Messages

My theory on this has always had to do with comfort. As a species we are driven to find that which is comfortable and safe... it's part of the survival mechanism. We seek warmth as it protects us from hypothermia, shelter as it guards us from exposure, a full belly as it staves off malnutrition. The majority of our basic behavior as humans is to avoid discomfort and search for pleasure, as it is with all animals.


The first question is "how does this interact with our thought patterns"? How often have you thought about the world around you... the chance of dying as you cross the street, the likelihood of contracting a horrible illness from those around you. These are not pleasant thoughts. What do we do about these thoughts? We buy safer cars, wear our seat belts, wash our hands, and shy away from those showing outward signs of illness. Our minds know on a subconscious level that these actions will help our survival so it feels good to do them... you get a warm fuzzy feeling inside. This feeling holds true whenever we have that illusion that the actions will make us safer.


So, next we have the question of how stupidity plays into this. The answer is simple, the it's more comforting to not think about these things. The less you open your eyes to the reality of the world around you the less you fear. You don't realize the multitude of ways that the universe is trying to kill you every second of your life. You don't understand that modern society has no concept of shared responsibility and tie to each other and tends to look at you as just another stepping stone to be tread upon. When people are faced with an uncomfortable and painful thought they seek solace in that which readily reassures them... things like gods and guns. It's easier to think that some supernatural being is looking out for you and loves you than it is to try and actually come up with a way to treat the cancer that is growing on your prostate.


A lifetime of seeking pleasure and avoiding deeper thought doesn't do a lot to help create a better and brighter you.

Incidentally, in case you were gonna go

The Schrödinger field pattern in position space determines where a detection event is likely to be found, and its pattern in wavelength space determines the momentum we associate with the object causing the event.

If the events are localized in a small region, the wave pattern will be localized but consequently it will contain many elementary waves – its momentum will not be well-defined.

Conversely, if the momentum detector clicks only for a narrow range of momentum values, the wavelength is well-defined, and the wave pattern must extend over many cycles – its location in space is not well-defined.

You can have waves with well-defined position or well-defined momentum, but not both at once. This is the true meaning of the uncertainty relation first enunciated in 1927 by Heisenberg.

I take it you understand/have knowledge of the basic experiment showing an atoms paradoxical nature?

Things are only a paradox if you don't understand them or are following an incorrect view of them.

Indeed.  Its like Derrida for Retards or something.  Actually analyzing language and discourse in the role of creating (mis)perceptions of reality is too much like hard work...just declare things verbs (and throw in some bad maths) and everyone can bask in your intellectual genius

You think maths is intellectual?

You think its not?

Cain,
thinks you may not understand maths very much.

I think I'm allowed a point of view.  Is a spanner intellectual?

The thought that went into the initial design and creation, yes.
The thought that went into the metallurgy and tooling, yes.
The thought that went into picking it up to hit someone in the head with, no.

The reality of an object is not defined by the division of the whole by its parts, but instead by the sum of its parts and their interaction together to complete and make up the whole.

And thats not entirely true but I'll only discuss that if you wish it to be discussed.

Discuss away, as I was just using that as a counterpoint to your

noun described  being created from nothing  x an infinite amount of being.

and your using fetish for dividing things like crazy until you get to bits so tiny you feel just fine leaving them out altogether as a way to support it.

Well you've stated that an object and its qualities exist of its own accord, not really true (and I suppose this will be where people proclomations that reality is subjective comes in blah blah...)

No, I stated that we define what an object is due to what its components are and how they respond to each other. I'm not trying to say that a car is a car because it's a car, but that a car is a car because it contains everything we attribute to being required by a car. It's my counterpoint to your statement that a car is really nothing because we can find really tiny bits of it to talk about that are almost too small to measure. Even trying to go as far as saying that the car is only a car in my reality is off. Yes, there are aspects of the car that we will experience differently due to the way that our brains process and handle information, but those are mostly the superficial things such as color and smell, while the majority of the concrete aspects of the car (size, shape, it's ability to crush you like a bug) remained unchanged due to the fact that it does have characteristics that are not dependent upon observation by an outside force.

Reality isn't subjective.... parts of reality are subjective, parts are non-subjective, and parts are ignored by many.

The reality of an object is not defined by the division of the whole by its parts, but instead by the sum of its parts and their interaction together to complete and make up the whole.

And thats not entirely true but I'll only discuss that if you wish it to be discussed.

Discuss away, as I was just using that as a counterpoint to your

noun described  being created from nothing  x an infinite amount of being.

and your using fetish for dividing things like crazy until you get to bits so tiny you feel just fine leaving them out altogether as a way to support it.

[infinite amount of infinitely small dots]

Aye but thats where my original pentagon example comes back in, that is a pentagon is made of 5 sides, but equally a pentagon could be divided into 8 bits of line or an infinite amount of infinitely small dots in the shape of a pentagon...  In theory the same dividing into a ridiculously small bits i possible of anything.

Um.  Not really.  See, since we're talking about the Universe, we're talking about Experiential Reality.  So, that line that makes up the Pentagon is made out of stuff.  And that stuff, ultimately, is made up of fundamental particles.  Finite fundamental particles.

It appears you're trying to force a theoretical thought experiment of a pentagon (which does not exist) onto an actual physical representation of a pentagon (which does exist).


In a related note, I want to shoot Aristotle in the face.

Seems more like he's trying to force a physical representation of division onto a theoretical idea. "Look people, I can cut the cake time and time again till there is nothing left (except fuckloads of crumbs), and if you did the same thing with the universe you'd see that it doesn't really exists at all any more." People need to remember that while dealing with your change at the gas pump remainders might not count for shit and it's cool to round, if you're working with high end mathematics, theoretical astrophysics, or space launches, your shit better account for every tiny ass bit of remainder, no matter how small or seemingly insignificant (and for fuck's sake, make sure you don't put the decimal point in the wrong place and have your planetary lander try to turn off it's thrusters at the wrong altitude.)

actually, it is perfectly logical to assume that 1/0 = infinity, as and infinite number of 0s will go into one

go into, but will still not add up to. Using your logic, anything/0 = infinity.... only problem, = is not the same as >. Hell, if we just went with your logic, we could easily say that if a/b = c, a/b actually is equal to everything less than c, since anything less than c will go into a. See the fault yet?

Let's try it this way. If you were to graph out either 1/0 = infinity or 1/infinity = 0, you would see that although you do approach the correct points, you never actually quite reach them. Understand? Yes, you get close to the correct value, but that value is never reached.

Or let's look at it like this... since a/b = c is really another way of saying a = b * c, we can shift the zero over in your equation and get 1 = 0 x infinity, and since anything times zero is actually zero, and since zero is not equal to one, we've once again seen that 1/0 is not infinity. Sure, dividing by zero is done under certain circumstances in higher mathematics, but they are not part of a basic algebraic function like you were using. There is also the fact that your x/0 = infinity assumption is at times used in formal calculations, but all mathematicians understand that this relationship can actually be used in a calculation in a way that actually makes it not true and leads to logic errors... such as in:

1 (universe) = 1/infinity x infinity

where it should have been realized that you can't just plug in 0 for 1/infinity and should have instead looked at the equation as a hole and realized that in this case, the proper thing to do would have been to realize that the two infinities cancel out (x / a, then * a, just equals x), leaving you still with 1 = 1.

I hadn't missed any of your points in your first post about what you were or were not trying to prove regarding the value of 1, I just noticed that your premise was based off of flawed mathematics.... you can't divide something into nothing. Your little attempt here, based off of flawed math, also ignores the fact that you're not dealing with a whole bunch of little nothings. Sure, you might be dealing with subatomic particles, but guess what... they're still somethings. Just because you get your pizza from the delivery man and start pulling everything apart doesn't mean that those pieces of it are not still there, and doesn't change the fact that as a whole, it's still a pizza (a very messy and strewn out one now, but still one). Need that again? How about this...

Sure, a car is made up of just a bunch of atoms... Just like a snowball. Now, if they were all traveling at 60mph relative to you, which would you rather have hit you?
1) a quark
2) a snowball
3) a 1980 Delta '88

Or if you need things in a less scientific and less concrete example way, how about this.

The reality of an object is not defined by the division of the whole by its parts, but instead by the sum of its parts and their interaction together to complete and make up the whole.

Actually the whole thing is wrong. Remember, 0 is a mathematical representation for a lack of a value, either positive or negative, or nothing... depending on how you want to say it. In division, all you are trying to do is figure out how much of one value it takes to make up another value. Well, unless you were shot in the head with a nailgun, you can easily see that you can't keep adding together nothings and eventually get something. The answer of a/0 isn't something, it's fucking undefined since you're trying to do an operation that doesn't make sense. So, since 1/0 != infinity, you've still got nothing saying what 1/infinity is equal to. Now sure, if you were wanting to round things (even to the nearest trillionth place would do it), you could try to say that 1/infinity = 0, but that would still only be 1/infinity = 0, with a + or - .1*10^-infinity accuracy.

Since we're not really going to be able to do any real math with infinitesimally small numbers (or large for that matter), let's look at that last equation of yours again. We'll let a=infinity, and deal with another proper way for expressing your equation so we can easily see where it went wrong.

1 (universe) = 1/infinity x infinity

So, substituting a, we get this:
1 (universe) = 1/a x a

Now, lets look at that last part... the times a.  Since anything divided by itself is itself yet again, you can express any number or variable as it/1, or in this case, a/1. This would make your equation look like this...
1 (universe) = 1/a x a/1

Another trip down basic mathematics lane will remind us that any fraction, multiplied by its inverse, is equal to...





that's right, 1.

So, where are we now? well, since 1/a x a/1 = 1 (multiplying inverses), we can then reduce the first formula to 1 (universe) = 1.

So, since we've gone through and seen that the universe is actually still a whole and not imploding when someone decided to see what happens when you try to divide by zero using faulty math assumptions and a lack of reasoning, it's safe to return to your *chan image making without fear of existence suddenly ending in a big *slurp* sound.

Dad?

Once again, I'm surprised that people here can be disturbed or bothered by anything other than mankind's ignorance. It's not the act of man's violence against man that should disturb us, but the reasoning and logic used to justify man's violence against man.

Nice one... makes me wonder why I'm not milking college students for beer money yet.

He had to give you something to post about.

I'd still love to see the IP records for this site from over the years. Should be some damn interesting ones in there.

At least if you're enough of a geek to get off on that sort of thing.
OMFG, 70.183.191.120 is teh sexxzor.

I still say the best combinations are some of the simple ones.

Dark Rum:
rum + coke + splash of lime

Light Rum:
rum + peach schnapps + orange juice

Well, not sure about boob jobs and wall street, but I know that capitol hill has been following this logic. Just look at Ted Kennedy.