173 replies to this topic

[shadowhawk]

GOBLIGOOP AND ANYTHING GOES,


Where those inclined can fill up the topic with anything that comes to mind. The Topic is whatever comes to mind and whenever. It does not have to relate in any way to anything.

If you want to say something unrelated to an existing topic, either start a new one or post here.
Elsewhere, follow the rule and do not post off topic.

Happy insanity!

[shadowhawk]

N.T.M.
Posted Yesterday, 05:39 PM
http://www.longecity..._30#entry619284
View Postshadowhawk, on 22 October 2013 - 03:12 PM, said:
Where in the Bible did you find God created a single solar system?

Careful. People may start to think that you support biblical inerrancy. The Bible, in addition to its endless contradictions, contains many points that reflect the understanding of the physical world at the time it was written. One of my favorites is its references to a flat Earth. The Bible often used the phrasing, "...to the ends of the world," which at the time reflected the pre-Columbian notion that the Earth was flat (before this was disproven, it had no alternate meaning).

Anyway, it's interesting stuff.

The inspiration of the Bible is not the subject yet. However we are talking about over all issues. There are two Books in Christian theology which teach us about God.. Right now we are dealing with the book of nature and whether it teaches us to consider God. We are not yet talking about the Bible.

The origin of the universe
The cosmic fine-tuning
The origin of life (biological information)
The sudden origin of the Cambrian phyla
The habitability/observability correlation

The evidence regarding these early evidences will focus on aspects of the above.

[shadowhawk]

http://www.longecity..._60#entry619601

From topic, “IS EVIL ONLY A PROBLEM FOR THEISTS?”

DukeNukem: Here's a link to a list of God's evils. This God guy is truly a nutcase, a cold-hearted murderer that sets the bar higher than any human ever could.

http://rationalwiki...._killing_people

When you cruelly kill 42 children just for making fun of a bald guy, then you know you are in need of serious professional help. And people actually pray to this loon!

Notice the topic is whether anyone else, besides Theists, have a problem with evil. Several problems with this response.

1. Is off topic.
2. Theists in general are in view in the topic and Duke only chose Jews and Christians. Why?
3. He never addresses his own problem with evil which was the topic. Maybe He has none. He only confesses what he perceives as, others sins.
4. He claims to know what evil is, he condemns it. Where did he get this knowledge? Does nature teach killing os wrong? What is the basis of his moral judgements?
5. How does he know enough to stand in judgement of events that took place 4,000 years ago, give or take?

In typical fashion Atheists are holier than thou when one asks them about their own evil. Perhaps we could talk about the great modern Atheist killings, their scope and how may died?

Here are other links for balance but the topic remains unanswered:
http://www.godandsci...cs/notkill.html
http://www.reasonabl...-the-canaanites
http://www.equip.org...the-canaanites/
http://enrichmentjou..._Canannites.cfm
http://www.clayjones...the-canaanites/
http://www.amazon.co...t/dp/0801072751

[N.T.M.]

N.T.M.
Posted Yesterday, 05:39 PM
http://www.longecity..._30#entry619284
View Postshadowhawk, on 22 October 2013 - 03:12 PM, said:
Where in the Bible did you find God created a single solar system?

Careful. People may start to think that you support biblical inerrancy. The Bible, in addition to its endless contradictions, contains many points that reflect the understanding of the physical world at the time it was written. One of my favorites is its references to a flat Earth. The Bible often used the phrasing, "...to the ends of the world," which at the time reflected the pre-Columbian notion that the Earth was flat (before this was disproven, it had no alternate meaning).

Anyway, it's interesting stuff.

The inspiration of the Bible is not the subject yet. However we are talking about over all issues. There are two Books in Christian theology which teach us about God.. Right now we are dealing with the book of nature and whether it teaches us to consider God. We are not yet talking about the Bible.

The origin of the universe
The cosmic fine-tuning
The origin of life (biological information)
The sudden origin of the Cambrian phyla
The habitability/observability correlation

The evidence regarding these early evidences will focus on aspects of the above.

You quoted me in a no-topic thread to say that I was off-topic?

Interesting

[Deep Thought]

http://www.youtube.c...be9wCAwIM#t=27s

I love how she turns her head to the camera looks all serious and spew a stream of nonsense.

Haha... "moko chokodoko dea... I love you... ".

And...

Praying in tongues.


Imagine having the news read in tongues.

Edited by Deep Thought, 25 October 2013 - 04:55 PM.

[shadowhawk]

View Postshadowhawk, on 25 October 2013 - 11:45 AM, said:
1. Everything that exists has an explanation of its existence, either in the necessity of its own nature or in an external cause.

2. If the universe has an explanation of its existence, that explanation is God.

3. The universe exists.

4. Therefore, the universe has an explanation of its existence (from 1, 3).

5. Therefore, the explanation of the universe’s existence is God (from 2, 4).

Premise 3

Premise 3 is undeniable for any sincere seeker after truth. Obviously the universe exists! You can Google it!

http://www.longecity..._60#entry619821

johnross47
I struggle to cope with the idea that anyone could take such peurile nonsense seriously. Can you find anyone else on the planet who can't see the hilarious silliness is proposition 2? (really) The cause of the universe is an unsolved question. I could say it was caused by the fairies at the bottom of my garden with as much justification and grip on reality.

No argument here, just the logical fallacy of ad hominem. YOU don't know but you know it is nonsense.. You could say it was caused by fairies? Do you?

HERE is the discussion of Premise 2 which you seem to have missed entirely. Perhaps you could learn something.

http://www.longecity..._30#entry619676

Edited by shadowhawk, 25 October 2013 - 09:09 PM.

[Sciencyst]

Do you mind?

Do you?

But do you?

DO YOU MIND?

MIND?

Or.

Does MIND DO YOU?!!?!

Or something else entirely?

[N.T.M.]

1.) All syllogisms are false.

2.) This is a syllogism.

3.) This syllogism is false.

I just thought of this and thought I'd post it right here where it belongs. Thoughts?












........If the conclusion is correct, then the premise is incorrect. The syllogism itself is a disproof of the premise. :D If all are false and a double negative produces a true statement, then this could be simplified in the form A ≠ ¬A

Oh my god, that was fun!

[N.T.M.]

My last post got me so excited that I blogged on the topic. Here's the extended version:


1.) All syllogisms are false.

2.) This is a syllogism.

3.) This syllogism is false.

It’s actually very easy, but I thought it was intriguing because it allows for the construction of very concrete parallels. Let’s take a moment to examine it. Assuming the premise is correct, the conclusion must be false. All right, that’s fine. But the conclusion, if assumed to be false, means that this particular syllogism is correct, which clearly contradicts having a false component, being the conclusion.

Right now you’re probably thinking that we’ve come to a logical loop without a resolution. Well, dear reader, that’s not actually the case, and here’s why. Let’s look at it in reverse for a second. If the conclusion is correct, then the premise must be false, which means that the syllogism itself is a disproof of the premise. Look at it this way: If you accept that all syllogisms are false, and if the conclusion, being a negative, produces another negative when fed back into the syllogism, you can mirror the structure of the syllogism in the form ¬A = ¬(¬A) → ¬A = A.

Clearly this is a contradictory statement, but now you’re thinking, “Ah, but this is exactly what the premise predicted; therefore, it must be correct after all.” Quite the contrary, actually. This is where the loop ends. For the premise—which indirectly encompasses the entire syllogism—to be true, all the syllogism's elements must be true, and since that’s clearly not the case, you can dismiss it entirely.

Now wasn’t that fun?!

Why sure it was.

Edited by N.T.M., 28 October 2013 - 12:06 AM.

[shadowhawk]

1.) All syllogisms are false.

2.) This is a syllogism.

3.) This syllogism is false.

I just thought of this and thought I'd post it right here where it belongs. Thoughts?

........If the conclusion is correct, then the premise is incorrect. The syllogism itself is a disproof of the premise. :D If all are false and a double negative produces a true statement, then this could be simplified in the form A ≠ ¬A

Oh my god, that was fun!

How true1?!

[N.T.M.]

1.) All syllogisms are false.

2.) This is a syllogism.

3.) This syllogism is false.

I just thought of this and thought I'd post it right here where it belongs. Thoughts?

........If the conclusion is correct, then the premise is incorrect. The syllogism itself is a disproof of the premise. :D If all are false and a double negative produces a true statement, then this could be simplified in the form A ≠ ¬A

Oh my god, that was fun!

How true1?!

A good time for sure!

[Deep Thought]

A tautology is true for all values of P.

P or ¬P

Truth table

TT T
TF T
FT T
FF T

How true1?!

It's not an assignment, but absolute truth. So true you will have a jolly good time and the leprechauns will sing Merry Christmas, all of spring.

When the unladen swallow drops its' cargo, plane tickets will be cheaper, because winter shoes are on sale. Do you follow?

Let me clarify.

When winter shoes are on sale, it naturally follows that it is winter.

Because of the Tada argument:

1) If stuff is on sale, it is cheap.
2) If stuff is on sale and is cheap, it must be winter - during christmas stuff is cheaper.
3) If an unladen swallow drops its' cargo, plane tickets will be cheaper. See #1.

Therefore it is christmas all year round, and stuff is on sale #1.

My logic is impeccable.

Edited by Deep Thought, 30 October 2013 - 09:45 AM.

[N.T.M.]

A tautology is true for all values of P.

P or ¬P

Truth table

TT T
TF T
FT T
FF T

How true1?!

It's not an assignment, but absolute truth. So true you will have a jolly good time and the leprechauns will sing Merry Christmas, all of spring.

When the unladen swallow drops its' cargo, plane tickets will be cheaper, because winter shoes are on sale. Do you follow?

Let me clarify.

When winter shoes are on sale, it naturally follows that it is winter.

Because of the Tada argument:

1) If stuff is on sale, it is cheap.
2) If stuff is on sale and is cheap, it must be winter - during christmas stuff is cheaper.
3) If an unladen swallow drops its' cargo, plane tickets will be cheaper. See #1.

Therefore it is christmas all year round, and stuff is on sale #1.

My logic is impeccable.

When I think of a tautology, I think of something that is defined recursively, such as P = P--, or, equivalently, ¬P = ¬P. By defining P this way, contradiction is impossible.

[N.T.M.]

I started writing a blog entry about mapping algorithms to solve a Rubik's cube. I've gotta take off right now (I'm a math tutor.), but here's what I got so far:


Ever wonder how people—speedcubers, as they’re called—solve Rubik’s cubes blindfolded? Is it a savant memory? What about superior spatial reasoning? A few months ago I considered these questions and came up with an answer that I think clearly demystifies the issue. To answer the question simply, they don’t. All the solving actually takes place during the examination period, long before the first segment is turned. Now you may be thinking, “Well that’s rather obvious,” but hold on, let me explain.

As anybody reading this probably already knows, Rubik’s cubes are solved by the application of algorithms, and the more algorithms you know, the faster and more efficiently you can solve them. To see the benefit with respect to memory, consider how this employs what’s known as “chunking.” With each algorithm functioning as a group comprised of specific turns, your brain operates through a sort of shorthand, which reduces the stress placed on memory from remembering the total number of turns, n, to n divided by t, the mean number of turns per algorithm.

One example illustrating the same benefit is dictionary-based algorithms, like those used in compression systems. By picking out pattern redundancies, a code can be devised to represent segments of information. Of course, the code itself will take up some space, but as the information that’s being compressed increases, the benefit, in terms of compression, lies in the difference in space used.

Here’s a quick illustration. If you let s represent the space occupied before compression, then the benefit can be represented as s - (d + c), where d is the space occupied by the dictionary, and c is the net amount of information remaining after compression. You can think of s as the total number of turns needed to solve a Rubik’s cube from a given position and c as the number of algorithms used (Notice how c is the equivalent of n/t, explained above.).

Now that’s all well and good, but let’s step away from the algorithms for a moment to discuss a logical tool that I think lends itself here quite nicely. I call the tool, or theory, the two-point theory, and basically it works by defining a spectrum for the context of a subject, which in turn illustrates the limitations for the subject matter, much like a graph illustrates the possible inputs and outputs for a function. In other words, it works to illustrate the range of something by defining spectral ends.


The utility arises when you can assign a quality to everything that falls within a given segment, or spectrum, which allows you to make a judgement about the subject without knowing where exactly it lies within the spectrum.

*edit* I think the introduction's a little corny. I'll have to change it. :/ Obviously parts still need to be revised.

Edited by N.T.M., 31 October 2013 - 02:04 AM.

[N.T.M.]

I wrote some more on it, but I still need to proofread it. Anyway, here's what I have so far (from where I left off in my last post):

Now that’s all well and good, but let’s step away from the algorithms for a moment to discuss a logical tool that I think lends itself here quite nicely. I call the tool, or theory, the two-point theory, and basically it works by defining a spectrum, or segment, for the context of a subject, which in turn illustrates the limitations for the subject matter, much like a graph illustrates the possible inputs and outputs for a function. In other words, it works to demonstrate the range of something by defining spectral ends. In addition, depending upon the nature of the spectrum, it allows you to deduce a quality—or set of qualities—that a subject must posses. For example, if c is defined as a point resting somewhere along the segment AB, and all points within that segment possess a certain quality, q, then you can conclude that c must have quality q.

In concept it’s very simple. Now let’s apply it to our situation with the Rubik’s cube. For this we’ll have to map out, at least in concept, the spectral ends of algorithms as they converge to form a solved Rubik’s cube, and because I don’t have any fancy art program, I’ll have to make do with an array of generic arrows. I’ll label the spectrum AB, where A and B are the spectral ends. The letters with the “subscripts” represent algorithms.

End A:

A0 → A1 → A2 → A3 → A4 → A5 → A6 → A7 → (converges with solved)
B0 → B1 → B2 → B3 → B4 → B5 → B6 → B7 → (converges with solved)
C0 → C1 → C2 → C3 → C4 → C5 → C6 → C7 → solved
D0 → D1 → D2 → D3 → D4 → D5 → D6 → D7 → (converges with solved)
E0 → E1 → E2 → E3 → E4 → E5 → E6 → E7 → (converges with solved)

height and length (independent) = [1, ∞)

End B:

height and length (dependent) = [1, ∞)

A0 → (converges with B1)
B0 → B1 → (converges with solved)
C0 → C1 → solved
D0 → D1 → (converges with solved)
E0 → (converges with D1)

You’ll just have to use your imagination and pretend that I used the formal notation with subscripts in decrements of n, n - 1, n - 2, ..., 2, 1, etc. I don’t know how to use subscripts, and the point’s just as clear without them. Also, the use of infinity, although in a formal context, is technically incorrect, but this has no logical bearing on the information the mapping provides, and it’s much simpler this way.

*looks up* This post is way bigger than I originally planned. That being said, I think I’ll reserve the rest of the entry for a second part.

I’m tired now, so I’m going to go to bed.

*edit* Well those diagonal arrows didn't work too well. :(
*edit again* Fixed, I guess.

Edited by N.T.M., 31 October 2013 - 09:16 AM.

[Deep Thought]

When I think of a tautology, I think of something that is defined recursively, such as P = P--, or, equivalently, ¬P = ¬P. By defining P this way, contradiction is impossible.

I don't know of recursion outside of computer science yet.

If I understand what you're saying, defining a tautology as "¬P = ¬P" tells us that the truth values are equal on both sides, and that we won't have to read as much into it as with a slightly more convoluted logical proposition?

Such as: p∨(p∧q)≡p

P or ¬P = P V ¬P
(My mistake, truth table looks like this. There's only one variable.)
T T
F T


(¬P = ¬P) ≡ P V ¬P ?

[N.T.M.]

When I think of a tautology, I think of something that is defined recursively, such as P = P--, or, equivalently, ¬P = ¬P. By defining P this way, contradiction is impossible.

I don't know of recursion outside of computer science yet.

If I understand what you're saying, defining a tautology as "¬P = ¬P" tells us that the truth values are equal on both sides, and that we won't have to read as much into it as with a slightly more convoluted logical proposition?

Such as: p∨(p∧q)≡p

P or ¬P = P V ¬P
(My mistake, truth table looks like this. There's only one variable.)
T T
F T


(¬P = ¬P) ≡ P V ¬P ?

I'll write more on this when I have a chance (I have to go to bed right now), but basically all the statements are implicitly prefaced with if, meaning that if P is false, then P is false, and, conversely, if P is true, P is true. You can see how this structure makes contradiction impossible.

[Deep Thought]

I'll write more on this when I have a chance (I have to go to bed right now), but basically all the statements are implicitly prefaced with if, meaning that if P is false, then P is false, and, conversely, if P is true, P is true. You can see how this structure makes contradiction impossible.

If P then P.

Subscripts:
₀₁₂₃₄₅₆₇₈₉

[Sciencyst]

My last post got me so excited that I blogged on the topic. Here's the extended version:


1.) All syllogisms are false.

2.) This is a syllogism.

3.) This syllogism is false.

It’s actually very easy, but I thought it was intriguing because it allows for the construction of very concrete parallels. Let’s take a moment to examine it. Assuming the premise is correct, the conclusion must be false. All right, that’s fine. But the conclusion, if assumed to be false, means that this particular syllogism is correct, which clearly contradicts having a false component, being the conclusion.

Right now you’re probably thinking that we’ve come to a logical loop without a resolution. Well, dear reader, that’s not actually the case, and here’s why. Let’s look at it in reverse for a second. If the conclusion is correct, then the premise must be false, which means that the syllogism itself is a disproof of the premise. Look at it this way: If you accept that all syllogisms are false, and if the conclusion, being a negative, produces another negative when fed back into the syllogism, you can mirror the structure of the syllogism in the form ¬A = ¬(¬A) → ¬A = A.

Clearly this is a contradictory statement, but now you’re thinking, “Ah, but this is exactly what the premise predicted; therefore, it must be correct after all.” Quite the contrary, actually. This is where the loop ends. For the premise—which indirectly encompasses the entire syllogism—to be true, all the syllogism's elements must be true, and since that’s clearly not the case, you can dismiss it entirely.

Now wasn’t that fun?!

Why sure it was.

Look up what my name means!

Catuskoti is a Buddhist theorem from Nagarjuna which is similar to what you're saying I believe..

"A typical piece of Buddhist dialectical apparatus is the ...(catuskoti). It consists of four members in a relation of exclusive disjunction ("one of, but not more than one of, 'a,' 'b,' 'c,' 'd,' is true"). Buddhist dialecticians, from Gautama onward, have negated each of the alternatives, and thus have negated the entire proposition. As these alternatives were supposedly exhaustive, their exhaustive negation has been termed "pure negation" and has been taken as evidence for the claim that Madhyamika is negativism.^[1]

http://ccbs.ntu.edu....HIL/ew26566.htm

Is this sort of similar to your revelation?

[N.T.M.]

My last post got me so excited that I blogged on the topic. Here's the extended version:


1.) All syllogisms are false.

2.) This is a syllogism.

3.) This syllogism is false.

It’s actually very easy, but I thought it was intriguing because it allows for the construction of very concrete parallels. Let’s take a moment to examine it. Assuming the premise is correct, the conclusion must be false. All right, that’s fine. But the conclusion, if assumed to be false, means that this particular syllogism is correct, which clearly contradicts having a false component, being the conclusion.

Right now you’re probably thinking that we’ve come to a logical loop without a resolution. Well, dear reader, that’s not actually the case, and here’s why. Let’s look at it in reverse for a second. If the conclusion is correct, then the premise must be false, which means that the syllogism itself is a disproof of the premise. Look at it this way: If you accept that all syllogisms are false, and if the conclusion, being a negative, produces another negative when fed back into the syllogism, you can mirror the structure of the syllogism in the form ¬A = ¬(¬A) → ¬A = A.

Clearly this is a contradictory statement, but now you’re thinking, “Ah, but this is exactly what the premise predicted; therefore, it must be correct after all.” Quite the contrary, actually. This is where the loop ends. For the premise—which indirectly encompasses the entire syllogism—to be true, all the syllogism's elements must be true, and since that’s clearly not the case, you can dismiss it entirely.

Now wasn’t that fun?!

Why sure it was.

Look up what my name means!

Catuskoti is a Buddhist theorem from Nagarjuna which is similar to what you're saying I believe..

"A typical piece of Buddhist dialectical apparatus is the ...(catuskoti). It consists of four members in a relation of exclusive disjunction ("one of, but not more than one of, 'a,' 'b,' 'c,' 'd,' is true"). Buddhist dialecticians, from Gautama onward, have negated each of the alternatives, and thus have negated the entire proposition. As these alternatives were supposedly exhaustive, their exhaustive negation has been termed "pure negation" and has been taken as evidence for the claim that Madhyamika is negativism.^[1]

http://ccbs.ntu.edu....HIL/ew26566.htm

Is this sort of similar to your revelation?

Yes, it's the same principle. And thanks for the post. It was interesting.

[N.T.M.]

I'll write more on this when I have a chance (I have to go to bed right now), but basically all the statements are implicitly prefaced with if, meaning that if P is false, then P is false, and, conversely, if P is true, P is true. You can see how this structure makes contradiction impossible.

If P then P.

Subscripts:
₀₁₂₃₄₅₆₇₈₉

I said I'd write more on this when I had the time, but really there's little more I can add. As I said before, the most important criterion for a tautology is something that can't result in contradiction. The expression, however, has more to do with convention. For example, (P = P) and (P → P) illustrate the same principle, but one may not be formally accepted in the definition. I've studied formal logic a little, but when it comes to purely conventional differences, I care very little.

And it looks like your icons were rejected, too. :/

Edited by N.T.M., 03 November 2013 - 11:01 PM.

[N.T.M.]

A contradiction in three words: Learning by rote.

...But really.

[shadowhawk]

Off topic from “Evidence for Christianity???”
http://www.longecity..._90#entry623447
http://www.longecity..._90#entry623606

johnross 47
I've put many logical points here.....you never address them....you either post another link or a short irrelevant insult. If you produced your objections to my posts in your own words and in the form of a proper logical discussion, I would treat you with more respect. (ShadowHawk: SH You have not dealt with any points made.)

I don't believe in any of the proposed gods. I have never seen a sound argument for accepting any of the god propositions. I do find the mental gymnastics of believers fascinating. From a psychological point of view, the mental gyrations of intelligent and educated believers tell us a lot about how the mind works, and the evolution of gods, from the completely understandable primitive forms to the modern versions, tells us a lot about the history of human understanding and culture. When Shadowhawk's favourite unattributed quote-source, (WC Craig)makes that jump from the highly evolved logical/semantic-trick structure of his arguments, to his belief, via nothing more than waving his arms and appealing to what seems to him most reasonable, he tells us a great deal more about human nature than about the nature of the universe. When his formidable reputation as a debater and logician comes up against reality, he resolves the cognitive dissonance by coming down on the side of the irrational. I wish I was in a position to run studies on this.(SH All this amounts to is what you always do, ad hominem attacks. There is nothing here but empty nonsense as usual)

Sthira

And we never will "know" until god, if god exists, flies down out of the skies and announces Here I am. (SH: You “know,” we never will know! Unless God comes down. We are getting close)

Ponder what might happen if, say, a modern Jesus Christ -- some ragtag dredlocked hippie performing stunts, maybe levitating, making dramatic speeches about I Am Who Am -- how would he be accepted by sophists like Shadowhawk? What would it take for god to prove hirself to us?

What I don't understand is the shame associated with the simple fact that we don't know if god exists or not. Do humble puja and repeat ten thousand times: we don't know. What's wrong with ignorance? Amazing things exist within this universe of which we're ignorant. Why then is ignorance of illogical, supernatural entities so shameful to religious people who must prove their gods exist or else all be damned? (SH: The topic is, is there evidence for Christianity? Despite your knowledge we can’t know. You seem to be contradicting yourself. And you are so sure about it. We all operate by faith. You don’t know if God exists or not but you know you can’t know.)

We may speculate why true believers keep humping fake gods on us -- ethnic land conflicts, financial interests, political fucking around, power grasping -- but sincere seekers -- renunciant -- fall upon faith and do not claim to know stuff they don't know. (SH: Argument by proclamation. How do you know?)

This is the better conversation to have, imho, rather than rehashing ad nauseum the same ole religio-shiz. We created mean, grandfatherly bearded sky god(s) and then dismantled them centuries ago. As Nietzsche wrote "...not everyone has gotten the news..." (SH: Can’t handle the discussion so Jist as in “evidence for Atheism,” all there is here is one bigoted logical fallacy after amother. This is all they have.)

Yet the story is still open because we're stuck within the confines of natural law and human reasoning. Like in a straight jacket. Logic takes us only so far to a point; from its limits we create tools to expand past human capacities and into impossible to predict unknowns.

To follow along with you: we know that we don't know if god exists. We also know we don't know if other dimensions exist beyond these in which we're encased. We don't know what happens beyond the speed of light, for example, but we calculate that time and space "cease to exist." Past the speed of light is completely irrational to us -- like god -- but that doesn't necessarily mean new realities or dimensions cannot unfold past our reasoned limits. But until we have evidence of "more" than what's in this universe then it's faith and the wild ass speculation of scifi. Cosmology is fun! It's a pity that religiosity infects it in the pop arena. (SH: if you don’t know, you won’t find out unless you look. I am presenting the case for Christianity just as I did for the Case for Atheism. This is typical.)

DukeNukem

Quite simply, gods don't make any logical sense whatsoever. And, there's a total lack of evidence. ( SH: Where is your evidence? You haven’t rebutted anything I have said yet)

We all know that religions are all clearly bogus and made up by humans, so they can all be easily dismissed.(SH: Evidence? None! We all know, this is bogus)

If gods were real, the universe and our planet would be a very very different place. One true god, for example, who loves worship (a petty ego-driven requirement!), would certainly have made himself known worldwide, rather than allowing so many other fake belief systems to arise -- how unfair is that! (SH: God, how do you know? Perhaps the real God values love freely given. See the topic on “Pluralism))

Science continues to close the gaps on the mysteries of our universe, in each case showing no gods are needed to explain things. There are few gaps left for gods to claim dominion. They like sardines in a small room now, fighting over a few remaining choice morsels, like the origin of the Big Bang.(SH: God is needed to explain everything. This is an Atheism of the gaps theory.))

But most of all, gods need to explain from whence they themselves came? (SH: God is as I argued a necessary being)

Edited by shadowhawk, 15 November 2013 - 01:22 AM.

[N.T.M.]

I was looking over some trig identities earlier when I noticed that I could use a sum identity to divide an angle into an arbitrary number of smaller angles by feeding them back into the equation, kinda like a fractal. For example, if angle A = B + C, and sin(B + C) = sinBcosC + cosBsinC, then B or C could be subdivided, refed into the same structure, and voila!! You've effectively increased the angle component number by one. Moreover, you can repeat this process as many times as you like (to whatever level would bring you the most joy). And how exactly will the equation grow? Why linearly, of course.

Going back to my first example, if sin(B + C) = sinBcosC + cosBsinC, and B = D + E, then you can isolate the first factor, sinB, define it by its subangles (using the same structure), and then put that into the original equation to get [sin(D + E) = sinDcosE + cosDsinE]cosC + cosBsinC. Notice how I went from B + C to D + E + C. Yes, the B's still there in the cosine factor, but that could be removed just as easily via another identity. Of course now the size of the equation will change exponentially as opposed to linearly. Anyway, clearly this is all very important.

I'm sure I'm not the first person to come up with this, but have any of you come across this in your studies?

Edited by N.T.M., 15 November 2013 - 07:15 AM.

[shadowhawk]

USER AGREED, FORUM USE GUIDELINES
http://www.longecity...ture/bylaws-r18

Article 1
Section03 Content
© You understand that by using the Site, you may be exposed to Content that you may deem offensive, indecent or objectionable. (Including religious, philosophical or political views)

Section06 Basic Prohibitions
© Personal threats to anybody, whether or not that person is using the Site.

g) Interacting with the Site in such a way as to seriously impair the functioning or usability of the Site including but not limited to excessive contribution of irrelevant Content;

Section09 Posting Guidelines
(a) Users must agree to consider the posting guidelines as specified in Article
2. Adherence to these guidelines is monitored by ImmInst Moderators, Directors and other designated Officers

Article 2 Posting Guidelines:
http://www.longecity.../feature/bylawA

Section01 A-- General tone of conversations
Also under no circumstances should you employ personal judgments or remarks about people themselves rather than their arguments. Aside from the fact that such judgments are more often than not ill founded, they drag down the overall quality of the discussion as well as costing time and space.

Section04 D-- Replying to topics
(a) D.1-- Please ask yourself "Does my reply offer a significant contribution?"
(b) D.2-- It is critical that you try to keep follow-up posts on topic. Avoid going off on a different tangent. If it occurs to you that this might be another thread, open a new thread and put a link to it in the old one
© D.3-- As an extension of the previous point, do not derail a topic with fundamental critique....
(e) D.5-- There is usually no benefit for people in reading that you agree unless you give an explanation to go with it.
f) D.6-- ...If someone posts a link or uploads an article- read it before you go on. Also read the posts of your predecessors and be aware of related discussions elsewhere
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
COMMON ABUSES:
OFF TOPIC: Going off topic (see posting guidelines above) Used by Trolls to harass and derail discussion by continually going off topic. This keeps the topic from being discussed.

INFORMAL LOGICAL FALLACIES:
Don’t waste your time trying to answer someone who commits logical fallacies repeatedly. They do not want an answer.
http://www.nizkor.or...ures/fallacies/
http://www.amazon.co...k/dp/0131940929

GOOD THINKING INVOLVES:
1. Is open-minded and mindful of alternatives
2. Tries to be well-informed
3. Judges well the credibility of sources
4. Identifies conclusions, reasons, and assumptions
5. Judges well the quality of an argument, including the acceptability of its reasons, assumptions, and evidence
6. Can well develop and defend a reasonable position
7. Asks appropriate clarifying questions
8. Formulates plausible hypotheses; plans experiments well
9. Defines terms in a way appropriate for the context
10. Draws conclusions when warranted, but with caution
11. Integrates all items in this list when deciding what to believe or do

NAME CALLING:
This is a logical fallacy called an Ad Hominem. Rather than attack an argument you disagree with, you attack the person. This can be a form of bigotry. “She is a Jew,” “he is a black,” “He is dumb,” “She is fat,” are examples of name calling.

MARKING DOWN REPUTATIONS OF THOSE YOU DISAGREE WITH.
Nice way to anonymously smear someone you disagree with, without any reasons.

[N.T.M.]

Decided to stop off at Starbucks and finish my entry about mapping Rubik's cube algorithms, so I did, and here it is:

I’ll preface this very simply. I explore how it’s possible to leverage cognitive power to be able to solve a Rubik’s cube blindfolded, and I do it in part by conceptually mapping algorithms through the use of my own logical tool, which I call two-point theory. I’ll be very clear: This isn’t a tutorial on how to actually solve a Rubik’s cube blindfolded, although it could very well be used as a guide to approaching the task.

As anybody reading this probably already knows, Rubik’s cubes are solved by the application of algorithms, and the more algorithms you know, the faster and more efficiently you can solve them. To see the benefit with respect to memory, consider how this employs what’s known as “chunking.” With each algorithm functioning as a group comprised of specific turns, your brain operates through a sort of shorthand, which reduces the stress placed on memory from remembering the total number of turns, n, to n divided by t, the mean number of turns per algorithm. One example illustrating the same benefit is dictionary-based algorithms, like those used in compression systems. By picking out pattern redundancies, a code can be created to represent segments of information. Of course, the code itself would take up some space, but as the information that’s being compressed increases, the benefit, in terms of compression, lies in the difference in space used.

Here’s a quick illustration. If you let s represent the space occupied before compression, then the benefit can be represented as s - (d+ c), where d is the space occupied by the dictionary, and c is the net amount of information remaining after compression. You can think of s as the total number of turns needed to solve a Rubik’s cube from a given position and c as the number of algorithms used (Notice how c is the equivalent of n/t, explained above.).

Now that’s all well and good, but let’s step away from the algorithms for a moment to discuss a logical tool that I think lends itself here quite nicely. I call the tool, or theory, the two-point theory, and basically it works by defining a spectrum, or segment, for the context of a subject, which in turn illustrates the limitations for the subject matter, much like a graph illustrates the possible inputs and outputs for a function. In other words, it works to demonstrate the range of something by defining spectral ends. In addition, depending upon the nature of the spectrum, it allows you to deduce a quality—or set of qualities—that a subject must posses. For example, if c is defined as a point resting somewhere along the segment AB, and all points within that segment possess a certain quality, q, then you can conclude that c must have quality q.

In concept it’s very simple. Now let’s apply it to our situation with the Rubik’s cube. For this we’ll have to map out, at least in concept, the spectral ends of algorithms as they converge to form a solved Rubik’s cube, and because I don’t have any fancy art program, I’ll have to make do with an array of generic arrows. I’ll label the spectrum AB, where A and B are the spectral ends. The letters with the “subscripts” represent algorithms.

End A:

A0 → A1 → A2 → A3 → A4 → A5 → A6 → A7 → (converges with solved)
B0 → B1 → B2 → B3 → B4 → B5 → B6 → B7 → (converges with solved)
C0 → C1 → C2 → C3 → C4 → C5 → C6 → C7 → solved
D0 → D1 → D2 → D3 → D4 → D5 → D6 → D7 → (converges with solved)
E0 → E1 → E2 → E3 → E4 → E5 → E6 → E7 → (converges with solved)

height and length (independent) = [1, ∞)

End B:

A0 → (converges with B1)
B0 → B1 → (converges with solved)
C0 → C1 → solved
D0 → D1 → (converges with solved)
E0 → (converges with D1)

height and length (dependent) = [1, ∞)

Originally I used diagonal arrows, but the website rejected the icons.

You’ll just have to use your imagination and pretend that I used the formal notation with subscripts in decrements of n, n - 1, n - 2, ..., 2, 1, etc. I don’t know how to use subscripts, and the point’s just as clear without them. Also, the use of infinity, although in a formal context, is technically incorrect, but this has no logical bearing on the information the mapping provides, and it’s much simpler this way.

So how does this relate to our discussion about the Rubik’s cube? Well, if ends A and B cover all possible positions and progressions for a Rubik’s cube, then any position, a, could be defined as (A, a] ∪ [a, B), or, equivalently, A (less than or equal to) a (less than or equal to) B. But, you may ask, “What makes B’s value greater than A’s? Couldn’t it just as easily be the other way around?” Very astute, dear reader. Yes, it could. The order doesn’t matter; it’s all about relative position. Anyway, what this means is that a person attempting to solve a Rubik’s cube blindfolded must only—and I use that word loosely—be able to determine which algorithm to start with and then all subsequent algorithms that follow from that line. Moreover, unless the starting position results in a pattern that perfectly mirrors spectral end A, the algorithms used will involve some level of convergence, which means that the solver could find the solution with knowing even fewer algorithms. Put simply, the solver need only identify which algorithmic line to follow, and, of course, he or she could do that with their eyes open in the time allotted to survey the cube. One caveat, however, is that all outputs for the algorithms must be functionally based, meaning that each algorithm must be such that it provides only one output, which may or may not be unique with respect to other algorithms (just like a surjective function).

Well, I hope that demystifies the subject a little.

[Layberinthius]

God Jehovah was an alien and Jesus was his clone.

The entire bible was a social experiement and first contact for the human race.

Jesus simply used technology to achieve the miraculous feats he made.

We are all going to die unless we all become buddhist or atheist or agnostic.

Aliens have already made first contact, they've already conqueored our planet through ideas, not bombs.

We will destroy ourselves.

[N.T.M.]

So I was trying to come up with a function to graph the expansion of the equation I was using to divide an angle into an arbitrary number of subangles, and the equations got messy really fast.


1 + 1 = 2
1 + 4[1/2(1 + 1)] = 5
1 + 4[1/2(1 + 1)]/2 + 4[1/2(4[1/2(1 + 1)])] = 11
1 + 4[1/2(1 + 1)]/2 + 4[1/2(4[1/2(1 + 1)])]/2 + 4[1/2(4[1/2(4[1/2(1 + 1)])])] = 23

I then expressed the relationship with f(x) = x/2 + 2x
2x = y → f(y) = y/2 + 2y
2y = z → f(z) = z/2 + 2z, etc.

This implies a structure such as 1 + x/2 + y/2 + z/2 + 2z.

Anyway, I'm not sure what to call this type of function. I'm tempted to call it a "partially iterated function," but IDK. It's similar to y = 1 + 2^x, which is radically simpler.

I'm pretty tired, so I may have made some mistakes. I don't think so, though.

[Layberinthius]

I like spirals, so when I saw this thread I had to share it:
http://projectavalon...cient-world-why

[Breezey]

Mr. Boombastic, totally fantastic!