Ben Banana

symbols

... I'm not talking about characters. Symbol, as in symbolic or representation. In other words, yes, I mean an expression.

Are you saying you can partition a volume with a single line?

... you would partition a volume with plane anyway, not a line (lines partition planes). I don't see why you're asking this.

Homogeneity does not imply scalar symmetry milk can be homogeneous but zoom in a bit and it appears different.

Let's throw in another term, shall we? Pure homogeneity, absolute homogeneity, total homogeneity, banana homogeneity... heck, whatever makes you happy.

I'd say its indistinguishable from a singularity

Well I guess it can either be a singularity of coincidence or an infinite homogeneity. That's a problem with: "Absolute symmetry in every way, mirror, translation, scale etc.."

We get the idea, but technically it really doesn't make any concrete sense at all, unless you already assume these transformations don't even exist meaningfully. Again, that's only because you can't really apply his definition to anything... but apparently 'nothing' sure works.

They are indistinguishable symbols until you consider the very fact of such symmetry: the equality. Otherwise, you're actually talking of a coincidence. The same applies to moth wings: they have an axis. That axis distinguishes the two half-spaces.

Absolute symmetry in every way, mirror, translation, scale etc..

Now this is different (a statement composed with symmetry; not merely the property of symmetry itself), but can't you see what this reduces to? Is there any reason to name symmetry in particular? Homogeneity. It's also like trying to represent anything meaningful in a closed serial quantification using only a single symbol. You're still asserting an unnecessarily arbitrary correlation to 'nothing.'

If you want to seriously address these questions, then you should know that they are a matter of indexicality, as I said before.

You mean this I guess since the rest is not relevant.

What's not relevant? This is the least relevant remark I made. Please look at the other things I said. The core of my argument:

If 'nothing' is symmetry, then what kind of symmetry is 'nothing' ? Does this idea apply to my analogy? Let's try. 1 = 1.

 

Is that 'nothing' ? How so?

I only spend my time afterwards hazarding the nature of your speculative behavior.

thanks anyway, but I'm tired of your hostility.

To philosophers? I never said "you," though your behavior strikes me as being quite similar to faulted philosophers'.

later

Hmm... Do I win? Well, thank you Mr. moth. It has been my pleasure!

that's not what I'm talking about

My point exactly. What are you talking about? Read what I said two posts ago: http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/69384-what-is-nothing/page__st__20__p__705194#entry705194

Nothing, like symmetry, has no distinctions. if you can make a distinction the distinguishable part must be different (inequality) from the rest or there would be no reason to segment the part.

I understand what you are saying. You don't need to elaborate it again. Moth wings are symmetrical... but what does it matter? And of course there are fine distinctions in symmetry, just as -69 is different from 69. If you don't even comprehend thoroughly enough to include the component of these numbers (the sign) which denotes symmetry, then you're speaking of coincidence. Now lets jump for that! Behold, coincidence is nothing! ... Oh damn, that's a great idea.

You're confining yourself within a hazy intellectual construct which only idealizes your silly ideas.

In your effort to construct a strawman you introduced equality.

Definitely.

Do you think nothing can be asymmetric?

It does not matter what I think... whether nothing can be asymmetric, if I think nothing can be ugly, or if I believe in the chances that nothing will molest moths in very uncomfortable ways.

Maybe you could give some examples of the difference between nothing and symmetry.

This is completely flawed. Can you give some examples which denote the differences between pirates and earthquakes? Otherwise, I'm all for believing in whatever arbitrary truth they imply. Tip: PLEASE read my previous response. You can find it here: http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/69384-what-is-nothing/page__st__20__p__705194#entry705194

I didn't understand why you introduced equality when I was using inequality.

No. I began with equality. You spoke of inequality afterward while you believed you were correctly referring to my analogy.

There's no clear bridge between "nothing" and equality.

But there is a clear bridge between nothing and inequality.

See, equality is inequal to inequality.

Inequality doesn't make any sense for your purposes, especially if you try to put it in the form of my original analogy:

1 does not equal 0 ... yeah, and? There's no symmetry there. What can you learn from this? Your association between symmetry and inequality is an invalid assertion you've naively made, in addition to your original speculation regarding symmetry and 'nothing'. I mean, that's completely ludicrous!

If 'nothing' is symmetry, then what kind of symmetry is 'nothing' ? Does this idea apply to my analogy? Let's try. 1 = 1.

Is that 'nothing' ? How so? Clearly, you're just tossing around arbitrary logic. Also, symmetry is definitely not the only property you can abuse... there's a lot of arbitrary logic you can employ to drag yourself nowhere. Once you're satisfied with this useless idea, you're free to enjoy it as much as you would like: only leaving it behind and forgetting it as useless at it is, regardless of my criticism. I would love to see more interesting results come from this idea.

Ultimately, my point here is that you clearly are not working with a rigid concept. Your vague conception has already deceived you into asserting that there exists a clear bridge between nothing, symmetry and... inequality? Ooops! You could have only meant equality, which demonstrates how your own grasp is too vague to be handled coherently even by yourself.

This is how the field of philosophy is being abused by naive and radical thinkers who only thought they couldn't fit their ideas into the mainstream fields... which is not true. It's a common and fundamental problem with the way these "philosophers" try to approach theory. They believe it makes sense to dance in their own theory without any valid or coherent basis. A lot of people don't know how to appropriately establish new ideas, and this leads them to wondering why their brilliant light-bulbs can't screw in anywhere but philosophy; the only field which appears to accept their desperation.

Cooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooool. Too bad.

But there is a clear bridge between nothing and inequality.

If some part of nothing is not equivalent to the rest of nothing then it's something.

You constructed that reasoning without using a necessary derivation from the essence of nothing. This reasoning can be applied to a lot of things: it's not meant to explore *truth*, only to surface implicit character. "some part of nothing" <-- assumes too many characteristics about 'nothing' in the first place ... which is quite silly especially by the nature of our subject here, 'nothing.'

'Nothing' labels a certain phenomenon of indexicality. 'Random' is another (more obvious) kind of this indexical phenomena etc.

EDIT:

Also notice how you jumped by my analysis of your analogy -- where I referred to nothing and equality -- to begin referring to inequality...

which really exhibits to me how you're just spewing nonsense.

1 = 1. 1 - 1 = 0.

There's no clear bridge between "nothing" and equality. Define it. Regardless, that's arbitrary... so have fun making bridges out of thin air.

Are you saying you understand nothing?

No. I'm saying you understand nothing. (i.e. Clueless. Puns are great.) Seriously though, that's not what I'm saying. I'm saying... what pantheory said.

Nothing is incomprehensible.

I'd say nothing is nothing but a conceivable association. Now suck that self-reflexive masterpiece.

I've never heard of bb code before, is the only difference what you said?

No...

I am registered as a pizza. I love being part of the pizza party! Thanks for inviting me, I'm glad I'm cool enough!

Thanks. I didn't think HTML worked on this site.

It's not HTML at all. It's called BB code. You use [] instead of <>

No offense, but that tutorial is one of the most boring things I've ever read.

Then you're obviously incapable of reading anything more intellectual... including the majority of material we discuss here.

And what if the fire melts the mask?

Worse: What if Godzilla ate the engineers before they could design the airplane !? If there is fire and they manage to stop it from spreading, or they manage to put it out before they all die ... you'll still need to deal with smoke regardless of whether the fire is fatal.

By the way, why are people upset that some aren't still discussing the matter of airplane fires anymore? That's actually not the point of the topic. It's politics, specifically regarding careless and inappropriate judgements made by politicians such as Mitt Romney. I'm the one who's off topic!

You've discussed celestial resource-gathering (asteroid mining) quite a bit. I don't have any more comments regarding this particular aspect of the topic's discussion yet.

I have an idea for processing materials and resources within the *vacuum of space and zero-gravity. What do you think about utilizing artificial fusion as a core heat source (e.g. to melt things during metallurgic refinement)? I think we could discover a much broader variety of applications for fusion when considering its practice within space, which I suppose would happen to be a lot cheaper to construct than projects such as the ITER tokamak (which is probably fundamentally different in operational nature to my idea), due to the simplicity I assume is associated to performing controlled fusion in space. Of course, this is just a fat assumption I make, as I find it reasonable to believe fusion and space naturally go hand in hand. After all, what do stars do? Yet, when I speculate this practice a little more deeply (though still too vague and inexperienced of me to discuss), I do think the idea could work quite well.

If this is completed into a closed system -- gathering, refining, constructing; constructing new equipment for gathering raw-resources, expanding the facility of refinement, and assembling more construction utility -- I think it's just a matter of fully deploying the first generation of equipment, and then we shouldn't need to do very much to sustain its growth (besides overhead instruction). Of course, depending on how much equipment you initially deploy, time will always be a great matter, though I still believe the system could thoroughly develop to yield production masses far greater than as produced by all the humans working on Earth (collective measurement) in a rather short time, comparatively.

As of now, this is not really a legitimate engineering topic, but I'm just opening my ideas for discussion. We can discuss the best plausible techniques for practicing metallurgic refinement within space, and even some concepts relating to their concrete practice (specific matters of engineering). I admit that I naively suspect the potential for such practices to bear more successfully than any mass metallurgic-process currently operating on Earth, but I want to know if you foresee any complications as early as now (and even if you don't, that doesn't mean I have any exceptionally good ideas here).

The next subject we haven't touched upon is the necessary array of modular construction utility which would be required to completely close this system. I'd broadly divide this array into the following categorization (anyone think they're a good manufacture-taxonomist?):

• Domains of Construction
  
  • Basis of Manufacture
    
    • Casting
      
    • Machining
      
    • Specialist/Miscellaneous Processes (e.g. pressing, grinding, inflating etc.)
      

    [*]The equivalent to cranes, train tracks and all forms of macro assembly.

    [*]...

  [*]Targets of Construction

  • Facilitative Frameworks (if it really is best for the total system to actually be this discrete and compartmental i.e. mining hubs, metallurgic centers, construction cores etc.)
    
  • Giant teddy bears.
    
  • ...
    

  [*]The Framework of Construction-Facility

  • Routing
    
    • Delivery of Resources and Materials
    • Ensemble-management of Constructive Components
    • Route Behavior (Compression, relaxation; various issues of complexity)

    [*]Hierarchy

    • Apples and oranges.
      
    • Guns and bunnies.
      
    • Orange bunnies who taste like apples with guns.
      
    • Hairspray.
      

    [*]...

  [*]Some other stuff (well, lots of stuff) which isn't included because this vague and extremely incomplete taxonomy is merely illustratively directed towards the course of discussion.

I'm just trying to point out that, with modification, it isn't completely retarded. To let in oxygen of course.

I'm not exactly sure, but I think they do let in oxygen anyway, but they facilitate it first. Right?

EDIT:

Also, they have masks... you know? Those thingies that drop down? Yeah... it's also good that they are sealed and concentrated (no wasteful permeation/leakage or any smoke inhalation at all) because providing additional uncontrolled oxygen is just a great way to burn the people up faster!

Why did we all skip over my last response? I think it was quite important to this discussion. Immortal, could you please reply?

http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/67990-why-scientific-realism-might-be-false/page__view__findpost__p__703988

So, we're being subjective here? Eh. Well, I'd say evolution got it terribly wrong. Evolution is a failure! Boooooooo! *cracks open a giant dinosaur foot shaped stamp subtracted with an 'F' and scornfully presses it into the desolate clay, then marks record into the universal grade-book of eternity with a cast of shame*

The double slit experiment was being used to support the existence of the supernatural

The supernatural? What's that? Flying pigs? Flying pigs are related to a wave pattern? That's nice.

or is there a more likely explanation?

I'm thinking people don't understand what this experiment implies at all. It's misunderstanding and an incapacity to honestly judge scientific exhibitions.

They hit a screen and you see the reflection/scatter/fluorescence, or count a value from a photodetector (by which principle does this 'photodetector' work, isn't it just like 'seeing' the reflection/scatter/flueorescence ?), depending on how you've set it up.

What are some of the offline-detection methods (not "observing") ?

I don't think you even have to say that the results of a given photon's behavior is "affected" by the detector, because you don't know where that particular photon would end up. It's not as if there is a "typical path" a single photon would take in absence of the detector, and a modified path in its presence. Trying to avoid "this kind of language that is not applicable", I'd say that it just means that a photon's behavior depends on its measurement. The behavior of the photon before it is observed, is not applicable or defined.

You're saying they're only asserting the "two stripe" result? It's never actually happened? If that's the case, then what the hell is wrong with these people!? There's nothing wrong with the wave pattern!

Create a system which can be configured to spam the user in a variety of unusual ways with the material found here: http://harmful.cat-v.org/software/OO_programming/

Is really sleep needed?

You must have been quite tired when you wrote this. The answer is yes.

Once you have understood that the mind is something different from the human brain and that the empirical reality which includes also the brain and that the attributes of particles doesn't exist independent of the mind and realize that mind alone exists out there in the physical world then what's behind the human mind is the "Intellect" and what's behind the Intellect is the "Pleroma of God" representing the totality of divine powers and this is the reason why I insist that science has found God and many are not seeing it. This is what all the religions of the world are saying.

I'm very happy with this response, because it's a lot more rigid than anything you've said before; however, I remain in disagreement. I still see a critical lack of connection between all of your discrete beliefs expressed there.

1. "the mind is something different from the human brain and that the empirical reality which includes also the brain and that the attributes of particles doesn't exist independent of the mind"

2. mind alone exists out there in the physical world then what's behind the human mind is the "Intellect"

3. what's behind the Intellect is the "Pleroma of God" representing the totality of divine powers

Even if these were appropriately demonstrated to be strongly associated, by the collective manner they do not form a very robust belief. We can conclude the basis of just one of these components to be severely incorrect -- an event which has already occurred -- implying your total belief was weakly designated and nothing more. If these ideas don't logically correspond one-to-one, there's a great likelihood they were merely designated to unnaturally support a select core ideology: that means it's arbitrary.

In fact Kurt Gödel was the first one to start the argument.

Thank you for clarifying. Yes, I was going by my recollection. Unfortunately I'm not completely familiar with all of Kurt's word. My point is unaffected anyway (that's why I didn't care to research what you quoted).

I don't think anyone can simulate conscious thought ever.

You probably can't even define "conscious thought" very well, and this is quite irrelevant. By the way, are you a zombie, and how can I be sure? Hahaha... I'm only joking.

The arguments against strong AI have been already laid out by Lucas and Penrose.

I'm not going to discuss this.

Or it suggests that you doesn't want to learn anything about religion and what other scientists who argue for a God hypothesis are saying

This is also completely arbitrary. I don't see how it suggests that at all. Again, my point was that you're just drawing a circle around your favors. 'Seems like you've demonstrated that just there. Honestly, I have no clue how this coherently fits together:

or in other-words, we're all about honestly understanding, not about having good ideas. It's incredibly easy to get lost in the possibility that an attractive idea you have is so special that it's worth more than the brains of everyone around you. This doesn't mean you're not 'intellectually honest,' <it suggests that I don't want to learn anything about religion or what other scientists who argue for a God hypothesis are saying>.

Please demonstrate why this is not yet another arbitrary and exploitative mechanism you've senselessly employed to feel better. You're pulling off my reaction to your statement:

Gödel's Theorem shows that human thought is more complex and less mechanical than anyone had ever believed

My point thereafter was the same thing as above... you're interpreting it. You assert that it shows something correlated to your position as if everything manifests truth which inevitably supports your magically unbeatable argument.

Bump of a question you shall answer soon:

So how the hell does this amazing available evidence correspond to your arbitrary ideas?