TED Community » Paul Redling

More About Me

I'm passionate about

The big questions and commonly overlooked knowledge.

An idea worth spreading

The entire space-time continuum moving along a timeline, saving a picture of what you were doing at that time. Visualizing time is like overlapping many images of yourself as a stop motion sequence of pictures each one a little further along with the rest, so Time is a sequence of space-time and where everything was exactly at that point.

Talk to me about

The universe, the big questions, religion, philosophy, and anything else you think is controversial.

People don't know that I'm good at

Music and empathy.

My TED Story

I was watching annoying orange when I saw the Sex determination video, and fell in love with the entire project from the moment i clicked on it.

Comments

• TEDCred score: +2.50 TEDCred reflects your contribution to the TED community.

• +1

  A comment on Conversation: what would planet earth be like if we had no privacy, whatsoever?

  Feb 24 2013: I think that for one society would become much more accepting of certain behaviors we currently consider taboo. I think that many people have secrets. Many people aslo shame things not because they truly detest them, but because they detest being thought of as one who doesn't. I know I do. I think that if there was no way around it, people would not do as many bad things as they do, and things not necessarily bad, but looked down upon, would be accepted instead of shunned.
• +1

  A comment on Conversation: What are the challenges that gifted and creative individuals face at present?

  Feb 24 2013: Not being able to learn the way that works best for them. I've always wanted to learn in a different way than schools that are recognized by the education system teach.
  
  Also knowing that we are gifted makes us cocky and also makes us think we're somewhat omnipresent.
• +2

  A reply on Conversation: Using Technology to Understand Quantum Physics

  Feb 24 2013: no it's like that when we observe things have to make physical sense. It's Schrodinger's Cat. Unless we are observing all possibilities happen simultaneously, and we see the result of it.
• +1

  A comment on Conversation: Using Technology to Understand Quantum Physics

  Feb 24 2013: Well, when you observe the photons they behave as particles, not waves. That's the mystery. Photons act as particles in the double slit experiment when observed. That's actually the entire mystery is why only when they are being watched? When not being observed, they carry out all of the possibilities of collision with each other, making a wave.
• +3

  A comment on Conversation: Should public schools be allowed to teach creation myths in science class?

  Feb 24 2013: Science class is for the facts. I agree with the current curriculum (I say current being a High School student). While I can appreciate the "inequality" presented by teaching just the facts (I'm assuming you mean that it sort of supports atheistic thinking because the facts coincide with their beliefs), I don't think that SCIENCE class is the place to instill the word of god into the minds of the youth (or Norse creation, Greek creation, etc.). If you really want that taught at a public school, I'd look into English class (or maybe, if you really want to push it, History).
  
  But science, especially for younger children, is and always has been taken as gospel (yes, I recognize the irony). Including other creation stories that have been disproven is not only dangerous to the children's mental development, it is unscientific. It's like doing algebra in Music Appreciation or something. I wouldn't mind adding the christian creation story to the curriculum of public schools, as long as it went alongside other creation stories, and stayed OUT of science class.

• A reply on Conversation: How do we prove an answer

  Feb 24 2013: Thank you for saving me time.

• A reply on Conversation: How do we prove an answer

  Feb 24 2013: Ummm... Yeah. That's assumed common knowledge... So... Thanks? I don't really see what u mean to accomplish by posting that. I mean, I could find that out on Dictionary.com...

• A comment on Conversation: An Eye for an Eye . Do you agree or disagree?

  Feb 22 2013: I think that it's a nice idea, but extremely flawed.
  If you steal $100 from a man, the law says that you should return that $100 and give him an additional $100. The problem arises is you don't HAVE the $100 to give. If this is the case, it's left up to the judgement of another man, not the impartial law of eye for eye to decide the punishment (Hammurabi went with chopping off hands). The philosophy has too many holes in it to be useful for anything more than minor disputes in which both parties agree it is fair to resort to eye for eye.
• +1

  A comment on Conversation: How do we prove an answer

  Feb 22 2013: "I think therefore I am." Anything else can always be assumed an illusion.
  
  If your want to take that out of the equation, probably by showing that any change will disprove it, and showing that it holds its own without relying on assuming anything else to be true other than the fact that it is as it appears for all intents and purposes. Like, you can prove 1+2=3 by saying that 1+3≠3 as long as 1 is actually 1, 2 is actually 2, 3 is actually 3, + is actually +, = is actually =, and ≠ is actually ≠.

• A reply on Conversation: The Middle East

  Jul 23 2012: Easy Edward. This thread is about the ownership of Jerusalem, not attacking people who don't share your beliefs, or stating your religious beliefs. EG, I hope in the future, you will remind people of the topic at hand like I just have, because your comment was a little offensive as well. And an example of things in the bible that seem impossible but could have happened, Moses parting the red sea. Scientists have looked at core samples that show an earthquake of magnificent scale occued around that period of history. That earthquake could have created a land bridge. The bible is just words. The traditional visualizations aren't necessarily true to the letter. Edward is right, you can't prove a negative statement on a positive statement that has just as much trouble being proven. Religion of the individual aside, both of you please answer the question.