NEW QUESTION!!
What would happen if An Unstopable force hits an Unmovable Object?
the force, always goes straight, if it is slightly moved in anyway, it means its stopable.. if the unmovable object breaks, its atoms, and molecules moved meaning it would be movable..
so what would happen, if a force that never stops hits an object that never moves!
what normally happens when an unstoppable force meets an unmoveable object is that one of the two suppositions is proven to be untrue.Originally Posted by Hellogoodbye123
well there is no such thing as either one.. but i would like to see what you guys have to say, if these two were real.. and it happened
well since the two dont exist, meaning the scenario doesnt exist, meaning noone has or ever will experience it, i doubt anyone here can tell you. its up to the imagination
yes yes.. the imagination. thats what i want to hear about you guys
What happens when an object is both a duck and a brick at the same time?
I find questions which you can actually answer (or at least attempt to answer) to be far more interesting. ^__^
ok then.. what is infinity to the power of 2?
I think you got my gist. I wasn't really trying to say that thinking is valueless, just that in addition to thinking, it should lead us somewhere (vs. being an end unto itself) which is congruent with your assessment as well. A saying I like is:
"Data is not Information is not Knowledge is not Wisdom."
My goal (& yours it appears) is to pursue the last stage of the knowledge progression, wisdom, vs. just knowledge itself. I definitely agree that asking questions is the most time-tested method of pursuing that goal.
Unfortunately, I also have a pretty dim view of humanity. I think DAO got it right for the most part: "Believe what you want. It's all we ever do." This community is a bright spot (for the most part) in what appears usually to be a pretty mindless species.
best regards,
Pedal2Metal
Last edited by Pedal2Metal; 05-02-2010 at 10:27 AM.
Ha! I'm honestly not the kind of person who takes offense easily!
In any case, do you know a lot of philosophers? Perhaps you do. I myself am surrounded by them. Just like the rest of humans, they are a varied bunch. Some are real a-holes. Worse than a-holes, because they're pretentious about it. Some are just as you say: more intellectually curious than devoted to life. And then there are also quite a few who are of sound mind and love nothing more than to apply their ethics to real life situations. In other words, they have big hearts.
So, in that respect, they're not all that different from other human beings. There's a variety of individuals within the group. Perhaps what makes them stand out is that they are very intelligent. That makes them neither good nor bad, overall, but if they are good they tend to be deeply and passionately good, and if they're more of the a-hole variety then they can really do that up as well.
Last edited by Zefelius; 05-02-2010 at 09:30 AM.
I really liked this post. Nicely stated & agreed.
best regards,
Pedal2Metal
I think my prediction is becoming true. I thought this might be an important thread in the future, and it is becoming just that. It is becoming that, but of course it still has a long way to go before it is actually that.
I like that saying. I would like to think that wisdom is in essence experience and thought. Meaning, you can have all the knowledge you want, but can still be ignorant. Example - a grad student knows exactly what happened in every major battle in history ever, dating back to who knows.. the first battle ever. He then goes on to become a general in some army, and during the first battle under his strategic rule, his army loses. He knew everything he could, he just didn't apply it, he wasn't wise enough to tie end A of his knowledge into end B of reality that was before him, this is wisdom.
Pertaining to our species, yes its dim. I myself was once pesimisstic about humans as a whole until i stumbled across a few close philosophical friends and we had discussions lasting 6+ hours. The problem is not in people, its in society. Its hard for a person to wake up out of their slumber enduced by Startbucks, Somerset, Abercrombie, alcohol, women, video games, TV, strict job/school schedules, a government to focus on constantly, etc, and to wake up to true life, and the essence therein which is imo our very being. Society is a trance, and it brings man down to a very low level, to the point where we are more like drones than actual humans with capable minds reflecting a combination of thought and emotion. Those tied into politics, those tied into social status, those tied into number crunching, are all focused too much on one very insignificant aspect of the vast ocean that is life right in front of us, existence itself is a miracle worth wondering about, and should not be summed up with 'evolution'. I once had a friend tell me that i am nothing more than a body with electrical impulses.. i frowned and gave up the convo due to his ignorance and arrogance, unwilling to accept that there is more within a human being than what you can see in an xray.
There is more, but im tired and this post is getting too long to maintain interest. Any questions on anything i have said or you dont understand ill be glad to answer, and i would love any disagreements, as disagreements pave the way to truth ultimately.
I liked this posting.
While I don't have a strong disagreement, I think blaming society is a bit "convenient". We are the agents of creation in society so we only have ourselves to blame. Even if the social structures we dislike were there before we arrived on the scene, at some point the responsibility to have neglected the opportunity to change society has to fall squarely on our shoulders. I'm still wrestling with this one on a personal level as it's one thing to write it down & another to live it. It takes genuine effort to swim against the "current" of society. In that sense, I understand & agree with what you are saying. I just think we can't cry "it's social ills" every time we see society doing something stupid. We each have a mind of our own & a choice to live as we think is best. If society is getting in the way, we've got to try to own our part responsibly & exert influence/change in society through at the least our personal journey in life. Otherwise we aren't being authentic & we're simply adding to the social ills. Authenticity is one quality sorely missing in our culture most of the time in this day & age of image, perception, & publicity. It's a difficult attribute to possess on a personal level, much less a social level but it's worth pursuing IMO. If our ideas are genuinely good & worthy, I think it will be demonstrative over the long term. At the end of the day, cynics like me are really just jaded idealists.
I had a Iranian engineering mentor that I worked with for several years when I graduated from college (probably the smartest & most gracious guy I've ever known personally) who used to say: "All conflict is good." We used to intensely argue all the time but it was totally awesome. It was like arguing with someone who is trying to help you through arguing like your dad, brother, or someone like that. It was so intense it would scare everyone else in the office away but we both absolutely thrived in it. It was a rare working relationship where I could be as intense as I intrinsically am without any fear of resprisal. Pretty remarkable guy he was. Anyhow back to his saying. I tend to think it's true as it either shows you your error, the other guy his error, or both of you your error(s). Illuminating error is how we grow essentially, assuming we are genuinely interested in pursuing truth & following it wherever it may lead us. Just like CivRev. You improve more through your losses (as painful as they inevitably are!) than your wins. See how I always bring it back to CivRev...
best regards,
Pedal2Metal
Last edited by Pedal2Metal; 05-02-2010 at 04:22 PM.
Eloquent post, Pedal! I think I actually agree with you line by line, and that doesn't happen too often!I liked this posting.
While I don't have a strong disagreement, I think blaming society is a bit "convenient". We are the agents of creation in society so we only have ourselves to blame. Even if the social structures we dislike were there before we arrived on the scene, at some point the responsibility to have neglected the opportunity to change society has to fall squarely on our shoulders. I'm still wrestling with this one on a personal level as it's one thing to write it down & another to live it. It takes genuine effort to swim against the "current" of society. In that sense, I understand & agree with what you are saying. I just think we can't cry "it's social ills" every time we see society doing something stupid. We each have a mind of our own & a choice to live as we think is best. If society is getting in the way, we've got to try to own our part responsibly & exert influence/change in society through at the least our personal journey in life. Otherwise we aren't being authentic & we're simply adding to the social ills. Authenticity is one quality sorely missing in our culture most of the time in this day & age of image, perception, & publicity. It's a difficult attribute to possess on a personal level, much less a social level but it's worth pursuing IMO. If our ideas are genuinely good & worthy, I think it will be demonstrative over the long term. At the end of the day, cynics like me are really just jaded idealists.
I had a Iranian engineering mentor that I worked with for several years when I graduated from college (probably the smartest & most gracious guy I've ever known personally) who used to say: "All conflict is good." We used to intensely argue all the time but it was totally awesome. It was like arguing with someone who is trying to help you through arguing like your dad, brother, or someone like that. It was so intense it would scare everyone else in the office away but we both absolutely thrived in it. It was a rare working relationship where I could be as intense as I intrinsically am without any fear of resprisal. Pretty remarkable guy he was. Anyhow back to his saying. I tend to think it's true as it either shows you your error, the other guy his error, or both of you your error(s). Illuminating error is how we grow essentially, assuming we are genuinely interested in pursuing truth & following it wherever it may lead us. Just like CivRev. You improve more through your losses (as painful as they inevitably are!) than your wins. See how I always bring it back to CivRev...
best regards,
Pedal2Metal
Tomorrow I'm teaching John Stuart Mill, a philosopher who was deeply involved in society, from his many years in the East India Company, as a Member of Parliament, and a defender of women's rights way back in the 1800s. He agrees with you wholeheartedly that we grow through our errors, and thus it is good to have disputes whether someone else's ideas are true or false. If we don't listen to others' ideas, or censor them, members of society are robbed: "If the opinion is right, they are deprived of the opportunity of exchanging error for truth: if wrong, they lose, what is almost as great a benefit, the clearer perception and livelier impression of truth, produced by its collision with error (On Liberty, Oxford, 21)."
He also agrees with an earlier post of yours in which you unite experience to discourse: "[A rational and moral man] is capable of rectifying his mistakes, by discussion and experience (italics mine, 24-5)."
Geesh, Pedal, if only you were alive 150 years ago, you could have published your ideas and become world renown!!
Last edited by Zefelius; 05-02-2010 at 04:53 PM.
Of course the burden is ultimately upon one's self to choose his or her path for life, and the contexts therein. Its just that the society we grew up in has conditioned us all to care about a select few things in this world, and its an ugly path. We were all taught growing up to 'go to school, get a degree, and work all life', we were never taught, 'we are all part of a field of conscious and your actions and thoughts directly effect your enviornment as well as those inside of it'. We were never taught anything philosophical or spiritual about our essence, our being. Were just taught about anatomy tops. This is my point. How can one truley be expected to wake up from society's slumber when they were conditioned otherwise.
Its like if someone is born and raised a fighter, he will not know true peace without war. He will always have in the back of his mind how to injure the person in front of him, always. This is conditioning, where you are so involved in a routine that breaking free requires alot of 'energy', almost to the point of an epiphany. I for one never believed in the spiritual side and at times even doubted that a god existed until i came across the group of people that i call my friends today. I have learned much, and broke free from my old routine school of thought which was 'logic, science, conclusion'. Its hard though, it requires vast discussion and discovery therein of what we are and where we are, ie, life within a current.
There are several approaches to societal conditioning, as you probably know Aheadatime. To play devil's advocate a little bit, someone could quote the extensive work and research of John Dewey or Terry Eagleton to show that false dichotomies between society and the individual are predicated upon the very forms of blind social conformity which you yourself repudiate. Until we see that society is composed of individuals, and individuals are social creatures themselves, we will forever perpetuate the illusion that productive transformation is impossible. Indeed, you yourself are a wonderful example of someone who has fought back against the currents of thoughtlessness! It must not be so impossible after all.
Another counter-argument, which perhaps you've already reflected upon, is that an all-encompassing reality described in terms of "energy" or "essence" would naturally defy all descriptions of either good or bad. If there is truly an infinite field of energy, one which cannot be reduced to an individual form or representation, then it must needs transcend all moral evaluations. As soon as I describe it as good or bad, I've immediately anthropomorphized it. And insofar as I've reduced it to human shapes or forms, thereby restricting it to a finite frame of corporeal desires, I have in this very same attribution done it an injustice. That is to say, I have betrayed the very essence of it which was intended to be all-encompassing and inifinitely sublime (a word which the 19th century romantics used to describe the overwhelming quality of nature vis-a-vis human perception).
Just a couple of thoughts. Have to go to class now, otherwise I'd delve into this a little more deeply!
All the best,
Zef
I'm trying to be careful not to start the argument again, but the reason that we aren't taught spirituality is that there's nothing concrete to teach. There are so many variants on the theme that most, if not all of them are inevitably incorrect.
But things like mathematics, language, anatomy, are all constant and tangible. Things that can be taught.
I mean, nobody argues about whether 2 + 2 = 4 but how many people argue about whether a god exists or not?
This is very true, and a point to be considered. The tangible and concrete are the core teaching courses within school systems in our society, and this is because the 'adult world' composed of careers involving job systems pertaining to real life necessities (logistics workers, farmers, engineers, police, teachers, business related careers, astronomers, geologists), requires the general population to think on a very even playing field, with the main theme as improving the physical realm which we exist in, or at least benefitting from it in one way or another. However, with or without god, i think that what and who we are isnt even thought of beyond the flesh, as most people consider thought beyond that stage as pseudo or taboo, even something as simple as our mind. Conversation not to be had in public in other words. It would be nice to have some sort of general idea as a species what we were given at birth, but also beyond this physical and into our conscious, and given a more wholistic idea of who and what we are.
Of course this would assume that writings by previous authors i have mentioned, or studies/work that they have done would be scientifically correct, there have been points worth mentioning to upcoming genereations to keep the train of thought alive and further advance that which we currently lack understanding of but are coming to learn more and more about.
Actually I think I read a proof of 1 + 1 = 3 many years ago. I think it was Scientific American. I was still in high school but I'm sure it's out in the WWW ether somewhere.
best regards,
Pedal2Metal
Well yes, going against the bombarding current of our social up bringing is not easy, i would tend to focus more on the structure itself as flawed rather than the individual. Lets put it this way. If i had a path through a jungle that crossed over a patch of quicksand, and only those who could find a reasonable way out of it, via a rope or whatever, as its difficult to see and you cant go around it etc (total hypothetical), than how can i blame the individual who wasnt aware enough to see the branch above him, strong enough to grab it, and smart enough not to panick all the while. When, i could just instead cut some trees down and forge a path around it, making it easier for everyone to aviod such an obstacle. This is a metaphoric scenario for how society is structured so that the individual isnt focused on, but that which he or she can physically do is focused on. If youre talented at something, you get a career, and then money. There is no other option and no other significant source of motivation besides to make a career out of something and get money. This is life at face value.There are several approaches to societal conditioning, as you probably know Aheadatime. To play devil's advocate a little bit, someone could quote the extensive work and research of John Dewey or Terry Eagleton to show that false dichotomies between society and the individual are predicated upon the very forms of blind social conformity which you yourself repudiate. Until we see that society is composed of individuals, and individuals are social creatures themselves, we will forever perpetuate the illusion that productive transformation is impossible. Indeed, you yourself are a wonderful example of someone who has fought back against the currents of thoughtlessness! It must not be so impossible after all.
Another counter-argument, which perhaps you've already reflected upon, is that an all-encompassing reality described in terms of "energy" or "essence" would naturally defy all descriptions of either good or bad. If there is truly an infinite field of energy, one which cannot be reduced to an individual form or representation, then it must needs transcend all moral evaluations. As soon as I describe it as good or bad, I've immediately anthropomorphized it. And insofar as I've reduced it to human shapes or forms, thereby restricting it to a finite frame of corporeal desires, I have in this very same attribution done it an injustice. That is to say, I have betrayed the very essence of it which was intended to be all-encompassing and inifinitely sublime (a word which the 19th century romantics used to describe the overwhelming quality of nature vis-a-vis human perception).
Just a couple of thoughts. Have to go to class now, otherwise I'd delve into this a little more deeply!
All the best,
Zef
There is an individual level of responsibility for who and what you become as well, and this is completely obvious. Anyone can choose to exit the mundane ebb and flow of the population, and choose to put their life on any path they desire. The problem is that its hard to see any other option for most people. Being raised in a systematic way pushes the idea of a straight forward system into most peoples train of thought. Stress from your parents who expect you to go to college or work, the idea that nothing in this world is obtained without money, to some people life outside of a city itself would seem completely alien. I have known people who decided to 'live off the land' as they say, upstate with a self made shelter etc, and decided not to be part of the flow of things. This is an extreme, yes, but the structure that is currently established makes all other options of life out to be alien, or inefficient, or ludicrous (sp).
I found this, but it's very flawed. Not worthy of publication. You can't just drop the squares on both sides and keep the equation since (-1)² = (1)² but -1 != 1. Duh. Also, I'm not sure how the heck you get from line 4 to line 5. This proof is nonsense. Hopefully whatever you were impressed by was better!Code:1 = 1 41 40 = 61 60 16 + 25 40 = 36 + 25 60 4² + 5² 2 * 4 * 5 = 6² + 5² 2 * 6 * 5 (4 5)² = (6 5)² 4 5 = 6 5 4 = 6 2 = 3 1 + 1 = 3
Dropping the squares doesnt work like you said, and the math starts to fade away as the person did the proofing wrong. Each consecutive line while relating back to the line above, must also make general sense mathimatically. As the lines went on, the forumlas stopped making coherent sense. For example, the last 3 lines although all relate to the one above it, stopped making sense once the squares were dropped.
No that's not it. It was publish-worthy & fairly ingenius.
best regards,
Pedal2Metal
i think there is no god, who agrees!
could god microwave a burrito so hot that he himself couldnt eat it?
so we're discussing all kinds of stuff in this thread? nice. someone ever heard of the monty hall problem? psychology and mathematics combined. even though we can logically prove simply probabilities, we can't believe in them. i'm quoting from the wikipedia article:
"Suppose you're on a game show, and you're given the choice of three doors: Behind one door is a car; behind the others, goats. You pick a door, say No. 1, and the host, who knows what's behind the doors, opens another door, say No. 3, which has a goat. He then says to you, 'Do you want to pick door No. 2?' Is it to your advantage to switch your choice?"
what do you say?
actually, in philosophy you would argue if "2+2=4" is a correct statement. i'd say that this assumption is based on that physical reality or reality at all exists and no one can prove it does. (which doesn't mean that someone could possibly know it does, but i leave that one out)
Switch.
best regards,
Pedal2Metal
since he is god, he could transform himself into an alien which such capabilities, since he himself cant, he has to copy the dna of a species that can, onve he was placed the burrito in his mouth, ate it, digested, and then create escrement... then he would turn back into what ppl think is his form..
this comment may offend me.
1. it may be an arrogant statement suggesting that this kind of problem is directly and easily for you to solve compared to the vast majority of people which would make you superior, at least in logical thinking.
2. it may also be a childish comment in case that you simply looked up "monty hall problem" on wikipedia which in the introduction and one line below that mentioned quote states that you should switch. or in another sense: you already knew the debate and tried to appear as if you just solved it.
3. either you are superior in tasks like this one or you checked wikipedia but were too busy to actually explain what you are or did. in that case, i would not be offended.
i hope it's case number three.
Wow! All that from 1 word?!? Hmmm... bizarro...
I am good at math (placed out of first year calculus) & my college education/degree is in electrical engineering w/minor in mathematics. So I guess I did think the problem was easy. Here's the explanation:
Probability that your guess is right: 1/3.
Probability that your guess is wrong: 2/3.
The fact that Monty revealed 1 of the doors that has a goat doesn't change the above equation. It just puts the 2/3 on the remaining other single door now instead of on the other 2 doors.
So switching is always a better shot at getting the right answer.
Anyhow, that's the scoop...
best regards,
Pedal2Metal
Last edited by Pedal2Metal; 05-03-2010 at 01:56 PM.
that you only responded with one word is actually what i was addressing. it produced the problems i have described. i didn't want to get insulting or something so i used a little hippie nonviolent communication and told you why i might be offended. well, it seems like you didn't think it was a big deal even though i still think that an explanation would have been needed. but that you don't wanted to be arrogant is important
btw this is an official logical paradox. i'm not sure if you learn those things in school. my roomie ultimately suggested a chance of 50:50 and he studies computer science. calculus is a part of that stuff.
Yes, I got a kick out of the "might be offended" wording.
Yep, it's a pretty well-known & discussed problem. It's not a paradox in my book but I can see how it could appear to be one. It's a different situation than walking up to 2 doors with no other information. In the Monty Hall problem, you've got more information. Tell your roomie to put his computer studies to good use & write a computer program to simulate both problems. He'll know better than to say 50:50 after doing that.
best regards,
Pedal2Metal
I dont think so. althought I dont think there are many if any logical paradox. And I suppsoe the definition of htat may be a matter of opinion.
I also agree with elthrasher on the 1+1=3 you obviously can't remove squares like that. Although step 4 to 5 is ok that is the quadratic expansion.
(x-y)^2 = x^2 -2xy+y^2
Last edited by ScottieX; 05-03-2010 at 03:12 PM.
i don't think there is any arguing. the result appears absurd, at least to most people, but is logically true. thus, it's a veridical paradox which is a logical paradox by definition.
ok you are right- damn dictionary conspiring against me with it's annoying definition of paradox.. haha
Last edited by ScottieX; 05-03-2010 at 04:15 PM.
Since, by definition, if you have one then the other cannot exist; then their meeting would cause the universe to disappear
well there is a lot of empty space in an object - maybe they still just pass through eachother at a quantum string level without anything actually having to move... however unlikely that might be.
I have a theory that the universe abhores contradictions (paradox in the strong sense, if you like) and that it would end up finding the solution even if it was ridiculously improbable in that sort of case (as oposed to ceasing to exist which is the other option).
I strongly dissagree, scientefic evidence shows the opposite.i think there is no god, who agrees!
O rly? *Insert Owl*
Hmmmmmm..... That's an interesting conclusion. Let's hope the two never meet!
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
