Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: Penguin on May 30, 2011, 12:13:53 AM
-
Hello Aces High BBS!
NOTE: I took this post from my own work on another thread because I felt that it didn't quite fit with the thread's idea.
I am a self-taught philosopher (and have been described as such by numerous friends and family members). Here is a short treatise that I have composed regarding death, thought and immortality:
The Immortal Mind
By Penguin
I think, therefore I am. However, death is the cessastion of all biolgical processes, including thought. Therefore I will cease to be when I cease to think; the cessation of thought is death. Therefore, if I die, then I cease to be. This raises the question, why should I wish to be?
To ask oneself why one wishes to be is equivalent to asking the meaning of life. To ascertain the meaning of life requires thought. The meaning of life, in and of itself, is a thought or thoughts. If I cease to think, then I cannot ascertain the meaning of life, for it requires thought. Furthermore, the enjoyment of life has the same prerequisite as the the meaning of life- thought.
One can derive from this logic that in order to enjoy and ascertain the meaning of life, one must think. If death is the cessation of thought, then it is the cessation of the enjoyment and meaning of life. Therefore, without death, life would continue to provide enjoyment and meaning.
If death ends the enjoyment and meaning of life, then life must provide enjoyment and meaning. Therefore, I do not wish to die because if I were to then I would not be able to enjoy myself and ascertain the meaning of life. With that established, I will now describe my conclusion in detail.
Enjoyment- endless life is equivalent to endless enjoyment, such as food, sex, art, science and adventure. If I were able to live endlessly, I would be able to taste the most delicious food, make love with the loveliest women, appreciate the highest art, enjoy the benefits of the most advanced science, and go on the greatest adventures.
Meaning- enless life enables to ascertainment of its meaning via such lengthy research that its meaning can be prised out by trial and error if nothing else. The endless debates, though tiring, would make my information infinite, allowing me to distill the meaning of life down to an essence.
To boil my point down to an essence: To live is to think, to live infinitely is to achieve infinite wisdom.
-Penguin
-
It's just not that complicated.
Listen more, talk less. Pay attention. You'll get it eventually.
-
I have to say i read the first line then i just copied and pasted my last forum post thats only 10 minutes old:
Great post Penguin BUT:
Once you get a lot older the copy and paste stuff that may make you feel smart may work out in your favor (NOT) BUT first live the stories like leave home first and get a life then work hard, have a family and do it with style or you will just end up in uni talking crap to people that dont listen as they also talk crap they haven't done or couldn't as they are stuck tiring to look better than people who lived.
Forkit
BTW you have to get a grip on the real world as if you dont and you go outside its going to be a very big shock.
Now dont get me wrong at all i am really tiring to help as my little brother was just like you and i dont want to tell the story but it doesnt end well and even now 20 years later hes a lost cause but he always has a opinion that apparent counts with 3 uni degrees that mean nothing and makes no money but that was cool and i couldn't care less till he had a kid! now its not cool just pure vego save the tools of the world loser but hes no dad or husband, hes no better than a bun that talks crap as his old mother bails his life out of total unpreventable crap.
All he had to do was STFU and he would have been ok but after 30 + years he believes his BS the BS bites not just him but everyone around him. FYI hes a know it all.
Forkit
-
I have to say +1 to what Guppy said, but then again I think thinking about these topics is sort of obligatory for teens (at least I think it should be, otherwise I'm screwed ;)).
-
Hello Aces High BBS!
NOTE: I took this post from my own work on another thread because I felt that it didn't quite fit with the thread's idea.
I am a self-taught philosopher (and have been described as such by numerous friends and family members). Here is a short treatise that I have composed regarding death, thought and immortality:
The Immortal Mind
By Penguin
I think, therefore I am. However, death is the cessastion of all biolgical processes, including thought. Therefore I will cease to be when I cease to think; the cessation of thought is death. Therefore, if I die, then I cease to be. This raises the question, why should I wish to be?
To ask oneself why one wishes to be is equivalent to asking the meaning of life. To ascertain the meaning of life requires thought. The meaning of life, in and of itself, is a thought or thoughts. If I cease to think, then I cannot ascertain the meaning of life, for it requires thought. Furthermore, the enjoyment of life has the same prerequisite as the the meaning of life- thought.
One can derive from this logic that in order to enjoy and ascertain the meaning of life, one must think. If death is the cessation of thought, then it is the cessation of the enjoyment and meaning of life. Therefore, without death, life would continue to provide enjoyment and meaning.
If death ends the enjoyment and meaning of life, then life must provide enjoyment and meaning. Therefore, I do not wish to die because if I were to then I would not be able to enjoy myself and ascertain the meaning of life. With that established, I will now describe my conclusion in detail.
Enjoyment- endless life is equivalent to endless enjoyment, such as food, sex, art, science and adventure. If I were able to live endlessly, I would be able to taste the most delicious food, make love with the loveliest women, appreciate the highest art, enjoy the benefits of the most advanced science, and go on the greatest adventures.
Meaning- enless life enables to ascertainment of its meaning via such lengthy research that its meaning can be prised out by trial and error if nothing else. The endless debates, though tiring, would make my information infinite, allowing me to distill the meaning of life down to an essence.
To boil my point down to an essence: To live is to think, to live infinitely is to achieve infinite wisdom.
-Penguin
dont forget to give credit to those that you quoted
-
The axiom of my treatise came from Descartes; "Cogito ergo sum", "I think therefore I am". I forgot to give him credit for that eloquent idea. For that, I apologize. I wrote the rest of that treatise. I can write another one on most any topic if you'd like. Life and death seem to be the places where I spend the most time wondering, though.
I've known and understood my mortality since an early age. Every time that I'd step in the bathroom I'd wonder how long I'd live and how I'd die; I still do. I'm beginning to think that my 'morbid fascination' with death came from my dad reading Grimm's Fairy Tales to me at quite a young age. In fact, I once came to my mom crying that I would die, and I was only seven years old. Ever since then I've wondered and wondered about how I could live forever, I've even written a short story about it. Yes, it's surprising that I can think on such a level, but practice makes perfect.
-Penguin
-
The axiom of my treatise came from Descartes; "Cogito ergo sum", "I think therefore I am". I forgot to give him credit for that eloquent idea. For that, I apologize. I wrote the rest of that treatise. I can write another one on most any topic if you'd like. Life and death seem to be the places where I spend the most time wondering, though.
I've known and understood my mortality since an early age. Every time that I'd step in the bathroom I'd wonder how long I'd live and how I'd die; I still do. I'm beginning to think that my 'morbid fascination' with death came from my dad reading Grimm's Fairy Tales to me at quite a young age. In fact, I once came to my mom crying that I would die, and I was only seven years old. Ever since then I've wondered and wondered about how I could live forever, I've even written a short story about it. Yes, it's surprising that I can think on such a level, but practice makes perfect.
-Penguin
No need to apologize, just be careful when you get to college when you have to do sources.
-
True, I just didn't know you guys wanted them. :lol I'll be sure to cite any sources if I write another treatise. ;)
-Penguin
-
And here I thought you stole it from my sig............ :rofl :rofl :rofl
:salute
-
It seems as if you guys like these, would you like another one? If so, on what topic?
-Penguin
-
It seems as if you guys like these, would you like another one? If so, on what topic?
-Penguin
The beauty of silence.
-
Hello Aces High BBS!
NOTE: I took this post from my own work on another thread because I felt that it didn't quite fit with the thread's idea.
I am a self-taught philosopher (and have been described as such by numerous friends and family members). Here is a short treatise that I have composed regarding death, thought and immortality:
The Immortal Mind
By Penguin
I think, therefore I am. However, death is the cessastion of all biolgical processes, including thought. Therefore I will cease to be when I cease to think; the cessation of thought is death. Therefore, if I die, then I cease to be. This raises the question, why should I wish to be?
To ask oneself why one wishes to be is equivalent to asking the meaning of life. To ascertain the meaning of life requires thought. The meaning of life, in and of itself, is a thought or thoughts. If I cease to think, then I cannot ascertain the meaning of life, for it requires thought. Furthermore, the enjoyment of life has the same prerequisite as the the meaning of life- thought.
One can derive from this logic that in order to enjoy and ascertain the meaning of life, one must think. If death is the cessation of thought, then it is the cessation of the enjoyment and meaning of life. Therefore, without death, life would continue to provide enjoyment and meaning.
If death ends the enjoyment and meaning of life, then life must provide enjoyment and meaning. Therefore, I do not wish to die because if I were to then I would not be able to enjoy myself and ascertain the meaning of life. With that established, I will now describe my conclusion in detail.
Enjoyment- endless life is equivalent to endless enjoyment, such as food, sex, art, science and adventure. If I were able to live endlessly, I would be able to taste the most delicious food, make love with the loveliest women, appreciate the highest art, enjoy the benefits of the most advanced science, and go on the greatest adventures.
Meaning- enless life enables to ascertainment of its meaning via such lengthy research that its meaning can be prised out by trial and error if nothing else. The endless debates, though tiring, would make my information infinite, allowing me to distill the meaning of life down to an essence.
To boil my point down to an essence: To live is to think, to live infinitely is to achieve infinite wisdom.
-Penguin
Next time you use a thesaurus can you copy the words over with their correct spellings?
-
It seems as if you guys like these, would you like another one? If so, on what topic?
-Penguin
The end results of spicy foods
-
Next time you use a thesaurus can you copy the words over with their correct spellings?
I didn't use a thesaurus, which probably explains my spelling errors.
The beauty of silence.
Are you telling me to stop writing these, or is that an actual request?
The end results of spicy foods
Sounds good, but I've found a subject that has caught my eye- world peace. Yours will come right after that.
-Penguin
-
The point of the type of language you're trying to use is to make things concise and simple, not to make them flowery and redundant.
The end result is that you just look pretentious.
-
It's easier to write one word than two, especially when you write them over and over again.
Therefore could be reduced to 'because of those reasons', but that's four words where one would do.
To ascertatin could be reduced to 'to figure out' but that's three words where two would do.
To derive could be reduced to 'to apply this fact to a similar situation', but that's seven words where one would do.
Therefore, using fewer, larger words reduces wordiness and redundancy.
-Penguin
-
No, I really want you to write an essay concerning silence.
And it better be good.
-
The point of the type of language you're trying to use is to make things concise and simple, not to make them flowery and redundant.
The end result is that you just look pretentious.
HA!
-
"If I cease to think, then I cannot ascertain the meaning of life, for it requires thought."
Use more deductive logic and less inductive. Your Idea does not allow for learning the meaning of life before you cease to think. Is the meaning of life relative or true?
-
I've known and understood my mortality since an early age. Every time that I'd step in the bathroom I'd wonder how long I'd live and how I'd die; I still do. I'm beginning to think that my 'morbid fascination' with death came from my dad reading Grimm's Fairy Tales to me at quite a young age. In fact, I once came to my mom crying that I would die, and I was only seven years old. Ever since then I've wondered and wondered about how I could live forever, I've even written a short story about it. Yes, it's surprising that I can think on such a level, but practice makes perfect.
-Penguin
it's not surprising nor is it as uncommon as you want to believe. years from now you're going to find yourself thinking how strange it is that generations change, yet they don't...simply because some young'un who thinks he knows himself and thinks he has some answers is going to say something that will strike a chord and you will find yourself reflecting on your childhood. take it from someone much older who pondered the same questions with the same fears at a younger age than when you started...at some point in life, everyone does it.
-
The point of the type of language you're trying to use is to make things concise and simple, not to make them flowery and redundant.
The end result is that you just look pretentious.
Bingo!
-
Penguin,
According to your philosophy, there are a lot of dead people playing this game :O
-
I'd wonder.... how I'd die
I'm sure there are a few others on this BBS that have fantasized about how you'd die. Not in the bathroom I would think, although there are a few kinky old guys hanging around here, mostly while probably reading your posts.
-
"If I cease to think, then I cannot ascertain the meaning of life, for it requires thought."
Use more deductive logic and less inductive. Your Idea does not allow for learning the meaning of life before you cease to think. Is the meaning of life relative or true?
Hmm, there could be something that I missed. I'll do a check.
Ascertainment of the meaning of life requires thought,
Death prevents thought (by killing the brain),
Therefore, death prevents ascertainment of the meaning of life
Perhaps one of my premises is false, because it seems as if my logic holds true.
I'm sure there are a few others on this BBS that have fantasized about that very thing. Not in the bathroom I would think, although there are a few kinky old guys hanging around here, mostly while probably reading your posts.
I don't fantasize about death, no, no. I just wondered about it, and hoped that it wouldn't hurt too badly. :lol I meant that every time that I stepped into the bathroom I used to think 'Holy Cow, I'm going to die one day', and then I went and took my shower. ;)
-Penguin
-
Your premise must be known to be true. Ill give you a hint its a error of quantity.
-
Still nothing.
-Penguin
-
Ascertainment of the meaning of life requires some thought. not all thought
Death prevents additional thought, death does not prevent all thought only some thought.
Do you think the meaning of life is relative or true?
-
Hello Aces High BBS!
NOTE: I took this post from my own work on another thread because I felt that it didn't quite fit with the thread's idea.
I am a self-taught philosopher (and have been described as such by numerous friends and family members). Here is a short treatise that I have composed regarding death, thought and immortality:
The Immortal Mind
By Penguin
I think, therefore I am. However, death is the cessastion of all biolgical processes, including thought. Therefore I will cease to be when I cease to think; the cessation of thought is death. Therefore, if I die, then I cease to be. This raises the question, why should I wish to be?
To ask oneself why one wishes to be is equivalent to asking the meaning of life. To ascertain the meaning of life requires thought. The meaning of life, in and of itself, is a thought or thoughts. If I cease to think, then I cannot ascertain the meaning of life, for it requires thought. Furthermore, the enjoyment of life has the same prerequisite as the the meaning of life- thought.
One can derive from this logic that in order to enjoy and ascertain the meaning of life, one must think. If death is the cessation of thought, then it is the cessation of the enjoyment and meaning of life. Therefore, without death, life would continue to provide enjoyment and meaning.
If death ends the enjoyment and meaning of life, then life must provide enjoyment and meaning. Therefore, I do not wish to die because if I were to then I would not be able to enjoy myself and ascertain the meaning of life. With that established, I will now describe my conclusion in detail.
Enjoyment- endless life is equivalent to endless enjoyment, such as food, sex, art, science and adventure. If I were able to live endlessly, I would be able to taste the most delicious food, make love with the loveliest women, appreciate the highest art, enjoy the benefits of the most advanced science, and go on the greatest adventures.
Meaning- enless life enables to ascertainment of its meaning via such lengthy research that its meaning can be prised out by trial and error if nothing else. The endless debates, though tiring, would make my information infinite, allowing me to distill the meaning of life down to an essence.
To boil my point down to an essence: To live is to think, to live infinitely is to achieve infinite wisdom.
-Penguin
I think most of what you have typed here is wrong. Especially your summary sentance in bold.
There is no such thing as infinite wisdom. Even suggesting that there is a way to aquire infinite wisdom show how unwise one is.
You appear to have nothing to offer on the subject of philosophy at this moment.
All you appear to have is a desire to make yourself appear smart, your motives are transparent.
I suggest you stick to the field of science. That is a subject you can be good at through copy and pasting the work of others into your head.
If you do want to become a philosopher, I suggest you try to extract your mind from within itself and become a floating mind able to look at yourself from the outside. more importantly than that, to be able to look at existence from the mind of other humans and other creatures accurately. The persuit of the self is the destruction of wisdom, eternal life is the ultimate destruction of the philosopher.
-
I think most of what you have typed here is wrong. Especially your summary sentance in bold.
There is no such thing as infinite wisdom. Even suggesting that there is a way to aquire infinite wisdom show how unwise one is.
You appear to have nothing to offer on the subject of philosophy at this moment.
All you appear to have is a desire to make yourself appear smart, your motives are transparent.
I suggest you stick to the field of science. That is a subject you can be good at through copy and pasting the work of others into your head.
If you do want to become a philosopher, I suggest you try to extract your mind from within itself and become a floating mind able to look at yourself from the outside. more importantly than that, to be able to look at existence from the mind of other humans and other creatures accurately. The persuit of the self is the destruction of wisdom, eternal life is the ultimate destruction of the philosopher.
Oof, that hurt. This work is original. (Except for the aforementioned Descartes quote). I can make more of these, on many subjects.
Are you one to talk? (no, really, are you speaking from experience because I'm all ears if you are :))
To detach my mind from myself, I've tried that, and man is it a odd experience. How do you keep from tripping over your own wires, so to speak? Whenever I try to view the world with myself included in it, it I end up questioning my own motivations for thinking, and then as I think about that I question the motivations for that thought and it all goes downhill from there. I know that there's something wrong with the way I'm doing it, but what?
Feeling smart feels good, but that was not my point (or perhaps it was? :headscratch:). This is my exact problem, I can't stop thinking about thinking and it can get to the point where I feel vertigo.
By becoming a floating mind, you mean become empathetic? That's what I try to do on a daily basis, understand what seems to be chaos and insanity (mainly in the form of the actions of my teachers). There seems to be a great deal of it, and I'm beginning to wonder if I'm the source.
-Penguin
-
By starting this thread you are displaying your own self satisfied thoughts to others in the hopes that they will be as satisfied with you as you are with yourself about it. That is not a crime at all, so don't take it as an attack. It's quite natural for us to want to display things that satisfy us.
The reason it appears you are not original to me is that your base it all on Descartes' quote. Originality could perhaps start with 'I am even if I don't think'. That would be a challenge to Descartes' quote, worthy of sharing perhaps. A tree 'is', yet we are fairly certain it does not think.
To detatch the mind from the self is simple. Don't go off thinking it's about telepathy or wacky out of body experiences. It purely means to think without the self being the center. For example, noticing that a tree does not have to think to exist. By applying your thoughts to other things apart from the self before assuming they must be. By making philosophy without wanting to show others (to gain reputation for the self). That last bit is almost impossible, as we all naturaly want to have an impact and be remembered for what we do. You see even right now I am doing the same as you, I am assuming that by typing all this I will look smart, and philosophical, when really I am breaking my own rules and probably just appearing to be a know it all. :)
Floating mind is a free mind without barriers or confinements of any kind. To float one's mind anything has to be possible. There is nothing that cannot be so that every square inch of possible or impossible existence, from nothing to infinity, can fit inside the mind at once. The mind is open to suggestion from all places except itself.
-
:rofl :rofl :rofl
-
Ok, now I see what you mean by saying that I was unoriginal. I didn't think of my own premise, but Descartes' fit the bill so well that I didn't think anything of copying him. I didn't mean telepathy (though it would be awesome if I could do that), I meant empathy; to understand how other people feel based on verbal and non-verbal cues and reacting to it in an intelligent manner.
I understand what you mean by not placing myself as the center of the universe, to try to view it from different vantage points. If I place myself at the center, then I will contribute my own bias to what I see instead of seeing things for what they are.
I think that the floating mind ties into that as well, having no barriers can help you.
-Penguin
-
I understand what you mean by not placing myself as the center of the universe, to try to view it from different vantage points. If I place myself at the center, then I will contribute my own bias to what I see instead of seeing things for what they are.
-Penguin
Ahhhh, good. maybe now you will stop PMing me :aok
-
Ok my turn to break the rules. I am interested in looking at it from a logical perspective. "To float ones mind anything has to be possible. There is nothing that cannot be. Maybe I just don't understand and this should be contained to the context.
I can point out some things that are impossible. Including your statement that i agree with . about acquireing Infinate wisdom is impossible. Only things that are true are possible. X can not be X and not X at the same time in the same place. You cannot imagine on "any world" a triangle with 5 sides.
Even if Penguins post was not all original, It has great thinking potential especially since he was willing to post it in an open forum.
<Salute>
-
. . . . since he was willing to post it in an open forum.
<Salute>
You know, like the guy in the movies that charges a machine gun nest. Is he a hero or does he just not know any better? :rofl
-
Ok my turn to break the rules. I am interested in looking at it from a logical perspective. "To float ones mind anything has to be possible. There is nothing that cannot be. Maybe I just don't understand and this should be contained to the context.
I can point out some things that are impossible. Including your statement that i agree with . about acquireing Infinate wisdom is impossible. Only things that are true are possible. X can not be X and not X at the same time in the same place. You cannot imagine on "any world" a triangle with 5 sides.
Logic is a curse when applied to anything but logical subjects. Arithmatic is logical and thus requires logical thinking.Although, even in something like physics the 'impossible' becomes possible all the time. There are some people that believe space is comprised of 11 dimensions. How possible is that to the logic of yesterday. But that is a digression from my answer. My simple answer to you is that not everything in life or in the mind is logical and therefore logic is not always required.
-
Logic is a curse when applied to anything but logical subjects. Arithmatic is logical and thus requires logical thinking.Although, even in something like physics the 'impossible' becomes possible all the time. There are some people that believe space is comprised of 11 dimensions. How possible is that to the logic of yesterday. But that is a digression from my answer. My simple answer to you is that not everything in life or in the mind is logical and therefore logic is not always required.
Not everything is logical, but you must use logic to know that. So something is wrong with your claim. logical is the opposite of not logical. Are you claiming true and false. You are equivicating between logic and logical.
Everything is either true , false or unknown. To reason one must use logic.
-
You know, like the guy in the movies that charges a machine gun nest. Is he a hero or does he just not know any better? :rofl
ad-Hominem :bhead
-
I'm just going to say, I read everything and I still don't get whats going on. Maybe its good to be as dumb as me. :headscratch: Then you wouldn't have to use such big words all the time. :rofl
-
Ok, now I see what you mean by saying that I was unoriginal. I didn't think of my own premise, but Descartes' fit the bill so well that I didn't think anything of copying him. I didn't mean telepathy (though it would be awesome if I could do that), I meant empathy; to understand how other people feel based on verbal and non-verbal cues and reacting to it in an intelligent manner.
I understand what you mean by not placing myself as the center of the universe, to try to view it from different vantage points. If I place myself at the center, then I will contribute my own bias to what I see instead of seeing things for what they are.
I think that the floating mind ties into that as well, having no barriers can help you.
-Penguin
Your logic is flawed.
Thought is not required for something to exist. Many a sentient being has been taken out by a 'thoughtless' pathogen.
-
Not everything is logical, but you must use logic to know that. So something is wrong with your claim. logical is the opposite of not logical. Are you claiming true and false. You are equivicating between logic and logical.
Everything is either true , false or unknown. To reason one must use logic.
What came first? The chicken or the egg?
There must have been a time before logic was even considered. It is only our evolved minds that refer all of existence to being true, false or unknown. We decide what is true and what is false and we often change our minds on that, but in it's purst essence, the whole of existence is illogical and unknown. We require logic to make sense of that. Existence does not require logic.
-
First, logic existed before we did. Whether we are around or not, e=mc2. The universe existed before we did, and we did not change it by beginning to think.
The egg came first, evoluntionarily speaking. The kingdom Avia predates the chicken. If you refer to a paradox, then it can be solved by 'thinking outside the box'.
Existence does not require thought, however, logic is everywhere. Causes come before effects, and math is always true.
If you refer to consciousness, then yes, that does require thought and life. Do not confuse logic with being conscious.
-Penguin
-
You assume those things because you cannot imagine an existence where math and logic do not exist. That is why you fail at philosophy so far.
-
" My simple answer to you is that not everything in life or in the mind is logical and therefore logic is not always required.
What do mean not logical? Please give me an example of what not logical is.
Your using a negative which deletes information. I am going to do my best to recover the deleted information from you.
Logic existed at the same time everything else did. Logic is only a representation of what is. We either are capable of representing what is or we are not . logic does not change what is.
maybe i should go a step further. logic is a true representation of what is logical error is the misrepresentation of what is.
Thought does not change what is .thought is only a reprisintation of what is. Logic existed before thought did.
-
That is a fundemental aspect of philosophy as far as I believe, leaving the possibility that 2+2=5 open.
Example of not logical is just that. The statement '2+2=5' is not logical. Obviously that is only a representation of what could be if we think outside of logic. I am not arguing that specific equation.
We cannot easily imagine an existence where logic does not apply, so we assume that logic always was.
Lifr on the most basic form shows how logic is not always true. Single cell division gives us the equation 1+0=2. You might argue that it gives 1/2=0.5, but it does not. Each cell is complete and whole after division. Life is not logical.
-
You know, like the guy in the movies that charges a machine gun nest. Is he a hero or does he just not know any better? :rofl
Perfect!!!!! :rofl :rofl
-
False, each new cell absorbs matter to increase its size. In this case, you get: 1/2=0.5
Then each 0.5 gets another 0.5 from the matter around it. The cell is then ready to divide again.
Your point raises the question, could one draw any useful conclusions when basing one's argument upon an imaginary, illogical world?
-Penguin
-
Logic is a curse when applied to anything but logical subjects. Arithmatic is logical and thus requires logical thinking.Although, even in something like physics the 'impossible' becomes possible all the time. There are some people that believe space is comprised of 11 dimensions. How possible is that to the logic of yesterday. But that is a digression from my answer. My simple answer to you is that not everything in life or in the mind is logical and therefore logic is not always required.
Interesting idea - if I'm not misunderstanding you, are you saying that logic is usually one step behind (the latest development in) physics, and that it can't be used for it? If so, I'd argue that once the new rules of physics are discovered, then logic will be applicable to them.
As to what you said about logic not always being required, I'd argue that it is always applicable provided you have sufficient knowledge about whatever you're applying it to - since by definition, something which not logical (I use illogical from an 'absolute' perspective, *not* as if you ask someone with an IQ of 1 whether orbital dynamics are logical - but as if you ask someone with perfect logical skills and perfect knowledge about physics) is illogical, and hence is *probably* wrong (provided that the basis for your logic is sound - if it isn't, then the 'if you put crap in, you get crap out' thing probably applies). But I may have tied myself in knots here, so I'll shut up now. :lol
And RE: the posts about we can't know anything for sure: I agree, we can't. The possibility always exists that everything we think is just an illusion, and that the entire world is just a fragment of our imagination. But at the end of the day, so what? I think a few assumptions are useful in this thing: namely, we exist, and the world is as it appears to our eyes. Additionally (and this is where I think science comes in), we can make measurements of things in the world and the universe. If we can provide 'reasonable' evidence that your measurements are accurate (such as repeating the measurements, or checking them with other related measurements), then you can use what I guess is a 'projection' of logic called 'mathematics', and use that to make a model which will predict your measurements from a given set of premises. If your model continues to agree with future measurements, then that's more evidence for the model being correct. However if ever it doesn't agree with your observations, then you probably need a new model. In this way, I think logic can be applied to physics - but with the understanding that you may find things which appear illogical, but that they're not really illogical - you just don't understand yet why their logical.
And I think I went completely off track with that last paragraph, but my last sentence pretty much sums up at least some of my opinions on this topic. (I probably should have actually shut up when I said I would earlier :P)
-
Causes come before effects
Probably... Retrocausality (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Retrocausality)
-
Perhaps the cell division was not the best example, just thinking on the go.
If we are really going to hammer this out then someone explain to me the logic in love. It is totaly illogical to run into a burning building resulting in two people die instead of just one, but you will do that for someone you love without thinking logicaly about it at all.
Or even more confusing, explain to me the logic behind creation of the universe from supposed nothingness. Logic only applies to things we understand logicaly. So as I was saying, a philosopher must think beyond logic to find new logic. Once we have discovered how the universe appeared out of nothing, it will be logical, but to get there we must think illogicaly.
-
Perhaps the cell division was not the best example, just thinking on the go.
If we are really going to hammer this out then someone explain to me the logic in love. It is totaly illogical to run into a burning building resulting in two people die instead of just one, but you will do that for someone you love without thinking logicaly about it at all.
Or even more confusing, explain to me the logic behind creation of the universe from supposed nothingness. Logic only applies to things we understand logicaly. So as I was saying, a philosopher must think beyond logic to find new logic. Once we have discovered how the universe appeared out of nothing, it will be logical, but to get there we must think illogicaly.
Interesting Bat. I think in the end folks can think too much, and forget to feel.
Not to somber it up too much, but after my son and daughter died, I ceased to feel for a long time. I did an awful lot of thinking trying to explain it all, and there was no explanation. All the thinking and trying to logic something so illogical did nothing but keep me from feeling.
Then the Mrs. comes home from Africa with a newborn that she found in a closet and I find myself holding my new son. Nothing logical about it, but I remember the exact moment that I began to feel again and it was so powerful it physically hurt. It was wonderful. Where that bit we call 'love' comes from I have no idea, but you know what? That's OK, I don't need an explanation.
I guess it's a bit like the old CPR rules, Look, Listen, Feel. Then you can analyze it and talk about it :)
-
Not too somber, that is an extremely powerful emotional experience. It is generous that you choose to share it with us, thank you. :)
-
Or even more confusing, explain to me the logic behind creation of the universe from supposed nothingness. Logic only applies to things we understand logicaly. So as I was saying, a philosopher must think beyond logic to find new logic. Once we have discovered how the universe appeared out of nothing, it will be logical, but to get there we must think illogicaly.
there is no logic behind the universe being created from nothing, that's impossible....I would continue but I would have to talk about the creator.
-
Let's!!!
All hail
(http://zuli.net/wp-content/uploads/2010/03/300px-FSM_Logo.svg_1.png)
-
Interesting Bat. I think in the end folks can think too much, and forget to feel.
Not to somber it up too much, but after my son and daughter died, I ceased to feel for a long time. I did an awful lot of thinking trying to explain it all, and there was no explanation. All the thinking and trying to logic something so illogical did nothing but keep me from feeling.
Then the Mrs. comes home from Africa with a newborn that she found in a closet and I find myself holding my new son. Nothing logical about it, but I remember the exact moment that I began to feel again and it was so powerful it physically hurt. It was wonderful. Where that bit we call 'love' comes from I have no idea, but you know what? That's OK, I don't need an explanation.
I guess it's a bit like the old CPR rules, Look, Listen, Feel. Then you can analyze it and talk about it :)
Actually, the 'love' you feel is just hormones. Nothing else. It is not logical, nor is it illogical. There is no thought in it because the impulse does not reach your cerebrum. The only reason that we 'require' love is that we grow up around it, and become addicted to it.
If you were to raise a child all by itself, (i.e. no social contact, or contact so diffuse that it cannot become attached) then it would not need love. The child would seem strange to us, because we are mostly 'love junkies'. However, it would function normally if exposed to more children like itself.
Love is not necessary. Love is not logical; that is not a compliment to it. Love is obselete, its only function was to keep the male around after mating to help the mother.
-Penguin
-
Let's!!!
All hail
(http://zuli.net/wp-content/uploads/2010/03/300px-FSM_Logo.svg_1.png)
:rofl :aok
-
Actually, the 'love' you feel is just hormones. Nothing else. It is not logical, nor is it illogical. There is no thought in it because the impulse does not reach your cerebrum. The only reason that we 'require' love is that we grow up around it, and become addicted to it.
If you were to raise a child all by itself, (i.e. no social contact, or contact so diffuse that it cannot become attached) then it would not need love. The child would seem strange to us, because we are mostly 'love junkies'. However, it would function normally if exposed to more children like itself.
Love is not necessary. Love is not logical; that is not a compliment to it. Love is obselete, its only function was to keep the male around after mating to help the mother.
-Penguin
The only part you got right is that love is not logical.
You have obviously no experience of love. I have never seen such an ignorant outlook on what love is. Another reason why you fail at philosophy.
I feel pity for you if you truly believe this junk.
-
Actually, the 'love' you feel is just hormones. Nothing else. It is not logical, nor is it illogical. There is no thought in it because the impulse does not reach your cerebrum. The only reason that we 'require' love is that we grow up around it, and become addicted to it.
If you were to raise a child all by itself, (i.e. no social contact, or contact so diffuse that it cannot become attached) then it would not need love. The child would seem strange to us, because we are mostly 'love junkies'. However, it would function normally if exposed to more children like itself.
Love is not necessary. Love is not logical; that is not a compliment to it. Love is obselete, its only function was to keep the male around after mating to help the mother.
-Penguin
bro someone has seriously messed up your mind.
I grew up with out love, trust me love is very needed by us humans, it is the most powerful emotion there is, with out love we humans are husks of nothingness.
to say we don't need love, might as well say we don't need air to breath.
think about this, every thing we need to live Air, food, water, with out these three we would die. yet each one of those could kill us, LOVE is something we don't need to be alive, yet no matter how much we get of Love, it can not kill us, it strengthens us, gives us purpose, with out love there is no reason to live. this is why we were created LOVE plain and simple. LOVE is the ONLY reason we are alive.
I seriously feel for you, someone has messed up your mind, it saddens me to know you think like this, I pray that you will see the truth before its too late.
-
Actually, the 'love' you feel is just hormones. Nothing else. It is not logical, nor is it illogical. There is no thought in it because the impulse does not reach your cerebrum. The only reason that we 'require' love is that we grow up around it, and become addicted to it.
You have so many logically fallacies here how would you know? Love as nominalized is a concept. Love as a action is something else. Love the feeling is not just hormones, hormones is part of the process of how we sense the world, it is part of feed back.
It's like saying the pain of the bullet ripping into your flesh is JUST chemical reactions. It is the specific information it creates that is helpful.
YOU are consisted with your world view I will give you that, but its not going to help you in the long run.
Ya know your life is just mindless chemical reactions kind of world view is actually not beneficial for survival.
Let me put it this way.
FALSE.
-
Actually, the 'love' you feel is just hormones. Nothing else. It is not logical, nor is it illogical. There is no thought in it because the impulse does not reach your cerebrum. The only reason that we 'require' love is that we grow up around it, and become addicted to it.
If you were to raise a child all by itself, (i.e. no social contact, or contact so diffuse that it cannot become attached) then it would not need love. The child would seem strange to us, because we are mostly 'love junkies'. However, it would function normally if exposed to more children like itself.
Love is not necessary. Love is not logical; that is not a compliment to it. Love is obselete, its only function was to keep the male around after mating to help the mother.
-Penguin
If you believe that crap, I've got a bridge I'd like to sell you.
-
Guys you're arguing/debating or trying to reason with a kid
who's still in school.
He's at that age and period of life where he thinks he's
learned it all already
Just walk away.
-
Hello Aces High BBS!
NOTE: I took this post from my own work on another thread because I felt that it didn't quite fit with the thread's idea.
I am a self-taught philosopher (and have been described as such by numerous friends and family members). Here is a short treatise that I have composed regarding death, thought and immortality:
The Immortal Mind
By Penguin
I think, therefore I am. However, death is the cessastion of all biolgical processes, including thought. Therefore I will cease to be when I cease to think; the cessation of thought is death. Therefore, if I die, then I cease to be. This raises the question, why should I wish to be?
To ask oneself why one wishes to be is equivalent to asking the meaning of life. To ascertain the meaning of life requires thought. The meaning of life, in and of itself, is a thought or thoughts. If I cease to think, then I cannot ascertain the meaning of life, for it requires thought. Furthermore, the enjoyment of life has the same prerequisite as the the meaning of life- thought.
One can derive from this logic that in order to enjoy and ascertain the meaning of life, one must think. If death is the cessation of thought, then it is the cessation of the enjoyment and meaning of life. Therefore, without death, life would continue to provide enjoyment and meaning.
If death ends the enjoyment and meaning of life, then life must provide enjoyment and meaning. Therefore, I do not wish to die because if I were to then I would not be able to enjoy myself and ascertain the meaning of life. With that established, I will now describe my conclusion in detail.
Enjoyment- endless life is equivalent to endless enjoyment, such as food, sex, art, science and adventure. If I were able to live endlessly, I would be able to taste the most delicious food, make love with the loveliest women, appreciate the highest art, enjoy the benefits of the most advanced science, and go on the greatest adventures.
Meaning- enless life enables to ascertainment of its meaning via such lengthy research that its meaning can be prised out by trial and error if nothing else. The endless debates, though tiring, would make my information infinite, allowing me to distill the meaning of life down to an essence.
To boil my point down to an essence: To live is to think, to live infinitely is to achieve infinite wisdom.
-Penguin
The quote I bolded above is not really correct.
Death is the only reason why we put status on any object. If there was no death then everything would have been enjoyed by everyone, therefor nothing would be special...it would just be another event.
-
Guys you're arguing/debating or trying to reason with a kid
who's still in school.
He's at that age and period of life where he thinks he's
learned it all already
Just walk away.
I was chuckling to myself about this one while on the road today. Ahh to be as smart now as I was at 16. It was amazing how dumb the adults got for me at that age. My Dad had absolutely no clue! 15-18 seems to be the prime, adults don't have a clue time frame. Even funnier was when I had my own 16 year old and I heard my Dad's words coming out of my mouth to my son. Right in the middle of that conversation I had to stop because I was laughing at myself. Turns out old Dad had a clue after all :)
-
I was chuckling to myself about this one while on the road today. Ahh to be as smart now as I was at 16. It was amazing how dumb the adults got for me at that age. My Dad had absolutely no clue! 15-18 seems to be the prime, adults don't have a clue time frame. Even funnier was when I had my own 16 year old and I heard my Dad's words coming out of my mouth to my son. Right in the middle of that conversation I had to stop because I was laughing at myself. Turns out old Dad had a clue after all :)
:rofl
so very true
-
Hmmph...
Maybe I'm weird, I've pretty much thought my Dad was the smartest man I've ever met from "first coherent thoughts" to the present (I'm 31).
-
bro someone has seriously messed up your mind.
I grew up with out love, trust me love is very needed by us humans, it is the most powerful emotion there is, with out love we humans are husks of nothingness.
to say we don't need love, might as well say we don't need air to breath.
think about this, every thing we need to live Air, food, water, with out these three we would die. yet each one of those could kill us, LOVE is something we don't need to be alive, yet no matter how much we get of Love, it can not kill us, it strengthens us, gives us purpose, with out love there is no reason to live. this is why we were created LOVE plain and simple. LOVE is the ONLY reason we are alive.
I seriously feel for you, someone has messed up your mind, it saddens me to know you think like this, I pray that you will see the truth before its too late.
[Note, I don't want to troll, I'm just in the mood to play devil's advocate. :devil I agree that romance is fun- I just went to a semi-formal dance (read: grindfest).]
Ok; so you proved my point. You don't need love at all- it's extemporaneous. You need nutrition, water, exercise (you don't need to be jacked, but not moving for several weeks isn't going to help you), and air to stay alive.
Next, you say that love is the only reason we are alive. How far back do you want to go? Dinosaurs didn't feel love, and neither did the fish or cyanobacteria. If you refer to us as Ink and Penguin, you could make that statement if your point is that we wouldn't be alive if our parents didn't have sex.
If you refer to the even more immediate notion of alive, it isn't the case either- there are many reasons that I am alive- I've eaten, quenched my thirst, run around, slept and taken a breath recently. I also haven't made fatal decisions. I also have not been attacked by a man wielding a teddybear stuffed with razor blades. :D There are many, many reasons that all of us are alive, and love is one only in quite a contrived instance.
If you believe that crap, I've got a bridge I'd like to sell you.
Absolutely, my Nigerian prince brother would love to buy it from you. Just send me your credit card number . :P
Guys you're arguing/debating or trying to reason with a kid
who's still in school.
He's at that age and period of life where he thinks he's
learned it all already
Just walk away.
So you've dismissed my point. Now create your counterpoint. I haven't learned everything already, that's why I post here. I know I'll get schooled often but that's alright.
I was chuckling to myself about this one while on the road today. Ahh to be as smart now as I was at 16. It was amazing how dumb the adults got for me at that age. My Dad had absolutely no clue! 15-18 seems to be the prime, adults don't have a clue time frame. Even funnier was when I had my own 16 year old and I heard my Dad's words coming out of my mouth to my son. Right in the middle of that conversation I had to stop because I was laughing at myself. Turns out old Dad had a clue after all :)
It's starting to happen to me, too. I speak just like my father, it's quite frightening.
Hmmph...
Maybe I'm weird, I've pretty much thought my Dad was the smartest man I've ever met from "first coherent thoughts" to the present (I'm 31).
Isn't fathers' day coming soon? I ought to get my dad something.
-Penguin
-
[Note, I don't want to troll, I'm just in the mood to play devil's advocate. :devil I agree that romance is fun- I just went to a semi-formal dance (read: grindfest).]
Ok; so you proved my point. You don't need love at all- it's extemporaneous. You need nutrition, water, exercise (you don't need to be jacked, but not moving for several weeks isn't going to help you), and air to stay alive.
Next, you say that love is the only reason we are alive. How far back do you want to go? Dinosaurs didn't feel love, and neither did the fish or cyanobacteria. If you refer to us as Ink and Penguin, you could make that statement if your point is that we wouldn't be alive if our parents didn't have sex.
If you refer to the even more immediate notion of alive, it isn't the case either- there are many reasons that I am alive- I've eaten, quenched my thirst, run around, slept and taken a breath recently. I also haven't made fatal decisions. I also have not been attacked by a man wielding a teddybear stuffed with razor blades. :D There are many, many reasons that all of us are alive, and love is one only in quite a contrived instance.
...
-Penguin
Love is why we were created...that's what I meant when I said what I said.
-
Careful, careful... :noid
-Penguin
-
Hmmph...
Maybe I'm weird, I've pretty much thought my Dad was the smartest man I've ever met from "first coherent thoughts" to the present (I'm 31).
My Dad was the best man I've ever known. He didn't change at all during my 15-18 age. If I'm half the man he was I'll have done ok. It wasn't he that had no clue at the time :)
-
Let's!!!
All hail
(http://zuli.net/wp-content/uploads/2010/03/300px-FSM_Logo.svg_1.png)
A crab?
-
That is a fundemental aspect of philosophy as far as I believe, leaving the possibility that 2+2=5 open.
Example of not logical is just that. The statement '2+2=5' is not logical. Obviously that is only a representation of what could be if we think outside of logic. I am not arguing that specific equation.
We cannot easily imagine an existence where logic does not apply, so we assume that logic always was.
Lifr on the most basic form shows how logic is not always true. Single cell division gives us the equation 1+0=2. You might argue that it gives 1/2=0.5, but it does not. Each cell is complete and whole after division. Life is not logical.
You can not understand 2+2=4 and keep 2+2=5 open.
You must not realize that you are USING logic to understand that logic is not always true. Therefore you can not come to any known truth using your philosophy. Including "logic is not always true". Logic is not 2+2=4 Logic is how we understand 2+2=4 You are using a logical error. your whole argument is based on the fact that 2+2=4 is necessarily true. Meaning that 2+2=5 is necessarily false and not open.
It is impossible to think outside of logic. You must use the laws of logic to think outside of logic, therefore your concept is necessarily false. All you are really doing is claiming logic=truth<> not logical =false,but logic sometimes =false. and your deleting the FACT that.
It is impossible for any truth to ever be false. you violate the selfevident laws of logic which you are already using and are necessarily true.
It is clearly impossible to keep 2+2=4 open and make any truth claims.
If 2+2=5 is open then every thing else is necessarily open including 2+2=5. Your philosophy requires 2+2=5 to be closed. Do you see how you are equivocating terms? using logical error.. open necessarily means true or false. 2+2=5 must be true in order for your philosophy to even get stated.
-
It is known that there are an infinite number of worlds, simply because there is an infinite amount of space for them to be in. However, not every one of them is inhabited. Therefore, there must be a finite number of inhabited worlds. Any finite number divided by infinity is as near to nothing as makes no odds, so the average population of all the planets in the Universe can be said to be zero. From this it follows that the population of the whole Universe is also zero, and that any people you may meet from time to time are merely the products of a deranged imagination
-
Ok, now I see what you mean by saying that I was unoriginal. I didn't think of my own premise, but Descartes' fit the bill so well that I didn't think anything of copying him. I didn't mean telepathy (though it would be awesome if I could do that), I meant empathy; to understand how other people feel based on verbal and non-verbal cues and reacting to it in an intelligent manner.
I understand what you mean by not placing myself as the center of the universe, to try to view it from different vantage points. If I place myself at the center, then I will contribute my own bias to what I see instead of seeing things for what they are.
I think that the floating mind ties into that as well, having no barriers can help you.
-Penguin
I think it is more about feeling what another feels rather than understand it .
-
Wrong. First of all, we do not know that there are an infinite number of worlds. Secondly, you claim that there is a finite number of inhabited worlds, yet an infinite number of uninhabited ones despite there being an infinte number of worlds.
Without being to prove that, the rest of your post is utter nonsense. If there were an infinite number of worlds, a certain percenage would be inhabited, not a finite number.
-Penguin
-
Nope, definately a finite number, not a percentage
-
There is an infinte number of worlds
There is a finite number of inhabited worlds
These statements are mutally exclusive, inhabited worlds are worlds, and therefore there must be an infinte number of them (if there is an infinite number of worlds). You are confusing the idea of all worlds being inhabited, and some worlds being inhabited.
-Penguin
-
All worlds are inhabited except for the non-inhabited worlds which in total make up an infinite number of worlds under both realms.
-
So you admit that there would be an infinite number of inhabited worlds if there were an infinite number of worlds.
-Penguin
-
Depending on where the expressway will be placed, the answer is uncertain right now
-
:lol That was a fun debate!
-Penguin
-
I have a strong urge to read books by Douglas Adams suddenly
-
how about some Vogon poetry?
-
u stole this from "immortal teqnique"
-
What's immortal technique? Is it a show? A poem?
-Penguin
-
What's immortal technique? Is it a show? A poem?
-Penguin
hes a rapper.
some of his songs are "Dance with the Devil"
"the 3rd world"
"Cause of Death"
all good songs and are very deep,even if you dont like that kind of music
-
Thanks, I'll be sure to look him up.
-Penguin
-
There is an infinite number of worlds
There is a finite number of inhabited worlds
These statements are mutally exclusive, inhabited worlds are worlds, and therefore there must be an infinte number of them (if there is an infinite number of worlds). You are confusing the idea of all worlds being inhabited, and some worlds being inhabited.
-Penguin
There is an infinite number of numbers.
ones are numbers therefore there is an infinite number of ones. (its cold out side therefore its snowing)? If there is an infinite number of ones you can never have any other numbers. We have twos therefore there is not an infinite number of ones.
If you have an ifinite number of 1 and 2 you dont have an infinite number of either one?
I can picture a world with out inhabitants. Does all worlds include ones you can imagine.? Interesting stuff.
-
Your logic is flawed. One refers to a specific number, which is unique. Inhabited worlds is a category, which implies that if there were an infinite number of worlds, there would also be an infinite number of inhabited worlds, but their number would be relative to that of the uninhabited worlds.
For example:
For every one inhabited world, there are three uninhabited ones:
if y is the number of inhabited worlds, and x is the number of uninhabited ones, then;
y=x/3
If x=300, then y=100
If x is infinity, then y is one-third infinity. This can also be turned into a system of equations:
z is the total number of worlds
z=y+x
y=x/3
x=z/4
Why is x equal to z divided by four? Because if the universe is three parts uninhabited to one part inhabited, then it is made up of four parts, of which the inhabited part is one.
-Penguin
-
Your logic is flawed. One refers to a specific number, which is unique. Inhabited worlds is a category, which implies that if there were an infinite number of worlds, there would also be an infinite number of inhabited worlds, but their number would be relative to that of the uninhabited worlds.
For example:
For every one inhabited world, there are three uninhabited ones:
if y is the number of inhabited worlds, and x is the number of uninhabited ones, then;
y=x/3
If x=300, then y=100
If x is infinity, then y is one-third infinity. This can also be turned into a system of equations:
z is the total number of worlds
z=y+x
y=x/3
x=z/4
Why is x equal to z divided by four? Because if the universe is three parts uninhabited to one part inhabited, then it is made up of four parts, of which the inhabited part is one.
-Penguin
You are both ignoring that there can't be an infinite number of worlds because the universe isn't infinite.
Matter cannot be created or destroyed so however much there is....that's all there is.
Its probably a really big number....but not infinite.
-
flawed equations, there is no such thing as 1/3 of infinity. :rolleyes:
-
You are both ignoring that there can't be an infinite number of worlds because the universe isn't infinite.
Matter cannot be created or destroyed so however much there is....that's all there is.
Its probably a really big number....but not infinite.
You ignored the second sentence of my post. I said that if the universe were infinite then there would be an infinite number of inhabited worlds.
flawed equations, there is no such thing as 1/3 of infinity. :rolleyes:
Actually, my equations are correct.
y=mx+b
If x is infinte, then y=m(infinity)+b
-Penguin
-
why are you using linear equations?
-
The linear equation is to express the idea of there being a certain portion of the universe that is inhabited, and a certain one that is not. I am not quite sure whether the relationship would be logarithmic, however.
-Penguin
-
But you are dealing with infinity, you suggest that infinity can be divided into thirds which I dispute. I don't understand that statement even in algebraic form. Maybe I'm too stupid.
-
You are both ignoring that there can't be an infinite number of worlds because the universe isn't infinite.
Matter cannot be created or destroyed so however much there is....that's all there is.
Its probably a really big number....but not infinite.
We don't know that the universe isn't infinite. Even if there isn't an infinite amount of matter, that doesn't mean there can't be an infinite amount of space. Space isn't matter nor does it require it. It can expand forever for all we know, and at the moment that rate of expansion is still speeding up.
-
Your logic is flawed. One refers to a specific number, which is unique. Inhabited worlds is a category, which implies that if there were an infinite number of worlds, there would also be an infinite number of inhabited worlds, but their number would be relative to that of the uninhabited worlds.
For example:
For every one inhabited world, there are three uninhabited ones:
if y is the number of inhabited worlds, and x is the number of uninhabited ones, then;
y=x/3
If x=300, then y=100
If x is infinity, then y is one-third infinity. This can also be turned into a system of equations:
z is the total number of worlds
z=y+x
y=x/3
x=z/4
Why is x equal to z divided by four? Because if the universe is three parts uninhabited to one part inhabited, then it is made up of four parts, of which the inhabited part is one.
-Penguin
My logic is flawed? I used your syllogism. There are plenty of logical reasons how we cant have an infinite number of worlds, thats not the point.
I dont see how if you have an infinite number of worlds that they all have to be inhabited? For it to be necessarily true you would not be able to imagine any worlds that dont have inhabitants.
You cant have both an infinite number of X worlds and Y worlds . If you have an infinite number of x worlds you can never get any y worlds because your never done with x worlds. Unless you have two infinite amounts of space. I have no problem with the concept of one infinite amout of space but not two.
You can only represent more than one infinite with " language or math " you cant actually have it.
-
Question
Space is expanding, into what? :banana:
Remember infinity is not a number it is a concept. You can conceptualize having an infinite number of red balls and a infinite number of blue balls ( lol )
So the worlds that are inhabited can be infinite can be conceptualized
And the there can be a infinite number of uninhabited worlds. That can be conceptualized.
It doesn't mean it exists.
Numbers don't exist they reference what could or does exist.
My guess is penguin has someone in the house that says post this it will fry there brains, or the kid has a we bit of genius.
Good one penguin <S>
Hey fire I think you only need to imagine one of those specific worlds of said group for it not to be infinite, is wrong somehow. Because you can't imagine a uninhabited world of a set of infinite inhabited worlds. You would be imagining a different set. You have already defined it as infinite. You only have to imagine a specific number of worlds to make it not infinite. Any time you number a set makes it not infinite.
-
The universe is ever expanding as the result of the Big Bang... an explosion of that size will continue on and on until its momentum dissapates. (Which will be in an unfathomable amount of time)
Nothing is infinite, merely a cycle.
And Penguin. How many times must we argue on the same point.... if there is no use of emotion in life, argument, speech, thought.... than you are not living...
-
The universe is ever expanding as the result of the Big Bang... an explosion of that size will continue on and on until its momentum dissapates. (Which will be in an unfathomable amount of time)
Nothing is infinite, merely a cycle.
And Penguin. How many times must we argue on the same point.... if there is no use of emotion in life, argument, speech, thought.... than you are not living...
This is math, it's as dry as it gets. No matter how much you hate it, love it, or laugh at it, y=mx+b.
Momentum does not dissipate in a vacuum. You are confusing explosions on earth with those in space. Remember Newton's Law: All objects in motion will remain in motion and all objects at rest will remain at rest until acted upon by another force. For example, if I threw a hand grenade into an endless, empty vacuum, the shrapnel would continue on forever. The same applies to the Big Bang.
However, your post may refer to proton decay. In that case, the time is most certainly fathomable, and we have even established an approximate date for when half the protons in the universe will have decayed. This is the protons' half-life, and each time we go through one, half the protons in universe will decay back into elementary particles.
The larger question remains. What is causing the universe to expand at an accelerating rate, and will its expansion continue to accelerate? The current answer is dark matter, and if the expansion of the universe accelerates across the scale of matter, a Big Rip will occur. A Big Rip is one of the possible ultimate fates of the universe, in which everything in the universe expands until even quarks themselves are torn asunder.
We'll be lucky to survive until the sun becomes a red giant, however, given the devastating effects of being sucked into a star. We'll need to develop interstellar travel soon, since our population is expanding and we can't stay on this (albeit beautiful) rock forever. The question becomes, can we overcome the technical hurdles in the way? The future is fraught with danger, and we have no choice but to rise to the challenge.
-Penguin
-
Question
Space is expanding, into what? :banana:
Remember infinity is not a number it is a concept. You can conceptualize having an infinite number of red balls and a infinite number of blue balls ( lol )
So the worlds that are inhabited can be infinite can be conceptualized
And the there can be a infinite number of uninhabited worlds. That can be conceptualized.
It doesn't mean it exists.
Numbers don't exist they reference what could or does exist.
My guess is penguin has someone in the house that says post this it will fry there brains, or the kid has a we bit of genius.
Good one penguin <S>
Hey fire I think you only need to imagine one of those specific worlds of said group for it not to be infinite, is wrong somehow. Because you can't imagine a uninhabited world of a set of infinite inhabited worlds. You would be imagining a different set. You have already defined it as infinite. You only have to imagine a specific number of worlds to make it not infinite. Any time you number a set makes it not infinite.
It isn't expanding into anything, this is a common misconception.
-
Penguin your logic is flawed, if there was no use for emotion, speech, argument, or thought, then they would not have evolved. Clearly these traits were the best and most desirable at various points in time for our species.
If you're arguing that life is on the whole inconsequential in the scheme of the universe, then that is obvious and anyone would agree the universe doesn't care.
For someone who is trying so hard to be scientific your views of love are completely illogical. It wasn't something we got "addicted" to and simple kept up. The most 'loving' of our species were simply the ones that survived, and so that trait is now universal.
Love, I agree, is hormones, electricity, and chemical gradients. Every perception, thought, and feeling we have takes place in our brain. Obviously love was evolutionarily useful. It was more than simply keeping the male around to protect the mother. It was everything: family structure, mother-child relationship, etc.
Knowing that love and emotions are the result of chemistry, biology, and physics doesn't make them useless, obsolete, or subject to discard, and for me personally it doesn't make it any less magical. I think it is just as wondrous and magical that real, identifiable things, atoms, quarks, etc, can create such incredibly complex and diverse biological creatures such as ourselves.
-
You missed my point entirely, but you managed to create astrawman argument packed with eloquent emotional appeals.
- My views on love have nothing to do with this discussion (not that I am not happy to discuss them).
- I am not arguing that we are inconsequential (which is true, though)
- Evolution has absolutely nothing to do with this discussion, though I'll happily take PM's on the subject
Nice haul Plawranc, you flamebaiter. :neener:
-Penguin
-
I'm starting to think Penguin is Moot's shade account
-
This frustrates me incredibly. I'm sorry for shouting, but your post justifies it; WHY DO PEOPLE THINK THAT I'M A SHADE?
-Penguin
-
Hahah, anytime Penguin. You like taking the OP. I like causing the forum SAM sites to blast ya :devil how this game on the AH BBS boards works :neener: :bolt:
I am logical by nature, I think and rethink almost everything. However I have only recently grasped that logic and fact.. while practically applicable... are exactly that... nothing but practical..
To develop true understanding, all factors must be explored.. all variables accounted for.. that is scientific process. When dealing with humanity.. one simply cannot ignore emotions.. Love, Determination, Hatred.. they have been responsible for not only every single decision made.. but also the causes of that decision needing to arise. Humans, like all living things. Are afflicted with emotion, their mood, thought process, experiences and so forth.. make them inherently biased. Everything to do with humanity... is opinion and interpretation (good and evil for example)... not fact. Only Mathematics and Science are linear... everything else is open to interpretation.
Penguin you have not yet figured out the most important question of all..... It is not how that is important...
It is why.
I am not a science student, I think it is obvious that I am a humanities student. I do not deal with how, I deal with why. However that said I will attempt. Sticking to the scientific argument.
I understand newtons law. And I understand that. And I was speaking from a paper I read some time ago so you are more than likely correct on the proton decay. The details of the paper stated that the universe will expand, and then retract until the universe is crushed and destroyed and then reformed as the next universe. Like all scientific theory it is precisely that, theory. We have no idea what will actually happen, or how it will happen or even why it will happen. It just will or won't until we have the means at our disposal to see for ourselves.
And I think we deserve to have a squeakers unite moment on this one penguin because for the first time. We agree :x
-
why are people still posting on this...
-
... Everything to do with humanity... is opinion and interpretation (good and evil for example)... not fact. Only Mathematics and Science are linear... everything else is open to interpretation....
sorry but good and evil are not opinion...Science is based on a lie, so in fact almost nothing that science says can be taken as absolute truth.
this and penguin's OP is part of whats wrong in this world today, people who think they are so smart, in all reality they are blind walking in darkness.
some of the dumbest people who I have met are doctors and lawyers, oh they may have an "education" but that don't make them "smart" or should I say "enlightened"
-
sorry but good and evil are not opinion...Science is based on a lie, so in fact almost nothing that science says can be taken as absolute truth.
this and penguin's OP is part of whats wrong in this world today, people who think they are so smart, in all reality they are blind walking in darkness.
some of the dumbest people who I have met are doctors and lawyers, oh they may have an "education" but that don't make them "smart" or should I say "enlightened"
I agree, although I have a feeling it is for different reasons. Those few lines describe humans perfectly.
-
Hahah, anytime Penguin. You like taking the OP. I like causing the forum SAM sites to blast ya :devil how this game on the AH BBS boards works :neener: :bolt:
I am logical by nature, I think and rethink almost everything. However I have only recently grasped that logic and fact.. while practically applicable... are exactly that... nothing but practical..
To develop true understanding, all factors must be explored.. all variables accounted for.. that is scientific process. When dealing with humanity.. one simply cannot ignore emotions.. Love, Determination, Hatred.. they have been responsible for not only every single decision made.. but also the causes of that decision needing to arise. Humans, like all living things. Are afflicted with emotion, their mood, thought process, experiences and so forth.. make them inherently biased. Everything to do with humanity... is opinion and interpretation (good and evil for example)... not fact. Only Mathematics and Science are linear... everything else is open to interpretation.
Penguin you have not yet figured out the most important question of all..... It is not how that is important...
It is why.
I am not a science student, I think it is obvious that I am a humanities student. I do not deal with how, I deal with why. However that said I will attempt. Sticking to the scientific argument.
I understand newtons law. And I understand that. And I was speaking from a paper I read some time ago so you are more than likely correct on the proton decay. The details of the paper stated that the universe will expand, and then retract until the universe is crushed and destroyed and then reformed as the next universe. Like all scientific theory it is precisely that, theory. We have no idea what will actually happen, or how it will happen or even why it will happen. It just will or won't until we have the means at our disposal to see for ourselves.
And I think we deserve to have a squeakers unite moment on this one penguin because for the first time. We agree :x
So highschools in Australia separate into scientific, humanties, and technical? I never knew that. However, I have taught myself these scientific principles; they have spurred my intrest in the cosmos.
You are correct that there are multiple scientific theories competing to be the correct one in the case of the ultimate fate of the universe. This is not always the case however, and the theories of gravity and electricity are well established. A theory in science is a very high level of work; a theory in everyday speech corresponds to 'hypothesis' in science, an untested but logical assertion.
However, dark matter and the curve of spacetime will play a huge role in deciding how our universe ends (or not). If the curve of spacetime is positive, then no lines are paralell and the universe will continue expanding at an ever expanding rate. If the curve of spacetime is negative, then all lines intersect and the universe will once again contract. If spacetime is not curved, then the universe will expand forever at a steady rate.
sorry but good and evil are not opinion...Science is based on a lie, so in fact almost nothing that science says can be taken as absolute truth.
this and penguin's OP is part of whats wrong in this world today, people who think they are so smart, in all reality they are blind walking in darkness.
some of the dumbest people who I have met are doctors and lawyers, oh they may have an "education" but that don't make them "smart" or should I say "enlightened"
Good and evil are actually quite relative; they are the products of our own minds. That is not to say that I would agree with burning babies, but if that were the norm in another culture, then it would be seen as 'good' there. There cannot be absolute standards to judge behavior because of the diversity of culture. For instance, some abhor condoms, but I wouldn't dare 'have fun' without one. :devil
Science makes no comment on the supernatural.
However, I don't understand what seems to be an aversion to science. Some look upon it as magic, when it's just a whole bunch of people trying to answer questions (e.g., How will the universe end? How much electricity does the brain produce? Can you milk a hamster?). It's given scientists a bad rap; take the example of Dr. Frankenstein, he is a clear picture of what people thought of scientists and researchers at the time. Scientists are people, too!
-Penguin
P.S., Squeakers, UNITE!
-
WOW, I learn something every day. I had no idea gravity had been explained :confused:
-
WOW, I learn something every day. I had no idea gravity had been explained :confused:
:rofl
-
I should have said: for instance, the theories of gravity and electricity are well established.
-Penguin
-
I should have said: for instance, the theories of gravity and electricity are well established.
-Penguin
What is the theory of gravity that is well established? What causes it? What is it that makes mass attract? You should be able to answer that easily since it is a well established theory. Remember I asked why and not how so don;t come back with the objects curve space/time. I'd like to know why they do that. :D
-
Do you mean that in a philosophical sense? Or do you mean that in a causal sense? If you want a philosophical answer, there is none. There doesn't need to be; gravity just... exists. The idea of there being a meaning to the universe is flawed, and to look for an answer to such a question is futile. There is no 'higher' meaning to gravity's existence.
In a causal sense, the curvature of spacetime around mass creates gravity, and this curvature affects the attraction of other matter. This could also explain why the universe continues to expand- if spacetime is curved in the opposite 'direction' of gravity, then it will cause the universe to expand at an ever increasing rate. Think of pouring water on a balloon, that is the effect (just imagine that the balloon's sides go on forever)
-Penguin
-
What is the theory of gravity that is well established? What causes it? What is it that makes mass attract? You should be able to answer that easily since it is a well established theory. Remember I asked why and not how so don;t come back with the objects curve space/time. I'd like to know why they do that. :D
Gravity = what causes boobies to sag.
Nuff said.
-
Our High Schools here lose their compulsory education when you hit Year 9. We spilt off into different subject tracks. You can do both, but I chose to take all the Humanities courses (like a college). As I said, science is how, my question is more of why (far more interesting).
Good and Evil ARE opinion. Hitler was Evil.. we all know that... but what about to the Germans at the time... was he Evil then? I agree with Penguin on this front, everything is relative. I hate Nazism for its racist and genocidal ideology and consider it Evil.... but Nazi's consider themselves liberators of the oppressed and restoring the proper order of things on the Earth. People pick a side and there voids the argument.. THERE IS NO.. Good and Evil. merely opinion and interpretation of Fact.
http://www.rcpsych.ac.uk/pdf/Heart,%20Mind%20and%20Spirit%20%20Mohamed%20Salem.pdf
This is some interesting reading for those interested in this sort of thing. This is why I argue that everything in relation to humanity and even some scientific theorems are open to intepretation.
And just for the record: To quote Dr Henry Indiana Jones - "fact.... not truth, if its truth your after go down the hall to the Philosophy class"
Truth is an illusion.
-
Do you mean that in a philosophical sense? Or do you mean that in a causal sense? If you want a philosophical answer, there is none. There doesn't need to be; gravity just... exists. The idea of there being a meaning to the universe is flawed, and to look for an answer to such a question is futile. There is no 'higher' meaning to gravity's existence.
In a causal sense, the curvature of spacetime around mass creates gravity, and this curvature affects the attraction of other matter. This could also explain why the universe continues to expand- if spacetime is curved in the opposite 'direction' of gravity, then it will cause the universe to expand at an ever increasing rate. Think of pouring water on a balloon, that is the effect (just imagine that the balloon's sides go on forever)
-Penguin
:rofl Two non answers. Excellent! I thought I told you not to come back with curvatures. I need to know what is causing that curvature in time and space, and why. Not in a philosophical sense, but using physics. If gravity has been explained and it is a well established theory, I'd like to know what it is that causes it. You only described one of the effects that it has.
As much as I would enjoy torturing you with this, take the time and check some of what the top physicists have said about it. We can see the effects of it, but we don;t know what causes gravity. We don;t have an explanation on what is causing that force.
-
If gravity has been explained and it is a well established theory, I'd like to know what it is that causes it.
I have a 'pancake' theory of gravity should you care to listen........ :D
-
I have a 'pancake' theory of gravity should you care to listen........ :D
That one does have a good explanation and experiments that cause it can be easily reproduced :old:
-
I don't know anything about gravity theories but I do know it hurts when you fall 20ft and I have a compression fracture to prove it!
When I was younger I dated a girl whose mom had her own gravitational field, perhaps I should ask her? :bolt:
-
When I was younger I dated a girl whose mom had her own gravitational field, perhaps I should ask her? :bolt:
How fast can you run? :rofl
-
sorry but good and evil are not opinion...Science is based on a lie, so in fact almost nothing that science says can be taken as absolute truth.
this and penguin's OP is part of whats wrong in this world today, people who think they are so smart, in all reality they are blind walking in darkness.
some of the dumbest people who I have met are doctors and lawyers, oh they may have an "education" but that don't make them "smart" or should I say "enlightened"
So what does make people smart?
And also, how is science based on a lie? What lie?
-
:rofl Two non answers. Excellent! I thought I told you not to come back with curvatures. I need to know what is causing that curvature in time and space, and why. Not in a philosophical sense, but using physics. If gravity has been explained and it is a well established theory, I'd like to know what it is that causes it. You only described one of the effects that it has.
As much as I would enjoy torturing you with this, take the time and check some of what the top physicists have said about it. We can see the effects of it, but we don;t know what causes gravity. We don;t have an explanation on what is causing that force.
Oops, directions fail. My bad. Anyway, I didn't know how deep you wanted to go on this topic. The next part in the causation of gravity is as of yet not definitively determined. Two of the top hypotheses are a gravity transmitting particle (similar to a photon in its role) and another universe that leaks gravity into ours. The 'graviton' has not been located as of yet, along with the other universe. The gravity leak does a good deal to explain why gravity is weaker than electromagnetism, though. However, both explanations are quite exotic, and will require mountains of evidence to verify.
However, in Newtonian physics (the physics that we deal with the most on a daily basis) gravity is very well defined. The same applies to the theory of electricity. If you don't believe me, try jumping off a tall building or dropping a toaster into a bucket of salt water that has your foot in it.
-Penguin
-
Oops, directions fail. My bad. Anyway, I didn't know how deep you wanted to go on this topic. The next part in the causation of gravity is as of yet not definitively determined. Two of the top hypotheses are a gravity transmitting particle (similar to a photon in its role) and another universe that leaks gravity into ours. The 'graviton' has not been located as of yet, along with the other universe. The gravity leak does a good deal to explain why gravity is weaker than electromagnetism, though. However, both explanations are quite exotic, and will require mountains of evidence to verify.
However, in Newtonian physics (the physics that we deal with the most on a daily basis) gravity is very well defined. The same applies to the theory of electricity. If you don't believe me, try jumping off a tall building or dropping a toaster into a bucket of salavacadoer that has your foot in it.
-Penguin
Conclusion, gravity has not been defined/explained yet and we can only show examples of it effects. You don;t seem to understand the difference between knowing that if you throw an apple from a tower it will fall, and knowing what causes the force that makes it fall.
-
We have not yet fully understood gravity in every way possible. That does not mean that our understanding of gravity is poor or weak- it means that we are still learning about it. If that is what you are after, I cede the point.
-Penguin
-
We have not yet fully understood gravity in every way possible. That does not mean that our understanding of gravity is poor or weak- it means that we are still learning about it. If that is what you are after, I cede the point.
-Penguin
You have yet to present anything that shows any understanding of how gravity works. All you have shown me is different versions of "if you drop something it will fall" but not why it falls. Not only our understanding of it is poor and weak, it is non existent. We only know it exists.
-
That's a big claim, and you have no evidence, either. Until you present some, your point is unsound.
-Penguin
-
Penguin,
To answer 1 of your questions.....Yes.... you can milk a hamster it just takes tiny fingers! :D
:salute
-
dedalos is quite right. We do not know what gravity "is", in any fundamental way. We only know how it behaves.
-
Alright, I surrender. Dedalos wins the match.
:salute Good Game.
-Penguin
-
dedalos is quite right. We do not know what gravity "is", in any fundamental way. We only know how it behaves.
You realize Skuzzy, by saying that dedalos is right, he's going to be just about impossible to live with from here on out. Sure you don't want to edit that out? You do moderate the boards after all :)
-
You realize Skuzzy, by saying that dedalos is right, he's going to be just about impossible to live with from here on out. Sure you don't want to edit that out? You do moderate the boards after all :)
He's been easy to live with?
-
lol, I was waiting for Dedalos to pull that one.. but Skuzzy putting his hammer of hellish awesomeness behind tipped it for me.
But Im going to give props to Penguin for fighting that one. :rock
-
If I could recollect before my hood days
I'd sit and reminisce, thinking of bliss of the good days
I stop and stare at the younger, my heart goes to 'em
They tested, it was stress that they under
And nowadays things changed
Everyone's ashamed to the youth cause the truth looks strange
And for me it's reversed, we left them a world that's cursed, and it hurts
'cause any day they'll push the button
and you all condemned like Malcolm X and Bobby Hutton, died for nothin
Don't them let me get teary, the world looks dreary
but when you wipe your eyes, see it clearly
there's no need for you to fear me
if you take your time to hear me, maybe you can learn to cheer me
it ain't about black or white, cause we're human
I hope we see the light before its ruined
Tell me do you see that old lady ain't it sad
Living out a bag, but she's glad for the little things she has
And over there there's a lady, crack got her crazy
Guess she's given birth to a baby
I don't trip and let it fade me, from outta the frying pan
We jump into another form of slavery
Even now I get discouraged
Wonder if they take it all back while I still keep the courage
I refuse to be a role model
I set goals, take control, drink out my own bottles
I make mistakes, I learn from everyone
And when it's said and done
I bet this Brother be a better one
If I upset you, don't stress
Never forget, that God hasn't finished with me yet
I feel his hand on my brain
When I write rhymes, I go blind, and let the lord do his thang
But am I less holy
'cause I choose to puff a blunt and drink a beer with my homies
Before we find world peace
We gotta find peace and end the war on the streets
-
So what does make people smart?
And also, how is science based on a lie? What lie?
intelligence is what makes people smart.
science says that is was happenstance..the big bang theory....just happened....that is a lie.
-
So Ink, what can you tell us?
-
a lot......just not here.
-
He's been easy to live with?
You love me! :neener:
I think what you did qualifies as a cherry pick. I had him nice and slow and was ready to blow him off of the BBS and then you dove in and stole the kill :furious Oh well, I ll just land the assist :lol
-
You realize Skuzzy, by saying that dedalos is right, he's going to be just about impossible to live with from here on out.
:furious
-
You love me! :neener:
I think what you did qualifies as a cherry pick. I had him nice and slow and was ready to blow him off of the BBS and then you dove in and stole the kill :furious Oh well, I ll just land the assist :lol
Quit using pea shooters to land the kill and I will not have to swoop in with something bigger to get the job done. :)
-
Quit using pea shooters to land the kill and I will not have to swoop in with something bigger to get the job done. :)
:furious
-
Skuzzy has the Ban Tater
-
No time to read the hundreds of posts. Instead I will quote AKZoney...
Bark less, wag more.
Seems to fit the pattern of I think, therefor I am.
Boo
-
intelligence is what makes people smart.
Haha, can't disagree with that :)
-
I fink, therefore I am.
-
I fink, therefore I am.
LOL
-
I fink, therefore I am.
:rofl