[01010]

Originally posted by Stunaep
OK, we all understand you almost had a threesome on new years eve, but would it be time to drop the subject?

Never

[Warlock]

Been there, done that....besides man..."ALMOST" only counts in Horseshoes and Hand Grenades

[diamondgeezer]

OK... I spent the last four years studying the Earth in various subjects, and if there's one thing that has been drilled int ot me it's that the planet's climate goes up and down like a yo-yo. People that obsess over the recent climate changes are idiots.

[01010]

Originally posted by Warlock
Been there, done that....besides man..."ALMOST" only counts in Horseshoes and Hand Grenades

Hey, it was only an almost because I value my friends over well, y'know

Plus in a bedroom where people were running in and out like every five minutes it's not the wisest of moves. Especially considering the point above. Damn, the only reason i'm saying it here is because I'd be in so much **** if anyone I know ever found out and it's the kind of thing where you just have to tell "someone"

[Warlock]

Originally posted by 01010


Hey, it was only an almost because I value my friends over well, y'know

Plus in a bedroom where people were running in and out like every five minutes it's not the wisest of moves. Especially considering the point above. Damn, the only reason i'm saying it here is because I'd be in so much **** if anyone I know ever found out and it's the kind of thing where you just have to tell "someone"

Heh Next time change rooms, lock door etc.

[diamondgeezer]

Originally posted by Shrike
There are volcanoes everywhere now.

In fact, volcanoes often decrease global temperatures due to the massive amounts of particulates they can inject into the atmosphere.

Absolutely. Geography trivia for you all: when Krakatoa went off, the average global tempertaure dropped by a degree for several years, due to the ammount of dust in the atmosphere. While this might sound fairly insignicant, it is estimated that a drop in global temperature of four degrees would send the planet in to another ice age... *pulls on gloves and wooly hat*

[Kamikaze]

Originally posted by delta_7890


Learn to be *human* and your problems will be solved!  ^^;

Ah, but to deny our mathematical process (which is closely related to logic) is to defy our specialty as humans in the first place!

[CP5670]

yeah right, i almost died of boredom because of math, there would be only me, I'd ban math from school

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.

mathematics has its limits, CP - you know this. All it can ever be is a model of the world, not the world in its entirety.

You have not seen my way of looking at these things yet. See if you can give me one thing that can be somehow proven to be undescribable by mathematics but is still absolutely existant; math certainly has limits, but it is like a god compared to anything else out there.

I'm sorry, I'm not quite sure that the changes to a biosphere made by intelligent beings are "natural". They are made with clear intentions in mind,thus they are "artificial". Natural would be something that occurs due to the laws of well, nature, since humans try to bend those laws, therefore they are not natural.

But they cannot bend those laws because they work by those laws. These so-called "clear intentions" are also the product of the laws; it is all equally "natural." (absolute things cannot be unnatural by definition) This topic was discussed before around here in great length and it should be obvious by now; humans are not some kind of outsider aliens to the rest of the universe, but are just as much parts of it as any rock, dust particle or whatever else, and so whatever they do is natural because of the fact that they are doing it.

ok, let's take this from a purely financial point of view: Growing plants artificially on a polluted planet would require artificial weather, artificial food, artificial sunlight, a biodome, all of which would cost several fortunes. Instead on spending thousands and thousands of resources, manhours and money on such things, would it not be easier to just stop the plants from extinction.

Which is why I am supporting some of the environmentalist ideas at the moment, but for different reasons. Notice that I said "practical" in there. Also, stopping the plants from extinction is also going to cost several fortunes, but I think with the conditions today it will require less fortunes than the alternative. Of course, that will likely change in the future, but we can worry about it again then.

not only that, but human emotions such as love, cannot be brought down to a mathematical level. And no matter how hard you try to deny these emotions, they still function as strongly and make the same difference.

In other words, you are saying that science is wrong. fair enough. (emotions are in the universe and are thus a part of it, and so by the science axioms there exist laws that describe them exactly, or in other words, sets of logical statements and math equations) I never said I am trying to deny anything; of course love, or certain combinations of particle interactions within the brain, exists in human affairs.

C'mon, would you say no to... uh... discussing maths with Natalie Portman?

Depends on what exactly is being talked about. I will get into a technical discussion on special functions with really anyone if I can learn something from it. (although then the other one needs to know some stuff about the subject)

Though you'll never seem to discover it CP, love, the love between two human beings is one of the most incredible thing this world has to offer. Denying yourself that is simply...foolish...

Incredibly stupid, you mean; I find love (and these emotions in general) very strange and incongruous with everything else in human affairs, really the odd one out. It is effectively just a relic from an older era when civilizations were just starting up. Ah well, I'm not going to try and change it; I am well satisfied with my math.

[Stryke 9]

Actually, the story I heard is that we're still heating up from the previous Ice Age, and that a good amount of the global warming people attribute to pollution really has nothing to do with people at all...

I don't know about this whole "we're killing the planet!!!" line, anyway. The Earth's pretty damn hard to kill, as is a good amount of the life on it.

In case you weren't aware, species die all the time, and somehow life has pulled its way through a history that is really nothing more than one massive planetary crisis after another. WE are the current equivalents of a meteor or an ice age. Don't feel bad; "civilization" will deal with itself before the planet goes critical, and life will go on without us.

Unless we blow the ****er up.

[Zeronet]

Scientists are split 50/50 on whether global warming actually exists. The amount of CO2 we put in through industry is like 0.2% of the total. I cant find the exact number, because google is being stupid and keeps comming up with totally unrelated stuff.

[wEvil]

Originally posted by CP5670

You have not seen my way of looking at these things yet.

Right back at ya mate.  You haven't seen my way of looking at things either.  Call it a left-hemisphere dominance but mathematics hasnt been able to predict human behaviours on either a personal or crowd level, barring the physical effects of pushing people about - and even then its only as accurate as how recursive your calculations are.

[Stryke 9]

I know that car exhaust actually DOES do a large amount...

But honestly, even in the realm of human-related evils, global warming hardly registers. Termite farts supposedly contribute about as much as we do, and burning down rainforests, bulldozing any usable land, dumping toxic waste practically everywhere (including where we live- I'm out near a largish road, you wouldn't imagine the chemical stink when I walk down parts of it), etc... and you're complaining about some tenth of a degree that might have something to do with anything?

Sorry, but no. More things get killed via roadkill than global warming.

[CP5670]

Right back at ya mate.  You haven't seen my way of looking at things either.  Call it a left-hemisphere dominance but mathematics hasnt been able to predict human behaviours on either a personal or crowd level, barring the physical effects of pushing people about - and even then its only as accurate as how recursive your calculations are.

The crowd level thing has definitely been done, even without any math; sufficiently large crowds (mobs) are indeed pretty predictable. But that is not important; can you actually show that it is impossible to do so? Since throughout human history math has been able to do more than any other system of thought out there, I am going to assume for the moment that it is capable of doing these other trivial things as well (given enough time) instead of just giving up without trying. After all it is just a matter of analyzing the particle positions within a brain more precisely.

[wEvil]

however to argue your point the uncertainty principle states measuring the particles in the brain with that accuracy is an entirely impossible task?

Indeed, in order to correctly simulate a brain one would have to first simulate the entire universe down to the smallest (in)comphrehensible detail - a feat impossible even for you, i daresay.

Instead of attempting to apply mathematics to such a condition, does it not make more sense to apply intiution?  Granted, its not a quantifiable commodity however hollistically speaking it may wind up to be a similar situation as what has happened with the competing string theories - IE, they simply turn out to be two different ends of the same "equation" called life.

[Stryke 9]

Define "intuition".

[CP5670]

however to argue your point the uncertainty principle states measuring the particles in the brain with that accuracy is an entirely impossible task?

You are right that it might be impossible, but it is still better than any other method we have. Although this is all irrelevant; we are getting into the details of whether the laws can be discovered by humans, but all that really matters for our purposes here is whether or not the laws have an absolute existence. The science axioms at least say that they do and that a true unified theory can exist.

Indeed, in order to correctly simulate a brain one would have to first simulate the entire universe down to the smallest (in)comphrehensible detail - a feat impossible even for you, i daresay.

That is true, but the same goes for anything else actually. Even to simulate a ball dropping absolutely precisely you would need everything else in the universe since these things are all dependent on each other. For practical purposes a reasonably accurate simulation is not entirely unrealistic.

Instead of attempting to apply mathematics to such a condition, does it not make more sense to apply intiution?  Granted, its not a quantifiable commodity however hollistically speaking it may wind up to be a similar situation as what has happened with the competing string theories - IE, they simply turn out to be two different ends of the same "equation" called life.

But intuition is not objective at all, because everyone gets different results with it, and there is no way to determine which intuitive answer is the right one.

[wEvil]

why dont you define it first?

But very well, i'll humour you.

Intuition, as far as my understanding goes, is the extrapolation through no logical means of a timeline, IE, being able to accurately predict the future from whats going on around you.

Wether that occurs simply through your obervation of body language and voice inflexion, or whether it occurs through auras, or whether its a totally new sixth/seventh/eighth sense doesnt really matter.

[01010]

Originally posted by StrykeIX
Unless we blow the ****er up.

I second that motion.

[wEvil]

Originally posted by CP5670

You are right that it might be impossible, but it is still better than any other method we have. Although this is all irrelevant; we are getting into the details of whether the laws can be discovered by humans, but all that really matters for our purposes here is whether or not the laws have an absolute existence. The science axioms at least say that they do and that a true unified theory can exist.

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?

That is true, but the same goes for anything else actually. Even to simulate a ball dropping absolutely precisely you would need everything else in the universe since these things are all dependent on each other. For practical purposes a reasonably accurate simulation is not entirely unrealistic.

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!

But intuition is not objective at all, because everyone gets different results with it, and there is no way to determine which intuitive answer is the right one. /quote]

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.

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.

[Stryke 9]

wEvil: Hmm... you mean good guesswork.

You might not notice it, but everything you do has a logical foundation, by the way. The brain is ultimately a computer, at least as far as modern biochemistry can tell. A fiendishly complex one, with one neuron not always knowing what the one next to it is doing (figuratively), and a bit inefficient, so that the result can be utterly illogical at times. But the way it goes about recieving its illogical result always is quite logical, and can often be traced back.

It'd take a long time to give an example on this, and I'm kinda tired, but I'll bet CP has a good idea what I'm talking about, or that someone here does, and they can take it from here if they wish to.