Principia Discordia

Anyone here ever tried accessing their 'inner Eris'?

Or more specifically, has anyone ever tried contacting their unconscious mind via the excercise RAW puts forward in the second half of Prometheus Rising?

No, Im only about 120 pages into it unfortunately.  How about yourself?  I planed on doing them this summer, when hopefully I will have more free time, and a semi Cabal to back me up....

I've probed into it a bit, in the last week, so far nothing completely astounding has come up . . . I've learned some creepy things about myself and realized some things about other people I know that I should have and didn't, but no amazing insights into the world or universe that wouldn't sound like something from a hallmark card . . .

Quote from: Christ Raw V, KSCAnyone here ever tried accessing their 'inner Eris'?

You can tell the ones that succeed.  People will make lots of room on the bus for them.

They must have been focusing on Chapter 69 of Crowley's Book of Lies.

Quote from: Christ Raw V, KSCThey must have been focusing on Chapter 69 of Crowley's Book of Lies.

Crowley was a fraud.

Quote from: Ghost In The Machine

Quote from: Christ Raw V, KSCThey must have been focusing on Chapter 69 of Crowley's Book of Lies.

Crowley was a fraud.

Yes, in many, many ways.

But he was also sometimes right.

Quote from: Ghost In The Machine

Quote from: Christ Raw V, KSCThey must have been focusing on Chapter 69 of Crowley's Book of Lies.

Crowley was a fraud.

And who isn't?  Define your terms.

Quote from: Ghost In The Machine

Quote from: Christ Raw V, KSCThey must have been focusing on Chapter 69 of Crowley's Book of Lies.

Crowley was a fraud.

He's alright but his followers annoy me.

Quote from: Chaplin_Sinatra_Fonzarell

Quote from: Ghost In The Machine

Quote from: Christ Raw V, KSCThey must have been focusing on Chapter 69 of Crowley's Book of Lies.

Crowley was a fraud.

He's alright but his followers annoy me.

That's how I feel about Jesus :?

Quote from: Eldora, Oracle of Alchemy

Quote from: Chaplin_Sinatra_Fonzarell

Quote from: Ghost In The Machine

Quote from: Christ Raw V, KSCThey must have been focusing on Chapter 69 of Crowley's Book of Lies.

Crowley was a fraud.

He's alright but his followers annoy me.

That's how I feel about Jesus :?

"A fake prophet can be tolerated.  A real one should be nailed to a stick.  Cassandra didn't get half the kicking around she deserved."
- RAH

Quote from: LMNO

Quote from: Ghost In The Machine

Quote from: Christ Raw V, KSCThey must have been focusing on Chapter 69 of Crowley's Book of Lies.

Crowley was a fraud.

Yes, in many, many ways.

But he was also sometimes right.

So is a broken clock.

Quote from: Christ Raw V, KSC

Quote from: Ghost In The Machine

Quote from: Christ Raw V, KSCThey must have been focusing on Chapter 69 of Crowley's Book of Lies.

Crowley was a fraud.

And who isn't?  Define your terms.

A person who can deliver on his/her claims?

Quote from: Ghost In The Machine
A person who can deliver on his/her claims?

Well, i don't know how many of his excercises you have attempted, but I have to say that while some of his stuff was crap and overly "occult", other things have (to me) shown a ring of truth.

Seriously, have you tried some of his stuff out?

Quote from: LMNO

Quote from: Ghost In The Machine
A person who can deliver on his/her claims?

Well, i don't know how many of his excercises you have attempted, but I have to say that while some of his stuff was crap and overly "occult", other things have (to me) shown a ring of truth.

Seriously, have you tried some of his stuff out?

I read a couple of his books.  There's nothing to try out.  It's gibberish.

Crowley was probably a bit too good at blowing his own horn. Whether he was "genuine" or not, the result is lots of clueless followers.

Quote from: nurbldoffCrowley was probably a bit too good at blowing his own horn. Whether he was "genuine" or not, the result is lots of clueless followers.

I don't think you can blame the idiocy of humanity of Crowley.

Quote from: nurbldoffCrowley was probably a bit too good at blowing his own horn. Whether he was "genuine" or not, the result is lots of clueless followers.

"Genuine" = tangible, reproduceable results.

Crowley was the very model of the charletan, he just had a few rich dupes.

Quote from: Ghost In The Machine

Quote from: nurbldoffCrowley was probably a bit too good at blowing his own horn. Whether he was "genuine" or not, the result is lots of clueless followers.

"Genuine" = tangible, reproduceable results.

Crowley was the very model of the charletan, he just had a few rich dupes.

Ok, I'm gonna have to ask you again, GitMo, if you have actually tried Uncle Al's experiments.

Quote from: LMNO

Quote from: Ghost In The Machine

Quote from: nurbldoffCrowley was probably a bit too good at blowing his own horn. Whether he was "genuine" or not, the result is lots of clueless followers.

"Genuine" = tangible, reproduceable results.

Crowley was the very model of the charletan, he just had a few rich dupes.

Ok, I'm gonna have to ask you again, GitMo, if you have actually tried Uncle Al's experiments.

Nope.  However, if they worked, the US government would have found a way to make a bomb out of them, like they do with every other principle that works.

QED.

1.  If you ain't done it, you should try, and see what happens.
2.  What exactly do you think Crowley's claims were?  Because I think you might have a misconception about Al.

Quote from: Ghost In The Machine

Quote from: Christ Raw V, KSC

Quote from: Ghost In The Machine

Quote from: Christ Raw V, KSCThey must have been focusing on Chapter 69 of Crowley's Book of Lies.

Crowley was a fraud.

And who isn't?  Define your terms.

A person who can deliver on his/her claims?

Oh, I think he delivered on his claims . . .  e.g. the decline of
Xtianity in the civilized world, the wiccan and neo-pagan currents, the
the Oriental upsurge in the West, all show his influnce...  the OTO¬† keeps growing...

And if you don't understand his writings, I think its unfair to blame him, it's a poor worker who blames his tools.  His writing is all hidden behind riddles, codes and puns . . . its not intended to be light reading.

Quote from: LMNO1.  If you ain't done it, you should try, and see what happens.
2.  What exactly do you think Crowley's claims were?  Because I think you might have a misconception about Al.

He claimed to be able to work magicK.  Now, define magicK.

Quote from: Ghost In The Machine

Quote from: LMNO1.  If you ain't done it, you should try, and see what happens.
2.  What exactly do you think Crowley's claims were?  Because I think you might have a misconception about Al.

He claimed to be able to work magicK.  Now, define magicK.

I think you are misunderstanding what magic "is" . . . Not that shit David Blaine does . . . its a very personal re-forming of your own mind and consciousness.  It is taking the bull by the horns, and swallowing it.  You own your own mind (some might say you ARE your own mind) so why not control it, instead of having it control you?

You create all the reality you see, why not have fun with it?

If you can't understand Crowley, I don't see how you can understand Discordianism.

Quote from: Christ Raw V, KSC

I think you are misunderstanding what magic "is" . . . its a very personal re-forming of your own mind and consciousness.

If you can't understand Crowley, I don't see how you can understand Discordianism.

1.  That's not magic, that's just self-inflicted mind-fuckery.

2.  If you can't understand the baryon conservation principle, how can you understand discordianism?  Blow me, punk.

Quote from: Ghost In The Machine1.  That's not magic, that's just self-inflicted mind-fuckery.

We're just getting into semantics here, bucko.

Quote from: Ghost In The Machine2.  If you can't understand the baryon conservation principle, how can you understand discordianism?  Blow me, punk.

That's not a very witty response . . . I toss an apple at you and you come back with 'blow me'?  You fail the test.


Now, would anyone care to get back on topic?

Quote from: Christ Raw V, KSC

Quote from: Ghost In The Machine1.  That's not magic, that's just self-inflicted mind-fuckery.

We're just getting into semantics here, bucko.

Quote from: Ghost In The Machine2.  If you can't understand the baryon conservation principle, how can you understand discordianism?  Blow me, punk.

That's not a very witty response . . . I toss an apple at you and you come back with 'blow me'?  You fail the test.


Now, would anyone care to get back on topic?

So, magic isn't a real force, just a way of thinking?  Okay.  As stated, Crowley was a fraud.

I wasn't trying to be witty, dogmatism boy.  I was telling you to blow me.  You post an ignorant fucking statement like that "apple" you "threw me", you get what you have coming.  So, fuck you AND your "test".

Well, Crowley defined "Magick"* as "the science and art of causing change to occur in conformity with the will".   he also said,

"What is a Magical Operation? It may be defined as any event in nature which is brought to pass by Will. We must not exclude potato-growing or banking from our definition. Let us take a very simple example of a Magical Act: that of a man blowing his nose."


My interpretation is that Crowley, though Tantra, Drugs, Yoga, et al, was able to alter his reality tunnel or grid, or filter, as he saw fit.  Some have called that enlightenment.  I'm not sure I do, though.

Anyway, he also hid a lot of his Ideas in pompous windbaggery.  It turns a lot of people off.

Still, his methods are fairly effective, and you don't really need to engage in all the cape-wearing, goblet hefting, occult chanting business that he was all on about.  I'd suggest you give him a little bit more slack.








*I know, I know, it's actually spelled "majyq".

[side note]

When teh fuck did I become the moderate here?

Down down . . . simmer . . . breathe . . .

Attempting to explain to you Crowley's definition of magic is not dogma, my child.  

You can't make ridiculous statements like those about Crowley and think nobody is going to challenge you on them.

Quote from: LMNO
Still, his methods are fairly effective, and you don't really need to engage in all the cape-wearing, goblet hefting, occult chanting business that he was all on about.  I'd suggest you give him a little bit more slack.


*I know, I know, it's actually spelled "majyq".

1.  Mad props to him, actually.  He made a fairly decent living off of his quackery.

2.  :lol:

Quote from: LMNO[side note]

When teh fuck did I become the moderate here?

Because you aren't a dogmatic retard?

Hey everyone, someone just learned a new word!

Quote from: Christ Raw V, KSCDown down . . . simmer . . . breathe . . .

Attempting to explain to you Crowley's definition of magic is not dogma, my child.  

You can't make ridiculous statements like those about Crowley and think nobody is going to challenge you on them.

Get a load of THIS freak.  He acts like he's about 14, and he's running around calling people "my child".

Go back to chanting from the book of lies, idiot.

Quote from: Christ Raw V, KSCHey everyone, someone just learned a new word!

:yawn:

[ignore]

I declare all intellectual moisture in this thread to be officially squeezed out.



Commnce the shit-flinging!

Quote from: LMNOI declare all intellectual moisture in this thread to be officially squeezed out.



Commnce the shit-flinging!

No, I'm done with the troll.

For the record, I don't even put a lot of stock in Crowley, but I don't think he was a quack, or full of shit, or would ever attempt to insult anyone who did. That was you, MY CHILD.

I think it would also be worth pointing out that if you start an argument on a thread I started it's not exactly accurate to describe me as the troll.

Let.

It.

GO.

:lol:

Did I do that?

*looks at LMNO*

*looks at handcuffs in her hand*

Fine.

*pouts*

*puts handcuffs back in purse*

*kicks the dirt and hurumphs*

Aw...

Sorry, DJ.  


But hey, why listen to me, anyway.

::peeks in her bag::

Hey, are those nipple clips?

This thread needs the UN to debate it and at least one musical campaign about it and then we can declare it an disaster zone.

I'll call Bob Geldof...

Quote from: ScribeThis thread needs the UN to debate it and at least one musical campaign about it and then we can declare it an disaster zone.

My bad.

I slipped, you see.

Quote from: Christ Raw V, KSC
Oh, I think he delivered on his claims . . .  e.g. the decline of
Xtianity in the civilized world, the wiccan and neo-pagan currents, the
the Oriental upsurge in the West, all show his influnce...

you been smoking chunks of Ajax again? please explain how you think Christianity is in decline in the civilized world?

for that matter, please explain why you think that any part of the world deserves to be called "civilized"?

8)

Quote from: T'ai Kung

Quote from: Christ Raw V, KSC
Oh, I think he delivered on his claims . . .  e.g. the decline of
Xtianity in the civilized world, the wiccan and neo-pagan currents, the
the Oriental upsurge in the West, all show his influnce...

you been smoking chunks of Ajax again? please explain how you think Christianity is in decline in the civilized world?

for that matter, please explain why you think that any part of the world deserves to be called "civilized"?

8)

Careful, he'll pull your Discordian Card.

:lol:

Quote from: T'ai Kung

Quote from: Christ Raw V, KSC
Oh, I think he delivered on his claims . . .  e.g. the decline of
Xtianity in the civilized world, the wiccan and neo-pagan currents, the
the Oriental upsurge in the West, all show his influnce...

you been smoking chunks of Ajax again? please explain how you think Christianity is in decline in the civilized world?

for that matter, please explain why you think that any part of the world deserves to be called "civilized"?

8)

Actually, an article in the paper the other day noted that Church attendance in Europe has plummeted.

And as far as civilization goes, Europe>America.

Yes.  This is true.  But we acquired the EU.  The institution that says if a banana bends so many degrees too far, its not a banana.

Wait.  Civilization has to be smart, too?



We certainly are Doomed.

Quote from: LMNOWait.  Civilization has to be smart, too?



We certainly are Doomed.

Are they mad?

Civilization is merely here to provide us with drunkenness.

Well...not stooopid would be a start.  Imagine a vast bureacracy.  Now imagine that actually runs the country. As in, the President, the Cheifs of Staff, the entire executive, is chosen from that group, based on the internal politics of each office.  And they all hate each other as much as is pyhsically possible.  Then add several fairly powerful countries.  That is the EU.  I think Eris had a hand in it.

Quote from: Irreverend Hugh, KSC

Quote from: LMNOWait.  Civilization has to be smart, too?



We certainly are Doomed.

Are they mad?

Civilization is merely here to provide us with drunkenness.

Actually, there's a pretty good argument that civilization was started for beer.

Beer = Christianity. Apparently....

Quote from: ScribeBeer = Christianity. Apparently....

You just gave me a mental image of Pat Robertson beer-puking.

THANKS!  :D

RAW's methods are alright,but I prefer erisian tantra and chaoist  taoism.
Church of Eris runs an excellent Chao-lin Temple  at Jrethicon IV.
I was offered the abbotship but regretfuuly had to turn it down.(the abbot always ends up getting his ass kicked by the evil greyfu masters,and has to get avenged by his former student who was kicked out for breaking the rules,and learned his kung-fu from a crazy old monk.I preffered to be the ceazy old monk).

Quote from: Ghost In The MachineActually, there's a pretty good argument that civilization was started for beer.

The story of Sekhmet pretty well posits that beer is what saved the ancient Egyptians. :D

I propose we all go to our local Beer Importer, and pick up some Egyptian beer.

In a show of solidarity, of course.

ALEISTER CROWLEY HAS A POSSE
ALEISTER CROWLEY HAS A POSSE
ALEISTER CROWLEY HAS A POSSE
ALEISTER CROWLEY HAS A POSSE
ALEISTER CROWLEY HAS A POSSE
ALEISTER CROWLEY HAS A POSSE
ALEISTER CROWLEY HAS A POSSE
ALEISTER CROWLEY HAS A POSSE
ALEISTER CROWLEY HAS A POSSE
ALEISTER CROWLEY HAS A POSSE
ALEISTER CROWLEY HAS A POSSE
ALEISTER CROWLEY HAS A POSSE
ALEISTER CROWLEY HAS A POSSE
ALEISTER CROWLEY HAS A POSSE
ALEISTER CROWLEY HAS A POSSE
ALEISTER CROWLEY HAS A POSSE
ALEISTER CROWLEY HAS A POSSE
ALEISTER CROWLEY HAS A POSSE
ALEISTER CROWLEY HAS A POSSE
ALEISTER CROWLEY HAS A POSSE
ALEISTER CROWLEY HAS A POSSE
ALEISTER CROWLEY HAS A POSSE
ALEISTER CROWLEY HAS A POSSE
ALEISTER CROWLEY HAS A POSSE
ALEISTER CROWLEY HAS A POSSE
ALEISTER CROWLEY HAS A POSSE
ALEISTER CROWLEY HAS A POSSE
ALEISTER CROWLEY HAS A POSSE
ALEISTER CROWLEY HAS A POSSE
ALEISTER CROWLEY HAS A POSSE
ALEISTER CROWLEY HAS A POSSE
ALEISTER CROWLEY HAS A POSSE
ALEISTER CROWLEY HAS A POSSE
ALEISTER CROWLEY HAS A POSSE
ALEISTER CROWLEY HAS A POSSE
ALEISTER CROWLEY HAS A POSSE
ALEISTER CROWLEY HAS A POSSE
ALEISTER CROWLEY HAS A POSSE
ALEISTER CROWLEY HAS A POSSE
ALEISTER CROWLEY HAS A POSSE
ALEISTER CROWLEY HAS A POSSE
ALEISTER CROWLEY HAS A POSSE
ALEISTER CROWLEY HAS A POSSE
ALEISTER CROWLEY HAS A POSSE
ALEISTER CROWLEY HAS A POSSE
ALEISTER CROWLEY HAS A POSSE
ALEISTER CROWLEY HAS A POSSE
ALEISTER CROWLEY HAS A POSSE
ALEISTER CROWLEY HAS A POSSE
ALEISTER CROWLEY HAS A POSSE
ALEISTER CROWLEY HAS A POSSE
ALEISTER CROWLEY HAS A POSSE
ALEISTER CROWLEY HAS A POSSE
ALEISTER CROWLEY HAS A POSSE
ALEISTER CROWLEY HAS A POSSE
ALEISTER CROWLEY HAS A POSSE
ALEISTER CROWLEY HAS A POSSE
ALEISTER CROWLEY HAS A POSSE
ALEISTER CROWLEY HAS A POSSE
ALEISTER CROWLEY HAS A POSSE
ALEISTER CROWLEY HAS A POSSE
ALEISTER CROWLEY HAS A POSSE
ALEISTER CROWLEY HAS A POSSE
ALEISTER CROWLEY HAS A POSSE

...and most of them are asshats!

Quote from: LMNOAw...

Sorry, DJ.  


But hey, why listen to me, anyway.

::peeks in her bag::

Hey, are those nipple clips?

Y- um, no!  No!  Those are hair clips!  Really, little, teeny, tiny, hair clips.  Um, yeah. :oops:

For teeny, tiny hairs?

I don't know why but that sounds WORSE than nipple clips.

:wink:

Ok, so anyone interested in answering my original question?

Any further comments about Crowley will be ignored by me, lest someone should lure me into an argument, and then brand me as a troll.

ah, what was your original question?
Sorry. I wasn't paying attention.

Oh, yeah... you're a troll. Want to argue?

I've forgotten myself.

I'd love to argue, pick a topic.

One of my favorites is the Big Bang. I think it is a crock of shit.
How about you?

I do too - but I can still argue against it if you want, I can argue against anything.

Quote from: gnimbleyOne of my favorites is the Big Bang. I think it is a crock of shit.
How about you?

mroe liekthe big inflaton. eris blew a balloon for th eparty and uh i said too much...

Quote from: erishorab, horab, horab... *shakes head*

Quote from: Christ Raw V, KSCOk, so anyone interested in answering my original question?

Any further comments about Crowley will be ignored by me, lest someone should lure me into an argument, and then brand me as a troll.

1.  Nope.

2.  Too late.

Alright, so I'll argue for the Big Bang then . . .

It's obviously true because contracting isn't any fun . . . and wasn't there some theory about static on radios and televisions being radiation from the Big Bang?

And all those exploding frogs in Europe must be going up for some reason . . .

Quote from: Christ Raw V, KSCAnyone here ever tried accessing their 'inner Eris'?

Or more specifically, has anyone ever tried contacting their unconscious mind via the excercise RAW puts forward in the second half of Prometheus Rising?

Didn't read that book yet.  What's the excercize?  I think if you read any of this forum, you know many of us are in constant contact with our inner Eris.  Or, perhaps, our inner child, our inner brat child , hehehe, I crack myself up and that's all I care about most of the time :shock:  :twisted:

Quote from: Eldora, Oracle of Alchemy

Quote from: Christ Raw V, KSCAnyone here ever tried accessing their 'inner Eris'?

Or more specifically, has anyone ever tried contacting their unconscious mind via the excercise RAW puts forward in the second half of Prometheus Rising?

Didn't read that book yet.  What's the excercize?  I think if you read any of this forum, you know many of us are in constant contact with our inner Eris.  Or, perhaps, our inner child, our inner brat child , hehehe, I crack myself up and that's all I care about most of the time :shock:  :twisted:

Truth.  Bitching and laughs, that about covers it.

Quote from: indelible magic marker

Quote from: gnimbleyOne of my favorites is the Big Bang. I think it is a crock of shit.
How about you?

mroe liekthe big inflaton. eris blew a balloon for th eparty and uh i said too much...

Quote from: erishorab, horab, horab... *shakes head*

http://web.mit.edu/physics/facultyandstaff/faculty/alan_guth.html

ALAN H. GUTH, Victor F. Weisskopf Professor of Physics

This guy agrees with you.  The physicists and the mystics meet again.  It is getting harder and harder to tell them apart :shock:

It's pretty simple.  Overly simple, maybe.  It's just basically picturing yourself in front of a computer which is from the future and will read your thoughts and relay answers back.  But, the computer reads all thoughts and will take doubts as an order not to answer the question.

Basically just communicating with a different part of your mind. Maybe the unconscious, who knows . . .

I've had some weird answers come back . . . I don't know it's nothing earth shattering, but it's amusing.

It's self-hypnosis, but it can be fun, and illuminating.


It lets you know who programs the computer.

But it's not the most mind-blowing part of the book.

Ah, ok . . . I thought it was self hypnosis, but I wasn't sure if there was a more limiting definition of hypnosis . . .

What do you consider the most mind blowing part of the book?

That would be telling.

Gotcha.

I found that part pretty shocking, I didn't realize it would be so easy . . . do you put much stock into Leary's 8 Circuits of the Human Mind?

The first five I can see... Not sure about the last 3.

But they're metaphors, anyway.

I agree . . . and I also agree with you about the first five . . . it seems to me that the last 3 are just variations on a theme . . . they could easily be grouped together into one 'circuit'.

But so could the first 4.

It's all the same circut, man.

Haven't you figured that out?

I constantly change my mind, but yes . . . I see more difference between the first four proposed than the last four, though, so I find it more helpful to seperate them for now, but yeah it's all part of the same set.  5=6 and all that.

Try identifying 1 with 8.

Ahhh, I think I see what you are getting at, the OBE and other 'mystical' aspects of the 8th circuit is like the bio-survival circuit, but on a cosmic scale . . .

So, perhaps the 'tunnel of light' that people claim to see when they have near death experiences are both birth memories, and re-birth visions?

Or am I just going off the deep end here?

Actually, it's more interesting than that.  If you can identify & combine 1 & 8, you can (and people often do, without realizing) combine any and all the circuts in all possible combinations, which turns out to be 8! (that is, 8 factorial).

I strongly suggest you take some time, & work on this.  When you combine 4 and 7, for example, certain fetishes people have become very clear and obvious.

Hmmmmmm . . . that's very interesting.  

I'll admit that I don't really get the factorial part (math was never my strong suit), but I will put some thought into this on the weekend.

8 factorial is simply a mathematical term to figure out how many combinations are possible.

I've had a lot of success combining a mediation of Circut Combination with Joe Campbell's Mythic symbolism, and of course, Carl Jung.

Ah, ok, that's kind of what I figured it would be . . . that's fascinating.  I will do a lot of thinking about this over the weekend . . . maybe I'll start reading Leary's Cosmic Consciousness or whatever its called . . . probably better to get it straight from the horses mouth.


I could sort of do without all the life extension stuff in Prometheus Rising, what about you?  Does that interest you?

The information provided about LI (as part of the S.M.I.I.L.E formula) is fascinating.  And exciting.

If there was ever a government conspiracy, it would be the one they have launched against life extension.

Good point . . .

It just doesn't seem likely to me, but that's part of my brainwashing I suppose . . . I guess I feel that way because right now we don't seem to have the technology to get off the planet in large groups, we wouldn't really have anywhere to go if we did, and this planet already has a population problem as it is.

Have you no faith?  or optimism?

Oh sure . . . but it does get hampered by cyncism sometimes . . .

This is one of the few things I am cynical about, but I am working on it.

I think it would be great, I just have my inner skeptic to work on.

That's why you should work on those circut combinations.  It really helps to break your conditioning.

Quote from: LMNOThat's why you should work on those circut combinations.  It really helps to break your conditioning.

Except 2 & 5.  That combo is nothing more than mental masturbation.  Puerile as hell.

Leary should have been kneecapped for that.

Ah, but 2, 4, and 5 actually is a haven for the S/M crowd.  I'm sure Aini or Wenchmaster (or even Malaul) would back me up on this.

Quote from: LMNOAh, but 2, 4, and 5 actually is a haven for the S/M crowd.  I'm sure Aini or Wenchmaster (or even Malaul) would back me up on this.

Well, what CAN you expect from the freak contingent?  Anyone who takes those 3 as their favorites is obviously not going to blend in with polite society.

If I had my way, they'd all be tarred, feathered, and tossed into a work camp.  They'd soon learn the error of their ways.

Quote from: LMNOThat's why you should work on those circut combinations.  It really helps to break your conditioning.

I will try that.  Thanks.

$10 says he spends all weekend jacking off to the 2/5 combo.

Quote from: Ghost In The Machine$10 says he spends all weekend jacking off to the 2/5 combo.

C'mon.  No one would actually get off on that, and you know it.

:shock:

At least, I hope not.

ChristRAW, you don't have any... neuroses, do you?

Quote from: LMNO

Quote from: Ghost In The Machine$10 says he spends all weekend jacking off to the 2/5 combo.

C'mon.  No one would actually get off on that, and you know it.

:shock:

At least, I hope not.

ChristRAW, you don't have any... neuroses, do you?

I knew this sicko broad once, said she COULDN'T get off without using some of the twisted shit you can derive from that.

Of course, she was tattooed over 95% of her body, and had a pierced buttock.

Just the run-of-the-mill delusions of grandeur, paranoia . . . nothing spectacular

Well, either way, you might want to avoid starting out with the 2/5 combo.

You seemed to grasp the 8/1 pretty well... see what you can get with 3/6.

Hmm, the Rationalist doesn't seem to go well with the other circuits, but I will think about it this weekend. . . I'm at work right now, and thinking is a hazard here.

Quote from: Christ Raw V, KSCJust the run-of-the-mill delusions of grandeur, paranoia . . . nothing spectacular

You aren't looking closely enough.  There's some really sick shit down THAT rabbithole.

It's not the "rationalist", as you well know.  It's the symbolic thought circut.


...Wait, you didn't know that?

Have you been thinking 3 is purely rational?

Take a look at the "Tree of Life" chapter in "LMNO-PI".  That is pure symbol manipulation.  Does that look rational to you?






Maybe you should hold off on combining circuts until you have a firm grasp on what the circuts actually [/i]are.

No I don't have a firm grasp on it yet, I've only just started reading about them, and so far only in Prometheus Rising . . . I have Leary's book but haven't started it yet.

Rational is not the right word, I meant analytical, but I was under the impression that it was mostly rational, yes.  I will check out the LMNO-PI, and take it into account too.

Have no fear, though, I don't intend to do any combining of circuits any time soon, I'm still mulling it all over.

But thank you for your help

Quote from: Christ Raw V, KSCNo I don't have a firm grasp on it yet, I've only just started reading about them, and so far only in Prometheus Rising . . . I have Leary's book but haven't started it yet.

Rational is not the right word, I meant analytical, but I was under the impression that it was mostly rational, yes.  I will check out the LMNO-PI, and take it into account too.

Have no fear, though, I don't intend to do any combining of circuits any time soon, I'm still mulling it all over.

But thank you for your help

Maybe you want to read more, ese.  That kind of stuff can be dangerous for the neophyte.  Crawling around in your own head is bad enough, but with just enough knowledge to be dangerous, you're likely to wind up in a fetal position, or even find yourself LARPing.

I intend to read as much as I can, but ya gotta start somewhere.

Quote from: Eldora, Oracle of Alchemy

Quote from: indelible magic marker

Quote from: gnimbleyOne of my favorites is the Big Bang. I think it is a crock of shit.
How about you?

mroe liekthe big inflaton. eris blew a balloon for th eparty and uh i said too much...

Quote from: erishorab, horab, horab... *shakes head*

http://web.mit.edu/physics/facultyandstaff/faculty/alan_guth.html

ALAN H. GUTH, Victor F. Weisskopf Professor of Physics

This guy agrees with you.  The physicists and the mystics meet again.  It is getting harder and harder to tell them apart :shock:

eris is mad becuase i wasn't sposed to tell about how uh, yeah. i'm not allowed to say.

also you'll hear nothing out of me about lefthanded light.

Quote from: Eldora, Oracle of Alchemy

Quote from: indelible magic marker

Quote from: gnimbleyOne of my favorites is the Big Bang. I think it is a crock of shit.
How about you?

mroe liekthe big inflaton. eris blew a balloon for th eparty and uh i said too much...

Quote from: erishorab, horab, horab... *shakes head*

http://web.mit.edu/physics/facultyandstaff/faculty/alan_guth.html

ALAN H. GUTH, Victor F. Weisskopf Professor of Physics

This guy agrees with you.  The physicists and the mystics meet again.  It is getting harder and harder to tell them apart :shock:

He believes in the big bang. He just inflated it.

Him: Everything started in the big bang.

Them: But some of the numbers don't work out.

Him: Well, they would work out if you assume that everything expanded
a one rate for the first few nanoseconds and then slowed way down
and expanded at a constant rate after that.

Them: oooooooo

Some other guy: But this number over here. If you are right, then it
would be different by an order of magnitude of 28 from observeable
data.

Them: Shut up, he's on a roll.

Some other guy: But that's the biggest error in the history of science!

Them: Bah! Who are you and what do you know?

Some other guy: I won the nobel prize.

Them: Over-rated. Over the hill. Besides, if we assume that there is
another kind of matter and energy that can not be seen or measured
then everything works out just fine! Hurray! We just proved ourselves
right!

surely you're not trying to say that dark matter doesn't exist.

previously observed and quantified data already demands that it does.

our inability to see it says more about the limitations of our technology than anything else.

8)

Quote from: gnimbley
He believes in the big bang. He just inflated it.

-->Major snip to keep all the dooms from getting pissed about metaquotes.<--

OK, fair enough, instead of making fun of Nobel Prize winners, how about you share your story of how the world began :wink:

I'll share mine:

There was, and then there was somemore.

Oh YEAH!?

8)

Quote from: gnimbley
He believes in the big bang. He just inflated it.

Him: Everything started in the big bang.

Them: But some of the numbers don't work out.

Him: Well, they would work out if you assume that everything expanded
a one rate for the first few nanoseconds and then slowed way down
and expanded at a constant rate after that.

Them: oooooooo

Some other guy: But this number over here. If you are right, then it
would be different by an order of magnitude of 28 from observeable
data.

Them: Shut up, he's on a roll.

Some other guy: But that's the biggest error in the history of science!

Them: Bah! Who are you and what do you know?

Some other guy: I won the nobel prize.

Them: Over-rated. Over the hill. Besides, if we assume that there is
another kind of matter and energy that can not be seen or measured
then everything works out just fine! Hurray! We just proved ourselves
right!

Stay tuned tomorrow, where gnimbley explains Bell's theorum using toothpicks and chewing gum!

I absolutely loved this, gnimbley.  It's a perfect summation of science.

The next line i think would be something like this:

Still Another Guy:  Hey, Check it out.  I just got this machine to recognize and identify that other kind of energy y'all were talking about.

Them:  No shit?

SAG: Yeah.  Cool, huh?

Quote from: LMNO

Quote from: gnimbley
He believes in the big bang. He just inflated it.

Him: Everything started in the big bang.

Them: But some of the numbers don't work out.

Him: Well, they would work out if you assume that everything expanded
a one rate for the first few nanoseconds and then slowed way down
and expanded at a constant rate after that.

Them: oooooooo

Some other guy: But this number over here. If you are right, then it
would be different by an order of magnitude of 28 from observeable
data.

Them: Shut up, he's on a roll.

Some other guy: But that's the biggest error in the history of science!

Them: Bah! Who are you and what do you know?

Some other guy: I won the nobel prize.

Them: Over-rated. Over the hill. Besides, if we assume that there is
another kind of matter and energy that can not be seen or measured
then everything works out just fine! Hurray! We just proved ourselves
right!

Stay tuned tomorrow, where gnimbley explains Bell's theorum using toothpicks and chewing gum!

I absolutely loved this, gnimbley.  It's a perfect summation of science.

The next line i think would be something like this:

Still Another Guy:  Hey, Check it out.  I just got this machine to recognize and identify that other kind of energy y'all were talking about.

Them:  No shit?

SAG: Yeah.  Cool, huh?

Quite right.  We should go back to the caves, and beat on hollow logs to scare the evil spirits away.

Galileo and Copernicus didn't get half of what they had coming to them.

...


...



...



Um, what?

Have you decided to save time by not even reading the posts you're responding to anymore?

Quote from: LMNO...


...



...



Um, what?

Have you decided to save time by not even reading the posts you're responding to anymore?

I read them.

...So in what way could you interpret what I said to mean we should abandon science and go back to the caves?

Quote from: LMNO...So in what way could you interpret what I said to mean we should abandon science and go back to the caves?

My mistake.  I took you for a kindred spirit.

I guess you'll be mowed under with the rest, when we angry Luddites and Amish Hordes combine forces.

Heh.  Hey, how are you posting these messages, anyway?

Quote from: LMNOHeh.  Hey, how are you posting these messages, anyway?

Do you have any idea how hard it is to connect an underwood typewriter to a network?

And all the other Luddites laugh at me for using the Underwood.  "Moving parts boy", they call me. :(

Could be worse, you could be using the old "binary smoke signals" technique...

Quote from: LMNOCould be worse, you could be using the old "binary smoke signals" technique...

I said "Luddite", not "Southern Baptist".

Quote from: T'ai Kungsurely you're not trying to say that dark matter doesn't exist.

previously observed and quantified data already demands that it does.

our inability to see it says more about the limitations of our technology than anything else.

8)

I didn't say it didn't exist. And while I am not prepared to refute your
second statement, I find it interesting that we posited the existence
of somethng we can't measure from the fact that it was required to
make the math match observable fact, when the theories the math
explain are piled on top of each other like a house of cards.

And "our inability to see it says more about the limitations of our
technology than anything else" sums up my opinion of Heisenberg's
Uncertainty Principal as being a crock of shit, too. (I know, there goes
quantum physics.)

Quote from: Eldora, Oracle of AlchemyOK, fair enough, instead of making fun of Nobel Prize winners, how about you share your story of how the world began :wink:

I didn't actually make fun of Nobel Prize winners, I was just
pointing out that the supporters of the Big Bang have dismissed out
of hand all criticisms of the theory to the point that Nobel Prize winners
are publicly complaining about it. (The Big Bang people control all the
funding so no research is being done into theories that oppose the
big bang.)


How the world began? It's a big ball of dirt that coalesced out of a
soup of matter.

If you were referring to how I think the universe began, I have no
idea. I think it was here before the Big Bang, and I believe that "The
Big Bang" was really "A Little Bang" among an infinite number of
bangs that go back in time infintely. And that our little bang only
contained a small part of the total matter in the universe.

There is, therefore, a lot more out there than we can see with our
technologically limited viewing instruments. In other words, the universe
has always been there.


On the other hand, in the beginning was the void. And then there was
music...

Quote from: LMNO
Stay tuned tomorrow, where gnimbley explains Bell's theorum using toothpicks and chewing gum!

...Still Another Guy:  Hey, Check it out.  I just got this machine to recognize and identify that other kind of energy y'all were talking about.

Damn. I forgot my toothpicks.

::hugs gnimbley::

Thanks, gnimbley, I would quote you, but that would make my post too big and I have had enough people mad at me. :twisted:

Actually, the Guth guy talks about our universe as being one of many that probably exist.  Scientists feel good about their answers for what happened at the Big Bang and what happened after, but not what happened immediately after.  The closer you get to the Big Bang going back in time, the more our "laws" of physics fall apart.  I think we should make fun of Nobel prize winners.  Most of them have it easy at a University.  I want to see one have a full time job outside of Science and still find time to write a paper, like Einstein.  He didn't get a job at a University until after he had written the paper that got him the award, I don't think  :?

Besides, if they(tm) know so much, why do we need so many constants for everything.  Holy fucking chao.  I think is is interesting that the more physicists learn about the unverise(s), the more they sound like mystics  :twisted: But, maybe that's just me, heh, heh, heh, oops, I channeled Beavis  :shock:  :twisted:

Darling, that sounds about right, except for one thing:

Einstein's job was easy.  That's what allowed him to write.

Similarly, if I had a job that was in any way challenging, "LMNO-PI" would not exist.


[edit:  yes, i did just compare the Theory of Relativity to a crap detective story on an internet forum.  I went there.  you got a problem with that?]

Quote from: Margaret ChoPeople keep telling me "Too much information, don't go there".... I *live* there!

Quote from: Eldora, Oracle of AlchemyThanks, gnimbley, I would quote you, but that would make my post too big and I have had enough people mad at me. :twisted:

Actually, the Guth guy talks about our universe as being one of many that probably exist.  Scientists feel good about their answers for what happened at the Big Bang and what happened after, but not what happened immediately after.  The closer you get to the Big Bang going back in time, the more our "laws" of physics fall apart.  I think we should make fun of Nobel prize winners.  Most of them have it easy at a University.  I want to see one have a full time job outside of Science and still find time to write a paper, like Einstein.  He didn't get a job at a University until after he had written the paper that got him the award, I don't think  :?

Besides, if they(tm) know so much, why do we need so many constants for everything.  Holy fucking chao.  I think is is interesting that the more physicists learn about the unverise(s), the more they sound like mystics  :twisted: But, maybe that's just me, heh, heh, heh, oops, I channeled Beavis  :shock:  :twisted:

1. I'm not mad at you.

2. Scientists talk alot about multiple universes. Hell, their math can prove
there is a square root of -1! I was talking about this universe. The one
full of rocks and big gassy things that glow, etc. I believe it is much
bigger than what they are crediting it for.

3. I don't think the "laws of physics" ever fell apart. I think they just
don't know what they are talking about.

4. Einstein didn't get the Nobel Prize for Relativity, just so you know.

5. Scientists are mystics. They just don't know it.

6. You are Beavis. He channels you.

Quote from: gnimbley
1. I'm not mad at you.

2. Scientists talk alot about multiple universes. Hell, their math can prove
there is a square root of -1! I was talking about this universe. The one
full of rocks and big gassy things that glow, etc. I believe it is much
bigger than what they are crediting it for.

3. I don't think the "laws of physics" ever fell apart. I think they just
don't know what they are talking about.

4. Einstein didn't get the Nobel Prize for Relativity, just so you know.

5. Scientists are mystics. They just don't know it.

6. You are Beavis. He channels you.

1.  Good. :D
2.  The imaginary numbers are more for mathemagicians.  And it wasn't Roger's fault, he ate espresso beans and habeneros in the same, day. :shock:
3.  Oh, yeah.  At the moment of the Big Bang, they have no fucking clue.  That's why Guth's work was such a big deal.  It helped to explain the first second after the Big Bang. :wink:
4.  He actually wrote 3 or 4 papers while he was working as a patent clerk, but IIRC, he wrote them at home, after work. :?
5.  Shhhh, they might hear you and really freak out.  Shirley McClain agrees.  I still haven't decided if that helps or hurts. :?
6.  That explains a lot, you have no idea.  However, my husband is still Butthead. :twisted:

Quote from: Eldora, Oracle of Alchemy2.  The imaginary numbers are more for mathemagicians.  And it wasn't Roger's fault, he ate espresso beans and habeneros in the same, day. :shock:
3.  Oh, yeah.  At the moment of the Big Bang, they have no fucking clue.  That's why Guth's work was such a big deal.  It helped to explain the first second after the Big Bang. :wink:
4.  He actually wrote 3 or 4 papers while he was working as a patent clerk, but IIRC, he wrote them at home, after work. :?
5.  Shhhh, they might hear you and really freak out.  Shirley McClain agrees.  I still haven't decided if that helps or hurts. :?

I hope you won't mind if I stick my fly in your ointment:
2) Imaginary numbers do occasionally have physical-in-the-glowing-gas-Universe manifestations. There are some physics equations that don't quite solve right if you don't allow an imaginary component to some of the numbers.
3) <hairsplitting semantics>He explained nothing. He presented one theory that explained some of the observed data.</hairsplitting semantics> <cough> Just ignore me.
4) Einstien (IIRC) wrote 5 papers in 1905, on a range of physics topics, that are all considered pretty revolutionary.
5) Most of the deep mystical scientists know this too. It is the ones on their coat tails that are scared to admit it.

Quote from: Guido Finucci

Quote from: Eldora, Oracle of Alchemy2.  The imaginary numbers are more for mathemagicians.  And it wasn't Roger's fault, he ate espresso beans and habeneros in the same, day. :shock:
3.  Oh, yeah.  At the moment of the Big Bang, they have no fucking clue.  That's why Guth's work was such a big deal.  It helped to explain the first second after the Big Bang. :wink:
4.  He actually wrote 3 or 4 papers while he was working as a patent clerk, but IIRC, he wrote them at home, after work. :?
5.  Shhhh, they might hear you and really freak out.  Shirley McClain agrees.  I still haven't decided if that helps or hurts. :?

I hope you won't mind if I stick my fly in your ointment:
2) Imaginary numbers do occasionally have physical-in-the-glowing-gas-Universe manifestations. There are some physics equations that don't quite solve right if you don't allow an imaginary component to some of the numbers.
3) <hairsplitting semantics>He explained nothing. He presented one theory that explained some of the observed data.</hairsplitting semantics> <cough> Just ignore me.
4) Einstien (IIRC) wrote 5 papers in 1905, on a range of physics topics, that are all considered pretty revolutionary.
5) Most of the deep mystical scientists know this too. It is the ones on their coat tails that are scared to admit it.

No flies, really, I pulled all that info out of my memory, which really isn't all that great always.  
2.  Imaginary numbers are important to Chaos theory, which ends up including all of everything.  My point was, it is the math, not the science that needs them.  You can talk about concepts without using 'i', but you can't always do the equations.  
3.  Guth got the attention for stuff that he did because he attempted to explain a way to connect the Big Bang to the rest of everything.  He may not have observed it, but it was pretty cool.  It was the first time I saw a scientist(not a Star Trek episode) talk about multiple universes.  
4.  :D
5.  I think it was in one Shirley McClains books that she writes about meeting, I want to say Hawking, but I could be wrong.  it was interesting.

Besides, you are too cute to ignore, with that pie all over your face :wink:

Quote from: Eldora, Oracle of Alchemy2.  Imaginary numbers are important to Chaos theory, which ends up including all of everything.  My point was, it is the math, not the science that needs them.  You can talk about concepts without using 'i', but you can't always do the equations.

Mathmeticians might argue that the equations are just a concise description of the physical reality and that, if your equations have imaginary components, you can't meaningfully talk about the science without also having references to imaginary stuff. I am not a mathmetician so I definitely won't be doing that though.

Quote from: Eldora, Oracle of AlchemyBesides, you are too cute to ignore, with that pie all over your face :wink:

Awww shucks.  :oops:

I just think that using imaginary numbers to describe real phenomena
represents incomplete understanding of the phenomena. Either that
or God picked up this universe at a garage sale.

Quote from: Some Scientist GuyThe gnome's "garage sale" theory fits perfectly with these new equations I just pulled out of my ass!

I was gonna make a hopefully interesting post buttressing my previous assertion with sources quoted and everything, but I cannot in good conscience participate in a serious scientific discussion once Shirley McClain's uber-whacko new-age retardo ass has been brought into the conversation.

sorry.

8)

I was thinking something along those same lines, actually.

Eldora should have stuck to The Dancing Wu-Li Mastres, instead.

Garage Sale, wouldn't surprize me.  The term imaginary number is probably on of the worst descriptions ever used.  Try to keep in mind that at one point negative numbers were imaginary.  Just because they are called imaginary, doesn't mean they don't exist.  If that was true, half the people on this forum would go poof in a whiff of smoke.

As far as i understand it, an imaginary number does not cannot exist in the experiential world.

For example, you can't take a yardstick, and point to a spot that identifies the square root of negative 1.

Which makes it a pretty fucked up tool for explaining things that happen in the experiential universe.

:goes poof:

damnit, now I've gotta go get recorporealized. And I've got a physics test in a hour. Fuck, I'll really have to rush.

*recorpalizes Altoid Addict with all of his parts except that ugly mole on his left ass cheek*

hey!

where did this come from?!?

why is there a big ugly mole on my balls?!?!?

:evil:

Quote from: LMNOAs far as i understand it, an imaginary number does not cannot exist in the experiential world.

For example, you can't take a yardstick, and point to a spot that identifies the square root of negative 1.

Which makes it a pretty fucked up tool for explaining things that happen in the experiential universe.

You also can't point to -1  :D
And, 0 is implied, but you can't point to it either.  

Zero as well as negative numbers were big advances when humans figured out how to use them.  Imaginary numbers aren't as imaginary as they seem.

Quote from: gnimbleyI just think that using imaginary numbers to describe real phenomena represents incomplete understanding of the phenomena. Either that or God picked up this universe at a garage sale.

I am not a mathmetician. Not by a long shot. I may well be talking out of my arse here.

The way I hear it, imaginary numbers are orthogonal to real numbers and there are some things in the Universe that seem to need 'extra number dimensions' to explain them (more) completely. Or something. Someone tried ot explain it to me once but I may have been drunk at the time.

I agree -- real phenomena should be expressed with 'real' maths.

I disagree -- what is this 'Real' of which you speak?

I agree -- that garage sale theory has a whole lot of merit.

*technically* I can show you a negative number.  If you set sea level as 0, then anything below that could be considered negative, but it still leaves a bit to be desired, I know.

Quote from: Guido Finucci

Quote from: gnimbleyI just think that using imaginary numbers to describe real phenomena represents incomplete understanding of the phenomena. Either that or God picked up this universe at a garage sale.

I am not a mathmetician. Not by a long shot. I may well be talking out of my arse here.

The way I hear it, imaginary numbers are orthogonal to real numbers and there are some things in the Universe that seem to need 'extra number dimensions' to explain them (more) completely. Or something. Someone tried ot explain it to me once but I may have been drunk at the time.

I agree -- real phenomena should be expressed with 'real' maths.

I disagree -- what is this 'Real' of which you speak?

I agree -- that garage sale theory has a whole lot of merit.

And fractals look pretty but they also explain real world stuff, like weather patterns, population distributions, mechanical thingys, but it's too early and I haven't had my coffee.  BTW, + a bazillion points for using orthogonal in a sentence :D

http://mywebpages.comcast.net/michelllle/fractals/therest.html
Michelle's Fractal Art

Quote from: The Maligned Hippy*recorpalizes Altoid Addict with all of his parts except that ugly mole on his left ass cheek*

Damnit, why didn't you get rid of that wart too?

fourier frequency analysis.

s-domain analysis and Laplace transforms use the complex plane to reduce difficult to solve differential equations to easier algebraic equations and then back again to the real plane for real answers.

The Wart has character!

I find it pointless to say that imaginary numbers are less real then "ordinary" numbers. They're not, they just got an unfortunate name. No numbers can "exist" any more than imaginary numbers in any sense, since all numbers are pure abstractions anyway. We're used to using  numbers day by day, to describe amounts and stuff, but that doesn't make them more "real" than words. Besides, numbers such as (non-LMNO) Pi can't even be represented finitely with digits, are they real? Pi can be defined as the relation between the circumference and the diameter of a perfect circle; does such a thing "exist"?

The important thing to remember about science is that it's really all just about making models; pictures of "reality". If imaginary numbers are a cool way to make a working model, why not use them? Because some people find them hard to grasp? :)

mmmmmmmm..... Pi........
/*******Formulas for Pi ***********/

***Leibnitz's Formula ***

PI/4 = 1/1 - 1/3 + 1/5 - 1/7 + ...

***Wallis Product ***

PI/2 = 2/1 * 2/3 * 4/3 * 4/5 * 6/5 * 6/7 * ...

***Lord Brouncker's Formula ***

4/PI = 1 +        1
          ----------------
          2 +     3^2
              ------------
              2 +   5^2
                 ---------
                 2 + 7^2 ...


For those who can never get enough Pi

http://www.math.com/tables/constants/pi.htm

I can't believe I asked this!

Quote from: nurbldoff on May 11, 2005, 02:45:03 AM
I find it pointless to say that imaginary numbers are less real then "ordinary" numbers. They're not, they just got an unfortunate name. No numbers can "exist" any more than imaginary numbers in any sense, since all numbers are pure abstractions anyway. We're used to using  numbers day by day, to describe amounts and stuff, but that doesn't make them more "real" than words. Besides, numbers such as (non-LMNO) Pi can't even be represented finitely with digits, are they real? Pi can be defined as the relation between the circumference and the diameter of a perfect circle; does such a thing "exist"?

The important thing to remember about science is that it's really all just about making models; pictures of "reality". If imaginary numbers are a cool way to make a working model, why not use them? Because some people find them hard to grasp? :)

But there is a difference between unreal and real numbers in the sense that real, positive numbers are observable. I can see that I have two apples in front of me; I don't see, for instance, that I have minus nine monkeys. Likewise, i, pi, infinity etc are conceptual rather than 'real'. Pi is a definite value, yes, but no-one can actually list all of it in any form other than a fraction - just the same as any other irrational number. i and infinity are very useful for mathematical working, and of course they have a very important place in maths and physics - but nevertheless, there is still a distinction between 'basic' numbers and these more advanced types.

Of course, 42 > Everything else.

Is that possibly just learned perception though?

Quote from: Zurtok Khan on May 06, 2005, 08:55:57 PM
*recorpalizes Altoid Addict with all of his parts except that ugly mole on his left ass cheek*

I teleported home one night
With Ron and Sid and Meg.
Ron stole Meggie's heart away
And I got Sidney's leg.

Isn't it suspicious that most Starfleet Doctors seems reluctant to use the transporter?  And what if you're not really being moved to another place, what if you're actually being killed, and a copy of you is being created in the new location?  What if every newly transported person is a unique individual, with their own soul?

  How many Jim Kirks are there in Heaven?  How many in Hell?

Quote from: Harlequin on November 26, 2008, 02:10:17 PM

Quote from: nurbldoff on May 11, 2005, 02:45:03 AM
I find it pointless to say that imaginary numbers are less real then "ordinary" numbers. They're not, they just got an unfortunate name. No numbers can "exist" any more than imaginary numbers in any sense, since all numbers are pure abstractions anyway. We're used to using  numbers day by day, to describe amounts and stuff, but that doesn't make them more "real" than words. Besides, numbers such as (non-LMNO) Pi can't even be represented finitely with digits, are they real? Pi can be defined as the relation between the circumference and the diameter of a perfect circle; does such a thing "exist"?

The important thing to remember about science is that it's really all just about making models; pictures of "reality". If imaginary numbers are a cool way to make a working model, why not use them? Because some people find them hard to grasp? :)

But there is a difference between unreal and real numbers in the sense that real, positive numbers are observable. I can see that I have two apples in front of me; I don't see, for instance, that I have minus nine monkeys. Likewise, i, pi, infinity etc are conceptual rather than 'real'. Pi is a definite value, yes, but no-one can actually list all of it in any form other than a fraction - just the same as any other irrational number. i and infinity are very useful for mathematical working, and of course they have a very important place in maths and physics - but nevertheless, there is still a distinction between 'basic' numbers and these more advanced types.

Of course, 42 > Everything else.

I think you might me laboring under a misconception.

You can see an apple and an apple in front of you. If you choose to label them with a quantitative identity based on a generalization, then you can do so... but its no less imaginary than Pi (Apple Pi at that!).

Apple and Apple = Apple and Apple because the two apples are probably not the same. They are likely different apples with different qualities, weight, flavor, bruises, worms...

Ironicly it was Crowly that said "'1+1' is truth and '1+1=2' is a lie". :fnord: