koti

Learnt a word today, thanks dimreepr.

Is there a name for the "art" of writing pages of text without making any point?

Ha, I remember these, my friend had one.

Wow, that was one serious mashine. What was it? I started with a 64Kb Atari 65xe.

And you wont find it because id doesn't exist. You got it all wrong fredreload...if you choose not to read mine and Sudiot's previous posts, please start with reading the wiki on CMYK: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CMYK_color_model Exactly right. Also as a side note for fredreload, black is not a color. In real world black is lack of anything. In color management systems black is a channel. Also...CMYK is a model created only for printing. Black ink & toners were added because they give better results than composite black. 100% C + 100% M + 100% Y = black. But its not actualy black, its muddy, brownish crap. A dedicated black ink/toner gives deeper black. As for why "K' is called "K" it's speculative...Some say it's "Key" some say it comes from black, some even say it somes from "Kelvin" as color temperature is measured in the Kelvin scale.

You missed the point, read my posts again OpenGL as far as I know works with RGB and cannot know what CMYK is. You can only simulate CMYK on a device which uses a source of light (monitor)

How ironic that his bowl doesn't have a beginning

This will definitely not appeal to the members born before the 1970's so don't bother A 74 minute set I've played in some club back in the day when I was making my living as a DJ : https://www.mixcloud.com/pawelkotelnicki/the-trip-2005/

I'm all for it, please do reprimand me. Unless ofcourse it will be vindictive in nature in which case... I don't care. After all I can only gain from it. I would love to command language like Sam Harris does and not sound pretentious.

Thanks for the link Memammal, will look it up tomorrow. You quoted above that time does not exist except as a concept of relative motion or events relative to the motion. We know from GR that spacetime cannot be treated independantly from matter. We know that time dilation and metric contraction are confirmed phenomena. If time doesn't exist and is just "relativity of events" then from that logic we should derive that space does not exist as well. That just doesn't stick. You gave an example earlier of a ruler representing time and a toy object representing a person. From that example which stated that it's not the ruler which is moving but the toy itself you derived that we are moving through time as opposed to the concept that time is flowing and we are "stationary" My question is very simple...wheres the reference point to determine what is moving and what is stationary in that context? I will go on a limb and state that we have absolutely no idea what the true nature of time is and were trying to invent like little children. On one hand we know how time manifests itself to us in models like GR but if we cant even be sure if time exists or not there is surely a lot more to it than what we see. Gravity in that sense is analogous, so far we only observe how it manifests itself to us but there are realy major pieces missing like why is gravity so weak compared to other forces or how it works in the planck scales. Frankly, the more I digg into theorerical physics, the more I have a feeling that we know very little...the trip is breathtaking though.

No worries Studiot. There will be dicrepancies in yours and mine reasoning due to my lack of academic background. I will try to convey my thoughts in my answer to Memammal below as well as I can. True. I did introduce the information subject earlier. I thought it will be relevant when trying to cope with the oroginal block concept where the future events are "a done deal" What immediately struck me is how could nature introduce that at T-0 and it also correlates to Hawking's work on black holes information paradox. For what its worth, I am not concerned with the available "space for all the information" I am concerned with nature introducing those future "done deal events" instantly at T-0.

I don't know why it would matter. I certainly don't think it does. Why would you ask this question in the context of my concern with the below statement coming from an article linked by Memammal? : "if the now moves then in must do so in respect to some reference?" That's good to hear, I can go to sleep in peace now

I edited my #181 post to be more transparent as to what is my writing and what is being quoted by me from the article Memammal linked. ok, I'm officially incapable of comprehending anything anymore tonight. I will go thru this again tomorrow. I don't even know who is argumenting what anymore.

Studiot, do you realise that the statements marked by me in orange come from the article Memammal linked and I'm highly irritated by them as spurious ?

Really Tom?! Are you ever going to stop this farce or are you just going to keep on humiliating youreself ?

Memammal, I am barely keeping my eyes open as a flu is killing me and my 6 month old's teething is not helping so I am irritated as hell so take it easy on me... Below I marked in orange a statement and a conclusion drawn from it from the link you recommended. The below are excerpts from the article: ---------------------------- There are two dominant – and incompatible – theories of time: the tensed theory, and thetenseless theory. The tensed theory of time most resembles the popularly-held view of time. The tensed theory requires there to be a present moment (the “now”), and a distinction between an event in the past, present, and future (an event in the past was real, an event in the present is real, and an event in the future will be real). Notice that the “now” moves. This apparent movement of the “now” is an essential feature of the tensed theory of time. However, there is a philosophical (and logical) problem to this idea of a moving “now”. Put simply, it raises the question which has puzzled philosophers: “How fast does time flow?”. If the “now” moves then it must move with respect to some time reference. So is it moving with respect to itself? Surely not. To say “Time moves at the rate of one second per second” is meaningless. Rather, the rate of time flow would have to be measured with respect to some secondary, external time reference. However, in our earlier discussion on this page it was stressed that there was no clock outside the universe, so there could not be any such external time reference. It is simply logically impossible for there to be a moving “now”. Time does not “flow”! -------------------------- Where is the logic in stating that "if the now moves then in must do so in respect to some reference?" Why is it that there has to be some reference? As far as I know SR and GR do not force this kind of aproach on time or does it? I hope it doesn't because it bothers me as hell as a careless argument resulting in an axiom which obviously has grand implications in any later reasoning. I am a bit familiar with the cinematography technology and I agree...this analogy is better. I still don't fully grasp the block concepts, I will have to postpone my further posts on this subject untill I get a firmer grip on this. Franky, for now I am irritated by the above article and the block time concepts. Probably due to the fact that I just don't get it but still I'm irritated.

This guy is awesomely nutts, look up his other videos:

Thanks for the link, will read through it tonight hopefuly. Despite that you might be right, I think that the (-infinite -> +infinite) analogy might not be a good one as events placed in spacetime are quite a different occurance than numbers which are purely a concept.

Memammal, that very well might be the case, at least with me Can you recommend a book that would be a comprehensive source on this ? As for my possibly unjustified concern, let me rephrase; Eternalism states that all points in time are equally real (wiki) If I understand this correctly, at the big bang there had to be a stage in which a continumm of all future events had to be presented...and had to be presented instantly. This sounds extremely far fetched if not ridiculous.

When you say that we are hostages to our language, experience and preconceptions it rings a (unfortunately a rather pessimistic) bell in me - consider this; Would Ed Witten be able to comprehend the math of the true nature of the universe that an advanced alien civilization would convey to him? Furthermore, if not...would he be able to learn? I don't think we can be sure that he would be able to learn and I don't think we can be sure that anyone could. BTW...Wouldn't there be an issue (at least a philosophical one) with the block universe concepts concerning the amount of information involved? Considering the original block concept where the past, present and future are done events wouldn't that mean that at or right after the big bang spacetime would have to be "stuffed" with a ridiculuos amount of information?

I shall examine the depersonalization phenomenon as it does sound intriguing. Your superior command of the English language is impressive by the way.

The emphasized traits are in my opinion what is being brought to attention here by Strange.

"Soooomethiiing's oooout theeeere waaaaitiiing foooor uuuus" so you have to fight imatfaal. Also "it's a solo campain now" so better keep in mind that "if it bleeds we can kill it"