[Nico]

Originally posted by CP5670


That is because you have not done any of the really interesting math; the stuff they teach early on is indeed pretty boring. Try special functions or just about any sub-branch of number theory instead.
 

I already hate doing divisions and stuff like that, you really think I want to do more complicated stuff?
You've lost the sense of realities I think.

[Martinus]

[color=66ff00]Y'know a lot of potentially great threads on HLP always end up with some parties arguing the same point no matter how often it's shown that the two parties will never and can never agree due to fantastically limited viewpoints.

Everything is not black an white especially when it comes to human affairs, we lack the ability to fully describe the universe around us, even the simplest events are mistifying and defy logic.
CP you can argue your maths standpoint until you are blue in the face and it won't make you any more right or wrong, most people will disagree with you in any case.

There is some possibilty that at some point in our future (provided Stryke9 is wrong and we don't 'blow the ****er up') someone will figure out the entire workings of this world, universe and everything in it using mathematics. Unfortunately it's also highly likely that the current denizens of HLP will be dust clogging up our precious atmosphere and it won't really matter how effective the maths is because they'll either be laughing at us in our profound ignorance or they'll be screaming in terror at the fact that since they have perfectly figured out the universe in its entireity there will never ever be another surprising event in the future of our race. That's a pretty horrible thought.

I really dislike venting via a keyboard...[/color]

[Stryke 9]

Wow... that really WAS green!



People argue pointlessly because they like to. I don't think anyone here seriously entertains thoughts of changing the world via posting rebuttals in some art forum.

And I think the second option would be more likely. Once everything is settled, life would become deathly dull. We live essentially to overcome obstacles, which is why people aren't ever really happy for long stretches of time. Call it the trouble with evolution.

[CP5670]

I dont beleive its better - in which case since you have as much trouble understanding my tenets as I have understanding your mathetmatics we wind up with a stalemate.  I wont accept your view and you wont accept mine - what good can possibly come of this situation?

Alright, let's start over then. You have not quite explained what your alternative to math and logic is that still gives objective "results;" please do so now.

However as the complexity of the simulated object increases so do the problems of the interdependancy factor - i know all about this, I render/simulate real life every day!

Yes, but what does that matter here? (bear in mind that the concept of complexity as we are talking about it here is itself somewhat vague; a complex system may be very simple if looked at another way)

Neither is maths as far as im concerned since it fails totally to take into account one half of our existance, and most intuitive answers do actually agree on many points.  Its a simple matter of the semantics the individual uses to describe them and their own view of reality -which is what it boils down to.

What is this other half and why is it to be considered seperate from the first half? If a guy publishes a valid mathematical proof, people cannot deny it or say that they do not agree without being contradictory, since the logical steps cannot be argued. On the other hand, suppose I say here that my intuition tells me that the intuitive answers of others usually do not agree, regardless of what the real facts may be, as well as that ice is hot, the moon is made of cheese, 1+1=3 and whatever else you can think of. By your method, I am equally right as anyone who says differently, and we are stuck at a dead end without eliminating any options.

Can you sit there and tell me you feel nothing when you read this reply?  Everything someone does carries a residual energy with other people can pick up on.

Are you talking about energy transfers resulting from the brain particle interactions? The energy conversion processes are everywhere and not just in a brain.

I already hate doing divisions and stuff like that, you really think I want to do more complicated stuff?
You've lost the sense of realities I think.

nah, it's not more complicated, just more interesting. (e.g. they teach you about mixed fractions in kindergarten, but I cannot recall ever using those after that; everything is written as improper fractions )

Everything is not black an white especially when it comes to human affairs, we lack the ability to fully describe the universe around us, even the simplest events are mistifying and defy logic.

such as?

CP you can argue your maths standpoint until you are blue in the face and it won't make you any more right or wrong, most people will disagree with you in any case.

Actually it will for the purposes of the argument, because that is what the point of this is in the first place. If you are assuming an absolute reality, you cannot simply say that you "agree" or "disagree" and be consistent without showing precisely why.

That's a pretty horrible thought.

Thing is though, there are many people who find the alternative a pretty horrible thought. If somehow humans ever discover all absolute things that there are to know, they will eseentially no longer retain any further illusion of free will and will know themselves to be kind of like robots.

[wEvil]

Originally posted by CP5670
Alright, let's start over then. You have not quite explained what your alternative to math and logic is that still gives objective "results;" please do so now.

Thats a rather unfair point to make and you know it considering the disparity in research time that has been given over to the field.

Yes, but what does that matter here? (bear in mind that the concept of complexity as we are talking about it here is itself somewhat vague; a complex system may be very simple if looked at another way)

It matters because it effectively means we'll never have the processing power to compute such a vast sequence of events

What is this other half and why is it to be considered seperate from the first half? If a guy publishes a valid mathematical proof, people cannot deny it or say that they do not agree without being contradictory, since the logical steps cannot be argued. On the other hand, suppose I say here that my intuition tells me that the intuitive answers of others usually do not agree, regardless of what the real facts may be, as well as that ice is hot, the moon is made of cheese, 1+1=3 and whatever else you can think of. By your method, I am equally right as anyone who says differently, and we are stuck at a dead end without eliminating any options.

Usually the kind of things people rely on intuition are a good deal more ambiguous than your example, which again in my opinion represents a null argument.

Are you talking about energy transfers resulting from the brain particle interactions? The energy conversion processes are everywhere and not just in a brain.

Im not talking about that kind of energy, come on, open your mind up a bit! consider some different possibilities!

Thing is though, there are many people who find the alternative a pretty horrible thought. If somehow humans ever discover all absolute things that there are to know, they will eseentially no longer retain any further illusion of free will and will know themselves to be kind of like robots.

Which is why it will never happen - a kind of self-censoring sentient lifeform - interesting possibility?

[Martinus]

Originally posted by CP5670


Alright, let's start over then. You have not quite explained what your alternative to math and logic is that still gives objective "results;" please do so now.



Yes, but what does that matter here? (bear in mind that the concept of complexity as we are talking about it here is itself somewhat vague; a complex system may be very simple if looked at another way)



What is this other half and why is it to be considered seperate from the first half? If a guy publishes a valid mathematical proof, people cannot deny it or say that they do not agree without being contradictory, since the logical steps cannot be argued. On the other hand, suppose I say here that my intuition tells me that the intuitive answers of others usually do not agree, regardless of what the real facts may be, as well as that ice is hot, the moon is made of cheese, 1+1=3 and whatever else you can think of. By your method, I am equally right as anyone who says differently, and we are stuck at a dead end without eliminating any options.



Are you talking about energy transfers resulting from the brain particle interactions? The energy conversion processes are everywhere and not just in a brain.



nah, it's not more complicated, just more interesting. (e.g. they teach you about mixed fractions in kindergarten, but I cannot recall ever using those after that; everything is written as improper fractions )



such as?



Actually it will for the purposes of the argument, because that is what the point of this is in the first place. If you are assuming an absolute reality, you cannot simply say that you "agree" or "disagree" and be consistent without showing precisely why.



Thing is though, there are many people who find the alternative a pretty horrible thought. If somehow humans ever discover all absolute things that there are to know, they will eseentially no longer retain any further illusion of free will and will know themselves to be kind of like robots.

[color=66ff00]Conclusion:
Never argue with a person who knows they're right.
[/color]

[CP5670]

Thats a rather unfair point to make and you know it considering the disparity in research time that has been given over to the field.

I just asked what your alternative method is (which I'm still not quite sure of); what is the "unfair point?"

It matters because it effectively means we'll never have the processing power to compute such a vast sequence of events

That becomes a matter of quantity then, of exactly how interdependent/complex/etc. the system becomes. But I am not sure why you say "never;" sure it may take a really long time (although even that is debatable), but that is quite a bit different than never. It depends on whether the universe is infinitely complicated or just really complicated.

Usually the kind of things people rely on intuition are a good deal more ambiguous than your example, which again in my opinion represents a null argument.

not sure what you are saying here; just tell me why my statements there are right or wrong. My point is that with this intuition thing, we have no basis for eliminating any of the possible statements and our problem becomes infinitely more complicated.

Im not talking about that kind of energy, come on, open your mind up a bit! consider some different possibilities!

eh? energy/mass is just the fundamental "stuff" that makes up the universe; what is this "other" energy?

Which is why it will never happen - a kind of self-censoring sentient lifeform - interesting possibility?

An interesting possibility, sure. However, I don't think there are any grounds at the moment for assuming this over the alternative.

Conclusion:
Never argue with a person who knows they're right.

Exactly, and I know I am right (comparatively speaking that is, not absolutely right) because nobody is putting any good arguments against it.

[wEvil]

Originally posted by CP5670
I just asked what your alternative method is (which I'm still not quite sure of); what is the "unfair point?"

the answer will come, and no, trust me, this isnt some spiritualist superiority.  I truly beleive the "answer" isnt a purely logical one.

That becomes a matter of quantity then, of exactly how interdependent/complex/etc. the system becomes. But I am not sure why you say "never;" sure it may take a really long time (although even that is debatable), but that is quite a bit different than never. It depends on whether the universe is infinitely complicated or just really complicated.

(although that is debatable) - you just poked a hole in your own argument there, although i wouldnt be so undiplomatic as to say it.

not sure what you are saying here; just tell me why my statements there are right or wrong. My point is that with this intuition thing, we have no basis for eliminating any of the possible statements and our problem becomes infinitely more complicated.

Nor has mathethematics/logic any basis for "intruding" into the world of spirituality - however "we" accept it as a facet of our existance, what stops you accepting a facet of spirituality as a facet of yours?

eh? energy/mass is just the fundamental "stuff" that makes up the universe; what is this "other" energy?

I think you might well find the human body generates more energy than can be accounted for by chemical reactions

An interesting possibility, sure. However, I don't think there are any grounds at the moment for assuming this over the alternative.

Knowledge increases by considering alternatives - please tell me you have not become so dogmatic.

Exactly, and I know I am right (comparatively speaking that is, not absolutely right) because nobody is putting any good arguments against it.

i just did.

[CP5670]

the answer will come, and no, trust me, this isnt some spiritualist superiority.  I truly beleive the "answer" isnt a purely logical one.

That's fair enough - we're just using different assumptions - but why don't you just tell me what method you are using to get to this answer?

(although that is debatable) - you just poked a hole in your own argument there, although i wouldnt be so undiplomatic as to say it.

I was pointing out that many scientists today say that this "long time" might be during this century. Of course, we don't care about how much actual time is required, but only that it is finite.

Nor has mathethematics/logic any basis for "intruding" into the world of spirituality - however "we" accept it as a facet of our existance, what stops you accepting a facet of spirituality as a facet of yours?

Because they are the same thing. Everything has a basis for intruding into any other "world," because all these things are interconnected and are ultimate a single whole, so you cannot have this sort of dual existence. One or the other is correct, but not both. You might as well ask what stops the western world from accepting the jihad ideology as just an equally true part of life as anything else.

I think you might well find the human body generates more energy than can be accounted for by chemical reactions

once again, give an example, and tell me what scientific processes account for it; are you thinking about quantum mechanical reactions? And why must the human alone be so special? If a human can "generate energy" (never mind that this completely violates core physics laws), a rock should be able to do the same.

Knowledge increases by considering alternatives - please tell me you have not become so dogmatic.

Of course I have considered some alternatives, but have decided that they all have an equal probability at being right from what we know, and there is no real reason to choose any one alternative over another; the only reason I am trying math/logic/science/etc. first is that it is the easiest to work with and at its core, has an equal chance of being correct as anything else.

[SKYNET-011]

Alright, that's it. Screw you guys, i'm goin' home.

[Zeronet]

CP, by saying "Never agree with a person who knows there right" is not agreeing with you. Its just saying your so deadset in your ways, your beyond being convinced otherwise.

[Kamikaze]

Originally posted by Zeronet
CP, by saying "Never agree with a person who knows there right" is not agreeing with you. Its just saying your so deadset in your ways, your beyond being convinced otherwise.

So the only people who are worth listening to or are sensible are the ones who don't think they are right but perhaps there's a posibility of it?

[Zeronet]

Firstly



 There is a difference between thinking your right and knowing your right. People they "know" they are right, will continue to believe it nomatter what evidence you present against them, or however much you try to convince them otherwise.

[beatspete]

Originally posted by Zeronet
"Never agree with a person who knows there right"

Its "they're", not "there".  Gah.





...

[Kamikaze]

Originally posted by Zeronet
Firstly



 There is a difference between thinking your right and knowing your right. People they "know" they are right, will continue to believe it nomatter what evidence you present against them, or however much you try to convince them otherwise.

So you want to talk to someone who isn't sure of what the hell they're talking about eh?

[Levyathan]

What part of Zeronet's post can't you understand?

[CP5670]

CP, by saying "Never agree with a person who knows there right" is not agreeing with you. Its just saying your so deadset in your ways, your beyond being convinced otherwise.

eh? Who exactly are you addressing here? I wasn't the one who said that, and it was "argue" rather than "agree."