People were interested in these podcasts
Play Episode
20min
RealGM Radio
Pacers Force Game 7
Tyrese Haliburton and the Indiana Pacers beat the Oklahoma City Thunder to force the first Game 7 in the NBA Finals since 2016. Who has the edge to win the 2025 championship? Wes Goldberg breaks down a surprising Game 6 and what comes next. #indianapacers #nba #okcthunder #tyresehaliburton RealGM Radio is powered in part by North Station Media (CLNS). For advertising or media inquiries, contact info@clnsmedia.com 🔔 Like, comment, and subscribe for more NBA insights and analysis! Follow RealGM Twitter: https://x.com/RealGM Follow Wes Goldberg Twitter: https://x.com/wcgoldberg PrizePicks: PrizePicks is the best place to get real money sports action. With over 10 million members and billions of dollars in awarded winnings, PrizePicks has made daily fantasy sports accessible to all. You just pick MORE or LESS on at least two players for a shot to win up to 1000x your cash! Run Your Game all season long on PrizePicks. Download the app today and use code CLNS to get $50 instantly after you play your first $5 lineup! Gametime: Take the guesswork out of buying tickets with Gametime. Download the Gametime app, create an account, and use code CLNS for $20 off your first purchase. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices
RealGM Radio
Thunder Take Control of NBA Finals, Desmond Bane Trade and Kevin Durant Destinations With Dave DuFour
OKC's defensive masterclass and Jalen Williams' breakout performance have the OKLAHOMA CITY THUNDER on the brink of a championship. Wes Goldberg and Dave DuFour (The Athletic) analyze the THUNDER's path to success, dissecting their suffocating defense and the PACERS' struggles. The conversation shifts to blockbuster trade scenarios, including Desmond Bane's move to Orlando and potential Kevin Durant destinations. Charlotte's challenges with LaMelo Ball and roster construction strategies for struggling franchises round out this comprehensive NBA discussion. Timestamps 0:00 Intro 3:37 Thunder Defense 25:31 Exciting Finals for fans 34:00 Desmond Bane trade 50:14 Kevin Durant's next team 57:30 Trade Machine ideas RealGM Radio is powered in part by North Station Media (CLNS). For advertising or media inquiries, contact info@clnsmedia.com 🔔 Like, comment, and subscribe for more NBA insights and analysis! Follow RealGM Twitter: https://x.com/RealGM Follow Wes Goldberg Twitter: https://x.com/wcgoldberg PrizePicks: PrizePicks is the best place to get real money sports action. With over 10 million members and billions of dollars in awarded winnings, PrizePicks has made daily fantasy sports accessible to all. You just pick MORE or LESS on at least two players for a shot to win up to 1000x your cash! Run Your Game all season long on PrizePicks. Download the app today and use code CLNS to get $50 instantly after you play your first $5 lineup! Gametime: Take the guesswork out of buying tickets with Gametime. Download the Gametime app, create an account, and use code CLNS for $20 off your first purchase. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices
RealGM Radio
Thunder Win Championship, Haliburton's Injury, Kevin Durant Trade Fallout and NBA Draft "My Guys" With Adam Mares
Wes Goldberg and Adam Mares (DNVR Sports, All NBA Podcast) break down the Oklahoma City Thunder's championship victory, Sam Presti's roster construction and Shai Gilgeous-Alexander's superstar ascension. Then they talk about Tyrese Haliburton's injury and its impact on the Pacers future, Kevin Durant getting traded to the Houston Rockets and the Denver Nuggets' plan for the offseason before diving into their "My Guys" in the NBA Draft. Timestamps 0:00 Intro: OKC wins the Finals 20:15 Haliburton's injury 27:15 Kevin Durant traded 33:58 Denver Nuggets offseason changes 35:00 Favorite NBA Draft prospects RealGM Radio is powered in part by North Station Media (CLNS). For advertising or media inquiries, contact info@clnsmedia.com 🔔 Like, comment, and subscribe for more NBA insights and analysis! Follow RealGM Twitter: https://x.com/RealGM Follow Wes Goldberg Twitter: https://x.com/wcgoldberg PrizePicks: PrizePicks is the best place to get real money sports action. With over 10 million members and billions of dollars in awarded winnings, PrizePicks has made daily fantasy sports accessible to all. You just pick MORE or LESS on at least two players for a shot to win up to 1000x your cash! Run Your Game all season long on PrizePicks. Download the app today and use code CLNS to get $50 instantly after you play your first $5 lineup! Gametime: Take the guesswork out of buying tickets with Gametime. Download the Gametime app, create an account, and use code CLNS for $20 off your first purchase. #nba #shaigilgeousalexander #sga #okcthunder #denvernuggets #pacers #tyresehaliburton #kevindurant Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices
RealGM Radio
Do the Thunder or Pacers Have the Edge in the NBA Finals? (With Mo Dakhil)
Wes Goldberg and Mo Dakhil discuss the first two games of the NBA Finals between the Oklahoma City Thunder and Indiana Pacers. RealGM Radio is powered in part by North Station Media (CLNS). For advertising or media inquiries, contact info@clnsmedia.com 🔔 Like, comment, and subscribe for more NBA insights and analysis! Follow RealGM Twitter: https://x.com/RealGM Follow Wes Goldberg Twitter: https://x.com/wcgoldberg PrizePicks: PrizePicks is the best place to get real money sports action. With over 10 million members and billions of dollars in awarded winnings, PrizePicks has made daily fantasy sports accessible to all. You just pick MORE or LESS on at least two players for a shot to win up to 1000x your cash! Run Your Game all season long on PrizePicks. Download the app today and use code CLNS to get $50 instantly after you play your first $5 lineup! Gametime: Take the guesswork out of buying tickets with Gametime. Download the Gametime app, create an account, and use code CLNS for $20 off your first purchase. #nba #nbafinals #nbaplayoffs #thunder #pacers Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices
ImageImageImageImageImage

O.T. .::THE SCIENCE AND PHILOSOPHY THREAD::.

Moderators: Deeeez Knicks, mpharris36, j4remi, NoLayupRule, HerSports85, GONYK, Jeff Van Gully, dakomish23

KnickFan33
Veteran
Posts: 2,774
And1: 1,459
Joined: Nov 08, 2006

Re: O.T. .::THE SCIENCE AND PHILOSOPHY THREAD::. 

Post#1981 » by KnickFan33 » Mon Jun 18, 2018 11:51 pm

Iron Mantis wrote:
KnickFan33 wrote:
Iron Mantis wrote:Define "blind faith".


For the sake of keeping things on point, I'm willing to let you make the definition so we can have a debate within that definition's parameters.

You keep using the expression, not me. So define it. I don't know what it means.


Cool. I'll define it as unquestioning devotion to something, regardless of what evidence to the contrary might be presented.

Some examples:
Fresh water and salt water don't mix.
Earth was formed in a day.
The savior was supposed to return 1975.
When we die, we get our own planet to rule over.

Does this definition suffice?
User avatar
Iron Mantis
RealGM
Posts: 27,099
And1: 27,763
Joined: Aug 12, 2006

Re: O.T. .::THE SCIENCE AND PHILOSOPHY THREAD::. 

Post#1982 » by Iron Mantis » Tue Jun 19, 2018 12:26 am

KnickFan33 wrote:
Iron Mantis wrote:
KnickFan33 wrote:
For the sake of keeping things on point, I'm willing to let you make the definition so we can have a debate within that definition's parameters.

You keep using the expression, not me. So define it. I don't know what it means.


Cool. I'll define it as unquestioning devotion to something, regardless of what evidence to the contrary might be presented.

Some examples:
Fresh water and salt water don't mix.
Earth was made in a day.
The savior was supposed to return 1975.
When we die, we get our own planet to rule over.

Does this definition suffice?

No.

"Unquestioning devotion" is just that: unquestioning devotion.
Image
KnickFan33
Veteran
Posts: 2,774
And1: 1,459
Joined: Nov 08, 2006

Re: O.T. .::THE SCIENCE AND PHILOSOPHY THREAD::. 

Post#1983 » by KnickFan33 » Tue Jun 19, 2018 12:34 am

Iron Mantis wrote:
KnickFan33 wrote:
Iron Mantis wrote:You keep using the expression, not me. So define it. I don't know what it means.


Cool. I'll define it as unquestioning devotion to something, regardless of what evidence to the contrary might be presented.

Some examples:
Fresh water and salt water don't mix.
Earth was made in a day.
The savior was supposed to return 1975.
When we die, we get our own planet to rule over.

Does this definition suffice?

No.

"Unquestioning devotion" is just that: unquestioning devotion.


I gave you the opportunity to define the term for the discussion, and you ceded that task to me. When I do so, it's unacceptable. This obviously isn't going anywhere (though that was evident from the start). We'll agree to disagree.
User avatar
Iron Mantis
RealGM
Posts: 27,099
And1: 27,763
Joined: Aug 12, 2006

Re: O.T. .::THE SCIENCE AND PHILOSOPHY THREAD::. 

Post#1984 » by Iron Mantis » Tue Jun 19, 2018 1:37 am

KnickFan33 wrote:
Iron Mantis wrote:
KnickFan33 wrote:
Cool. I'll define it as unquestioning devotion to something, regardless of what evidence to the contrary might be presented.

Some examples:
Fresh water and salt water don't mix.
Earth was made in a day.
The savior was supposed to return 1975.
When we die, we get our own planet to rule over.

Does this definition suffice?

No.

"Unquestioning devotion" is just that: unquestioning devotion.


I gave you the opportunity to define the term for the discussion, and you ceded that task to me. When I do so, it's unacceptable. This obviously isn't going anywhere (though that was evident from the start). We'll agree to disagree.

The "evidence" for putting faith in 3/4 of the things you mentioned are religious/philosophical and are subjective; if a person puts faith in those things, it's reasonable to conclude it's based on things they individually perceived as "evidence", whether through personal experience, knowledge, interpretation, or whatever. Not everyone turns to science as their exclusive guide to reality.

How do you know these types of things aren't questioned by believers and they are persuaded with convincing reasonings and proofs, which they choose to accept as evidence? Do you have the data to show that your idea of "blind faith", where no one asks questions, is a real thing, significant enough to garner its own definition?

The expression cannot be found in a dictionary, but faith can.

faith
[feyth]
noun
1. confidence or trust in a person or thing:
faith in another's ability.
2. belief that is not based on proof:
He had faith that the hypothesis would be substantiated by fact.
3. belief in God or in the doctrines or teachings of religion:
the firm faith of the Pilgrims
Image
User avatar
Iron Mantis
RealGM
Posts: 27,099
And1: 27,763
Joined: Aug 12, 2006

Re: O.T. .::THE SCIENCE AND PHILOSOPHY THREAD::. 

Post#1985 » by Iron Mantis » Tue Jun 19, 2018 2:59 am

KnickFan33 wrote:
Iron Mantis wrote:
KnickFan33 wrote:
Cool. I'll define it as unquestioning devotion to something, regardless of what evidence to the contrary might be presented.

Some examples:
Fresh water and salt water don't mix.
Earth was made in a day.
The savior was supposed to return 1975.
When we die, we get our own planet to rule over.

Does this definition suffice?

No.

"Unquestioning devotion" is just that: unquestioning devotion.


I gave you the opportunity to define the term for the discussion, and you ceded that task to me. When I do so, it's unacceptable. This obviously isn't going anywhere (though that was evident from the start). We'll agree to disagree.

Overall yes, I agree, this is going nowhere fast.
Image
PeoplesChamp
Bench Warmer
Posts: 1,492
And1: 943
Joined: Feb 22, 2016

Re: O.T. .::THE SCIENCE AND PHILOSOPHY THREAD::. 

Post#1986 » by PeoplesChamp » Tue Jun 19, 2018 4:40 am

And religion remains undefeated!

Just kidding.
User avatar
gavran
RealGM
Posts: 18,138
And1: 8,839
Joined: Nov 02, 2005
Location: crossing the line

Re: O.T. .::THE SCIENCE AND PHILOSOPHY THREAD::. 

Post#1987 » by gavran » Wed Apr 10, 2019 3:26 pm

User avatar
King of Canada
Retired Mod
Retired Mod
Posts: 17,265
And1: 13,011
Joined: Nov 03, 2005
Location: Halifax, Nova Scotia
 

Re: O.T. .::THE SCIENCE AND PHILOSOPHY THREAD::. 

Post#1988 » by King of Canada » Wed Apr 10, 2019 3:38 pm

gavran wrote:https://www.standard.co.uk/news/world/black-hole-picture-2019-live-stream-updates-as-event-horizon-telescope-collaboration-reveals-first-a4114176.html

I'm touching myself tonight...and you are too.


BAF Pacers

F. Campazzo/ J. Clarkson/ K. Lewis Jr
D. Mitchell/ J. Richardson/S. Merrill
Luka/Melo
Zion/Gay/Gabriel
KAT/Kabengele

F. Mason, Jontay, J. Harris

RIP mags :beer:
User avatar
F N 11
RealGM
Posts: 94,848
And1: 67,568
Joined: Jun 27, 2006
Location: Getting over screens with Gusto.
Contact:
 

Re: O.T. .::THE SCIENCE AND PHILOSOPHY THREAD::. 

Post#1989 » by F N 11 » Thu Apr 11, 2019 5:05 pm

Definitely a believer in a mans philosophy makes him.
CEO of the not trading RJ club.
Image
Luv those Knicks
Retired Mod
Retired Mod
Posts: 59,542
And1: 5,815
Joined: Jul 21, 2001
Location: East of West and West of East.
Contact:

Re: O.T. .::THE SCIENCE AND PHILOSOPHY THREAD::. 

Post#1990 » by Luv those Knicks » Sat Apr 20, 2019 7:49 pm

PeoplesChamp wrote:And religion remains undefeated!

Just kidding.


. . . What's the difference between Donald Trump and Jim Jones?


Donald Trump would have charged money for the Kool-Aid.
Luv those Knicks
Retired Mod
Retired Mod
Posts: 59,542
And1: 5,815
Joined: Jul 21, 2001
Location: East of West and West of East.
Contact:

Re: O.T. .::THE SCIENCE AND PHILOSOPHY THREAD::. 

Post#1991 » by Luv those Knicks » Sat Apr 20, 2019 8:10 pm

Iron Mantis wrote:


Fascinating video. :o

Although his story was for illustrative purposes, I believe there are indeed higher forms of life & intelligence existing in a higher dimension that overlaps ours; we simply cannot readily access, or even point to it, to investigate it, much like Sagan explained.

It's presumptuous to claim everyone who's had experiences with the supernatural, whether of divine nature or of the malevolent sort, are all crazy. In fact, there are real estate laws in place to protect buyers from unwittingly purchasing haunted houses.

Nearly 1 in 5 americans claim they've seen the manifestation of a spirit. http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2015/10/30/18-of-americans-say-theyve-seen-a-ghost/

Although I don't believe "ghosts" are actually dead people back alive in another form, it's interesting to consider another plane of existence within ours, and how life in it affects us.


That is a cool video.

I want to say from a scientific perspective, based on scientific rules, you can't make a scientific argument for something that's never been measured - that is, spirits, 4th dimensional intelligences, you name it.

If a 4th dimension exists, . . . interesting, but the scientist asks "how can we find it or test for it?"

Believing in what is unmeasurable is perfectly fine, but it's not science. Think of science as like a courtroom and a courtroom has rules and guidelines. You have to line-up your witnesses, you can't badger the witnesses. The lawyers can't make arguments, they can only ask questions. Science is like that. It's only about what can be observed, tested, demonstrated or modeled. Scientists have their hands tied when it comes to speculation, like lawyers have their hands tied with making arguments when a witness is on the stand.

Science is very cool, and it's lead to some amazing discoveries, but science isn't good at speculating on what hasn't been measured, which seems to be what you're doing, and again, that's perfectly fine, but it's not science to say there's a more intelligent 4th dimension out there. To the scientist, that's an unknown. You're arguing that something out there exists. The scientist can't make that argument, they can only make models for what might exist and design tests to measure it.

There were some models to explore extra dimensions at quantum levels at CERN, but those tests came up negative. The extra dimensions folded up so we can't see them model didn't work. The Higgs boson model did work. Scientists primarily have to work with what the evidence shows them, not what might be out there, which they can't see yet.


Lets say your 4th dimension proposal is accurate. The scientist would first need to identify said 4th dimension - and I'm not sure how they'd go about that. As Carl Sagan noted, we can look for curvature in space, and scientists have done that and found none, not on large scales. Obviously small scales, space is curved by gravity. But measures looking for a curved universe have so far come back negative. The universe appears flat. It might be so large that we can't measure the curvature, or, there may be no curvature. Scientists don't like to speculate, or, maybe they do on their own time, but they don't speculate in what they publish.

But OK, lets say they find a 4th dimension - step two would be communication, to see if there's anything like the apple looking to talk to us. For now, as I understand it, there's no looking for a 4th dimension because nobody knows how to do it. We can't, in 3 dimensions, point a device to the 4th dimension and start studying it.

As a sidebar, I have no problem believing in spirits. I've even heard the occasional spirit myself, here and there. Not very often, but more than once.

And, I hope what I said doesn't sound condescending. It's just that science has rules and requirements and speculation is generally not encouraged. Now, speculation in philosophy or general discussion - 100% OK. I by no means want to discourage what you believe. But when you tie it to science, it invites the inevitable response "but that's not science", and if that bothers you, think of science as like the a courtroom, and that there are restrictions in what can be said and who can speak in a court of law.


I also, love this video. I suggest people watch it.

https://www.ted.com/talks/carrie_poppy_a_scientific_approach_to_the_paranormal?language=en
. . . What's the difference between Donald Trump and Jim Jones?


Donald Trump would have charged money for the Kool-Aid.
User avatar
Iron Mantis
RealGM
Posts: 27,099
And1: 27,763
Joined: Aug 12, 2006

Re: O.T. .::THE SCIENCE AND PHILOSOPHY THREAD::. 

Post#1992 » by Iron Mantis » Fri Apr 26, 2019 11:16 pm

Luv those Knicks wrote:
Iron Mantis wrote:


Fascinating video. :o

Although his story was for illustrative purposes, I believe there are indeed higher forms of life & intelligence existing in a higher dimension that overlaps ours; we simply cannot readily access, or even point to it, to investigate it, much like Sagan explained.

It's presumptuous to claim everyone who's had experiences with the supernatural, whether of divine nature or of the malevolent sort, are all crazy. In fact, there are real estate laws in place to protect buyers from unwittingly purchasing haunted houses.

Nearly 1 in 5 americans claim they've seen the manifestation of a spirit. http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2015/10/30/18-of-americans-say-theyve-seen-a-ghost/

Although I don't believe "ghosts" are actually dead people back alive in another form, it's interesting to consider another plane of existence within ours, and how life in it affects us.


That is a cool video.

I want to say from a scientific perspective, based on scientific rules, you can't make a scientific argument for something that's never been measured - that is, spirits, 4th dimensional intelligences, you name it.

If a 4th dimension exists, . . . interesting, but the scientist asks "how can we find it or test for it?"

Believing in what is unmeasurable is perfectly fine, but it's not science. Think of science as like a courtroom and a courtroom has rules and guidelines. You have to line-up your witnesses, you can't badger the witnesses. The lawyers can't make arguments, they can only ask questions. Science is like that. It's only about what can be observed, tested, demonstrated or modeled. Scientists have their hands tied when it comes to speculation, like lawyers have their hands tied with making arguments when a witness is on the stand.

Science is very cool, and it's lead to some amazing discoveries, but science isn't good at speculating on what hasn't been measured, which seems to be what you're doing, and again, that's perfectly fine, but it's not science to say there's a more intelligent 4th dimension out there. To the scientist, that's an unknown. You're arguing that something out there exists. The scientist can't make that argument, they can only make models for what might exist and design tests to measure it.

There were some models to explore extra dimensions at quantum levels at CERN, but those tests came up negative. The extra dimensions folded up so we can't see them model didn't work. The Higgs boson model did work. Scientists primarily have to work with what the evidence shows them, not what might be out there, which they can't see yet.


Lets say your 4th dimension proposal is accurate. The scientist would first need to identify said 4th dimension - and I'm not sure how they'd go about that. As Carl Sagan noted, we can look for curvature in space, and scientists have done that and found none, not on large scales. Obviously small scales, space is curved by gravity. But measures looking for a curved universe have so far come back negative. The universe appears flat. It might be so large that we can't measure the curvature, or, there may be no curvature. Scientists don't like to speculate, or, maybe they do on their own time, but they don't speculate in what they publish.

But OK, lets say they find a 4th dimension - step two would be communication, to see if there's anything like the apple looking to talk to us. For now, as I understand it, there's no looking for a 4th dimension because nobody knows how to do it. We can't, in 3 dimensions, point a device to the 4th dimension and start studying it.

As a sidebar, I have no problem believing in spirits. I've even heard the occasional spirit myself, here and there. Not very often, but more than once.

And, I hope what I said doesn't sound condescending. It's just that science has rules and requirements and speculation is generally not encouraged. Now, speculation in philosophy or general discussion - 100% OK. I by no means want to discourage what you believe. But when you tie it to science, it invites the inevitable response "but that's not science", and if that bothers you, think of science as like the a courtroom, and that there are restrictions in what can be said and who can speak in a court of law.


I also, love this video. I suggest people watch it.

https://www.ted.com/talks/carrie_poppy_a_scientific_approach_to_the_paranormal?language=en

Give it time. I think quantum mechanics(but that is science) will eventually provide scientific answers about other dimensions to satisfy the courtroom.

https://bigthink.com/philip-perry/hints-of-the-4th-dimension-have-been-detected-by-physicists

https://www.nature.com/articles/nature25000

https://www.nature.com/articles/nature25011
Image
User avatar
dakomish23
Forum Mod - Knicks
Forum Mod - Knicks
Posts: 58,749
And1: 48,719
Joined: Sep 22, 2013
Location: Empire State
     

Re: O.T. .::THE SCIENCE AND PHILOSOPHY THREAD::. 

Post#1993 » by dakomish23 » Tue Jul 13, 2021 6:19 pm

I advise everyone remotely interested in tech to listen to this podcast. Talks about the documentary which was great.

One of tech sector's greatest flameouts. Spawned the ideas that created eBay & the iPod, Nest, etc. A lot of the smart phone infrastructure.

This was in the 90's.

https://www.vox.com/2018/7/30/17628766/general-magic-smartphone-apple-iphone-documentary-sarah-kerruish-matt-maude-kara-swisher-podcast
Jimmit79 wrote:Yea RJ played well he was definitely the x factor


#FreeJimmit
movingon
Sixth Man
Posts: 1,609
And1: 408
Joined: Dec 06, 2006

Re: O.T. .::THE SCIENCE AND PHILOSOPHY THREAD::. 

Post#1994 » by movingon » Tue Jul 13, 2021 8:07 pm


Give it time. I think quantum mechanics(but that is science) will eventually provide scientific answers about other dimensions to satisfy the courtroom.
[/quote]


Quantum mechanics works just fine in 3 dimensions.
It's a quantum theory of gravity that seems to require solutions with higher dimensionality, typically "compact" (rolled-up).
This is string theory, and it's often criticized as being unverifiable.
At the moment the supporting argument for such a theory boils down to mathematical elegance.
User avatar
dakomish23
Forum Mod - Knicks
Forum Mod - Knicks
Posts: 58,749
And1: 48,719
Joined: Sep 22, 2013
Location: Empire State
     

Re: O.T. .::THE SCIENCE AND PHILOSOPHY THREAD::. 

Post#1995 » by dakomish23 » Tue Jul 13, 2021 9:48 pm

If this was just about COVID I’d place it elsewhere, but this is straight bat **** crazy

Read on Twitter
Jimmit79 wrote:Yea RJ played well he was definitely the x factor


#FreeJimmit
User avatar
Barcs
Analyst
Posts: 3,167
And1: 857
Joined: Jan 27, 2013
Location: NJ
       

Re: O.T. .::THE SCIENCE AND PHILOSOPHY THREAD::. 

Post#1996 » by Barcs » Tue Jul 13, 2021 9:55 pm

dakomish23 wrote:If this was just about COVID I’d place it elsewhere, but this is straight bat **** crazy

Read on Twitter


Republicans are pro life until the moment that baby is born. After that the kid is SCREWED. I can't imagine being born into such a **** up world as today. The age of hypocrisy, sedition and disinformation, the majority of which comes from the far right. Science denial and alt facts are embraced by these clowns and the funniest part is that most of them claim to be Christian.
SELL THE TEAM, JIM!!! :curse:

Return to New York Knicks