 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Ken wrote in message <37C### [at] pacbell net>...
>
>
>Larry Fontaine wrote:
>>
>> Nothing can be proven without an assumption.
>
> 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.
> 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.
And then, when the person in question just stands there waiting for
something to happen, you realize that you happened to pick one of the rare,
unfortunate people in the world whose nervous system is unable to detect
pain, and you realize that you were making assumptions all along.
>Ergo assumption is not the burden of proof.
Just disproven.
>> Going along this tangent, one can also argue that morals cannot exist
>> without bias. A religious value of right vs. wrong takes the position
>> that good is good and evil is evil, period, but from the "evil"
>> perspective, good is evil and evil is good.
>
>The definition of evil is easy to explain because it is inextricably
>tied to self preservation.
So evil is anything that interferes with self-preservation, eg:
I'm short on cash, and I need to buy food in order to keep from starving to
death. Therefore, I break into your house to steal some money. This is
Good, because if I didn't, I would not be able to buy food, thus interfering
with my self-preservation, which would be Evil. I pick up some cash, the
stereo, the television, and the top-of-the-line computer system, and am
walking out to my car with them when you come downstairs to see what is
going on. You are obviously about to stop me from walking away with the
stuff I am carrying, so I pull out a gun and kill you. This act is Good,
because not doing so would allow you to stop me from taking the items I need
to sell so I can buy food.
> It is in the common interest of everyone
>to define that which may cause us harm
Then why are things like birth control often considered evil? It would seem
like the alternative, unlimited population growth, would be evil, because
unlimited population growth will quickly lead to a shortage of food, which
would cause harm to a great many people.
>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.
People fear harm.
People fear pain.
Therefore, evil is bad.
Therefore, pain is bad.
Therefore, pain = evil.
What doesn't make sense here?
Mark
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Mark Wagner wrote:
> >Ergo assumption is not the burden of proof.
>
> Just disproven.
Disproven ?!! Poppycock and bolderdash ! You have merely provided
evidence that there are exceptions to the rule and have done nothing
to disprove reality. You may banty words but you need to provide
stronger arguments than those you just provided to convince me otherwise.
> >The definition of evil is easy to explain because it is inextricably
> >tied to self preservation.
> >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.
>
> People fear harm.
> People fear pain.
> Therefore, evil is bad.
> Therefore, pain is bad.
> Therefore, pain = evil.
>
> What doesn't make sense here?
>
> Mark
You may have broadened the discussion but you have provided no evidence to
disprove my statements. Philosophical debate is not one of my stronger suits
but stubborn belief is one of my strongest character traits. Your going to
have to do better than that.
--
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:
> <snip> Philosophical debate is not one of my stronger suits
> but stubborn belief is one of my strongest character traits. Your going to
> have to do better than that.
>
> --
> Ken Tyler
>
> See my 850+ Povray and 3D Rendering and Raytracing Links at:
> http://home.pacbell.net/tylereng/index.html
Ken, maybe you should use "steadfast" instead of "stubborn".
With steadfast, you hold onto what is right in spite of all the
fools that try to lead you astray. With sutbborn, you refuse
to give in even after you begin to belive the oposition.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
How about this:
-1 = (-1)^3 = (-1)^(6/2) = ((-1)^6)^(1/2) = 1^(1/2) = 1
--
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
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Lance Birch wrote:
>
> Or, you could just use the dandy world of Complex Numbers :)
>
> By definition i = sqrt(-1)
>
Not quite, i is just *a* number whose square is -1. sqrt(-1) is
undefined since the definition of sqrt is as follows: "sqrt is the
function wich to each *positive real* number x associates the *positive*
real number y such that y*y=x". You can't define *the* square root of a
negative (or complex non real positive) number because there are two and
no good way to differentiate them (you can always design a way, but it
won't have the interesting properties with regard to addition and
multiplication that real number ordering has).
--
*******************************
* they'll tell you what can't * mailto:ber### [at] inamecom
* be done and why... * http://www.enst.fr/~jberger
* Then do it. *
*******************************
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"KARMA POLICE, arest this man, he talks in math!"
;)
OK, so it's not totally correct, but I'm just a naive student learning this
stuff as part of my high-school mathematics course, what more do you people
want from me??? ;)
We were taught that I is defined as sqrt(-1) because I^2 = -1. After all,
it all works doesn't it? :) Anyway, gotta run, I've got school...
(MUMBLEMUMBLE)
--
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
Jerome M. BERGER wrote in message <37D57C5C.AF827271@enst.fr>...
>Lance Birch wrote:
>>
>> Or, you could just use the dandy world of Complex Numbers :)
>>
>> By definition i = sqrt(-1)
>>
> Not quite, i is just *a* number whose square is -1. sqrt(-1) is
>undefined since the definition of sqrt is as follows: "sqrt is the
>function wich to each *positive real* number x associates the *positive*
>real number y such that y*y=x". You can't define *the* square root of a
>negative (or complex non real positive) number because there are two and
>no good way to differentiate them (you can always design a way, but it
>won't have the interesting properties with regard to addition and
>multiplication that real number ordering has).
>
>--
>*******************************
>* they'll tell you what can't * mailto:ber### [at] inamecom
>* be done and why... * http://www.enst.fr/~jberger
>* Then do it. *
>*******************************
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Larry Fontaine wrote:
> > We were taught that I is defined as sqrt(-1) because I^2 = -1. After all,
> > it all works doesn't it? :) Anyway, gotta run, I've got school...
> > (MUMBLEMUMBLE)
>
> Doesn't school suck? I know APUSH really sucks.
> Wouldn't it be a miracle if they could make a cough syrup that lasts even half
> the length of time between doses? Damn dry hack. I swear, I like pulled a
> muscle in a fit of coughing. And I'm sure the inch-thick layer of dust in the
> school doesn't help, but you know how they're all like Come to school unless
> you're on your death bed!
Really, I rather enjoyed APUSH, probably because the teacher was excellent
though. I can certainly agree with the cough syrup part, though I would find a
nasal decongestant / antihistamine that really worked even more useful in school.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Larry Fontaine wrote:
> My mom says she's heard of people who cracked a rib coughind so violently. I hear
all
> the respiratory junk nowadays comes from city pollution. Who do I sue?
Wow, where do you live that has such a problem with pollution?
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Larry Fontaine wrote:
> Kevin Wampler wrote:
>
> > Larry Fontaine wrote:
> >
> > > My mom says she's heard of people who cracked a rib coughind so violently. I
hear all
> > > the respiratory junk nowadays comes from city pollution. Who do I sue?
> >
> > Wow, where do you live that has such a problem with pollution?
>
> Earth. I don't know where THEY were from, though. I'm from Minneapolis. And there's
> certainly cities that have much more pollution than Minneapolis. Like Mexico City,
where
> the sky is always gray.
True enough, it's quite a pity too, air is something I'd really prefer to take for
granted
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Kevin Wampler wrote:
> True enough, it's quite a pity too, air is something I'd really prefer to take for
> granted
I have lived in Southern California most of my life where smog is a way of
life in the inland cities (most of my time fortunately has been near the
coast) and I can relate to that comment. One could say that you can take
it for granted that the air is mostly bad. I once rendered a scene looking
out my window north towards Los Angeles and got the colors and look of the
sky perfect. It looked so unbelievable I scraped the idea and went for an
ideal sky instead because I felt no one here would accept the sky I portrayed
as "real". It's sad that the sky I live under is so boring and unreal looking
that no one from elsewhere would find it interesting or believable to look
at in my 3D work.
--
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
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
