Philosophy, Riddles and complete mind[bleep]s

[Alg]

Or you split the timeline, as many science fiction/fantasy series do. In an alternate universe you get the F-, in the other you get the A+.

 

I agree. I seem to look at people who can crack and take a joke as overall smarter people ( not "book smarts") than the ones who are always serious. I think that a lot of people take life too seriously.

At a certain point it comes off as trying to show off. If you're always making that kind of formal post with nothing but facts, you aren't really showing a personality. Facts are all well and good, but intelligence comes from applying them.

[Necromagus]

A friendly warning to keep things on topic.

 

-Necromagus, Tip.It Mod

[Zygimantas]

Well with philosophy, almost everything can be "on-topic" :P

[Pirate_Felix]

Time travel is possible if other dimensions exist

Like in dimension you get an A

In the other you get an F

Time travel would be like switching between the two.

 

 

 

(note, with all the possibilities every millisecond there would probably be over 9000 dimensions)

[Alg]

Well with philosophy, almost everything can be "on-topic" :P

Hell, the intelligence thing was probably the most on-topic thing in the entire thread.

[Zygimantas]

Well with philosophy, almost everything can be "on-topic" :P

Hell, the intelligence thing was probably the most on-topic thing in the entire thread.

What is "intelligence"?

[Dupin]

A friendly warning to keep things on topic.

 

-Necromagus, Tip.It Mod

Here's a philosophical question:

 

Why does he choose to post in red, yet claims it is "friendly" and is only a mod?

Red is an aggressive color.

Mods are green - if anything, the text should be green.

 

What has motivated this strange animal to choose red above the vastly superior and more logical green?

[Zygimantas]

A friendly warning to keep things on topic.

 

-Necromagus, Tip.It Mod

Here's a philosophical question:

 

Why does he choose to post in red, yet claims it is "friendly" and is only a mod?

Red is an aggressive color.

Mods are green - if anything, the text should be green.

 

What has motivated this strange animal to choose red above the vastly superior and more logical green?

I think he is trying to make a point by making the color red because red attracts the eyes, and he only says it is a friendly warning to make the post appear "kinder" and not as aggressive. But in fact, he is being aggressive.

[Saru Inc]

A friendly warning to keep things on topic.

 

-Necromagus, Tip.It Mod

Here's a philosophical question:

 

Why does he choose to post in red, yet claims it is "friendly" and is only a mod?

Red is an aggressive color.

Mods are green - if anything, the text should be green.

 

What has motivated this strange animal to choose red above the vastly superior and more logical green?

I think he is trying to make a point by making the color red because red attracts the eyes, and he only says it is a friendly warning to make the post appear "kinder" and not as aggressive. But in fact, he is being aggressive.

 

 

Or he's being kind, but firm. Which is completely possible.

[Alg]

A friendly warning to keep things on topic.

 

-Necromagus, Tip.It Mod

Here's a philosophical question:

 

Why does he choose to post in red, yet claims it is "friendly" and is only a mod?

Red is an aggressive color.

Mods are green - if anything, the text should be green.

 

What has motivated this strange animal to choose red above the vastly superior and more logical green?

Why not blue? Blue is apparently the most calming color.

Red doesn't necessarily attract the eyes. On the Deflection skin the red text is quite hard to see.

[Dupin]

Blue would be contradictory to his status as a Global Moderator. Maybe if he was a Clan Moderator it would work, but then we would just make fun of him for giving out warnings. They don't have any real power, do they?

 

I do believe he is in self-denial about his own aggression. Quite an interesting case from the metaphysical standpoint.

 

 

That's what you think - Love Y_Guy ;)

[Zygimantas]

Blue would be contradictory to his status as a Global Moderator. Maybe if he was a Clan Moderator it would work, but then we would just make fun of him for giving out warnings. They don't have any real power, do they?

 

I do believe he is in self-denial about his own aggression. Quite an interesting case from the metaphysical standpoint.

Maybe he just didn't think we would notice? But you know, this IS the philosophy thread. We can question everything. :D

[Dupin]

Blue would be contradictory to his status as a Global Moderator. Maybe if he was a Clan Moderator it would work, but then we would just make fun of him for giving out warnings. They don't have any real power, do they?

 

I do believe he is in self-denial about his own aggression. Quite an interesting case from the metaphysical standpoint.

Maybe he just didn't think we would notice? But you know, this IS the philosophy thread. We can question everything. :D

That silly mod thought his subtleties would be overlooked in a thread that focuses so much more on largeness than on specifics. WELL WE SURE SHOWED HIM.

 

So anyways, here's a new train of thought: Transcendentalism.

 

Discuss.

[Flodder450]

Or you split the timeline, as many science fiction/fantasy series do. In an alternate universe you get the F-, in the other you get the A+.

Dear god, please not a split timeline

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cHIP9UtkQDQ

 

yeah, it messes with my mind too <_<

[Zygimantas]

Blue would be contradictory to his status as a Global Moderator. Maybe if he was a Clan Moderator it would work, but then we would just make fun of him for giving out warnings. They don't have any real power, do they?

 

I do believe he is in self-denial about his own aggression. Quite an interesting case from the metaphysical standpoint.

Maybe he just didn't think we would notice? But you know, this IS the philosophy thread. We can question everything. :D

That silly mod thought his subtleties would be overlooked in a thread that focuses so much more on largeness than on specifics. WELL WE SURE SHOWED HIM.

 

So anyways, here's a new train of thought: Transcendentalism.

 

Discuss.

What about Transcendentalism?

[Alg]

Dear god, please not a split timeline

 

yeah, it messes with my mind too <_<

I brought it up because of OoT. :twisted:

[D Jay99]

Last saturday I watched the latest star wars movie, also has 2 time lines. Apparently our dvd player was messed up, since the scene order got completely messed up (credits and intro somewhere in the middle), but I just assumed it was supposed to be that way since it was a sci-fi weird timeline anyway, artistic interpretation of the director. Looking bad it wasn't even half bad, this made things a bit more involving since after reading the plot on the internet the normal movie without the messed up scenes seems pretty boring :P

Anyway, a bit off topic this

[20Rice04]

Dear god, please not a split timeline

 

yeah, it messes with my mind too <_<

I brought it up because of OoT. :twisted:

They essentially raped Zelda. I always get the most empty feeling inside whenever I finish a good Zelda game :(

 

As for the questions

 

Half full - because I said so

tree falling in forest- it does make a sound, conservation of energy, It's the first Law of Thermodynamics.

If you try to fail and succeed - you have succeeded at your set task to ultimately fail, i.e. you have suceeded one thing but failed a different thing simultaenously.

There are no faults because it's entirely theoretical. The purest form of government is one which is governed by those who scorn and distrust power.

This is real life - anyone who defines it as fantasy just can't handle it.

[Brad25891]

I remember reading a piece in a magazine a while ago. I can't remember exactly what it said but I'll try to explain it roughly.

 

When ever someone is born, they are born in an infinite amount of universes, every one is the same, but different at the same time. Every major action you do will happen in all universes but the consequences will be different. Remember falling out that tree when you were a kid? In half of the universes, you died. You fell on your head. But you're still alive, at least in this universe.

 

Every time you "lose a life" in the universe you are experiencing at one point in time, you die in exactly half of the infinite universes in which you exist.

 

The only thing that will cause your existence to cease completely is something that cannot be prevented in any universe, aka terminal illness, old age, universe ending.

 

I read this a few years ago, and I still think about it quite a lot, it's really mind blowing.

 

(it was an article in the magazine run by the BBC called Focus, which is a sciency type mag)

 

TL:DR You can't die unless you cease to exist in all universes.

 

This is of course if there are multi-verses.

[20Rice04]

I remember reading a piece in a magazine a while ago. I can't remember exactly what it said but I'll try to explain it roughly.

 

When ever someone is born, they are born in an infinite amount of universes, every one is the same, but different at the same time. Every major action you do will happen in all universes but the consequences will be different. Remember falling out that tree when you were a kid? In half of the universes, you died. You fell on your head. But you're still alive, at least in this universe.

 

Every time you "lose a life" in the universe you are experiencing at one point in time, you die in exactly half of the infinite universes in which you exist.

 

The only thing that will cause your existence to cease completely is something that cannot be prevented in any universe, aka terminal illness, old age, universe ending.

 

I read this a few years ago, and I still think about it quite a lot, it's really mind blowing.

 

(it was an article in the magazine run by the BBC called Focus, which is a sciency type mag)

 

TL:DR You can't die unless you cease to exist in all universes.

 

This is of course if there are multi-verses.

 

Surely then that you would need some kind of 'machine' to remove all particles that were in your body from the space time continium before you could be dubbed as "caesing to exist" This would also mean that all your actions and all memories of you would too vanish, therefore the only actual way to remove something from existance is to remove everything from existance.

[Brad25891]

 

Surely then that you would need some kind of 'machine' to remove all particles that were in your body from the space time continium before you could be dubbed as "caesing to exist" This would also mean that all your actions and all memories of you would too vanish, therefore the only actual way to remove something from existance is to remove everything from existance.

I meant cease to exist as in dieing completely. Having no consciousness to any universe.

 

Also, for the record, a mass cannot be destroyed, only changed from one form to another.

 

E=MC^2 :P

[20Rice04]

 

Surely then that you would need some kind of 'machine' to remove all particles that were in your body from the space time continium before you could be dubbed as "caesing to exist" This would also mean that all your actions and all memories of you would too vanish, therefore the only actual way to remove something from existance is to remove everything from existance.

I meant cease to exist as in dieing completely. Having no consciousness to any universe.

 

Also, for the record, a mass cannot be destroyed, only changed from one form to another.

 

E=MC^2 :P

 

I know that mass and energy cannot be destroyed. It was a mis-understanding of your post- I thought by caesing to exist you meant that the person and their influence on the universe was completely nulled (i.e. they were removed from time and all multiverses). What I don't get however is you saying in exactly half the universes you die as you fall out the tree. Shouldn't that also mean that you only deveelop the terminal illness in half of the universes, and you only die of old age in another half of them? So you'll keep on living forever because if the universes are infinite and half of infinity is still infinity.....

[Brad25891]

 

Surely then that you would need some kind of 'machine' to remove all particles that were in your body from the space time continium before you could be dubbed as "caesing to exist" This would also mean that all your actions and all memories of you would too vanish, therefore the only actual way to remove something from existance is to remove everything from existance.

I meant cease to exist as in dieing completely. Having no consciousness to any universe.

 

Also, for the record, a mass cannot be destroyed, only changed from one form to another.

 

E=MC^2 :P

 

I know that mass and energy cannot be destroyed. It was a mis-understanding of your post- I thought by caesing to exist you meant that the person and their influence on the universe was completely nulled (i.e. they were removed from time and all multiverses). What I don't get however is you saying in exactly half the universes you die as you fall out the tree. Shouldn't that also mean that you only deveelop the terminal illness in half of the universes, and you only die of old age in another half of them? So you'll keep on living forever because if the universes are infinite and half of infinity is still infinity.....

 

Hmm the way they put it in the magazine was more similar to my explanation. Dieing of old age is unstoppable, uncurable, so it would be final. You would cease to live in all the universes, as there is no cure.

[Dupin]

What is the proof for the multiverse theory? It seems more like speculation by people who like to guess about things and then elaborate them to ridiculous levels of incomprehensibility.

[aeternitatis]

What is the proof for the multiverse theory? It seems more like speculation by people who like to guess about things and then elaborate them to ridiculous levels of incomprehensibility.

 

I pity you. <-

 

...

 

Why do we exist?