Japan was conquering Indonesia, where there is a lot of oil. They just needed time to set up the oil pumps.

But they needed the oil to maintain their war in Asia, else they were screwed - they didn't have the time.

The plan was to attack Pearl Harbor, maybe a couple other bases, and retreat, forming a perimeter, and they calculated that the US would not seek revenge - what was done was done. They calculated wrong.

Interestingly enough, if Japan had INVADED, they may have gone as far as Ohio before being stopped. Japan was indeed a military power in WWII.

Actually Japan was not short on oil until about 1943.. it became apparent in 1944.

The cause for this effect, US Submarines Sinking oil transports. Up until America entered the war, Japan was able to make due with their oil.


Simple, the ant picks the one with the highest suger content because that is what is ability to make a decision is limited to.

And sugar content being equal?

As someone who preachs science, you should know in nature an apple next to an apple of the exact same type, with similar size and shape, and from the same tree, neither will have the same suger levels.

There is a wonderfull book entitled "The Mind's I" I believe it was written mosty in the 70s and 80s. It has a lot of good stuff about self perception, and even goes onto how we percieve life and mechancical droids.

When a machine is given a program, it is told to use its photoreceptor cell and move the motors that increase the amount of light in the cell untill it can move no more, thus moving to the brightest light in the room. Its preprogramed with all sorts conditions and responces. I would imagine that a left handed ant would pick up the food piece on his left side, while the right handed ant would pick the piece on the right. Why? not necessarily because it has a choice, but because its preprogramming, its genetic code, has all sorts of conditions and stipulations put into it. Even trained monkies and rats are able to simulate choices and decisions, because unlike regular machines in our day and age, they have evolving intelect, that can remember new things and incorperate that into its existance. However, in our world, when a monkie throws feces at a zoo visitor, we do not think its a bad monkey, instead we give it a punishment knowing that that particular action will change its behavior.

Humans are bit different though. Many aspects of ourselves are fairly biological, and many things have imediate responces, and certain actions in our life, either done to us, or done ourselves will directly relate to how we behave in the future. However, many other aspects are not so.

Just a few examples. If you have ever had braces, you will know that your gums tend to try to grow over the braces unless you brush them back. No amount of thinking, will make the growth of your gums slow down. Your hair and nails grow after you are dead, yet even when alive you can not increase that growth rate.

However, the penal justice system in every country has shown that different inmates respond to punishments and treatments in different ways. Some get rehebilitated, many do not. If anyone knows any teenagers, you will know that grounding or removing certain privleges, does not always have the same affect. Even direct punishment, like beating or electrical torture have varying degrees of efectivness on people.

A large number of holocaust survivors, when asked how they were able to survive, answered that they "chose to live and did not give up." Ellie Wisel writes in his story Night how three rabbis put god on trial, declared him guilty on the count of murder, and then when the trial was over, proceded to pray the evening pray and ask for forgivness that they may be saved.

If humans did not have choice, they would not be able to make illogical decisions, yet in ever sci-fi story, that tends to be the most defining charachtersitc of a human.


All those things may seem to be random, but to me they are examples how humans exhibit choice.

As for the broader more conceptual theories... As predicatable as science may be, the truth is that on the deepest levels, the way you perceive and experement will alter that experiment. If you look for a wave, you find a wave, if you look for a particle, you will find a particle. Quatum mechanics itself deals in probablities. Its probabbly that at this momment, one of your electrons is in Antartica. On the flip side, in theory every action can be predicted if all the information at the moment of the Big Bang became known to us.

Similiary in theology, G-d controls the universe, if He does not want that leaf to fall off the tree it won't, if I pull the trigger on the gun, it does not NECESSARILY have to fire. However, we have Free Choice. Some prefer to say that you only have a point of choice, or that you have the choice to choose but not to act.

The concept of "the point of choice" is that on the spectrum of the hypothetical moral and immoral acts, you are at a certain point. Say -1 is immoral and 1 is moral, you are somewhere between there. For this example, lets say at .02. Any moral act that has a value of >.02 you will think is crazy, and will not do. Any moral act that has a value of <.02 you will think is disgusting, and so also, you will not do it. However, for all moral acts that are of the value .02 you have complete free will, and may choose to do it, or not do it. The concept however, is that the more Moral acts you do, the higher up the scale you go, and the more immoral acts you do the lower down the scale you go.

The other concept of a Choice to choose, is not contradictory but adds a tiny bit. This theological concept means that any choice you make, is only a choice to make a choice. Once you have made that choice, the fact that it succeeds or fails is not up to you. Therefore, I can choose to pull a trigger, but that does not mean my gun will fire and I will be able to put a hole in the target. That is up to the G-d's will. Many people do not sit well this idea and its a hard one to understand.

My point however is that in both science and theology and philosophy you can use the same data set and laws and come to the conclusion that choice exists or choice is an illusion. To me, that is the ultimate example of being able to make a choice.

I would hate to see a society however, that does not believe in choice, because the whole concepts of reward, punishment and motivation would go flying out the window, and I believe eventually you would end up with anarchy.


As for Japan and WWII, wasn't Japan upset at America because they cut thier supply of steel, not oil? And America stopped giving them steel so they would not be able to continue taking over Asia. If stopping a thug from stealing an old ladie's purse is an excuse for the thug to attack me, then so be it, but I would then have every legitimate reason to break that thug's kneecaps.

Edit: can't believe I got dislexic on that book title.

Just a quick breather - I, personally, objectively do not believe in free will.

I, personally, subjectively, act as if I believe in free will. I don't let my belief in fate, determinism, allow me to act as anything but a human .

Dogma, BAD. BAD DOGMA. Sit. Stay.

umm, you'll have to excuse me if that makes less than 0 sense to me.

Unless your saying you suffer from paranoia or some other such mental affliction.

I'm trying to wrap my head around this one, but to me it sounds more like you should say, "I believe that in a theoretical universe, no free will would exist, but in reality it does."

And what in the objective world explains what Heisenberg discovered?

Trying to develop an analogy at 2:24 am...

Ok, a child believes in Santa Claus, and around Christmastime, when that actually matters, he exhibits that belief.

On May 27th, that child ignores Santa Claus, as that belief has nothing to do with his current scenario.

I believe in determinism, and it makes sense to me.
I do not -act- as if I believe in determinism, as that belief has nothing to do with my current scenario (that of living as a human being)


Edit: And I'm not a fan of the uncertainty principle. I do need to learn more about the theories of quantum mechanics, however.

But remember: mathematics is an exact science. 2+2 will never equal anything other than 4 (in a logical manner); physics and the like all require some level of measurement, which always has the statistical possibility of being flawed (I'm not knocking physics - I love it, actually; just saying ).

My geeky math friend, you know, the ones who get full scholarships to learn more non-applicable math, was always fond of saying, "except in base 9" Meaning if I said.. Theres 10 minutes left, lets hurry up, he would say.. "in base 2 theres 1000 minutes left, so no worry."

The uncertainty principle isn't a theory though, its a fact, sadly enough. And not a fact like, "Capitalism invokes motivation" is a fact, but like "things tend to go to the nearest largest object when you drop them" kind of fact.

As someone who's studied Quantum Theory, all I have to say is that it is scary, scary stuff. Although technically, it is just a theory, and therefore not fact (by definition though there can really never be any facts), when you understand the science behind the theory, it all makes so much sense.

Once you understand Quantum and Relativity, try moving onto String Theory. Now THATS trippy.

Yeah, all that quantum stuff is creepy. Stupid electrons going through the screen in different places at the same time...doh... That's the way I treat the afterlife, though, the santa claus thing. When I'm debating about it...yeah, there's no afterlife, because it doesn't make sense. But do I go around being really super careful I don't do anything dangerous because this is my one chance, or whatever? Nah. It's just easier to pretend to myself there is, or at least ignore it.

I always enjoyed the possibility of the thirteenth dimensional bubbles colliding causing the Big Bang and the formation of our universe. Interesting stuff.

In terms of bases, binary, base 9, etc., are all well and good - but you don't get into the FUN stuff until you start messing around with negadecimal, negabinary, and company.

x= 15 (base 10)
x= 1111 (base 2)
x= 16 (base 9)

x= 195 (base -10)
x= -25 (base -10)
x= 10011 (base -2)
x= -110001 (base -2)
x= 186 (base -9)
x= -23 (base -9)

Heh, I wont pretend I know what the hell you are talking about, but if anyone can tell me then Roman Legions who, because he was born at their winter camp, thought Caligula to be their good luck charm, who gave birth to Caligula, who was the commander in chief to these legions, and finally when Caligula 'invaded' England, and what did he order the men of the 14th G.M.V. Legion to collect, I will mail you a kudos!

Extra credits... in the 14th G.M.V. How did they write out their number using Roman Numerals, and what did G.M.V. stand for?

wow.. what has become of us?

XIV

It was his fathers legion (can't remember his name), his mother was Agrippina, and he ordered them to collect seashells. Been a while since I studied latin, so I am a bit rusty

Aly good job... his name was Germanicus (Commander in Chief.) Mother is correct, sea shells are correct.

The legions were the A.L.R. Legions, 14th G.M.V., A.U.R., 5th Alaudae, 20th V.V., 21st Rapax, and the 16th Gallica.

And that is not how the 14th legion wrote their number, they actually put it on their standards as XIIII G.M.V.

Wheeee...and Yes Nementh is right, original classical latin did not stop at triple digits, so 4 wasnt 5 less 1 it was 4 x 1...so IIII like he said.

IV was a post Republic Rome... phased into use during Augustus' reign, however if the Legion was formed BEFORE this change took effect in government, they numbered the old way. This only effected one Legion, the 14th, as the 4th had been disbanded.

All I have to say to that is

Cogito ergo non satis bibiyi

I so hope that is right....such a long time, my grammar is awful.