|
Pro Tips On How To Make Your Logic/Cubase Tracks Sound Better And More Proffessional! (pg. 20)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| EddieZilker |
| quote: | Originally posted by cronodevir
Yeah, why argue with someone when you are wrong and they are right? I like your mentality and implication EddieZilker |
That's because you are misconstruing what it implies about you. |
|
|
| cronodevir |
Pi is 3.14159
Pi is the ratio of a circles circumference to its diameter.
Numbers are imaginary. They are simply a value humans use to represent the count of things. Because there is a limited number of objects in objective reality, there is a limited number of numbers.
Or to put it in leymans terms, the highest real number is only equal to the number of particles in the universe, which by logic, is a limited number.
I can say the number ...
3948378956789365892364389236892368902366897239867892367893679826892368902366897239867892367893679826
8923689023668972398678923678936798268923689023668972398678923678936798268923689023668972398678923678
9367982689236890236689723986789236789367982689236890236689723986789236789367982689236890236689723986
7892367893679826892368902366897239867892367893679826892368902366897239867892367893679823689036892389
62389067523896789689723489345789637856378956378954..
...but it means absolutely nothing in reality. There isn't an infinite number of things that exist. So the highest quantity that exists, is equal to the number of things brought into existence. |
|
|
| EddieZilker |
| quote: | Originally posted by cronodevir
I enjoy making sure this forum is completely useless. |
|
|
|
| cronodevir |
| quote: | Originally posted by EddieZilker
|
You sure are posting a lot lately. |
|
|
| mysticalninja |
| quote: | | Originally posted by cronodevir There isn't an infinite number of things that exist. |
How do you know that? Go look at that picture, that is the farthest we have ever seen. We have seen no limit. Doesn't big bang theory say that universe is Finite anway? How is is relevant.. |
|
|
| cronodevir |
Logic precedes observation.
Something that must logically be, doesn't need observation or science to prove that it is the way it is. Logic is not dependent on science, to prove itself. Science is dependent on logic, other wise it wouldn't function.
So if logic dictates X, then X must be, and science, superstition, what ever we come up with, cannot change X. What can be seen vs what cannot be seen by humans currently, isn't relevant.
If you consider logic to be without standard [you think it changes] then you have no basis for the scientific method. You have no basis for your reasoning, in fact, all functioning would collapse. And you cannot use a system that is illogical, or goes against logic, to try to prove that something else is logical. Just like you can't prove something absolutely when one of your tools to prove it is only a theory.
People cannot grasp basic logic, and everyone wonders why there is friction between some members on this forum? |
|
|
| Nightshift |
| quote: | Originally posted by cronodevir
Logic precedes observation.
Something that must logically be, doesn't need observation or science to prove that it is the way it is. Logic is not dependent on science, to prove itself. Science is dependent on logic, other wise it wouldn't function.
So if logic dictates X, then X must be, and science, superstition, what ever we come up with, cannot change X. What can be seen vs what cannot be seen by humans currently, isn't relevant.
If you consider logic to be without standard [you think it changes] then you have no basis for the scientific method. You have no basis for your reasoning, in fact, all functioning would collapse. And you cannot use a system that is illogical, or goes against logic, to try to prove that something else is logical. Just like you can't prove something absolutely when one of your tools to prove it is only a theory.
People cannot grasp basic logic, and everyone wonders why there is friction between some members on this forum? |
Copied & pasted. n00b. |
|
|
| mysticalninja |
There is no shining beacon set in stone logic.. Logic is the study of the principles of valid demonstration and inference . Logic is a branch of philosophy, a part of the classical trivium, as well as a branch of mathematics.
But regardless, logic still dictates there is no god.
http://www.godlessgeeks.com/LINKS/Dragon.htm |
|
|
| mysticalninja |
| quote: | Originally posted by Nightshift
Copied & pasted. n00b. |
haha yeah, any one of those sentences bring up a slew of intelligent design and creationism forums XD |
|
|
| Fledz |
| quote: | Originally posted by cronodevir
Infinite number of events before this one*
There cannot be an infinite number of events before say.. 1900. And an infinite number of events before say... 2000. Because both groups are of varying quantity. One clearly has more than the other. You you cannot claim that either of them has an infinite number of links in the chain.
Infinity, You cannot add it or subtract it or divide it or multiply it, You can't have something more infinite than something else, and you cannot have something less infinite than something else.
Its like saying "this object is more without limit than this object over there" or "this set is more without limit than that set"..Now, people do say that, but they are defying objective logic when they do.
This of course requires a proper understanding of reality vs imaginary. What you imagine is not implicitly reality. You can imagine for instance, a shape with only 50% of it being subtracted forever. And not reach an end, in reality however, you can't. You reach an indivisible particle.
Which leads to another fallacy, the idea that objects have an infinite number of particles in them. I have a pencil and a bed. One is clearly larger than the other, so they cannot have the same infinite number of particles in them.
Some people try to say the particles have no size, thus you can have an infinite amount of them. This is wrong, because particles that have no size, no XYZ dimensions, cannot be used to compose an object that does have XYZ dimensions.
There is your logical explanation. Logic precedes scientific observation. Why? Because science requires logic to function. |
And what about multiple dimensions? What about string theory? There is no beginning or end if dimensions are intertwined. There you go, destroys your "logic" in half a paragraph. |
|
|
| cronodevir |
| quote: | Originally posted by mysticalninja
There is no shining beacon set in stone logic.. Logic is the study of the principles of valid demonstration and inference . Logic is a branch of philosophy, a part of the classical trivium, as well as a branch of mathematics.
|
Logic is the foundation of understanding, its a set in stone system. Mathematics and some philosophies use logic. Logic isn't part of them. Logic is not a product of philosophy and math. Math and some [read: some, for instance, most Greek philosophy is reek with illogical fallacies] philosophies are products of logic and the use of it.
You are denying what every scientist would say. Because science is based on logic. And science depends on logic being standard. If logic were just a "flavor of thought" as you say, then the entire scientific world you use to make the very claim you just made, would be put up to question. In short, you are contradicting yourself.
You are saying "I use logic in a system that will prove logic isn't absolute, absolutely."
Saying that the one that made the universe, doesn't exist, is denying logic. The universe had a start, and it didn't start itself.
Also, if logic were not standard, computers wouldn't have to follow a specific set or rules to function. But we know that computers do have to follow a specific set of rules to function.
| quote: | Originally posted by Fledz
And what about multiple dimensions? What about string theory? There is no beginning or end if dimensions are intertwined. There you go, destroys your "logic" in half a paragraph. |
Those are both guesses by random people. Not only are they guesses, but the "evidence" they are based on is also a guess. So its basically theory based on more theories, which basically means "its bull".
You guys watch too much science channel.
Anyone who is an Atheist follows the same line of reasoning as a Catholic. They are one in the same. |
|
|
| cronodevir |
WHOOOOOOAAAAAAAAAAAAA
Why Am I even debating this with you guys?
You don't believe in logic...so for all you know I could be a talking rock with 14 ears and a jellybean nose. So you guys believe a flying eardrum could pull out a katana and slice a nano nothing into fourtyleven pieces. After all, your world doesn't follow any rules, or so you believe. You don't consider logic as a standard, so anything you say is meaningless, words themselves have no meaning for you then. Fledz and Mysticalninja believe a rock has 50ghz CPU power, because they don't believe in logic, its possible for them. Wow, interesting. In their world, .mp3 codec can process above 0db too. Its amazing you can even function, for people who do not believe in logic.
Mysitcal ninja and fledz believe logic is an arbitrary system that they can or cannot choose to use. They go through life with the mentality of "nothing HAS to be logical, because logic is an arbitrary system."
If logic is just some arbitrary system, why are you even speaking? Communication requires a set in stone form of logic to function. You formulate a thought and you use your mouth to communicate that thought. In your world, words don't need thoughts.
You guys are so pathetic I don't even want to talk anymore. Good day. |
|
|
|
|
