Vod
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 2170
Licking my boob since 1970


November 14, 2013, 10:25:43 PM 

We will see.
I think that's your mantra right there dank. It will always be tomorrow with you  it will never be today.

I'm into creating universes, smiting people, writing holy books and listening to prayers. If you want your prayers answered, you must donate to 1CDyx8AUTiYXS1ThcBU3vy4SJWQq6pdFMH BitcoinTalk Public Information Project





Advertised sites are not endorsed by the Bitcoin Forum. They may be unsafe, untrustworthy, or illegal in your jurisdiction. Advertise here.



dank
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1134
You cannot kill love


November 14, 2013, 10:36:12 PM 

You're right, I'm waiting for the rest of the world to catch up before it can happen. Sometimes it's wiser to just not talk.




the joint
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1806


November 15, 2013, 03:32:05 AM 

1) I explained to you why you can't be right regarding your assumption of an absolute separation between objective and subjective reality. There's an entire logical principle dating back to the ancient Greeks (and likely before them) that states exactly this...it's the principle that states differences arise from sameness and similarities. Your methodology to forming conclusions about reality incorporates a false assumption about reality itself. Reality includes both subjectivity and objectivity, and so a comprehensive model of reality must explain how each defines the other.
I think my model is much simpler. Basically, we assume that reality is objective, and we, as an objective species existing in that reality, subjectively percieve that reality through our senses. If you start with the assumption that reality is objective, i.e. it exists and is as it is whether we percieve it or not, and place the fault of subjectivity only on our own limited subjective senses and reasoning ability, all the logic falls into place just fine. Everything shares a fundamental identity with everything else. In mathematics, this fundamental identity is a distributive property represented by the number '1'. Consider a statement, "ab = xy". This is really 1(a)1(b) = 1(x)1(y). The property of identity is a mathematical law that distributes to everything. Everything is united by this principle of identity...of cohesion.
That doesn't actually say anything. All you did was present a set of mathematical symbols, and claim that these symbols represent what you say they do. I don't even know if you mean a * b or something else, or if you mean 1 * a * 1 * b or 1ofa * 1ofb. Like, is 1 a number that is multiplied by other variables, or is 1 a function, like f in f(x)? If you're going to throw terms like these around, please take the time to explain them, since otherwise they don't have any meeting to anyone but yourself. 2a) You can reason about what's behind the horizon in a probabilistic way, but that's another way of saying "I don't know." Instead, I can say "I know that it's impossible to know what's beyond the horizon" and be correct. You never know where Dank is having his million man music festival. It's always just over the horizon, isn't it?
Actually, it's not "I don't know," but rather "It is not x" and possibly "It is Y with a probability of %." For instance, I know Dank, if he ever does, will NOT have his festival in the Marianas Trench, in the vacuum of space, on the moon or the sun, and likely not on top of Mt Everest, the top of the mpountain range in Chile, in the middle of the Sahara, inside of a car or a small shed, or in my house. Or at any number of other things that can not accomodate the requirements of having a concert (such as viable temperatures and sound carying atmosphere). I think that is considerably more precise than simply "I don't know," especially since it lets us to narrow the choices to an overall where we DO know. Like, if I didn't know whether Dank would have his concert in Venue A or in Venue B accross the street from Venue A, I can say with certainty that Dank will have his concert in a specific city that contains both venues. Likewise, I know that Dank will have his concert on Earth, if he actually does have a concert. And hey, that's how science works 2b) Nonsequitur. The reason is because "beyond the horizon" (notvisible) and "horizon" (visible) are localized distributions in spacetime. Your conclusion would only be valid if you're talking about polytheistic gods. A monotheistic god is omnipresent.
If he is supposedly omnipresent, but yet can not be percieved, then... 1) Except you can logically prove that reality cannot only be objective, and so your assumption is wrong. Furthermore, if by simplicity you mean "conveniently throwing out information that doesn't fit into the method I've selected," then I agree with you. I'm trying to tell you that there's other kinds of information that isn't empirical information, and while you've acknowledged that this other kind of information is real to some extent, you give its significance no inclusion whatsoever in your interpretation of reality. That being said, using an empirical model is extremely practical for many things. But it's entirely useless for forming theories about other kinds of information. I'm inclined to think that your refusal to incorporate the significance of this 'other' kind of information is why you ultimately reject any concept of God. It would never make sense to call anything 'God' in a strictly empirical model, especially when empiricism is limited by not only the problem of induction, but also by size (can't observe quantumscale or globalscale) and rarity (UFOs, ET's, etc.). 2) I provided one example out of an infinite number of examples I could have chosen. Here, I'll do three more: a  a = 0 is really (1)a  (1)a = (1)0 1 + 2 = 3 is really (1)1 + (1)2 = (1)3 "Apple" is really (1)Apple Yes, you actually can do this with math, and yes, it actually can teach you something. In this instance, math shows us that "1" is analogous to a distributive property of identity. This is interesting because it shows that for anything to exist in a mathematical landscape, each thing has a characteristic that is shared by every other. To learn more, I suggest thinking about some more interesting number relationships. Of particular interest to me, aside from the number '1', are 'zero' and 'infinity'. Take 'infinity' for instance. Since 'infinite' represents a sum but literally means "notfinite," it's obvious that some infinities can be larger than others. Consider the following scenario: "Hey Bob, I like your...yard." "Oh yeah? How big do you think it is?" "I don't know, but it looks HUGE! You know how big mine is?" "Not sure, but definitely smaller than mine." " " And there you have it. Obvious proof that some infinities are bigger than others. And can you believe that the mathematical proof of this was touted as a huge breakthrough? Give me a break. Philosophers have the oneup on scientists and mathematicians allday everyday (because it's the only academic discipline that is comprehensive enough to include the tools of both the scientist and the mathematician). 3) Ascribing a probability to an event is akin to saying "I don't know." Knowing that you can't know is still knowing. It also makes for a better surprise. 4) If you were a microbe on an elephant's butt, would you know that the ground you're walking on is an elephant?




NewLiberty
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1162
Gresham's Lawyer


November 15, 2013, 07:14:21 AM 

You would tell if it was fake, you could see chords.
Synesthesia much?

FREE MONEY^{1} Bitcoin for Silver and Gold NewLibertyDollar.com and now BITCOIN SPECIE (silver 1 ozt) shows value by QRBulk premiums as low as .0012 BTC "BETTER, MORE COLLECTIBLE, AND CHEAPER THAN SILVER EAGLES" ^{1}Free of Government



hawkeye


November 15, 2013, 10:15:47 AM 

2) I provided one example out of an infinite number of examples I could have chosen. Here, I'll do three more: a  a = 0 is really (1)a  (1)a = (1)0 1 + 2 = 3 is really (1)1 + (1)2 = (1)3 "Apple" is really (1)Apple Yes, you actually can do this with math, and yes, it actually can teach you something. In this instance, math shows us that "1" is analogous to a distributive property of identity. This is interesting because it shows that for anything to exist in a mathematical landscape, each thing has a characteristic that is shared by every other. To learn more, I suggest thinking about some more interesting number relationships. Of particular interest to me, aside from the number '1', are 'zero' and 'infinity'. Take 'infinity' for instance. Since 'infinite' represents a sum but literally means "notfinite," it's obvious that some infinities can be larger than others. Consider the following scenario: "Hey Bob, I like your...yard." "Oh yeah? How big do you think it is?" "I don't know, but it looks HUGE! You know how big mine is?" "Not sure, but definitely smaller than mine." " " And there you have it. Obvious proof that some infinities are bigger than others. And can you believe that the mathematical proof of this was touted as a huge breakthrough? Give me a break. Philosophers have the oneup on scientists and mathematicians allday everyday (because it's the only academic discipline that is comprehensive enough to include the tools of both the scientist and the mathematician). 3) Ascribing a probability to an event is akin to saying "I don't know." Knowing that you can't know is still knowing. It also makes for a better surprise. 4) If you were a microbe on an elephant's butt, would you know that the ground you're walking on is an elephant? Jesus Christ! OK, I'm not going to be kind any more. Your logic is absolutely shocking and what's more, you are well aware of it. You are deliberately deceptive and will be treated as such by me from now on. You aren't interested in truth at all. You just want to play with people. Multiplying something by 1 only means you are saying there is one of this thing. Nothing more. It does not mean those things have a characteristic in common. Infinity is an idea, not a number. Having some infinites be bigger than others is complete nonsense. It's like when my brother used to say I hate you infinity + 1 times in response to my I hate you infinity. It's not a number, it doesn't have a size. I'll bet you don't even try to get away with this crap in real life. Just come on to a forum and think you'll have a little fun with people. Is that it?




blablahblah
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 775


November 15, 2013, 12:41:09 PM 

2) I provided one example out of an infinite number of examples I could have chosen. Here, I'll do three more: a  a = 0 is really (1)a  (1)a = (1)0 1 + 2 = 3 is really (1)1 + (1)2 = (1)3 "Apple" is really (1)Apple Yes, you actually can do this with math, and yes, it actually can teach you something. In this instance, math shows us that "1" is analogous to a distributive property of identity. This is interesting because it shows that for anything to exist in a mathematical landscape, each thing has a characteristic that is shared by every other. To learn more, I suggest thinking about some more interesting number relationships. Of particular interest to me, aside from the number '1', are 'zero' and 'infinity'. Take 'infinity' for instance. Since 'infinite' represents a sum but literally means "notfinite," it's obvious that some infinities can be larger than others. Consider the following scenario: "Hey Bob, I like your...yard." "Oh yeah? How big do you think it is?" "I don't know, but it looks HUGE! You know how big mine is?" "Not sure, but definitely smaller than mine." " " And there you have it. Obvious proof that some infinities are bigger than others. And can you believe that the mathematical proof of this was touted as a huge breakthrough? Give me a break. Philosophers have the oneup on scientists and mathematicians allday everyday (because it's the only academic discipline that is comprehensive enough to include the tools of both the scientist and the mathematician). 3) Ascribing a probability to an event is akin to saying "I don't know." Knowing that you can't know is still knowing. It also makes for a better surprise. 4) If you were a microbe on an elephant's butt, would you know that the ground you're walking on is an elephant? Jesus Christ! OK, I'm not going to be kind any more. Your logic is absolutely shocking and what's more, you are well aware of it. You are deliberately deceptive and will be treated as such by me from now on. You aren't interested in truth at all. You just want to play with people. Multiplying something by 1 only means you are saying there is one of this thing. Nothing more. It does not mean those things have a characteristic in common. Actually there's some significance because it means all of those things belong in the same set of countable things. Oranges and grains of sand may seem completely different, but they're both countable types of objects, so they belong in the same set. This is pretty common in (OOP) computer programming where various classes of objects all inherit from a super class called 'object'. Now if I try something special, like create an assumption about reality, that assumption is also countable  there's one  so it also belongs in the same set together with the other objects. Admittedly I'm not quite sure where he was going with this. Perhaps if I count the number of Greek gods, and you count the number of oranges, neither of us have a preexisting basis to say "my things are more real than your things" because we both used the same technique: counting. And even if one of us does have a preexisting basis, that basis is also a countable object that belongs to the same set. The "pot calling the kettle black" situation fits perfectly. Infinity is an idea, not a number. And numbers are not ideas? Having some infinites be bigger than others is complete nonsense. It's like when my brother used to say I hate you infinity + 1 times in response to my I hate you infinity. It's not a number, it doesn't have a size.
But numbers don't have a size either. Look: 2 and 2  different font size, same number.




the joint
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1806


November 15, 2013, 02:15:28 PM 

2) I provided one example out of an infinite number of examples I could have chosen. Here, I'll do three more: a  a = 0 is really (1)a  (1)a = (1)0 1 + 2 = 3 is really (1)1 + (1)2 = (1)3 "Apple" is really (1)Apple Yes, you actually can do this with math, and yes, it actually can teach you something. In this instance, math shows us that "1" is analogous to a distributive property of identity. This is interesting because it shows that for anything to exist in a mathematical landscape, each thing has a characteristic that is shared by every other. To learn more, I suggest thinking about some more interesting number relationships. Of particular interest to me, aside from the number '1', are 'zero' and 'infinity'. Take 'infinity' for instance. Since 'infinite' represents a sum but literally means "notfinite," it's obvious that some infinities can be larger than others. Consider the following scenario: "Hey Bob, I like your...yard." "Oh yeah? How big do you think it is?" "I don't know, but it looks HUGE! You know how big mine is?" "Not sure, but definitely smaller than mine." " " And there you have it. Obvious proof that some infinities are bigger than others. And can you believe that the mathematical proof of this was touted as a huge breakthrough? Give me a break. Philosophers have the oneup on scientists and mathematicians allday everyday (because it's the only academic discipline that is comprehensive enough to include the tools of both the scientist and the mathematician). 3) Ascribing a probability to an event is akin to saying "I don't know." Knowing that you can't know is still knowing. It also makes for a better surprise. 4) If you were a microbe on an elephant's butt, would you know that the ground you're walking on is an elephant? Jesus Christ! OK, I'm not going to be kind any more. Your logic is absolutely shocking and what's more, you are well aware of it. You are deliberately deceptive and will be treated as such by me from now on. You aren't interested in truth at all. You just want to play with people. Multiplying something by 1 only means you are saying there is one of this thing. Nothing more. It does not mean those things have a characteristic in common. Infinity is an idea, not a number. Having some infinites be bigger than others is complete nonsense. It's like when my brother used to say I hate you infinity + 1 times in response to my I hate you infinity. It's not a number, it doesn't have a size. I'll bet you don't even try to get away with this crap in real life. Just come on to a forum and think you'll have a little fun with people. Is that it? While the infinity example was obviously intended to be humorous, please tell me you're aware that there is a mathematical proof demonstrating some infinities are larger than others. Furthermore, if we can agree that any number, entity, concept multiplied by 1 is itself, then it should be obvious that this is a shared characteristic. And by the way, a number is an idea too. You ever seen a "2" in nature? Neither have I.




pedrog
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1596


November 15, 2013, 02:34:51 PM 

While the infinity example was obviously intended to be humorous, please tell me you're aware that there is a mathematical proof demonstrating some infinities are larger than others.
Furthermore, if we can agree that any number, entity, concept multiplied by 1 is itself, then it should be obvious that this is a shared characteristic.
And by the way, a number is an idea too. You ever seen a "2" in nature? Neither have I.
Yeah, that's very difficult to grasp for the "average person", Cantor developed the Set Theory and gone insane, and he had that in mind when studying "infinites." The dispute between Mathematic exists versus is invented by humans is an ongoing discussion, and also very difficult for the "average person" to grasp. I'm not trying to be condescending to anyone, but for having this kind of discussion people need to know quite a few amount of stuff and it would take ages to explain at an Internet forum.




kokjo
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1050
You are WRONG!


November 15, 2013, 07:34:58 PM 

Infinity is an idea, not a number. Having some infinites be bigger than others is complete nonsense. It's like when my brother used to say I hate you infinity + 1 times in response to my I hate you infinity. It's not a number, it doesn't have a size.
it depends on what ever you talk about natural numbers(1,2,3,4,...) or ordinal numbers(1,2,3,4,...,infinity,2 infinity,...infinity^2,...infinity^infinity), or real numbers(1,2,3,pi, 5,7878787,...) or extended real numbers(infinity,...1,0,1,...+infinity). The problem with ordinal numbers is that plus does no longer commute.

"The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves and wiser people so full of doubts." Bertrand Russell



darkmule
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1162


November 15, 2013, 08:13:25 PM 

Infinity is an idea, not a number. Having some infinites be bigger than others is complete nonsense. It's like when my brother used to say I hate you infinity + 1 times in response to my I hate you infinity. It's not a number, it doesn't have a size. So basically, you reject math since set theory and Cantor. Okay, but don't expect the world to join your retard parade.




dank
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1134
You cannot kill love


November 15, 2013, 08:24:57 PM 

Everything is relative, everything scales up and down infinitely. Life is merely a fractaling wave through an infinitely vast sea. Another you exists inside your hand, just as you exist in the hand of a larger you. Ultimately, with infinite dimensions, everything exists inside of you just as it exists everywhere outside.
And we know the universe and everything in it, complete unity, god, means everything.
Space is an illusion, outer space did not create you, you created it. You are the center of the universe, you are the universe, you are consciousness, consciousness is god.




darkmule
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1162


November 16, 2013, 08:27:23 PM 

Space is an illusion, outer space did not create you, you created it. You are the center of the universe, you are the universe, you are consciousness, consciousness is god.
Did you actually get a degree in bullshit? Because seriously. . .wtf? How stoned do you have to be to generate a wall of gibberish like that?




dank
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1134
You cannot kill love


November 16, 2013, 08:43:51 PM 

I was probably pretty stoned. But this gibberish has vast meaning.
What is light? What is sound? Nothing but energy, waves of frequencies. Everything is energy and your mind interprets these energies to create the illusion of time and space, when all we really are is a single point of consciousness. Life is an elaborate dream.




kokjo
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1050
You are WRONG!


November 16, 2013, 08:45:50 PM 

Space is an illusion, outer space did not create you, you created it. You are the center of the universe, you are the universe, you are consciousness, consciousness is god.
Did you actually get a degree in bullshit? Because seriously. . .wtf? How stoned do you have to be to generate a wall of gibberish like that? don't you see? dank is enlightened.

"The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves and wiser people so full of doubts." Bertrand Russell



Rassah
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1680
Director of Bitcoin100


November 21, 2013, 08:49:14 PM 

1) Except you can logically prove that reality cannot only be objective, and so your assumption is wrong.
I'm still looking for such proof. 4) If you were a microbe on an elephant's butt, would you know that the ground you're walking on is an elephant?
Nope. but I wouldn't throw out random subjective coonclusions about what ground I'm walking on, either. I would only use conclusions I can observe and come to, and get closer to the correct answer by process of elimination (I should be able to tell it's not dirt, sand, or a furry fox butt). I wouldn't subjectively make up some story that sounds great, and claim that it's just as valid a conclusion as everything else (as the "God did it" folks do)




Rassah
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1680
Director of Bitcoin100


November 21, 2013, 09:22:46 PM 

While the infinity example was obviously intended to be humorous, please tell me you're aware that there is a mathematical proof demonstrating some infinities are larger than others.
If you are talking about Cantor's diagonalization, where the number p differs by a decimal digit from every real number n, and thus has no real number partner, the my answer is that p can not exist, or is an imaginary number. The reason is that since there is an infinite number of real number n's, you will never come to a conclusion on what p must be. In other words, it will take an infinite amount of n numbers for p to be created, or put another way, it will take an infinite amount of time, calculations, attempts, or whatever, in order to create p. So you will always get closer to creating p without actually creating it.




BitChick
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1106


November 21, 2013, 09:30:18 PM 

1) Except you can logically prove that reality cannot only be objective, and so your assumption is wrong.
I'm still looking for such proof. In the Bible, Paul the Apostle hated Christians and was so sure he was right about what he believed that he even killed them. God, out of His mercy, caused him to be blinded for a short time and asked him "Why do you persecute me." Paul did not realize that he was doing the wrong thing. He was quite sure he was doing the right thing. God was merciful to Paul in revealing Himself to him because his heart was in the place of trying to be zealous for good, but he was just misguided. All of that said, be careful in your search for proof. God has a way of showing us proof in ways that might not be terribly comfortable if we fight Him too much. (Like Paul, Johah, etc . . ) But God does "discipline those He loves" so even if it is uncomfortable at times I still appreciate the times He has "knocked me off my horse" so to speak and shown me the error of my ways. It is not that I enjoy it, but I know that it out of love for me that He does that. Rassah, I know that you will respond that you would want nothing to do with a God that would do these sorts of things. As a mom to two girls I have come to have a different understanding. It is a strange thing but as a parent of kids I understand God more than I used to. I realize that I make my kids really upset with me sometimes when I correct them or tell them that they cannot have something or do something, but I make these decisions because I want what is best for my kids out of love for them. Also, if I just let them do whatever they want would that be love? But if you want or need proof, I will pray that you will have it. I have been and will keep doing so until you get all the proof you need. I know it annoys you but I think someday you might change your mind about that. I hope so anyways.

1BitcHiCK1iRa6YVY6qDqC6M594RBYLNPo



BitChick
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1106


November 21, 2013, 09:33:25 PM 

People would say I'm lucky. But when other people in the audience start flying too, I'm pretty sure I'll have everyone believing.
Lucky would be winning once. Extremely lucky would be winning twice. Impossible would be winning three times, in a row. And it should be very simple for you. If you fly, other people won't fly too, they'll just start questioning how you did it (magicians in La Vegas "fly" all the time). If you win the lottery three times, no one will question your power. Lucky would be the Earth forming by chance. Extremely lucky would be the Sun being in the perfect distance from earth to cause the right temperature for life. Impossible would be for man and woman to be formed by random chance of all of the molecules coming together in such a way to make life from nothing. I know I am way off the topic here, but this came to my mind.

1BitcHiCK1iRa6YVY6qDqC6M594RBYLNPo



the joint
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1806


November 21, 2013, 10:02:21 PM 

1) Except you can logically prove that reality cannot only be objective, and so your assumption is wrong.
I'm still looking for such proof. 4) If you were a microbe on an elephant's butt, would you know that the ground you're walking on is an elephant?
Nope. but I wouldn't throw out random subjective coonclusions about what ground I'm walking on, either. I would only use conclusions I can observe and come to, and get closer to the correct answer by process of elimination (I should be able to tell it's not dirt, sand, or a furry fox butt). I wouldn't subjectively make up some story that sounds great, and claim that it's just as valid a conclusion as everything else (as the "God did it" folks do) 1) How much do you need? What kind of proof/evidence supports 1 + 1 = 2 aside from selfcontained mathematical examples? The fact that 1+1 = 2 is pretty obvious isn't it? Well, it's equally obvious (elementary school level kind of obvious) that mental and physical reality are fundamentally inseparable. It's obvious because we already have established logical properties that directly state that it's impossible to assert an absolute separation between any two things without committing a logical fallacy, just like we have established mathematical rules of operation. Basically, failing to acknowledge that mental and physical reality are fundamentally related is like disagreeing that 1 + 1 = 2 under any possible interpretation. As soon as you assert an absolute difference between two things you immediately commit a logical fallacy. 2) The point is I don't know why you would select an empirical model of learning out of all the available methods to attempt to explain reality at such a high level of generality. The scientific method is illequipped for the task. If you're trying to formulate conclusions about something beyond the scope of the empirical model, then why not just pick a better model? You're just selfhandicapping by using the empirical model. In this regard, you're like a bible banger for empiricism, and no matter how much I try to tell you that there's a whole world of knowledge that is totally (by definition) inaccessible through empiricism, for some reason you have a really hard time processing that.




the joint
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1806


November 21, 2013, 10:10:22 PM 

While the infinity example was obviously intended to be humorous, please tell me you're aware that there is a mathematical proof demonstrating some infinities are larger than others.
If you are talking about Cantor's diagonalization, where the number p differs by a decimal digit from every real number n, and thus has no real number partner, the my answer is that p can not exist, or is an imaginary number. The reason is that since there is an infinite number of real number n's, you will never come to a conclusion on what p must be. In other words, it will take an infinite amount of n numbers for p to be created, or put another way, it will take an infinite amount of time, calculations, attempts, or whatever, in order to create p. So you will always get closer to creating p without actually creating it. Yeah, that's one way of illustrating the point.




