DC Tom Posted October 28, 2008 Posted October 28, 2008 Report by the New America Foundation Link Why, that's just...undemocratic!
YellowLinesandArmadillos Posted October 29, 2008 Posted October 29, 2008 Why, that's just...undemocratic! Moral of the story... It's a big world and we are just itsy bitsy tiny parts of it.
Steely Dan Posted October 29, 2008 Author Posted October 29, 2008 Moral of the story... It's a big world and we are just itsy bitsy tiny parts of it. Think about our significance to the universe?!
DC Tom Posted October 29, 2008 Posted October 29, 2008 Think about our significance to the universe?! I'm not insignificant. In fact, I can mathematically prove the universe revolves around me. Admittedly, it's a series approximation of a coordinate transformation. But I can still calculate it to reasonable accuracy.
Steely Dan Posted October 29, 2008 Author Posted October 29, 2008 I'm not insignificant. In fact, I can mathematically prove the universe revolves around me. Admittedly, it's a series approximation of a coordinate transformation. But I can still calculate it to reasonable accuracy. Link
DC Tom Posted October 29, 2008 Posted October 29, 2008 Link Thank you. That means a lot to me, coming from someone with so much expertise on the subject.
swede316 Posted October 30, 2008 Posted October 30, 2008 Election May Come Down To Single Candidate It just might if the skinheads have their way.
DC Tom Posted October 30, 2008 Posted October 30, 2008 It just might if the skinheads have their way. You ever meet a skinhead? They generally don't have enough brains to successfully pick their nose, let alone plan an assassination.
YellowLinesandArmadillos Posted October 30, 2008 Posted October 30, 2008 I'm not insignificant. In fact, I can mathematically prove the universe revolves around me. Admittedly, it's a series approximation of a coordinate transformation. But I can still calculate it to reasonable accuracy. Maybe, however, you can't even prove that you or I physically exist, one or both of us could just be illusions based on our limited, distorted or false perceptions... either way you can't distinguish proof wise the difference, it is all a matter of opinion or get this... wait for it.... faith!
Steely Dan Posted October 30, 2008 Author Posted October 30, 2008 Thank you. That means a lot to me, coming from someone with so much expertise on the subject. Yes, after reading the posts on this board I am an expert.
Wacka Posted October 30, 2008 Posted October 30, 2008 I'm not insignificant. In fact, I can mathematically prove the universe revolves around me. Admittedly, it's a series approximation of a coordinate transformation. But I can still calculate it to reasonable accuracy. To an accuracy of 3.5 feet!
YellowLinesandArmadillos Posted October 30, 2008 Posted October 30, 2008 To an accuracy of 3.5 feet! So what does that make you??? Plus or minus 600 lbs.??? You Slob. Oh oh, here comes the thought police... Chef, Boomer,
DC Tom Posted October 30, 2008 Posted October 30, 2008 Maybe, however, you can't even prove that you or I physically exist, one or both of us could just be illusions based on our limited, distorted or false perceptions... either way you can't distinguish proof wise the difference, it is all a matter of opinion or get this... wait for it.... faith! Actually, the question of whether or not we physically exist is not a question of "proof", it's question of defining "exist". As an empiricist, the only definition I can truly accept for something to exist is that I am able to sense its existence in my frame of reference. Therefore, empirically, I can prove at least that your posts exist - however, from that proven truth I can only infer that you yourself exist. And following from that...although that "proven truth" is only so in my frame of reference, I've already described how a frame of reference is a matter of selecting a coordinate system. Therefore, with the empirical truth of your existence in my frame of reference, it is a simple matter of - again - a coordinate transformation to demonstrate you exist in all other frames of reference, and therefore do truly physically exist. QED.
Steely Dan Posted October 30, 2008 Author Posted October 30, 2008 Actually, the question of whether or not we physically exist is not a question of "proof", it's question of defining "exist". As an empiricist, the only definition I can truly accept for something to exist is that I am able to sense its existence in my frame of reference. Therefore, empirically, I can prove at least that your posts exist - however, from that proven truth I can only infer that you yourself exist. And following from that...although that "proven truth" is only so in my frame of reference, I've already described how a frame of reference is a matter of selecting a coordinate system. Therefore, with the empirical truth of your existence in my frame of reference, it is a simple matter of - again - a coordinate transformation to demonstrate you exist in all other frames of reference, and therefore do truly physically exist. QED. I drink therefore I am - Monty Python
YellowLinesandArmadillos Posted October 30, 2008 Posted October 30, 2008 Actually, the question of whether or not we physically exist is not a question of "proof", it's question of defining "exist". As an empiricist, the only definition I can truly accept for something to exist is that I am able to sense its existence in my frame of reference. Therefore, empirically, I can prove at least that your posts exist - however, from that proven truth I can only infer that you yourself exist. And following from that...although that "proven truth" is only so in my frame of reference, I've already described how a frame of reference is a matter of selecting a coordinate system. Therefore, with the empirical truth of your existence in my frame of reference, it is a simple matter of - again - a coordinate transformation to demonstrate you exist in all other frames of reference, and therefore do truly physically exist. QED. Nice circular reasoning... combined with some pithy infinite regression, but you still didn't get there without some .... wait for it.... faith!
DC Tom Posted October 30, 2008 Posted October 30, 2008 Nice circular reasoning... combined with some pithy infinite regression, but you still didn't get there without some .... wait for it.... faith! Not faith...an a priori assumption of the validity of empiricism. The only other assumption was the inference from your posts that you exist, which is not a question of faith, just a necessary assumption (not even a priori) for the proof that I'm willing to concede could be wrong. Not even circular reasoning: if I exist, and I perceive you to exist, then you exist in my frame of reference, from which I can mathematically demonstrate that you exist in all frames of reference.
Recommended Posts