|
| Thread: The Universal Off-Topic Discussion Thread |  This thread is pages long: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 · NEXT» |
|
baklava
Honorable
Legendary Hero
Mostly harmless
|
posted September 07, 2008 11:53 PM |
|
|
The Universal Off-Topic Discussion Thread
I'm not sure if anyone ever came up with this, but I thought it might not be a bad idea.
We're all familiar with the issue of getting into an off-topic discussion in some OSM thread (I tend to call them "parasite discussions" or Argumentis Irrelevantum if you'll forgive my brutal butchering of the Latin language). People touch some unrelated but interesting subject, and they're too busy to make a separate thread for it - so the parasite discussion goes on to drag the entire host-topic into pointlessness, until a mod comes and slaps a few people around, usually causing severe damage to the thread itself. Very few people ever make a thread to continue talking about the subject that was the cause of so much unrelated content - the Argumentis Irrelevantum disappears as suddenly as it appeared, only to burst out later in some other unsuspecting topic.
In short, the idea is that you use this thread to transfer topics from unrelated OSM threads and continue discussing them here, without flooding both the mods and the OSM itself with irrelevant stuff. I think it might make things much easier for this place. It only requires that, when an off-topic discussion spontaneously starts in some thread, one member says "Argumentis Irrelevantum" and asks other participants to continue the subject in the UOT (Universal Off-Topic) thread. Alright, you don't have to say "Argumentis Irrelevantum", but it still sounds awesome. 
Just an attempt to make the OSM an easier-to-understand place (as much as that's possible). Do we have a deal? 
I'd like to start with a discussion I had with MVas, which started in the "Nation of Earth" thread and concerns the possibility of the existence of life in the universe.
I mentioned that we can't know if the number of planets is infinite or not, but there is a large probability of living beings existing elsewhere in space.
Then MVas replied:
Quote:
How do you measure this probability objectively? Is there a formula? You claim that it's high. But that is just a claim.
It's not a claim, it's common sense. If you insist upon a formula, here it is.
Oh and before you attack me with the "WIKI IS LYING!!" defense, you can also find interesting and similar views about this issue in many professional works (some of them were used to write the article I linked to). I just thought that Wiki is the most, well, accessible.
And I'd also like to know why would the universe collapse upon itself if it contained an infinite amount of matter. Not that I necessarily believe there's an infinite amount of matter in it, or that the universe itself is infinite, I'd just like to know why you think it would collapse. Is there a formula?
|
|
Lexxan
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
Unimpressed by your logic
|
|
posted September 07, 2008 11:53 PM |
|
Edited by Lexxan at 23:55, 07 Sep 2008.
|
SKUB!
Joking ^^
Good initiative, but I doubt it'll work. After all, the reasonable persons aren't those that cause the off-topicness
____________
Coincidence? I think not!!!!
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted September 08, 2008 02:53 AM |
|
|
Bak:
Obviously I was talking about intelligent life. If we don't care about bacteria here, why should we care about bacteria a million light-years away?
Quote:
And I'd also like to know why would the universe collapse upon itself if it contained an infinite amount of matter. Not that I necessarily believe there's an infinite amount of matter in it, or that the universe itself is infinite, I'd just like to know why you think it would collapse. Is there a formula?
There most certainly is a formula, and I have presented it to you before. F = G*M1*M2/r^2. Thus, it can clearly be shown that if M1 and/or M2 is infinite, then the force is infinte as well. Unless, of course, the distance is infinite too, but it isn't.
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
TitaniumAlloy
Honorable
Legendary Hero
Professional
|
|
posted September 08, 2008 08:50 AM |
|
|
@The Death:
Quote:
Quote:
I draw the line at going to alien's planets and screwing them up.
I think using the resources availaible to us in our solar system is fine.
Ok so do Aliens that have your mentality will think that wiping us out (in short, "using the resources available on Earth") is fine. What do you expect them to be kinder than us? 
No because I explicitly stated that using another species planet is not OK.
In fact you quoted where I said that right above ^^
So if aliens follow that mentality they will think just the opposite of what you said...
So using the definition of 'alive', we can't use it as an argument as it's biased. An AI can think (in it's own way obviously), it can come up with its own definitions of 'alive' (in its own language, thus I regard here the meaning of life, not the words used!). Therefore, assuming they are less worth than ourselves only makes us tyrants.
Quote:
If we think that about them, where is the problem considering that they will "wipe us out"? After all, they're using our mentality -- we would "wipe them out" as well. So where is the problem with us being wiped out? Seems pretty fair to me.
Saying something is not alive doesn't devalue it.
Plenty of inanimate objects are important to me.
You may call me strange or racist or whatever for not feeling sympathetic to a computer but whatever I'm not going to persue that any further because it has nothing to do with anything.
It's arguing over the rights of something that doesn't even exist in our universal knowledge. (please don't misconstrue the term "universal knowledge")
But yes I would say that it is kinda wrong to devalue some forms of life over others, even here on earth. Why do we care when a dog is hit by a car, but we'll kill a spider or use antibacterial or whatever? It's hypocritical but we all do it.
You can't be kind to EVERYTHING that could be considered life.
I have no sympathy for my computer
Quote:
To solve this dilemma, we need to shift our thinking. Wiping humans is bad only if they return the same attitude -- that is, they are not aggressive and don't expand where others could have had a home.
But the asteroid isn't home to any aliens.
We have every right to use it and I can't even imagine the kind of moral rhetoric you could use to argue otherwise
Quote:
As for poverty, the reason we have it is because people want stuff, they want very much stuff, and deplete the resources. A man on an island alone will not starve to death. He has way too many resources for that.
We want to expand and be many (multiply)??? Then, it's our fault that we have poverty (not because we didn't do anything, but because we DID something!), and thus, expanding is not the solution, since it would be a repeat of the cycle.
The only way you can stop a guy from wanting MORE and MORE stuff, is to prevent from giving him STUFF, because if you give him, he'll want more. 'till infinity.
You're saying that depleted resources is poverty, therefore we should have less poverty?
The population is going to expand, until we get to a point where we start dying of starvation and other things such as in Africa where resources are low. If we give more resources to Africa and poverty is abolished, then the population will likely increase and the system starts again. I agree. Until, we find stability through cooperation, goverment, technology and efficiency, which we won't be able to obtain without significant breakthroughs.
Meanwhile, gathering more resources hurts no one.
Sitting around and doing nothing with our current technology, not multiplying etc. staying constant population, poverty is inevitable because resources will be depleted.
Quote:
A better analogy would be a 'diseased' man (he is the only one immune) that wants to survive, but doing so, everyone else will be infected. So for him to survive, the others must die.
This is the only instance in which I would agree with you, in which it would be wrong to want to survive.
But this isn't the case at all!
The case is more like... the man has no reason to believe he is sick, but he kills himself anyway just in case he is because he doesn't want to hurt anybody
This whole "i hate humans we should be wiped out" that is advocated by too many people in the other thread is ridiculous.
What is the point of a universe if we aren't there to experience it?
If you hate humans so much lead by example and wipe yourself out lol (Asheera, Dark etc.)
____________
John says to live above hell.
|
|
baklava
Honorable
Legendary Hero
Mostly harmless
|
|
posted September 08, 2008 10:59 AM |
|
|
@MVas
Quote:
Obviously I was talking about intelligent life. If we don't care about bacteria here, why should we care about bacteria a million light-years away?
1) Bacteria evolves and there's every possibility that it can become intelligent too. We started similarly too.
2) The micro-cosmos is as vast and holds as much secrets as the macro-cosmos. Bacteria can be more dangerous for us than meteors, or more useful than space mining. A lot of scientists constantly study bacteria as much as a lot of them studies the outer space. You might not care about bacteria, but we'd all still be dying from small pox if there wasn't for people who did.
Quote:
There most certainly is a formula, and I have presented it to you before. F = G*M1*M2/r^2. Thus, it can clearly be shown that if M1 and/or M2 is infinite, then the force is infinte as well. Unless, of course, the distance is infinite too, but it isn't.
Ah yes, I remember that one. I also remember that it didn't make much sense to me the last time you showed it to me, either.
m1 (mass is marked with a small "m" in physics) is the mass of one object, such as a homogeneous sphere, or a star; m2 is the mass of another object. So this formula works between two objects, not an infinite number of them. And an object by itself cannot be infinite. Only the universe, and the number of objects inside it. But as far as neither of these objects is infinite (meaning, there isn't a single star that has an infinite mass), there's no problem there. Both m1 and m2 are always finite. It's just an infinite number of regular stars and other objects influencing each other.
So I think you got it a bit wrong there. Correct me if I'm mistaken.
|
|
Mytical
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
Chaos seeking Harmony
|
|
posted September 08, 2008 11:15 AM |
|
|
Lol, one time I created a thread in Celestialheavens called the Random Thoughts thread. It quickly grew to WAYYY outta control, but it was very similar. Last time I was able to check (roughly 6 months ago?) it was at like 8000 replies or something.
____________
Message received.
|
|
Minion
Legendary Hero
|
|
posted September 08, 2008 11:30 AM |
|
Edited by Minion at 11:31, 08 Sep 2008.
|
Baklava, there cannot be infinite amount of matter in a finite space. That is so basic, it is like asking why can't I pour the Pacific Ocean into my coffee cup
The only way that there could be infinite matter, is if there was infinite space. And according to observations, it most certainly isn't - how could it expand if it was?
____________
"These friends probably started using condoms after having produced the most optimum amount of offsprings. Kudos to them for showing at least some restraint" - Tsar-ivor
|
|
baklava
Honorable
Legendary Hero
Mostly harmless
|
|
posted September 08, 2008 11:59 AM |
|
|
Quote:
Baklava, there cannot be infinite amount of matter in a finite space. That is so basic, it is like asking why can't I pour the Pacific Ocean into my coffee cup
That's why I never said anything about infinite matter in finite space. I said that, if space was infinite, it could contain an infinite amount of matter. A glass of two deciliters can contain two deciliters of water.
Now. If recent observations show that space isn't infinite, then what's outside of it? Maybe something that's not infinite either, but it's really, really big? Does that really, really big thing contain more universes then? Then what's outside of that? No matter how you look at it, at some point you come to infinity.
And infinity can contain a hell of a lot of stuff. That's all I'm saying.
____________
"Let me tell you what the blues
is. When you ain't got no
money,
you got the blues."
Howlin Wolf
|
|
Lexxan
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
Unimpressed by your logic
|
|
posted September 08, 2008 12:10 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Lol, one time I created a thread in Celestialheavens called the Random Thoughts thread. It quickly grew to WAYYY outta control, but it was very similar. Last time I was able to check (roughly 6 months ago?) it was at like 8000 replies or something.
9250 Currently.
____________
Coincidence? I think not!!!!
|
|
Minion
Legendary Hero
|
|
posted September 08, 2008 12:34 PM |
|
|
But our space, our universe, isn't infinite. So that distinction ought to be made. But there are possibilities of parallel universes, to the amount of infinite. So in that sense you are correct, there could be infinite amount of matter.
But..
Quote:
If recent observations show that space isn't infinite, then what's outside of it? Maybe something that's not infinite either, but it's really, really big?
How can you say that something that doesn't exist in the first place, to be big or small, gray or purple? You can't give attributes to nothingness or matters that aren't there. I am simply taking the scientific view, nothing indicates anything to be beyond the boundaries our Universe.
____________
"These friends probably started using condoms after having produced the most optimum amount of offsprings. Kudos to them for showing at least some restraint" - Tsar-ivor
|
|
TitaniumAlloy
Honorable
Legendary Hero
Professional
|
|
posted September 08, 2008 12:48 PM |
|
|
A parallel universe 
____________
John says to live above hell.
|
|
xerox
Promising
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted September 08, 2008 12:52 PM |
|
|
I think that when you reach a point of the universe, you get teleported back to the other side
Or you just contiune in all eternity and everything is black or white.
____________
Over himself, over his own
body and
mind, the individual is
sovereign.
- John Stuart Mill
|
|
TheDeath
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
|
|
posted September 08, 2008 02:03 PM |
|
|
Quote:
No because I explicitly stated that using another species planet is not OK.
In fact you quoted where I said that right above ^^
So if aliens follow that mentality they will think just the opposite of what you said...
Like I said, you have no idea whether that asteroid is important in the "large scheme of things" so why mess up with it? Maybe it is some kind of satellite for some Alien species (and they need it to survive, let's say). Just because you don't see it being a satellite doesn't mean it isn't. Maybe it's using "stealth" stuff that we are not able to detect with our current thinking about the world. If that thing goes to Earth, we can get it since they 'invaded' our system. But if it doesn't, then we are the ones invading.
Besides, the aliens might be a complete different life from that we don't want to acknowledge as being "alive" (like AIs). In this respect, it's pretty dull to think that they would think otherwise. We treat them as expendable objects, why should they treat us different? It's not like our 'biological life' is the only thing that matters -- that would be narrow-minded.
Just put yourself in an AIs position. What would you do when people start to exploit you and your 'satellites'? Huh? You should let them do it, you know, just because they're "human" or what? It makes absolutely no sense from a neutral and objective point of view.
Quote:
But yes I would say that it is kinda wrong to devalue some forms of life over others, even here on earth. Why do we care when a dog is hit by a car, but we'll kill a spider or use antibacterial or whatever? It's hypocritical but we all do it.
Just because we do it doesn't mean it's "ok", especially on things "out there" where we have no clue and don't belong either
Quote:
You can't be kind to EVERYTHING that could be considered life.
I have no sympathy for my computer
At least, your computer is on Earth, and you built it from raw materials that were also on Earth -- and matter on Earth can't be created nor destroyed (except if you send it out to space, which is considered 'destroyed' since it's not part of Earth anymore). It can't affect a "large scheme of things" anyway. Are you getting me? I'm talking about the possible balance that you could break.
Quote:
But the asteroid isn't home to any aliens.
We have every right to use it and I can't even imagine the kind of moral rhetoric you could use to argue otherwise
How about this? What if some aliens thought like you did and prevented the asteroid from hitting the Earth (in the dinosaur era). Things would be a lot different, we possibly wouldn't even be here. See? Your mentality changes things, on the "large scale" or let's say, somewhere where you don't even know (that is, they only wanted to harvest it, and had no idea that it would hit the Earth for example).
Quote:
Sitting around and doing nothing with our current technology, not multiplying etc. staying constant population, poverty is inevitable because resources will be depleted.
Listen, animals as far as I know don't deplete resources. We do because we want "more stuff" and more people. That is the root of the problem, and THAT is what you need to FIX.
Quote:
This is the only instance in which I would agree with you, in which it would be wrong to want to survive.
But this isn't the case at all!
The case is more like... the man has no reason to believe he is sick, but he kills himself anyway just in case he is because he doesn't want to hurt anybody
Ok, then let's say that the man doesn't infect people A, but he infects people B who he knows nothing about, but he still decides to go there and kills them. People B were OUTSIDE his closed natural system, where he KNEW stuff. But he doesn't know regarding people B (like we don't know about that asteroid) -- by infecting them, he is fully responsible. No one forced him to go outside his closed habitat.
Quote:
This whole "i hate humans we should be wiped out" that is advocated by too many people in the other thread is ridiculous.
What is the point of a universe if we aren't there to experience it?
The point for others to experience it, rather than our greedy self (if they aren't greedy that is!).
Quote:
If you hate humans so much lead by example and wipe yourself out lol (Asheera, Dark etc.)
Thank you yet again for making me repeat myself 
It would be irrational -- it's not like my example will change the human mentality. And besides, I don't hate humans that play nice (like myself you see ). If you have 10 killers and 10 citizens, and a citizen hates the killers, should he kill himself and the other citizens?
(killer in this sense is not that literally!)
OMG I just got into quote wars again uh 
|
|
TheDeath
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
|
|
posted September 08, 2008 02:07 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Obviously I was talking about intelligent life. If we don't care about bacteria here, why should we care about bacteria a million light-years away?
Because million "light-years" away is none of your business. Maybe that bacteria will rise up into life. The thing is, it's none of your business.
If you think it should be your business, then I see no problem in aliens having business in OUR planet -- that is, wiping us out. No problem really, with YOUR stupid arrogant and selfish mentality. 
Quote:
Baklava, there cannot be infinite amount of matter in a finite space. That is so basic, it is like asking why can't I pour the Pacific Ocean into my coffee cup
I know this is off the point, but ever heard of black holes? Big Bang?
|
|
Asheera
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
Elite Assassin
|
|
posted September 08, 2008 02:08 PM |
|
|
Quote:
If you hate humans so much lead by example and wipe yourself out lol (Asheera, Dark etc.)
No, you see, if I wipe myself out then you'll still continue with your mentality. Maybe if I would get rid of ALL humans then I'll wipe myself out
____________
|
|
TheDeath
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
|
|
posted September 08, 2008 02:14 PM |
|
|
Quote:
But our space, our universe, isn't infinite.
This sounds like a claim which might not be true at all. You cannot know if it's infinite or not, because you cannot have infinite information -- the scientists' God called Light moves with a certain speed. It might even have reached us yet (it's a "God" because scientists dismiss anything else other than 'light' and say that whatever outside the reach of Light does not exist).
A good example is the so-called "dark matter".
|
|
Minion
Legendary Hero
|
|
posted September 08, 2008 02:15 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Quote:
Baklava, there cannot be infinite amount of matter in a finite space. That is so basic, it is like asking why can't I pour the Pacific Ocean into my coffee cup
I know this is off the point, but ever heard of black holes? Big Bang?
Black holes have a mass, and therefore are constucted of a finite amount of matter. And in BB (not talking about Big Brother..or anything kinky for the matter) there was a finite amount of matter also, because our Universe has also finite amount of matter.
____________
"These friends probably started using condoms after having produced the most optimum amount of offsprings. Kudos to them for showing at least some restraint" - Tsar-ivor
|
|
TheDeath
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
|
|
posted September 08, 2008 02:16 PM |
|
|
|
Last I recall, the Pacific Ocean also has a finite amount of matter, so what's the problem pouring it in a Coffee Cup?
|
|
TitaniumAlloy
Honorable
Legendary Hero
Professional
|
|
posted September 08, 2008 02:19 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Like I said, you have no idea whether that asteroid is important in the "large scheme of things" so why mess up with it? Maybe it is some kind of satellite for some Alien species (and they need it to survive, let's say). Just because you don't see it being a satellite doesn't mean it isn't. Maybe it's using "stealth" stuff that we are not able to detect with our current thinking about the world. If that thing goes to Earth, we can get it since they 'invaded' our system. But if it doesn't, then we are the ones invading.
There's nothing to suggest it is.
We can safely assume it's not. It's just a rock in space.
Asteroids are alien satellites using stealth stuff?
I think reasonable argument went out the window a long time ago with this discussion and let's call it quits.
Because even when reading my replies in the context of this argument even my own thoughts sound ridiculous where if I said them to ANYONE else except you they would be fine hehe
The above statements are perfectly acceptable but saying them to you in this discussion makes me seem like an ignorant and unreasonable a-hole lol.
Quote:
Besides, the aliens might be a complete different life from that we don't want to acknowledge as being "alive" (like AIs). In this respect, it's pretty dull to think that they would think otherwise. We treat them as expendable objects, why should they treat us different? It's not like our 'biological life' is the only thing that matters -- that would be narrow-minded.[/qutoe]
Who treats them as expendable objects?
Quote:
Just put yourself in an AIs position. What would you do when people start to exploit you and your 'satellites'? Huh? You should let them do it, you know, just because they're "human" or what? It makes absolutely no sense from a neutral and objective point of view.
I'm done with the AI argument and the asteroids possibly being super secret alien satellites... sorry but I can't go on
Quote:
At least, your computer is on Earth, and you built it from raw materials that were also on Earth -- and matter on Earth can't be created nor destroyed (except if you send it out to space, which is considered 'destroyed' since it's not part of Earth anymore). It can't affect a "large scheme of things" anyway. Are you getting me? I'm talking about the possible balance that you could break.
What makes you think things are in balance?
Quote:
How about this? What if some aliens thought like you did and prevented the asteroid from hitting the Earth (in the dinosaur era). Things would be a lot different, we possibly wouldn't even be here. See? Your mentality changes things, on the "large scale" or let's say, somewhere where you don't even know (that is, they only wanted to harvest it, and had no idea that it would hit the Earth for example).
Yes and that would have been a perfectly reasonable thing for them to do at the time.
It's not their fault that the asteroid was to hit earth and they had no reason to assume it would serve such a purpose. Also from the dinosaurs perspective they can be thankful
But this is again where we disagree so let's leave it at that.
Quote:
Listen, animals as far as I know don't deplete resources. We do because we want "more stuff" and more people. That is the root of the problem, and THAT is what you need to FIX.
Animals do want more stuff. Animals do want more people. And animals certainly do deplete resources.
Quote:
Quote:
This is the only instance in which I would agree with you, in which it would be wrong to want to survive.
But this isn't the case at all!
The case is more like... the man has no reason to believe he is sick, but he kills himself anyway just in case he is because he doesn't want to hurt anybody
Ok, then let's say that the man doesn't infect people A, but he infects people B who he knows nothing about, but he still decides to go there and kills them. People B were OUTSIDE his closed natural system, where he KNEW stuff. But he doesn't know regarding people B (like we don't know about that asteroid) -- by infecting them, he is fully responsible. No one forced him to go outside his closed habitat.
This all depends on your ideas of guilt, which are obviously vastly different to mine.
It also depends on your idea of closed system. If you went to your newly found neighbours house to say hi or whatever and he dropped dead because he is allergic to you, I wouldn't consider that your fault.
But this does have spooky resemblance to the discovery of America and Australia etc.
____________
John says to live above hell.
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted September 08, 2008 02:21 PM |
|
|
Bak:
Quote:
1) Bacteria evolves and there's every possibility that it can become intelligent too. We started similarly too.
The possiblity of intelligent life is even less likely than non-intelligent life, which is already unlikely at any given place.
Quote:
2) The micro-cosmos is as vast and holds as much secrets as the macro-cosmos. Bacteria can be more dangerous for us than meteors, or more useful than space mining. A lot of scientists constantly study bacteria as much as a lot of them studies the outer space. You might not care about bacteria, but we'd all still be dying from small pox if there wasn't for people who did.
A valid point. But if we don't know that the bacteria are there, and have no basis to assume that they are, then why should we take them into account?
Quote:
this formula works between two objects, not an infinite number of them. And an object by itself cannot be infinite
What if we take the total universe (except for one object) as being one object, and the one object as the other? Then the force would be infinite, if the universe's mass was.
TheDeath:
I'll let TA respond to your other points, because I have responded to them so many times. However, this statement attracted my attention:
Quote:
Listen, animals as far as I know don't deplete resources.
Several times I have presented to you the example of a fox in a henhouse. It eats or strangles all of them, and, if that's the only food left, it starves. Humans acting rationally would never waste their resources like that.
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
| |
|
|
