Tricky
Briefly immortal
"Apples to oranges" is not alliteration. It's not even good assonance.Neutiquam Erro said:
Edited to add:
...and what I wouldn't give for a really good piece of assonance.
Edited to add:
...and what I wouldn't give for a really good piece of assonance.
Upchurch
Papa Funkosophy
Please, people. Let's not get so off track that we forget what the topic is.
Now, is the tomato a fruit or vegetable?
Now, is the tomato a fruit or vegetable?
Neutiquam Erro
mennil-toss flykune
Upchurch said:Please, people. Let's not get so off track that we forget what the topic is.
Now, is the tomato a fruit or vegetable?
I thought it was a berry?
Ok, I see what you mean now (I hope), although the concept of time moving backwards as well, is rather disturbing when you think about it. It does correspond nicely with our common sense though, perhaps because we're used to the fact that an action often quite visibily go in all directions of space like ripples in water, and if you want to connect the two as a unity, it would make sense that they had some similar traits, as in, that they both can move in more than one direction - at least.Upchurch said:
In my limited breath of spacetime and relativity, as such, I have my own perversion like so many other good folks.
I don't think space and time are the same, as much as I think that they have a quite clear relationship with eachother. The reason I say this, is not to abuse rethorics, but while time may move in one or two direction(s) at the same time, the case is entirely diffrent with space, as it holds the possibility to move in a potential infinite number of directions. That's 2 or 1 vs. ∞. Hence, time appear to be more synthetic than space. If we presume that time only has one or two directions that is.
I assume you may have heard the proposal that time just is the movement of matter/energy. That seem to suggest, that when the universe has reached its absolute 0, then time will stop. Left behind is space, but in essence it doesn't exist either whilst there is no movement. In that manner they appear to be interconnected as such, as the one can't exist without the other, but they are related to two very different phenomena. One which is infinite, and one which is locked in one or two directions.
An extreme alternative is that time move in an infinte number of directions like space. That would gather them as one entity, namely spacetime, but the mere scenario that one has to imagine an infinite number of possibilities taking place all the time, is both appealing and rather disturbing. Because that would mean that there is an infinite number of you and me, producing an infinite number of possible actions, all the time, hence:
"Ultimately, all moments are really one.
Therefore now is eternity" - David Bohm.
I'm not all sure whether Bohm meant what I said above with that quote, but it fits nice to the context, because that is basically what I mean. And although it fits nice with my ideas about infinity, it is actually too abstract for me to grasp it properly myself. It's pretty extreme. We're talking about an infinite number of everything all the time.
Untill confronted, I have to stand by my proposal, that infinity might have impact on this system of matter/energy through "leaks" that creates a sort of passage between this deterministic system and an infinite non-system, and that may be an explanation to why something actually is truly random. Or rather, that it isn't random, but appear to be so for us in our quite limited world of patterns ->
I might need to clarify this world of patterns, because this is a philosophical perversion I discovered/made up several years ago, so while it may make a lot of sense to me, it may need to be explained in depth for this purpose: I propose that all that humans can percieve and process, are patterns of matter/energy. Light, sound, feeling, taste and smell, are all percieved by us as patterns, the structure of the patterns determine how we percieve and process them. I define a pattern as everything we can label, because if we can label it, we can seperate it from other patterns. Note that they can be a part of eachother as well. That should be enough about that for now.
If infinity could have an impact on the matter/energy of this universe through some sort of abstract leaks into infinity, then that will render mathematics useless in certain cases if you want to predict something related to infinity with an equation/algorithm, or when you try to find the sum of an infinite number, because math is patterns, and when it conflicts with infinity it cease to make sense to us.
So I'm hereby proposing that infinity have a direct impact on this system, and that this generates a non-system in the system which is impossible to describe with mathematics. We can only approach it with probability clouds. Ok, Ill stop here for now and ask: Does this make any sense at all? Am I speeding in the fast lane here?
EDIT: Feel free to rip my head off if I'm wrong, but in a polite manner, as this is not my actual field of study at all, and my main theories are to be placed in sociology or synthetic evolution and has absolutely nothing to with the above, apart from my patternworld simplification.
Iacchus said:
It's merely possible? Iacchus, I gave you a chance to prove you understood what I said, with a 50% chance of getting it right even if you only tried to guess what I actually thought.
And when someone dare not even take a risk on those odds that he understands what I said, do you think I'm likely to believe he understands much of anything at all?
Er ... no, because behind that facade does indeed exist a rather wicked and sinful liar. Look, quite apart from all the obvious and naughty fibs we can see you clearly telling in this very thread, you admitted yourself that you might be prone to a bit of untruthfulness at times anyway;
"but I didn't lie, not consciously, I sometimes make mistakes though"
I can only find myself quoting him saying that though here, if someone knows how to locate the original thread it's in, I'd appreciate it. Just to be completely fair, of course.
However whilst doing a little search for "Iacchus Liar" under my own name, (which oddly doesn't find the above thread) I found this jolly little thread, one of the two I know of where you tried to tell the same lie with regards to obsessions about Lifegazer too.
http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/show...erpage=40&highlight=iacchus liar&pagenumber=2
And gosh darn it, here's the second thread where you try it;
http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=55458&highlight=Iacchus+Liar
And you even used the exact same wording for the lie too, he he he. Oh, and tell some fibs and make up some incoherant nonsense about how I was on ignore, but actually wasn't... or something. Now, would you care to try again, Iacchus? And honestly this time?
http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/show...=55625&perpage=40&highlight=liar&pagenumber=1
Nope, apparently not! You Judas! Betraying poor Lifegazer like that, by lying to his face as well! And he thought you understood him from the past conversations you now deny! Despicable dolphin related fiendery!
Ahhh... the simple entertainments of a JREF search...!
Yes, but as already been pointed out, you read number plates and think they are messages from God. A real life book, with a real life set of actual words in it, why it's absolute mana from misinterpreted heaven for you, I am sure.
As you rather nicely proved for me with this incredibly foolish comment;
Surprisingly enough Iacchus... I actually told you already that I did follow that link. And I also told you something else. Let's walk you through it in baby steps, shall we?
1.) Go to your link again.
2.) For which ever browser you use, select the option for "Find in this page"
3.) Type "Pentheus" and perform a search.
4.) Gasp in amazement as you discover it only appears once on the entire page, as a hotlink to another page
5.) That is, for those of you who think cornflakes are personally conversing with them, that there is no information on Pentheus at that link
6.) But hey, I always try and be fair, so let's do the next steps that I took too. Now click on the hyperlink for Pentheus
7.) Wait a minute! This is just a search list of art and images about Pentheus! Although there are links to encyclopedia articles about him at the bottom. So let's click a second link from the one you gave... er... the Perseus Encyclopedia, that looks useful
8.) He he he... bet you can't guess what words you can't find there, eh?
9.) In fact, let's click all 3 article links, just like I did. And also go to Wikipedia and do a search there. And gasp in amazement, much louder this time, as it turns out that every single source says that Pentheus was torn to shreds for either insulting Dionysus, or because he wanted to be seen as a Diety. And not what you claim at all, Iacchus.
10.) Which means you are once more Iacchus a silly little child caught in another naughty lie. BAD DOLPHINS!
Except for still born babies... they get a kicking from God, and quite rightly too!
I know you're wrong about me.
Hey, if you can claim you know more about what I believe (which you do in most of the threads I've already linked too, oh yes) then I can claim I know you better than you do. And I say you are wrong about yourself and I am right.
And I'm not even going to attempt to say what it is I actually think, just like you!
Actually, I left home as a teenager because of violent arguments which occured there. And my father only ever saw me to inflict hurt upon my mother... including refusing to return me after a holiday with him, and getting me to cry on the phone so my mother could hear it.
You don't have a clue, do you? Just making silly assumptions again.
Although quite why I'd appear more serious if they'd spoiled me is again completely incoherant anyway.
Especially after I've told you that I don't take you seriously at all. Look, there it is on page 3. I'm silly with regards to "Iacchus".
And anyway, you say myself that I shouldn't take my own Beliefs seriously, as this must necessarily include a belief for me that "Iacchus" really exists, and is indeed saying the silly things he appears to be, by your own logic, I shouldn't take YOU seriously.
So I don't.
Nope, I just type reasonably fast, and can think on my feet.
However, I intend to collect all of my posts here, completely stripped of any context what so ever, and release it as a book called "The Advent Of P.S.A.: This time, It's Romano-Greek!", which will automatically move the many, many words and paragraphs from the column of "hot air" into "divine inspiration".
Fortunately, you live in a world which is not imaginary and has plenty of ways of revealing this fact to you. Except you don't fit into that world, so it's off to Silly Land for you again! Woo hoo!
See? Silliness! Wooo Hooooooo!
Silly boy.
Re: P.S.A., I must chide you
But .... but Iacchus follows EVERYTHING with a winking smilie; it's almost like he wants EVERYTHING he says to be taken as a joke! Can we just agree that Iacchus IS a joke, then?
Well, I thought of using my finger in a more appropriate way for him, but alas as there are no dolphins I can go see at this time of night, I had to resort to flipping off a goldfish instead.
sackett said:
But .... but Iacchus follows EVERYTHING with a winking smilie; it's almost like he wants EVERYTHING he says to be taken as a joke! Can we just agree that Iacchus IS a joke, then?
Well, I thought of using my finger in a more appropriate way for him, but alas as there are no dolphins I can go see at this time of night, I had to resort to flipping off a goldfish instead.
Upchurch
Papa Funkosophy
Well, yes. it does make sense, except that it is based on a fundamental misconception...Thomas said:
[fquote]I don't think space and time are the same, as much as I think that they have a quite clear relationship with each other. The reason I say this, is not to abuse rethorics, but while time may move in one or two direction(s) at the same time, the case is entirely diffrent with space, as it holds the possibility to move in a potential infinite number of directions. That's 2 or 1 vs. ∞. Hence, time appear to be more synthetic than space. If we presume that time only has one or two directions that is.[/fquote]
When we move in space, any of the infinite directions that you can go is actually made up of a combination of only three different directions. For lack of a uniquely common reference frame, let's say that forward is the "x" direction, left is the "y" direction, and up is the "z" direction. Any direction you point in can be defined in terms of these three mutually perpendicular vectors. These vectors are also called dimensions because it is how we measure objects in space (length, width, height). Space has three dimensions, so we call it 3-dimensional or 3-D.
Now, through Relativity, we've learned that there is a fourth dimension, time. However, just like the other three dimensions, time is mutually perpendicular to the three space dimensions. This is very difficult to conceptualize because we are used to thinking in only three dimensions. You can't draw it or make a physical model of it, but spacetime is a four dimensional hyperspace* that has four axis, all at 90 degrees from one another.
Now here's the kicker of General Relativity, which directions are "space" and which is "time" is entirely dependent upon where you are in the hyperspace and how fast you are moving. Think of it this way, as we move around the Earth, our "up" actually changes direction. By the time we travel a quarter of the way around the Earth, our "up" is pointing in the same direction our "left" used to point.
Likewise, as you move through spacetime, the orientation of those four axis also change. What is "the future" here on earth is pointing a "up" somewhere else. So, time and space are literally the same thing, it is only our frame of reference that makes us say "that way is up" and "that way is the future".
So, yes, time only has two directions, but so does left (left and right), up (up and down), and forward (forward and back). It's all the same.
* not to be confused with science fiction, it is the just the next step in the progression of point (0-D), line (1-D), plane (2-D), space (3-D), and hyperspace (4-D).
Upchurch
Papa Funkosophy
Have you figured out what you mean by determinism or are you still dwelling on that?Iacchus said:
Piscivore
Smelling fishy
Iacchus said:
By reading your posts I'd guess it's blather, rinse, repeat.
Upchurch
Papa Funkosophy
Upchurch
Papa Funkosophy
Ooooh, that was mean to be funny.Iacchus said:
....it still doesn't make sense.
Upchurch said:
I thought I made it quite clear that I didn't try to describe Minkowski/Einstein spacetime, but my own perversion hereof.
Well, I do am a self-educated 3D-animator, not pixar studios level, but still a 3D animator. So, I'm quite well aware of 3D properties at least, but how could you know
Yea well, I see you may have underestimated my knowledge of basic trigonometry and geometry, and perhaps math in general.
I'll try to explain again. What I'm saying is that math is synthetic, a product of us only being able to think in patterns. The result is that we are forced to describe space as (up/down), (left/right), (forward/back) in order for it to make sense to us, that's the essence of my patternworld approach. If you take away the patterns all that is left is infinity. And this is the point. In my philosophy (sounds so pompous), there is no up/down, left/right, forward/back and two ways of time, there is an infinite number of directions for both time and space. To seperate it up in dimensions is indeed practical and the only thing we can do when we wanna navigate in space(time), but it is synthetic. Artificial if you like. In my perversion an infinite number of possibilities takes place at all moments in time. So now is eternity as Bohm put it.
However, being human, we need to use math in order to make anything practical, but it ceases to be practical the minute it crashes with infinity, and theres nothing we can do about it - unless Kirkegaard was right, and we ultimately end up as a part of eternity - now that would be a real kick wouldn't it?
