|
||||||
| FAQ | Members List | Calendar | Today's Posts | Search |
Topic Review (Newest First)
|
| Sep 21st, 2005 03:56 PM | ||
| kellychaos |
I read the books when I was about 14, fucker. P.S. Granted, I didn't get all the jokes at the time ... but still. |
|
| Sep 20th, 2005 05:10 PM | ||
| Sethomas | FUCK YOU. I wouldn't necessarily care if a major hollywood movie hadn't been made, but one has been, so FUCK YOU. | |
| Sep 20th, 2005 04:05 PM | ||
| kellychaos | 42 | |
| Sep 20th, 2005 02:25 PM | ||
| davinxtk |
...atomic batteries to power turbines to speed... |
|
| Sep 20th, 2005 02:20 PM | ||
| kahljorn | 93 to Power. Did you know 'they' say will and love are the same thing? The same word? ISN'T THAT JUST STRANGE? | |
| Sep 19th, 2005 10:39 PM | ||
| Pub Lover |
Will to power? 
|
|
| Sep 19th, 2005 05:27 PM | ||
| kahljorn |
I prefer considering it like liquid, or water in fact that water has no innate 'direction', it just merely satisfies it's ennui by compliance with outside forces. Makes sense, no? Wouldn't assuming that it has parameters in the first place be rather vain? And being able to use or understand what we were talking about could easily be attained through psychology, sociology or nearly any invasive science, Seth, you could even understand it through anatomy if you were so inclined. |
|
| Sep 19th, 2005 04:43 PM | ||
| kellychaos |
Quote:
|
|
| Sep 17th, 2005 07:57 PM | ||
| davinxtk |
Re: Existence? Quote:
That really really didn't help us this time around. I fucking hate you. |
|
| Sep 17th, 2005 03:31 PM | ||
| CaptainBubba |
You should at least bring up the obligatory Topology refrence if we're going to be math fags. Topology :o :o :o. |
|
| Sep 17th, 2005 02:37 AM | ||
| Sethomas |
CB, my point wasn't that knowing college math gives an insight into the mysteries of existence. It was that actually doing math rather than studying the philosophy thereof gives an appreciation that it represents the concrete reality of the universe. Like imaginary numbers--sure, they were conceived of in the middle ages as a purely masturbatory exercise, but flourescent lighting and computers couldn't work without them. If mathematical models say that the universe could have resulted just as likely in an instantaneous re-implosion than an accelerating celestial corpus replete with life and black holes, then it's possible. And wicked, you're retarded. It's a given that any thread I post in will be drenched in testosterone, because I'M ALL MAN, BABY. I mean, that's what it means to have an opinion, right? |
|
| Sep 17th, 2005 02:36 AM | ||
| kahljorn |
"I'm gonna go spew testosterone all over someone else's meaningful thread." It's not testosterone, it's chocolate. |
|
| Sep 17th, 2005 01:39 AM | ||
| ItalianStereotype | you're so deep, WICKED. I'll bet you're soooo dark and like poetry too. what color of mascara do you like? LINKS TO YOUR LIVEJOURNAL PLEASE. | |
| Sep 16th, 2005 10:55 PM | ||
| WICKED | Wow. I am wholeheartedy amazed that I'm not the most arrogant one here. You two play nice, now. I'm gonna go spew testosterone all over someone else's meaningful thread. There's certainly more than enough here. | |
| Sep 16th, 2005 08:04 PM | ||
| CaptainBubba |
Speaking as a math major who has done both line and multivariable integration I can state with the greatest of confidence that nothing I have learned in my math courses has ever given me a clear idea of anything related to this conversation. Just wanted to throw that out. |
|
| Sep 16th, 2005 07:28 PM | ||
| kahljorn |
Who says there was ever a "God" in the first place..? There's nothing to say that it had to happened, but there's something saying that it did happen. Nature may have no direction, but it has channels and rivers. So while water may not be inclined to flow in any particular pattern in and of itself, gravity and the deep gouge in the moutain decide that much. The same could be said, i suppose, do you know what forces were at work within the bigbang? And what forces were at work before the big bang? There was obviously something that made it do the things it did, if you want to call that God, that's fine. But attempting to remove him from the "Equation" does nothing, because he was obviously there, you might as well remove the big ball of energy the big bang came from from the equation. And trying to say that things might not have gone the way they had had something else happened is entirely obvious, but that doesn't change the fact that something *did* happen and this was the result. The result could've been different(if something that didn't happen had happened), but who cares, it wasn't. It would be the same circumstance, we could be having this conversation surrounded by antimatter and it really wouldn't matter. Chuckle at that. Did you know if we were too much closer to the sun we wouldn't be here right now? Yea. |
|
| Sep 16th, 2005 07:10 PM | ||
| Sethomas | Kahl, I agree that things happened the way they did for a reason. But that's a theological connundrum, and ever since Spinoza declared that nature has no intrinsic telos science has generally accepted this. Pure Darwinism is based on the fact that nature has no direction. So, sure. We both seem to agree that the universe has four forces because God wants it to. But that doesn't change the fact that if there were no God, there's nothing in the past that infallibly dictated that there must be four forces of nature plus matter made of quarks. You're sidestepping the issue, and not eliciting a fair chuckle in the process. | |
| Sep 16th, 2005 07:09 PM | ||
| kahljorn |
I'm still laughing at how changing the subtance of a cardboard box to metal can make it hold more weight defies our logic... or how changing the basic substance of a world to give it different laws and principals would defy our logic. Now it might logically be different-- that's logic-- but it wouldn't defy our logic, because logic can't really be defied. If the basic rules and functions of a universe were changed, logic would simply adapt to that because it is built off of the rules and functions of the universe. Not off of some pretend shit that you are throwing around to try to act deep... Of course it'd be different, it's a different substance. That's not illogical, that's logical. A isn't B. An apple isn't an orange. This is stuff you learn when you're a little kid. Mommy isn't daddy. Daddy isn't mommy. Also, you can give me any equation and I can show you that it has the exact same answer as any other equation. |
|
| Sep 16th, 2005 06:56 PM | ||
| ziggytrix |
diff e is one of the reasons i quit the engineering program  that shit is fucking hard, and that's coming from someone who thought calculus was a cakewalk. |
|
| Sep 16th, 2005 06:54 PM | ||
| sadie | i'm glad i scrolled through the blah-blah-blah 'cause ziggy made me lol. | |
| Sep 16th, 2005 06:52 PM | ||
| kahljorn |
How do you know I've never done any of that. And anyhow, the only reason you have is because you go to college. But go ahead and try prove your point that because I can't do a line integral I can't understand that if there had been some change that didn't happen(and never will) in the symetery of the antichrist then something different would've happened. You know, the funny thing is that you're missing a huge point. Things unfolded the way they did, for a reason, most likely following some basic law. How often when you throw a ball does it suddenly change direction for absolutely no reason? I mean, theoretically, if a ball suddenly decided to do a spiral and make a 45 degree angle to the left it could enter some kind of hyperspace. And, it could also simply reverse direction and hit the thrower in the head and kill them. But does that ever happen for no reason? Nope. Now if that ball had reversed direction and hit the thrower in the head, the entire world could change, i mean, what if hitler played baseball? But guess what, that never happened. and by the by, i edited my previous post. |
|
| Sep 16th, 2005 06:42 PM | ||
| Sethomas | I wonder why I have a feeling that the quasi-guy who thinks he's a master of mathematical concepts because he can spell Euclid has never done a line integral or multivariable integration. | |
| Sep 16th, 2005 06:35 PM | ||
| ziggytrix | But HOW MANY cthulu kitties can dance on the head of a elder god? | |
| Sep 16th, 2005 06:34 PM | ||
| kahljorn |
"real science". that kind where you assume things could happen if only they had happened differently? I remember doing that when I was a kid. You know, I'd cuss at a teacher or hit some kid in the face and all I could think all night is that I wish i could change it so I wouldn't be grounded. And look at me today. I've never had a problem and I'm a perfect person because I used mathematics to change my past. Thanks Euclid, you're the man! P.S. Did you know Euclid never died? He lives in a universe full of antimatter. But guess what, that universe/existence isn't this universe/existence. Isn't that funny? He went somewhere we'll never go or understand... through the power of mathematics! Now if you'll excuse me, I have to prepare a pizza. P+O+15minutes(425)=5. That was sure good. leaves a nice taste in my mouth. "substance as we know it has to exist, nor that it can't exist in any other way" Who honestly cares about models? If you had a brain you'd realize that models of our solar system are no actual representation of our solar system. That's why when you accidently cut the strings to the planet earth we don't suddenly plummet out of the sky. You can't prove anything involving this. You can't experiment with it. You can't do anything. Now we can pretend that it's possible, sure. What asshole hasn't thought that there could be worlds out there that aren't like this one. OH WOW MAN THIS UNIVERSE IS FIVE DIMENSIONS. WOo, great. That's how people impress their friends with how deep they are in eighth grade. "Do you think it's possible that god's a frog?" None of that matters, though, because our universe formed the way it did, just like it is. You can't change that with a model, not even if you were wearing a goggle. You can sit there and say, "hey, there could be another existance that had another big bang that could be completely different" or you could even say, "Hey, there could be another place that never had a big bang" or even, "Hey, there's this place that sort of resembles a rubberband and it's the entire universe and little particles exist there that don't exist anywhere else" and you know what, it's true in some sense because it exists within your mind. Is there any scientific data that shows how this rubberband stays afloat in midnonair with little particles that don't exist anywhere else and how they function or perform or don't spontaneously catch on fire when they smile? No. That's real science(of course, you can speculate on particles that science "might" understand but that's just a funny joke in itself). Our universe is the way it is, and nothing's going to change that. There wasn't some change in the symetery. There was just what happened. Therefore, I win. With simple logic that you can't even grasp, jackass. Just remember, whatever happened already happened. So the proof in what I'm saying is already here. WHere's your 'proof'? Besides that, this other universe would follow the exact same path of nothingness. It can never become anything. A super god could be there who's capable of destroying existences, but that doesn't matter, because it won't change anything, because it's nothing, and there's nothing to change. If there were a universe of antimatter it wouldn't even matter. First off, because it would essentially be a reflection of our universe, with a few different principals, secondly because it has nothing to aspire to. Aspirations are for blind fucks who think this place has something fantastic it can become. |
|
| Sep 16th, 2005 06:29 PM | ||
| Sethomas |
If you were literate, you'd know that's not what I'm saying. Saying "substances" is void of meaning in this context. There's no a priori that substance as we know it has to exist, nor that it can't exist in any other way. Models can prove that both cases are legit. I know that "real" science scares the shit out of you, but maybe you should look into it. |
|
| This thread has more than 25 replies. Click here to review the whole thread. | ||
