reality is in material

This is a discussion on reality is in material within the A Brief History of Cprogramming.com forums, part of the Community Boards category; "When you get down to it, thinking everything turns to ham when you turn away from it is no more ...

  1. #31
    The Earth is not flat. Clyde's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2002
    Posts
    1,420
    "When you get down to it, thinking everything turns to ham when you turn away from it is no more absurd than thinking everything doesn't turn into ham when you turn away"

    Wrong.

    "I don't see how you know how the universe works"

    The wonders of science.

    "Sure, your reasoning is logical, but it cannot be proved if you are not there to hear it"

    Irrelevant, the mechanism can be proved. My presence does not alter it.

    "Forget that, it cannot be proved anyway as it has been established it's impossible to prove anything"

    It is impossible to "prove" anything absolutely, Decarte pointed that one out. So we are faced with a choice, do we believe that our sense's are based on reality or are they being "faked" ala the Matrix. Given the improbability of the later, most people choose the former.

    Given that choice everything I have said holds true.

  2. #32
    Registered User Aran's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2001
    Posts
    1,301
    clyde, regarding faith, go here http://www.dictionary.com/search?q=faith

    regarding other things:

    this EVIDENCE was percieved by humans. You are missing the point that i am making. when no HUMAN is watching, the laws of physics might not hold true because there is to human there to percieve the things following those laws.

  3. #33
    Registered User Aran's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2001
    Posts
    1,301
    probability of this life being real or this life just being manufactured by some machine!?!? that's ridiculous! tell me how you can calculate the probability of something like that! what numbers do you use?

  4. #34
    Registered User Aran's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2001
    Posts
    1,301
    Originally posted by Clyde
    "When you get down to it, thinking everything turns to ham when you turn away from it is no more absurd than thinking everything doesn't turn into ham when you turn away"

    Wrong.
    um... how do you know that it's wrong? i want to see proof, proof, and a third proof to prove the first two.

  5. #35
    The Earth is not flat. Clyde's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2002
    Posts
    1,420
    "clyde, regarding faith, go here http://www.dictionary.com/search?q=faith "

    I have seen it defined in the way I stated it. Either way the key point is: "Belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence".

    "this EVIDENCE was percieved by humans."

    Yes....

    "You are missing the point that i am making. when no HUMAN is watching, the laws of physics might not hold true because there is to human there to percieve the things following those laws"

    No i'm not missing it, there is no basis for the claim you make. The laws of physics are a property of space, there is absolutely no basis for claiming they would suddenly change if human beings were not around, human beings do not in anyway influence the laws of physics.

    The idea that the laws of physics change when everyone's back is turned is as rediculous as the claim that there is an invisable untouchable immutable pink fluffy dragon floating 3.67 metres above your head.

    "probability of this life being real or this life just being manufactured by some machine!?!?"

    No, not in anyway manufactured by a machine, manufactured by COMMON SENSE, something you seem to be lacking in.

    "tell me how you can calculate the probability of something like that! what numbers do you use?"

    If there are an infite number of possiblible characteristic in the universe the probability of any one taken at random being correct is one over infinity. Since you have no basis, evidence, nor theory supporting your "universe turns to ham" the probability of it being correct is an infinitely small number, in much the same way that the probability of my pink dragon is also infinitely small.

    "um... how do you know that it's wrong? i want to see proof, proof, and a third proof to prove the first two."

    See above.

  6. #36
    Disagreeably Disagreeable
    Join Date
    Aug 2001
    Posts
    711
    >It is impossible to "prove" anything absolutely, Decarte pointed that one out. So we are faced with a choice, do we believe that our sense's are based on reality or are they being "faked" ala the Matrix. Given the improbability of the later, most people choose the former.<

    Descartes also pointed out that sometimes our senses do mislead us. What's your point? It doesn't matter what most people think.

    >um... how do you know that it's wrong? i want to see proof, proof, and a third proof to prove the first two.<

    Echo that. Why is it wrong?

    Clyde, before I go any further I'd like to state that I have the most respect for you. I just wanted to clear that before anyone starts getting their head bitten off (how most of these types of debates usually end).

    >The idea that the laws of physics change when everyone's back is turned is as rediculous as the claim that there is an invisable untouchable immutable pink fluffy dragon floating 3.67 metres above your head.<

    Why? You're not showing us anything solid here.

    >If there are an infite number of possiblible characteristic in the universe the probability of any one taken at random being correct is one over infinity. Since you have no basis, evidence, nor theory supporting your "universe turns to ham" the probability of it being correct is an infinitely small number, in much the same way that the probability of my pink dragon is also infinitely small.<

    Good point, but what you're lacking to understand here is that you're not basing any of your arguments on anything but your arguments. (I'm reminded of circular logic here.) What we are trying to say is that that 1 over infinity has the possibility to change (or lose it's "constant" value) "when we turn our back on it" (just as the "absurd" ham world) so that it can equal 1 over 8.

    Chances are, I'm looking at a monitor. I seriously doubt that I am constantly being deceived by a malicious entity as Descartes put it, but there is always that possibility and that's what we are trying to say.

    IMO it's damn hard (I won't say impossible) to prove an idea that is "independent" of our reality using methods that we hold true and use in our reality.

    It's an opinion to say that the idea of a pink dragon floating above your head is absurd. It's your opinion.

  7. #37
    The Earth is not flat. Clyde's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2002
    Posts
    1,420
    "Descartes also pointed out that sometimes our senses do mislead us."

    Yes... thats called halucination.

    "Clyde, before I go any further I'd like to state that I have the most respect for you. I just wanted to clear that before anyone starts getting their head bitten off (how most of these types of debates usually end)."

    I will attempt to refrain from head-biting.

    Ok.

    "Echo that. Why is it wrong? "

    The reason this is wrong:

    "When you get down to it, thinking everything turns to ham when you turn away from it is no more absurd than thinking everything doesn't turn into ham when you turn away"

    Is because of the way we work out reality. As i said before the universe has an infinite number of different possible characteristics, hence choosing to believe in any single characteristic without evidence or supporting theory is rediculous, because you will be wrong (we are talking an infinitely small probability, the human brain cannot concieve of such a value so people are tempted to say "well maybe" or some such, but we talking about a probabililty that puts winning the lottery every day of your 900 year life to shame!).

    There is no evidence nor theory to support the "universe turns to ham" scenario, hence it is irrational to believe in it.

    Now I know whats coming, you're going to say: "But there is no evidence that universe doesn't turn to ham!"

    True, but we work out reality based on evidence FOR a phenomenon NOT lack of evidence disproving a phenomenon. My dragon is a perfect example of this, we have neither evidence for not against a floating fluffy dragon hovering 3.whatever metres above Aron's head, hence we do not believe in it, likewise we have neither evidence for nor against the "universe turns to ham" scenario hence we do not believe in it. In each case the probability of the dragon/ham scenario being correct is 1/infinity, thats a pretty small number, in fact an infitely small number, which can be considered to be zero.

    "Good point, but what you're lacking to understand here is that you're not basing any of your arguments on anything but your arguments"

    I don't think I am...

    "Chances are, I'm looking at a monitor. I seriously doubt that I am constantly being deceived by a malicious entity as Descartes put it, but there is always that possibility and that's what we are trying to say. "

    Well indeed there is that possiblity but its an infinitely small one. As likely as santa claus, or my fluffy dragon.

    "IMO it's damn hard (I won't say impossible) to prove an idea that is "independent" of our reality using methods that we hold true and use in our reality. "

    We can over-come our perceptional inaccuracies with experimentation, the only thing we assume is that our senses are not being "faked", which giving the probability is a pretty safe bet.

    "It's an opinion to say that the idea of a pink dragon floating above your head is absurd. It's your opinion."

    It is indeed an opinion, but one founded on logic.
    Last edited by Clyde; 05-17-2002 at 05:20 PM.

  8. #38
    Disagreeably Disagreeable
    Join Date
    Aug 2001
    Posts
    711
    Fair enough.

    You didn't change my opinions, but you made some pretty fair arguments, so I'll give you that.

    *returns to FD debating whether 1.9[repeating] is the same as 2 or not*

  9. #39
    Banned maes's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2001
    Posts
    744
    >>*returns to FD debating whether 1.9[repeating] is the same as 2 or not*
    Everyone knows 1.9999999 is the same a 2

  10. #40
    The Earth is not flat. Clyde's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2002
    Posts
    1,420
    "You didn't change my opinions, but you made some pretty fair arguments"

    Could you tell me why I didn't change your opinions?

  11. #41
    Registered User Aran's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2001
    Posts
    1,301
    Clyde, the laws of physics exist because people say that the laws of physics exist. The laws of physics are just a general average that the universe is percieved to flow around, there is not where in the laws of physics that it says that the laws can't be broken. When there aren't any humans around the universe will still be there and exist, but it won't follow any laws of physics.

  12. #42
    Disagreeably Disagreeable
    Join Date
    Aug 2001
    Posts
    711
    >Could you tell me why I didn't change your opinions?<

    Well, I can try.

    See, you agreed that both of our arguments are simply opinions. The difference is that yours have more (a lot more) probability to be true. For me, that isn't good enough. I see it as black and white. If it's not proven, then it's simply an opinion. To me, it doesn't really matter that your opinion has more probability - it's still just an opinion to me.

    For me, it doesn't matter how much you back up your opinion concerning things like the ham world or the floating dragons. Nothing (that I can think of right now) can really prove to me that the ham world or the dragon theories aren't true [or for that matter, false]. You just can't prove it with our petty scientific and reasoning methods we use in our reality.

  13. #43
    S­énior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Posts
    982
    I'd agree that you cannot have absolute proof, so anything could be possible, but by the same token you cannot prove anything beyond our human senses so the universe is me and it's all I'll ever know (which means relying on lack of disproof to support proof pointless).

  14. #44
    The Earth is not flat. Clyde's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2002
    Posts
    1,420
    "See, you agreed that both of our arguments are simply opinions. The difference is that yours have more (a lot more) probability to be true."

    You accet that my opinion is infintely more likely to be true than your own...... yet you stick to your own.

    That my friend is irrational.

  15. #45
    My diaper's full....... stevey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2001
    Posts
    759
    ""Why is this so? It's so because neither side out-wieghs the other. When you get down to it, thinking everything turns to ham when you turn away from it is no more absurd than thinking everything doesn't turn into ham when you turn away. ""



    speaking of ham, we have a saying in England that you can't educate pork....why do you bother trying Clyde ???? actually i suppose it is amusing.........

    ""Nothing (that I can think of right now) can really prove to me that the ham world or the dragon theories aren't true [or for that matter, false]. You just can't prove it with our petty scientific and reasoning methods we use in our reality.""

    get a friend to stand where he can see behind you, then when u turn away he can verify that the whole world didn't turn to ham when you turned your back on it. or look in a ****ing mirror, or set up a ****ing camcorder, or just stop being so ****ing stupid....
    Last edited by stevey; 05-18-2002 at 07:38 PM.
    Steve

Page 3 of 7 FirstFirst 1234567 LastLast
Popular pages Recent additions subscribe to a feed

Similar Threads

  1. [C] GDI: how to erase material drawn at an entire screen DC
    By pc2-brazil in forum Windows Programming
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 01-24-2009, 06:24 PM
  2. More material like this?
    By cboard_member in forum A Brief History of Cprogramming.com
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 09-13-2007, 07:57 PM
  3. Critique my lighting model.
    By psychopath in forum Game Programming
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: 08-12-2006, 06:23 PM
  4. api reference material
    By eth0 in forum Windows Programming
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 03-16-2006, 05:26 PM
  5. Virtual reality head sets?
    By gicio in forum A Brief History of Cprogramming.com
    Replies: 12
    Last Post: 11-12-2003, 01:46 AM

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21