Serious question: is the whole point just that discordia is nonsense, or is there something more to it? I've been into the eastern religions for a while now, as well as the conspiracy/23 stuff, for a while now. So, what's up with discordianism?
It is both a load of nonsense and also there's more to it than that. Take away from Discordia what you will, because there isn't any solid doctrine to follow (except for thinking for yourself, but that is more a heavy-handed suggestion.)
Hey if you really wanna know more about Discorida check out this cool website:
http://www.principiadiscordia.com/forum/index.php?topic=12132.0
QuoteWhat the shit is all of this?
Mostly dead cells and bacteria.
To understand discordianism, you first need to understand discordianism.
No, really, you should probably consult an expert on the subject. Just don't trust anyone that calls themselves an expert because that makes them a liar and a fraud, which is what allows them to be so good at it.
I see it kind of like Eastern philosophy without gurus, and you get to fuck with people. :p
Quote from: Anna Mae Bollocks on August 19, 2011, 06:34:21 AM
I see it kind of like Eastern philosophy without gurus, and you get to fuck with people. :p
Alternatively it's like a bunch of gurus with no philosophy. :lulz:
A discordian results from the violent relaxation of the mind.
Y'know how everyone's always on about 'the light path' and 'the dark path' and 'the true path'? Discordia is all the landscape between the paths that too many people ignore on their single-minded journey down the beaten track.
Quote from: Cardinal Pizza Deliverance. on August 19, 2011, 07:04:29 AM
Y'know how everyone's always on about 'the light path' and 'the dark path' and 'the true path'? Discordia is all the landscape between the paths that too many people ignore on their single-minded journey down the beaten track.
I think this is a good way to look at it, except the off-path is filled with feces and the trees keep trying to butt fuck you.
Quote from: Eater of Clowns on August 19, 2011, 07:10:16 AM
Quote from: Cardinal Pizza Deliverance. on August 19, 2011, 07:04:29 AM
Y'know how everyone's always on about 'the light path' and 'the dark path' and 'the true path'? Discordia is all the landscape between the paths that too many people ignore on their single-minded journey down the beaten track.
I think this is a good way to look at it, except the off-path is filled with feces and the trees keep trying to butt fuck you.
Pretty much.
Quote from: COL Coyote on August 19, 2011, 06:38:07 AM
Quote from: Anna Mae Bollocks on August 19, 2011, 06:34:21 AM
I see it kind of like Eastern philosophy without gurus, and you get to fuck with people. :p
Alternatively it's like a bunch of gurus with no philosophy. :lulz:
"Those who dance are often considered insane by those who cannot hear the music." -Hung Mung, 3rd Century BCE
In a Universe where our national Atomic Weapons Ethics handbook included references to YHWH obliterating its enemies in balefire without taking any mana burn.... where the Law is bargaining with drug cartels using "Get (Ignored) Out of Jail Free" cards in exchange for intel on their rivals (re-gifted, mind you, and covered in the cocaine residue left from the last shmuck to use it)....
....where someone with millions in the bank actually proposes an ATLAS SHRUGGED THEMEPARK (
for Goddess' Sake, where's-my-f-ing-knife) within the same 24 months of the Atlas Shrugged Movie
BOMING like the deluded Oslo psudeo-neo-Templaring idiot....
....a Universe where we've moved waaaay past the Military Industrial Complex to the Conspiritainment Complex, where some of us _ARE_ living in the future (it just hasn't been even distributed yet), where individual citizens are used to farm and sell
debt on a national scale (like a bankster's Farmville on Facebook... oh you know they're doing that after the oh, so exhausting E-Trade commercial..click-clikc-click-click), and we seriously consider electing people who taking about "trading carbon emission credits"....
....it's a universe where the While House Chief of Staff remarks about a War Action (the Iraqi War, btw): "From a marketing point of view, you don't introduce new products in August."..... but it's
also a Universe where no-body remembers that because they yanked down pt.1 of the
America's Got Talent's Season Finale from Hulu.com
after only 24 hours,
and fuck people are pissed they didn't get to see those acts perform.
In these Strange Times (http://cramul.us/2010/09/weirdness-in-the-strange-times/), if you really need a friendly guiding hand, are you really going to quibble over weather he's a Taoist in a Clown suit, an Admiral in the Floating Republic of Mu, or a Dinosaur Shaman in a Pith Helmet (hush now, dinosaurs were real creatures, not like those
other stories)?
:evil:
I like this thread.
In just 11 posts it's been more effective than any high colonic you can find on the Free MarketTM
Chao te Ching
Chapter 64
Organized things cause Disorder.
Disorganized things cry for Order.
The colorful and flashy get noticed.
The wary and wise wear camouflage.
A mindfuck of epic proportions
only happens when no one notices the set-up.
Most games are won
when using misdirection.
Let other people
wave their flags and storm the riot shields.
You're not playing that game;
Those game rules were written by Authority.
There is no way you can win at that.
Therefore the wise spags learn all the rules,
and then write different games.
They create the Illusion
that best fits their situation,
and doing so, win.
Chapter 81
Words are not experiences.
Experiences have no words.
Reading about Laughter
is not the same as laughing.
These Orderly letters only approximate
the spinning Chaos of life.
The Disorder around you
has yet to find a pattern.
Now get out there
and make something happen.
Discordia is what's left after it all falls apart.
Its a scam, we are a front for the church of scientology, which as we all know is a front for the Illuminati.
Quote from: Surround on August 19, 2011, 04:16:11 AM
Serious question: is the whole point just that discordia is nonsense, or is there something more to it? I've been into the eastern religions for a while now, as well as the conspiracy/23 stuff, for a while now. So, what's up with discordianism?
It's a mirror
Quote from: Cramulus on August 19, 2011, 02:11:30 PM
Quote from: Surround on August 19, 2011, 04:16:11 AM
Serious question: is the whole point just that discordia is nonsense, or is there something more to it? I've been into the eastern religions for a while now, as well as the conspiracy/23 stuff, for a while now. So, what's up with discordianism?
It's a mirror
Bullshit. All I see a monkey looking out!
Quote from: Surround on August 19, 2011, 04:16:11 AM
Serious question: is the whole point just that discordia is nonsense, or is there something more to it? I've been into the eastern religions for a while now, as well as the conspiracy/23 stuff, for a while now. So, what's up with discordianism?
It's all a fucking joke. That's why we have 3 subforums with nothing but content and ideas in them.
Quote from: Surround on August 19, 2011, 04:16:11 AM
Serious question: is the whole point just that discordia is nonsense, or is there something more to it? I've been into the eastern religions for a while now, as well as the conspiracy/23 stuff, for a while now. So, what's up with discordianism?
Don't bother reading anything or looking around the forum; you already know as much as you need to know about it.
Quote from: Nigel on August 19, 2011, 03:47:51 PM
Quote from: Surround on August 19, 2011, 04:16:11 AM
Serious question: is the whole point just that discordia is nonsense, or is there something more to it? I've been into the eastern religions for a while now, as well as the conspiracy/23 stuff, for a while now. So, what's up with discordianism?
Don't bother reading anything or looking around the forum; you already know as much as you need to know about it.
Truth be told, you probably (by now)know a lot more than you need to know about it. The only way to cauterise the gaping holes left in your brain (Or at the very least, stop them getting any bigger) is to browse through this thread, and let the gently therapeutic images and links work their healing mahdgjicks on your poor, tortured soul.
Eventually, you'll start Giggling. Then you know you've really "Got it".
http://www.principiadiscordia.com/forum/index.php?topic=13574.0
Quote from: BadBeast on August 19, 2011, 04:21:51 PM
Quote from: Nigel on August 19, 2011, 03:47:51 PM
Quote from: Surround on August 19, 2011, 04:16:11 AM
Serious question: is the whole point just that discordia is nonsense, or is there something more to it? I've been into the eastern religions for a while now, as well as the conspiracy/23 stuff, for a while now. So, what's up with discordianism?
Don't bother reading anything or looking around the forum; you already know as much as you need to know about it.
Truth be told, you probably (by now)know a lot more than you need to know about it. The only way to cauterise the gaping holes left in your brain (Or at the very least, stop them getting any bigger) is to browse through this thread, and let the gently therapeutic images and links work their healing mahdgjicks on your poor, tortured soul.
Eventually, you'll start Giggling. Then you know you've really "Got it".
http://www.principiadiscordia.com/forum/index.php?topic=13574.0
You're a terrible human being, BB. (And I say that with all due affection.) Link is, I must note, NSFW.
Quote from: Cramulus on August 19, 2011, 02:11:30 PM
Quote from: Surround on August 19, 2011, 04:16:11 AM
Serious question: is the whole point just that discordia is nonsense, or is there something more to it? I've been into the eastern religions for a while now, as well as the conspiracy/23 stuff, for a while now. So, what's up with discordianism?
It's a mirror
Aha! This explains why all of us are so fucking HAWT!
Quote from: Triple Zero on August 19, 2011, 05:50:55 PM
Quote from: Cramulus on August 19, 2011, 02:11:30 PM
Quote from: Surround on August 19, 2011, 04:16:11 AM
Serious question: is the whole point just that discordia is nonsense, or is there something more to it? I've been into the eastern religions for a while now, as well as the conspiracy/23 stuff, for a while now. So, what's up with discordianism?
It's a mirror
Aha! This explains why all of us are so fucking HAWT!
(http://i748.photobucket.com/albums/xx128/ChuckFukmuk/9GAG/sun.jpg)
Quote from: Surround on August 19, 2011, 04:16:11 AM
So, what's up with discordianism?
It's doing fine I guess, just look at us.
Quote from: Surround on August 19, 2011, 04:16:11 AM
Serious question: is the whole point just that discordia is nonsense, or is there something more to it? I've been into the eastern religions for a while now, as well as the conspiracy/23 stuff, for a while now. So, what's up with discordianism?
Anything that can be summarized into a "point" is too simplistic when measured up against this crazy universe we live in.
Discordians* recognize that no matter how exclusive your guest list, Lady Discordia always shows up anyway - and the harder she has to work to get in, the more pissy she usually is when she arrives. This applies to social groups, software products, universes, and philo/theo/ideo-ologies.
You will not find any of those without some element of discord, self-contradiction, or general craziness inherent in them. If your worldview is consistent, you're probably a foolish hobgoblin living in a small mind or however that saying goes.
(*by "Discordians" I mean people who think sufficiently like me)
I'm here for the free punch.
(http://i55.tinypic.com/mb71qh.gif)
Quote from: BadBeast on August 19, 2011, 04:21:51 PM
Quote from: Nigel on August 19, 2011, 03:47:51 PM
Quote from: Surround on August 19, 2011, 04:16:11 AM
Serious question: is the whole point just that discordia is nonsense, or is there something more to it? I've been into the eastern religions for a while now, as well as the conspiracy/23 stuff, for a while now. So, what's up with discordianism?
Don't bother reading anything or looking around the forum; you already know as much as you need to know about it.
Truth be told, you probably (by now)know a lot more than you need to know about it. The only way to cauterise the gaping holes left in your brain (Or at the very least, stop them getting any bigger) is to browse through this thread, and let the gently therapeutic images and links work their healing mahdgjicks on your poor, tortured soul.
Eventually, you'll start Giggling. Then you know you've really "Got it".
http://www.principiadiscordia.com/forum/index.php?topic=13574.0
That link is off limits to me. Is this some kind of club that I'm not in? Can I have the secret handshake?
Quote from: Surround on August 20, 2011, 04:11:30 AM
Quote from: BadBeast on August 19, 2011, 04:21:51 PM
Quote from: Nigel on August 19, 2011, 03:47:51 PM
Quote from: Surround on August 19, 2011, 04:16:11 AM
Serious question: is the whole point just that discordia is nonsense, or is there something more to it? I've been into the eastern religions for a while now, as well as the conspiracy/23 stuff, for a while now. So, what's up with discordianism?
Don't bother reading anything or looking around the forum; you already know as much as you need to know about it.
Truth be told, you probably (by now)know a lot more than you need to know about it. The only way to cauterise the gaping holes left in your brain (Or at the very least, stop them getting any bigger) is to browse through this thread, and let the gently therapeutic images and links work their healing mahdgjicks on your poor, tortured soul.
Eventually, you'll start Giggling. Then you know you've really "Got it".
http://www.principiadiscordia.com/forum/index.php?topic=13574.0
That link is off limits to me. Is this some kind of club that I'm not in? Can I have the secret handshake?
OSHIT
BUSTED!!!
Just post a bunch more and you'll see it. Shouldn't take long.
Quote from: Surround on August 20, 2011, 04:11:30 AM
Quote from: BadBeast on August 19, 2011, 04:21:51 PM
Quote from: Nigel on August 19, 2011, 03:47:51 PM
Quote from: Surround on August 19, 2011, 04:16:11 AM
Serious question: is the whole point just that discordia is nonsense, or is there something more to it? I've been into the eastern religions for a while now, as well as the conspiracy/23 stuff, for a while now. So, what's up with discordianism?
Don't bother reading anything or looking around the forum; you already know as much as you need to know about it.
Truth be told, you probably (by now)know a lot more than you need to know about it. The only way to cauterise the gaping holes left in your brain (Or at the very least, stop them getting any bigger) is to browse through this thread, and let the gently therapeutic images and links work their healing mahdgjicks on your poor, tortured soul.
Eventually, you'll start Giggling. Then you know you've really "Got it".
http://www.principiadiscordia.com/forum/index.php?topic=13574.0
That link is off limits to me. Is this some kind of club that I'm not in? Can I have the secret handshake?
Oh fer fuxake! Who told him about the handshake?
(http://i748.photobucket.com/albums/xx128/ChuckFukmuk/2224.jpg)
(Not that handshake, the other one. The one that definitely isn't this one)
Probability of poptard approaching 80%.
Quote from: BadBeast on August 19, 2011, 06:05:29 PM
Quote from: Triple Zero on August 19, 2011, 05:50:55 PM
Quote from: Cramulus on August 19, 2011, 02:11:30 PM
Quote from: Surround on August 19, 2011, 04:16:11 AM
Serious question: is the whole point just that discordia is nonsense, or is there something more to it? I've been into the eastern religions for a while now, as well as the conspiracy/23 stuff, for a while now. So, what's up with discordianism?
It's a mirror
Aha! This explains why all of us are so fucking HAWT!
(http://i748.photobucket.com/albums/xx128/ChuckFukmuk/9GAG/sun.jpg)
Yes, THAT motherfucker. Kill it.
Stella
Has been sweating balls since March.
Quote from: Doktor Howl on August 20, 2011, 05:26:54 AM
Probability of poptard approaching 80%.
I don't think so. The grammar and spelling and punctuation aren't the same, and it's all fluid and not some dude banging in here all CRAZY like and then busting our ass for being dillholes. This guy, so far, has just asked a question that only reveals he didn't read the forum (okay, faux pas) and doen't know what to take away from the PD.
The above is my opinion, and nothing more, and I'll take your bet if you're making one this time. :lulz:
Quote from: Jenkem and SPACE/TIME on August 20, 2011, 06:20:21 AM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on August 20, 2011, 05:26:54 AM
Probability of poptard approaching 80%.
I don't think so. The grammar and spelling and punctuation aren't the same, and it's all fluid and not some dude banging in here all CRAZY like and then busting our ass for being dillholes. This guy, so far, has just asked a question that only reveals he didn't read the forum (okay, faux pas) and doen't know what to take away from the PD.
The above is my opinion, and nothing more, and I'll take your bet if you're making one this time. :lulz:
I took a brief look at the forum and only saw chaos. Also I don't know what a poptard is. If it has to do with poptarts, I am, of course, interested.
Anyway I think I got a flash of insight this morning when I woke up. I've noticed in the past that you can't really seem to force things to happen. Making plans seems to be useless, and the good shit always seems to come of its own accord. This is how I've tended to live and things have always worked out. Am I on the right track?
Quote from: Surround on August 20, 2011, 06:05:04 PM
Quote from: Jenkem and SPACE/TIME on August 20, 2011, 06:20:21 AM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on August 20, 2011, 05:26:54 AM
Probability of poptard approaching 80%.
I don't think so. The grammar and spelling and punctuation aren't the same, and it's all fluid and not some dude banging in here all CRAZY like and then busting our ass for being dillholes. This guy, so far, has just asked a question that only reveals he didn't read the forum (okay, faux pas) and doen't know what to take away from the PD.
The above is my opinion, and nothing more, and I'll take your bet if you're making one this time. :lulz:
I took a brief look at the forum and only saw chaos. Also I don't know what a poptard is. If it has to do with poptarts, I am, of course, interested.
Anyway I think I got a flash of insight this morning when I woke up. I've noticed in the past that you can't really seem to force things to happen. Making plans seems to be useless, and the good shit always seems to come of its own accord. This is how I've tended to live and things have always worked out. Am I on the right track?
Well, yes and no.
And yes, the forum is chaos. Within the chaos is patterns, and if you look for the patterns long enough they will emerge and possibly even make sense.
Discordia is a complete philosophy, and as such cannot easily be summed up in a sentence or two. If you haven't read the Principia Discordia, that would be the place to start: http://www.principiadiscordia.com/book/1.php (Keep in mind that it was written by stoned hippies. It comes off as gimmicky because it WAS; this book is the origin of that particular pinealist shtick). After that, maybe try Zen Without Zen Masters (http://www.scribd.com/doc/27601605/Zen-Without-Zen-Masters) and The Black Iron Prison (http://www.principiadiscordia.com/bip/1.php). All three are easy, quick reads. If you're still interested after that, there is no shortage of other book recommendations, for sure, and also by that point the forum should be making a lot more sense to you.
Quote from: Surround on August 19, 2011, 04:16:11 AM
Serious question: is the whole point just that discordia is nonsense, or is there something more to it? I've been into the eastern religions for a while now, as well as the conspiracy/23 stuff, for a while now. So, what's up with discordianism?
Yeah, there's nonsense, but it's not a gimmick, if that's what you're asking. Like Nigel said, it's a complete philosophy/worldview, and can't be summed up in simple statements. Kinda like when people try to sum up Philosophical Taoism and end up sounding stupid. It /is/, in many ways, similar to Eastern religions in requiring self discovery and self-delivered "enlightenment" (mysticism, if you will). Different people take away different things.
I was going to add a "what Discordia means to me" statement here, but it would have probably been misleading.
Quote from: ϗ, M.S. on August 20, 2011, 07:58:14 PM
I was going to add a "what Discordia means to me" statement here, but it would have probably been misleading.
:lulz: :lulz: :lulz: :lulz: :lulz: :fnord:
I wouldn't go so far as to say that Discordianism is a complete worldview, because humans are always capable of incorporating more crazy bullshit into what they believe.
But as a Worldview, Discordianism is perfectly suited to take on board all the crazy bullshit you could ever find. And still have room for a dozen David Icke's worths of blisteringly ridiculous 'What the Fuck'. The Good Ship Discordia, will quite happily sail all day long, where the Pequod, and poor mad Ahab crumpled under the burden of fractured minds.
In fact, fractured minds are what our bulging mainsail uses to plough through the very roughest of ocean swells. And don't even get me started on unfurling the Spinnakers, and the Jibsheets!
ETA; All aboard? Shudder me timbers Lads, there's a tide to catch!
Discordianisim is when you have a trusted mistrust for what you are seeing, hearing, tasting, feeling, and smelling. Including when people tell you there are only five senses.
Quote from: Golden Applesauce on August 21, 2011, 07:35:30 PM
I wouldn't go so far as to say that Discordianism is a complete worldview, because humans are always capable of incorporating more crazy bullshit into what they believe.
"Complete" doesn't mean "finished", it means "whole". It can grow and develop, but it doesn't have any gaping holes.
Define "gaping holes" :eek:
"Gaping holes" in a worldview are the kind of holes you can't use for sexytimes.
Quote from: iarmit on August 23, 2011, 10:11:20 PM
Define "gaping holes" :eek:
It covers all of human experience.
Quote from: iarmit on August 23, 2011, 10:11:20 PM
Define "gaping holes" :eek:
Don't make us post Goatse.
Gaping holes.
http://www.principiadiscordia.com/forum/index.php?topic=29991.new;topicseen#new
NSFW
Quote from: BadBeast on August 24, 2011, 05:16:39 AM
Gaping holes.
http://www.principiadiscordia.com/forum/index.php?topic=29991.new;topicseen#new
DUDE NSFW
IM MARKING THIS NSFW NOW TOO
(http://i209.photobucket.com/albums/bb163/wompcabal/sfw/Safeforwork6.png)
Something tells me i came at the perfect time... hey look in the tree over there... what is that?
:? Me after reading the Principia the first time
:argh!: me trying to get some guy off...
:lulz: current mood or something...
:eek: this is what happened due to the growing concern ov the Book of Eris
:evilmad: DAMN THE CURSE OV GREYFACE! :kingmeh: <<<<< run it is here... :aaa: :horrormirth: I died...
:lol: :craig:
Quote from: KaaosovCyn on November 16, 2011, 11:14:49 AM
Something tells me i came at the perfect time... hey look in the tree over there... what is that?
:? Me after reading the Principia the first time
:argh!: me trying to get some guy off...
:lulz: current mood or something...
:eek: this is what happened due to the growing concern ov the Book of Eris
:evilmad: DAMN THE CURSE OV GREYFACE! :kingmeh: <<<<< run it is here... :aaa: :horrormirth: I died...
:lol: :craig:
I'm going to state that this is poptart, because I have trouble dealing with a world where someone can be THIS FUCKING STUPID FOR REAL and live past age 6.
yeahhhhh it looks like somebody's been eating blowing pixie sticks for breakfast again.
Quote from: KaaosovCyn on November 16, 2011, 11:14:49 AM
Something tells me i came at the perfect time... hey look in the tree over there... what is that?
:? Me after reading the Principia the first time
:argh!: me trying to get some guy off...
:lulz: current mood or something...
:eek: this is what happened due to the growing concern ov the Book of Eris
:evilmad: DAMN THE CURSE OV GREYFACE! :kingmeh: <<<<< run it is here... :aaa: :horrormirth: I died...
:lol: :craig:
Random question: why the fuck to you use "ov" instead of "of"? Because I don't think I've seen you use the correct word at all.
Quote from: Secret Agent GARBO on November 16, 2011, 04:21:33 PM
Quote from: KaaosovCyn on November 16, 2011, 11:14:49 AM
Something tells me i came at the perfect time... hey look in the tree over there... what is that?
:? Me after reading the Principia the first time
:argh!: me trying to get some guy off...
:lulz: current mood or something...
:eek: this is what happened due to the growing concern ov the Book of Eris
:evilmad: DAMN THE CURSE OV GREYFACE! :kingmeh: <<<<< run it is here... :aaa: :horrormirth: I died...
:lol: :craig:
Random question: why the fuck to you use "ov" instead of "of"? Because I don't think I've seen you use the correct word at all.
Heze probablee a Kayos Majishun. Thay nevre seme tuu wont tuu spel aneethyng korrektlee.
ETA: forr eggzampl: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Temple_ov_Psychick_Youth
Ugh. Thanks for the link.
The universe consists of only two elements, Magick and Bullshit.
This is the Magick, everything else is Bullshit
Quote from: wudgar on November 19, 2011, 09:18:26 PM
The universe consists of only two elements, Magick and Bullshit.
This is the Magick, everything else is Bullshit
Binary systems are doomed to the void.
Magick is also bullshit.
yes, indeed, but it's all bullshit was really my point, you see
\
(http://donignacio.tripod.com/cleese8.jpg)
Ah, but my point was that not all bullshit is Magick. Lots of it is just the shite of a Bull. Some of it is actually plain Cowshit, just pretending to be bullshit. Some of it is magick, pretending to be any other old shit you want it to be. But it all makes your Garden grow. Or it should do. (Unless you concreted it over to make a carport. Then it just stinks the place up)
i dunno man, sounds like you're bullshitting me.
As if I would! You wound me with your suspicion. Deeply. I was only trying to help.
(http://i748.photobucket.com/albums/xx128/ChuckFukmuk/GIFS/eyeball.jpg)
Eta:
(http://i748.photobucket.com/albums/xx128/ChuckFukmuk/Landover%20emotes/bomb.gif) (http://i748.photobucket.com/albums/xx128/ChuckFukmuk/Landover%20emotes/rtfm.gif) What the shit is all of this? (http://i748.photobucket.com/albums/xx128/ChuckFukmuk/Landover%20emotes/confused.gif)(http://i748.photobucket.com/albums/xx128/ChuckFukmuk/Landover%20emotes/scenic.gif) :fnord:
Sorry friend, I meant no wounds. I think I see where this is going and don't have it in me to continue.
I was only funnin' wit you. I got hide like a Rhino. I sometimes forget not everyone else has. I never meant to be going anywhere with it, it's just bullshit. Sorry for jacking the thread, please, continue.
Oh, for the record, I'm all for funnin. I thought maybe this was SERIOUS BUSINESS (which is also bullshit)
Nah, serious shit's far too serious to get serious about. Especially when there's a whole bunch of other shit to consider.
Quote from: Surround on August 19, 2011, 04:16:11 AM
Serious question: is the whole point just that discordia is nonsense, or is there something more to it? I've been into the eastern religions for a while now, as well as the conspiracy/23 stuff, for a while now. So, what's up with discordianism?
Discordianism isn't nonsense. Everything else is.
TGRR,
Knows it's never too late to reply.
Quote from: BadBeast on August 21, 2011, 08:20:18 PM
But as a Worldview, Discordianism is perfectly suited to take on board all the crazy bullshit you could ever find.
This was, apparently, a mistaken comment.
Quote from: Faust on August 19, 2011, 01:36:33 PM
Its a scam, we are a front for the church of scientology, which as we all know is a front for the Illuminati.
I think my thetans got lost in the mail.
If I send you my SSN and bank account info, will that expedite the process?
Ask your pineapple gland :D
Ask your Aunt Gertrude.
Fuck you, my Aunt Gertrude died from not knowing all of this shit.
If you took a bong to the services would that be like a Wake and Bake?
No, that would be a Dick Move.
Quote from: Surround on August 19, 2011, 04:16:11 AM
Serious question: is the whole point just that discordia is nonsense, or is there something more to it? I've been into the eastern religions for a while now, as well as the conspiracy/23 stuff, for a while now. So, what's up with discordianism?
Sarcastic answer: Eastern religions concern themselves with unraveling the riddle of one hand clapping. Discordia concerns itself with tightening the knot of the concept of one hand fapping.
Egghead answer: Discordianism arose as a conscious attempt for a certain breed of person to break themselves and others out of conditioned, (self) destructive, narcissistic, painful, degrading, and self-defeating states of mind, seeing such states of mind as arising as the end-product of logic (the science of finding inner consistencies among concepts) applied against untested or unknowable - and therefore assumed - axioms. Discordia uses absurdity and "nonsense" as a way of breaking the links in the aforementioned states and allowing the user to transform his or her personal thoughtspace and affect their life with a scope of artistry that they feel brings greater wellness to themselves and others.
Example: Theo-logic told me, for the first two decades of my life, that I would burn in Hell unless I made my personality congruent with its proscription of a godly follower. Politico-logic told and continues to tell me that the world consists of bands of adversaries against my nation-tribe, and I must pick sub-tribes (political parties) and tune my spirits to love the accidental formulations of my nation-state (patriotism). Econo-logic tells me that I must work and toil and scrape a third of my waking hours every day until decrepitude, that consumption of pre-fabricated and pre-packaged sets of goods and information make up the whole of existence and purpose. As a result I, and some others like me, spent far too long feeling guilty, fearful, and stress-broken, before deciding to take an alternative path. Now I make dick jokes about the Holy Spirit, mail boxes of rocks to my Congressman, and plaster my office with felt-cutouts of Kirby.
All problems solved with Discordia? Hell no. The game's still crooked, but at least I have a better hand.
I'm no pope, but I've read Principia Discordia once as a philosophy student, and then read it again recently when I was more into spirituality and magical phenomenon. The book served as an excellent read when I was in both states of mind. It has a light-hearted, yet powerful effect when read as a philosophy for ontological purposes. And similarly it serves as an excellent guide to people exploring consciousness in both the psychedelic and magical/spiritual side of things.
A fundamental thing to focus on, is that there isn't really many fundamental things to focus on. To say that there is something that is "Correct" and it is up to us to continually explain how correct it is, is insanity. All we truly know, is that we are here trying to figure out why we're here. We are simply parts of the Universe, and we are trying to discover the origins of the Universe, so therefore, one could say, that the Universe is trying to discover itself. Thus, it may not be entirely absurd to say, that if you focus on discovering your true heart, rather than listening to everybody else as far as the "Correct" way to be, then maybe you're doing the Universe a favor. This is, at least, the reason I perceive that most Discordians agree that Eris (Goddess of Chaos) is the ultimate law. A law of lawlessness cannot be thrown.
Quote from: omnihil on March 31, 2014, 03:06:10 AM
I'm no pope, but I've read Principia Discordia once as a philosophy student, and then read it again recently when I was more into spirituality and magical phenomenon. The book served as an excellent read when I was in both states of mind. It has a light-hearted, yet powerful effect when read as a philosophy for ontological purposes. And similarly it serves as an excellent guide to people exploring consciousness in both the psychedelic and magical/spiritual side of things.
A fundamental thing to focus on, is that there isn't really many fundamental things to focus on. To say that there is something that is "Correct" and it is up to us to continually explain how correct it is, is insanity. All we truly know, is that we are here trying to figure out why we're here. We are simply parts of the Universe, and we are trying to discover the origins of the Universe, so therefore, one could say, that the Universe is trying to discover itself. Thus, it may not be entirely absurd to say, that if you focus on discovering your true heart, rather than listening to everybody else as far as the "Correct" way to be, then maybe you're doing the Universe a favor. This is, at least, the reason I perceive that most Discordians agree that Eris (Goddess of Chaos) is the ultimate law. A law of lawlessness cannot be thrown.
Also, don't let me tell you what this is about. I was simply sharing a cup of coffee with you just then. There are things beyond our comprehension, and when you're okay with that, it's a good start.
Quote from: omnihil on March 31, 2014, 03:06:10 AM
This is, at least, the reason I perceive that most Discordians agree that Eris (Goddess of Chaos) is the ultimate law.
It was good of you to explain who Eris is, otherwise I might have been confused.
Quote from: omnihil on March 31, 2014, 03:12:10 AM
There are things beyond our comprehension, and when you're okay with that, it's a good start.
Name one.
This thread only brings one one thing to mind...once saw a sign, it read, "you bet your ass we're paranoid"
Sorry in advance if that doesn't help any to the Op, that's just my 2 cents, as some people™ say.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on March 31, 2014, 03:13:10 AM
Quote from: omnihil on March 31, 2014, 03:12:10 AM
There are things beyond our comprehension, and when you're okay with that, it's a good start.
Name one.
Well played, sir.
Quote from: LMNO, PhD (life continues) on March 31, 2014, 12:12:25 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on March 31, 2014, 03:13:10 AM
Quote from: omnihil on March 31, 2014, 03:12:10 AM
There are things beyond our comprehension, and when you're okay with that, it's a good start.
Name one.
Well played, sir.
I've always hated that "There are things man wasn't meant to know" shit. SCIENCE, JACKASSES!
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on March 31, 2014, 02:14:34 PM
Quote from: LMNO, PhD (life continues) on March 31, 2014, 12:12:25 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on March 31, 2014, 03:13:10 AM
Quote from: omnihil on March 31, 2014, 03:12:10 AM
There are things beyond our comprehension, and when you're okay with that, it's a good start.
Name one.
Well played, sir.
I've always hated that "There are things man wasn't meant to know" shit. SCIENCE, JACKASSES!
What is the exact mass/energy and position of this particle Alex?
Quote from: Faust on March 31, 2014, 02:17:26 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on March 31, 2014, 02:14:34 PM
Quote from: LMNO, PhD (life continues) on March 31, 2014, 12:12:25 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on March 31, 2014, 03:13:10 AM
Quote from: omnihil on March 31, 2014, 03:12:10 AM
There are things beyond our comprehension, and when you're okay with that, it's a good start.
Name one.
Well played, sir.
I've always hated that "There are things man wasn't meant to know" shit. SCIENCE, JACKASSES!
What is the exact mass/energy and position of this particle Alex?
I didn't say there are things we aren't able to OBSERVE. We KNOW that we can't observe both at the same time.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on March 31, 2014, 02:18:40 PM
Quote from: Faust on March 31, 2014, 02:17:26 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on March 31, 2014, 02:14:34 PM
Quote from: LMNO, PhD (life continues) on March 31, 2014, 12:12:25 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on March 31, 2014, 03:13:10 AM
Quote from: omnihil on March 31, 2014, 03:12:10 AM
There are things beyond our comprehension, and when you're okay with that, it's a good start.
Name one.
Well played, sir.
I've always hated that "There are things man wasn't meant to know" shit. SCIENCE, JACKASSES!
What is the exact mass/energy and position of this particle Alex?
I didn't say there are things we aren't able to OBSERVE. We KNOW that we can't observe both at the same time.
That's true and even then we can put upper and lower limits on both of those to a reasonable limit.
And any time unknowns in science are identified people are immediately working on changing that.
I was going in the direction of the "If we can't comprehend it, how can we comprehend that we can't comprehend it" rabbit hole, but yeah.
Quote from: LMNO, PhD (life continues) on March 31, 2014, 02:22:24 PM
I was going in the direction of the "If we can't comprehend it, how can we comprehend that we can't comprehend it" rabbit hole, but yeah.
Fact is, the whole "WE HAVE LIMITS" is fucking weak, whether those limits are stated by religion or by nihilists.
Quote from: omnihil on March 31, 2014, 03:06:10 AM
We are simply parts of the Universe, and we are trying to discover the origins of the Universe, so therefore, one could say, that the Universe is trying to discover itself. Thus, it may not be entirely absurd to say, that if you focus on discovering your true heart, rather than listening to everybody else as far as the "Correct" way to be, then maybe you're doing the Universe a favor.
I dig that
I like how it also that sleeping till noon and spending Sunday drinking beer and watching reruns IS THE UNIVERSE'S WILL.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on March 31, 2014, 03:13:10 AM
Quote from: omnihil on March 31, 2014, 03:12:10 AM
There are things beyond our comprehension, and when you're okay with that, it's a good start.
Name one.
you will never really be able to comprehend the experience of death, not until its too late
We can know what the universe is like, what it consists of, how it works, but I'm not sure we'll ever know why. Even from a strictly materialist point of view, it still boggles my mind that if you put matter into a jar and shake for long enough, it eventually thinks it's a Self and begins comprehending things. Why is that? Even if we can understand evolution, the mechanisms of consciousness, the steps it took to arrive at sentience -- I can't shake that there's still something metaphysical and mysterious underpinning it.
And then there's subjectivity -- we can never really know what another human is thinking, what their experience is like, we are all (as True Detective put it) the sole residents of a locked room that nobody else will ever enter.
This is part of what the Principia points to as "Chaos" - the raw universe exists outside of our understanding. Knowledge is a map we draw of it so we can get a grip on it, but it's only a model. There is no universe source code where F=ma was declared.
Keeping this knowledge of my own ignorance tucked away in my front pocket is what keeps me fresh and able to reach towards things with the beginner's mind.
Don't get me wrong - I do think the universe operates on rational principals and a lot of its mechanisms can be observed empirically - but that's really only the beginning of knowledge. The particular model of truth we're using is bound to our subjectivity and our technology and processes and our little moment in history. The 'knowable universe' is an ideal, I don't think we'll ever actually solve the riddle and have it all figured out -- there will always be old knowledge which must be upset and a new frontier to research.
Quote from: Cramulus on March 31, 2014, 05:48:15 PM
you will never really be able to comprehend the experience of death, not until its too late
Sez you. I'm not an atheist. I think what happens is that when you get to heaven, everyone points and laughs at the manner of your death. David Carradine, for example, is probably not enjoying the afterlife much.
QuoteWe can know what the universe is like, what it consists of, how it works, but I'm not sure we'll ever know why. Even from a strictly materialist point of view, it still boggles my mind that if you put matter into a jar and shake for long enough, it eventually thinks it's a Self and begins comprehending things. Why is that? Even if we can understand evolution, the mechanisms of consciousness, the steps it took to arrive at sentience -- I can't shake that there's still something metaphysical and mysterious underpinning it.
I agree, to a point. I am more than a (badly tuned and in need of maintenance) meat machine.
QuoteAnd then there's subjectivity -- we can never really know what another human is thinking, what their experience is like, we are all (as True Detective put it) the sole residents of a locked room that nobody else will ever enter.
Okay, I can see that.
QuoteThis is part of what the Principia points to as "Chaos" - the raw universe exists outside of our understanding. Knowledge is a map we draw of it so we can get a grip on it, but it's only a model. There is no universe source code where F=ma was declared.
Now, I don't agree with that, even one bit. Even leaving a supernatural influence out of the equation, the rules of the universe are pretty clear. And though we don't know everything about it, there's no limit to how much we CAN figure out.
QuoteKeeping this knowledge of my own ignorance tucked away in my front pocket is what keeps me fresh and able to reach towards things with the beginner's mind.
Jesus & the Buddha had something to say about that.
QuoteDon't get me wrong - I do think the universe operates on rational principals
Optimist.
Quoteand a lot of its mechanisms can be observed empirically - but that's really only the beginning of knowledge. The particular model of truth we're using is bound to our subjectivity and our technology and processes and our little moment in history. The 'knowable universe' is an ideal, I don't think we'll ever actually solve the riddle and have it all figured out -- there will always be old knowledge which must be upset and a new frontier to research.
Sure...But again, that doesn't imply that there is knowledge we CAN'T learn.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on March 31, 2014, 03:12:45 AM
Quote from: omnihil on March 31, 2014, 03:06:10 AM
This is, at least, the reason I perceive that most Discordians agree that Eris (Goddess of Chaos) is the ultimate law.
It was good of you to explain who Eris is, otherwise I might have been confused.
:bow: :) Indeed, I suppose this was mainly aimed at the OP of this discussion, asking what the shit this all was
Quote from: omnihil on March 31, 2014, 11:51:39 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on March 31, 2014, 03:12:45 AM
Quote from: omnihil on March 31, 2014, 03:06:10 AM
This is, at least, the reason I perceive that most Discordians agree that Eris (Goddess of Chaos) is the ultimate law.
It was good of you to explain who Eris is, otherwise I might have been confused.
:bow: :) Indeed, I suppose this was mainly aimed at the OP of this discussion, asking what the shit this all was
No worries. I'm just an asshat.
Quote from: LMNO, PhD (life continues) on March 31, 2014, 12:12:25 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on March 31, 2014, 03:13:10 AM
Quote from: omnihil on March 31, 2014, 03:12:10 AM
There are things beyond our comprehension, and when you're okay with that, it's a good start.
Name one.
Well played, sir.
I agree, this is a tricky situation, because the moment I begin trying to answer that, we all become dangerously close to comprehending the thing I'm explaining as incomprehensible. Perhaps the better way to make that point, is to say that there is always a possible reality that contradicts our perception of reality while simultaneously explaining why we perceive what we perceive as real. For my typical over-referenced analogy that illustrates this, The Matrix film is a concept where our very thoughts are information fed to us from an external source.
Another example could be, the logical checkmates we run into with science, such as the unsolved mysteries in atomic theory, the even more confusing situations in quantum theory, and things that seem to operate on pure chaos but are most likely just an extremely complicated order that is, well, beyond our comprehension...such as the behavioral patterns of a lightening bolt. We know it's (for the most part) that it's a passing of positive to negative charges in the environment, but is there an explanation to the shape of the lightening bolt itself? Is it just the artwork of the Universe? Why a jagged line instead of a curvy line?
Another example would be the logic behind the pattern of black and white pixels on a television with no signal. We call it snow, and accept that definition and nobody really cares much about what TV snow is, but is there a logic behind the rapid black and white, on and off nature of all those pixels? I know it can be traced to 1's and 0's of electricity, but why that precise pattern of randomness, instead of say, a different pattern of randomness? The pattern that we witness from a TV with no signal can in fact be described and explained by an intelligence of some kind, but where's that map at?
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on March 31, 2014, 11:55:40 PM
Quote from: omnihil on March 31, 2014, 11:51:39 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on March 31, 2014, 03:12:45 AM
Quote from: omnihil on March 31, 2014, 03:06:10 AM
This is, at least, the reason I perceive that most Discordians agree that Eris (Goddess of Chaos) is the ultimate law.
It was good of you to explain who Eris is, otherwise I might have been confused.
:bow: :) Indeed, I suppose this was mainly aimed at the OP of this discussion, asking what the shit this all was
No worries. I'm just an asshat.
Me too
So by "beyond our comprehension" do you mean "I don't yet know this thing" or do you think that we will never know how lightning behaves?
Quote from: omnihil on April 01, 2014, 12:04:04 AM
Quote from: LMNO, PhD (life continues) on March 31, 2014, 12:12:25 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on March 31, 2014, 03:13:10 AM
Quote from: omnihil on March 31, 2014, 03:12:10 AM
There are things beyond our comprehension, and when you're okay with that, it's a good start.
Name one.
Well played, sir.
I agree, this is a tricky situation, because the moment I begin trying to answer that, we all become dangerously close to comprehending the thing I'm explaining as incomprehensible. Perhaps the better way to make that point, is to say that there is always a possible reality that contradicts our perception of reality while simultaneously explaining why we perceive what we perceive as real. For my typical over-referenced analogy that illustrates this, The Matrix film is a concept where our very thoughts are information fed to us from an external source.
And a bloody good thing, too. I mean, live in a dream world, or some horrible nuclear winter where people rave when they should be growing food? YOU DECIDE.
QuoteAnother example could be, the logical checkmates we run into with science, such as the unsolved mysteries in atomic theory, the even more confusing situations in quantum theory, and things that seem to operate on pure chaos but are most likely just an extremely complicated order that is, well, beyond our comprehension...such as the behavioral patterns of a lightening bolt. We know it's (for the most part) that it's a passing of positive to negative charges in the environment, but is there an explanation to the shape of the lightening bolt itself? Is it just the artwork of the Universe? Why a jagged line instead of a curvy line?
Balls. Absolute rubbish. "We haven't figured it out yet" does not mean "logical checkmates" or "unsolvable".
QuoteAnother example would be the logic behind the pattern of black and white pixels on a television with no signal. We call it snow, and accept that definition and nobody really cares much about what TV snow is, but is there a logic behind the rapid black and white, on and off nature of all those pixels? I know it can be traced to 1's and 0's of electricity, but why that precise pattern of randomness, instead of say, a different pattern of randomness? The pattern that we witness from a TV with no signal can in fact be described and explained by an intelligence of some kind, but where's that map at?
If you can find meaning behind TV static, then odds are really good that you're going to spend a lot of time either under observation or under a bridge.
Quote from: Pæs on April 01, 2014, 12:08:32 AM
So by "beyond our comprehension" do you mean "I don't yet know this thing" or do you think that we will never know how lightning behaves?
Lightning will never be understood. Much like magnets. Never will be explained.
The shape certainly isn't dictated by varying humidity causing different layers of resistance to the flow of valence electrons.
Quote from: omnihil on April 01, 2014, 12:04:04 AM
why that precise pattern of randomness, instead of say, a different pattern of randomness?
Solid gold.
Quote from: Pæs on April 01, 2014, 12:12:35 AM
Quote from: omnihil on April 01, 2014, 12:04:04 AM
why that precise pattern of randomness, instead of say, a different pattern of randomness?
Solid gold.
Why is New Zealand?
Because it isn't Bermuda.
(http://i.imgur.com/OWvB0O7.jpg)
Ok, well now that we're on that page for a moment, here is something else that is worth a though or two:
For quick briefing, in mathematics, there is a concept of asymptotes, in which a graphed equation will get closer and closer to a line without ever touching it. I wrote down an idea where Chaos is only an asymptote, nothing is ever truly Random, it just appears random due to the complexity behind it's pattern. In this writing, I mentioned that Chaos is the asymptote on an order with an INFINITE complexity.
To draw this out with examples some more, a line drawn from Point A to Point B is a pattern of simple complexity, and we can comprehend it with our current IQ's. A slightly more complicated pattern would be a line from Point A to Point B to ... Point Y to Point Z. A much more interesting line, yet we can all still see it and understand it. Pump that complexity up a whole lot more, and you have things like say, a hammer. It's an arrangement of matter that we use to hammer things, and with a simple demonstration most men and monkeys can understand how to grab and use a hammer. Increase complexity, and we have automobiles, computers, software designs, and engineering technology. Now, we're getting into the field where some people understand exactly how these things work, but many of us just understand that they do work on some vague principles, not quite fully comprehending it. That's not to say that we couldn't learn how it works entirely, but arguably some of those sciences reach a complexity that is beyond certain people's IQ's.
Now, with this idea rolling, what I'm getting at is, there's no reason to believe that there are patterns of order out there that appear Chaotic simply because they are made from a complexity of patterns beyond our recognition. And in this theory, True Chaos is the same thing as an Order with Infinite Complexity. Infinity itself is hard to pin down, therefore not truly taking away from the nature of Chaos. It just makes one scratch there head when they try to fathom exactly what a pattern of Infinite Complexity would be exactly, is this where ideas such as Choice come into play? Does infinite complexity mean unpredictable? As in, a pattern that rewrites itself indefinitely? Eventually, I get a headache thinking about what roles thought, choice, awareness, etc play in that theory.
Quote from: omnihil on April 01, 2014, 12:26:25 AM
Ok, well now that we're on that page for a moment, here is something else that is worth a though or two:
For quick briefing, in mathematics, there is a concept of asymptotes, in which a graphed equation will get closer and closer to a line without ever touching it. I wrote down an idea where Chaos is only an asymptote, nothing is ever truly Random, it just appears random due to the complexity behind it's pattern. In this writing, I mentioned that Chaos is the asymptote on an order with an INFINITE complexity.
Absolute crap. Below the atomic level, you get true random behavior. That was the whole point of the Schroedinger's cat experiment.
QuoteTo draw this out with examples some more, a line drawn from Point A to Point B is a pattern of simple complexity, and we can comprehend it with our current IQ's.
Speak for yourself; I am an idiot.
QuoteA slightly more complicated pattern would be a line from Point A to Point B to ... Point Y to Point Z. A much more interesting line, yet we can all still see it and understand it. Pump that complexity up a whole lot more, and you have things like say, a hammer. It's an arrangement of matter that we use to hammer things, and will a simple demonstration most men and monkeys can understand how to grab and use a hammer. Increase complexity, and we have automobiles, computers, software designs, and engineering technology. Now, we're getting into the field where some people understand exactly how these things work, but many of us just understand that they do work on some vague principles, not quite fully comprehending it. That's not to say that we couldn't learn how it works entirely, but arguably some of those sciences reach a complexity that is beyond certain people's IQ's.
Smells like Xeno's paradox in a funny dress.
QuoteNow, with this idea rolling, what I'm getting at is, there's no reason to believe that there are patterns of order out there that appear Chaotic simply because they a made from a complexity of patterns beyond our recognition. And in this theory, True Chaos is the same thing as an Order with Infinite Complexity. Infinity itself is hard to pin down, therefore not truly taking away from the nature of Chaos. It just makes one scratch there head when they try to fathom exactly what a pattern of Infinite Complexity would be exactly, is this where ideas such as Choice come into play? Does infinite complexity mean unpredictable? As in, a pattern that rewrites itself indefinitely? Eventually, I get a headache thinking about what roles thought, choice, awareness, etc play in that theory.
Nope. Below the atomic level, there is no underlying order. It's offensive, but all of quantum physics is offensive.
Touche
There's really nothing I can do to argue with you on it. I'm just a mind with this idea, and you're a mind believing that random behavior is truly random. As long as mysteries exist, all facts are up for grabs
Quote from: omnihil on April 01, 2014, 12:32:02 AM
Touche
There's really nothing I can do to argue with you on it. I'm just a mind with this idea, and you're a mind believing that random behavior is truly random. As long as mysteries exist, all facts are up for grabs
I got mysteries.
Like "How come just last week, I was lean and sexy, and suddenly I'm old and horrible?"
And "What the hell did I just crap out? It looks kind of important."
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on April 01, 2014, 12:29:25 AM
Quote from: omnihil on April 01, 2014, 12:26:25 AM
Ok, well now that we're on that page for a moment, here is something else that is worth a though or two:
For quick briefing, in mathematics, there is a concept of asymptotes, in which a graphed equation will get closer and closer to a line without ever touching it. I wrote down an idea where Chaos is only an asymptote, nothing is ever truly Random, it just appears random due to the complexity behind it's pattern. In this writing, I mentioned that Chaos is the asymptote on an order with an INFINITE complexity.
Absolute crap. Below the atomic level, you get true random behavior. That was the whole point of the Schroedinger's cat experiment.
Well, the point of this is, we could be calling it random because we can't perceive an infinite level of complexity, this is something only a god figure could perceive. Calling something Eris to explain randomness, and anthropomorphizing it as a Goddess, is an example of putting a label on a consciousness that could perceive such an "Order" of infinite possibility. Infinite possibility, I would dare say, does not contradict randomness. But now we're just having a terminology debate. Words are words
Quote from: omnihil on April 01, 2014, 12:39:46 AM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on April 01, 2014, 12:29:25 AM
Quote from: omnihil on April 01, 2014, 12:26:25 AM
Ok, well now that we're on that page for a moment, here is something else that is worth a though or two:
For quick briefing, in mathematics, there is a concept of asymptotes, in which a graphed equation will get closer and closer to a line without ever touching it. I wrote down an idea where Chaos is only an asymptote, nothing is ever truly Random, it just appears random due to the complexity behind it's pattern. In this writing, I mentioned that Chaos is the asymptote on an order with an INFINITE complexity.
Absolute crap. Below the atomic level, you get true random behavior. That was the whole point of the Schroedinger's cat experiment.
Well, the point of this is, we could be calling it random because we can't perceive an infinite level of complexity, this is something only a god figure could perceive. Calling something Eris to explain randomness, and anthropomorphizing it as a Goddess, is an example of putting a label on a consciousness that could perceive such an "Order" of infinite possibility. Infinite possibility, I would dare say, does not contradict randomness. But now we're just having a terminology debate. Words are words
Semantics are shit. Atomic decay is truly random, when an individual atom is being observed.
Indeed. Much of that was absolute crap and shit. I was attempting to explain what the shit all of this was, an idea anyways. You don't have to recognize my idea, in all due fairness, my idea doesn't recognize your criticisms :)
Quote from: omnihil on April 01, 2014, 12:50:43 AM
Indeed. Much of that was absolute crap and shit. I was attempting to explain what the shit all of this was, an idea anyways. You don't have to recognize my idea, in all due fairness, my idea doesn't recognize your criticisms :)
I am a huge proponent of not allowing my ideas to be challenged. It makes me feel like the primate I am.
:showus:
<--- Me
Yep. Me too.
Below the subatomic level, there is nothing but randomness. This is as readily apparent as the earth being flat by observers around the world! Until of course, we see around the world.
LOGICAL CHECKMATES!
Person 1: "Think for Yourself!"
Person 2: "Alright!"
Person 1: "Hmmm..."
both scratch their heads...
Person 1: "Think for Yourself!"
Person 2: "No!"
both scratch their heads...
Quote from: omnihil on April 01, 2014, 01:05:18 AM
Yep. Me too.
Below the subatomic level, there is nothing but randomness. This is as readily apparent as the earth being flat by observers around the world! Until of course, we see around the world.
LOGICAL CHECKMATES!
Person 1: "Think for Yourself!"
Person 2: "Alright!"
Person 1: "Hmmm..."
both scratch their heads...
Person 1: "Think for Yourself!"
Person 2: "No!"
both scratch their heads...
Person 1: " Think for yourself!"
Person 2: "Shut up."
Person 2 goes back to their e-sodoku.
Person 1 is butthurt because nobody's fighting the power with them.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on April 01, 2014, 01:07:12 AM
Person 1: " Think for yourself!"
Person 2: "Shut up."
This is good enough
Quote from: omnihil on April 01, 2014, 01:41:47 AM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on April 01, 2014, 01:07:12 AM
Person 1: " Think for yourself!"
Person 2: "Shut up."
This is good enough
It works surprisingly well.
"Fight the power!"
"Shut up."
"They're spraying chemtrails!"
"Shut up."
"FEMA CAMPS!"
"Shut up."
Etc.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on April 01, 2014, 01:07:12 AM
Quote from: omnihil on April 01, 2014, 01:05:18 AM
Yep. Me too.
Below the subatomic level, there is nothing but randomness. This is as readily apparent as the earth being flat by observers around the world! Until of course, we see around the world.
LOGICAL CHECKMATES!
Person 1: "Think for Yourself!"
Person 2: "Alright!"
Person 1: "Hmmm..."
both scratch their heads...
Person 1: "Think for Yourself!"
Person 2: "No!"
both scratch their heads...
Person 1: " Think for yourself!"
Person 2: "Shut up."
Person 2 goes back to their e-sodoku.
Person 1 is butthurt because nobody's fighting the power with them.
This reminds me of my recent discovery that about the most offensive thing you can say to a person, be they religious, atheist, vegan, or whatever, is "I don't want to talk about your beliefs because I don't care". This is, for reasons I have not yet explored, much more offensive to most people than "I think you're wrong and I'm going to tell you why".
It also, coincidentally, completely sums up my reaction to everything said by any philosophy student ever.
Quote from: Nigel on April 01, 2014, 04:08:11 AM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on April 01, 2014, 01:07:12 AM
Quote from: omnihil on April 01, 2014, 01:05:18 AM
Yep. Me too.
Below the subatomic level, there is nothing but randomness. This is as readily apparent as the earth being flat by observers around the world! Until of course, we see around the world.
LOGICAL CHECKMATES!
Person 1: "Think for Yourself!"
Person 2: "Alright!"
Person 1: "Hmmm..."
both scratch their heads...
Person 1: "Think for Yourself!"
Person 2: "No!"
both scratch their heads...
Person 1: " Think for yourself!"
Person 2: "Shut up."
Person 2 goes back to their e-sodoku.
Person 1 is butthurt because nobody's fighting the power with them.
This reminds me of my recent discovery that about the most offensive thing you can say to a person, be they religious, atheist, vegan, or whatever, is "I don't want to talk about your beliefs because I don't care". This is, for reasons I have not yet explored, much more offensive to most people than "I think you're wrong and I'm going to tell you why".
To consider someone wrong, you'd first have to consider them,
at all. It's almost like to refuse to even consider the position, you've denied their personhood - it would seem negation of the self is worse than possibly being wrong.
To get back to the idea of underlying order at the subatomic level, let me reiterate what Roger is saying.
Our current understanding of quantum physics (and be assured that understanding is very solid, solid enough to make accurate predictions about future states of unobserved phenomena) revolves entirely -- ENTIRELY -- around probability theory. Which means, when you get down to it, the universe is built on "maybe". We have no idea how a particle will actually behave, but we have a pretty good idea what might happen. That uncertainty seems to be hardwired into existence.
It's a pain in the ass, but it appears to be true. And truth doesn't give a shit if it pisses you off.
Quote from: LMNO, PhD (life continues) on April 01, 2014, 12:18:10 PM
To get back to the idea of underlying order at the subatomic level, let me reiterate what Roger is saying.
Our current understanding of quantum physics (and be assured that understanding is very solid, solid enough to make accurate predictions about future states of unobserved phenomena) revolves entirely -- ENTIRELY -- around probability theory. Which means, when you get down to it, the universe is built on "maybe". We have no idea how a particle will actually behave, but we have a pretty good idea what might happen. That uncertainty seems to be hardwired into existence.
It's a pain in the ass, but it appears to be true. And truth doesn't give a shit if it pisses you off.
Surely the 'uncertainty' (or 'maybe') is in our perceptions and instruments, and not in the actual universe? Or am I treading on barstool territory here?
Sadly, no. It's that damn Heisenberg. The "instrument" we're using is pure math. When that fails you, you know the universe is cheating.
Quote from: LMNO, PhD (life continues) on April 01, 2014, 12:54:25 PM
Sadly, no. It's that damn Heisenberg. The "instrument" we're using is pure math. When that fails you, you know the universe is cheating.
And sometimes, it just needs to be approached with different math. There were all those pesky infinities in the math around the atomic binding forces and then renormalisation comes along, and suddenly we have a really accurate experimentally verifiable model of the atom.
It's too small to work on gravity, no problem: try something else. Science is a work in progress.
Consider me schooled!
Ok, I'll grant that maybe, someday, someone might come up with a way of removing the probability fields from quantum physics.
But if that ever happens, it will pretty much tip over the apple cart, and undo the past century or so of physics as we know it.
That is to say, the probabilty of it happening is quite low.
wait wait, I thought the point of the Schrodinger's cat thought experiment was to show that quantum particles don't behave like, eh, bigger particles? The Copenhagen interpretation says matter can be in two eigenstates at once, but that only makes sense when we're talking about itty bitty little things, not big things like cats. I thought that was what the experiment showed?
I'm no expert - please correct me if I'm wrong so I stop saying the wrong thing
Also, I've never heard people agree that quantum behavior is "truly random". Is that really accepted? Don't people believe there is some knowable mechanism, some hidden variable, underlying these hard to predict events?
Quote from: Cramulus on April 01, 2014, 01:50:09 PM
wait wait, I thought the point of the Schrodinger's cat thought experiment was to show that quantum particles don't behave like, eh, bigger particles? The Copenhagen interpretation says matter can be in two eigenstates at once, but that only makes sense when we're talking about itty bitty little things, not big things like cats. I thought that was what the experiment showed?
I'm no expert - please correct me if I'm wrong so I stop saying the wrong thing
Also, I've never heard people agree that quantum behavior is "truly random". Is that really accepted? Don't people believe there is some knowable mechanism, some hidden variable, underlying these hard to predict events?
I was under the impression Schrodinger was making fun of the Copenhagen interpretation with the cat analogy...
Quote from: Cramulus on April 01, 2014, 01:50:09 PM
wait wait, I thought the point of the Schrodinger's cat thought experiment was to show that quantum particles don't behave like, eh, bigger particles? The Copenhagen interpretation says matter can be in two eigenstates at once, but that only makes sense when we're talking about itty bitty little things, not big things like cats. I thought that was what the experiment showed?
I'm no expert - please correct me if I'm wrong so I stop saying the wrong thing
Also, I've never heard people agree that quantum behavior is "truly random". Is that really accepted? Don't people believe there is some knowable mechanism, some hidden variable, underlying these hard to predict events?
In part, yes. But in the original experiment, the poison gas was triggered by whether or not a radioactive isotope decays at a certain moment. The point being, when we do the math, we have no idea whether or not that decay happened at that moment, because the math goes both ways. The only way to figure it out is to go look.
As far as "truly random" goes, that depends on your definition. If I predict a 60% chance of something being in a certain place at a certain time, can I say it's behavior is random? It has a greater chance of being there than not, so maybe you could call that predictable, but since there's no way of saying for sure, wouldn't that be pretty random?
Quote from: Nigel on April 01, 2014, 04:08:11 AM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on April 01, 2014, 01:07:12 AM
Quote from: omnihil on April 01, 2014, 01:05:18 AM
Yep. Me too.
Below the subatomic level, there is nothing but randomness. This is as readily apparent as the earth being flat by observers around the world! Until of course, we see around the world.
LOGICAL CHECKMATES!
Person 1: "Think for Yourself!"
Person 2: "Alright!"
Person 1: "Hmmm..."
both scratch their heads...
Person 1: "Think for Yourself!"
Person 2: "No!"
both scratch their heads...
Person 1: " Think for yourself!"
Person 2: "Shut up."
Person 2 goes back to their e-sodoku.
Person 1 is butthurt because nobody's fighting the power with them.
This reminds me of my recent discovery that about the most offensive thing you can say to a person, be they religious, atheist, vegan, or whatever, is "I don't want to talk about your beliefs because I don't care". This is, for reasons I have not yet explored, much more offensive to most people than "I think you're wrong and I'm going to tell you why".
Yeah, I've seen that for a few years, but it took the advent of the SJW to really drive it home.
Quote from: Nigel on April 01, 2014, 04:10:40 AM
It also, coincidentally, completely sums up my reaction to everything said by any philosophy student ever.
:lulz:
Quote from: Hoopla on April 01, 2014, 12:11:57 PM
To consider someone wrong, you'd first have to consider them, at all. It's almost like to refuse to even consider the position, you've denied their personhood - it would seem negation of the self is worse than possibly being wrong.
I do not deny the person hood of SJWs, philosophy majors, etc. They are people. I just don't care to listen to what they have to say, which is a different thing altogether, BECAUSE what they are SAYING is not what they are SAYING that they're saying. If you know what I mean.
I can acknowledge someone's existence and agency without putting up with their shit.
Quote from: LMNO, PhD (life continues) on April 01, 2014, 12:54:25 PM
Sadly, no. It's that damn Heisenberg. The "instrument" we're using is pure math. When that fails you, you know the universe is cheating.
Doesn't happen. The math never fails. It just doesn't always give you the result you want.
ETA: and sometimes it gives you more than you really wanted.
Quote from: LMNO, PhD (life continues) on April 01, 2014, 02:07:20 PM
Quote from: Cramulus on April 01, 2014, 01:50:09 PM
wait wait, I thought the point of the Schrodinger's cat thought experiment was to show that quantum particles don't behave like, eh, bigger particles? The Copenhagen interpretation says matter can be in two eigenstates at once, but that only makes sense when we're talking about itty bitty little things, not big things like cats. I thought that was what the experiment showed?
I'm no expert - please correct me if I'm wrong so I stop saying the wrong thing
Also, I've never heard people agree that quantum behavior is "truly random". Is that really accepted? Don't people believe there is some knowable mechanism, some hidden variable, underlying these hard to predict events?
In part, yes. But in the original experiment, the poison gas was triggered by whether or not a radioactive isotope decays at a certain moment. The point being, when we do the math, we have no idea whether or not that decay happened at that moment, because the math goes both ways. The only way to figure it out is to go look.
As far as "truly random" goes, that depends on your definition. If I predict a 60% chance of something being in a certain place at a certain time, can I say it's behavior is random? It has a greater chance of being there than not, so maybe you could call that predictable, but since there's no way of saying for sure, wouldn't that be pretty random?
Exactly, and even on the quantum scale there are the upper and lower thresholds on the uncertainty of energy and position. I cant remember what the maximum energy/position uncertainty was but it was something tiny like planks constant over pi or something.
Quote from: LMNO, PhD (life continues) on April 01, 2014, 01:41:41 PM
Ok, I'll grant that maybe, someday, someone might come up with a way of removing the probability fields from quantum physics.
But if that ever happens, it will pretty much tip over the apple cart, and undo the past century or so of physics as we know it.
That is to say, the probabilty of it happening is quite low.
I wasn't really saying that they would break that relationship, maybe it was a bad example I was just describing how many of the "unknowables" vanished with renormalisation.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on April 01, 2014, 02:15:00 PM
Quote from: Hoopla on April 01, 2014, 12:11:57 PM
To consider someone wrong, you'd first have to consider them, at all. It's almost like to refuse to even consider the position, you've denied their personhood - it would seem negation of the self is worse than possibly being wrong.
I do not deny the person hood of SJWs, philosophy majors, etc. They are people. I just don't care to listen to what they have to say, which is a different thing altogether, BECAUSE what they are SAYING is not what they are SAYING that they're saying. If you know what I mean.
I can acknowledge someone's existence and agency without putting up with their shit.
Oh, absolutely... I meant that as the view from their side, if that makes sense. I just didn't think to actually add that. :lol:
Quote from: Hoopla on April 01, 2014, 02:21:37 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on April 01, 2014, 02:15:00 PM
Quote from: Hoopla on April 01, 2014, 12:11:57 PM
To consider someone wrong, you'd first have to consider them, at all. It's almost like to refuse to even consider the position, you've denied their personhood - it would seem negation of the self is worse than possibly being wrong.
I do not deny the person hood of SJWs, philosophy majors, etc. They are people. I just don't care to listen to what they have to say, which is a different thing altogether, BECAUSE what they are SAYING is not what they are SAYING that they're saying. If you know what I mean.
I can acknowledge someone's existence and agency without putting up with their shit.
Oh, absolutely... I meant that as the view from their side, if that makes sense. I just didn't think to actually add that. :lol:
Naw. When St Mae and I had our falling out, it was because of a disagreement. She didn't say, "Dammit, Roger, I don't want to hear it", she said, "You're just a troll and this isn't the time."
Notice the subtle difference? I don't think she did, and I no longer care. Being told to SHUT UP by someone you respect, for example, is one thing. Being told you don't actually HAVE an opinion is another.
Quote from: LMNO, PhD (life continues) on April 01, 2014, 02:07:20 PM
As far as "truly random" goes, that depends on your definition. If I predict a 60% chance of something being in a certain place at a certain time, can I say it's behavior is random? It has a greater chance of being there than not, so maybe you could call that predictable, but since there's no way of saying for sure, wouldn't that be pretty random?
Quote from: LMNO, PhD (life continues) on April 01, 2014, 01:41:41 PM
Ok, I'll grant that maybe, someday, someone might come up with a way of removing the probability fields from quantum physics.
But if that ever happens, it will pretty much tip over the apple cart, and undo the past century or so of physics as we know it.
That is to say, the probabilty of it happening is quite low.
isn't the fact that we represent it via a probability indicative that we're glossing over what's really happening?
I mean, a die rolls a given number 16.6% of the time - but it's not truly a random event, it's completely predictable if you know enough about the roll, physics, etc.
it sounds like you're saying that the perceived randomness at the center of quantum events is (probably) how it really is - that a certain degree of magnification, the universe is fundamentally random, unknowable?
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on April 01, 2014, 02:24:16 PM
Quote from: Hoopla on April 01, 2014, 02:21:37 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on April 01, 2014, 02:15:00 PM
Quote from: Hoopla on April 01, 2014, 12:11:57 PM
To consider someone wrong, you'd first have to consider them, at all. It's almost like to refuse to even consider the position, you've denied their personhood - it would seem negation of the self is worse than possibly being wrong.
I do not deny the person hood of SJWs, philosophy majors, etc. They are people. I just don't care to listen to what they have to say, which is a different thing altogether, BECAUSE what they are SAYING is not what they are SAYING that they're saying. If you know what I mean.
I can acknowledge someone's existence and agency without putting up with their shit.
Oh, absolutely... I meant that as the view from their side, if that makes sense. I just didn't think to actually add that. :lol:
Naw. When St Mae and I had our falling out, it was because of a disagreement. She didn't say, "Dammit, Roger, I don't want to hear it", she said, "You're just a troll and this isn't the time."
Notice the subtle difference? I don't think she did, and I no longer care. Being told to SHUT UP by someone you respect, for example, is one thing. Being told you don't actually HAVE an opinion is another.
Hey, I never claimed they were
correct. :wink:
Quote from: Cramulus on April 01, 2014, 02:25:39 PM
it sounds like you're saying that the perceived randomness at the center of quantum events is (probably) how it really is - that a certain degree of magnification, the universe is fundamentally random, unknowable?
No, the universe is knowable, just not in the way you'd like it to be.
I don't follow?
Quantum physics is non-intuitive. The math works, predictions from experiments are confirmed, theories are validated.
That doesn't mean it makes the same kind of sense that Newtonian physics does. Things don't make "sense" in the traditional... um... sense.
Maybe we can look at it this way -- the probability field IS. That's the way it works in QuantumLand. But to us up here in MacroWorld, it's confusing as hell, and the only word we have for it is "random".
Quote from: Cramulus on April 01, 2014, 02:25:39 PM
Quote from: LMNO, PhD (life continues) on April 01, 2014, 02:07:20 PM
As far as "truly random" goes, that depends on your definition. If I predict a 60% chance of something being in a certain place at a certain time, can I say it's behavior is random? It has a greater chance of being there than not, so maybe you could call that predictable, but since there's no way of saying for sure, wouldn't that be pretty random?
Quote from: LMNO, PhD (life continues) on April 01, 2014, 01:41:41 PM
Ok, I'll grant that maybe, someday, someone might come up with a way of removing the probability fields from quantum physics.
But if that ever happens, it will pretty much tip over the apple cart, and undo the past century or so of physics as we know it.
That is to say, the probabilty of it happening is quite low.
isn't the fact that we represent it via a probability indicative that we're glossing over what's really happening?
I mean, a die rolls a given number 16.6% of the time - but it's not truly a random event, it's completely predictable if you know enough about the roll, physics, etc.
it sounds like you're saying that the perceived randomness at the center of quantum events is (probably) how it really is - that a certain degree of magnification, the universe is fundamentally random, unknowable?
Imagine the dice number and the side that is facing up were inextricably linked and the only way to describe one was to leave the other with a small level of ambiguity.
Why doesn't the energy and position behave the same way for a particle as it would for a large scale object like a stationary rock? There's a few reasons but the big one is the minimum energy of a particle. A particle can NEVER come to rest. That has knock on effects on its possible positions and energy levels and so on.
The example we had that was really good in the physics book was a tennis ball and a particle are fired at a wall. When the tennis ball touches the wall it is completely stopped and all its energy is stored as potential energy (before being released and bouncing back).
If you fire a particle at that wall it always has it's minimum energy, so it can never touch the wall, it reflects before that.
"So, Cram, did you make your saving throw?"
"Dunno."
"Goddammit, this ALWAYS happens."
:lulz:
:lulz:
Quote from: LMNO, PhD (life continues) on April 01, 2014, 02:55:18 PM
Quantum physics is non-intuitive. The math works, predictions from experiments are confirmed, theories are validated.
That doesn't mean it makes the same kind of sense that Newtonian physics does. Things don't make "sense" in the traditional... um... sense.
Maybe we can look at it this way -- the probability field IS. That's the way it works in QuantumLand. But to us up here in MacroWorld, it's confusing as hell, and the only word we have for it is "random".
^^^
This is essentially what I was saying in more a more technical and scholarly wording. It is not truly random, but extremely complex, possibly beyond our comprehension. Levels of sophisticated physics at extremely microscopic levels are EXTREMELY complex and unpredictable at times. I'm saying that patterns are capable of become increasingly complex, onward towards infinity, in a way where they will eventually transcend any conscious minds ability to perceive it's mechanics. Chaos being that asymptote of an infinitely complex model of reality, that is only possibly perceived by a being of infinite IQ, or a godlike entity by definition of the word, omniscient.
Have you ever seen the documentary "What the Bleep do we Know?". It talks a lot about quantum mechanics, and also the influence of mind on reality. For instance, electrons passed through a filter behaved differently depending on whether or not they were being observed while passing through the filter. The very act of observing, or adding consciousness to the equation, changed the behavior of the electrons. They also used "hard concentration" on certain outcomes to influence probable outcomes on seemingly random events. Mind over matter kinda stuff. It's a fun and interesting watch
I don't know what you thought you're saying, but it has very little to do with what I am saying.
Keep that quantum woo what the bleep crap away from me, please and thank you.
Keep digging those heels in, Omnihil.
Quote from: omnihil on April 01, 2014, 07:47:26 PM
Have you ever seen the documentary "What the Bleep do we Know?". It talks a lot about quantum mechanics
I'm not sure you should be getting your information on quantum mechanics from What the Bleep Do We Know.
Quote from: LMNO, PhD (life continues) on April 01, 2014, 07:49:46 PM
I don't know what you thought you're saying, but it has very little to do with what I am saying.
Keep that quantum woo what the bleep crap away from me, please and thank you.
Hey.
THE DANCING WU LI MASTERS AND SHIT.
That is all.
:crankey:
Apparently Native Americans just couldn't see European tall ships out on the oceans, because... you know... ig'nant.
Quote from: LMNO, PhD (life continues) on April 01, 2014, 08:01:52 PM
:crankey:
Owed you that.
The problem with Quantum Physics is that it ISN'T intuitive, but SEEMS to be so. Therefore, it opens itself up to all manner of hippie fucking interpretations, and is also a big sandbox for the digging in of heels.
In short, a model of reality is used by many to hide from reality.
Quote from: Hoopla on April 01, 2014, 08:02:41 PM
Apparently Native Americans just couldn't see European tall ships out on the oceans, because... you know... ig'nant.
Well, they could SEE them or see where they were GOING, but not both. So they got fucked.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on April 01, 2014, 08:04:45 PM
Quote from: Hoopla on April 01, 2014, 08:02:41 PM
Apparently Native Americans just couldn't see European tall ships out on the oceans, because... you know... ig'nant.
Well, they could SEE them or see where they were GOING, but not both. So they got fucked.
And yet creationists compare eyeballs to pocket watches...
Quote from: Hoopla on April 01, 2014, 08:06:18 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on April 01, 2014, 08:04:45 PM
Quote from: Hoopla on April 01, 2014, 08:02:41 PM
Apparently Native Americans just couldn't see European tall ships out on the oceans, because... you know... ig'nant.
Well, they could SEE them or see where they were GOING, but not both. So they got fucked.
And yet creationists compare eyeballs to pocket watches...
Creationists are functionally retarded. I suppose, as a theist, I should at least try to wrap some metaphor around creationism, but I can't. Because it's retarded.
There is empirical evidence of how the universe and the world formed, and how life evolves. To deny empirical evidence is in itself blasphemous. You are, in effect, calling God a liar.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on April 01, 2014, 08:09:23 PM
Quote from: Hoopla on April 01, 2014, 08:06:18 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on April 01, 2014, 08:04:45 PM
Quote from: Hoopla on April 01, 2014, 08:02:41 PM
Apparently Native Americans just couldn't see European tall ships out on the oceans, because... you know... ig'nant.
Well, they could SEE them or see where they were GOING, but not both. So they got fucked.
And yet creationists compare eyeballs to pocket watches...
Creationists are functionally retarded. I suppose, as a theist, I should at least try to wrap some metaphor around creationism, but I can't. Because it's retarded.
There is empirical evidence of how the universe and the world formed, and how life evolves. To deny empirical evidence is in itself blasphemous. You are, in effect, calling God a liar.
Oh shit, that's a
good argument. I'm going to try to remember that.
Quote from: Hoopla on April 01, 2014, 08:10:43 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on April 01, 2014, 08:09:23 PM
Quote from: Hoopla on April 01, 2014, 08:06:18 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on April 01, 2014, 08:04:45 PM
Quote from: Hoopla on April 01, 2014, 08:02:41 PM
Apparently Native Americans just couldn't see European tall ships out on the oceans, because... you know... ig'nant.
Well, they could SEE them or see where they were GOING, but not both. So they got fucked.
And yet creationists compare eyeballs to pocket watches...
Creationists are functionally retarded. I suppose, as a theist, I should at least try to wrap some metaphor around creationism, but I can't. Because it's retarded.
There is empirical evidence of how the universe and the world formed, and how life evolves. To deny empirical evidence is in itself blasphemous. You are, in effect, calling God a liar.
Oh shit, that's a good argument. I'm going to try to remember that.
I've been arguing with Calvinists. I believe I've mentioned this.
I still have to write some of it up.
Also, to say that the evidence is "a lie of the devil" is outright Manichaeism, which is abhorrent to Christians, Jews, and Muslims, as it denies the omnipotence of God.
And that's kind of fun to throw in their faces, as well.
See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manichaeism
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on April 01, 2014, 08:17:56 PM
Also, to say that the evidence is "a lie of the devil" is outright Manichaeism, which is abhorrent to Christians, Jews, and Muslims, as it denies the omnipotence of God.
And that's kind of fun to throw in their faces, as well.
See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manichaeism
Funny how many of them use that one though.
Quote from: Hoopla on April 01, 2014, 08:45:13 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on April 01, 2014, 08:17:56 PM
Also, to say that the evidence is "a lie of the devil" is outright Manichaeism, which is abhorrent to Christians, Jews, and Muslims, as it denies the omnipotence of God.
And that's kind of fun to throw in their faces, as well.
See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manichaeism
Funny how many of them use that one though.
All you have to do is ask them how limited God is, then.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on April 01, 2014, 08:46:08 PM
Quote from: Hoopla on April 01, 2014, 08:45:13 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on April 01, 2014, 08:17:56 PM
Also, to say that the evidence is "a lie of the devil" is outright Manichaeism, which is abhorrent to Christians, Jews, and Muslims, as it denies the omnipotence of God.
And that's kind of fun to throw in their faces, as well.
See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manichaeism
Funny how many of them use that one though.
All you have to do is ask them how limited God is, then.
You're a bad boy, Roger. :lulz:
Quote from: omnihil on April 01, 2014, 07:47:26 PM
It is not truly random, but extremely complex, possibly beyond our comprehension. Levels of sophisticated physics at extremely microscopic levels are EXTREMELY complex and unpredictable at times.
Ok, that's reasonable.
Quote from: omnihil on April 01, 2014, 07:47:26 PM
I'm saying that patterns are capable of become increasingly complex, onward towards infinity, in a way where they will eventually transcend any conscious minds ability to perceive it's mechanics.
Uh, abstraction is a concept thats good for dealing with what you are describing. And significantly complex pattern can be broken down into less complex smaller more manageable ones. It allows the human mind to grasp big concepts without needing to understand all the little ones. But back to what you just said, in quantum mechanics there has been no indication that any of the concepts ever tend towards so complex they are unfathomable.
Quote from: omnihil on April 01, 2014, 07:47:26 PM
Chaos being that asymptote of an infinitely complex model of reality, that is only possibly perceived by a being of infinite IQ, or a godlike entity by definition of the word, omniscient.
Why? Nothing we have observed indicates this to be the case. It would take a god like entity to measure and be aware of everything at once, but you don't need to be able to do that to understand the laws that govern that everything.
Quote from: omnihil on April 01, 2014, 07:47:26 PM
Have you ever seen the documentary "What the Bleep do we Know?". It talks a lot about quantum mechanics, and also the influence of mind on reality. For instance, electrons passed through a filter behaved differently depending on whether or not they were being observed while passing through the filter. The very act of observing, or adding consciousness to the equation, changed the behavior of the electrons. They also used "hard concentration" on certain outcomes to influence probable outcomes on seemingly random events. Mind over matter kinda stuff. It's a fun and interesting watch
:enough:
Quote from: Hoopla on April 01, 2014, 08:52:33 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on April 01, 2014, 08:46:08 PM
Quote from: Hoopla on April 01, 2014, 08:45:13 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on April 01, 2014, 08:17:56 PM
Also, to say that the evidence is "a lie of the devil" is outright Manichaeism, which is abhorrent to Christians, Jews, and Muslims, as it denies the omnipotence of God.
And that's kind of fun to throw in their faces, as well.
See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manichaeism
Funny how many of them use that one though.
All you have to do is ask them how limited God is, then.
You're a bad boy, Roger. :lulz:
On the contrary...I am a Holy Man™, and if it takes wounding the inner child of a moron to pound some of that Holiness™ into their heads, well yanno, at least I'm not knifing someone to make my point, as has been done by at least one prior prophet (Samuel, aka "Anything For a Laugh Sam").
Quote from: Hoopla on April 01, 2014, 12:11:57 PM
Quote from: Nigel on April 01, 2014, 04:08:11 AM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on April 01, 2014, 01:07:12 AM
Quote from: omnihil on April 01, 2014, 01:05:18 AM
Yep. Me too.
Below the subatomic level, there is nothing but randomness. This is as readily apparent as the earth being flat by observers around the world! Until of course, we see around the world.
LOGICAL CHECKMATES!
Person 1: "Think for Yourself!"
Person 2: "Alright!"
Person 1: "Hmmm..."
both scratch their heads...
Person 1: "Think for Yourself!"
Person 2: "No!"
both scratch their heads...
Person 1: " Think for yourself!"
Person 2: "Shut up."
Person 2 goes back to their e-sodoku.
Person 1 is butthurt because nobody's fighting the power with them.
This reminds me of my recent discovery that about the most offensive thing you can say to a person, be they religious, atheist, vegan, or whatever, is "I don't want to talk about your beliefs because I don't care". This is, for reasons I have not yet explored, much more offensive to most people than "I think you're wrong and I'm going to tell you why".
To consider someone wrong, you'd first have to consider them, at all. It's almost like to refuse to even consider the position, you've denied their personhood - it would seem negation of the self is worse than possibly being wrong.
If taken to an extreme enough level, certainly. But I have noticed that even when I am willing to engage with/validate people on other topics, many people get seriously pissy with me when I don't want to talk about religion/lack thereof, because it's irrelevant to me. They seem to often feel profoundly threatened by my lack of caring about THAT ONE THING, even though I am in no other way denying their personhood.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on April 01, 2014, 02:11:56 PM
Quote from: Nigel on April 01, 2014, 04:08:11 AM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on April 01, 2014, 01:07:12 AM
Quote from: omnihil on April 01, 2014, 01:05:18 AM
Yep. Me too.
Below the subatomic level, there is nothing but randomness. This is as readily apparent as the earth being flat by observers around the world! Until of course, we see around the world.
LOGICAL CHECKMATES!
Person 1: "Think for Yourself!"
Person 2: "Alright!"
Person 1: "Hmmm..."
both scratch their heads...
Person 1: "Think for Yourself!"
Person 2: "No!"
both scratch their heads...
Person 1: " Think for yourself!"
Person 2: "Shut up."
Person 2 goes back to their e-sodoku.
Person 1 is butthurt because nobody's fighting the power with them.
This reminds me of my recent discovery that about the most offensive thing you can say to a person, be they religious, atheist, vegan, or whatever, is "I don't want to talk about your beliefs because I don't care". This is, for reasons I have not yet explored, much more offensive to most people than "I think you're wrong and I'm going to tell you why".
Yeah, I've seen that for a few years, but it took the advent of the SJW to really drive it home.
What's an SJW?
Quote from: Nigel on April 01, 2014, 09:51:17 PM
What's an SJW?
Social Justice Warrior. tumblr/Garbo/etc. It conveys the meaning without soiling the more respectable "feminist", LGBT activist", etc.
Not sure where I heard the term. Here, I think.
Quote from: omnihil on April 01, 2014, 07:47:26 PM
Quote from: LMNO, PhD (life continues) on April 01, 2014, 02:55:18 PM
Quantum physics is non-intuitive. The math works, predictions from experiments are confirmed, theories are validated.
That doesn't mean it makes the same kind of sense that Newtonian physics does. Things don't make "sense" in the traditional... um... sense.
Maybe we can look at it this way -- the probability field IS. That's the way it works in QuantumLand. But to us up here in MacroWorld, it's confusing as hell, and the only word we have for it is "random".
^^^
This is essentially what I was saying in more a more technical and scholarly wording. It is not truly random, but extremely complex, possibly beyond our comprehension. Levels of sophisticated physics at extremely microscopic levels are EXTREMELY complex and unpredictable at times. I'm saying that patterns are capable of become increasingly complex, onward towards infinity, in a way where they will eventually transcend any conscious minds ability to perceive it's mechanics. Chaos being that asymptote of an infinitely complex model of reality, that is only possibly perceived by a being of infinite IQ, or a godlike entity by definition of the word, omniscient.
Have you ever seen the documentary "What the Bleep do we Know?". It talks a lot about quantum mechanics, and also the influence of mind on reality. For instance, electrons passed through a filter behaved differently depending on whether or not they were being observed while passing through the filter. The very act of observing, or adding consciousness to the equation, changed the behavior of the electrons. They also used "hard concentration" on certain outcomes to influence probable outcomes on seemingly random events. Mind over matter kinda stuff. It's a fun and interesting watch
:lulz: Look out, LMNO, he's going to tell you about quantum physics in a more technical and scholarly wording. :lulz:
Quote from: Nigel on April 01, 2014, 09:49:28 PM
Quote from: Hoopla on April 01, 2014, 12:11:57 PM
Quote from: Nigel on April 01, 2014, 04:08:11 AM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on April 01, 2014, 01:07:12 AM
Quote from: omnihil on April 01, 2014, 01:05:18 AM
Yep. Me too.
Below the subatomic level, there is nothing but randomness. This is as readily apparent as the earth being flat by observers around the world! Until of course, we see around the world.
LOGICAL CHECKMATES!
Person 1: "Think for Yourself!"
Person 2: "Alright!"
Person 1: "Hmmm..."
both scratch their heads...
Person 1: "Think for Yourself!"
Person 2: "No!"
both scratch their heads...
Person 1: " Think for yourself!"
Person 2: "Shut up."
Person 2 goes back to their e-sodoku.
Person 1 is butthurt because nobody's fighting the power with them.
This reminds me of my recent discovery that about the most offensive thing you can say to a person, be they religious, atheist, vegan, or whatever, is "I don't want to talk about your beliefs because I don't care". This is, for reasons I have not yet explored, much more offensive to most people than "I think you're wrong and I'm going to tell you why".
To consider someone wrong, you'd first have to consider them, at all. It's almost like to refuse to even consider the position, you've denied their personhood - it would seem negation of the self is worse than possibly being wrong.
If taken to an extreme enough level, certainly. But I have noticed that even when I am willing to engage with/validate people on other topics, many people get seriously pissy with me when I don't want to talk about religion/lack thereof, because it's irrelevant to me. They seem to often feel profoundly threatened by my lack of caring about THAT ONE THING, even though I am in no other way denying their personhood.
I know people (atheists) who consider the god question
the most important idea you can consider... which seems pretty depressing to me.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on April 01, 2014, 09:52:51 PM
Quote from: Nigel on April 01, 2014, 09:51:17 PM
What's an SJW?
Social Justice Warrior. tumblr/Garbo/etc. It conveys the meaning without soiling the more respectable "feminist", LGBT activist", etc.
Not sure where I heard the term. Here, I think.
May have been me. I'm not terribly keen on the term, but it's the one which seems to have stuck and that most people recognise.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on April 01, 2014, 09:52:51 PM
Quote from: Nigel on April 01, 2014, 09:51:17 PM
What's an SJW?
Social Justice Warrior. tumblr/Garbo/etc. It conveys the meaning without soiling the more respectable "feminist", LGBT activist", etc.
Not sure where I heard the term. Here, I think.
Oh, yeah, I think it's a Tumblr term. Never really seen it outside of Tumblr so it didn't register.
Those people in particular... well, anyone with a Cause, really... hate to be told that you don't care about their Cause and that you don't want to talk about it.
Quote from: Hoopla on April 01, 2014, 09:53:54 PM
I know people (atheists) who consider the god question the most important idea you can consider... which seems pretty depressing to me.
Sweet fuck, yes, that is depressing.
"Hey, this thing that we believe doesn't exist is THE MOST IMPORTANT IDEA".
:kingmeh:
Quote from: Nigel on April 01, 2014, 09:57:17 PM
Quote from: Hoopla on April 01, 2014, 09:53:54 PM
I know people (atheists) who consider the god question the most important idea you can consider... which seems pretty depressing to me.
Sweet fuck, yes, that is depressing.
"Hey, this thing that we believe doesn't exist is THE MOST IMPORTANT IDEA".
:kingmeh:
Hail Eris?
:lol:
Quote from: Hoopla on April 01, 2014, 09:59:16 PM
Quote from: Nigel on April 01, 2014, 09:57:17 PM
Quote from: Hoopla on April 01, 2014, 09:53:54 PM
I know people (atheists) who consider the god question the most important idea you can consider... which seems pretty depressing to me.
Sweet fuck, yes, that is depressing.
"Hey, this thing that we believe doesn't exist is THE MOST IMPORTANT IDEA".
:kingmeh:
Hail Eris?
:lol:
:lulz:
I don't think there's a more accurate modern day way to describe the tar baby syndrome. It seems many these days are defined by what they attack more than anything else.
Related to above post:
http://p10.hostingprod.com/@spyblog.org.uk/drk/2006/04/the_tar_baby_principle.html
Quote from: Junkenstein on April 02, 2014, 10:14:57 AM
Related to above post:
http://p10.hostingprod.com/@spyblog.org.uk/drk/2006/04/the_tar_baby_principle.html
Excellent link!
Quote from: Junkenstein on April 02, 2014, 10:06:30 AM
I don't think there's a more accurate modern day way to describe the tar baby syndrome. It seems many these days are defined by what they attack more than anything else.
Ohhh, funny, I never made that connection!
Quote from: StandBackJack on March 28, 2014, 01:09:41 AM
If you took a bong to the services would that be like a Wake and Bake?
Yeah, seems fitting that
you believe the average pothead would toke a bong at a funeral. Asshole.
Quote from: Hoopla on April 03, 2014, 12:19:52 AM
Quote from: StandBackJack on March 28, 2014, 01:09:41 AM
If you took a bong to the services would that be like a Wake and Bake?
Yeah, seems fitting that you believe the average pothead would toke a bong at a funeral. Asshole.
Puns. Check.
Quote from: omnihil on April 01, 2014, 07:47:26 PM
Quote from: LMNO, PhD (life continues) on April 01, 2014, 02:55:18 PM
Quantum physics is non-intuitive. The math works, predictions from experiments are confirmed, theories are validated.
That doesn't mean it makes the same kind of sense that Newtonian physics does. Things don't make "sense" in the traditional... um... sense.
Maybe we can look at it this way -- the probability field IS. That's the way it works in QuantumLand. But to us up here in MacroWorld, it's confusing as hell, and the only word we have for it is "random".
^^^
This is essentially what I was saying in more a more technical and scholarly wording. It is not truly random, but extremely complex, possibly beyond our comprehension. Levels of sophisticated physics at extremely microscopic levels are EXTREMELY complex and unpredictable at times. I'm saying that patterns are capable of become increasingly complex, onward towards infinity, in a way where they will eventually transcend any conscious minds ability to perceive it's mechanics. Chaos being that asymptote of an infinitely complex model of reality, that is only possibly perceived by a being of infinite IQ, or a godlike entity by definition of the word, omniscient.
Have you ever seen the documentary "What the Bleep do we Know?". It talks a lot about quantum mechanics, and also the influence of mind on reality. For instance, electrons passed through a filter behaved differently depending on whether or not they were being observed while passing through the filter. The very act of observing, or adding consciousness to the equation, changed the behavior of the electrons. They also used "hard concentration" on certain outcomes to influence probable outcomes on seemingly random events. Mind over matter kinda stuff. It's a fun and interesting watch
There are some really good critiques of What the Bleep out there if you care to look at it critically. Digging through them can prove very illuminating.
To me, mind over mind is a much more useful line of thought than mind over matter. Even presuming we could influence reality by just thinking real hard at it, if our head's are still full of shit, the only outcome that "power" could possible have is to manifest a reality based on our shit.
Quote from: NoLeDeMiel on April 06, 2014, 12:54:21 AM
Quote from: omnihil on April 01, 2014, 07:47:26 PM
Quote from: LMNO, PhD (life continues) on April 01, 2014, 02:55:18 PM
Quantum physics is non-intuitive. The math works, predictions from experiments are confirmed, theories are validated.
That doesn't mean it makes the same kind of sense that Newtonian physics does. Things don't make "sense" in the traditional... um... sense.
Maybe we can look at it this way -- the probability field IS. That's the way it works in QuantumLand. But to us up here in MacroWorld, it's confusing as hell, and the only word we have for it is "random".
^^^
This is essentially what I was saying in more a more technical and scholarly wording. It is not truly random, but extremely complex, possibly beyond our comprehension. Levels of sophisticated physics at extremely microscopic levels are EXTREMELY complex and unpredictable at times. I'm saying that patterns are capable of become increasingly complex, onward towards infinity, in a way where they will eventually transcend any conscious minds ability to perceive it's mechanics. Chaos being that asymptote of an infinitely complex model of reality, that is only possibly perceived by a being of infinite IQ, or a godlike entity by definition of the word, omniscient.
Have you ever seen the documentary "What the Bleep do we Know?". It talks a lot about quantum mechanics, and also the influence of mind on reality. For instance, electrons passed through a filter behaved differently depending on whether or not they were being observed while passing through the filter. The very act of observing, or adding consciousness to the equation, changed the behavior of the electrons. They also used "hard concentration" on certain outcomes to influence probable outcomes on seemingly random events. Mind over matter kinda stuff. It's a fun and interesting watch
There are some really good critiques of What the Bleep out there if you care to look at it critically. Digging through them can prove very illuminating.
To me, mind over mind is a much more useful line of thought than mind over matter. Even presuming we could influence reality by just thinking real hard at it, if our head's are still full of shit, the only outcome that "power" could possible have is to manifest a reality based on our shit.
Well stated. In fact, as one of my neuroscience buddies is fond of pointing out, mind=matter.