<article>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#article10_01_09_032229</id>
	<title>Golden Ratio Discovered In a Quantum World</title>
	<author>Soulskill</author>
	<datestamp>1263056040000</datestamp>
	<htmltext><a href="mailto:fireang3l.hotmail@com" rel="nofollow">FiReaNGeL</a> writes <i>"Scientists have for the first time observed a nanoscale symmetry hidden in solid state matter. 'In order to study these nanoscale quantum effects, the researchers have focused on the magnetic material cobalt niobate. It consists of linked magnetic atoms, which form chains just like a very thin bar magnet, but only one atom wide.' By artificially introducing more quantum uncertainty, the researchers observed that the chain acts like a nanoscale guitar string. The first two notes show a perfect relationship with each other. <a href="http://esciencenews.com/articles/2010/01/07/golden.ratio.discovered.a.quantum.world">Their frequencies (pitch) are in the ratio of 1.618</a>, which is the golden ratio famous from art and architecture. The observed resonant states in cobalt niobate are a dramatic laboratory illustration of the way in which mathematical theories developed for particle physics may find application in nanoscale science and ultimately in future technology."</i></htmltext>
<tokenext>FiReaNGeL writes " Scientists have for the first time observed a nanoscale symmetry hidden in solid state matter .
'In order to study these nanoscale quantum effects , the researchers have focused on the magnetic material cobalt niobate .
It consists of linked magnetic atoms , which form chains just like a very thin bar magnet , but only one atom wide .
' By artificially introducing more quantum uncertainty , the researchers observed that the chain acts like a nanoscale guitar string .
The first two notes show a perfect relationship with each other .
Their frequencies ( pitch ) are in the ratio of 1.618 , which is the golden ratio famous from art and architecture .
The observed resonant states in cobalt niobate are a dramatic laboratory illustration of the way in which mathematical theories developed for particle physics may find application in nanoscale science and ultimately in future technology .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>FiReaNGeL writes "Scientists have for the first time observed a nanoscale symmetry hidden in solid state matter.
'In order to study these nanoscale quantum effects, the researchers have focused on the magnetic material cobalt niobate.
It consists of linked magnetic atoms, which form chains just like a very thin bar magnet, but only one atom wide.
' By artificially introducing more quantum uncertainty, the researchers observed that the chain acts like a nanoscale guitar string.
The first two notes show a perfect relationship with each other.
Their frequencies (pitch) are in the ratio of 1.618, which is the golden ratio famous from art and architecture.
The observed resonant states in cobalt niobate are a dramatic laboratory illustration of the way in which mathematical theories developed for particle physics may find application in nanoscale science and ultimately in future technology.
"</sentencetext>
</article>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_032229.30705332</id>
	<title>Re:Looking for god's finger prints? Here it is.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262980680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>this is a point of view physicists had in the 19 century. we now know that it's incorrect due to the uncertainty introduced by quantum mechanics.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>this is a point of view physicists had in the 19 century .
we now know that it 's incorrect due to the uncertainty introduced by quantum mechanics .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>this is a point of view physicists had in the 19 century.
we now know that it's incorrect due to the uncertainty introduced by quantum mechanics.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_032229.30705118</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_032229.30705432</id>
	<title>For those who want to hear it.</title>
	<author>Mal-2</author>
	<datestamp>1263068220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>For those of you that want to hear what this ratios sounds like, <a href="http://mal-2.com/gm/goldenratio.wav" title="mal-2.com">it's 833 cents</a> [mal-2.com], or a minor sixth plus 33 cents. This happens to be the interval used to form the aptly named <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bohlen\%E2\%80\%93Pierce\_scale#Other\_unusual\_tunings\_or\_scales" title="wikipedia.org">Bohlen 833 cents (or A12) scale.</a> [wikipedia.org]</p><p>Mal-2</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>For those of you that want to hear what this ratios sounds like , it 's 833 cents [ mal-2.com ] , or a minor sixth plus 33 cents .
This happens to be the interval used to form the aptly named Bohlen 833 cents ( or A12 ) scale .
[ wikipedia.org ] Mal-2</tokentext>
<sentencetext>For those of you that want to hear what this ratios sounds like, it's 833 cents [mal-2.com], or a minor sixth plus 33 cents.
This happens to be the interval used to form the aptly named Bohlen 833 cents (or A12) scale.
[wikipedia.org]Mal-2</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_032229.30705272</id>
	<title>Obligatory</title>
	<author>hyperion2010</author>
	<datestamp>1262979720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Offtopic</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>God did it!  God teir troll that man is.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>God did it !
God teir troll that man is .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>God did it!
God teir troll that man is.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_032229.30704878</id>
	<title>Oh cripes</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262974860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><a href="http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=golden+ratio" title="wolframalpha.com">Its got the number of the beast in it</a> [wolframalpha.com]. Quick, ring <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The\_Number\_of\_the\_Beast\_(novel)" title="wikipedia.org">Robert Heinlein</a> [wikipedia.org].</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Its got the number of the beast in it [ wolframalpha.com ] .
Quick , ring Robert Heinlein [ wikipedia.org ] .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Its got the number of the beast in it [wolframalpha.com].
Quick, ring Robert Heinlein [wikipedia.org].</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_032229.30706464</id>
	<title>There is no God...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263041280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xfqht0LEOWQ" title="youtube.com" rel="nofollow">http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xfqht0LEOWQ</a> [youtube.com]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>http : //www.youtube.com/watch ? v = Xfqht0LEOWQ [ youtube.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xfqht0LEOWQ [youtube.com]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_032229.30706330</id>
	<title>The problem with Science</title>
	<author>Whiteox</author>
	<datestamp>1263039600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>The first two notes show a perfect relationship with each other. Their frequencies (pitch) are in the ratio of 1.618, which is the golden ratio famous from art and architecture.</p></div><p>Interesting. Now how do you write the Twilight Zone theme <i>Da da da da</i> just doesn't cut it IMHO.<br>Which brings me to the point of all this - How come only a very few scientists ever ask 'Why is this so?'.<br>All they seem to do is to observe and record.<br>What relationship is there between the Parthenon, quantum physics and nano tech?<br>Why 1.618 and not 10/7 or any other semi-mystical ratio???</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The first two notes show a perfect relationship with each other .
Their frequencies ( pitch ) are in the ratio of 1.618 , which is the golden ratio famous from art and architecture.Interesting .
Now how do you write the Twilight Zone theme Da da da da just does n't cut it IMHO.Which brings me to the point of all this - How come only a very few scientists ever ask 'Why is this so ?
'.All they seem to do is to observe and record.What relationship is there between the Parthenon , quantum physics and nano tech ? Why 1.618 and not 10/7 or any other semi-mystical ratio ? ?
?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The first two notes show a perfect relationship with each other.
Their frequencies (pitch) are in the ratio of 1.618, which is the golden ratio famous from art and architecture.Interesting.
Now how do you write the Twilight Zone theme Da da da da just doesn't cut it IMHO.Which brings me to the point of all this - How come only a very few scientists ever ask 'Why is this so?
'.All they seem to do is to observe and record.What relationship is there between the Parthenon, quantum physics and nano tech?Why 1.618 and not 10/7 or any other semi-mystical ratio??
?
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_032229.30704752</id>
	<title>Re:Summary wrong</title>
	<author>ceoyoyo</author>
	<datestamp>1262973720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Offtopic</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Uh oh.  Clicking on the first hit on that Google search would tell you that the golden ratio is an irrational number, which means the numbers to the right of the decimal place keep going on forever, without repeating.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Uh oh .
Clicking on the first hit on that Google search would tell you that the golden ratio is an irrational number , which means the numbers to the right of the decimal place keep going on forever , without repeating .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Uh oh.
Clicking on the first hit on that Google search would tell you that the golden ratio is an irrational number, which means the numbers to the right of the decimal place keep going on forever, without repeating.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_032229.30704698</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_032229.30707068</id>
	<title>Re:Summary wrong</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263050580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Wrong.</p><p>It is <strong>approximately</strong> 1.6180339887498948482, not 1.61803399 as stated in your post.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Wrong.It is approximately 1.6180339887498948482 , not 1.61803399 as stated in your post .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Wrong.It is approximately 1.6180339887498948482, not 1.61803399 as stated in your post.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_032229.30704698</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_032229.30705066</id>
	<title>Re:Looking for god's finger prints? Here it is.</title>
	<author>frakir</author>
	<datestamp>1262977080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This is not a 'high form of symmetry' but very basic one; a solution to a very rudimentary quadratic equation. I, for one am surprised we're not seeing such solutions more often around us. <br>Here's why: every semi-dynamic system tends to find a local energy minimum, which needs to be stable. A quadratic equation has always a stable minimum or it doesn't have a minimum. Well... that's all, nothing more to see here for me.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This is not a 'high form of symmetry ' but very basic one ; a solution to a very rudimentary quadratic equation .
I , for one am surprised we 're not seeing such solutions more often around us .
Here 's why : every semi-dynamic system tends to find a local energy minimum , which needs to be stable .
A quadratic equation has always a stable minimum or it does n't have a minimum .
Well... that 's all , nothing more to see here for me .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is not a 'high form of symmetry' but very basic one; a solution to a very rudimentary quadratic equation.
I, for one am surprised we're not seeing such solutions more often around us.
Here's why: every semi-dynamic system tends to find a local energy minimum, which needs to be stable.
A quadratic equation has always a stable minimum or it doesn't have a minimum.
Well... that's all, nothing more to see here for me.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_032229.30705012</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_032229.30705616</id>
	<title>Re:Looking for god's finger prints? Here it is.</title>
	<author>camperdave</author>
	<datestamp>1263027900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><i>It isn't god's fingerprints, it's math's fingerprints.</i> <br> <br>
What is an abstract concept like mathematics doing getting its grubby fingerprints all over physical reality? Some would say that only God could do that.  Or are you trying to assert that the universe is just as abstract and unreal as the number 2, and <a href="http://www.xkcd.com/10/" title="xkcd.com">we're trapped in it</a> [xkcd.com]?</htmltext>
<tokenext>It is n't god 's fingerprints , it 's math 's fingerprints .
What is an abstract concept like mathematics doing getting its grubby fingerprints all over physical reality ?
Some would say that only God could do that .
Or are you trying to assert that the universe is just as abstract and unreal as the number 2 , and we 're trapped in it [ xkcd.com ] ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It isn't god's fingerprints, it's math's fingerprints.
What is an abstract concept like mathematics doing getting its grubby fingerprints all over physical reality?
Some would say that only God could do that.
Or are you trying to assert that the universe is just as abstract and unreal as the number 2, and we're trapped in it [xkcd.com]?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_032229.30705086</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_032229.30705042</id>
	<title>Continued Fraction</title>
	<author>threaded</author>
	<datestamp>1262976600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Maybe what we can see is just the surface of a deeper reality, and below that something deeper again, etc. etc..  So this appearance of a golden ratio is actually an artefact of a continued fraction i.e. 1 + 1/(1+1/(1+1/(1+1/(.....</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Maybe what we can see is just the surface of a deeper reality , and below that something deeper again , etc .
etc.. So this appearance of a golden ratio is actually an artefact of a continued fraction i.e .
1 + 1/ ( 1 + 1/ ( 1 + 1/ ( 1 + 1/ ( .... .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Maybe what we can see is just the surface of a deeper reality, and below that something deeper again, etc.
etc..  So this appearance of a golden ratio is actually an artefact of a continued fraction i.e.
1 + 1/(1+1/(1+1/(1+1/(.....</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_032229.30705528</id>
	<title>Hmm...</title>
	<author>FiloEleven</author>
	<datestamp>1263069540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Does the belief in a universe that is not random necessarily imply a belief in God?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Does the belief in a universe that is not random necessarily imply a belief in God ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Does the belief in a universe that is not random necessarily imply a belief in God?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_032229.30705086</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_032229.30706318</id>
	<title>Re:Oblig. Square One TV's MATHNET reference...</title>
	<author>fastest fascist</author>
	<datestamp>1263039480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>1. 1<br>
2. 1<br>
3. 2<br>
4. ???<br>
5. Profit!</htmltext>
<tokenext>1 .
1 2 .
1 3 .
2 4 .
? ? ? 5 .
Profit !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>1.
1
2.
1
3.
2
4.
???
5.
Profit!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_032229.30704676</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_032229.30704676</id>
	<title>Oblig. Square One TV's MATHNET reference...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262973240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>1, 1, 2, 3, 5, Eureka!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>1 , 1 , 2 , 3 , 5 , Eureka !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>1, 1, 2, 3, 5, Eureka!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_032229.30715444</id>
	<title>Hemholtz press release has better description</title>
	<author>DotDotSlashDot</author>
	<datestamp>1263148980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>This diagram and description is clearer, but does not mention any of the other ratios found.
<a href="https://www.helmholtz-berlin.de/aktuell/pr/pm/pm-archiv/2010/quantenwelt\_en.html" title="helmholtz-berlin.de" rel="nofollow">https://www.helmholtz-berlin.de/aktuell/pr/pm/pm-archiv/2010/quantenwelt\_en.html</a> [helmholtz-berlin.de]</htmltext>
<tokenext>This diagram and description is clearer , but does not mention any of the other ratios found .
https : //www.helmholtz-berlin.de/aktuell/pr/pm/pm-archiv/2010/quantenwelt \ _en.html [ helmholtz-berlin.de ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This diagram and description is clearer, but does not mention any of the other ratios found.
https://www.helmholtz-berlin.de/aktuell/pr/pm/pm-archiv/2010/quantenwelt\_en.html [helmholtz-berlin.de]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_032229.30705634</id>
	<title>Re:Looking for god's finger prints? Here it is.</title>
	<author>TapeCutter</author>
	<datestamp>1263028200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><i>"To believe in a random universe requires a lot more mental gymnastics to reconcile the observed universe with that world view."</i>
<br> <br>
Yes, the universe is far stranger than fiction, it's also more usefull.</htmltext>
<tokenext>" To believe in a random universe requires a lot more mental gymnastics to reconcile the observed universe with that world view .
" Yes , the universe is far stranger than fiction , it 's also more usefull .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"To believe in a random universe requires a lot more mental gymnastics to reconcile the observed universe with that world view.
"
 
Yes, the universe is far stranger than fiction, it's also more usefull.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_032229.30705012</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_032229.30708830</id>
	<title>In comic book form: Echo</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263067380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>My favorite comic writer Terry Moore has a series going on now that is tightly wound around the golden ratio. It's called Echo. Check it out. The ISBN number of the first trade paperback is 978-1892597403.</p><p>And yes, this is a plug. I like it enough to have a subscription so neener, neener! I'll plug all I want!<nobr> <wbr></nobr>;)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>My favorite comic writer Terry Moore has a series going on now that is tightly wound around the golden ratio .
It 's called Echo .
Check it out .
The ISBN number of the first trade paperback is 978-1892597403.And yes , this is a plug .
I like it enough to have a subscription so neener , neener !
I 'll plug all I want !
; )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>My favorite comic writer Terry Moore has a series going on now that is tightly wound around the golden ratio.
It's called Echo.
Check it out.
The ISBN number of the first trade paperback is 978-1892597403.And yes, this is a plug.
I like it enough to have a subscription so neener, neener!
I'll plug all I want!
;)</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_032229.30705074</id>
	<title>Re:Looking for god's finger prints? Here it is.</title>
	<author>grimdawg</author>
	<datestamp>1262977200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>If the bodies of most organisms are anything to go by, evolution loves symmetry. The universe isn't random, it obeys rules, and when you combine random effects with structured rules you fairly often get to see patterns.

Perhaps a better explanation:
"The golden ratio is found everywhere in nature even to the quantum level. It is THEREFORE the most pleasing ratio to the human eye.
It would be highly PROBABLE for a random universe, GOVERNED BY PHYSICAL LAWS, to create this sort of symmetry."</htmltext>
<tokenext>If the bodies of most organisms are anything to go by , evolution loves symmetry .
The universe is n't random , it obeys rules , and when you combine random effects with structured rules you fairly often get to see patterns .
Perhaps a better explanation : " The golden ratio is found everywhere in nature even to the quantum level .
It is THEREFORE the most pleasing ratio to the human eye .
It would be highly PROBABLE for a random universe , GOVERNED BY PHYSICAL LAWS , to create this sort of symmetry .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If the bodies of most organisms are anything to go by, evolution loves symmetry.
The universe isn't random, it obeys rules, and when you combine random effects with structured rules you fairly often get to see patterns.
Perhaps a better explanation:
"The golden ratio is found everywhere in nature even to the quantum level.
It is THEREFORE the most pleasing ratio to the human eye.
It would be highly PROBABLE for a random universe, GOVERNED BY PHYSICAL LAWS, to create this sort of symmetry.
"</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_032229.30705012</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_032229.30706936</id>
	<title>Serious shit. dont take lightly.</title>
	<author>unity100</author>
	<datestamp>1263048840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>note that golden ratio is found in many celebrated works of art. a lot of artists in history used it knowingly in their masterpieces. such pieces of art are known to appeal to human's liking more. liking, appreciation, all subjective concepts. human psyche is something we havent been able to approach with any tangible, usable definite method up to this date.</p><p>now we find this ration in quantum mechanics.</p><p>this is practically the first solid link in between something that is numeric, defined and clear cut and human psyche.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>note that golden ratio is found in many celebrated works of art .
a lot of artists in history used it knowingly in their masterpieces .
such pieces of art are known to appeal to human 's liking more .
liking , appreciation , all subjective concepts .
human psyche is something we havent been able to approach with any tangible , usable definite method up to this date.now we find this ration in quantum mechanics.this is practically the first solid link in between something that is numeric , defined and clear cut and human psyche .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>note that golden ratio is found in many celebrated works of art.
a lot of artists in history used it knowingly in their masterpieces.
such pieces of art are known to appeal to human's liking more.
liking, appreciation, all subjective concepts.
human psyche is something we havent been able to approach with any tangible, usable definite method up to this date.now we find this ration in quantum mechanics.this is practically the first solid link in between something that is numeric, defined and clear cut and human psyche.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_032229.30707668</id>
	<title>Re:Art and Architecture?</title>
	<author>ascari</author>
	<datestamp>1263057000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>some seemed to think that the universe could be understood through geometry alone.</p></div><p>
We now know better: It takes geometry plus slashdot to fully understand the universe.
</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>some seemed to think that the universe could be understood through geometry alone .
We now know better : It takes geometry plus slashdot to fully understand the universe .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>some seemed to think that the universe could be understood through geometry alone.
We now know better: It takes geometry plus slashdot to fully understand the universe.

	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_032229.30704892</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_032229.30707266</id>
	<title>Shouldn't the ratio be ...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263052560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>1:4:9, at least for the first 3 dimensions?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>1 : 4 : 9 , at least for the first 3 dimensions ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>1:4:9, at least for the first 3 dimensions?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_032229.30704764</id>
	<title>Is this one of those...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262973780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>.999... = 1 threads?
<br> <br>
What between<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.999... and 1?<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.aaa...</htmltext>
<tokenext>.999... = 1 threads ?
What between .999... and 1 ?
.aaa.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>.999... = 1 threads?
What between .999... and 1?
.aaa...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_032229.30705086</id>
	<title>Re:Looking for god's finger prints? Here it is.</title>
	<author>Virak</author>
	<datestamp>1262977320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You might have a point if the golden ratio were an entirely arbitrary number and not one derived from a <a href="http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/44/Golden\_ratio\_line.svg" title="wikimedia.org">simple geometric relation</a> [wikimedia.org]. Pointing to the golden ratio as evidence for the existence of god is like pointing to occurrences of pi in nature, or the Fibonacci sequence. It isn't god's fingerprints, it's math's fingerprints.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You might have a point if the golden ratio were an entirely arbitrary number and not one derived from a simple geometric relation [ wikimedia.org ] .
Pointing to the golden ratio as evidence for the existence of god is like pointing to occurrences of pi in nature , or the Fibonacci sequence .
It is n't god 's fingerprints , it 's math 's fingerprints .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You might have a point if the golden ratio were an entirely arbitrary number and not one derived from a simple geometric relation [wikimedia.org].
Pointing to the golden ratio as evidence for the existence of god is like pointing to occurrences of pi in nature, or the Fibonacci sequence.
It isn't god's fingerprints, it's math's fingerprints.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_032229.30705012</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_032229.30704794</id>
	<title>What are they going to use this for?</title>
	<author>ibsteve2u</author>
	<datestamp>1262974080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Offtopic</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>High-end ben-wah balls that reverberate to the sound of money?</htmltext>
<tokenext>High-end ben-wah balls that reverberate to the sound of money ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>High-end ben-wah balls that reverberate to the sound of money?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_032229.30706316</id>
	<title>Re:Summary wrong</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263039480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The first person to post the exact number gets modded +5 informative</p><p>(and I'll buy them a drink at milliways<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The first person to post the exact number gets modded + 5 informative ( and I 'll buy them a drink at milliways : )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The first person to post the exact number gets modded +5 informative(and I'll buy them a drink at milliways :)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_032229.30704698</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_032229.30844136</id>
	<title>Larssy</title>
	<author>Larssy</author>
	<datestamp>1264074480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Now that we have at long last discovered the reality of the golden mean in quantum mechanics and high energy physics, we should recall the true history of this momentous discovery of one of the most amazing principles ever found combining art and science on a fundamental level. It was Mohamed El Naschie who discovered the fundamental role of the golden mean in high energy physics for the first time using golden geometry he was able to explain rationally the two slit experiment. A book which just appeared in World Scientific summarizes all this discoveries. The book is entitled: The Mathematics of Harmony. The author is academician Alexey Stakhov, the renowned mathematician and engineer. It is edited by the American Philosopher Scott Olsen. Some have proposed Stakhov for  a Nobel prize based on this publication. Another noteworthy book based on Mohamed El Naschie&rsquo;s work is that of Leonard Wapner entitled: The Pea and the Sun published by A.K. Peters Ltd, Wellesley, Massachusetts. It is only fair to mention that Mohamed El Naschie&rsquo;s discovery would have been unthinkable without the work of Garnett Ord and Laurent Nottale in fractal spacetime. The profound question is now how did the golden mean enter into fractal spacetime. The answer is extremely simple. It is through Maulden Williams theorem. This theorem was used for the first time in quantum mechanics by El Naschie. The theorem states that a random cantor set will always have with a probability equal 1 the golden mean as the Hausdorff dimension. Since spacetime is nothing but an infinite collection of random cantor sets, it follows that the mathematical building blocks of quantum mechanics and quantum gravity is the golden mean. It sounds unlikely, esoteric or even crazy, but it is not. If it would be it wouldn&rsquo;t have been discovered experimentally.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Now that we have at long last discovered the reality of the golden mean in quantum mechanics and high energy physics , we should recall the true history of this momentous discovery of one of the most amazing principles ever found combining art and science on a fundamental level .
It was Mohamed El Naschie who discovered the fundamental role of the golden mean in high energy physics for the first time using golden geometry he was able to explain rationally the two slit experiment .
A book which just appeared in World Scientific summarizes all this discoveries .
The book is entitled : The Mathematics of Harmony .
The author is academician Alexey Stakhov , the renowned mathematician and engineer .
It is edited by the American Philosopher Scott Olsen .
Some have proposed Stakhov for a Nobel prize based on this publication .
Another noteworthy book based on Mohamed El Naschie    s work is that of Leonard Wapner entitled : The Pea and the Sun published by A.K .
Peters Ltd , Wellesley , Massachusetts .
It is only fair to mention that Mohamed El Naschie    s discovery would have been unthinkable without the work of Garnett Ord and Laurent Nottale in fractal spacetime .
The profound question is now how did the golden mean enter into fractal spacetime .
The answer is extremely simple .
It is through Maulden Williams theorem .
This theorem was used for the first time in quantum mechanics by El Naschie .
The theorem states that a random cantor set will always have with a probability equal 1 the golden mean as the Hausdorff dimension .
Since spacetime is nothing but an infinite collection of random cantor sets , it follows that the mathematical building blocks of quantum mechanics and quantum gravity is the golden mean .
It sounds unlikely , esoteric or even crazy , but it is not .
If it would be it wouldn    t have been discovered experimentally .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Now that we have at long last discovered the reality of the golden mean in quantum mechanics and high energy physics, we should recall the true history of this momentous discovery of one of the most amazing principles ever found combining art and science on a fundamental level.
It was Mohamed El Naschie who discovered the fundamental role of the golden mean in high energy physics for the first time using golden geometry he was able to explain rationally the two slit experiment.
A book which just appeared in World Scientific summarizes all this discoveries.
The book is entitled: The Mathematics of Harmony.
The author is academician Alexey Stakhov, the renowned mathematician and engineer.
It is edited by the American Philosopher Scott Olsen.
Some have proposed Stakhov for  a Nobel prize based on this publication.
Another noteworthy book based on Mohamed El Naschie’s work is that of Leonard Wapner entitled: The Pea and the Sun published by A.K.
Peters Ltd, Wellesley, Massachusetts.
It is only fair to mention that Mohamed El Naschie’s discovery would have been unthinkable without the work of Garnett Ord and Laurent Nottale in fractal spacetime.
The profound question is now how did the golden mean enter into fractal spacetime.
The answer is extremely simple.
It is through Maulden Williams theorem.
This theorem was used for the first time in quantum mechanics by El Naschie.
The theorem states that a random cantor set will always have with a probability equal 1 the golden mean as the Hausdorff dimension.
Since spacetime is nothing but an infinite collection of random cantor sets, it follows that the mathematical building blocks of quantum mechanics and quantum gravity is the golden mean.
It sounds unlikely, esoteric or even crazy, but it is not.
If it would be it wouldn’t have been discovered experimentally.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_032229.30707644</id>
	<title>First Contact?</title>
	<author>jeremie</author>
	<datestamp>1263056700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>The first artificial signal we've received via a medium we're only just discovering, perhaps?<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:)</htmltext>
<tokenext>The first artificial signal we 've received via a medium we 're only just discovering , perhaps ?
: )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The first artificial signal we've received via a medium we're only just discovering, perhaps?
:)</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_032229.30729174</id>
	<title>Surfer dude</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263206100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Has any discussion taken place linking this article to this one?<br>Perhaps the detection of E8 symmetry could lend credibility this this theory?</p><p>http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/large-hadron-collider/3314456/Surfer-dude-stuns-physicists-with-theory-of-everything.html</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Has any discussion taken place linking this article to this one ? Perhaps the detection of E8 symmetry could lend credibility this this theory ? http : //www.telegraph.co.uk/science/large-hadron-collider/3314456/Surfer-dude-stuns-physicists-with-theory-of-everything.html</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Has any discussion taken place linking this article to this one?Perhaps the detection of E8 symmetry could lend credibility this this theory?http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/large-hadron-collider/3314456/Surfer-dude-stuns-physicists-with-theory-of-everything.html</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_032229.30705036</id>
	<title>Re:Car Analogy</title>
	<author>Max(10)</author>
	<datestamp>1262976540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You get a grant to analyze a car in order to find something really special about it. You measure its top speed, acceleration, etc. and spend 3 years analyzing it, but find nothing special about it, it's an average car. At this point you already spent all the money and you need to somehow justify spending all that time and money, so you start comparing all the measurements you took in order to at least find some kind of well known constant and that's when you notice that the diameter of the AC vent is 1.618 of the diameter of the cigarette lighter.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You get a grant to analyze a car in order to find something really special about it .
You measure its top speed , acceleration , etc .
and spend 3 years analyzing it , but find nothing special about it , it 's an average car .
At this point you already spent all the money and you need to somehow justify spending all that time and money , so you start comparing all the measurements you took in order to at least find some kind of well known constant and that 's when you notice that the diameter of the AC vent is 1.618 of the diameter of the cigarette lighter .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You get a grant to analyze a car in order to find something really special about it.
You measure its top speed, acceleration, etc.
and spend 3 years analyzing it, but find nothing special about it, it's an average car.
At this point you already spent all the money and you need to somehow justify spending all that time and money, so you start comparing all the measurements you took in order to at least find some kind of well known constant and that's when you notice that the diameter of the AC vent is 1.618 of the diameter of the cigarette lighter.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_032229.30704844</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_032229.30705012</id>
	<title>Looking for god's finger prints? Here it is.</title>
	<author>aristotle-dude</author>
	<datestamp>1262976300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext>The golden ratio is found everywhere in nature even to the quantum level. It is also the most pleasing ratio to the human eye.
<p>
It would be highly improbable for a random universe to create this sort of symmetry.
</p><p>
To believe in a random universe requires a lot more mental gymnastics to reconcile the observed universe with that world view.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The golden ratio is found everywhere in nature even to the quantum level .
It is also the most pleasing ratio to the human eye .
It would be highly improbable for a random universe to create this sort of symmetry .
To believe in a random universe requires a lot more mental gymnastics to reconcile the observed universe with that world view .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The golden ratio is found everywhere in nature even to the quantum level.
It is also the most pleasing ratio to the human eye.
It would be highly improbable for a random universe to create this sort of symmetry.
To believe in a random universe requires a lot more mental gymnastics to reconcile the observed universe with that world view.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_032229.30705836</id>
	<title>Sloppy writing</title>
	<author>johanatan</author>
	<datestamp>1263030960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>FTFA:<p><div class="quote"><p> New properties emerge which are the result of an effect known as the Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle.</p></div><p>I see neither these properties emerging as a result of the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle nor the 'effectiveness' of this mere principle.<br>
I rather think that the properties exist independent of any principle and we label our discovery of such as a principle [and both the properties and the principle (albeit an artificial construct) lie outside our observation of such].</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>FTFA : New properties emerge which are the result of an effect known as the Heisenberg 's Uncertainty Principle.I see neither these properties emerging as a result of the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle nor the 'effectiveness ' of this mere principle .
I rather think that the properties exist independent of any principle and we label our discovery of such as a principle [ and both the properties and the principle ( albeit an artificial construct ) lie outside our observation of such ] .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>FTFA: New properties emerge which are the result of an effect known as the Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle.I see neither these properties emerging as a result of the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle nor the 'effectiveness' of this mere principle.
I rather think that the properties exist independent of any principle and we label our discovery of such as a principle [and both the properties and the principle (albeit an artificial construct) lie outside our observation of such].
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_032229.30705220</id>
	<title>Re:Oblig. Square One TV's MATHNET reference...</title>
	<author>troll8901</author>
	<datestamp>1262979120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The mod who gave you the Redundant mod ought to be ashamed.</p><p>I've skimmed the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Golden\_ratio#Relationship\_to\_Fibonacci\_sequence" title="wikipedia.org" rel="nofollow">Golden Ratio</a> [wikipedia.org] article and it's blaringly obvious that the Fibonacci sequence is closely related.  (Long sequence of mathematical equations that I really don't understand.)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The mod who gave you the Redundant mod ought to be ashamed.I 've skimmed the Golden Ratio [ wikipedia.org ] article and it 's blaringly obvious that the Fibonacci sequence is closely related .
( Long sequence of mathematical equations that I really do n't understand .
)</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The mod who gave you the Redundant mod ought to be ashamed.I've skimmed the Golden Ratio [wikipedia.org] article and it's blaringly obvious that the Fibonacci sequence is closely related.
(Long sequence of mathematical equations that I really don't understand.
)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_032229.30705020</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_032229.30705084</id>
	<title>Re:Looking for god's finger prints? Here it is.</title>
	<author>TubeSteak</author>
	<datestamp>1262977260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>The golden ratio is found everywhere in nature even to the quantum level. It is also the most pleasing ratio to the human eye.<br>It would be highly improbable for a random universe to create this sort of symmetry.</p><p>To believe in a random universe requires a lot more mental gymnastics to reconcile the observed universe with that world view.</p></div><p>Which is more likely:<br>A) The human eye finds the golden ratio pleasing because it is everywhere in nature<br>B) the golden ratio is everwhere in nature because it is pleasing to the human eye</p><p>It's okay to say "I don't know."<br>You don't have to fill in all the gaps with "God"</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The golden ratio is found everywhere in nature even to the quantum level .
It is also the most pleasing ratio to the human eye.It would be highly improbable for a random universe to create this sort of symmetry.To believe in a random universe requires a lot more mental gymnastics to reconcile the observed universe with that world view.Which is more likely : A ) The human eye finds the golden ratio pleasing because it is everywhere in natureB ) the golden ratio is everwhere in nature because it is pleasing to the human eyeIt 's okay to say " I do n't know .
" You do n't have to fill in all the gaps with " God "</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The golden ratio is found everywhere in nature even to the quantum level.
It is also the most pleasing ratio to the human eye.It would be highly improbable for a random universe to create this sort of symmetry.To believe in a random universe requires a lot more mental gymnastics to reconcile the observed universe with that world view.Which is more likely:A) The human eye finds the golden ratio pleasing because it is everywhere in natureB) the golden ratio is everwhere in nature because it is pleasing to the human eyeIt's okay to say "I don't know.
"You don't have to fill in all the gaps with "God"
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_032229.30705012</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_032229.30705426</id>
	<title>Re:Looking for god's finger prints? Here it is.</title>
	<author>glwtta</author>
	<datestamp>1263068160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><i>Since, at a minimum, you can't solve for the state of the lottery lady</i>
<br> <br>
Huh, I rather thought that particular philosophical chestnut is still mostly considered an open question.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Since , at a minimum , you ca n't solve for the state of the lottery lady Huh , I rather thought that particular philosophical chestnut is still mostly considered an open question .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Since, at a minimum, you can't solve for the state of the lottery lady
 
Huh, I rather thought that particular philosophical chestnut is still mostly considered an open question.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_032229.30705252</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_032229.30707726</id>
	<title>Re:Looking for god's finger prints? Here it is.</title>
	<author>ascari</author>
	<datestamp>1263057540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Correct. And don't forget multi-state lotteries!</htmltext>
<tokenext>Correct .
And do n't forget multi-state lotteries !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Correct.
And don't forget multi-state lotteries!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_032229.30705252</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_032229.30712578</id>
	<title>Re:Looking for god's finger prints? Here it is.</title>
	<author>jonaskoelker</author>
	<datestamp>1263058920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Since, at a minimum, you can't solve for the state of the lottery lady</p></div><p>I don't see anything which makes it impossible to <em>in principle</em> measure her first, then include her as part of the machine's state.</p><p>You'd probably need to model everything she interacts with, transitively, so you have to model the entire universe, which is rather impractical if you're limited to being inside the universe.</p><p>But maybe you can measure and model to within a crazy high precision?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Since , at a minimum , you ca n't solve for the state of the lottery ladyI do n't see anything which makes it impossible to in principle measure her first , then include her as part of the machine 's state.You 'd probably need to model everything she interacts with , transitively , so you have to model the entire universe , which is rather impractical if you 're limited to being inside the universe.But maybe you can measure and model to within a crazy high precision ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Since, at a minimum, you can't solve for the state of the lottery ladyI don't see anything which makes it impossible to in principle measure her first, then include her as part of the machine's state.You'd probably need to model everything she interacts with, transitively, so you have to model the entire universe, which is rather impractical if you're limited to being inside the universe.But maybe you can measure and model to within a crazy high precision?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_032229.30705252</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_032229.30705278</id>
	<title>i just got off the toilet</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262979840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Offtopic</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext>i shit out an obama.<br> <br>plop!</htmltext>
<tokenext>i shit out an obama .
plop !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>i shit out an obama.
plop!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_032229.30705252</id>
	<title>Re:Looking for god's finger prints? Here it is.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262979540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Take the typical state lotto. If you knew all of the variables in the machine that draws the numbers, you can solve for which numbers will land in the winning numbers area.</p></div><p>Ummmm....yeah...I'm gonna have to go ahead and disagree with you there.  Most of those machines blow ping-pong balls around with air, which is most likely turbulent, and they are blown up into the slots when the lottery lady pulls the lever for the slot.  Since, at a minimum, you can't solve for the state of the lottery lady, you can't "solve for which numbers will land in the winning numbers area."</p><p>(Never mind the outrageous accuracy of initial conditions and precision of the calculations you'd need to solve for the movement of ~4 dozen ping-pong balls being blown around by turbulent air.)</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Take the typical state lotto .
If you knew all of the variables in the machine that draws the numbers , you can solve for which numbers will land in the winning numbers area.Ummmm....yeah...I 'm gon na have to go ahead and disagree with you there .
Most of those machines blow ping-pong balls around with air , which is most likely turbulent , and they are blown up into the slots when the lottery lady pulls the lever for the slot .
Since , at a minimum , you ca n't solve for the state of the lottery lady , you ca n't " solve for which numbers will land in the winning numbers area .
" ( Never mind the outrageous accuracy of initial conditions and precision of the calculations you 'd need to solve for the movement of ~ 4 dozen ping-pong balls being blown around by turbulent air .
)</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Take the typical state lotto.
If you knew all of the variables in the machine that draws the numbers, you can solve for which numbers will land in the winning numbers area.Ummmm....yeah...I'm gonna have to go ahead and disagree with you there.
Most of those machines blow ping-pong balls around with air, which is most likely turbulent, and they are blown up into the slots when the lottery lady pulls the lever for the slot.
Since, at a minimum, you can't solve for the state of the lottery lady, you can't "solve for which numbers will land in the winning numbers area.
"(Never mind the outrageous accuracy of initial conditions and precision of the calculations you'd need to solve for the movement of ~4 dozen ping-pong balls being blown around by turbulent air.
)
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_032229.30705118</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_032229.30705858</id>
	<title>mod do3n</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263031380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Offtopic</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext>much as Wind]ows About 4alf of the</htmltext>
<tokenext>much as Wind ] ows About 4alf of the</tokentext>
<sentencetext>much as Wind]ows About 4alf of the</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_032229.30706216</id>
	<title>"What may be"</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263037740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>"The golden ratio is found everywhere in nature even to the quantum level. It is THEREFORE the most pleasing ratio to the human eye. It would be highly PROBABLE for a random universe, GOVERNED BY PHYSICAL LAWS, to create this sort of symmetry."</i></p><p>The golden ratio is a relationship in the universe and mathematics, found by us. If it happens everywhere, even at quantum levels, it may signify "deeper" laws than the ones we are operating with now, because we currently have different laws on such vastly different scales. In this light, this find is highly interesting to say the least.</p><p>Why it is pleasing to the human eye? Can it be because it has symmetry between one level of scale and the next? I dont see the causation of its occurence in nature and level of pleasure. Many patterns occur all the time to our eye, and we find it boring and mundane. The Golden Ratio is actually pretty rare compared to other, more "random" ratios, and is more often found in biology and more complex processes. I find it more interesting that the Golden Ratio has this symmetry of binding different scales in harmony, something we humans sorely lack at this present stage. We need to find more harmonious energy sources and modes of development, rather than rape this planet and have a goldrush all the time.</p><p>Not sure how you would define a random universe. Either we can consider its input universally unknown, or governed by some higher level of existence. Usually science will occillate between these, and we may never truly find the original source. But certainly a true random generator would be just as amazing as God as a universal old bearded caucatian male. Where would such a random generator operate, and with what? If you think about it, it really doesnt explain anything at all. The flying spaghetti monster could just as well be the source then, because you can fantasize whatever you want to be "outside the universe". In addition, the Vedas says the universe / God is self-contained, which is a logical explanation in the light of this, and may be more useful in order to understand more.</p><p>A more universal definition of "physical laws", would be "vibrational limitations". Vibrations play with the Golden Ratio all the time, and is a more universal theme (pun intended) for our surroundings than the "law and order" we try to impose on it.</p><p>Personally, I think the Vedas are correct when it says everything is vibrations, and what we experience, is just the ever-changing limitations of the infinite possibilities of the universes substratum.</p><p>God then would be more a collective consciousness, rather than an old bearded caucatian male, and you could just as well call Him/Her by many names: the universe, love, all that is, etc. - also postulated by the Vedas, which never constrained "the one and only God" into anything else than the very existence that we experience. The other "Gods" / demigods etc. were just different aspects of the one universal principle.</p><p>Well I guess I lost 99\% of<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/. readers by now, so I leave the rest as an excercise to the reader<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:-)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" The golden ratio is found everywhere in nature even to the quantum level .
It is THEREFORE the most pleasing ratio to the human eye .
It would be highly PROBABLE for a random universe , GOVERNED BY PHYSICAL LAWS , to create this sort of symmetry .
" The golden ratio is a relationship in the universe and mathematics , found by us .
If it happens everywhere , even at quantum levels , it may signify " deeper " laws than the ones we are operating with now , because we currently have different laws on such vastly different scales .
In this light , this find is highly interesting to say the least.Why it is pleasing to the human eye ?
Can it be because it has symmetry between one level of scale and the next ?
I dont see the causation of its occurence in nature and level of pleasure .
Many patterns occur all the time to our eye , and we find it boring and mundane .
The Golden Ratio is actually pretty rare compared to other , more " random " ratios , and is more often found in biology and more complex processes .
I find it more interesting that the Golden Ratio has this symmetry of binding different scales in harmony , something we humans sorely lack at this present stage .
We need to find more harmonious energy sources and modes of development , rather than rape this planet and have a goldrush all the time.Not sure how you would define a random universe .
Either we can consider its input universally unknown , or governed by some higher level of existence .
Usually science will occillate between these , and we may never truly find the original source .
But certainly a true random generator would be just as amazing as God as a universal old bearded caucatian male .
Where would such a random generator operate , and with what ?
If you think about it , it really doesnt explain anything at all .
The flying spaghetti monster could just as well be the source then , because you can fantasize whatever you want to be " outside the universe " .
In addition , the Vedas says the universe / God is self-contained , which is a logical explanation in the light of this , and may be more useful in order to understand more.A more universal definition of " physical laws " , would be " vibrational limitations " .
Vibrations play with the Golden Ratio all the time , and is a more universal theme ( pun intended ) for our surroundings than the " law and order " we try to impose on it.Personally , I think the Vedas are correct when it says everything is vibrations , and what we experience , is just the ever-changing limitations of the infinite possibilities of the universes substratum.God then would be more a collective consciousness , rather than an old bearded caucatian male , and you could just as well call Him/Her by many names : the universe , love , all that is , etc .
- also postulated by the Vedas , which never constrained " the one and only God " into anything else than the very existence that we experience .
The other " Gods " / demigods etc .
were just different aspects of the one universal principle.Well I guess I lost 99 \ % of / .
readers by now , so I leave the rest as an excercise to the reader : - )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"The golden ratio is found everywhere in nature even to the quantum level.
It is THEREFORE the most pleasing ratio to the human eye.
It would be highly PROBABLE for a random universe, GOVERNED BY PHYSICAL LAWS, to create this sort of symmetry.
"The golden ratio is a relationship in the universe and mathematics, found by us.
If it happens everywhere, even at quantum levels, it may signify "deeper" laws than the ones we are operating with now, because we currently have different laws on such vastly different scales.
In this light, this find is highly interesting to say the least.Why it is pleasing to the human eye?
Can it be because it has symmetry between one level of scale and the next?
I dont see the causation of its occurence in nature and level of pleasure.
Many patterns occur all the time to our eye, and we find it boring and mundane.
The Golden Ratio is actually pretty rare compared to other, more "random" ratios, and is more often found in biology and more complex processes.
I find it more interesting that the Golden Ratio has this symmetry of binding different scales in harmony, something we humans sorely lack at this present stage.
We need to find more harmonious energy sources and modes of development, rather than rape this planet and have a goldrush all the time.Not sure how you would define a random universe.
Either we can consider its input universally unknown, or governed by some higher level of existence.
Usually science will occillate between these, and we may never truly find the original source.
But certainly a true random generator would be just as amazing as God as a universal old bearded caucatian male.
Where would such a random generator operate, and with what?
If you think about it, it really doesnt explain anything at all.
The flying spaghetti monster could just as well be the source then, because you can fantasize whatever you want to be "outside the universe".
In addition, the Vedas says the universe / God is self-contained, which is a logical explanation in the light of this, and may be more useful in order to understand more.A more universal definition of "physical laws", would be "vibrational limitations".
Vibrations play with the Golden Ratio all the time, and is a more universal theme (pun intended) for our surroundings than the "law and order" we try to impose on it.Personally, I think the Vedas are correct when it says everything is vibrations, and what we experience, is just the ever-changing limitations of the infinite possibilities of the universes substratum.God then would be more a collective consciousness, rather than an old bearded caucatian male, and you could just as well call Him/Her by many names: the universe, love, all that is, etc.
- also postulated by the Vedas, which never constrained "the one and only God" into anything else than the very existence that we experience.
The other "Gods" / demigods etc.
were just different aspects of the one universal principle.Well I guess I lost 99\% of /.
readers by now, so I leave the rest as an excercise to the reader :-)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_032229.30705074</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_032229.30706160</id>
	<title>Re:Looking for god's finger prints? Here it is.</title>
	<author>sznupi</author>
	<datestamp>1263036480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthropic\_principle" title="wikipedia.org">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthropic\_principle</a> [wikipedia.org]</p><p>Especially the variant "we observe our Universe as it is because beings like wouldn't exist in a different one"</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>http : //en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthropic \ _principle [ wikipedia.org ] Especially the variant " we observe our Universe as it is because beings like would n't exist in a different one "</tokentext>
<sentencetext>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthropic\_principle [wikipedia.org]Especially the variant "we observe our Universe as it is because beings like wouldn't exist in a different one"</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_032229.30705012</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_032229.30705000</id>
	<title>Re:Oh cripes</title>
	<author>LostCluster</author>
	<datestamp>1262976120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>WA returns a page on a 1990s horror movie when you ask it about "The Number of The Beast", therefore that number must not exist.</htmltext>
<tokenext>WA returns a page on a 1990s horror movie when you ask it about " The Number of The Beast " , therefore that number must not exist .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>WA returns a page on a 1990s horror movie when you ask it about "The Number of The Beast", therefore that number must not exist.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_032229.30704878</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_032229.30710276</id>
	<title>Re:Summary wrong</title>
	<author>St.Anne</author>
	<datestamp>1263037860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>How exactly does one "introduce more quantum uncertainty"?</htmltext>
<tokenext>How exactly does one " introduce more quantum uncertainty " ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>How exactly does one "introduce more quantum uncertainty"?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_032229.30704698</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_032229.30704858</id>
	<title>Re:Summary wrong</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262974620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Summary says: 1.618 = (sqrt(5)+1)/2.<br>So (1.618 * 2 - 1)^2 = 5.<br>i.e. 4.999696 = 5.<br>So 0.000304 = 0.<br>Multiply both sides by 62500/19:<br>1 = 0.<br>Amazing discovery indeed.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Summary says : 1.618 = ( sqrt ( 5 ) + 1 ) /2.So ( 1.618 * 2 - 1 ) ^ 2 = 5.i.e .
4.999696 = 5.So 0.000304 = 0.Multiply both sides by 62500/19 : 1 = 0.Amazing discovery indeed .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Summary says: 1.618 = (sqrt(5)+1)/2.So (1.618 * 2 - 1)^2 = 5.i.e.
4.999696 = 5.So 0.000304 = 0.Multiply both sides by 62500/19:1 = 0.Amazing discovery indeed.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_032229.30704698</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_032229.30713338</id>
	<title>Been there. done that...</title>
	<author>gootar</author>
	<datestamp>1263115140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><a href="http://www.gootar.com/gravityboy/docs/fluxi.html" title="gootar.com" rel="nofollow">http://www.gootar.com/gravityboy/docs/fluxi.html</a> [gootar.com]

Arrangement of Axis Unit Flux 10-D
It has ten diagonals, nine with the force of light, one minus the charge or plus gravity (the normal state). They are composed of one dimensional (1-D) infinitesimal width string or tube like objects arranged in a ten dimensional Dodecahedron axes pattern terminating on vertices or the set of twenty points...
    (+-x/y,  +-xy,     0)  where y = (5+1)/2
    ( +-xy,     0, +-x/y)        x = G<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/(20 * 3)
    (    0, +-x/y,  +-xy)        G = 1/(10 * 26 - 1)c
    (  +-x,   +-x,   +-x)

    y = (5+1)/2 = 1.61803398875 = the golden ratio.</htmltext>
<tokenext>http : //www.gootar.com/gravityboy/docs/fluxi.html [ gootar.com ] Arrangement of Axis Unit Flux 10-D It has ten diagonals , nine with the force of light , one minus the charge or plus gravity ( the normal state ) .
They are composed of one dimensional ( 1-D ) infinitesimal width string or tube like objects arranged in a ten dimensional Dodecahedron axes pattern terminating on vertices or the set of twenty points.. . ( + -x/y , + -xy , 0 ) where y = ( 5 + 1 ) /2 ( + -xy , 0 , + -x/y ) x = G / ( 20 * 3 ) ( 0 , + -x/y , + -xy ) G = 1/ ( 10 * 26 - 1 ) c ( + -x , + -x , + -x ) y = ( 5 + 1 ) /2 = 1.61803398875 = the golden ratio .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>http://www.gootar.com/gravityboy/docs/fluxi.html [gootar.com]

Arrangement of Axis Unit Flux 10-D
It has ten diagonals, nine with the force of light, one minus the charge or plus gravity (the normal state).
They are composed of one dimensional (1-D) infinitesimal width string or tube like objects arranged in a ten dimensional Dodecahedron axes pattern terminating on vertices or the set of twenty points...
    (+-x/y,  +-xy,     0)  where y = (5+1)/2
    ( +-xy,     0, +-x/y)        x = G /(20 * 3)
    (    0, +-x/y,  +-xy)        G = 1/(10 * 26 - 1)c
    (  +-x,   +-x,   +-x)

    y = (5+1)/2 = 1.61803398875 = the golden ratio.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_032229.30704892</id>
	<title>Art and Architecture?</title>
	<author>Grumbleduke</author>
	<datestamp>1262975100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><nobr> <wbr></nobr></p><div class="quote"><p>...the golden ratio famous from art and architecture...</p></div><p>As a (former) mathematician, I would like to point out that the ratio really comes from elementary (pun intended; read on to find out more) geometry. The ancient Greeks played around with it quite a lot and Euclid mentioned it (more or less) in his <a href="http://aleph0.clarku.edu/~djoyce/java/elements/bookVI/defVI3.html" title="clarku.edu" rel="nofollow">Elements</a> [clarku.edu]. The Greeks weren't interested in this because of art or how pretty it was, but because they were particularly crazy about geometry (nearly all of their mathematics was derived from it) and some seemed to think that the universe could be understood through geometry alone. Anyway, it is just the fairly simple ratio of lengths of two lines such that the ratio between the larger and the smaller is the same as the ratio of them both added and the larger, or algebraically;</p><p>(a + b)/a = a / b = phi</p><p>This can then be trivially rearranged into phi^2 - phi - 1 = 0, and then that has the one positive solution; phi = [1 + sqrt(5)]/2 (the negative solution being [1 - sqrt(5)]/2 = - 0.618... but negative lengths and ratios tend to prove problematic). As usual, <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Golden\_ratio" title="wikipedia.org" rel="nofollow">Wikipedia has more information.</a> [wikipedia.org]</p><p>While it is quite interesting to see it appear in a quantum mechanical setting, it isn't particularly shocking (to me). The number is the result of a fairly simple equation (as shown above) which is why it seems to appear so frequently in nature. While I didn't get this far in my studies of quantum theories, it wouldn't surprise me if, once the mathematicians have a chance to look into this, the reason behind this appearance of phi is found to be rather trivial.</p><p>However, I am not a physicist, or an expert in this field, so I may be completely wrong.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>...the golden ratio famous from art and architecture...As a ( former ) mathematician , I would like to point out that the ratio really comes from elementary ( pun intended ; read on to find out more ) geometry .
The ancient Greeks played around with it quite a lot and Euclid mentioned it ( more or less ) in his Elements [ clarku.edu ] .
The Greeks were n't interested in this because of art or how pretty it was , but because they were particularly crazy about geometry ( nearly all of their mathematics was derived from it ) and some seemed to think that the universe could be understood through geometry alone .
Anyway , it is just the fairly simple ratio of lengths of two lines such that the ratio between the larger and the smaller is the same as the ratio of them both added and the larger , or algebraically ; ( a + b ) /a = a / b = phiThis can then be trivially rearranged into phi ^ 2 - phi - 1 = 0 , and then that has the one positive solution ; phi = [ 1 + sqrt ( 5 ) ] /2 ( the negative solution being [ 1 - sqrt ( 5 ) ] /2 = - 0.618... but negative lengths and ratios tend to prove problematic ) .
As usual , Wikipedia has more information .
[ wikipedia.org ] While it is quite interesting to see it appear in a quantum mechanical setting , it is n't particularly shocking ( to me ) .
The number is the result of a fairly simple equation ( as shown above ) which is why it seems to appear so frequently in nature .
While I did n't get this far in my studies of quantum theories , it would n't surprise me if , once the mathematicians have a chance to look into this , the reason behind this appearance of phi is found to be rather trivial.However , I am not a physicist , or an expert in this field , so I may be completely wrong .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> ...the golden ratio famous from art and architecture...As a (former) mathematician, I would like to point out that the ratio really comes from elementary (pun intended; read on to find out more) geometry.
The ancient Greeks played around with it quite a lot and Euclid mentioned it (more or less) in his Elements [clarku.edu].
The Greeks weren't interested in this because of art or how pretty it was, but because they were particularly crazy about geometry (nearly all of their mathematics was derived from it) and some seemed to think that the universe could be understood through geometry alone.
Anyway, it is just the fairly simple ratio of lengths of two lines such that the ratio between the larger and the smaller is the same as the ratio of them both added and the larger, or algebraically;(a + b)/a = a / b = phiThis can then be trivially rearranged into phi^2 - phi - 1 = 0, and then that has the one positive solution; phi = [1 + sqrt(5)]/2 (the negative solution being [1 - sqrt(5)]/2 = - 0.618... but negative lengths and ratios tend to prove problematic).
As usual, Wikipedia has more information.
[wikipedia.org]While it is quite interesting to see it appear in a quantum mechanical setting, it isn't particularly shocking (to me).
The number is the result of a fairly simple equation (as shown above) which is why it seems to appear so frequently in nature.
While I didn't get this far in my studies of quantum theories, it wouldn't surprise me if, once the mathematicians have a chance to look into this, the reason behind this appearance of phi is found to be rather trivial.However, I am not a physicist, or an expert in this field, so I may be completely wrong.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_032229.30705118</id>
	<title>Re:Looking for god's finger prints? Here it is.</title>
	<author>LostCluster</author>
	<datestamp>1262977680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I believe randomness doesn't exist. In its place stands "too complicated to understand".</p><p>Take the typical state lotto. If you knew all of the variables in the machine that draws the numbers, you can solve for which numbers will land in the winning numbers area. As a result, the lottery keeps details of the machine secret. Is the ball marked 43 the same ball (with the same weight and other properties) as the 43 in the previous or next drawing? Where is the machine located and what elevation is it at? When exactly does the drawing machine go into motion? If you know the answers to these secrets, you're not allowed to play.</p><p>Take any casino card game. Shuffling is a complex possible that's hard to technically observe. Do it right and repeatedly you've got uncertainty as to what card is going to come off the deck.</p><p>Take any slot machine. It's got a PRNG but it needs a seed value. It measures the time in between button presses measured to an annoyingly tight accuracy to get the complex number to run through its complex formula to create unpredictability.</p><p>Random just doesn't exist if you're going to believe everything moves according to the laws of physics.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I believe randomness does n't exist .
In its place stands " too complicated to understand " .Take the typical state lotto .
If you knew all of the variables in the machine that draws the numbers , you can solve for which numbers will land in the winning numbers area .
As a result , the lottery keeps details of the machine secret .
Is the ball marked 43 the same ball ( with the same weight and other properties ) as the 43 in the previous or next drawing ?
Where is the machine located and what elevation is it at ?
When exactly does the drawing machine go into motion ?
If you know the answers to these secrets , you 're not allowed to play.Take any casino card game .
Shuffling is a complex possible that 's hard to technically observe .
Do it right and repeatedly you 've got uncertainty as to what card is going to come off the deck.Take any slot machine .
It 's got a PRNG but it needs a seed value .
It measures the time in between button presses measured to an annoyingly tight accuracy to get the complex number to run through its complex formula to create unpredictability.Random just does n't exist if you 're going to believe everything moves according to the laws of physics .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I believe randomness doesn't exist.
In its place stands "too complicated to understand".Take the typical state lotto.
If you knew all of the variables in the machine that draws the numbers, you can solve for which numbers will land in the winning numbers area.
As a result, the lottery keeps details of the machine secret.
Is the ball marked 43 the same ball (with the same weight and other properties) as the 43 in the previous or next drawing?
Where is the machine located and what elevation is it at?
When exactly does the drawing machine go into motion?
If you know the answers to these secrets, you're not allowed to play.Take any casino card game.
Shuffling is a complex possible that's hard to technically observe.
Do it right and repeatedly you've got uncertainty as to what card is going to come off the deck.Take any slot machine.
It's got a PRNG but it needs a seed value.
It measures the time in between button presses measured to an annoyingly tight accuracy to get the complex number to run through its complex formula to create unpredictability.Random just doesn't exist if you're going to believe everything moves according to the laws of physics.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_032229.30705012</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_032229.30705568</id>
	<title>Lottery Lady State</title>
	<author>camperdave</author>
	<datestamp>1263070260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><i>Since, at a minimum, you can't solve for the state of the lottery lady</i> <br> <br>
Easy! The state of the lottery lady is the same as the state of the lottery itself.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Since , at a minimum , you ca n't solve for the state of the lottery lady Easy !
The state of the lottery lady is the same as the state of the lottery itself .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Since, at a minimum, you can't solve for the state of the lottery lady  
Easy!
The state of the lottery lady is the same as the state of the lottery itself.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_032229.30705252</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_032229.30705532</id>
	<title>Re:Art and Architecture?</title>
	<author>MoellerPlesset2</author>
	<datestamp>1263069600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>While it is quite interesting to see it appear in a quantum mechanical setting, it isn't particularly shocking (to me). The number is the result of a fairly simple equation (as shown above) which is why it seems to appear so frequently in nature. While I didn't get this far in my studies of quantum theories, it wouldn't surprise me if, once the mathematicians have a chance to look into this, the reason behind this appearance of phi is found to be rather trivial.</p></div></blockquote><p>

Yes, it's more the other way around really. The fact that the ratio between the first two frequencies measured in the spectrum was the Golden Ratio (within error), was evidence that the state had E8 symmetry, for group-theoretical reasons I can't quite explain. (I'm kind of in the opposite situation; I know QM but Group Theory was never my strongest point)<br> <br>

This is interesting because E8 isn't a symmetry many real physical systems have. But it's of interest for string theorists and other advanced theories, so it's interesting if they can find systems that can act as a model. The 'real' system here doesn't have E8 symmetry either. Rather it's a system of <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quasiparticle" title="wikipedia.org">quasiparticles</a> [wikipedia.org] created by the spins of the system which is E8, when exposed to a magnetic field at a certain critical phase-change point.  <br> <br>

Which is why the title of the Science article calls it "emergent E8 symmetry".</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>While it is quite interesting to see it appear in a quantum mechanical setting , it is n't particularly shocking ( to me ) .
The number is the result of a fairly simple equation ( as shown above ) which is why it seems to appear so frequently in nature .
While I did n't get this far in my studies of quantum theories , it would n't surprise me if , once the mathematicians have a chance to look into this , the reason behind this appearance of phi is found to be rather trivial .
Yes , it 's more the other way around really .
The fact that the ratio between the first two frequencies measured in the spectrum was the Golden Ratio ( within error ) , was evidence that the state had E8 symmetry , for group-theoretical reasons I ca n't quite explain .
( I 'm kind of in the opposite situation ; I know QM but Group Theory was never my strongest point ) This is interesting because E8 is n't a symmetry many real physical systems have .
But it 's of interest for string theorists and other advanced theories , so it 's interesting if they can find systems that can act as a model .
The 'real ' system here does n't have E8 symmetry either .
Rather it 's a system of quasiparticles [ wikipedia.org ] created by the spins of the system which is E8 , when exposed to a magnetic field at a certain critical phase-change point .
Which is why the title of the Science article calls it " emergent E8 symmetry " .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>While it is quite interesting to see it appear in a quantum mechanical setting, it isn't particularly shocking (to me).
The number is the result of a fairly simple equation (as shown above) which is why it seems to appear so frequently in nature.
While I didn't get this far in my studies of quantum theories, it wouldn't surprise me if, once the mathematicians have a chance to look into this, the reason behind this appearance of phi is found to be rather trivial.
Yes, it's more the other way around really.
The fact that the ratio between the first two frequencies measured in the spectrum was the Golden Ratio (within error), was evidence that the state had E8 symmetry, for group-theoretical reasons I can't quite explain.
(I'm kind of in the opposite situation; I know QM but Group Theory was never my strongest point) 

This is interesting because E8 isn't a symmetry many real physical systems have.
But it's of interest for string theorists and other advanced theories, so it's interesting if they can find systems that can act as a model.
The 'real' system here doesn't have E8 symmetry either.
Rather it's a system of quasiparticles [wikipedia.org] created by the spins of the system which is E8, when exposed to a magnetic field at a certain critical phase-change point.
Which is why the title of the Science article calls it "emergent E8 symmetry".
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_032229.30704892</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_032229.30704844</id>
	<title>Car Analogy</title>
	<author>saaaammmmm</author>
	<datestamp>1262974500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>This article confuses me. Would someone be kind enough to explain it to me with a car analogy?</htmltext>
<tokenext>This article confuses me .
Would someone be kind enough to explain it to me with a car analogy ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This article confuses me.
Would someone be kind enough to explain it to me with a car analogy?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_032229.30705822</id>
	<title>go4t</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263030840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Offtopic</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><A HREF="http://goat.cx/" title="goat.cx" rel="nofollow">Fucking percent Of to say there have I'm discussing</a> [goat.cx]</htmltext>
<tokenext>Fucking percent Of to say there have I 'm discussing [ goat.cx ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Fucking percent Of to say there have I'm discussing [goat.cx]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_032229.30706402</id>
	<title>Constant</title>
	<author>Exception Duck</author>
	<datestamp>1263040500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You'll probably find this line in the computer program that runs version 5 of "Life, the Universe and Everything"</p><p>public const float seed = 1.618f;</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You 'll probably find this line in the computer program that runs version 5 of " Life , the Universe and Everything " public const float seed = 1.618f ;</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You'll probably find this line in the computer program that runs version 5 of "Life, the Universe and Everything"public const float seed = 1.618f;</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_032229.30704810</id>
	<title>Golden ratio? Just like Dan Brown said?</title>
	<author>magsol</author>
	<datestamp>1262974200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>More for the spankbanks of all the readers of Dan Brown novels who truly believe Mary Magdalene is buried beneath the Louvre.</htmltext>
<tokenext>More for the spankbanks of all the readers of Dan Brown novels who truly believe Mary Magdalene is buried beneath the Louvre .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>More for the spankbanks of all the readers of Dan Brown novels who truly believe Mary Magdalene is buried beneath the Louvre.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_032229.30705618</id>
	<title>Re:Looking for god's finger prints? Here it is.</title>
	<author>FiloEleven</author>
	<datestamp>1263027900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>I believe randomness doesn't exist. In its place stands "too complicated to understand".</p></div><p>David Bohm wrote a lot about that, especially later in life.  He essentially believed that what we perceive as randomness is a higher degree of order.  An example he liked to use is a drop of ink placed in a cylindrical tank of glycerin, with a smaller central cylinder attached to a crank.  If the crank is turned slowly in one direction, the drop of ink smears out and finally becomes invisible, dissolved in the surrounding medium.  But if the crank is turned slowly back in the opposite direction, the drop of ink coalesces.</p><p>The unturned ink has a low (meaning simple) degree of order, while the spread-out ink has a high (complex) degree of order that is made apparent only when we wind it back to a state we can easily grasp.  He also called these states the explicate, or what is readily apparent, and the implicate, or what is waiting to coalesce.  The implicate order is why we have the maxim "hindsight is 20/20"--once something has happened, it often becomes easier to see how previous events lead up to this one.</p><p>It's interesting stuff, though certainly not orthodox, especially when one starts reading about the holomovement.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I believe randomness does n't exist .
In its place stands " too complicated to understand " .David Bohm wrote a lot about that , especially later in life .
He essentially believed that what we perceive as randomness is a higher degree of order .
An example he liked to use is a drop of ink placed in a cylindrical tank of glycerin , with a smaller central cylinder attached to a crank .
If the crank is turned slowly in one direction , the drop of ink smears out and finally becomes invisible , dissolved in the surrounding medium .
But if the crank is turned slowly back in the opposite direction , the drop of ink coalesces.The unturned ink has a low ( meaning simple ) degree of order , while the spread-out ink has a high ( complex ) degree of order that is made apparent only when we wind it back to a state we can easily grasp .
He also called these states the explicate , or what is readily apparent , and the implicate , or what is waiting to coalesce .
The implicate order is why we have the maxim " hindsight is 20/20 " --once something has happened , it often becomes easier to see how previous events lead up to this one.It 's interesting stuff , though certainly not orthodox , especially when one starts reading about the holomovement .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I believe randomness doesn't exist.
In its place stands "too complicated to understand".David Bohm wrote a lot about that, especially later in life.
He essentially believed that what we perceive as randomness is a higher degree of order.
An example he liked to use is a drop of ink placed in a cylindrical tank of glycerin, with a smaller central cylinder attached to a crank.
If the crank is turned slowly in one direction, the drop of ink smears out and finally becomes invisible, dissolved in the surrounding medium.
But if the crank is turned slowly back in the opposite direction, the drop of ink coalesces.The unturned ink has a low (meaning simple) degree of order, while the spread-out ink has a high (complex) degree of order that is made apparent only when we wind it back to a state we can easily grasp.
He also called these states the explicate, or what is readily apparent, and the implicate, or what is waiting to coalesce.
The implicate order is why we have the maxim "hindsight is 20/20"--once something has happened, it often becomes easier to see how previous events lead up to this one.It's interesting stuff, though certainly not orthodox, especially when one starts reading about the holomovement.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_032229.30705118</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_032229.30705020</id>
	<title>Re:Oblig. Square One TV's MATHNET reference...</title>
	<author>LostCluster</author>
	<datestamp>1262976420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Modded Redundant? Who else posted this? This was First Post!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Modded Redundant ?
Who else posted this ?
This was First Post !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Modded Redundant?
Who else posted this?
This was First Post!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_032229.30704676</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_032229.30705808</id>
	<title>Re:Looking for god's finger prints? Here it is.</title>
	<author>da cog</author>
	<datestamp>1263030720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You are thinking about quantum mechanics backwards.  The true things that exist do so in many &ldquo;classical&rdquo; states simultaneously, i.e. the true nature of the &ldquo;particle&rdquo; is really a wave.  We are the quirks in the system because our wave functions are so highly entangled that we perceive the universe as if it were deterministic.  When we &ldquo;measure&rdquo; a quantity, what we are doing is forcing something that is in many states to tell us which state it is in.  However, this is actually a nonsense question because the true thing is not necessarily in any &ldquo;classical&rdquo; state.  Thus, something weird has to happen.</p><p>According to pure quantum mechanics --- that is, independent of which interpretation you choose --- the dictated evolution is for both observer and observee to become entangled so that the observer/observee system exists simultaneously in multiple states, but in a way such that in each state of the full system the observer sees the observee in a different particular classical state.  The only problem with this is that things get even weirder when *you* are the observer;  at that point, pick whatever interpretation you wish to explain what happens.  The fundamental point, though, is that regardless of which interpretation you pick, the perceived non-determinism is inevitable and arises not from a incomplete understanding of the universe but rather from the fact that we are forcing it to answer a question for which there is truly no meaningful answer.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You are thinking about quantum mechanics backwards .
The true things that exist do so in many    classical    states simultaneously , i.e .
the true nature of the    particle    is really a wave .
We are the quirks in the system because our wave functions are so highly entangled that we perceive the universe as if it were deterministic .
When we    measure    a quantity , what we are doing is forcing something that is in many states to tell us which state it is in .
However , this is actually a nonsense question because the true thing is not necessarily in any    classical    state .
Thus , something weird has to happen.According to pure quantum mechanics --- that is , independent of which interpretation you choose --- the dictated evolution is for both observer and observee to become entangled so that the observer/observee system exists simultaneously in multiple states , but in a way such that in each state of the full system the observer sees the observee in a different particular classical state .
The only problem with this is that things get even weirder when * you * are the observer ; at that point , pick whatever interpretation you wish to explain what happens .
The fundamental point , though , is that regardless of which interpretation you pick , the perceived non-determinism is inevitable and arises not from a incomplete understanding of the universe but rather from the fact that we are forcing it to answer a question for which there is truly no meaningful answer .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You are thinking about quantum mechanics backwards.
The true things that exist do so in many “classical” states simultaneously, i.e.
the true nature of the “particle” is really a wave.
We are the quirks in the system because our wave functions are so highly entangled that we perceive the universe as if it were deterministic.
When we “measure” a quantity, what we are doing is forcing something that is in many states to tell us which state it is in.
However, this is actually a nonsense question because the true thing is not necessarily in any “classical” state.
Thus, something weird has to happen.According to pure quantum mechanics --- that is, independent of which interpretation you choose --- the dictated evolution is for both observer and observee to become entangled so that the observer/observee system exists simultaneously in multiple states, but in a way such that in each state of the full system the observer sees the observee in a different particular classical state.
The only problem with this is that things get even weirder when *you* are the observer;  at that point, pick whatever interpretation you wish to explain what happens.
The fundamental point, though, is that regardless of which interpretation you pick, the perceived non-determinism is inevitable and arises not from a incomplete understanding of the universe but rather from the fact that we are forcing it to answer a question for which there is truly no meaningful answer.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_032229.30705118</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_032229.30704698</id>
	<title>Summary wrong</title>
	<author>LostCluster</author>
	<datestamp>1262973360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>Since we know <a href="http://lmgtfy.com/?q=golden+ratio" title="lmgtfy.com" rel="nofollow">
Google is never wrong</a> [lmgtfy.com], the Golden Ratio is exactly 1.61803399, not 1.618 as stated in the summary.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Since we know Google is never wrong [ lmgtfy.com ] , the Golden Ratio is exactly 1.61803399 , not 1.618 as stated in the summary .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Since we know 
Google is never wrong [lmgtfy.com], the Golden Ratio is exactly 1.61803399, not 1.618 as stated in the summary.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_09_032229_5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_032229.30705568
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_032229.30705252
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_032229.30705118
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_032229.30705012
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_09_032229_12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_032229.30705634
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_032229.30705012
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_09_032229_2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_032229.30705532
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_032229.30704892
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_09_032229_9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_032229.30705084
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_032229.30705012
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_09_032229_22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_032229.30704752
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_032229.30704698
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_09_032229_16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_032229.30705332
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_032229.30705118
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_032229.30705012
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_09_032229_3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_032229.30705528
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_032229.30705086
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_032229.30705012
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_09_032229_6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_032229.30705618
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_032229.30705118
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_032229.30705012
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_09_032229_10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_032229.30705000
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_032229.30704878
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_09_032229_13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_032229.30706216
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_032229.30705074
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_032229.30705012
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_09_032229_0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_032229.30704858
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_032229.30704698
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_09_032229_7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_032229.30706318
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_032229.30704676
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_09_032229_14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_032229.30705220
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_032229.30705020
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_032229.30704676
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_09_032229_17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_032229.30706316
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_032229.30704698
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_09_032229_4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_032229.30705426
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_032229.30705252
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_032229.30705118
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_032229.30705012
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_09_032229_11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_032229.30707668
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_032229.30704892
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_09_032229_18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_032229.30707726
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_032229.30705252
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_032229.30705118
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_032229.30705012
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_09_032229_8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_032229.30706160
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_032229.30705012
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_09_032229_15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_032229.30705066
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_032229.30705012
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_09_032229_19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_032229.30705616
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_032229.30705086
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_032229.30705012
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_09_032229_23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_032229.30710276
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_032229.30704698
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_09_032229_1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_032229.30705808
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_032229.30705118
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_032229.30705012
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_09_032229_21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_032229.30707068
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_032229.30704698
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_09_032229_20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_032229.30712578
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_032229.30705252
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_032229.30705118
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_032229.30705012
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_09_032229_24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_032229.30705036
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_032229.30704844
</commentlist>
</thread>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_09_032229.7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_032229.30706330
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_09_032229.1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_032229.30704878
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_032229.30705000
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_09_032229.8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_032229.30705042
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_09_032229.5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_032229.30704892
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_032229.30705532
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_032229.30707668
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_09_032229.6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_032229.30706464
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_09_032229.3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_032229.30705012
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_032229.30705086
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_032229.30705528
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_032229.30705616
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_032229.30705066
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_032229.30705084
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_032229.30705634
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_032229.30705118
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_032229.30705808
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_032229.30705252
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_032229.30712578
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_032229.30707726
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_032229.30705568
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_032229.30705426
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_032229.30705332
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_032229.30705618
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_032229.30706160
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_032229.30705074
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_032229.30706216
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_09_032229.0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_032229.30704764
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_09_032229.12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_032229.30704676
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_032229.30706318
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_032229.30705020
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_032229.30705220
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_09_032229.4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_032229.30706402
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_09_032229.10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_032229.30704844
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_032229.30705036
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_09_032229.2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_032229.30704794
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_09_032229.13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_032229.30704698
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_032229.30704858
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_032229.30704752
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_032229.30710276
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_032229.30706316
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_032229.30707068
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_09_032229.11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_032229.30705278
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_09_032229.14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_032229.30706936
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_09_032229.9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_032229.30704810
</commentlist>
</conversation>
