|
Would you call this Art? (pg. 5)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| Joss Weatherby |
| quote: | Originally posted by Acton
LOL, no. The universe is a little more complex. |
What? Pretty sure thats not false. |
|
|
| Acton |
| quote: | Originally posted by Joss Weatherby
What? Pretty sure thats not false. |
What?
Edit - I know what you meant by that now. I originally thought you were just agreeing with my statement. Which was a little confusing.
Additional edit - You absolutely cannot predict every piece of information using a binary generator, even given an infinite amount of time.
There's a branch of physics out there called Quantum Mechanics (you may have heard of it) and one of its founding principles is the Uncertainty Principle, which is used in many ways, one of which states that you can't determine an electrons (as an example) position and velocity absolutely, you can only measure one accurately, whilst sacrificing the accuracy of the other.
Basically, you can't quantify everything. A binary system deals with absolutes. The universe simply does not work that way.
However, I'm more than happy to read any material you have contradicting my statements. |
|
|
| Joss Weatherby |
| quote: | Originally posted by Acton
What?
Edit - I know what you meant by that now. I originally thought you were just agreeing with my statement. Which was a little confusing.
Additional edit - You absolutely cannot predict every piece of information using a binary generator, even given an infinite amount of time.
There's a branch of physics out there called Quantum Mechanics (you may have heard of it) and one of its founding principles is the Uncertainty Principle, which is used in many ways, one of which states that you can't determine an electrons (as an example) position and velocity absolutely, you can only measure one accurately, whilst sacrificing the accuracy of the other.
Basically, you can't quantify everything. A binary system deals with absolutes. The universe simply does not work that way.
However, I'm more than happy to read any material you have contradicting my statements. |
I meant a machine with the ability to run for an infinite amount of time.
The uncertainty principal leads to much more interesting things occurring. |
|
|
| Acton |
| quote: | Originally posted by Joss Weatherby
I meant a machine with the ability to run for an infinite amount of time.
|
As opposed to a human binary generator?
When I said 'you absolutely cannot predict every piece of information using a binary generator, even given an infinite amount of time' I hoped you would have assumed that I was referring to a machine, as opposed to an actual human being..... especially considering most people are ing dumb and can't actually live forever.
I can't help but feel you've not grasped the concept here.
Just read up on some basic quantum mechanics and feel free to get back to me if you feel you have a valid point to make. |
|
|
| Joss Weatherby |
| quote: | Originally posted by Acton
As opposed to a human binary generator?
When I said 'you absolutely cannot predict every piece of information using a binary generator, even given an infinite amount of time' I hoped you would have assumed that I was referring to a machine, as opposed to an actual human being..... especially considering most people are ing dumb and can't actually live forever.
I can't help but feel you've not grasped the concept here.
Just read up on some basic quantum mechanics and feel free to get back to me if you feel you have a valid point to make. |
If you weren't so ing pedantic maybe you'd realize I wasn't talking about some hyper realistic example. First off there is no way a machine of any type could last for an infinite amount of time, so why you would just randomly attack me on something like the uncertainty principal is idiotic.
I fully grasp what you are talking about, you are just being a ing jackass who is randomly picking and choosing bits of physics to apply or not apply in an attempt to, for some reason, discredit what I posted.
So what are we talking about here? Hyper-realism examples or more theoretical, not-plausible under all laws, but demonstrating one of them examples? Pick one, because otherwise you are just a jackass. |
|
|
| Acton |
| quote: | Originally posted by Joss Weatherby
If you weren't so ing pedantic maybe you'd realize I wasn't talking about some hyper realistic example. |
As opposed to a non-realistic example?
| quote: | Originally posted by Joss Weatherby
First off there is no way a machine of any type could last for an infinite amount of time, so why you would just randomly attack me on something like the uncertainty principal is idiotic.
|
Firstly, assuming that a machine could operate as such was actually a valid and interesting argument..... which I kind of liked, but you immediately discredited yourself with the above statement. It was quite clear you actually believed what you were originally saying as well. If I look above, you said 'Pretty sure thats not false'... you were clearly reinstating your belief on the subject. Congratulations on changing your mind. I certainly admire strength of mind.
As for my Uncertainly Principle comment, it wasn't a random 'attack' it was a totally valid statement to contradict what you put forward. Idiotic, certainly not lol.
As for randomly attacking you? Give me a break, I was initially challenging you. If you remember, I originally wrote 'However, I'm more than happy to read any material you have contradicting my statements', giving you ample opportunity to post anything relevant on the subject.
Although in all honesty, I didn't expect much.
| quote: | Originally posted by Joss Weatherby
So what are we talking about here? Hyper-realism examples or more theoretical, not-plausible under all laws, but demonstrating one of them examples? Pick one, because otherwise you are just a jackass. |
We never deviated from your original statement 'Technically given an infinite amount of time a random binary generator could generate all the information that exists in the world, now or in the future, in every possible form'.
You gave a statement that would make no difference if it were real or remained theoretical, the contradiction would of remained the same.... and drop the hyper-realism crap by the way, it's not realism in a batman costume, it's just realism..... or realistic, should you prefer.
Ultimately, I immediately gave you an example which disproved what you said, I gave you an opportunity to read up on it and come back to me with any questions.
You failed to do so.
All you had to do, was read a single ing page on Wikipedia to gain an elementary understanding of the uncertainty principle/quantum mechanics and post something relatively constructive.
I've never deliberately attacked you in any previous posts in the thread, nor have I ever done in the forums in the past, I had no reason to, but now I do.
You really are a ing tool.
Sorry, I meant jackass, as that seems to the the word of the day. |
|
|
| Joss Weatherby |
| quote: | Originally posted by Acton
As opposed to a non-realistic example?
Firstly, assuming that a machine could operate as such was actually a valid and interesting argument..... which I kind of liked, but you immediately discredited yourself with the above statement. It was quite clear you actually believed what you were originally saying as well. If I look above, you said 'Pretty sure thats not false'... you were clearly reinstating your belief on the subject. Congratulations on changing your mind. I certainly admire strength of mind.
As for my Uncertainly Principle comment, it wasn't a random 'attack' it was a totally valid statement to contradict what you put forward. Idiotic, certainly not lol.
As for randomly attacking you? Give me a break, I was initially challenging you. If you remember, I originally wrote 'However, I'm more than happy to read any material you have contradicting my statements', giving you ample opportunity to post anything relevant on the subject.
Although in all honesty, I didn't expect much.
We never deviated from your original statement 'Technically given an infinite amount of time a random binary generator could generate all the information that exists in the world, now or in the future, in every possible form'.
You gave a statement that would make no difference if it were real or remained theoretical, the contradiction would of remained the same.... and drop the hyper-realism crap by the way, it's not realism in a batman costume, it's just realism..... or realistic, should you prefer.
Ultimately, I immediately gave you an example which disproved what you said, I gave you an opportunity to read up on it and come back to me with any questions.
You failed to do so.
All you had to do, was read a single ing page on Wikipedia to gain an elementary understanding of the uncertainty principle/quantum mechanics and post something relatively constructive.
I've never deliberately attacked you in any previous posts in the thread, nor have I ever done in the forums in the past, I had no reason to, but now I do.
You really are a ing tool.
Sorry, I meant jackass, as that seems to the the word of the day. |
All of this is bull because you said you misinterpreted my original example.
You are just being an pedantic .
I presented an extremely simple example of randomness and how it can present patterns and you go off on some wild tangent and start talking about thats not even relevant to the example just to sound like some sort of physics bad ass or something. |
|
|
| Joss Weatherby |
Do you want me to clarify my example even better?
Here:
But yea, randomness creates patterns, especially pseudo-random number generators (because its not true randomness). Technically given an infinite amount of time a truly random binary generator that can only output states in either an on or an off position (1 or a 0) and ignores anything that is not in that position and stored in a medium that is infallible and is interpreted by means that only account for a binary state of on or off could generate all the information that exists in the world, now or in the future, in every possible form... So yea there can be patterns in random stuff.
Is that specific enough for you? |
|
|
| Acton |
| quote: | Originally posted by Joss Weatherby
All of this is bull because you said you misinterpreted my original example.
|
No I didn't, :stongue:
| quote: | Originally posted by Joss Weatherby
I presented an extremely simple example of randomness and how it can present patterns |
No, you said...
| quote: | Originally posted by Joss Weatherby
Technically given an infinite amount of time a random binary generator could generate all the information that exists in the world, now or in the future, in every possible form.. |
and I contradicted it with..
| quote: | Originally posted by Acton
Additional edit - You absolutely cannot predict every piece of information using a binary generator, even given an infinite amount of time.
There's a branch of physics out there called Quantum Mechanics (you may have heard of it) and one of its founding principles is the Uncertainty Principle, which is used in many ways, one of which states that you can't determine an electrons (as an example) position and velocity absolutely, you can only measure one accurately, whilst sacrificing the accuracy of the other.
Basically, you can't quantify everything. A binary system deals with absolutes. The universe simply does not work that way./QUOTE]
It's as simple as that!
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Joss Weatherby
you go off on some wild tangent and start talking about thats not even relevant to the example just to sound like some sort of physics bad ass or something. |
How was my above statement a 'wild tangent'? It's directly related! You still haven't read the wikipedia page, have you?! lol
| quote: | Originally posted by Joss Weatherby
You are just being an pedantic .
|
Perhaps, but I would rather be a pedantic than an ignorant one.
Peace out, I'm off to bed. |
|
|
| Joss Weatherby |
| quote: | Originally posted by Acton
No I didn't, :stongue:
No, you said...
and I contradicted it with..
How was my above statement a 'wild tangent'? It's directly related! You still haven't read the wikipedia page, have you?! lol
Perhaps, but I would rather be a pedantic than an ignorant one.
Peace out, I'm off to bed. |
You are being pedantic because you presented arguments to a situations that is impossible in the first place when it was clearly being used as an extremely simple example of infinite time and randomness.
Your argument was that states would not always be binary because of the uncertainty principal. If you had an issue with my argument on that why would you go there first instead of, you know, that a machine that ran for an infinite amount of time would require an infinite, perpetual source of energy, which would violate multiple laws of thermodynamics..? Obviously I was talking about a situation that could not exist in reality but was meant to be an example of the topics at hand.
So yea, you're an who wanted to just throw up some fun random physics fact that had little to do with what I was talking about. |
|
|
| Halcyon+On+On |
| quote: | Originally posted by Joss Weatherby
You are just being an pedantic . |
POT, KETTLE, |
|
|
| Halcyon+On+On |
Also, you meant 'a pedantic ', not 'an pedantic '.
#pedantry |
|
|
|
|
