benjamin619 depreciation thread

[killer_tomato]

well this thread turned out pretty well didn't it

[duovamp]

Yeah, and I want to stop arguing because I have work to do, but I've already been -repped by posting my thoughts... because I assume giving negative reputation is the equivalent to throwing a punch in an argument you were never in or have lost.

[Luke de Spa]

Originally Posted by sleeper

i heard new zealand has the highest percentage of atheists in the world. is that right? or is that france? i know france is at like 40% or something, which is an incredible, enticing number. canada is at like 17% or something pathetic, its sad

we have a high percentage (~40% from memory) of people without any formal religious affiliation, but i have no idea what portion of that is comprised by atheists; our census questionnaires don't go beyond "christian", "buddhist", "no religion" etc.

[benjamin619]

yeah. sleeper challenged my quote, converted to Christianity, and wrote a few failing arguments in philosophy.

[sleeper]

Originally Posted by GlasgowKiss

ANDDDDDD, anyone with elementary knowledge of quantum physics should know there exists far too much randomness to conclusively believe determinism.

theres enough order to believe in probabilism, though, things dont have to be deterministic

but i do like this idea that the apparent randomness of quantum particles isnt random but just, to our grasping minds, seemingly random. "hidden complexity" is how ever heard it termed. this simply sounds wishful, but just logically its not right to believe positively that because we cant see order in a very complex system that it therefore doesnt exist. it certainly isnt fair to positively believe the opposite (that there absolutely is order and we just cant see it yet) with out some, you know, empirical substantiation, but you can passively believe that (i do)
that said, i know very little about this topic and am wary to enter into it because i am way out of my depth. i know the superficial outline of it, but thats it

[Mayfuck]

Originally Posted by sleeper

let me try wording this another way: right and wrong exists, and stuff like human rights and whatever other moral questions are just corollaries of that. its still fair and consistent to make the statement "human rights (or the basis for it) exists a priori" but i can see how thats really misleading and awkward. it makes it seem -- correct me if im wrong -- that this complete list of standards specifically regarding human rights exists a priori.

Well in that long post I wanted to get at what you were saying which was something along the lines of every culture and society has its own set of morals and codes to adhere by and that we arrived at these set of ethics in a subjective manner; however theses codes and morals are similar in a way that they are more or less an approximation of one absolute truth. maybe a analogy for this is that we all speak different languages around the world, that is there are hundreds of different ways of labeling an apple, whether it be the english 'apple' or the spanish 'manzana', no matter the words will be different and they will change but the definition of an apple itself will remain the same. words and interpretations tethered to an absolute truth. anyway this is what i believe what you were posting about or something along those lines. that apple of course was not created by man, just a result of nature. morals are the same thing but not because they existed outside the social construct, rather they were biologically developed. as humans we dont have claws, gills, fins, superior eyesight. compared to other animals we are pathetically slow and agile-less. what we have is a highly developed brains that were evolved so we can depend on them for survival as a bird would evolve a specially suited beak to help it find food. what works for us as a species in a matter of survival is not to work on our own (as we are physically limited compared to tother animals) but to band together in our survival. from this fact we can derive the original golden rules, do unto others etc to make working as a group more harmonious and efficient. and as we became more advanced you eventually develop things like sympathy and guilt and of course various societies developed their own interpretation of original human morals that were born out of biological need not because there exist somewhere outside our realm of thought a supernatural moral key.

[benjamin619]

they dont ******* atheism because atheism is not a religion, but the antithesis of one. it sets no principles itself, merely refutes others.

[benjamin619]

Originally Posted by Mayfuck

Well in that long post I wanted to get at what you were saying which was something along the lines of every culture and society has its own set of morals and codes to adhere by and that we arrived at these set of ethics in a subjective manner; however theses codes and morals are similar in a way that they are more or less an approximation of one absolute truth. maybe a analogy for this is that we all speak different languages around the world, that is there are hundreds of different ways of labeling an apple, whether it be the english 'apple' or the spanish 'manzana', no matter the words will be different and they will change but the definition of an apple itself will remain the same. words and interpretations tethered to an absolute truth. anyway this is what i believe what you were posting about or something along those lines. that apple of course was not created by man, just a result of nature. morals are the same thing but not because they existed outside the social construct, rather they were biologically developed. as humans we dont have claws, gills, fins, superior eyesight. compared to other animals we are pathetically slow and agile-less. what we have is a highly developed brains that were evolved so we can depend on them for survival as a bird would evolve a specially suited beak to help it find food. what works for us as a species in a matter of survival is not to work on our own (as we are physically limited compared to tother animals) but to band together in our survival. from this fact we can derive the original golden rules, do unto others etc to make working as a group more harmonious and efficient. and as we became more advanced you eventually develop things like sympathy and guilt and of course various societies developed their own interpretation of original human morals that were born out of biological need not because there exist somewhere outside our realm of thought a supernatural moral key.

so phenomenology turns into buddhism? (good post though).

[sleeper]

things are moving so fast, i cant keep track

[GlasgowKiss]

Determinism is derived from physics. The proof for it is when there is no randomness.

When you can predict the decay of an atom, then ill concede.

[duovamp]

Originally Posted by GlasgowKiss

Determinism is derived from physics. The proof for it is when there is no randomness.

When you can predict the decay of an atom, then ill concede.

"Decay constants are determined by detecting energy that is released during decay of a known amount of pure sample. Instruments similar to Geiger counters are used to detect the energy release. The amount of energy released is counted for several years, and an average yearly rate of release is calculated. For common isotopes used in absolute age dating of rocks and other materials, the decay constant for each isotope is a very small number. For example, the transformation of parent isotope C-14 to daughter N-14 has a decay constant of approximately 1.21 x 10-4 per year, and the transformation of Rb-87 to daughter Sr-87 has a decay constant of approximately 1.42 x 10-11 per year."

http://cse.cosm.sc.edu/hses/AbsolDat/pages/decay.htm
http://cse.cosm.sc.edu/hses/AbsolDat/pages/mordecay.htm
http://cse.cosm.sc.edu/hses/AbsolDat/pages/halflife.htm
http://cse.cosm.sc.edu/hses/AbsolDat/pages/events.htm
http://cse.cosm.sc.edu/hses/AbsolDat/pages/argon.htm
http://cse.cosm.sc.edu/hses/AbsolDat/pages/rubidium.htm
http://cse.cosm.sc.edu/hses/AbsolDat/pages/carbon.htm

There's more, but... meh. Determing such a thing is not limited by physics, it is limited by technology.

[killer_tomato]

seriously what the fuck are you guys even talking about

[sleeper]

Originally Posted by GlasgowKiss

Determinism is derived from physics. The proof for it is when there is no randomness.

When you can predict the decay of an atom, then ill concede.

right, but i thought we were talking about quantum physics, were these typical ideas dont really apply?

whatever, i dont know whats going on anymore, ive lost track. we need deviousj in here, hes really big into quantum physics (from a philosophical perspective), if i recall correctly.

honestly, i dont like either of these ideas (determinism and randomness). probabilism is much more fun and relaxing.

[GlasgowKiss]

Originally Posted by duovamp

"Decay constants are determined by detecting energy that is released during decay of a known amount of pure sample. Instruments similar to Geiger counters are used to detect the energy release. The amount of energy released is counted for several years, and an average yearly rate of release is calculated. For common isotopes used in absolute age dating of rocks and other materials, the decay constant for each isotope is a very small number. For example, the transformation of parent isotope C-14 to daughter N-14 has a decay constant of approximately 1.21 x 10-4 per year, and the transformation of Rb-87 to daughter Sr-87 has a decay constant of approximately 1.42 x 10-11 per year."

http://cse.cosm.sc.edu/hses/AbsolDat/pages/decay.htm
http://cse.cosm.sc.edu/hses/AbsolDat/pages/mordecay.htm
http://cse.cosm.sc.edu/hses/AbsolDat/pages/halflife.htm
http://cse.cosm.sc.edu/hses/AbsolDat/pages/events.htm
http://cse.cosm.sc.edu/hses/AbsolDat/pages/argon.htm
http://cse.cosm.sc.edu/hses/AbsolDat/pages/rubidium.htm
http://cse.cosm.sc.edu/hses/AbsolDat/pages/carbon.htm

There's more, but... meh. Determing such a thing is not limited by physics, it is limited by technology.

So you've proven we can measure decay and determine the average decay.

Im past scoring points here. We're talking half lives, average decay. Not the mechanics of decay.

[sleeper]

Originally Posted by killer_tomato

seriously what the fuck are you guys even talking about

i have no idea. i have this creeping disorientation that is making me feel sick

[duovamp]

Originally Posted by GlasgowKiss

So you've proven we can measure decay and determine the average decay.

Im past scoring points here. We're talking half lives, average decay. Not the mechanics of decay.

"For example, the transformation of parent isotope C-14 to daughter N-14 has a decay constant of approximately 1.21 x 10-4 per year, and the transformation of Rb-87 to daughter Sr-87 has a decay constant of approximately 1.42 x 10-11 per year.""

[GlasgowKiss]

We have the concept of a half life because we cannot predict decay and can only guess the approximate decay.

[GlasgowKiss]

Approximate. Approximate.

[Fathoms (unadored)]

I must admit, I don't even know what is being argued about either.

[Mayfuck]

why does sleeper get to have a huge avatar?

i dont like this buddying up with the netphoria administration (i.e. ropeylopey) and getting privileges out of it.

[GlasgowKiss]

Originally Posted by GlasgowKiss

Approximate. Approximate.

Oops, not exact? Because we measure half life in average decay. Not exact decay.

[Izzle]

craig is smartz

[duovamp]

Oh wait, are you saying that when I can go "This atom will decay at this exact second" you will concede? I thought you meant we couldn't predict, even in ballpark estimate form, such a thing. If you want me, personally, to do it, then sorry, it's not my major or career I won't ever be doing anything in this field. Plus, the decay of an atom would have to be a theoretical atom that exists in a vacuum because there are an enormous amount of variables to calculate that we, for the most part, just consider negligable. If we knew for certain such every single variable, then yeah we could predict the exact trillionth of a second (if we wanted) that an atom will decay. Of course, due to limitations in technology, we just give rough estimations... which turn out to be pretty good.

[GlasgowKiss]

Originally Posted by GlasgowKiss

Oops, not exact? Because we measure half life in average decay. Not exact decay.

Could this be because we dont understand the decay of atoms? So, this is why we work in averages? Given the numbers of atoms involved an average is a pretty good indicator of likelyhood. Similar to how its likely i will choose not to have a kebab right now.

[sleeper]

Originally Posted by Mayfuck

Well in that long post I wanted to get at what you were saying which was something along the lines of every culture and society has its own set of morals and codes to adhere by and that we arrived at these set of ethics in a subjective manner; however theses codes and morals are similar in a way that they are more or less an approximation of one absolute truth. maybe a analogy for this is that we all speak different languages around the world, that is there are hundreds of different ways of labeling an apple, whether it be the english 'apple' or the spanish 'manzana', no matter the words will be different and they will change but the definition of an apple itself will remain the same. words and interpretations tethered to an absolute truth. anyway this is what i believe what you were posting about or something along those lines. that apple of course was not created by man, just a result of nature. morals are the same thing but not because they existed outside the social construct, rather they were biologically developed. as humans we dont have claws, gills, fins, superior eyesight. compared to other animals we are pathetically slow and agile-less. what we have is a highly developed brains that were evolved so we can depend on them for survival as a bird would evolve a specially suited beak to help it find food. what works for us as a species in a matter of survival is not to work on our own (as we are physically limited compared to tother animals) but to band together in our survival. from this fact we can derive the original golden rules, do unto others etc to make working as a group more harmonious and efficient. and as we became more advanced you eventually develop things like sympathy and guilt and of course various societies developed their own interpretation of original human morals that were born out of biological need not because there exist somewhere outside our realm of thought a supernatural moral key.

honestly, this was a really interesting post. its weird to hear one idea that you only have a personal relationship with reframed and elaborated on by another person and, while thats not exactly what i meant, its fascinating in the ways it differs. ill have to think about this later during my thinking time.

[sleeper]

Originally Posted by Mayfuck

why does sleeper get to have a huge avatar?

i dont like this buddying up with the netphoria administration (i.e. ropeylopey) and getting privileges out of it.

when the board switched over there was a period where users couldnt upload their own avatar and, during that period, i just posted an image and asked pakula to make it my avatar and he did

[duovamp]

Originally Posted by GlasgowKiss

Could this be because we dont understand the decay of atoms? So, this is why we work in averages? Given the numbers of atoms involved an average is a pretty good indicator of likelyhood. Similar to how its likely i will choose not to have a kebab right now.

If you don't have a "kebab" (I'm sorry, I'm not familiar with what this is) then wasn't the probability that you would not have one 1:1? Things happen because they are "likely" to happen because we don't have an absolute and complete knowledge of all variables. If we did have this knowledge we could determine when you will have one.

[killer_tomato]

i'm going to send a link to this thread to somethingawful. this is weekend web material.

[ohnoitsbonnie]

g0y

[sleeper]

Originally Posted by GlasgowKiss

Similar to how its likely i will choose not to have a kebab right now.

and why the fuck not?