 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>1 is arbitrary. 1=1 is redundant arbitration.
Let x = y
It follows that:
x - y = 0
And that:
2x - 2y = 0
Therefore:
x - y = 2x - 2y
But:
x - y = 1(x - y) and...
2x - 2y = 2(x - y)
So:
1(x - y) = 2(x - y)
Dividing both sides by (x - y):
1 = 2
(I know it's a falcity but it's fun to look at ;)
--
Lance.
---
For the latest 3D Studio MAX plug-ins, images and much more, go to:
The Zone - http://come.to/the.zone
For a totally different experience, visit my Chroma Key Website:
Colorblind - http://listen.to/colorblind
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Let 1=1 and end the argument :)
--
Ken Tyler
See my 850+ Povray and 3D Rendering and Raytracing Links at:
http://home.pacbell.net/tylereng/index.html
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Ken wrote:
>
> That is poppycock ! If I smash your foot with a large brick one may
> think I have an assumption that you will feel pain when I do so (unless
> of course you are dead when it happens). The truth is that through
> repeated observations and from personal experience I need no assumptions
> to know that you are going to feel pain. Lots and lots of glorious,
> excruciating, deep down to the bone, face whincing, voice screaming,
> oh wonderful, beautiful pain.
> If I were to set up a demonstration in front of an audience that has
> no idea as to what will happen you can be assured that when I raise the
> brick and bring it down forcefully upon you bare naked foot that everyone
> in attendance will KNOW that you have just experienced pain. There will
> be no presumption on anyone's part where that is concerned. If anyone
> doubts it (which is not the same as an assumption) they are welcome to
> examine the severe distress on your face, your cries of anguish, and may
> even examine the damaged member for evidence of tissue damage. I am not
> assuming this because there is nothing that prevents me from knowing
> otherwise.
>
> Ergo assumption is not the burden of proof.
>
To prove this, first disprove the various "brain-in-a-jar" theories, e.g. the
infamous "Matrix"...
>
> The definition of evil is easy to explain because it is inextricably
> tied to self preservation. It is in the common interest of everyone
> to define that which may cause us harm and do what is necessary to
> reduce the likelihood that it will do so. That which is harmful is
> most often associated with evil.
>
> People fear harm much as they do pain, physical or emotional, ergo
> evil is bad, pain is bad, pain = evil, and one still equals one.
>
> : )
>
What is evil for one can be good to another. Dare I ask whose common interests
you are referring to? :)
Margus
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Margus Ramst wrote:
> Ken wrote:
> > Ergo assumption is not the burden of proof.
> To prove this, first disprove the various "brain-in-a-jar" theories, e.g. the
> infamous "Matrix"...
I am not altogether familiar with these theories and since I was referring
to human bodies with real foots that can and will feel pain I can only assume
they are invalid where this topic is concerned.
> > People fear harm much as they do pain, physical or emotional, ergo
> > evil is bad, pain is bad, pain = evil, and one still equals one.
> What is evil for one can be good to another. Dare I ask whose common interests
> you are referring to? :)
>
> Margus
The individual of course but society tends to stick together on such issues.
--
Ken Tyler
See my 850+ Povray and 3D Rendering and Raytracing Links at:
http://home.pacbell.net/tylereng/index.html
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Lance Birch <lan### [at] usa net> wrote:
: x - y = 0
: 1(x - y) = 2(x - y)
: Dividing both sides by (x - y):
You can't do it, since by definition x-y = 0. That would result in a
division (x-y)/(x-y) which is 0/0 which is not defined.
--
main(i,_){for(_?--i,main(i+2,"FhhQHFIJD|FQTITFN]zRFHhhTBFHhhTBFysdB"[i]
):5;i&&_>1;printf("%s",_-70?_&1?"[]":" ":(_=0,"\n")),_/=2);} /*- Warp -*/
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Ahh, but there's the rub.
These theories basically state this: our definition of reality is empirical.
What a person calls reality is what he perceives with his senses. Therefore, if
you provide this person with complete artificial sensory input, this could
become his reality. In essence, you could put a brain in a jar, attach wires to
feed it sensory impulses, and thus create an alternate world for this solitary
brain.
There's a myriad of books, movies etc. on this subject. You may shrug it off as
paranoid nonsense, but the point is you have no way of disproving it...
So then, prove to me that the leg is real, the person is real and the pain is
real.
Or better yet, prove that YOU are real, "Mr. Tyler" >:)
The opposite becomes more and more credible with the advances in VR, AI and
whatnot...
Margus
Someone get me a bigger jar! <twitch>
Ken wrote:
>
> I am not altogether familiar with these theories and since I was referring
> to human bodies with real foots that can and will feel pain I can only assume
> they are invalid where this topic is concerned.
>
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
And that is why it is a fallacy. :-)
Christopher J. Huff
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
The one without the blurred wheels. The blurred wheel version depicts
our perception of reality better, though, so it looks more realistic.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Larry Fontaine wrote:
>
[Snip]
> Post your reactions to my paradoxism thoery. It's always fun to hear
> people argue.
Yeah, it is, but I think, that it's better, when such arguing is going
on in some other place, e.g. in some chat room. It would be better, when
this NG server will keep POVRay line, dealing with philosophical (or
para-toxical) questions here seems to be unappropriate.
I believe that POVRay users ain't so freaked, that they don't have Real
Life (TM) and therefore are in need to satisfy their communication and
social needs in this server NGs. Go outside, (take Your friend with You)
look to the clouds, or sea, or setting sun, take deep breath and think:
"How can I render it?"
Enough of off topic, me thinks...
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On the other hand....
That's a scientist speaking and artist would go with the blurred wheel.
Or would he?
Mick
Chris Huff <Chr### [at] compuservecom> wrote in message
news:37CFE551.B453FFAD@compuserve.com...
> The one without the blurred wheels. The blurred wheel version depicts
> our perception of reality better, though, so it looks more realistic.
>
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
