Utopia Temple
Main Forum Page Register an Account for Free! Calendar Frequently Asked Questions about this Board View New Posts Advanced Search Login
  Utopia Temple Forums > General Discussions > Respectable General Discussions > Religious Discussions

« Previous Thread | Next Thread »
Post New Thread Reply
Author Thread
(Posted as You And God)
Posts: 919/1637
(09-Feb-2008 at 14:43)
2 + 2 = 5

This admission is reminiscent of a scene in 1984 when the protagonist Winston Smith is electroshocked into declaring that he saw five fingers when in fact he only saw four. "Four! Five! Six! I don't know!"

The usefulness of the fact is what declares it a way of organizing the world. That's it. The grass, is "Green! Blue! Purple! I don't know!" What is colour? "I don't know!" What is grass? "I don't know!" etc. etc.

No, you don't know. How do you know what you know? What is usefulness? What is organizing? Stop! Just stop. After enough shocks we grow passive. We no longer concern ourselves with questions. What, then? You don't know.

You'll accept fact whenever you can. It saves you from paralysis. And the deeper you can dig for fact the greater it makes it. Of course, it doesn't really. It clogs the system and only the devil can get it out of you.
#1  
View Public Profile Find more posts by Gotterdammerung Add Gotterdammerung to your Buddy List Reply with Quote
Posts: 2183/2825
(09-Feb-2008 at 16:04)


For everybody wondering what's going this is Gotterdammerung

Quote:
How do you know what you know?
Through education and observation

Quote:
What is usefulness?What is organizing?
The dictionary covers them well enough

Quote:
You'll accept fact whenever you can. It saves you from paralysis. And the deeper you can dig for fact the greater it makes it. Of course, it doesn't really. It clogs the system and only the devil can get it out of you.
Are you trying in your unique style to tell us that we rather accept reality as it is aka the physical world instead of concentrating on the spiritual or whatver world?

The very powerful and the very stupid have one thing in common; they don't alter their views to fit the facts, they alter the facts to fit the views

Last edited by DHoffryn, 09-Feb-2008 at 16:05.
#2  
View Public Profile Find more posts by DHoffryn Add DHoffryn to your Buddy List Reply with Quote
Posts: 1701/2297
(09-Feb-2008 at 16:41)


Welcome back Gotter.

And all to familiarly, may I ask what the point of this thread is?

Modern world I'm not pleased to meet you

You just bring me down
#3  
View Public Profile Find more posts by Caelis666 Add Caelis666 to your Buddy List Reply with Quote
Posts: 1492/1675
(09-Feb-2008 at 21:48)


hes probably trying to level the playing field (again)

we dont know anything, so God is as plausible as gravity!

But heres the thing. Some decades ago a scientist was spraying something with electrons. No-one had ever seen them - but if you can spray something with them, they have use value and afaik a legit claim of existence.

When one can "spray" something with God, we can talk. Until then, observable tangible stuff have a definitive advantage.

"Observers worldwide have been expressing great pity for the people of Gaza [...] This pity may be a natural emotional reaction, yet it is unethical and immoral." - Adi Dvir, Ynetnews editor
#4  
View Public Profile Find more posts by Peppie Add Peppie to your Buddy List Reply with Quote
Posts: 984/1043
Donated $7.44
(09-Feb-2008 at 22:14)


I've always pictured Gotter as some guy going for a Ph.D. in philosophy or psychology, using us as guinea pigs...and composing his entire Ph.D. work around our responses.

This thread is a little more difficult than most, though. Usually he poses deep questions to us. The only questions I see in this one are rhetorical. He's just making observations.

1. We are inclined to accept things as fact because, as he says, to doubt everything would paralyze us.

This is true. In fact, these days, we accept almost everything we know on borrowed authority. How many of us "know" that we survive by taking oxygen into the lungs and breathing out carbon dioxide? Most of us. How many of us, though, have actually done the research and observed this happening? Only the scientists...we take it on their authority. It's a safe bet, but I suppose we have to ask ourselves how much we really "know."

What I don't understand, Gotter, is your implication that we are being coerced to believe facts on borrowed authority. We do it because it is convenient, not because of an outside force...unless you count peer pressure.

Also, how would you propose we do things? If we limited our knowledge to what we can observe directly, would we not be much worse off as a species?

(If I completely missed your point, it's your fault for being less comprehensible than usual )

The less popular Sage
Really...most people forget who I am
But I was here first, damn it!

Willing to sell my soul for a Klondike Bar
#5  
View Public Profile Visit The Other Sage's homepage Find more posts by The Other Sage Add The Other Sage to your Buddy List Reply with Quote
Posts: 1860/2035
(09-Feb-2008 at 23:06)


Here's an interesting story, though I don't know its absolute validity as I read it many years ago...

There was a tribe of native american islanders who spotted in the great distance a strange ripple in the ocean, however, no one could understand why or from where this ripple originated. So the tribe's shaman spent 3 days examing this spot in the ocean which had been steadily approaching this whole time. At last, after this long stretch of attention, he was finally able to see it: galleons. As he explained what he saw to the others in the tribe, they too for the first time were able to see them. What happened is that the image of the ships was so completely foreign to them and their reality, that when the image had been transferred from their eyes to their brains it had become filtered out as an error due to its implausibility. What you percieve and what is real are not necessarily the same, since your brain corrects many fallacies in your vision. There are numerous tricks you can play with optics which will reproduce this affect where your brain will fill in what it thinks it should see.

I'm not sure how terribly relevant this is to the opening statement, but I think it's about as useful and on topic as anything that will potentially come from this discussion.

"People demand freedom of speech as a compensation for the freedom of thought which they seldom use."
-Soren Kierkegaard
"Those who know don't say, and those who say don't know."
- Lao Tzu
More Quotes...

Last edited by Syke, 09-Feb-2008 at 23:08.
Edit reason: So a baby seal walks into a club...
#6  
View Public Profile Find more posts by Syke Add Syke to your Buddy List Reply with Quote
(Posted as You And God)
Posts: 920/1637
(10-Feb-2008 at 01:57)
Well, to address these concerns, a point could be this:

That there is an absence of 'right' knowledge, and that there is only righteousness. When you kneel before your captors you can't say that you were merely told by others to do so, that it was by convenience, or that by some defiance against nature they had forced themselves upon you.

It is a frightening condition of idleness that has led to a reality in our mind's eye that is organized by facts rather than wills. "Come now! We are doing this!" And we respond, "how come?"! It is as if all action must pass through our condition of reality in order for it to be plausible. Much again like Syke's story. But at the point of a sword, what does it matter?

Only the righteous and dogmatic can overcome a pending self-bretrayal. For all knowledge that can be had can be taken away as if it was a dream in morning twilight, unless we ourselves take hold of this knowledge to make it much more. We are only subject to alternatives if we let ourselves be. Scienctific thought stands no chance in a arm-wrestle of wills against hardwired fanaticism. In this way, The Other Sage, we would not be worse off.

What kind of thought would allow such spiritedness? Well, in righteousness it is offen the grandeur of things which empower the most. To 'spray' someone with God, Peppie, as you've said, like this, would affect them most dramatically. And I am not distinguishing between worlds, such as what DHoffryn suggested; there is only one - under God - I might assert.
#7  
View Public Profile Find more posts by Gotterdammerung Add Gotterdammerung to your Buddy List Reply with Quote
Posts: 986/1043
Donated $7.44
(10-Feb-2008 at 19:03)


Re: 2 + 2 = 5

Originally Posted by You And God: View Post
That there is an absence of 'right' knowledge, and that there is only righteousness.
You'll have to define "right" and "righteousness" for me. Your ardor for vocabulary is obfuscating your point.

Originally Posted by You And God: View Post
When you kneel before your captors you can't say that you were merely told by others to do so, that it was by convenience, or that by some defiance against nature they had forced themselves upon you.
Who are my captors here? The scientists who get to do all the hard work for me so that I only have to pop an aspirin, rather than design one myself to relieve my headache? You seem to believe that judgment will be passed on us for our laziness. Is that true?

Originally Posted by You And God: View Post
It is a frightening condition of idleness that has led to a reality in our mind's eye that is organized by facts rather than wills.
Define "wills" for me in the sense that you're using it.

Also, why is it frightening that we build our reality around facts? I was under the impression that you wanted us to build our reality around verifiable, observable facts, not taking anything on authority. If I were to build my reality only on the facts I verified for myself, would that be ok? Or is it still less than ideal, because I have not built it around "wills?"

Originally Posted by You And God: View Post
"Come now! We are doing this!" And we respond, "how come?"! It is as if all action must pass through our condition of reality in order for it to be plausible. Much again like Syke's story. But at the point of a sword, what does it matter?
That has little to do with facts...more with motivation. That's just good evolutionary sense. If we didn't pursue action that benefited us, we would have died out as a species. All action must pass through the condition of "will this benefit me (or someone/something I care about) in some way?" before it is plausible.

And please tell me who's holding the sword, and what consequences fall upon us if we were to anger them?

Originally Posted by You And God: View Post
Only the righteous and dogmatic can overcome a pending self-bretrayal.
Reword, please. I understand every word in that sentence but can't understand the sentence.

Originally Posted by You And God: View Post
For all knowledge that can be had can be taken away as if it was a dream in morning twilight, unless we ourselves take hold of this knowledge to make it much more. We are only subject to alternatives if we let ourselves be.
Wrong. It is IMPOSSIBLE for every individual human to duplicate the scientific and intellectual efforts of all of human history on their own. There isn't enough time to do it, and most people aren't smart enough to do it on their own. Starting from scratch, even the most intelligent among us would not progress technologically to anything approaching modern day. Would you care to live without computers, medicine, or any other modern conveniences? Could you invent aspirin for yourself?

If living under the current system is slavery, then the perceived slavery is so slight and minuscule that it hardly is worth mentioning. If every human is an equal slave to some other's authority, is it really slavery at all? How can their be slavery if nobody is the slave-driver?

Originally Posted by You And God: View Post
Scientific thought stands no chance in a arm-wrestle of wills against hardwired fanaticism. In this way, The Other Sage, we would not be worse off.
Scientific thought has progressed throughout the ages, and the pockets of unscientific fanaticism are getting smaller. It may not win an arm-wrestle by itself, but luckily it can build a super-robot-arm-wrestler than can.

When you respond, remember...the topic is lofty enough without throwing in the lofty vocabulary. You'll have a much more fulfilling discussion if you open it up to those who...say...don't accept the slavery of a dictionary's authority.

The less popular Sage
Really...most people forget who I am
But I was here first, damn it!

Willing to sell my soul for a Klondike Bar
#8  
View Public Profile Visit The Other Sage's homepage Find more posts by The Other Sage Add The Other Sage to your Buddy List Reply with Quote
(Posted as You And God)
Posts: 922/1637
(11-Feb-2008 at 02:26)
Re: 2 + 2 = 5

Last night, I was honest to myself it came to me just what all of this is about. And not just the words that I have been using but the thoughts behind them too. And not just in this post. It has been selfish of me, and I hope that i can be forgiven.

The reason is that I have been going about things on these forums, pretty much from the beginning, as if it was all about me. I am not going to defend myself and make some kind of new idea that I can force down you throat to say "everyone is only ever in it for themselves" so that I can feel better about myself. The ideas which I put forward are always typed in a way that only I can understand. Even when I posted here before I was under the name Gotterdammrung, it was Convict, and it was still a race to push a one side of an argument until I was satisfied I had forced my view on enough people. For many years I kept this up.

Another reason was through my arrogance. If there ever was a moment where I felt completely at odds with others who did not understand my view, I would raise the stakes higher and higher and become more and more pushy. I would think of them us stupid. I would even change the name from time to time just to fuel the idea that I was able to keep you all at bay.

Many times I would pretend to be humble or pretend to be enlightened. I was a pretender. I could always feel a silent respect for myself if I could walk away from an argument with a belief to go home to. Well, it was more about what others thought, not what I thought about myself. I thought that it was easy to use the internet as a way of creating new feelings towards myself. I thought that behind all of the words and the grand ideas that somehow I could become something more.

Knowledge and philosophy for me from now on will always be tainted. Even the way I speak always reminds me of a lie. It it time for me to let go of all of this non-sense. And I do not know how I will be able to talk to you again. I am very sorry. The shame would just be too much. I would have nothing to talk about. Now I am gone.
#9  
View Public Profile Find more posts by Gotterdammerung Add Gotterdammerung to your Buddy List Reply with Quote
Posts: 1546/2860
(11-Feb-2008 at 02:43)


What is this fucking thread about? As proof that nobody knows, lets try and post something off topic. I bet you can't.

Mars II - American Scientist
PhD - Physical Chemistry
#10  
View Public Profile Find more posts by Mars II Add Mars II to your Buddy List Reply with Quote
(Posted as matinog)
Posts: 684/922
(11-Feb-2008 at 03:25)


Quote:
You may or may not be right saying that laws DO exist in nature
if ou live in a city with electricity, running water, and a roof over your head, you better hope they do exist. If science says that matter will be in one of three states of matter if they meet certain conditions, that is all that its stating. If the conditions go outside what is stated, it doesn't disprove anything.

And math varies depending what base it is, hex 10+10=14(i think). This is similar to what you are stating. just because the answer is different it doesn't disprove that under base 10, 10+10=20.

@op: meh, just keep on posting, you make posting more interesting.
#11  
View Public Profile Find more posts by Mandraque Add Mandraque to your Buddy List Reply with Quote
Posts: 2008/2670
(11-Feb-2008 at 03:46)


Quote:
Here is another example of 2 + 2 equalling something else.

Say I decided to make 4 cds filled with my own guitar music.
The cds that I made become famous and I kept the original copies of the cds but I made 4 new copies of the first cd and and gave 2 to my friend mike and the other 2 to my friend john
John and mike thought the cd was awesome and burned 2 copies of there cd each.
John gives 2 copies to ryder
Mike gives 2 copies to aurora

The quality of ryder and auroras cds are not as good as the quality of mike and johns copy.
The quality of mike and johns cds are certainly not as good of quality as my cd

Ryder and aurora have 4 cds all together but the quality of the cds are less than mine for sure since they were original copies.

Ryder now has .7 out of 1 quality for each cd. The cd is no longer equal to 1 as far as more cds are made the quality reduces itself.

Ryder and auroras cd value has dropped to .7 of a quality cd and has turned into a quanity of a cd
The equation is no longer 1 cd plus 1 cd plus 1 cd plus 1 cd = 4. The equation is now .7 + .7 + .7 .+7 = 2.8 net cd so there 4 cds in market value are only worth 2.8 of what 4 original cds would be worth

Now moving on.

Since I got famous from these cds the original copies will be worth more and my cds that I own will be the quality of 1 cd in its entirty each thus I will make more money off it because its originality. Because its not just a copy which makes the product worth less.

the 8th copy of the cd essentially is worth .7 but the first copy of the cd is worth whole value thus in this situation.

The copy of the cd as far as its value is less than 1 but greater than 0
I like you man, but your missing the boat completely, your adding alot more to the problem here than 2+2, and everything you put in there could be explained using math, I'm just not going to do it (assuming I personally could do it too...lol). If you say I have 4 CDs and give half to john and and half to lisa how many do each of them have? (4/2=2) Thats fine, but if they start copying things, your changing quantities and thus changing the problem.

Quote:
if ou live in a city with electricity, running water, and a roof over your head, you better hope they do exist. If science says that matter will be in one of three states of matter if they meet certain conditions, that is all that its stating. If the conditions go outside what is stated, it doesn't disprove anything.

And math varies depending what base it is, hex 10+10=14(i think). This is similar to what you are stating. just because the answer is different it doesn't disprove that under base 10, 10+10=20.
The first part of this makes no sense, what does science have to with anything there. Electricity is electricity, and I get it, my roof will always be there, it doesn't matter if its classified as a solid or not, as long as its there. I realize if you heat my roof up to 8 zillion degrees it will melt and burn, but hey its gunna do that anyways, so meh.

I have no idea of what Hex is to be honest to you, but I assure you that your problem isnt simply expressed as 10+10=14, there has to be something else to it, because 10+10=20, not 14. 10+10 always equals 20 it wont change, unless you change the problem somehow, which your obviously doing.

"Hmph, you and your third dimension."
"What about it?" "Oh nothing, itís cute. We have five."
"Th-thousand."
"Yes five thousand."
"Donít question it."
#12  
View Public Profile Find more posts by Chillin Add Chillin to your Buddy List Reply with Quote
Posts: 989/1043
Donated $7.44
(11-Feb-2008 at 03:46)


Why are you shamed? You lead us down interesting paths of thought. As you admitted, it was often in a self-indulgent way, but it's okay to have flaws.

Keep posting your musings, but let us share in them and contribute. Enlightenment is something best come to through a group effort.

The less popular Sage
Really...most people forget who I am
But I was here first, damn it!

Willing to sell my soul for a Klondike Bar
#13  
View Public Profile Visit The Other Sage's homepage Find more posts by The Other Sage Add The Other Sage to your Buddy List Reply with Quote
Posts: 220/294
(11-Feb-2008 at 03:50)
Another way to explain this

Say you have the first babe ruth card ever made.. you would get tons of money from it

The most you can get from the first card is absolute value and its absolute value equalls one. If you have 20 copies of a babe ruth card you are gonna get significantly less money than if you had the original. The card with the absolute value of one which is the orignal.

although you might have 20 physical cards (10 + 10) that wouldn't be what you actually had. What you have is .0001 of a cards worth, so you basically have nothing because the absolute value of the card is less than the paper it holds.
#14  
View Public Profile Find more posts by Ninjoo Add Ninjoo to your Buddy List Reply with Quote
Posts: 2009/2670
(11-Feb-2008 at 04:09)


But that card is worth so much because of its rarity, if you had 20 cards it wouldnt be worth as much, because it would be less rare. So that problem is flawed too.

How bout this ninjo, try expressing a problem using only numbers (you can use variables too even) and try to tell us how it can equal something other than the real answer...

10x+6=56

x= 5 no mater what

ect

"Hmph, you and your third dimension."
"What about it?" "Oh nothing, itís cute. We have five."
"Th-thousand."
"Yes five thousand."
"Donít question it."
#15  
View Public Profile Find more posts by Chillin Add Chillin to your Buddy List Reply with Quote
Posts: 221/294
(11-Feb-2008 at 04:23)
I am really terrible at math

I will give one more example with stuff actually in it.

Say you have two bears

1 50 pound bear
1 500 pound bear

You give both of them 2 salmon each of the same size.

Both of the bears ate the 2 salmon but were effected in diffrent ways.

It wasn't an equal share because to the big bear 2 salmons were just a snack and = .7 of what the 2 salmon meant to the small bear. I don't know how to make an equation of that

(2*2)/(500a)=N

(2*2/50a)=N

I have no idea how to make that into a formula but its not an equal share even though it seems like it.. it seems like one bear filled while the other is still hungry
#16  
View Public Profile Find more posts by Ninjoo Add Ninjoo to your Buddy List Reply with Quote
Posts: 2012/2670
(11-Feb-2008 at 04:37)


Yes, the bears grew differently in percentage of total weight, but thats because they started at a different weight, they still ate the same amount of fish and thus both end up with +4 (assuming each salmon weighed 2 pounds and each bear ate 2), that works, the math isn't faulty.

How is 2 salmon that weight 2 pounds (2x2=4) not a equal share compared to 2 salmon that weight 2 pounds (2x2=4)? Last I checked (2x2)=(2x2) or 4=4. In your question your asking if they have a equal share, or ate the same, and they did. The weight of the bear, has nothing to do with if the actual share is equal or not. It is disproportioned yes, but still equal. Math prevails again.

If I weigh 500 pounds and you weigh 50 pounds and we are going to split a pizza evenly we each take half, two equal parts. If we are going to split it proportional to our weight, Ill take 10/11 and you get 1/11.

You CAN say things like 500+4 is not equal to 50+4, and be correct as well. I can even tell how the ratio changes in a formula too if you like (I REALLY don't want to be bothered writing down formulas like that though).

The fact remains that mathematics is always right.

"Hmph, you and your third dimension."
"What about it?" "Oh nothing, itís cute. We have five."
"Th-thousand."
"Yes five thousand."
"Donít question it."

Last edited by Chillin, 11-Feb-2008 at 04:44.
#17  
View Public Profile Find more posts by Chillin Add Chillin to your Buddy List Reply with Quote
(Posted as matinog)
Posts: 685/922
(11-Feb-2008 at 04:48)


if we werent able to use absolute laws of science we wouldnt be able to provide electricity or build a house. How on earth do you think engineers do their work? by guessing that theyr "laws" might be right and risking thousands of lives while doing so? no, the laws are absolute in their own domain.

hex means a number system with 16 symbols(0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 a b c d e f). We are though to use a decimal system(0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9). Computers only use binary, two symbols(0 1). Depending on which circumstances you aply the math to, the answer will always be the same under those conditions and it will always be absolute. Depending under which conditions you apply scientific laws to, they will always be the same and it will be absolute.

@nijoo= math is independent of physical laws. And in your last example the answer is that the total calories are the same.
#18  
View Public Profile Find more posts by Mandraque Add Mandraque to your Buddy List Reply with Quote
Posts: 223/294
(11-Feb-2008 at 04:53)
You made some awesome points and I now know what you are talking about.

With math as I was pointing out.. everything isn't just linear so to speak. You have to use math on other factors than linear proportions.

I was saying one bear needed a bigger proportion of fish to live and the other bear needed significantly less of a portion, and even though they got an equal amount, one portion is not as effective as the other portion.

(2n/500)=x < I think

ANother example would be

Say I gave you $200 but you were already a wealthy billionar and say I gave a homeless man $200 and he didn't have a penny to his name.

I understand I gave away $400 no matter what but both people even though they both have $200. they value it diffrently.

The linear sense of math would be.. I gave away 400 dollars but in perspective the homeless man obviously values that money more.

Sorry if I am not using math
#19  
View Public Profile Find more posts by Ninjoo Add Ninjoo to your Buddy List Reply with Quote
Posts: 2013/2670
(11-Feb-2008 at 04:55)


Quote:
if we werent able to use absolute laws of science we wouldnt be able to provide electricity or build a house. How on earth do you think engineers do their work? by guessing that theyr "laws" might be right and risking thousands of lives while doing so? no, the laws are absolute in their own domain.
Just because something happens to work, and has always worked in the past doesn't necessarily mean it will continue to always work...

The engineers do they work based on the principal that something has always worked in the past and assume it to continue to work (which is a fairly safe assumption)...

And as far as your hex system goes, the math obviously changes itself to work depending on which system it is being used in. And it can proove itself in each of the various systems.

Thats like saying according to "Chillins math - where 5 and 2 are replaced" 1+1 = 5, thats right then, and you can prove it. Just because something is EXPRESSED differently, doesn't mean it has changed...

Quote:
Say I gave you $200 but you were already a wealthy billionar and say I gave a homeless man $200 and he didn't have a penny to his name.

I understand I gave away $400 no matter what but both people even though they both have $200. they value it diffrently.

The linear sense of math would be.. I gave away 400 dollars but in perspective the homeless man obviously values that money more.
Yes but since both of them just now received $200, its the same $200. If the homeless guys goes out and buys 200 $1 meals, and the millionaire went out and bought a $200 steak, they still both spent the same. The amount of food the poor man got is more, but that isn't relevant to question.

"Hmph, you and your third dimension."
"What about it?" "Oh nothing, itís cute. We have five."
"Th-thousand."
"Yes five thousand."
"Donít question it."

Last edited by Chillin, 11-Feb-2008 at 04:59.
#20  
View Public Profile Find more posts by Chillin Add Chillin to your Buddy List Reply with Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Forum Jump:


All times are GMT+1. The time now is 20:03.

Powered by vBulletin (modified)
Copyright ©2000-2006, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.