blike Posted January 28, 2003 Share Posted January 28, 2003 This isn't really scientific, just something that crossed my mind. When was the last time you thought of something truly original? I've come to the conclusion that everything every idea either exists in nature, or is a synthesis hybrid of previous ideas. There are no original ideas. For example, think of something that you've never seen or heard about. I see a giant purple space meatball. Sounds original, but its not. I've seen a giant, I've seen purple, I've seen things floating in space, and I've seen meatballs. Perhaps we're not so clever after all, we're just good synthesizers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PogoC7 Posted January 28, 2003 Share Posted January 28, 2003 You are putting originallity into object form. You've seen things in space, you've seen purple. Thats fine, but have you seen a man stick his own head in his ass. No, but just because you haven't seen it dosn't make it original. Someone else has seen it. Me. Original is a thought. A purple giant meatball in space is original. Like Clive Barker and his movies. Hellraiser is a great original movie. Or example of originallity can be found at Clive Barkers site; in his paintings. http://www.clivebarker.com/html/visions/gallery/gall.html crazy shit. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Skye Posted January 29, 2003 Share Posted January 29, 2003 Even your idea isn't original, someone has already said "there's nothing new under the sun." But assuming that giant purple space meatballs haven't been thought of before it is an original idea. A location doesn't have to be defined by the route taken to get there. If only it were marketable then it might be worth patenting. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Piccolo Posted January 29, 2003 Share Posted January 29, 2003 Original happens everyday. Everything I do is original because only I can control my body. Original is today bacause their will never be another january 29, 2003. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fafalone Posted January 29, 2003 Share Posted January 29, 2003 Well there might be if one of the newer ideas in cosmology turns out to be true, that the universe exists in cycles that last trillions of years; and if cycles are symetric.. well then everything might turn out the same each cycle. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PogoC7 Posted January 29, 2003 Share Posted January 29, 2003 The Big Bang. Is that the beggining of a cycle. If so, isn't the energy released random. There might be another earth, but in the same location? With the same type of carbon beings. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fafalone Posted January 29, 2003 Share Posted January 29, 2003 What is random? Give us day-to-day example of a random process. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PogoC7 Posted January 29, 2003 Share Posted January 29, 2003 Now we are introducing "God" to this disscusion. A man drops a penny from a plane. The penny is falling towards a city (Vatican). The pope is struck in the head and killed. Was the death ramdom, or did "God" mean for that to happen. *Much respect for the Pope*. It is intresting and the universe is so mysterious that I can't even grasp the idea of what ramdom can be. In todays world it seems that ramdom happens everyday. We conclude as the human race that someone or something is in control somewhat. I just hope my time leads to happiness. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fafalone Posted January 29, 2003 Share Posted January 29, 2003 This has nothing to do with God. The penny does not fall randomly. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JaKiri Posted January 29, 2003 Share Posted January 29, 2003 Originally posted by fafalone This has nothing to do with God. The penny does not fall randomly. It fell unpredictably, which is empirically the same. ps THERE YOU GO, BRINGING GOD INTO IT AGAIN. (good old Dawkins) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PogoC7 Posted January 29, 2003 Share Posted January 29, 2003 So your saying nothing is random. Pollen from a flower is airborn and it fertilizes another 10 miles away. That pollen grain somehow had a projection toward the other flower. I understand why the penny could be considered not random, but if thing don't happen just becuase; then why do they happen? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JaKiri Posted January 29, 2003 Share Posted January 29, 2003 Originally posted by PogoC7 So your saying nothing is random. Pollen from a flower is airborn and it fertilizes another 10 miles away. That pollen grain somehow had a projection toward the other flower. I understand why the penny could be considered not random, but if thing don't happen just becuase; then why do they happen? Before anyone says anything else, Laplacian Determinism has been long dead. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blike Posted January 29, 2003 Author Share Posted January 29, 2003 Let me rephrase this because i think i'm being misunderstood. No idea is completely original; merely a compilation of things we have already seen or heard of. Describing to someone something they've never seen or heard of would be like describing color to a life-long blind man. For example, imagine describing a computer to a person who has spent their lives living in a remote jungle, and has never seen anything but his remote village. No matter how much time you spent describing it to them, they would still have to relate it to something they have seen. Now, imagine describing a computer to someone from the early 50s. They would have a much easier time understanding the concepts of a computer because they could assimilate various things they have seen [plastic, machinery, wires, etc] to compile themselves a mental image of a computer. ------------------ We cannot think of anything that can't be broken down into things we have observed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JaKiri Posted January 29, 2003 Share Posted January 29, 2003 Your point being? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fafalone Posted January 29, 2003 Share Posted January 29, 2003 Originally posted by MrL_JaKiri It fell unpredictably, which is empirically the same. Just because we don't have the ability (yet) to account for every factor, doesn't mean that we couldn't. It IS predictable, there's just more factors than we can currently account for. Turing patterns come to mind, which have elucidated patterns in the movements of living organisms that otherwise appeared to be random. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JaKiri Posted January 29, 2003 Share Posted January 29, 2003 Originally posted by fafalone Just because we don't have the ability (yet) to account for every factor, doesn't mean that we couldn't. It IS predictable, there's just more factors than we can currently account for. The chances of us being able to is rather slim, Quantum Physics notwithstanding. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fafalone Posted January 29, 2003 Share Posted January 29, 2003 Well it depends on the environment. If you set up an experiment in deep space and exerted the exact same force vector on the penny in the exact same location, it's movement would be exactly the same. Quantum probability is a whole other ballpark, although I don't see it having an effect in this instance. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PogoC7 Posted January 29, 2003 Share Posted January 29, 2003 Originally posted by blike Let me rephrase this because i think i'm being misunderstood. I see were your coming from. Originallity is relitive. If aliens landed on Earth and showed us how they convert their energy masses into light and travle trought space. That would be original. Too us. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JaKiri Posted January 29, 2003 Share Posted January 29, 2003 Originally posted by fafalone Well it depends on the environment. The environment is the one in the original question, with the penny and the pope. And remember folks, I said EMPIRICALLY. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fafalone Posted January 29, 2003 Share Posted January 29, 2003 There's a finite number of forces that will act on it; if all the of these were taken into account, we could predict with extremely high probability, the point that the penny would land. Granted that now the task would be extremely inpractical and probably impossible with technology levels, but theoretically it's not random. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blike Posted January 29, 2003 Author Share Posted January 29, 2003 Your point being? Meh, really no point. Just that we havn't really invented anything completely new. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fafalone Posted January 29, 2003 Share Posted January 29, 2003 When Galileo realized that all objects fall at the same rate regardless of mass, I'd say that was original. It was in opposition to what everyone had viewed, and they couldn't conceive of it before he demonstrated it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JaKiri Posted January 29, 2003 Share Posted January 29, 2003 Originally posted by fafalone There's a finite number of forces that will act on it; if all the of these were taken into account, we could predict with extremely high probability, the point that the penny would land. Granted that now the task would be extremely inpractical and probably impossible with technology levels, but theoretically it's not random. I said EMPIRICALLY random. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Radical Edward Posted January 29, 2003 Share Posted January 29, 2003 MrL.... I'm going to create a super hero, model it on you, and call it EmpiricalMan Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Giles Posted January 29, 2003 Share Posted January 29, 2003 Originally posted by blike You're plagarising Locke's simple and complex ideas. Anyway, you could argue that the particular combination is original. excepting quantum theory, randomness and probability are ideas based on limited knowledge anyway. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now