BitcoinGirl.Club
Legendary
 Offline
Activity: 2912
Merit: 2772
Bitcoingirl 2 is downloading 💓
|
 |
March 17, 2019, 01:41:44 PM
Last edit: May 15, 2023, 01:06:42 PM by BitcoinGirl.Club |
|
I like the text in the box design as much as the comment in the image. Enjoy the rain 🙂 |
|
|
|
|
|
BTCMILLIONAIRE
|
|
March 17, 2019, 01:49:15 PM |
|
Racism and wishing death on children is fucking dumb as a bag of rocks though. Green dildos and meandering diatribes don't fall in the same category as blatant evil.
I do agree with you about the "heavily censored" part, though. And that's what the ignore button is for -- individualized censorship preferences.
I agree they do not fall in the same category. But we are all WO participants, we all fall in that "category". Racist remarks and wishing death on people, meh who cares? We humans have been killing each other for thousands of years, that isn't going to change anytime soon. If people get offended by their posts, go get your emotions in check, they are just words on a forum. We are on a Bitcoin forum, we need to learn to master our emotions in order to gain more sweet and delicious corn! What a way to tie back into Bitcorn and speak sense at the same time. Emotions are an important aspect of life though and we would be ill-advised to discard them entirely. They're the other side of the coin and need to be balanced out with reason. Similarly going overboard with reason is a poor idea as well. You can reason your way into anything you want, not matter how grotesque. Without both reason and emotion things tilt off to the extremes. I'm sure I don't have to point out who in this thread tilts too hard towards reason and who tilts too hard towards emotion at times. We all know who we are. The question is what we make of it. No, it's the opposite. You can emotion your way into whatever you want. That's how they can call anyone to the right of Marx fascists and at the same time dismiss any argument they don't like by calling people flat earthers. They do not think, they decide on the result they want and damn anyone who says otherwise. Reason is objective. It is constraining. I, for example, don't want hundreds of millions of people to die over the next few decades. But they will. And I still welcome anyone who can prove otherwise with something other than "lol fascist". There is no such thing as "objective", as the 2+2=0 example was meant to illustrate. Depending on your assumptions you will arrive at different conclusions. Depending on your experiences, you arrive at different assumptions. And with just purely reason there is nothing to stop you from picking assumptions in ways that you wouldn't with a healthy dose of appreciation of life. One could probably make an irrefutable case for the annihilation of humanity using just reason alone. And one could convince themselves that the reasoning is flawless, with reasoning. It takes emotion and empathy to appreciate humanity despite its many shortcomings. Just like it takes reasoning to counteract the retarded conclusions raw emotion can lead to. Yes there is. You can pretend gravity doesn't affect you, that at a certain point it loops back and makes you able to fly, but fantasy remains fantasy and you remain stuck to the earth. Same with math. You don't get to redefine it. It is not based on assumptions. We did not invent it, we merely discovered how it works. Why are you trying to tell a Mathematician what Math is? It's "the most objective thing" that we have. But it all depends on assumptions. We literally structure every single theorem as: Assumptions, Claim, Proof. Literally the entire body of Mathematics, and thus by extension of science, is circular in its very being. We have simply agreed upon a cut-off point at which we stop arguing, namely axioms. Math is literally built around axioms, which we pulled out of our ass forever ago based on our experience of reality. An experience which is fundamentally limited by the capacity of our senses. Senses which are so poor that we have to create all sorts of tools, based on our imperfect senses, to attempt to converge towards a deeper understanding of reality. None of which has been objective so far. Why do you think that science keeps calling out lunatics which turn out geniuses every so many generations? Will keep happening by the way, because reality is pliable and not objective. It keeps changing, or evolving if you will. It might appear objective to you, but that's just because of incomplete knowledge. As soon as you understand gravity completely you know how to nullify or invert its effects. Things we have partially achieved by creating artificial zero-gravity environments. No such thing as objectivity when it comes to reality. It only appears so on some scales and is a useful concept for the identification of solutions to problems we have subjectively identified. |
|
|
|
|
Ibian
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 2268
Merit: 1278
|
|
March 17, 2019, 01:51:00 PM |
|
Racism and wishing death on children is fucking dumb as a bag of rocks though. Green dildos and meandering diatribes don't fall in the same category as blatant evil.
I do agree with you about the "heavily censored" part, though. And that's what the ignore button is for -- individualized censorship preferences.
I agree they do not fall in the same category. But we are all WO participants, we all fall in that "category". Racist remarks and wishing death on people, meh who cares? We humans have been killing each other for thousands of years, that isn't going to change anytime soon. If people get offended by their posts, go get your emotions in check, they are just words on a forum. We are on a Bitcoin forum, we need to learn to master our emotions in order to gain more sweet and delicious corn! What a way to tie back into Bitcorn and speak sense at the same time. Emotions are an important aspect of life though and we would be ill-advised to discard them entirely. They're the other side of the coin and need to be balanced out with reason. Similarly going overboard with reason is a poor idea as well. You can reason your way into anything you want, not matter how grotesque. Without both reason and emotion things tilt off to the extremes. I'm sure I don't have to point out who in this thread tilts too hard towards reason and who tilts too hard towards emotion at times. We all know who we are. The question is what we make of it. No, it's the opposite. You can emotion your way into whatever you want. That's how they can call anyone to the right of Marx fascists and at the same time dismiss any argument they don't like by calling people flat earthers. They do not think, they decide on the result they want and damn anyone who says otherwise. Reason is objective. It is constraining. I, for example, don't want hundreds of millions of people to die over the next few decades. But they will. And I still welcome anyone who can prove otherwise with something other than "lol fascist". There is no such thing as "objective", as the 2+2=0 example was meant to illustrate. Depending on your assumptions you will arrive at different conclusions. Depending on your experiences, you arrive at different assumptions. And with just purely reason there is nothing to stop you from picking assumptions in ways that you wouldn't with a healthy dose of appreciation of life. One could probably make an irrefutable case for the annihilation of humanity using just reason alone. And one could convince themselves that the reasoning is flawless, with reasoning. It takes emotion and empathy to appreciate humanity despite its many shortcomings. Just like it takes reasoning to counteract the retarded conclusions raw emotion can lead to. Yes there is. You can pretend gravity doesn't affect you, that at a certain point it loops back and makes you able to fly, but fantasy remains fantasy and you remain stuck to the earth. Same with math. You don't get to redefine it. It is not based on assumptions. We did not invent it, we merely discovered how it works. Why are you trying to tell a Mathematician what Math is? It's "the most objective thing" that we have. But it all depends on assumptions. We literally structure every single theorem as: Assumptions, Claim, Proof. Math is literally built around axioms, which we pulled out of our ass forever ago based on our experience of reality. An experience which is fundamentally limited by the capacity of our senses. Senses which are so poor that we have to create all sorts of tools, based on our imperfect senses, to attempt to converge towards a deeper understanding of reality. None of which has been objective so far. Why do you think that science keeps calling out lunatics which turn out geniuses every so many generations? Will keep happening by the way, because reality is pliable and not objective. It keeps changing, or evolving if you will. It might appear objective to you, but that's just because of incomplete knowledge. As soon as you understand gravity completely you know how to nullify or invert its effects. Things we have partially achieved by creating artificial zero-gravity environments. No such thing as objectivity when it comes to reality. It only appears so on some scales and is a useful concept for the identification of solutions to problems we have subjectively identified. Again, we did not invent math. It is an inherent property of the universe. It's like saying that gravity depends on assumptions, which is why I used that example. You can't reason physical reality into producing nothing when adding two somethings. And your credentials as a mathematician does nothing to change this. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
BTCMILLIONAIRE
|
|
March 17, 2019, 01:53:20 PM |
|
Again, we did not invent math. It is an inherent property of the universe. It's like saying that gravity depends on assumptions, which is why I used that example. You can't reason physical reality into producing nothing when adding two somethings. And your credentials as a mathematician does nothing to change this.
Today at 01:49:15 PM Today at 01:51:00 PM 1:45 minutes. You didn't even read the post. You're not a Mathematician. You don't know what you're talking about. And you're not even trying to learn about that which you talk about with authority from someone who actually spent half his life studying it. Also, Math is certainly not a property. It's a language. The most accurate we have for describing the universe, but certainly not a property of it. Edit: You can't reason physical reality into producing nothing when adding two somethings. Yes you can, it's called matter anti-matter annihilation. |
|
|
|
|
Ibian
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 2268
Merit: 1278
|
|
March 17, 2019, 01:56:26 PM |
|
Again, we did not invent math. It is an inherent property of the universe. It's like saying that gravity depends on assumptions, which is why I used that example. You can't reason physical reality into producing nothing when adding two somethings. And your credentials as a mathematician does nothing to change this.
Today at 01:49:15 PM Today at 01:51:00 PM 1:45 minutes. You didn't even read the post. You're not a Mathematician. You don't know what you're talking about. And you're not even trying to learn about that which you talk about with authority from someone who actually spent half his life studying it. Also, Math is certainly not a property. It's a language. The most accurate we have for describing the universe, but certainly not a property of it. Unfortunately reading the first sentence was enough to understand the content of the entire post. It's a skill I have developed when arguing with lefties, and reading it post-post confirmed it. You are arguing from emotion here, not thinking with the thinking part of the brain. I suggest a break. |
|
|
|
|
Globb0
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 2688
Merit: 2053
Free spirit
|
|
March 17, 2019, 01:57:16 PM |
|
As we understand things at the current time.
This is not a yes no state, it is a continual evolution and revolution.
|
|
|
|
|
|
BTCMILLIONAIRE
|
|
March 17, 2019, 01:58:29 PM |
|
Again, we did not invent math. It is an inherent property of the universe. It's like saying that gravity depends on assumptions, which is why I used that example. You can't reason physical reality into producing nothing when adding two somethings. And your credentials as a mathematician does nothing to change this.
Today at 01:49:15 PM Today at 01:51:00 PM 1:45 minutes. You didn't even read the post. You're not a Mathematician. You don't know what you're talking about. And you're not even trying to learn about that which you talk about with authority from someone who actually spent half his life studying it. Also, Math is certainly not a property. It's a language. The most accurate we have for describing the universe, but certainly not a property of it. Unfortunately reading the first sentence was enough to understand the content of the entire post. It's a skill I have developed when arguing with lefties, and reading it post-post confirmed it. You are arguing from emotion here, not thinking with the thinking part of the brain. I suggest a break. Cognitive dissonance here. If you can make a rigorous argument how Math has not been invented I'll concede. You have to go from the fact that every piece of Mathematical Theory (which is the basis of all science) starts from an assumption. Demonstrate how these assumptions can be inherently non-subjective given our limited capacity to even perceive the world. You're getting defensive by the way. You haven't disputed any of my post, you're starting to go full Toxic here. |
|
|
|
|
El duderino_
Legendary
 Online
Activity: 2646
Merit: 12948
BTC + Crossfit, living life.
|
|
March 17, 2019, 01:58:46 PM |
|
Oh hey. Just woke up. Nice to be back home in Texas. Logged into my workstation to check out my LND node, and I think I'm starting to get the hang of this routing thing a bit better.
I mean, stranger things have happened.
EDIT: Also, I'm not sure why I'm still mining this GRIN shit.
Good to have you back. First male lady would actualy be a NEW stranger thing happening, wouldn’t have any probs with it myself, but thats Just an honest opinion  I’m glad i didn’t have any of that GRIN when i hear you and HM about it |
|
|
|
|
Gyrsur
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 2856
Merit: 1520
Bitcoin Legal Tender Countries: 2 of 206
|
|
March 17, 2019, 02:01:03 PM |
|
The more you learn the more you realize how little you know.  yeah, this BTCitcoin trial is fascinating in a lot of different aspects. it was it from the very beginning. |
|
|
|
|
El duderino_
Legendary
Online
Activity: 2646
Merit: 12948
BTC + Crossfit, living life.
|
|
March 17, 2019, 02:02:23 PM |
|
 via Imgflip Meme Generator@infofront...... To Justify your Merit on those 4 beers that didn’t happen.... I have my last night here and just went out eating 1 white russian followed by 3 white wines (each one with an icecube) ^ Hope that equals those 4 beers ...... |
|
|
|
|
|
BTCMILLIONAIRE
|
|
March 17, 2019, 02:08:25 PM |
|
As we understand things at the current time.
This is not a yes no state, it is a continual evolution and revolution.
That's pretty much the crux of it. We start from axioms, try to derive what we can from them and based on new assumptions we try to use the same axioms to make up new information. But you always come back to the axioms, which are no more than an arbitration based on how some ancient group of people perceived the world. It shouldn't come as any surprise that these axioms will be revisited more thoroughly and reevaluated once we can actually perceive the universe in a more accurate way. All of our senses are only able to perceive a fraction of what we measure in science. And what we measure in science is barely good enough to approximate 5% of the observable universe. Never mind the infinity beyond the horizon of the CMB. Anyone who thinks that we have any claim to objectivity when we can only explain 5% of what we can see with state of the art tools is running around willfully blindfolded. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
JSRAW
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 2296
Merit: 1543
Up to 300% + 200 FS deposit bonuses
|
|
March 17, 2019, 02:11:47 PM |
|
@Mic : Fat fingers are missing  @Pamoldar Thanks bhai=bro  |
|
|
|
|
|
BTCMILLIONAIRE
|
|
March 17, 2019, 02:12:43 PM |
|
Also, given the etymology and definition of the word: a new method, idea, product, etc. Math is not just an innovation, but is constantly being re-innovated on a second-to-second basis. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
El duderino_
Legendary
Online
Activity: 2646
Merit: 12948
BTC + Crossfit, living life.
|
|
March 17, 2019, 02:16:57 PM |
|
Fat fingers Will come and join the party sooner or later |
|
|
|
|
Ibian
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 2268
Merit: 1278
|
|
March 17, 2019, 02:16:58 PM |
|
Again, we did not invent math. It is an inherent property of the universe. It's like saying that gravity depends on assumptions, which is why I used that example. You can't reason physical reality into producing nothing when adding two somethings. And your credentials as a mathematician does nothing to change this.
Today at 01:49:15 PM Today at 01:51:00 PM 1:45 minutes. You didn't even read the post. You're not a Mathematician. You don't know what you're talking about. And you're not even trying to learn about that which you talk about with authority from someone who actually spent half his life studying it. Also, Math is certainly not a property. It's a language. The most accurate we have for describing the universe, but certainly not a property of it. Unfortunately reading the first sentence was enough to understand the content of the entire post. It's a skill I have developed when arguing with lefties, and reading it post-post confirmed it. You are arguing from emotion here, not thinking with the thinking part of the brain. I suggest a break. Cognitive dissonance here. If you can make a rigorous argument how Math has not been invented I'll concede. You have to go from the fact that every piece of Mathematical Theory (which is the basis of all science) starts from an assumption. Demonstrate how these assumptions can be inherently non-subjective given our limited capacity to even perceive the world. You're getting defensive by the way. You haven't disputed any of my post, you're starting to go full Toxic here. What, you wanna see me show my work? No. I'll just address a few points you made and then end it here, there are far better uses of my time right now. There is no such thing as "objective", as the 2+2=0 example was meant to illustrate. You have described a clock. Maybe it's useful as a tool for producing some kind of machine or programming or whatever, but without some kind of context to explain what you are trying to do beyond the obvious, the result is still 4. Edit: You can't reason physical reality into producing nothing when adding two somethings. Yes you can, it's called matter anti-matter annihilation. That produces a lot of energy. That's not "nothing". Also let's see if we can actually produce the stuff outside of theoretical formulas and sci-fi. Call math a language if you want, doesn't change anything. If it is a language that describes reality then it is reality you are dealing with. And with that I'm done with this topic. |
|
|
|
|
zhekinsp
Full Member
Offline
Activity: 882
Merit: 126
★777Coin.com★ Fun BTC Casino!
|
|
March 17, 2019, 02:25:16 PM |
|
Crypto community need to be prepared for something big change in the upcoming days,huge bump hopefully.  |
|
|
|
|
|
BTCMILLIONAIRE
|
|
March 17, 2019, 02:35:05 PM |
|
You have described a clock.
Maybe it's useful as a tool for producing some kind of machine or programming or whatever, but without some kind of context to explain what you are trying to do beyond the obvious, the result is still 4.
No, I have not described a clock. Clocks don't perform operations. Context has been given, but you're cherry picking what you want to use to pretend that your reasoning abilities somehow make you superior. They don't. Your reasoning is heavily flawed, much more so than HM's appeal to emotion. He's trying to learn. Toxic and you don't. You're literally equivalent to him (Toxic) and only accepting what you already believe, while running away from arguments you clearly aren't equipped to hold. Whole point of the finite fields was to demonstrate that objectivity as you seem to understand it is nonsense. No more than a result of evolution simplifying the non-objective reality for the sake of energy conservation. Call math a language if you want, doesn't change anything. If it is a language that describes reality then it is reality you are dealing with. And with that I'm done with this topic. English describes reality. Extremely poorly. And again, you've completely ignored the fact that all of Math starts from assumptions. Assumptions which are de facto subjective. You can be "done" and pout all you want, but to use your words, that won't change reality. And if you want to go the "reason" and "objectivity" route, then my experience in Mathematics certainly gives me more authority to speak on this topic than you will ever achieve given my head-start. And the fact remains, Mathematics is a subjective language. Literally a language that is subject to the capacity of human thought. Which is self-evidently limited in scope. You can't even begin to make an argument with similar rigour to that of a Mathematical proof in English. As such, you have sufficiently demonstrated your complete (current) lack of capacity for understanding the nature of it. You clearly don't have your emotions in control either, otherwise you would've conceded that your reasoning is insufficient rather than becoming defensive. And here we go full circle to emotion/reasoning being a spectrum that is optimized with equal parts of both. Each to keep the other in check. |
|
|
|
|
|
Poll
