PDA

View Full Version : true love



Pages : [1] 2

DavidP
07-13-2002, 08:08 PM
True love is when all you want for that person is for that person to be happy, even if you are not part of that person's happiness...

i like that little saying...just came to mind...

Xterria
07-13-2002, 09:04 PM
quit screwing around and finish your DBZ game... i wanna play it

DavidP
07-13-2002, 09:10 PM
hahahahahahahahaha....sorry...the energy beams are taking me quite awhile to do....they are complicated...

okay...i admit...its summer and i havent done an ounce of programming in 3 weeks....i need to get to work on it...

maybe now that the girl i like just got offline to go to sleep i can focus on programming :cool:

okay i will go work on it...*david enters programming trance*

TechWins
07-13-2002, 10:03 PM
don't feel bad, David, I've been kinda having the same problem lately.

nvoigt
07-14-2002, 01:18 AM
What ? Does that mean you have a life ? Shame on you ! I thought you were a real badass programmer ! Get out here... no lifes allowed inside this holy board.

:p:p:D

Sebastiani
07-14-2002, 01:50 AM
What ? Does that mean you have a life ? Shame on you ! I thought you were a real badass programmer ! Get out here... no lifes allowed inside this holy board. :p

David: That is probably the greatest truth. Most of us cannot so easily adhere to that!
How's Houston, anyway? Haven't been there in two years and miss the unpretentiousness of it sometimes *sigh*. I know that sounds pathetic but Dallas is just so droll. And I really miss Marvin Zindlers rantings about slime in the ice machine and rats in the kitchen :p

Series X4 1.0
07-14-2002, 03:55 AM
Love is just a nice word which people believe in and dream about, but there is nothing real behind the word.

Besides, don't come here and start ridiculous topics such as true love. You should know that most people here are lonely programmers that will never get a girl, nor any real friends. And they have no interest in such topics, and no ability to experience these dreams for real, because they are honest enough to admit that it's a lie.

nvoigt
07-14-2002, 04:12 AM
Even if this were the truth, why destroy our dreams ? What to live for, if not love ?

Series X4 1.0
07-14-2002, 05:05 AM
Even if this were the truth, why destroy our dreams ?

I 'm not sharing my opinion specifically to destroy people's dreams. Nor would I ever speak for the sole purpose to try to support people's dreams. Such unimportant reasons don't drive me to reply.

To try to change people's opinions regarding love, after what I consider to be the truth, is not my intention. I'm just trying to get interesting replies from people like you, replies that makes me wonder and figure things out.

Clyde
07-14-2002, 05:38 AM
"Love is just a nice word which people believe in and dream about, but there is nothing real behind the word."

Biology says otherwise.

Although "true" love (in the sense that there is one person who you will love more than anyone else, and vice versa) is make-believe.

Series X4 1.0
07-14-2002, 06:21 AM
Biology says otherwise.

Before this debate can continue in a sensible manner, we need the same definition for the word love.

I made the assumption based on probability for my first reply in this thread, that everyones view of love in this thread is a misunderstanding of the scientific truth.

I was referring to the type of love that media provide us with. Because I've never "seen" love anywhere else.


Biology says otherwise.

Although "true" love (in the sense that there is one person who you will love more than anyone else, and vice versa) is make-believe.

Where do you draw the line for "true" love and love? And why is "true" love a make-believe while love is not?

I cannot make such a distinction, and therefore I view love, and all variants such as "true" love, as a misunderstanding.

Clyde
07-14-2002, 08:32 AM
"Where do you draw the line for "true" love and love? And why is "true" love a make-believe while love is not?

I cannot make such a distinction, and therefore I view love, and all variants such as "true" love, as a misunderstanding."

I draw a line because there is a very distinct difference, love as in the emotion felt as a strong bond (separate from sexual attraction) between two people exists, it is what a huge number of poems/songs/plays/paintings/music are written/drawn/composed about.

True love in the sense that there is ONE specific person "out there" who is you're "perfect" partner is a myth.

Love is love, and thats all you need, all you need is love, all together now, all you need is love, love, love is all you need..... oops sorry hehe got carried away =).

Series X4 1.0
07-14-2002, 09:43 AM
Love is love, and thats all you need, all you need is love

What exactly do you need it for? My strife is not that simple.

People are different, thus they need different things depending on their goals.

Clyde
07-14-2002, 09:58 AM
Heh well, i was just quoting the Beetles, however human happyness and love are two emotions that are very intertwined.

Series X4 1.0
07-14-2002, 10:43 AM
So basically, people need love for happiness? Personally I don't find happiness very interesting. All these different words seems very similiar.

... True love <- Love <- Friendship <- Happiness ... Nothing ...

However simple it might seem, each lie seems to be derived from another lie. In the beginning there is nothing.

borko_b
07-14-2002, 11:03 AM
>>...don't come here and start ridiculous topics such as...

hmmm...
When talking about ridiculous topics ...
what about yours???

Series X4 1.0
07-14-2002, 11:13 AM
borko_b

When talking about ridiculous topics ...
what about yours???

I already know your opinion, you think that if I criticise someone for starting ridiculous topics, I don't have the right to start ridiculous topics myself. But you're wrong.

I have no such unnecessary pride.

borko_b
07-14-2002, 11:34 AM
>>...I don't have the right to start ridiculous ...

No i didn't ment that...

Some topics may look ridiculous to one but not to the others ...

If you don't care about this topic why do you post?


(may be you care..)

Clyde
07-14-2002, 11:41 AM
"Personally I don't find happiness very interesting."

A bizzarre statement, since by definition you would like being happy.

"All these different words seems very similiar.

... True love <- Love <- Friendship <- Happiness ... Nothing ... "

....... They are different, (though love and friendship certainly overlap), but we can spot the odd one out of those 5 fairly easily (hint: it begins with "Noth" and ends with "ing").

"However simple it might seem, each lie seems to be derived from another lie. In the beginning there is nothing."

What the juice are you talking about? what lie? what derivation?

Series X4 1.0
07-14-2002, 12:23 PM
"Personally I don't find happiness very interesting."

A bizzarre statement, since by definition you would like being happy.

Not necessarily, an human being can have goals and reach for them without using bulky emotions such as happiness as the controlling unit.

Take a computer, for example, it can work towards a goal without feeling anything. I believe this is possible for humans as well.


What the juice are you talking about? what lie? what derivation?

I hold the belief that about all human-created beliefs are lies. In their heads they have only false and simplified representations of the reality. An human brain don't have the ability to understand itself either without using simplifications and lies - thus everyone's mental and emotional world consists only of lies as well.

That's one of the secrets of life, the reason why mankind will never ever hold one single opinion that will last. Everything will change. Life is an error because it believes in its own lies.

I believe that the only way to correct this error is to kill everything that is alive. And that's my strife.

lightatdawn
07-14-2002, 01:19 PM
Despite the fact that Series has basically progressed from the mildly irritating to the extremly boring and repetetive, I'm forced to respond to this particular piece here:

>>only false and simplified representations of the reality

If its a simplified representation, how can you say that its false? If it can be correctly described as a representation, then it cant really be 'false' even if what it describes is false. It would be an accurate representation of a false object.

You're just spewing nonsense.

>>You should know that most people here are lonely programmers that will
>>never get a girl, nor any real friends.

Thats probably why you're spewing nonsense. Shut up and go outside. We're not all recluses here, bud.

nvoigt
07-14-2002, 01:23 PM
>I hold the belief that about all human-created beliefs are lies.

Nice belief. Contradicts itself, but hey, I have seen whole books of belief contradicting themselves, so why not your sentence, too :p

>True love in the sense that there is ONE specific person
>"out there" who is you're "perfect" partner is a myth.

Well, biologically, there might as well be one perfect ( or rather 'best' ) partner out there. But there are many others who are pretty much good enough not to worry about the one. And I don't think the original poster had 'the one' in mind when he mentioned true love. I guess it was the difference between love and a crush or sexual attraction that markes love as true love.

In my oppinion, Love is a special fraction of friendship. Friendship can exist without love ( in the man/woman/procreate/love-way ) but Love in any way cannot exist without deep friendship.

>Take a computer, for example, it can work towards a goal
> without feeling anything. I believe this is possible for
> humans as well.

No, I don't think so. Any human without feelings would be a robot. What we call feelings is what seperates a human being from a bio-mechanical robot. While we might be only that, we call things that are completely understandable and deterministic robots, while we call things we cannot (yet?) predict or perfectly interpret humans.

Clyde
07-14-2002, 01:48 PM
"Not necessarily, an human being can have goals and reach for them without using bulky emotions such as happiness as the controlling unit."

Happyness is not a "controlling unit", its just... nice, enjoyable, etc.

One can of course live life w/o being happy......... that's called being miserable.

"Take a computer, for example, it can work towards a goal without feeling anything."

A computer is not concious.

" I believe this is possible for humans as well. "

You would be wrong.

"I hold the belief that about all human-created beliefs are lies."

Hehe, can you see what is wrong with that sentence? :)

Anyway it is clearly false, i believe that kinetic energy is equal to 0.5 *m*v^2. That is not a lie.

"In their heads they have only false and simplified representations of the reality."

Our perception is limited, but it doesn't really matter, as long as we know this we can work around it. We can use machines to detect wavelengths of light we cannot see, and frequencies of sound we cannot hear, etc..

"An human brain don't have the ability to understand itself either without using simplifications and lies"

Of course it does, otherwise there would be no such thing as the field of neurology.

"thus everyone's mental and emotional world consists only of lies as well"

Eh? Hold on a minute here, whilst our representation of the universe is not an infinitely accurate one nether is it a "lie", an analogy is that through our senses we look at a painting of the universe rather than the universe itself, that doesn't mean what we see is a "lie", rather that we must realise there are limitations to our perception if we are to understand how and why things work, and we do just that.

As for emotional world consisting of lies, what exactly do you mean by that? First off, clearly comprehension of the human brain is feasable as demonstrated by the many professors of neurology around the globe. Of course the general populace does not have such specialised knowledge but then they do not claim to either.

"That's one of the secrets of life, the reason why mankind will never ever hold one single opinion that will last. Everything will change. Life is an error because it believes in its own lies"

You're plunging off the deep end again, mankind WILL hold opinions that last; the number of continents, the shape of the Earth, the size of the gravitational acceleration close to Earth, the nature of geometry, none of those things are going to change, and some of the more obvious ones have been known for quite some time.

Some things change, some things don't. Man's knowledge base seldom steps backwards, the only occurance in the past that has had such an effect is a distaster capable of wiping out an entire society, basic emotions don't change either, 1000, 5000, 10000, even 50,000 years ago people felt the same emotions that they do today.

As for "life being an error because it believes its own lies"...... well most life doesn't "believe" anything because its not concious, i believe the only animals that can actually lie are homo-sapiens (its a sign of intellect believe it or not), and most of them don't believe their own lies (only the delusional ones).

"I believe that the only way to correct this error is to kill everything that is alive. And that's my strife."

You do realise that what you just said makes ZERO sense, what the heck is this "error" you speak of? And why does killing everything solve it?

Clyde
07-14-2002, 01:57 PM
"Well, biologically, there might as well be one perfect ( or rather 'best' ) partner out there"

Extremely unlikely, and even if that was the case, you would not neccesarily fall in love with them.

". I guess it was the difference between love and a crush or sexual attraction that markes love as true love."

Oh, fair enough, though i wouldn't call a crush or sexual attraction love in the first place.

DavidP
07-14-2002, 02:07 PM
sheesh i just say one little thoughtful statement and boom, hahaha, big debate

Series X4 1.0
07-14-2002, 02:25 PM
lightatdawn

Despite the fact that Series has basically progressed from the mildly irritating to the extremly boring and repetetive

You're an example of a limited human compared to me, there is so much you can't talk about due to your limited nature. Your reaction towards people that you don't understand is frustration and other emotions.


Thats probably why you're spewing nonsense

True . You make such an obvious assumption because you want to stimulate your bulky emotions. It's a simple solution to not allow any changes of your current belief system by being ignorant.


Shut up and go outside.

No. You're telling me to do things, but you should know that I won't follow such a primitive advice generated by ignorant emotions.


nvoight

>I hold the belief that about all human-created beliefs are lies.

Nice belief. Contradicts itself, but hey, I have seen whole books of belief contradicting themselves, so why not your sentence, too

You're also making an obvious statement. You have nothing to learn me. I assumed that somebody would use that pointless argument against me before I wrote it. Don't think that you can teach me something new. Instead, just ask questions that I can figure out.

Do you understand why we need to die to be corrected?


Clyde

Happyness is not a "controlling unit", its just... nice, enjoyable, etc.

Have you ever wondered how these emotions appear in you? Parts in your brain creates them, thus those parts (among the rest of the brain) controls you.


A computer is not concious.

An human does not necessarily has to be concious either.


Hehe, can you see what is wrong with that sentence?

Yes. And I cannot get any further.


The way we see the universe is NOT the way the universe is, but as i said that is inescapeable.

The solution is to kill everyone.


"An human brain don't have the ability to understand itself either without using simplifications and lies"

Of course it does, otherwise there would be no such thing as the field of neurology.

Neurology is a simplified view. Therefore it's not correct.


they do not "lie" about how their brain works, they do not claim to possess such knowledge.

They claim to know everything. Because they have opinions. Nothing they believe is correct. There is missing information.


You're plunging off the deep end again, mankind WILL hold opinions that last; the number of continents, the shape of the Earth, the size of the gravitational acceleration close to Earth, the nature of geometry

If you remove the root lie the lies that are built on that lie will also be removed. For example, everything will change, even your view of the earth will change if your view of the universe changes.

Your view of earth's rotation will change as you understand the rotation of the galaxy. And there will be no end, you will discover new things. As long as information is missing, your view will change as you find the information.

Thus everything will change, even math.

Clyde
07-14-2002, 03:03 PM
"Have you ever wondered how these emotions appear in you? Parts in your brain creates them, thus those parts (among the rest of the brain) controls you. "

Your logic is that because my brain creates emotion, emotion must therefore control me?

"An human does not necessarily has to be concious either. "

Right.... if they are like knocked out. But what exactly does not being concious solve?

"The solution is to kill everyone. "

There is no solution because there is no problem, so we don't percieve the universe exactly the way it is..... so what? And even if it was a problem why is killing everyone a solution!?

"Neurology is a simplified view. Therefore it's not correct. "

Neurology is not a simplified view.

"They claim to know everything. Because they have opinions. Nothing they believe is correct. There is missing information. "

Having an opinion on a given subject does not mean you claim to know everything, i have opinions on a great many things but i most certainly do not claim to know everything. Furthermore opinions are not neccesarily false.

"If you remove the root lie the lies that are built on that lie will also be removed. For example, everything will change, even your view of the earth will change if your view of the universe changes. "

There is no "root" lie, and there are no lies built upon it. Not everything will change series, the things i previously listed are pretty good examples, the best one i suppose is maths, maths will never change in so far as the basic rules go.

"Your view of earth's rotation will change as you understand the rotation of the galaxy."

Perhaps, but the fact the Earth rotates around the sun will not (or rather the fact that the Earth rotated around the sun during 2001 will not change).

"And there will be no end, you will discover new things. As long as information is missing, your view will change as you find the information."

Well A there is only a finite amount of information in the universe and B not knowing everything does not mean everything will change because not all information relates to all other information; human beings are composed of cells that knowedge will never change, we won't suddenly discover that in-fact we are made of pineapples.

"Thus everything will change, even math."

Series...... mathematics will never change, new maths can be derived but old maths can never be replaced. 1+1 will always equal 2, because it is defined to equal 2.

Series your conclusions are wrong, you show logical disparity in all your arguments, its like " because my computer mouse is not a real rodent therefore there must be orangutangs that eat fruit on Mars".

Nuh-uh.

Fountain
07-14-2002, 04:01 PM
This is a bit heavy now.................

But, Biology does not say love or true love does not exist, simply because we do not understand fully how emotions and the brain works. It says physically it does not exist, even though we know it can do.

Biology cannot explain why we feel hungry correctly as yet, never mind love.........trust me/look it up/it cant.

So, emotions are sod all to do with biology really, and the man that can suss the brain/brain functions/soul out will be rich.......wonder iff Bill gates is busy right now?

Fountain
07-14-2002, 04:03 PM
Oh yes , I am sure it was proved a few years ago, that 1+1 actually does NOT equal 2..it is just we have been taught it does

Pendragon
07-14-2002, 04:19 PM
A wise man once wrote
That love is only
An ancient instinct
For reproduction
Natural selection
A wise man once said
That everything could be explained
And it's all in the brain-Marillion(This is the 21st Century)

TechWins
07-14-2002, 04:32 PM
Oh yes , I am sure it was proved a few years ago, that 1+1 actually does NOT equal 2..it is just we have been taught it does

The only solution I can came up with right now to understand that is this -



1 apple + 1 apple == 1 apple and 1 apple
But wouldn't 1 apple and 1 apple == 2 apples?
Therefore 2 apples == 1 apple + 1 apple
Hence that 1 + 1 == 2.


I'm not really sure what you're talking about, because as far as I know 1+1 equals 2. Can you please explain otherwise? Until that time I'm going to think your a fool.;)......:)

Pendragon
07-14-2002, 04:42 PM
It's a false proof...

a = 1
b = 1

a = b
a2 = b2
a2 - b2 = 0
(a-b)(a+b) = 0
(a-b)(a+b)/(a-b) = 0/(a-b)
1(a+b) = 0
(a+b) = 0
1 + 1 = 0
2 = 0
1 = 0
1 + 1 = 1


P.S. a2= a(squared)

:)

Clyde
07-14-2002, 04:49 PM
"But, Biology does not say love or true love does not exist, simply because we do not understand fully how emotions and the brain works. It says physically it does not exist, even though we know it can do"

Biology says love exists in so far that it has measureable effects on the brain and can be observed in other animals, and true love in the sense of the "one special person out there for you" kind does not.

Everything is physical, love included (ie. its caused by hormones/neurones rather than etherial magic stuff).

"Biology cannot explain why we feel hungry correctly as yet"

The exact mechanism of "how" we feel are not fully understood but the brains behaviour and how responses are mediated are pretty well studied.

"So, emotions are sod all to do with biology really, and the man that can suss the brain/brain functions/soul out will be rich"

Emotions have everything to do with biology, we know large amounts about the brain, of course there is still a huge amount to learn, the exact mechanisms of sensation and the concious mind are one of the last great biological problems yet to be solved. Anyway biology doesn't need to have any information on the mechanisms of emotions to disprove the "true love" that i described.

Oh and the evolutionary basis for many emotions are quite well understood love included.

"Oh yes , I am sure it was proved a few years ago, that 1+1 actually does NOT equal 2..it is just we have been taught it does"

Uh.... i don't think so, 1+1 is defined as being 2, further more if it wasn't true none of maths would work, and hence none of science would work, and plainly they both do.

Pendragon
07-14-2002, 04:53 PM
Uh.... i don't think so, 1+1 is defined as being 2, further more if it wasn't true none of maths would work, and hence none of science would work, and plainly they both do.

It's a false proof...
It can be proven mathematically that 1+1=1 although in reality it wouldn't work for obvious reasons... as 2*1 cannot equal 1*1. That would just be silly... aside from being utterly impossible.:)

Clyde
07-14-2002, 04:59 PM
"It can be proven mathematically that 1+1=1"

Are you sure it can? Your proof is false as you say since you divide through by zero.

That proof can be used to make any number plus itself appear to equal zero.

Pendragon
07-14-2002, 05:27 PM
True...This false proof relies on dividing both sides of an equation by zero (disguised as a-b). You can divide both sides of an equation by the same thing so long as you are *not* dividing by zero.
It seems mathematically possible when written as (a-b) but is impossible because (a-b)=0.

That proof can be used to make any number plus itself appear to equal zero.
Yep.

Another good one is to prove that 2=1 by taking square roots and using only the minus sign to achieve the 'correct' conclusion:
-2 = -2
4 - 6 = 1 - 3
4 - 6 + 9/4 = 1 - 3 + 9/4
(2 - 3/2)2 = (1 - 3/2)2
2 - 3/2 = 1 - 3/2
2 = 1

All completely false and with flaws that will ultimately prove them to be incorrect... but interesting nonetheless.

Series X4 1.0
07-15-2002, 01:43 AM
Clyde

Furthermore opinions are not neccesarily false.

Opinions are false because no matter the subject, you don't have all the required information to be correct. This is why killing everyone is the only solution, whatever you think it will be wrong.


Series...... mathematics will never change new maths can be derived but old maths can never be replaced. 1+1 will always equal 2.

That's irrelevant. Because the entire concept of maths will change, which will include "1 + 1 = 2", and thus it will be false (already is false).

Math is an incorrect way to describe the world. Math can be viewed as a world of its own which can in a limited way simulate another world. But math cannot describe the reality completely. Therfore math will change in the future, and math is a false description of everything except for math itself.

Clyde
07-15-2002, 04:49 AM
"Opinions are false because no matter the subject, you don't have all the required information to be correct"

In my opinion the Earth is not flat, that opinion is CORRECT. I do have the required information to be correct, or rather i have the required information to have some grasp of the probability of it being incorrect.

"Because the entire concept of maths will change, which will include "1 + 1 = 2", and thus it will be false (already is false). "

The concept of maths will change? What the hell does that mean? Maths will not, cannot, ever change. Mathematical rules are PURE LOGIC, immuteable, unchangeable, set in stone.

"Math is an incorrect way to describe the world"

Based on what?

"Math can be viewed as a world of its own which can in a limited way simulate another world"

If we got the equations right mathematics could PERFECTLY describe the universe. (we will never have all the equations right though, because they would be too complex to ever solve)

"But math cannot describe the reality completely"

Yes it can.

"Therfore math will change in the future, and math is a false description of everything except for math itself."

See the "therefore math will change", its another "because my computer mouse is not a real rodent therefore there must be orangutangs that eat fruit on Mars". And maths is NOT a false description of anything, if APPLIED CORRECTLY it can perfectly describe "reality", our application in some areas is more accurate than in others. Some of our equations match observeable phenomenon to the limits of measurement there may be slight innacuracies if we increase the senseitivity of our measurement (in which case we need an altered equation), or there may not.

Series X4 1.0
07-15-2002, 09:03 AM
In my opinion the Earth is not flat, that opinion is CORRECT.

You're using the same simple description for objects that I did as a child: Round, flat, blue, hard, not round, not flat, not blue, not hard, etc.

But the earth is not round and not flat nor anything else, I can clearly see that the shape of the world is impossible to describe for me; there's some booze on my desktop for example, and outside there are trees, it doesn't look round.

Those simplified words that you're using for shapes cannot describe anything wihtout using simplifications, a football is not round either, just look on it with a microscope. The earth is not round, nor any other man invented form, the earth has a shape which there is no word for. Nobody can understand the shape of the earth.

And you must also consider that our earth is changing its shape constantly, there is no science that can describe this process. Shapes cannot describe the earth correctly.

If you say that both a football and the earth is round, why do they look completely different? Because your description is wrong.

A car is more similar a football than the earth is. Or is it? There is no method to describe anything.

Where do you draw the line? What is round, and what is flat? As I said, you don't have enough information to describe anything at all in the real world, therefore you should die, just like everyone else.

All the simple shapes in your head are lies because they don't exist in reality. Each object in the world has its own shape. You can't pretend, while still being correct, that your mental object can describe the real object.


The concept of maths will change? What the hell does that mean? Maths will not, cannot, ever change. Mathematical rules are PURE LOGIC, immuteable, unchangeable, set in stone.
The definition for the term "pure logic" will also change. There will be new methods of science to describe the world, but no method will ever be perfect.

Do you believe that the "science" we have today will last forever, do you believe that in one billion year we will still be saying that 1 + 1 = 2 ? It's like saying that Adam and Eve lived together, but why does it matter when the religion itself is a lie?

Of course we will not believe in math in the future, because our math will be nothing but a religon for the future - it will be a false description of the world. The set of shapes that you believe in is also like a religon - they fail to describe reality.

Everything will die.

Govtcheez
07-15-2002, 09:06 AM
Wow... I agree with Series (at least on the recent things - I didn't read the top half)... Every word we have is just a way for our minds to grasp something - a way to describe things...

raimo
07-15-2002, 09:51 AM
I do not think like the following statement although I wrote it :D:

"OK. Let's assume that the leaders of all governments have lied to us and the world is not round. We just think so because the media has shown us pictures which we know nothing about. All the astronauts who have been in space and everything else that has been outside this planet are part of the plan to lie to everyone. Then how do you prove that Earth is not flat?"

This is just an add to the thread..

Clyde
07-15-2002, 10:53 AM
"But the earth is not round and not flat nor anything else, I can clearly see that the shape of the world is impossible to describe for me; there's some booze on my desktop for example, and outside there are trees, it doesn't look round. "

It is a geometrical shape, albeit a complex one, my statement still holds true:

The Earth is not a perfectly flat (in its mathematical sense) surface.

"Those simplified words that you're using for shapes cannot describe anything wihtout using simplifications"

You are branching off on a tangent, however you are correct in so far as decriptions of an object's shape is most of the time a simplfication, but it doesn't matter, because people KNOW that its a simplification, its not like when people say "the Earth is round" they actually mean its a perfect sphere.

"the earth has a shape which there is no word for. Nobody can understand the shape of the earth. "

Its not a matter of "understanding", you might say noone can picture the exact shape of the Earth in their heads, but there is nothing to not understand about it.

"Where do you draw the line? What is round, and what is flat? "

In most instances its fairly easy to draw the line, in instances where its not, those terms are not used:

Is a cube round or flat? Answer neither, its cubical (if thats a word). Round and flat are general descriptions rather than specific ones, they decribe a set of characteristics.

"If you say that both a football and the earth is round, why do they look completely different? Because your description is wrong. "

No, not because your desciption is WRONG but because your description is INCOMPLETE. Two horses can both be described as horses yet be different, the description is not wrong, it is merely incomplete, but the description is not MEANT to be a complete description.

"As I said, you don't have enough information to describe anything at all in the real world, therefore you should die, just like everyone else."

Drivel, i have enough information to descibe as much or as little as i wish, without ever being wrong. And you have yet to explain why not being able to describe things to an infinite accuracy (because thats what you mean, not "all your opinions are wrong" but rather " you cannot infinitely accurately describe the universe") is a problem, and why that problem is solved by killing anyone).

"All the simple shapes in your head are lies because they don't exist in reality"

There are no "simple shapes in my head", i don't think the Earth is a perfect sphere and neither does anyone else i know.

"The definition for the term "pure logic" will also change"

er..... no it err.. won't. Logic as in if A=B & B=C then C=A will remain the same.

"There will be new methods of science to describe the world, but no method will ever be perfect. "

What do you mean perfect? It will never be infinitely accurate, but it will be accurate enough, in so far as we can measure the length of an object to something rediculous like *10^-10, of a metre, but not any further, but who freaking cares, if the length of objects is specified to within *10^-10!?

"Do you believe that the "science" we have today will last forever, do you believe that in one billion year we will still be saying that 1 + 1 = 2 ? It's like saying that Adam and Eve lived together, but why does it matter when the religion itself is a lie?"

You don't seem to understand what science or maths is, science is just working out the nature of the universe in a logical manner, so no, it won't change, scientific theories on the otherhand no doubt will.

And of COURSE 1+ 1 = 2, you can go 10 billion years into the future it will still be the case, because it IS DEFINED as being equal to 2. If you say 1+1 = 3, then all you are doing is replacing the SYMBOL for 2 with the SYMBOL for 3 the mathematical rules stay exactly the same.

Describing what mathematics actually is, is very difficult, but its universal, slugs do triganometry to work where to go, when you catch a ball your brain does a whole load of calculations to do it, if we ever met aliens you can bet they would do maths, and they would do it in exactly the same way we do, of course they would probably count in a different base, but the mathematical ruels would be exactly the same. Mathematics is the language of the universe, and it will never change.

"Of course we will not believe in math in the future, because our math will be nothing but a religon for the future - it will be a false description of the world"

........ maths is NOT a false description, in fact maths isn't a description of ANYTHING, its a language that can be USED to describe anything and everything, it can be used to describe the universe to infinite accuracy, it never will because we have limitations in our application of it, however it will describe the universe to an accuracy high enough to be considered good enough.

There is no alternative to maths (don't tell me about Wolfram).

"The set of shapes that you believe in is also like a religon - they fail to describe reality. "

I don't "believe" in a "set of shapes", they approxamate reality in certain situations, enough to be usefull. Of course they don't describe reality infinitely accurately... but then no one ever claimed they did, nor does anyone actually think they do.

"Everything will die."

Yea 2nd law of thermodynamics sucks eh.

"OK. Let's assume that the leaders of all governments have lied to us and the world is not round. We just think so because the media has shown us pictures which we know nothing about. All the astronauts who have been in space and everything else that has been outside this planet are part of the plan to lie to everyone. Then how do you prove that Earth is not flat"

By flying to Australia and back again.

fyodor
07-15-2002, 04:54 PM
"OK. Let's assume that the leaders of all governments have lied to us and the world is not round. We just think so because the media has shown us pictures which we know nothing about. All the astronauts who have been in space and everything else that has been outside this planet are part of the plan to lie to everyone. Then how do you prove that Earth is not flat"

By flying in a straight line...

Fountain
07-15-2002, 05:38 PM
I told you first that 1 + 1 does NOT eaqual 2.


I got good back up, but I was the first.

HEHE


And as for the biology nuts that keep coming on..as I said-We understand NOTHING about how the brain works.

All we can do is cut it up and have a look.

You sort out all the electical signals and stuff and get back to me.

C U in 2099....maybe

Clyde
07-15-2002, 06:27 PM
"I told you first that 1 + 1 does NOT eaqual 2."

Yes... and you were wrong.

"And as for the biology nuts that keep coming on..as I said-We understand NOTHING about how the brain works"

You might understand nothing, however the many professors of neurology understand rather alot. That's not to say there isn't a lot left to be worked out, there is, a huge amount, but to say we know "nothing" is simply ignorance.

"All we can do is cut it up and have a look."

Right... because there's no such thing as MRI, Cat scan's, infra-red spectroscopes, etc. etc.

The Dog
07-15-2002, 06:39 PM
It is a geometrical shape, albeit a complex one.


The shape is know as a "Geoid" pronounced - "gee + yoid".
(Or at least I think it is)

DiskJunky
07-16-2002, 02:33 AM
Well, actually I agree with Series 4x for the most part. However, I believe math is an ultimate representation of the physical univers - if you know what ot base it on (theres the catch). It is a system that CAN, potentially represent the universe on any scale if you simple have the knowlage to apply it. Altough, here's somehting to cheer Series up - the laws of physics are not immutable. By measureing the light waves from distant parts of the universe, it's been found that atom behave slightly differently in different parts of the universe. This implies that the laws of physics are not quite immutable.

Getting back on the main topic though, true love does exist. It is a feeling so intense as to be almost painfull and does not fade even after years of seperation (although you can become 'used' to it). Think of every song and cliché, and they apply perfectly. It is possible to live without emotions and function properly (I do it myself most of the time), but to deny your feeling is to make you weaker - you deny a part of yourself. It's like pain - you can endure what you accept, resists and you are weak. This is not to say that emotions cannot be controlled - however controling love is not something I want to do (altough I have had to once or twice), mainly because I like feeling this way. I think that anyone who hasn't experienced this.. well they have my sympathies.

I think Shakespear put it best :
It's better to have loved and lost that never to have loved at all

apt...

Clyde
07-16-2002, 08:04 AM
"Well, actually I agree with Series 4x for the most part. "

Not a good sign.

"Altough, here's somehting to cheer Series up - the laws of physics are not immutable"

.........

"By measureing the light waves from distant parts of the universe, it's been found that atom behave slightly differently in different parts of the univers"

Where did you read this?

"Getting back on the main topic though, true love does exist."

What is the difference between "true" love and just love?

DiskJunky
07-16-2002, 08:11 AM
I can't remember actually. I think it was either discovery channel or einstein.tv

The difference? Well with 'true' love.. you just know. It's the only way I can explain it. It hits you like a half-brick right between the eyes

Clyde
07-16-2002, 09:09 AM
"The difference? Well with 'true' love.. you just know"

Love is love, people can grow to love each other gradually and love one another just as much if not more than people who instantly feel something.

"I can't remember actually."

I'm rather dubious, i have not read anything about the phenomenon you describe, infact everything i have read has pointed to the opposite.