rest. Then the infinite symbol of 8 represents infinity or immortality which is also of God. The serpent also, was created somehow on the sixth day, or so the Goods Book says--obviously God was most busy and yet totally restricted on the sixth day of His masterful creation. The sixth clause of the Lord's Prayer treats of sin. Six is the number stamped on all that is connected with human labor. You will see it stamped upon his measures which he uses in his labour and on the time during which he labors. And you see this from the very beginning.
Six, thew number of man, is one less than seven, the number which represents God and two less than the Creation. This indicates that man was created somehow in the likeness of God, but is not God, because God is perfect and sinless and one within and with Creation. The Sixth Commandment came as a result of Cain's sin of killing his brother, and the man who will ultimately claim the number 666 will be the greatest murderer the world has ever known. God put a mark upon Cain after the murder of Abel. Although Cain's mark was for the purpose of protecting him from those who would kill him, it also signified that before God, he was condemned. God forbade the children of Judea to mark their bodies--or did he? For the translation always read "Israel". The quoting then always continues with this looking forward to the time when the "Jews", as well as the rest of the world, would be called upon to take the mark of the Anti-Christ. Well, will the "Jews" take the mark? I guess so--they crested it!
But let us look a bit further into the book of Revelation. The Apocalypse: The 'mark' itself is at once a number and a name. The Apostle tells you what it is. As he gives it, it is made up of two Greek characters which stand for the name of Christ, with a third, the figure of a crooked serpent, put between them...Thjis horrid sign must everyone receive on one of the most conspicuous parts of the body, cut, stamped or branded in, there to abide indelibly. No one may either buy or sell without this mark, and all who do receive it take upon their bodies the token and seal of heir damnation!
Do you really.believe you have not already been branded? Let us consider that, for years--well over two decades--the laser beam has been branding steers and horses--and even salmon while they remain in the stream, swimming. It is instant and painless. The laser simply destroys skin pigment. In some thirty-BILLIONTHS of a second a technician can stitch a brand--or initials, or symbol. This type of branding of animals for ownership or research purposes has become common practice. Do you think it probable that everyone of you have been branded while standing, say, in a line to vote or register your car or, or, or--certainly if you have any kind of medical examination, dental care or hospitalization--especially immunizations.
TRANSACTION CARD/FINAL CARD
This is the final laugh at the world citizenry. This is one of the world's greatest conspiracies and it is being quietly conducted in.the most sacred halls of secular secrecy, brothers. While its thrust is Economic, its reach is without limit. No System will escape its mastery, be it in Politics or religions, Social or otherwise. I told you long ago, dear ones, that the SDI program was not f defense but rather to place into space satellites which unite the entire world banking system--the beast to all other parts in instant connection--with all citizens registered, identified and located. You are all simply within the system. The point is to protect yourself from the system as much as possible and the only way to do so is to utilize the laws and rules utilized by your adversary for as long as you can do so.
The Prime Mover here is the most powerful Consortium of financial institutions, capitalists, and scientists ever leagued together. Their common purpose is to bring every person, place and thing under their total control and it is all but in place and already operational.
The applied strategy is by way of instant IDENTIFICATION. This means of ixentoification is by way of assignment of MARKS (or bars) for NUJMBERS read by machines. (Numbers people can read, Marks they can't--the name of this game is SECRECY.)
Phase I began in 1970 with a ncnscientious effort to "IDENTIFY EVERY ITEM" at the manufacturers level with a NUMBER "MARKED" on it. A group of Numbers designated by Marks, lines or bars, is called a Bar Code, (Code 39, etc.), and giant computer manufacturers are central to the phase.
Phase II began in 1973 with an effort to IDENTIFY each PERSON with a Number. The Social Security Numbers when blended with the Universal Numbering System will be converted to "Bars". Initially, the NUMBER will be "marked" on a Card; (a World_Wide Money-ID-Card). Subsequently, according to the old Bible Prophecy written ands directed by the very ones who would put it into place, it will be stamped upon the person it identifies. As the MARK OF IDENTITY on an ITEM is a Bar Code, so the MARK OF IDENTIY on a Card and later on a person, will be a Bar Code facsimile. The Government, Banks, and Card Companies are central to this phase.
Phase III is an effort to identify everything in the world, whether mobile or stationary; if mobile, then how to instantaneously locate it, as a piece of luggage, an expensive race horse, a family car, or a pet or person. Central to this is the Federal Government which has spent ten years In research on "Electronic Identification" at Los Alamos, the Airlines, and private inventors.
The symbol of 666 is absolutely instrumental to the Bar Code system. You are already in it, so let us be most careful how you handle it. Your best defense against it is to know truth about it--stop deluding yourself that you can somehow avoid the mark lest you get s special mark which sets you apart as a troublemaker and you will be among the first incarcerated or removed by other means.
2024.06.01 10:08 IGotPIPed Neighbor is keeping me up at night until 2 am. Problem is I don't know which one it is
TL;DR: One of my neighbors is playing loud music until 2 am every night. I'm not sure if the sound is coming from the people living above me, below me, or next door to me (I live on the second floor of a three floor apartment building). They all deny making the noises so there's either another source of the noise I'm not aware of or one of them is lying.
A little background:
I work for a university and a benefit I get is I'm eligible for staff housing. These apartments are very good value for the area of the city I live in and I get to be close to campus to make my commute easier. I live in a HCOL city so if it wasn't for this benefit, I'd barely be able afford my own place. So these apartments are very popular and I was on the waitlist for a year before I got an offer.
I was offered a second floor unit in a three story apartment building. When I applied I got to list my preferences and my first option was a third floor unit. Unfortunately, only the second floor unit was available. I also was only given 24 hours to accept or reject the offer before I would lose it. And at the time my lease at my last place was ending in two weeks and I didn't have any other concrete housing offers. So I unfortunately had no choice but to accept the offer for the second floor unit and I moved in April of this year.
Now for a breakdown of my neighbors (not their real names):
-Ricky: him and his wife live in the unit above me. He works as a postdoc and his wife is 8 months pregnant. They're both in their mid 30s. Because the apartment was built cheaply, I can pretty much hear them most of the time. They're not loud people, I mainly just hear them walking and what sounds like them moving furniture lol, but I know its just the shitty building. Ricky even came down to my apartment to test how loud his music was. They tell me they're in bed by 11 pm every night.
-Max: lives alone in the unit below me. He works as an assistant professor and is in his mid 30s. Max plays music pretty regularly and I can hear it. It doesn't really bother me, at least the music doesn't. It's the bass that's annoying. But if I text him to lower it, he does so. I'm not sure of his sleeping habits, but I sometimes see his lights are on when I've been out late coming home.
-Kenny: lives alone in the unit next door. He works as veterinarian and is in his 60s. I don't hear anything from him other than him snoring sometimes since our bedrooms share a room. He's also normally in bed by 11 pm.
So in all honesty I wouldn't consider my neighbors "neighbors from hell". They're all actually pretty reasonable. But this is the only subreddit I know for this type of thing.
Now onto my dilemma:
Almost every night I hear music and people just loudly talking until 2 am. The music has an annoying bass to it and it's a rhythmic beat, it's hard to explain. I've tried ear plugs, white noise machine, but I can still hear the music and the people talking. I also hear loud stomping. My apartment complex has mandatory quiet hours starting 10 pm on weeknights and 12 am on weekends.
So a couple weeks ago, it was a Monday night and I could hear blaring still at 1 am. In my frustration I sent texts to both Ricky and Max separately to please turn down whatever it was making the noise (not Kenny b/c I hadn't met him yet). The music still played till 2 am. Both Max and Kenny responded next morning and they were pretty pissed at me. They both said they were sleeping at that time and used some wording which basically meant to politely fuck off. If true, I understand their response. I'd be pretty pissed too if someone texted me at 1 am accusing me of making noise I wasn't causing. I admit I could've handled it better, but I was just really tired and fed up.
I gave them the benefit of the doubt and apologized and they accepted my apology. Ricky reiterated that his wife was pregnant and she also hates noise and staying up too late. Max was a little more sympathetic because he saw how sleep deprived I was and he suggested ear plugs and a white noise machine which I had been using but had no effect. I met Kenny later that week and explained the situation to him and he also denied making the noise. He told me he was too old to be staying up until 2 am. I asked him about the neighbors in the unit above him and he said he never heard anything from them.
It's now two months at this apartment and I'm still hearing that shit almost every night. I have no idea where it's coming from because noise travels so weirdly in this building. I can hear stomping and talking so it makes sense if it's Ricky and his wife upstairs. I also hear music and that annoying bass, so it could be Max and possibly one of his friends he always has over. It could be Kenny because his kids do visit him here and there, but I'm not too sold it's him. He's let me inside his unit and I didn't see any music system. I'm thinking it's more Max because of the bass, but that doesn't explain the stomping. I just have no idea where the noise is coming from. All three of them deny making the noise and also tell me they don't hear anything at night.
I'm not too sure what I wanted to accomplish with this post, guess it's more of a rant. I am speaking to the management this upcoming Monday if there's any possibility a third floor unit will be available. I don't want management getting involved over the noise yet because I don't know who it is. And if I blame the wrong person, that'll really mess up my relationship with my neighbors.
submitted by IGotPIPed to neighborsfromhell [link] [comments]
A little background:
I work for a university and a benefit I get is I'm eligible for staff housing. These apartments are very good value for the area of the city I live in and I get to be close to campus to make my commute easier. I live in a HCOL city so if it wasn't for this benefit, I'd barely be able afford my own place. So these apartments are very popular and I was on the waitlist for a year before I got an offer.
I was offered a second floor unit in a three story apartment building. When I applied I got to list my preferences and my first option was a third floor unit. Unfortunately, only the second floor unit was available. I also was only given 24 hours to accept or reject the offer before I would lose it. And at the time my lease at my last place was ending in two weeks and I didn't have any other concrete housing offers. So I unfortunately had no choice but to accept the offer for the second floor unit and I moved in April of this year.
Now for a breakdown of my neighbors (not their real names):
-Ricky: him and his wife live in the unit above me. He works as a postdoc and his wife is 8 months pregnant. They're both in their mid 30s. Because the apartment was built cheaply, I can pretty much hear them most of the time. They're not loud people, I mainly just hear them walking and what sounds like them moving furniture lol, but I know its just the shitty building. Ricky even came down to my apartment to test how loud his music was. They tell me they're in bed by 11 pm every night.
-Max: lives alone in the unit below me. He works as an assistant professor and is in his mid 30s. Max plays music pretty regularly and I can hear it. It doesn't really bother me, at least the music doesn't. It's the bass that's annoying. But if I text him to lower it, he does so. I'm not sure of his sleeping habits, but I sometimes see his lights are on when I've been out late coming home.
-Kenny: lives alone in the unit next door. He works as veterinarian and is in his 60s. I don't hear anything from him other than him snoring sometimes since our bedrooms share a room. He's also normally in bed by 11 pm.
So in all honesty I wouldn't consider my neighbors "neighbors from hell". They're all actually pretty reasonable. But this is the only subreddit I know for this type of thing.
Now onto my dilemma:
Almost every night I hear music and people just loudly talking until 2 am. The music has an annoying bass to it and it's a rhythmic beat, it's hard to explain. I've tried ear plugs, white noise machine, but I can still hear the music and the people talking. I also hear loud stomping. My apartment complex has mandatory quiet hours starting 10 pm on weeknights and 12 am on weekends.
So a couple weeks ago, it was a Monday night and I could hear blaring still at 1 am. In my frustration I sent texts to both Ricky and Max separately to please turn down whatever it was making the noise (not Kenny b/c I hadn't met him yet). The music still played till 2 am. Both Max and Kenny responded next morning and they were pretty pissed at me. They both said they were sleeping at that time and used some wording which basically meant to politely fuck off. If true, I understand their response. I'd be pretty pissed too if someone texted me at 1 am accusing me of making noise I wasn't causing. I admit I could've handled it better, but I was just really tired and fed up.
I gave them the benefit of the doubt and apologized and they accepted my apology. Ricky reiterated that his wife was pregnant and she also hates noise and staying up too late. Max was a little more sympathetic because he saw how sleep deprived I was and he suggested ear plugs and a white noise machine which I had been using but had no effect. I met Kenny later that week and explained the situation to him and he also denied making the noise. He told me he was too old to be staying up until 2 am. I asked him about the neighbors in the unit above him and he said he never heard anything from them.
It's now two months at this apartment and I'm still hearing that shit almost every night. I have no idea where it's coming from because noise travels so weirdly in this building. I can hear stomping and talking so it makes sense if it's Ricky and his wife upstairs. I also hear music and that annoying bass, so it could be Max and possibly one of his friends he always has over. It could be Kenny because his kids do visit him here and there, but I'm not too sold it's him. He's let me inside his unit and I didn't see any music system. I'm thinking it's more Max because of the bass, but that doesn't explain the stomping. I just have no idea where the noise is coming from. All three of them deny making the noise and also tell me they don't hear anything at night.
I'm not too sure what I wanted to accomplish with this post, guess it's more of a rant. I am speaking to the management this upcoming Monday if there's any possibility a third floor unit will be available. I don't want management getting involved over the noise yet because I don't know who it is. And if I blame the wrong person, that'll really mess up my relationship with my neighbors.
2024.06.01 07:57 OperationAnal Got fired after a month
I work in the film industry. I moved to LA one year ago, coincidentally right when the strikes started. I applied to 100s of jobs over the last year and got rejected 100s of times. I made it to different stages of the hiring process, but no luck - until a month ago. I was completely faceted by a very prestigious agency, and 4 rounds of interviews later, was offered an even better position than I applied for.
I was over the MOON excited, and honored to even be considered. Everyone was so happy for me, because everyone in my life had seen me become increasingly depressed the last year. The first 3 weeks went by perfectly, I loved all my coworkers, the work, i was genuinely excited to work there every morning.
However, the person I replaced seems to have quit and left to a better agency behind everyone’s back. She seems to have run the place like the Navy, and everyone was floundering without her. Her departure was taken quite personally it seems, and it was soon apparent that everyone took her departure out on me. I was held to her standard, while receiving absolutely no training on how to be her - because she was not around. I was vaguely shown around by other coworkers, none of whom ever worked her role. My bosses were out of the office for different reasons, and weren’t really around to give me concrete direction. The manual for my position hadn’t been updated in months.
While at first, I was told repeatedly how quickly I was getting the hang of things, how great the feedback was, how organized and eager I was, from one day to the next I was criticized, snapped at, and ultimately called inefficient. I was terminated exactly one month to the day I was hired.
submitted by OperationAnal to jobs [link] [comments]
I was over the MOON excited, and honored to even be considered. Everyone was so happy for me, because everyone in my life had seen me become increasingly depressed the last year. The first 3 weeks went by perfectly, I loved all my coworkers, the work, i was genuinely excited to work there every morning.
However, the person I replaced seems to have quit and left to a better agency behind everyone’s back. She seems to have run the place like the Navy, and everyone was floundering without her. Her departure was taken quite personally it seems, and it was soon apparent that everyone took her departure out on me. I was held to her standard, while receiving absolutely no training on how to be her - because she was not around. I was vaguely shown around by other coworkers, none of whom ever worked her role. My bosses were out of the office for different reasons, and weren’t really around to give me concrete direction. The manual for my position hadn’t been updated in months.
While at first, I was told repeatedly how quickly I was getting the hang of things, how great the feedback was, how organized and eager I was, from one day to the next I was criticized, snapped at, and ultimately called inefficient. I was terminated exactly one month to the day I was hired.
2024.06.01 07:46 Squidd_Vicious I sanded and stained this yellow pine with Varathan early American 2 months ago and I never sealed it; I want to go much darker so im wandering if I need to strip and re-sand the wood before applying Minwax Jacobean. Progress and product pics below. TIA
 | The first picture is the wood before the first stain, then the second is the original stain I used, the third is the new stain I want to apply and the last is what the wood currently looks like two months after staining with no sealant. submitted by Squidd_Vicious to finishing [link] [comments] Sorry if this is too many details, this is my first project and I’m just hoping to not fuck it up. TIA for any help |
2024.06.01 06:59 Singersongwriterart Applying to colleges while chronically ill?
I'm having trouble figuring out how I will explain my excessive tardies and absences when I apply to college. I have a very good GPA but my attendance record is absolutely horrendous. I hate being late, and I would never miss a day of school unless I was not allowed to go (which is usually the case.) I am sick so often that I had 53 tardies + 9 absences during my sophomore year, and 31 tardies + 16 1/2 absenses during my junior year. Some of those absences were because of viruses that refused to go away/covid. I have a lot of issues with viruses and covid because I have a weak immune system. A few of the absences were because I was hospitalized due to my chronic illness. Most of the tardies were days where I either started puking my guts out ever 5 minutes or woke up in so much pain that I literally could not move a single inch for hours but still forced myself to go to school anyways as soon as I was able to move again. Without a formal, concrete diagnosis, I'm afraid of how I'll explain all this without sounding like a "lost cause". I haven't been able to receive the testing I need for a diagnosis because the testing I need is invasive and my doctor refuses to do it. Until I get those tests, I don't have a name for what is going on. I've been told by doctors that I've had many things, but none of them have ever been written in my medical records. Do I need any documentation of a diagnosis when applying?
submitted by Singersongwriterart to ChronicIllness [link] [comments]
2024.06.01 04:28 DrHoller Help me update my detailing supplies
My wife and I are the proud owners of a new Caviar colored RX350. Right now it’s in great shape, and I want to keep it looking that way. I used to be decent at upkeep but life got busy (I’m now a dance dad of two girls) and I I fell out of the loop. So I’m wondering what products I have that I need to upgrade to catch up with the times.
Here’s what I currently have
Miscellaneous Assorted microfibers Meguiars APC Clay Glass cleaner Aquapel
Wash CG snow foam and a foam cannon Bucket with grit guard Meguiars rinse free express wash (pre wax version)
Correction GG short throw polisher with assorted pads Megs 105/205 Menzerna FF3000 and IP2000
Wax Collinite 845 FK1000P Victoria Wax Red
Trim Megs tire and trim gel Duragloss 271 Blackfire Tire and Trim Sealant
Interior 303 interior protectant
I think that’s about it. Anything you’d throw away and replace? What would you keep? Any necessary additions?
My current thoughts on what I have.
I’d like to upgrade my rinceless wash. The megs does okay, but it foams a bit and that annoys me. I did use ONR for a while which seemed to do fine.
My polishes are all old. So any recs are appreciated.
Right now I know I need some help in the trim department. I’m trying to decide between a coating like cquartz/gtechniq or Wolfgang WETS. I could also use something durable for tires.
Keep the waxes or go with a coating? I’ve thought about carpro cquartz with essence before. I’ve never applied a coating, but think I could pull it off. Sticking with wax/sealant isn’t out of the question either.
I’ve previously used the megs APC(sparingly) and 303 for interiors. Would this also work for Lexus Nuluxe?
I think that’s it. Sorry if Im a bit longwinded, and thank you for staying until the end.
submitted by DrHoller to Detailing [link] [comments]
Here’s what I currently have
Miscellaneous Assorted microfibers Meguiars APC Clay Glass cleaner Aquapel
Wash CG snow foam and a foam cannon Bucket with grit guard Meguiars rinse free express wash (pre wax version)
Correction GG short throw polisher with assorted pads Megs 105/205 Menzerna FF3000 and IP2000
Wax Collinite 845 FK1000P Victoria Wax Red
Trim Megs tire and trim gel Duragloss 271 Blackfire Tire and Trim Sealant
Interior 303 interior protectant
I think that’s about it. Anything you’d throw away and replace? What would you keep? Any necessary additions?
My current thoughts on what I have.
I’d like to upgrade my rinceless wash. The megs does okay, but it foams a bit and that annoys me. I did use ONR for a while which seemed to do fine.
My polishes are all old. So any recs are appreciated.
Right now I know I need some help in the trim department. I’m trying to decide between a coating like cquartz/gtechniq or Wolfgang WETS. I could also use something durable for tires.
Keep the waxes or go with a coating? I’ve thought about carpro cquartz with essence before. I’ve never applied a coating, but think I could pull it off. Sticking with wax/sealant isn’t out of the question either.
I’ve previously used the megs APC(sparingly) and 303 for interiors. Would this also work for Lexus Nuluxe?
I think that’s it. Sorry if Im a bit longwinded, and thank you for staying until the end.
2024.06.01 04:12 canadian_ehhhh Looking for photos of dark power trowel finished interior floor!
 | We are proceeded with our home build (walkout basement on a monolithic slab). In the basement we are going to leave concrete as the finished floor and use area rugs where needed if desired. submitted by canadian_ehhhh to Concrete [link] [comments] We’d like a very dark concrete. I believe our best options are either dying the entire 37cu/m or using a color hardener. It seems like color hardeners are used more frequently with stamped concrete so I’m having trouble finding examples of what we are looking for. I’d love to see some photos of an interior floor finished with a power trowel (very smooth, nearly polished) that’s had a very dark color hardener applied! I’ve attached some photos with a similar color we are looking for. I just don’t know exactly how it was achieved. |
2024.06.01 03:33 Antiseed88 (Discussion) Hellcat Jetpack Armor
Can anyone give me any details as to where and how to build/apply this mod?
I just spent 300 stamps on it, learned the plan and now it's not showing up when I try to apply it to my hellcat PA torso.
Searched the craft option on the PA station and armor workbench. Nothing.
submitted by Antiseed88 to Fo76PS4 [link] [comments]
I just spent 300 stamps on it, learned the plan and now it's not showing up when I try to apply it to my hellcat PA torso.
Searched the craft option on the PA station and armor workbench. Nothing.
2024.06.01 03:12 Unfair-Bottle6773 PR / TR proof of income
Hello,
I want to apply for a Mexican PR (or TR, if the PR application fails), but I'm having trouble on the bureaucratic front.
Here is what the consulate wants:
Has anyone had this issue and how did you solve it?
Thanks
submitted by Unfair-Bottle6773 to mexicoexpats [link] [comments]
I want to apply for a Mexican PR (or TR, if the PR application fails), but I'm having trouble on the bureaucratic front.
Here is what the consulate wants:
Letter from your bank/investment company signed and stamped stating the following “we confirm that your monthly income/pension for the past 6 months is over $9,900 CAD after tax” or “we confirm that you have had a constant monthly balance of $395,000 CAD for the past 12 months”. Letter is a must, do not send bank statements. If letter doesn’t meet the requirements do not submit your application as it will be disregarded.My bank (TD) refuses to produce the above letter (or any custom letter for that matter) and offers only stamped bank statements, which the consulate explicitly says they don't want. This makes sense, as it's not the bank's business to calculate my after tax income.
Has anyone had this issue and how did you solve it?
Thanks
2024.06.01 02:35 sweet_peonie The Duffey / Other North Loop Apartments
Hello!
I am about to apply for an apartment at The Duffey, but read a scathing review on their facebook page. Looking for anyone else who has a similar or opposite experience. Finding a quiet apartment in a smoke-free building are the top two essentials for me, and due to the concrete floors, the price point (my assumption is that professionals pay these prices), and talks with the leasing manager, I thought this would be the spot. I'm also looking at north loop so I can walk to work and take the light rail to some classes at the U (I've lived in NYC, and the walking life is the life for me). But this scathing review said that the building is full of party kids who have loud parties on the weekends, and that you can hear people through the walls even on a quiet day. If it is true, any alternative suggestions? Or if you've lived here and have had a better experience, I would LOVE to hear from you. Thank you!!
submitted by sweet_peonie to TWINCITIESHOUSING [link] [comments]
I am about to apply for an apartment at The Duffey, but read a scathing review on their facebook page. Looking for anyone else who has a similar or opposite experience. Finding a quiet apartment in a smoke-free building are the top two essentials for me, and due to the concrete floors, the price point (my assumption is that professionals pay these prices), and talks with the leasing manager, I thought this would be the spot. I'm also looking at north loop so I can walk to work and take the light rail to some classes at the U (I've lived in NYC, and the walking life is the life for me). But this scathing review said that the building is full of party kids who have loud parties on the weekends, and that you can hear people through the walls even on a quiet day. If it is true, any alternative suggestions? Or if you've lived here and have had a better experience, I would LOVE to hear from you. Thank you!!