Listen in to the audio of the WOW signal.

There was no "audio" of the WOW signal, just a sequence of numbers recorded on paper tape.

Any "audio" is almost certainly a hoax.

---

Bernie.

Sorry for the delay, but I had family visitors in here once again.

I had the opportunity of listening to the replay of this signal with the karaoke function being disabled or turned off.

Here even more to it may be heard and it is a scrambled voice in my opinion, together with some background interference which could also be more to it.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Background_noise

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Information_theory

My guess is that you do not digitize a voice, human or something else, because a spoken word is probably something else than a series of numbers.

Is there a reason why this sound sequence lasting some 72 seconds may not be converted into a digital format which next may be analyzed?

A software application called Audacity made me put a microphone close to one of the speakers of the sound system during playback.

Recording the playback directly, I was able to get a quite good reproduction which I could also listen back at. Unfortunately it ended up on the other 3 TB disc which next became logically broken.

For now assuming that this may have been the voice of someone is the best I have. My guess is that this probably is 50/50 when it comes to certainty.

Anyway, such a possibility may coincide quite well with other knowledge or assumptions being available or made. Most likely no definite proof yet, but in my opinion more likely than not.

The only thing may perhaps be that the audio in the playback may not match the curve representing the famous number for the signal. But in fact part of the audio is a high pitch, while other parts are a deep rumbling bass.

The number itself became "6EQUJ5" as should be well known.

The derived signal curve could be from possibly separating the different levels from each other and next assume that they represent at least part of the complete number that was being derived.

I am getting a sense that not everyone is convinced when it comes to a couple of things.

Therefore I went to the page for Charles Darwin in the Wikipedia once again in order to read a little more.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Darwin

Since evolution is a subject that has already been discussed, this is not the main point.

But a quick read through of the article makes it evident that while you may get out of bed each and every morning, there also could be some days where you may think that a couple of things have become slightly different.

So, while many scientists may be looking at evolution as "selection of the fittest", by means of natural selection, there could also be some mathematicians and physicists around which may think that the possible laws for such things to be possible could be explained by mathematical equations which are dealing with large sets of variable factors, like statistics, or the laws or equations being related to randomness, chaos, turbulence and coincidence.

Since neither a human or even a turtle is supposed to be living forever, the life processes itself, including both survival and adaption to the surroundings are having its limitations.

Another subject may be whether or not the life processes itself, including birth and death may be a part of yet another scheme, but I will leave that for a another post.

But a turtle is definitely not the most intelligent animal around. Rather it relies on other means of survival, including adaptation to its surroundings.

Rather than a turtle, we might again be comparing with the crocodile instead, which because of sharp instincts and an aggressive posture is able to survive by living on carcasses.

Are all humans, animals, or even robots or cyborgs always that clever and intelligent?

Is it not a fact that sometimes we may find really stupid or naive people around as well?

They are able to survive because of the food they are eating and also a given life expectancy which readily assumes that unless ending up in an accident, you probably will become at least 70-80 years old of age.

For now we readily assume that humans are descendants from apes and that biological mechanisms, including everything from aggression through logical thinking by means of deduction are factors when it comes to both human evolution and intellectual capabilities.

When the first apes chose to climb down from the trees in order to look for food on the ground, most likely such a thing like self awareness or recognition was already present.

Whatever their evening or nightly entertainment could have been when living in the trees, we probably should be able to assume that matters relating to at least the social were important.

When first being able to control the fire and next inventing the wheel, we chose to be creating cities for our living and make things using our hands and making both guesses as well as given conclusions using our intellectual mind and the capabilities of the brain when it comes to logical and deductive thinking.

Getting the above sentence into order, it should be clear that nature is built up or filled with equations which makes certain things work and that these laws and equations also are a part of our physical life as well both when it comes to creating things with our hands as well as making certain deductions because of our minds and skills.

Next we are able to see that this process is once again two part, or possibly three part and we are back to the way the brain is supposed to be working.

Is such a capability only because of our intelligence, or could it be even more to it?

Is possible functionality, at least when it comes to the physical such a two- or three part process, where one part is mostly concerned at consuming your food, regulating your heartbeat and keeping a tab with the air you are breathing?

Next the analytical and deductive, as well as logical capabilities, including reasoning which is part of your little brain and finally the processes related to mindful thinking and possible dreams which are happening in your right part brain.

It should be quite evident that the processes of evolution are related to physical ones, including biology and the mechanisms which are behind the chromosomes and genes of your cells, but not directly related to intelligence itself.

Most likely neither individual atoms or even molecules are having any self-awareness, because they are supposed to be having a pre-programmed functionality when part of a physical or biological organism and is being discarded when no longer usable or having no functionality.

In the end it becomes much more easy to explain those processes related to both life and death when only looking at it from either a physical or material perspective.

As soon as it becomes everything from dreams and hallucinations, through possible Near-death experiences and the notion of a possible soul as well as those things related to the spiritual or immortality, the debate once again becomes a battle between those people who happen to be either atheists or agnostics, or those who are able to believe in a religious or spiritual conscience.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immortality

Before I get to bed.

The "U" in the WOW signal corresponds to a signal or noise level some 30 times higher than the background.

The problem here when comparing with the scores in the Seti@home client is defining a similar level when it comes to the background noise.

The spike score starts at a low of -roughly 0.69, which means a power of about +8.

Still this is supposed to be a computed value and when running, it usually gets up at about -0.24, or power +23 which is a typical level when a task is running.

Still only guessing here, but since we are still trying to detect a signal based on spikes, pulses, gaussians and triplets, including autocorrelation as well, an intelligent signal could be made up of several strong spikes in the same way as it also could one or more of the other types as well, in addition to autocorrelation.

So while a voice is still analog, a radio signal by means of being a possible transmission next is likely to be present or visible by means of having an electronic correspondence instead and therefore be assumed to be having a digital nature.

Is it not possible to speak of voice and sounds by means of their corresponding format directly?

Why is it necessary to make the analog to digital conversion when carrying out the processing when we know that a voice is analog, while a transmission most likely would be digital and based on a sequence of binary numbers?

If for some reason the detection of a voice based trasmission is being wished for, then it could perhaps be assumed that a corresponding signal curve for such a voice could be the gaussian score represented by means of its curve.

Still such a curve may be the calculated result of one or more of the other signal types which are being analyzed by the client.

A pulse score of 1.02 only tells that such a pulse warranted a particular interest. The same thing most likely goes for at least a spike score.

But my experience tells me that there could be even more to it when it comes to the gaussians and the triplets, even though the scores being returned here are not necessarily giving any conclusive evidence when it comes to
whether or not an intelligent signal was ever present.

Searching the web without any specific result, we probably may still be slightly in the dark when it comes to the exact definition of what an intelligent signal coming from space in fact is supposed to be.

If I am not wrong, the subject of mathematics and physics is about art and possible creativity at times as well, in the same way as it also could be about love and talent when it comes to a given profession or skill as well.

You might be able to know the better word here.

If Albert Einstein ever was dreaming while in his sleep, it probably does not readily show up in his equations.

Mathematics and physics are both subjects which are being taught and when trying to understand nature, we are using or employing these subjects as tools in order to be able to do such a thing.

For one thing, we are able to both visualize our understanding by means of interpreting difficult concepts and next translate or transform these concepts into something meaningful and understandable.

One such example is the Mandelbrot set.

You may be familiar with the videos for this being available on YouTube.

Both number theory, visualizations and a lot of other things which happen to be part of nature as well as relating to our own lives are subsets or part of our interpretation or knowledge of infinity.

The shopping trips you need to make in order for eating food, as well as the heartbeats and number of air breathes, like the total number of steps needed when walking each way, becomes one such subset of the whole concept or notion of infinity.

Because infinity is impossible to comprehend, our world becomes only a simplification of this notion, where only small parts of it are available or present for either computation or some other scrutiny.

Microcosmos is everything below, or smaller than ourselves when it comes to scale or dimension.

Macrocosmos is similarly everything above, or larger in scale when it comes to ourselves.

For both of these worlds, more details being known means a better understanding of the whole picture.

To the Greek, the atom was synonymous with the indivisible, by means of its word, or the meaning of it.

To nuclear scientists, even the atom may now be divided into even more particles, including quarks.

Similarly, when it comes to astronomers and astrophysicists, objects like galaxies, clusters and superclusters of galaxies and large voids between filaments connecting both clusters and superclusters together, the atoms in compounds are bound together by magnetic forces, including possible magnetism or electromagnetism, as well as weak and strong nuclear forces and finally the force of gravity.

Right now it appears to me that three of these forces might be attributed to the energy being represented or found by the particles which could be present, including their possible energy state or motion.

Similarly, gravity is the mass which is represented by these particles and while the equation E=mc2 still is the one being used for making this relationship or correspondence, perhaps we should still remember that matter and energy also could still be two different things except for that.

We should not forget about the negative charge of the electron either.

Being an elementary particle, perhaps the electron is one of the reasons that the Universe was created by the Big Bang and next started the process of inflation.

It is a well known fact that although the Big Bang is still only a theory among several others, Fred Hoyle's original idea about the Steady State Universe apparently is not being widely accepted today.

The question next becomes if the Universe is inflating, what is it expanding into?

Only because we happen to know about Black Holes eating everything close to it, is the Universe possibly doomed?

Will it ever cease to expand and if so, may the reason for this be the presence of such Black Holes?

If the Universe was created by means of the Big Bang, it is some 13.8 or 13.9 billion years old.

Therefore we might be able to speak about some things being young of age as well as other things being old of age.

In the world of science, understanding and comprehension is one thing, but while evolution is one part of life, the duration or lasting period of certain things between birth and eventual death is yet another.

The life cycle model could be used both when it comes to development of software, as well as the life time expectancy for which living organisms are supposed to be lasting.

Eventually, a similar life time duration is assumed or expected when it comes to objects like stars and galaxies, but not necessarily those objects which are part of microcosmos in a similar way.

We do not necessarily see the face of God even in such objects in the sky like the "Star Queen Nebula". For those people fortunate to be believers, at least when it comes to religion and faith, there should be a difference between the living and the dead by means of those properties or elements which are not always readily visible.

You might well be self-aware when it comes to your way of life, but is such an awareness in any way implying a possible religious or spiritual presence, because at times our knowledge or comprehension when it comes to some elements of nature could make us possibly believe in the possible supernatural or overnatural, even when not relating such a thing to any common belief when it comes to the notion of religion, including a possible such belief in deities?

You may be so fortunately or lucky that you are able to understand the subject of religion in quite detail.

Does such an understanding necessarily show up when it comes to be able to explain a couple of things which are related to science?

Should science be used in order to understand religion, or should it rather be the opposite way around?

Now it became late night.

See you tomorrow.

Still having the cake here after finishing the small box of crayfish or crawfish (not ordinary crab this time) had that strong dressing being added which is not my taste.

Is it perhaps spices or condiments, or is it perhaps something else?

Anyway, was Jesus supposed to be a savior?

The old wording is that if someone slap you on one side of your face, meaning your cheek, you should turn the other side or end of your face in order for your other cheek to be slapped in a similar way.

This is one of the few words of wisdom apparently coming from Jesus.

For now I was thinking a little more about encryption and privacy again.

A country or society like the United States is built up or having its foundation based on the principle of rule of law, meaning Justice.

Being a democracy, if someone slaps your face without reason, the same rule of law principle is supposed to make the perpetrator become punished.

Believe it or not, the main reason for using encryption in order to transmit or receive information is to ensure privacy.

Therefore such encryption is meant to be end to end without noone being able to see or intercept its contents.

Apparently some things being related to privacy may not always be respected, at least when it comes to family, including relatives.

I will have more about this a little later on and perhaps tell a story only for those that are member of a given team here, because it may go into some details about a couple of things.

Read my thread there a bit later on if you are a member.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d0A3zAXu4dU

Before it gets too late and you only have consumed one.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sine_wave

Should be read.

Trying logging into Photobucket right now.

Except for the stupid username and password being needed, I am left guessing the rest of it.

Or, right now...

Goes for the same, except for the typos.

Edit: Better hack some stupid or silly users around here.

You probably already know about that thing which is relating to scientific advancement and progress.

Yeah.

Does anything more need to be said?

Those happy evenings as well as the slow start of the next day after.

I had a restart because it became too much, but it is still slow running for some reason and this web-page is also the same right now.

Apparently slightly better for the latter while editing this post.

Is not life supposed to be about the possible perfect day or evening which could happen at times and the sometimes sour morning the day after such a perfect evening?

In fact, in my earlier years, I had the possibility of bringing the 2.4 inch refractor on the winter holidays at the cottage built during the Second World War by my grandparents and now being owned by my uncle and aunt.

So, at a temperature of -15 degrees Celsius, it becomes slightly too cold standing, even though the air is very dry.

Do not forget the wind either. During one such night, the sky was crystal clear, but the long plastic cover for the instrument tube blew away in the wind.

Such a thing could in fact happen with a project as well, either because of the users participating, or perhaps economic factors which could be making certain things possible, while others being not.

I was able to listen in to most of the playback by what I think is an intern, but taking place at the Seti Institute.

Right now missing the name of the speaker, but please have me excused, I will get back at it.

For now I do not know whether or not a written manuscript had been made in advance, but in my opinion this lecture or presentation was a very good one, both because of a reasonable good sound quality, as well as the steady voice of the lecturer.

I will play it once more later on, but for now I will have to get back to the link.

The point is that if you wish to go to the Moon, you will never get there if your daily work at NASA or somewhere else is cleaning the floors, or getting rid of the trash.

In order to make certain things happen, you will need to catch the train and join the current discussion. Therefore you need to be either a technician, or even better, a scientist of profession.

Such a thing most often needs an education, or if not so, being talented when it comes to what you are supposed to be doing should be better than a couple of other things.

Together with people like Seth Shoestak, my words of opinion should therefore be listened to or heard at times, when new ideas having a possible value or interest could be present or available.

Hopefully such a thing could be happening at times, because creativity and better ideas does not always come before breakfast, even though or although they or such ideas could get or pop into your head even at or in the bathroom, or even the toilet.

So, for comparison, if we have put or placed landers on the surface of Mars, for example, the only way or option at detecting intelligent life or lifeforms is either analyzing the atmosphere, or more likely dig in the sand for signs of life.

This way of doing things is a more practical or logical approach, because we are likely assuming that life, if present, more likely should be simple or primitive, based on what we already know about life here on planet Earth, its diversity and its constant or gradual change because of evolution.

The point is that despite the lasting or persistent debate and still difference between science and religion, as well as possibly other elements or factors as well, we probably or most likely still think or regard of it as a difference between ourselves and the other elements of nature being found around us, which among other things include diversity.

Current technology development and innovation has made it possible to come up with robots which are capable of speech.

Such a robot may be able to translate or interpret a spoken word or sentence and next give back the translation or answer in return.

But regardless of a possible such capability, is there still not a difference around when it comes to ourselves and the technologies we are currently using?

Is it because a robot is a technological thing, or machine and we happen to be biological mechanisms or organisms?

Or is it perhaps about thinking or dreaming alone?

A robot may be having hands for the lifting of things, but are the fingers of such a robot any better at explaining a couple of things than a human being?

Perhaps such a thing should be possibly when a voice is being present and a language is being used for both speech as well as translation.

Definitely bacteria and viruses are not intelligent at all, but we happen to be so. The reason for this is because of our brain and its intellectual and analytical capability.

Also it should be well known that there are a number of people around who happen to be quite good at what they are doing, despite possible other deficiencies or physical handicaps being part of their lives.

Because of that, people like Stephen Hawking end up in a wheel-chair and becomes a prisoner in his own body.

His mind could be some other place, however.

Sligthtly better off should be Seth Shoestak, which at least is able to speak for himself. Except for that I will not make any similarity or reference between the two, because intelligence is not always about the hands you are having, but rather the talented mind which is found in your brain.

Resemblance perhaps should be a better word.

Like the person who once said "I have a dream", other people may perhaps be having a wish rather than a dream.

It could be that of perhaps being able to determine or prove that we are in fact not alone in the Universe and this fact is not necessarily because of only bacteria or viruses, but rather because of the possible notion about other intelligence we might be having which could be having such names like aliens or "Little Green Men", or even Extraterrestrial Biological Entities (or EBE's for short).

Unless we are having a dream when it comes to such things, should we look at probability factors which are mathematical concepts when it comes to make a possible difference or separation between that of finding bacteria or viruses in the soil of Mars and the possible notion about "Little Green Men" which could sometimes be around as well?

We happen to know about ourselves in the same way as we know about bacteria and viruses here on Earth.

Because we are still not able to prove anything, are we still left with watching movies like Alien I, in order to perhaps either have our curiosity being approached, or for some reason be able to have a dream or wish being realized or accomplished?

If I for some reason wished to be going to the Moon by perhaps having a dream for the same I would next make either science fiction or maybe fantasy a reality.

If there should still be any difference between those things which definitely are for real and those which definitely are not, both these things could still be part of our conscience even though one thing may be proven witout doubt, while another becomes either an element of a science fiction movie, or more likely does not have any explanation at all.

Still it is supposed to be science at times, but whether or not we should believe or trust one thing for another may be something which have yet to be proven when it comes to the actual facts.

I lost the running environment once again and had to start from scratch when it comes to my hobbies.

Fortunately Google Chrome remembers all of my tabs.

I was not able to carry out the weekend shopping yesterday, so I will need to leave the computer running while doing so today.

For those people around here who happen to be technically skilled, one thing of my concern is the "Finish file present too long" message.

Right now I do not keep a tab of the finished results when it comes to my account on this server, but assumedly the error rate should be quite low.

Since I happen to be running Seti@home and PrimeGrid with a resource share of 50/50, this error is present in the running of the PPS LLR tasks there.

For now not running the PPS LLR Extended tasks, which are smaller in size, or the similar PPS LLR Mega, which is a larger such task type.

When such a thing happens, I usually relate this problem with such things as possible system hang, temperature, as well as a disc or partition which is quite filled up and also other discs or partitions being available by means of discs being inserted or present in the computer which may not always be bootable or accessible.

The PrimeGrid Genefer tasks, which are running on the graphics card using OCL are not having this problem in the results, even though both the graphics card and the main processor are being used in order to be running such a task.

Like a Seti@home CUDA task, a PrimeGrid OCL task like Genefer may be running using a certain amount of resources by means of the graphics card, which should be a fractional number.

Unfortunately I do not have a precise example, but something like 0.28000 - 0.47000 or the like should be a rough estimate when it comes to this.

When such a task is running, at least one CPU core should be used, but here such things like possible priority or affinity when it comes to the running scheme for a given task is not fully understood.

The only thing being noticed is that when also running a couple of factorization tasks, a particular task may have its running speed adjusted, which could be attributed to such things like possible multitasking or multithreading.

Whether or not such an option is available for the running of a CUDA task in relation to the main processor, I do not know about either.

Perhaps some others may give some advice here.

I made a short note at PrimeGrid about the possibility of running more than one CUDA task at one time using a single graphics card.

If two graphics cards had still been used, two different tasks could of course have been running at the same time.

Whether or not the priority or affinity scheme for one or more tasks would differ with regards to the main processor if both graphics cards had been used, I do not know about either.

Better do the shopping now.

Back later on.

Always the difference between those idiots and those who are supposed to get it a slight tad better.

The RealTek sound driver being part of my system apparently is working quite well.

What am I missing?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FwhZ11lcOJQ

Much here.

Read 1999 - ...

Brown hair, or blonde perhaps.

Perhaps smiling as well.

You never know (for sure).

Blame such a thing on a syntax error.

Those spoken words...

04:24 AM in the morning and I am in a couple of beers before finishing off.

Check in with the date if you will, but here the sun is coming up very red in the north-east and making quite a color inside my room.

Very nice indeed!

Why not make a short summary of things since things do not last forever.

Namely the debate we are currently having, which you should be well aware about.

First, because of technology currently at our disposal, we are having atomic clocks.

Reminds me that I better should be checking, but the second is a fundamental part of time itself and should therefore be a constant.

Because many people think that certain things are better explained in one way rather than another, we think that we may be able to "quantisize" a couple of things in order to be able to see or discern the individual properties.

A musical melody coming along with my software, having the name of "Loopy Music", is having a little secret when listening in.

In the world of mathematics, particularly factorization of numbers, we know that all numbers are either odd, even, or prime.

This is because of the particular definition of such things, which is supposed to fit best to our use or purpose.

Remember the stupid fool who said something like "I know what I saw".

Stupid perhaps, but perhaps he was right.

Religion and faith is not necessarily part of science itself, although some people may think that even science could be carried out without having such faith.

As being mentioned at BOINC, life could be full of happiness and joy.

Also it could be sorrow and a sense of loss at times as well, being a reminder that life is having its "infallibles".

Many people, including most scientists, are not believing in a God and therefore are being either atheists or agnostics.

Rather than following up this subject right now, the thing which should be more apparent or important is the one relating to differences, or perhaps contrasts, including those which might be related to life.

The sunny morning with the sun shining through the window is not the same as the howling wind and the big droplets of rain coming down.

Or even the icicles which could be hanging from the roof gutters in the winter, making a couple of things when it coming to living a bit more dangerous.

You know, before checking, intelligence and possible functionality could sometimes be two different things which may at times be more or less closely related, or such when it comes to be hand by hand.

But the truth of the matter is that this is not always so.

For this I probably do not even have to mention the name.

For now, perhaps you know that I made a note, or almost a complaint about this fact, but if you happen to be an eminent scientist supposed or capable to give the proper or exact answer when it comes to a couple of things, because of the use of the Scientific Method, such a way of deduction might be able to imply or take certain things for granted, while at the same time dismissing or rejecting other things or factors, because they are either not true, or may not be proven.

Or perhaps guess rather than deduction.

Speaking about religion.

When studying at the local University here in town, one of the small lectures being part of the initial courses, locally called or nicknamed Ex.phil (or Examen Philosophicum), was about the subject of natural sciences respective the view of the world (not Political as such).

The lecturer was a very nice man indeed and also the subject should have been close to me when it comes to interest.

Perhaps I was not old enough at that time, but other things in life apparently was in the way at that time, so it became only the small book, which later became lost.

Also you may recall or remember the old wording that you should not sell the skin of the bear before it has been shot.

If you happen to be familar with either televised debates, certain people like the Evangelist Billy Graham may be proclaiming his belief in God, not because of being a possible drunkard or not, or even a scientist, for that matter, which he probably is not.

In the world of real politics, one thing is Legislation, another thing is the Judiciary and finally the matters related to the Executive function.

Being a President makes it possible to issue an order.

Similarly, being the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court makes it possible to accept one thing as being legal, but also reject another thing because it may not be having the same validity or legality.

So, while one way of the world of mathematics and factorization could be that relating to the principle of exclusion of certain factors in favor of something else or different, the principle of evolution, at least when it comes to the species, could be regarded as of being that of "Stepwise Refinement".

In the same way as a couple of things in life might be about joy and happiness, while others may be sadness or disappointments, certain mathematical equations, like those of Schroedinger, are supposed to tell us about the world we are a part of in the same way as the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle is supposed to be doing the same.

One subject being taught at school is that of History.

For a same or similar thing, we are having the History Channel on our television.

In the same way as time travel back through history could be theoretically possible, a similar way of travel forward in time appears to be contradicted by current knowledge, or the laws and equations currently available which makes for such thinking.

One element of mathematics is related to the subject of sets.

A simple programming language may be having operators like "+", "-", or "*" for the use of sets.

Also the NOT operator, which is a boolean operator and should be regarded as a logical such when it comes to possible negation of expressions.

The question becomes as follows.

If you happen to watch the red sun shining through the curtains of your window into your room in the early morning, is such a boolean operator being part of Logic, or Mathematics as a whole, any better in order to make a difference or give a better understanding when it comes to those things which possibly could be "infallible"?

One way of looking at the world is by means of possible order and symmetry which could be present. Rather we are trying to explain a couple of things based on the opposite, namely randomness and chaos, because doing it this way better should fit our purpose or intentions and possibly prove the fact that a couple of things more readily could be explained by means of its complexity rather than simplicity.

A simple equation as E=mc2 is supposed to tell us one given thing in the same way as other mathematical equations might be able to do a similar thing.

Even the properties of elementary particles might be readily explained, because there happens to be or exist mathematical equations present for such at thing to be true or possible.

With a short break, this now reminds me that a scientist with the name of Enrico Fermi could be related to a possible paradox when it comes to a couple of things.

Looking up the subject in the Wikipedia, this paradox is being related to the subject of extraterrestrial intelligence, but sticking with the intended post and its meaning, this is not the answer I wished for right now.

Of course I could return back to subject later on, but that will be for another post.

The basic theme or idea should rather be to stick or adhere to a couple of principles when it comes to thinking and because it went out of my head right now, we probably are back to the Scientific Method and the way it should be used.

The point is that if it happens to be raining, you always wish for the sunny day instead, not the opposite way around.

A web page having the name Christian Science Monitor, but not being visited, could be having a possible view or opinion about a couple of things related to science.

Because the subject of blasphemy should be related to religion rather than science, we rather are supposed to believe in fact in order for it to be true.

If a certain thing for some reason is shown to be contradicting itself, the same or similar thing may also be shown to not be true.

Still, we are supposed to be speaking about possible fallibles or infallibles with respect to or in regards to experiences in life and not necessary the subject of Logic.

E.T. - call home.

This better should be posted at BOINC.

But the true fact is that possible fallibles or infallibles could be part of the physical world you happen to be a part of.

Such things like moral, or the lack of it, in the same way as possible blasphemy or hypocracy are possible notions related to the subject or notion of belief and faith.

And not necessarily about science at all.

What is the precise definition or meaning supposed to be, or are we supposed to be taking it for granted?

These two subjects are sometimes elements which are being pushed upon you by means of force.

You may be familiar with the Mandelbrot set.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mandelbrot_set

If for some reason you were being taught about this set rather than those relating to the whip of the Punisher, you most likely would be able to accept one thing for another regardless of the way the Scientific Method is being supposed to be used.

In the same way as possible fallibles and/or infallibles could be able to explain a couple of things, the notion of religion and faith could be able to explain a couple of things in the same way as the Scientific Method is supposed to be doing the same thing.

Those things which are related to dreams, hallucinations, or even parapshycology are not supposed to be part of our real life in the same ways as fantasies and superstitions are not the same.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parapsychology

The Scientific Method is only able to prove one given fact with respect to another based on a possible Methodology.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Methodology

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schr%C3%B6dinger_equation

Those German words in the alphabet, by the way.

It should therefore be assumed that Logic and Methodology are subjects which should be closely related to each other.

Getting back at it.

... and not necessary the subject of Logic itself.

Life is supposed to be difficult at times.

Reminds me about an important speech right now.

"We choose to be doing a thing, not because it easy, but because it is hard".

Needs checking.

Getting back to it.

This news available today from Wired.com

Lost the tab in the browser, but probably first being mentioned at Yahoo!

http://www.wired.com/2016/05/new-support-alternative-quantum-view/

Should in fact tell that this subject and the way it is being approached has always been a sticking point in my opinion.

You may recall the medieval painting of a man climbing to the top of the sky and looking out beyond the existing or known horizon.

When looking in the sky and observing galaxies and clusters of galaxies, as well as also quasars and other sources known to be emitting natural radio waves by means of possible radiation, we are climbing to the same top and unable to get any further.

But if you happen to be lucky to be a nuclear physicist, you may be either sitting in a chair, or perhaps working in a lab in order to detect new elementary particles and next be able to tell that the properties these particles are showing are telling us about the properties of the Universe, whether or not anything happens to be new discoveries or not.

Are mathematicians perhaps able to come up with new equations only because new particles are being discovered?

Could a similar thing be said about objects known to be existing in the sky?

To the Greek scientists and philosophers, the world was supposed to be having a total of four different elements in all.

Next it came the discovery of gravity by means of a certain event happening and an emininent physicist making certain conclusions when it comes to this subject and in this way being able to define at least three different laws for its working.

So, if for some reason we now happen to know about both the Uncertainty Principle, as well as Quantum Theory or Quantum Mechanics, each of these principles or areas of study when it comes to being subjects, apparently are having their respective sets of equations in order to be able to explain certain properties related to objects of nature, including elementary particles.

As you well may know, the Universe is thought of as being a place having been created in some way and next becomes a changing place because of both ageing processes as well as events which may be happening.

The ageing process in both humans, animals and plants as well are natural processes which should be related or attributed to certain laws and therefore be physical such.

Next, ageing and evolution is not the same thing either, but still our way of life is a result of such evolution constantly taking place and whether or not certain mathematical equations could or should be used in order to explain such things, the explanation for this actually taking place should be the working ground for both mathematicians and physicists, as well as others.

Is this constant or gradual way of looking at things while new discoveries are being made and sometimes contradicting already known facts, or perhaps giving room for new theories any good for science?

Could a possible way of belief and faith be a finite or absolute concept, where certain things are having no possible explanation, because there either does exist any such, or maybe because there should be not necessary to make any conclusions?

So, perhaps God happened to be a daydreamer as well and therefore chose to make the last day of the week a holiday?

Again back to the Uncertainty Principle once again and the assumption that certain things being present or found in life could be regarded as being either fallibles, or maybe infallibles, as previously mentioned.

The possible notion about God you might be having probably may only be taught by means of the subject of religion, belief and faith that could be present.

At least the two latter of these three.

If I am not wrong, the Scientific Method is supposed to be the way we should be able to understand nature.

Jesus once said "Let the small come to me" and he probably meant children when saying such a thing.

If a given theory, or approach, meaning a possible Methodology is being used in order to be able to explain a couple of things and possible make two or more existing theories into one because different sets of equations are found to be having a same or similar meaning, we probably are not any closer at perhaps understanding the notion of the presence of a possible God.

The only thing that is for sure is that even Quantum Mechanics and the Uncertainty Principle is supposed to be readily explained by means of laws and equations for their given purpose and nothing else.

Therefore my guess is that Stephen Hawking more likely than not should be able to dismiss or disprove any such notion about a possible God, only because certain equations could be found or known which may be supporting such a fact, or maybe assumption.

Downloading new tasks from the server right now.

Getting a message in the Notices tab about upgrading the nVidia graphics driver to the most recent version.

Yes, my bad here. I happen to know about it already.

But guess I did in fact try earlier on and have at least one earlier version downloaded a couple of weeks ago.

Also the Microsoft .NET Framework package becomes needed as well and this takes quite a while.

It may not have been successful the last time I tried.

Shutting down both BOINC Manager by exiting using the tray at the right, next choosing to display all tasks in the Processes tab of Windows Task Manager and terminating both boinc.exe and boinctray.exe, I am surprised to see that despite of that, Norton Internet Security pops up with the high CPU usage message box.

It is definitely being felt, because I am once again locked from typing the characters when using Notepad.

The only thing being carried out was suspending CUDA in the Manager, but not the tasks themselves.

Getting a couple of flashes from the screen during installation of the new version of the graphics driver.

Possibly this will need a restart of the computer as well.

Also another message about software removal right now. It could be an existing version of .NET Framework being uninstalled.

And as already being experienced, the installation software is unable to upgrade .NET Framework once again.

It may need to be done separately.

Any existing version may have been uninstalled. Needs checking in Control Panel.

But I do not like the fact that tasks apparently are running despite the application having been shut down and all processes associated with it have been terminated as well.

This is an example of runaway processes happening and should not be allowed to happen in my opinion.

Trying launching BOINC Manager first without a restart of the computer, but possibly this will become needed.

Edit: Mark, in fact I forgot that little thing, but at least I checked in twice and selected a driver version which has been certified by nVidia.

I think this should be the better thing to do right now. The previous version was getting a bit old.

Edit2: Getting the following message for a couple of CPU tasks before eventually restarting.

Postponed: Waiting to acquire slot directory lock. Another instance may be running.

This should most likely not be the same as ghosts, but rather possible duplicate instances of a single task instead.

Because a bit hectic. I will keep a tab on it, but perhaps Mark or someone else could offer a better explanation.

Apparently the lock problem became solved right now. No duplicate tasks in the task list as far as I am able to see.

Perhaps still being wrong. Suspending the running tasks, the 9 at the top still will not run in the same way.

Also suspending the 9 tasks as well and next resuming makes no difference either.

Better have a restart of the computer.

Beware of the most recent NV drivers.
I tried the newest one on my daily driver yesterday and had to roll back because it was causing all sorts of driver restarts.

Meow.

---

"Freedom is just Chaos, with better lighting." Alan Dean Foster

Did a restart of the computer later on and had three error tasks by running on the CPU.

The lock problem being experienced eventually became sorted out at least.

Going to bed when it becomes 3 AM local time here.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Creation

In the sense of the possible non-physical, if you do not mind.

Giving it some thoughts, I will make a post of it tomorrow.

Back later on.