The obligatory intro & 3 pages of prattle

Post Reply
User avatar
Guest

Re: The obligatory intro & 3 pages of prattle

Post by Guest » May 18th 2012, 10:51am

Falstaff:

On finishing the second half the "problem" appears to be easily finessed if not fixed. It's hard to see that it could be a real problem when it comes to building an epistomology. Is that how you see it?
User avatar
Falstaff
Watchlord WIS
Posts: 9125
Joined: August 31st 2010, 10:00pm
Contact:
Contact Falstaff

Re: The obligatory intro & 3 pages of prattle

Post by Falstaff » May 18th 2012, 4:02pm

Alice experienced an epiphany when the Red Queen said "Off with her head" and the queen's soldiers were advancing on her. She was terrified until she became a "second level reader" and realized that "they're nothing but a pack of cards" - at which point the threat disappeared.

I'd say "finessed" covers it pretty well - or a bell curve - or "close enough for gummint work".

I'm not sure an absolute knowledge of any event is even possible - vide my uncertain boy Werner - and his buddy's mixed state kitty. I suspect we merely imagine. 2 apples plus 2 more apples appears to be 4 apples.
Dies mei sicut umbra declinaverunt
User avatar
Mortuus Fakeuus

Re: The obligatory intro & 3 pages of prattle

Post by Mortuus Fakeuus » May 18th 2012, 4:50pm

themadhungarian wrote:At the risk of patting myself on the back, it was I who sent the PM asking Bob to stick around. I am two of the three things you mention (sorry Mom), but I believe we will only benefit from EntropicTime staying on


@Anthony: you are a far better man than most of us will ever dream of being; I'm proud to have you as a friend. Too bad you chose the Army...

@Bob: Not much into physics these days - I retired from the USN before they could send me to the Navy Nuclear Power School - but even I, sanctimonious SOB that I am, would hate to see you go, especially since you got through three pages of WL gauntlet so well. I'm eagerly looking forward to what you have to say about watches, as I've never gotten a particle physicist's take on them before. So, for the third time, welcome to the site and enjoy your stay.

@Falstaff: you are a self-satisfied gasconader and the very soul of garrulousness; just like me, a genuinely despicable person - and I despic you!! Carry on, sir. Image

@Conjurer: just thought I'd take this opportunity to say howdy...HOWDY!!

Mortuus is winchester, angels one-six, RTB, OUT.
User avatar
Guest

Re: The obligatory intro & 3 pages of prattle

Post by Guest » May 18th 2012, 5:55pm

Mortuus wrote: I'm eagerly looking forward to what you have to say about watches, as I've never gotten a particle physicist's take on them before. So, for the third time, welcome to the site and enjoy your stay.




Thank you very much for the kind words Mortuus. But ummmmm .... who the fuck said I was a particle physicist Image

I got no farther than elementary Hilbert space so I am just barely on speaking terms with state vectors. It was a serious interest but my math chops aren't that good.
User avatar
anonymous-10

Post by anonymous-10 » May 18th 2012, 6:29pm

All youse smart talkin' guys really need a local outlet where you can talk ,in depth, about all this theoretical baloney (or if you are "hard core" Bologna.)

In the meantime I'l try to draw up a mathematical representation of the human body in a sitting position and present it to you forthwith.



Now please Shut The Fuck Up!
User avatar
Guest

Re: The obligatory intro & 3 pages of prattle

Post by Guest » May 18th 2012, 6:57pm

foghorn wrote:All youse smart talkin' guys really need a local outlet where you can talk ,in depth, about all this theoretical baloney (or if you are "hard core" Bologna.)


think I been horn swaggled Image
User avatar
Mortuus Fakeuus

Re: The obligatory intro & 3 pages of prattle

Post by Mortuus Fakeuus » May 18th 2012, 8:09pm

EntropicTimer wrote:think I been horn swaggled

Perhaps, but that pales in comparison to the absolute awfulness of Foggy capitalizing the word 'bologna.' (Eewww...) Why, why, why would you do such a bizarre, terrible thing like that, Fogheimer?
User avatar
Mortuus Fakeuus

Re: The obligatory intro & 3 pages of prattle

Post by Mortuus Fakeuus » May 18th 2012, 8:40pm

EntropicTimer wrote:
Mortuus wrote: I'm eagerly looking forward to what you have to say about watches, as I've never gotten a particle physicist's take on them before. So, for the third time, welcome to the site and enjoy your stay.


Thank you very much for the kind words Mortuus. But ummmmm .... who the fuck said I was a particle physicist Image

I got no farther than elementary Hilbert space so I am just barely on speaking terms with state vectors. It was a serious interest but my math chops aren't that good.


Aw, that's oka--WAIT...You mean to tell me that you're not a particle physicist...? That's just ducking fucky, iddn't it? Here I go and say all kinds of nice things to you, which is completely out of character for me - just ask Foolstaff - and you turn out to a complete fraud, a common charlatan, a complete sack of poppycock? I am cut to the QUICK, sir! Maybe we oughtta call you [color=yellow]EyallalloTimer!! So, tell me, Mister I'm-NOT-a-Smarty-Pants-Particle-Physicist-After-All, what do you have to say for yourself, hah? HAH? I'm waiting (Heavy & Ironic Image here)...
Image
JEEBUS Cripes, there's no trusting anyone these days...next thing you know, 'ol Conjurer's gonna tell me he's not a Leperoscopist who once worked with Mother Theresa...[/color]
User avatar
conjurer
Owner
Posts: 35985
Joined: July 13th 2010, 10:00pm
Contact:
Contact conjurer

Re: The obligatory intro & 3 pages of prattle

Post by conjurer » May 18th 2012, 8:57pm

Mortuus wrote:
EntropicTimer wrote:
Mortuus wrote: I'm eagerly looking forward to what you have to say about watches, as I've never gotten a particle physicist's take on them before. So, for the third time, welcome to the site and enjoy your stay.


Thank you very much for the kind words Mortuus. But ummmmm .... who the fuck said I was a particle physicist Image

I got no farther than elementary Hilbert space so I am just barely on speaking terms with state vectors. It was a serious interest but my math chops aren't that good.


Aw, that's oka--WAIT...You mean to tell me that you're not a particle physicist...? That's just ducking fucky, iddn't it? Here I go and say all kinds of nice things to you, which is completely out of character for me - just ask Foolstaff - and you turn out to a complete fraud, a common charlatan, a complete sack of poppycock? I am cut to the QUICK, sir! Maybe we oughtta call you [color=yellow]EyallalloTimer!! So, tell me, Mister I'm-NOT-a-Smarty-Pants-Particle-Physicist-After-All, what do you have to say for yourself, hah? HAH? I'm waiting (Heavy & Ironic Image here)...
Image
JEEBUS Cripes, there's no trusting anyone these days...next thing you know, 'ol Conjurer's gonna tell me he's not a Leperoscopist who once worked with Mother Theresa...[/color]


Hey, Mort: I'm not a Leperoscotist who once worked with Mother Theresa. Sorry.
User avatar
Mortuus Fakeuus

Re: The obligatory intro & 3 pages of prattle

Post by Mortuus Fakeuus » May 20th 2012, 11:51am

Conjurer wrote:Hey, Mort: I'm not a Leperoscopist who once worked with Mother Theresa. Sorry.

@%$# @&&* $%#@&! & @#$()&%$, too! Image

EntropicTimer wrote:I gotta go pee. And that's absolutely true and honest.

Ooooh...me, too! Frickin' prostate... Image
User avatar
Guest

Falstaff

Post by Guest » May 22nd 2012, 2:10pm

Regarding existons I hold to my original hypothesis that you are too smart to be that dumb. But I am going to assume that you have a serious understanding of philosophy. I took it from your last post that you reject such fixes as making "verified true belief" necessary but not sufficient for knowledge. Trying to see a basis for your objection my philosophically naive mind has come up with the idea that possibly all such fixes lead to an endless regression of "verified true beliefs" but so far I have no supporting sources for that. But it seems to me science deals effectively with this by constructing and relying on contextual definitions of truth and knowledge. And in any case I can see no way the "problem" would invalidate inferences drawn from. It seems to me only to require the systematic application of doubt and the awareness of context.
User avatar
Falstaff
Watchlord WIS
Posts: 9125
Joined: August 31st 2010, 10:00pm
Contact:
Contact Falstaff

Re: The obligatory intro & 3 pages of prattle

Post by Falstaff » May 23rd 2012, 5:00am

"Context" is an artificial construct that changes at the slightest breeze. No more a reliable definer of truth or knowledge than my Magic 8-ball. "Reply hazy - ask again later".

"Systematic application of doubt", though, shows that at least you're trying. Descartes' "this far and no farther" was the impossibility of doubting one's own existence. I say doubt that - and you're on your way to understanding. Question the framework itself. Descartes simply imagined that his thoughts were "proof" of his existence.

If you truly reject the idea of the existon out of hand as a postulated ultimate particle along with its corollaries of gravitation and proximity, then I have little interest in merely increasing your understanding of philosophy. Been there, done that - far too often to enjoy it anymore.

I will leave you with this, however - the more you become aware of the things that tend to cause you to do what you do, the more "free will" you can exercise.
Dies mei sicut umbra declinaverunt
User avatar
Guest

Re: The obligatory intro & 3 pages of prattle

Post by Guest » May 24th 2012, 6:15pm

Oh, dear. My bad. And I do apologize, You are clearly not dumb. Uhhhh ... you're a mystic? Those references were seriously intended.


It's not clear to me that I rejected it out of hand. I will need to go back and check what I wrote but I'm out of state and preoccupied. Will be the next thing I get to with free time.
User avatar
Falstaff
Watchlord WIS
Posts: 9125
Joined: August 31st 2010, 10:00pm
Contact:
Contact Falstaff

Re: The obligatory intro & 3 pages of prattle

Post by Falstaff » May 25th 2012, 3:48am

No need for apologies - no "bad" to be apportioned out.

As to the utility of mathematics in providing a framework for veracity, I'm wondering what the mathematical formula for "love" might look like? Compassion? Despair? Awe? Bitter hate - or an easy one, blind rage?

And - why is a raven like a writing desk?
Dies mei sicut umbra declinaverunt
Bigjimzlll
Watchlord WIS
Posts: 3284
Joined: June 11th 2010, 10:00pm
Location: St. Petersburg,FL
Contact:
Contact Bigjimzlll

Re: The obligatory intro & 3 pages of prattle

Post by Bigjimzlll » May 25th 2012, 4:46am

Falstaff wrote:No need for apologies - no "bad" to be apportioned out.

As to the utility of mathematics in providing a framework for veracity, I'm wondering what the mathematical formula for "love" might look like? Compassion? Despair? Awe? Bitter hate - or an easy one, blind rage?

And - why is a raven like a writing desk?


: "Because it can produce a few notes, tho they are very flat; and it is nevar put with the wrong end in front."



User avatar
Falstaff
Watchlord WIS
Posts: 9125
Joined: August 31st 2010, 10:00pm
Contact:
Contact Falstaff

Re: The obligatory intro & 3 pages of prattle

Post by Falstaff » May 25th 2012, 5:01am

It is indeed "never" with the wrong end in front. ER is the wrong end. If it weren't wrong, raven would be spelled ravan.

Some claim Carroll submitted this answer with "nevar" and his proofreader corrected it to "never", but to have done so would have invalidated his clever answer. "Nevar" would not have the wrong end in front - at least in terms of birds and writing desks, although I suppose the argument could be advanced that nevar is never put with the wrong end in front, but that is not nearly as compelling.
Dies mei sicut umbra declinaverunt
User avatar
Falstaff
Watchlord WIS
Posts: 9125
Joined: August 31st 2010, 10:00pm
Contact:
Contact Falstaff

Re: The obligatory intro & 3 pages of prattle

Post by Falstaff » May 25th 2012, 5:39am

That's essentially what he claimed at the time, having been pestered to no end by those seeking an answer - and yet, the "never, nevar" answer shows that he put a fair amount of thought into it.

Speaking of thoughts, I suspect those are actually composed of existons as well - existons under the influence of consciousness - in itself a random (but fortunate) arrangement of existons.

One might counter with Tweedledum and Tweedledee's assessment - "Nohow! - Contrariwise!" Either way it's "jam every other day."
Dies mei sicut umbra declinaverunt
User avatar
anonymous-10

Post by anonymous-10 » April 3rd 2018, 5:10am

MAX wrote:I think the tree has already fallen in this forest.




What?? Eh??
Post Reply

Return to “Welcome! Introduce Yourself”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests