Overly Complicated Conjecture About Common Issues

[ae86gamer]

If you can kick yourself in the back of the head you got cancer....actually no I made this one up....

 

[Avatar Roku]

Arguing on the internet: mindless fun/ideology or greatest scientific debate ever?

Example http://www.escapistmagazine.com/forums/read/18.103250

Conclusion: I love you guys.

Thanks...we're almost mildly fond of you as well.

 

[dstryfe]

But soundwaves are made, therefore sound is produced, the question isn't specific enough. From a human perspective it could be argued no sound was made seeing as no one was there to perceive it. But from a scientific stance: it would make vibrations and therefore sound.

If that little fella is on a mountainside but nobody is around to say "aaawwwwwww", is he still cute?

That's different from the question of the unheard tree making sound, in that the statement "aaawwwwwww" does not qualify cuteness. If someone says "that's cute" then that validates it's cuteness just as much as "aaawwwwwww" would, though neither statement is required for it to be so. Perhaps if no one *saw* it, then we could pose the question of the existence of it's cuteness.

The question of the tree falling is whether or not hearing it qualifies that it ever made a sound, and, from a purely objective standpoint, we cannot figure this out. As soon as the sound is heard, by any means, then the experiment is ruined, as we have not let it go unheard in order to find out. Failing that, we have no way to prove whether or not it has, in fact, made any sound at all.

 

[Avatar Roku]

But soundwaves are made, therefore sound is produced, the question isn't specific enough. From a human perspective it could be argued no sound was made seeing as no one was there to perceive it. But from a scientific stance: it would make vibrations and therefore sound.

If that little fella is on a mountainside but nobody is around to say "aaawwwwwww", is he still cute?

That's different from the question of the unheard tree making sound, in that the statement "aaawwwwwww" does not qualify cuteness. If someone says "that's cute" then that validates it's cuteness just as much as "aaawwwwwww" would, though neither statement is required for it to be so. Perhaps if no one *saw* it, then we could pose the question of the existence of it's cuteness.

My god, could this post have been more of a buzz-kill?

 

[Antidamacus]

A good story about a bridge

 

[TheEvilDuck]

This thread may be the greatest thing to ever happen.

 

[Mstrswrd]

If a tree falls in a forest and no one is around to hear it, does it make a sound?

Of course it does! Just because someone isn't there doesn't mean it doesn't happen.

Actually, if I remember my Physics teacher correctly, what it does is create the necessary air molecule movement for sound, that's not deniable, but apparantly it's only sound if someone/something hears it.


Edit: Or a device records it.

 

[Loiosh91]

the big bang theory:
correct me if i'm wrong (and i'll apologize if i am), but the way i understand the theor is that those who do not believe in God say that our universe was created by two other universes colliding, thus destroying those two univers and spreading debris(planets, etc.) creating and entirely new universe, or this is at least one theory for the big bang

my questions are:
1. does this mean that there will eventually be no more universes? if it takes two to make one, and the original two are destroyed, doesn't that pose some sort of threat to the theory, how many universes are left, were there only two to begin with?

2. assume a "U" represents a universe:

U-----U-----U-----U-----U-----U-----U-----U
----U------------U------------U------------U---
-----------U---------------------------U---------
------------------------U---------------------
now, this graph shows the creation of universes, beginning with 8, until they each collide, creating new "generations", my question is: where did the first set of universes come from? Before there were universes to create more universes, what created those first universes?

yes, tis a paradox

 

[dstryfe]

My god, could this post have been more of a buzz-kill?

Not really, no.

1. does this mean that there will eventually be no more universes? if it takes two to make one, and the original two are destroyed, doesn't that pose some sort of threat to the theory, how many universes are left, were there only two to begin with?

2. assume a "U" represents a universe:

U-----U-----U-----U-----U-----U-----U-----U
----U------------U------------U------------U---
-----------U---------------------------U---------
------------------------U---------------------
now, this graph shows the creation of universes, beginning with 8, until they each collide, creating new "generations", my question is: where did the first set of universes come from? Before there were universes to create more universes, what created those first universes?

1. I'm fairly sure that this theory is actually the basis for many separate theories (differing only in fine details), at least one of which simply states that there are an infinite number of such universes, and therefore they will never run out.

2. Infinity is also a solution here, as if there are an infinite number of universes and that number halves every cycle, then that number has always been infinite, meaning that the cycle has no beginning, and will never end. This is just a fancy way of saying that nobody knows.

 

[zifnabxar]

the big bang theory:
correct me if i'm wrong (and i'll apologize if i am), but the way i understand the theor is that those who do not believe in God say that our universe was created by two other universes colliding, thus destroying those two univers and spreading debris(planets, etc.) creating and entirely new universe, or this is at least one theory for the big bang

my questions are:
1. does this mean that there will eventually be no more universes? if it takes two to make one, and the original two are destroyed, doesn't that pose some sort of threat to the theory, how many universes are left, were there only two to begin with?

2. assume a "U" represents a universe:

U U U U U U U U
U U U U
U U
U
now, this graph shows the creation of universes, beginning with 8, until they each collide, creating new "generations", my question is: where did the first set of universes come from? Before there were universes to create more universes, what created those first universes?

yes, tis a paradox

Eh... so we're not quite sure why the big bang happened. One theory is probably the two Universe thing, but then there could be infinite universes and we'd be set for whatever time scale you find appropriate.

 

[bmf185]

Did my dog turn the thermostat up on purpose today?

I live alone and definitely did not set it at 89 degrees.

 

[Hunde Des Krieg]

the big bang theory:
correct me if i'm wrong (and i'll apologize if i am), but the way i understand the theor is that those who do not believe in God say that our universe was created by two other universes colliding, thus destroying those two univers and spreading debris(planets, etc.) creating and entirely new universe, or this is at least one theory for the big bang

my questions are:
1. does this mean that there will eventually be no more universes? if it takes two to make one, and the original two are destroyed, doesn't that pose some sort of threat to the theory, how many universes are left, were there only two to begin with?

2. assume a "U" represents a universe:

U-----U-----U-----U-----U-----U-----U-----U
----U------------U------------U------------U---
-----------U---------------------------U---------
------------------------U---------------------
now, this graph shows the creation of universes, beginning with 8, until they each collide, creating new "generations", my question is: where did the first set of universes come from? Before there were universes to create more universes, what created those first universes?

yes, tis a paradox

Tis only one theory. Other theories include expanding and contracting cycles, one universe springing from a super dense point of matter in endless space, and others.

 

[Hunde Des Krieg]

Did my dog turn the thermostat up on purpose today?

I live alone and definitely did not set it at 89 degrees.

Maybe you bumped it? Maybe it malfunctioned, maybe someone is trying to play an elaborate joke on you.

 

[bmf185]

Did my dog turn the thermostat up on purpose today?

I live alone and definitely did not set it at 89 degrees.

Maybe you bumped it? Maybe it malfunctioned, maybe someone is trying to play an elaborate joke on you.

I don't know...I mean, she's pretty smart. And she did smirk at me today.

In the end I bet I find out that I'm the real killer.

 

[742]

If a tree falls in a forest and no one is around to hear it, does it make a sound?

Of course it does! Just because someone isn't there doesn't mean it doesn't happen.

its true, its a stupid question that is meant to promote a self absorbed world view, the other alternative being that the tree doesnt fall, because if noone observes it it doesnt exist, and therefore cannot fall. now unless we live in the matrix and theyre lacking for computing power, im going to go with yours.

 

[Delicious]

If dogs urinate to mark their territory, and one dog marks another dog, is that the beginning of doggy slavery or doggy marriage?

It's like rice. Kinda.

 

[Good morning blues]

There are little problems that bug everybody. Can we figure them out by confusing the hell out of everyone in hearing range?
First case: chicken and the egg.
According to Charles Darwin, the immediate genetic predecessor to the common chicken would have produced the egg which contained a chicken embryo.
Thus, egg before the chicken.
Anyone else got one?

wait, so just because one person has a theory about how it works, it makes it an absolute truth?

darwin was a great man, you shouldn't make a mockery out of him like this.

You do realize that based upon the argument that you're making in this post, it is completely impossible to prove anything ever, right?

this is not true. you can prove a theory, but every theory is only proven relatively, because in our universe, absolutes are rare. the way you postulate your argument. isn't proper logic. you're forgetting that something laid down the egg of the chicken predecessor, and the egg before that etc; which still leaves the question open. furthermore, the question in itself is philosophical, and was never meant to have an answer in the first place.

also, how do you consider a relative opinion of a man contradictory to an argument that absolute theories needs absolute proof? i fail to see a connection whatsoever.

it really does seem that i am grossly overestimating the average populace of these forums.

I guess your higher plane of intelligence doesn't use the same grammatical rules as us lowly earth-dwellers, because I am completely honestly finding parts of this difficult to decipher, so if my translation is wrong, please, won't you condescend to let me know, o great Socrates?

First, yes, the question is philosophical. The entire point of this thread, though, is to provide concrete answers to philosophical questions.

Second, the question implies that the egg we are referring to hatches a new chicken; if this is not understood and agreed upon, the question is entirely meaningless.

I have no idea what your second-last paragraph is trying to say. I'm assuming you're saying that my post that you're responding to is incorrect. I can't follow your logic there. You seem to be saying that since evolution was just a single man's theory, the answer that it provides to the chicken-and-egg problem is incorrect. This is also true of every other concept or proof that the sum of all human endeavour has managed to produce. Even universal constants are only recognized as such because single people figured it out. You appear to be arguing that the theory of evolution can't be relied upon because a human being came up with it. If that's the case, why think at all? Indeed, why continue living?

 

[theklng]

There are little problems that bug everybody. Can we figure them out by confusing the hell out of everyone in hearing range?
First case: chicken and the egg.
According to Charles Darwin, the immediate genetic predecessor to the common chicken would have produced the egg which contained a chicken embryo.
Thus, egg before the chicken.
Anyone else got one?

wait, so just because one person has a theory about how it works, it makes it an absolute truth?

darwin was a great man, you shouldn't make a mockery out of him like this.

You do realize that based upon the argument that you're making in this post, it is completely impossible to prove anything ever, right?

this is not true. you can prove a theory, but every theory is only proven relatively, because in our universe, absolutes are rare. the way you postulate your argument. isn't proper logic. you're forgetting that something laid down the egg of the chicken predecessor, and the egg before that etc; which still leaves the question open. furthermore, the question in itself is philosophical, and was never meant to have an answer in the first place.

also, how do you consider a relative opinion of a man contradictory to an argument that absolute theories needs absolute proof? i fail to see a connection whatsoever.

it really does seem that i am grossly overestimating the average populace of these forums.

You know, not using capitalization AND being an arrogant ass isn't helping your case.

yeah, i'm sure you reported me because i don't use capitalization on my letters. look if you make a flawed argument, people will point that out.

... and again, what was your point with that last remark?

 

[theklng]

There are little problems that bug everybody. Can we figure them out by confusing the hell out of everyone in hearing range?
First case: chicken and the egg.
According to Charles Darwin, the immediate genetic predecessor to the common chicken would have produced the egg which contained a chicken embryo.
Thus, egg before the chicken.
Anyone else got one?

wait, so just because one person has a theory about how it works, it makes it an absolute truth?

darwin was a great man, you shouldn't make a mockery out of him like this.

You do realize that based upon the argument that you're making in this post, it is completely impossible to prove anything ever, right?

this is not true. you can prove a theory, but every theory is only proven relatively, because in our universe, absolutes are rare. the way you postulate your argument. isn't proper logic. you're forgetting that something laid down the egg of the chicken predecessor, and the egg before that etc; which still leaves the question open. furthermore, the question in itself is philosophical, and was never meant to have an answer in the first place.

also, how do you consider a relative opinion of a man contradictory to an argument that absolute theories needs absolute proof? i fail to see a connection whatsoever.

it really does seem that i am grossly overestimating the average populace of these forums.

I guess your higher plane of intelligence doesn't use the same grammatical rules as us lowly earth-dwellers, because I am completely honestly finding parts of this difficult to decipher, so if my translation is wrong, please, won't you condescend to let me know, o great Socrates?

First, yes, the question is philosophical. The entire point of this thread, though, is to provide concrete answers to philosophical questions.

Second, the question implies that the egg we are referring to hatches a new chicken; if this is not understood and agreed upon, the question is entirely meaningless.

I have no idea what your second-last paragraph is trying to say. I'm assuming you're saying that my post that you're responding to is incorrect. I can't follow your logic there. You seem to be saying that since evolution was just a single man's theory, the answer that it provides to the chicken-and-egg problem is incorrect. This is also true of every other concept or proof that the sum of all human endeavour has managed to produce. Even universal constants are only recognized as such because single people figured it out. You appear to be arguing that the theory of evolution can't be relied upon because a human being came up with it. If that's the case, why think at all? Indeed, why continue living?

that second to last paragraph wasn't even directed at you. i didn't bother quoting the guy because it was getting late; but since there were only so few posts, it wouldn't hurt for you to read up on thread history.

my point above all was that absolutes are rare if even existent in our universe. so making an absolute truth about something as relative as the universe, while it may be true in many cases, you cannot say for sure that it will always be true. this is why physics, chemistry and similar sciences still rely on empirical proof; i.e proof by observation. if at some point it will fail (like it has done with quantum physics), scientists will have to take a new direction in further progression of science.

the point of this thread was flawed to begin with (those questions were never meant to be answered, but to make people THINK), so i would have used the report-and-move-on tactic were i indifferent. however, nobody learns anything by just reporting and moving on; the people involved even less so. instead, i just said what was wrong with your statement, so that you by your human nature could correct it for future reference. i know i'm a bastard, but at least i'm being helpful... compared to the reporting folk.

 

[prefectimo]

To some up my view on the "tree falling in the woods" question I will answer it with another question.

If I close my eyes is the world still there?
or how about this
If I put a red piece of paper in a perfectly dark room will it still be red?


The answers are simply, no need to be philosophical or be smart about it and over think.