Notices
Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 100 of 196
Like Tree54Likes

Thread: Is there such thing as: Something too complex for the human mind to understand?

  1. #1 Is there such thing as: Something too complex for the human mind to understand? 
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Posts
    908
    We think we are able to understand any depth of information no matter how complex;
    However the endless depth of technically complex information we think we can understand,
    is limited to the depth of complex information that human mind is able to understand.

    We can not think we are unable to understand a depth of complex information,
    as thinking it would be understanding it.
    We can not understand that certain depth of complex information that we are unable to understand,
    since what the human mind is able to understand is only limited to the highest depth of understandable complex information.

    If we can do something that we are unable to,
    it would be a paradox.
    If the human mind can understand a depth of information that the human mind is unable to understand,
    it would be a paradox.
    Asking for someone to provide information that the human mind is unable to understand,
    it would be a paradox.

    Do you confess that there are information that the human mind is unable to understand?
    Or can someone can give some information that the human mind is unable to understand?

    I can.
    That would be understanding other people's minds.

    Screw the degeneration of the human intellect.


    Last edited by RamenNoodles; April 7th, 2013 at 09:31 PM.
    Quote Originally Posted by jocular View Post
    If thy right nipple offend thee, pluck it off! Goes for the other, too!
    Reply With Quote  
     

  2.  
     

  3. #2  
    Genius Duck Moderator Dywyddyr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Scunthorpe, UK
    Posts
    10,655
    Quote Originally Posted by ryanawe123 View Post
    Do you confess that there are information that the human mind is unable to understand?
    Assuming you mean humanity as a whole (i.e. not specific individuals) then the answer would be "not so far".
    With caveats - there are things we don't understand now, but that doesn't indicate that we'll never understand them.
    We learn more with each passing day.

    I can.
    That would be understanding other people's minds.
    Untrue.
    You have to bear in mind that the "soft sciences" are relatively new (<100 years or so) and that, generally the "soft sciences" are, so far, harder (more difficult) than the hard sciences.
    Yet psychology (to give one example) is advancing at a fairly rapid pace.

    To claim that there are things we'll never understand is, to my mind, possibly more of a stretch than claiming that we will, one day, understand everything. Unless we die off first.


    "[Dywyddyr] makes a grumpy bastard like me seem like a happy go lucky scamp" - PhDemon
    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #3  
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Posts
    908
    Quote Originally Posted by Dywyddyr View Post
    there are things we don't understand now, but that doesn't indicate that we'll never understand them.
    We learn more with each passing day.
    information we don't understand currently (due to undiscovery) information the human mind can not understand
    information we can understand in each passing day = information the human mind is able to understand



    Quote Originally Posted by Dywyddyr View Post
    Assuming you mean humanity as a whole
    and yes, i am assuming humanity as a whole, not specific individuals
    Quote Originally Posted by jocular View Post
    If thy right nipple offend thee, pluck it off! Goes for the other, too!
    Reply With Quote  
     

  5. #4  
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Posts
    908
    Quote Originally Posted by Dywyddyr View Post
    To claim that there are things we'll never understand is, to my mind, possibly more of a stretch than claiming that we will, one day, understand everything.
    All the information that we can claim that we are able to understand (everything), is all that we are able to understand.
    Obviously someone can not claim that there is something we are unable to understand, leaving room that there are things humanity can not understand, and we are unable to claim it.
    Quote Originally Posted by jocular View Post
    If thy right nipple offend thee, pluck it off! Goes for the other, too!
    Reply With Quote  
     

  6. #5  
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Posts
    908
    "We think we are able to know everything, because we cant think of anything we are unable to know."-True?
    Quote Originally Posted by jocular View Post
    If thy right nipple offend thee, pluck it off! Goes for the other, too!
    Reply With Quote  
     

  7. #6  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Apocalyptic Paradise
    Posts
    6,613
    Believers use this argument in order to remove "God" from scrutiny. The premise is simple: Make "God" beyond understanding so that you can use that to claim that is the reason for a lack of any evidence for the God.
    It is self fulfilling and rather absurd because in so doing, the believer removes God to the point where believing in the God or not seems to make no difference.
    The only remaining question is; Are you willing to still believe in something if you must strain credulity beyond all rational reason?
    tk421 likes this.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  8. #7  
    Genius Duck Moderator Dywyddyr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Scunthorpe, UK
    Posts
    10,655
    Quote Originally Posted by ryanawe123 View Post
    information we don't understand currently (due to undiscovery) information the human mind can not understand
    information we can understand in each passing day = information the human mind is able to understand
    Ergo, there is nothing we are unable to understand.

    "We think we are able to know everything, because we cant think of anything we are unable to know."-True?
    True.
    But trivial.
    Until someone comes along with something we cannot (or never will) understand then the question is moot.
    "[Dywyddyr] makes a grumpy bastard like me seem like a happy go lucky scamp" - PhDemon
    Reply With Quote  
     

  9. #8  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    16,489
    We have some powerful intellectual tools to allow us to understand complex things.

    One is abstraction. This means, for example, when designing a microprocessor, you don't need to think about individual electrons. Or even individual transistors. Or even individual logic gates. You can concentrate (most of the time) on the high level functions to be implemented.

    Another is specialization. This means that one guy can worry about the microprocessor architecture, while another thinks about transistors and how the thickness of the gate oxide affects the number of electrons that will tunnel through.

    Another is the use of mathematics. This allows us to formalize and prove things that we would otherwise struggle with.

    I would argue that all of these are underpinned by our language ability.
    Without wishing to overstate my case, everything in the observable universe definitely has its origins in Northamptonshire -- Alan Moore
    Reply With Quote  
     

  10. #9  
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Posts
    908
    Quote Originally Posted by Dywyddyr View Post
    Ergo, there is nothing we are unable to understand.
    no, you think there is nothing we are unable to understand (because you can not say we do not understand something that we do not understand),
    because you cant think of the things (exist or not?) that we are unable to know.
    Quote Originally Posted by jocular View Post
    If thy right nipple offend thee, pluck it off! Goes for the other, too!
    Reply With Quote  
     

  11. #10  
    Genius Duck Moderator Dywyddyr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Scunthorpe, UK
    Posts
    10,655
    Quote Originally Posted by ryanawe123 View Post
    no, you think there is nothing we are unable to understand, because you cant think of the things (exist or not?) that we are unable to know.
    You did notice the smiley, didn't you?

    The "argument" you presented, and that I quoted, did nothing to advance your proposition - it made the "claim" I wrote out in full.
    "[Dywyddyr] makes a grumpy bastard like me seem like a happy go lucky scamp" - PhDemon
    Reply With Quote  
     

  12. #11  
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Posts
    908
    Quote Originally Posted by Dywyddyr View Post
    Until someone comes along with something we cannot (or never will) understand then the question is moot.
    Its a paradox in itself.
    Until someone comes along with something we cannot understand.
    We cant understand.. but that means that person understands it?
    And he's a human too, right?
    Quote Originally Posted by jocular View Post
    If thy right nipple offend thee, pluck it off! Goes for the other, too!
    Reply With Quote  
     

  13. #12  
    Genius Duck Moderator Dywyddyr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Scunthorpe, UK
    Posts
    10,655
    Quote Originally Posted by ryanawe123 View Post
    We cant understand.. but that means that person understands it?
    And he's a human too, right?
    You're really not very good at thinking, are you?

    Does someone need to understand something in order to outline it? Or name it? Or describe it?
    Before we understood celestial mechanics, for example, we could say "the planets all seem to move in a pattern, and are always in the same place at the same time of year".
    Did we UNDERSTAND at that time?
    Or did we just note that here was something we didn't understand?

    Science is an ongoing process of finding things we don't understand and turning them into things we do understand.
    Therefore, at some point in the process there will a time when someone says "here's something we don't understand", and tells other people, while, miraculously according to you, not understanding it himself.
    Last edited by Dywyddyr; April 8th, 2013 at 08:34 PM.
    cosmictraveler and MrMojo1 like this.
    "[Dywyddyr] makes a grumpy bastard like me seem like a happy go lucky scamp" - PhDemon
    Reply With Quote  
     

  14. #13  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Apocalyptic Paradise
    Posts
    6,613
    What is the Monkeysphere? | Cracked.com

    So... just how big is a billion?
    Can you imagine such a large number? If I gave you 1 billion dollars in pennies, how many pennies would you have? If you stacked those pennies up into columns 10,000 pennies high, how many columns would you make and how much cubic space would need to store them in?

    Yes, there is such a thing as complexity beyond your brains ability to fully understand. However, this does not mean you cannot grasp the general idea. You cannot quickly answer the above questions- but you can calculate it out and you do understand right off the bat that billion is a lot.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  15. #14  
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Posts
    908
    @Dywyddyr , im talking about the inability of the human mind to grasp any piece of information due to complexity (whether discovered, or undiscovered[unknown]).
    not if we have discovered something/or not.

    @
    Neverfly, im talking about the-technically impossibility of the human mind to compute any volume of information. im talking about inability of the human mind to understand any type of information (disregarding the vol. of info.)
    Quote Originally Posted by jocular View Post
    If thy right nipple offend thee, pluck it off! Goes for the other, too!
    Reply With Quote  
     

  16. #15  
    Genius Duck Moderator Dywyddyr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Scunthorpe, UK
    Posts
    10,655
    Quote Originally Posted by ryanawe123 View Post
    @Dywyddyr , im talking about the inability of the human mind to grasp any piece of information due to complexity (whether discovered, or undiscovered[unknown]).
    not if we have discovered something/or not.

    I know.
    I've already answered that - UNTIL someone can come up with something then the question is moot.


    Read my replies.
    "[Dywyddyr] makes a grumpy bastard like me seem like a happy go lucky scamp" - PhDemon
    Reply With Quote  
     

  17. #16  
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Posts
    908
    i thought you also said
    Quote Originally Posted by Dywyddyr View Post
    Before we understood celestial mechanics, for example, we could say "the planets all seem to move in a pattern, and are always in the same place at the same time of year".
    Did we UNDERSTAND at that time?
    Or did we just note that here was something we didn't understand?
    and
    Quote Originally Posted by Dywyddyr View Post
    Science is an ongoing process if finding things we don't understand and turning them into things we do understand.
    Quote Originally Posted by jocular View Post
    If thy right nipple offend thee, pluck it off! Goes for the other, too!
    Reply With Quote  
     

  18. #17  
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Posts
    908
    able to understand a piece of information that we have access to.
    Quote Originally Posted by jocular View Post
    If thy right nipple offend thee, pluck it off! Goes for the other, too!
    Reply With Quote  
     

  19. #18  
    Genius Duck Moderator Dywyddyr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Scunthorpe, UK
    Posts
    10,655
    Post #7 - Until someone comes along with something we cannot (or never will) understand then the question is moot.
    Again.
    "[Dywyddyr] makes a grumpy bastard like me seem like a happy go lucky scamp" - PhDemon
    Reply With Quote  
     

  20. #19  
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Posts
    908
    Quote Originally Posted by Dywyddyr View Post
    Until someone comes along with something we cannot (or never will) understand then the question is moot.
    so, since:
    No human can come along with with a piece of information that any human is unable to understand,
    this is a paradox,
    then the title of this thread is an answerable question?

    but still, "things too complex for the human mind to understand" may possibly exist right?
    Quote Originally Posted by jocular View Post
    If thy right nipple offend thee, pluck it off! Goes for the other, too!
    Reply With Quote  
     

  21. #20  
    Genius Duck Moderator Dywyddyr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Scunthorpe, UK
    Posts
    10,655
    Quote Originally Posted by ryanawe123 View Post
    so, since:
    No human can come along with with a piece of information that any human is unable to understand
    WRONG AS SHOWN.
    Does someone need to understand something in order to outline it? Or name it? Or describe it?
    Before we understood celestial mechanics, for example, we could say "the planets all seem to move in a pattern, and are always in the same place at the same time of year".
    Did we UNDERSTAND at that time?
    Or did we just note that here was something we didn't understand?

    Science is an ongoing process of finding things we don't understand and turning them into things we do understand.
    Therefore, at some point in the process there will a time when someone says "here's something we don't understand", and tells other people, while, miraculously according to you, not understanding it himself.
    Post #12. WHICH YOU HAVE QUOTED.

    IF celestial mechanics had, in fact, turned out to be non-understandable it would still not have prevented someone using the term, or describing, the problem.
    Simply because we can name something does NOT guarantee that we WILL understand it 1.

    In other words: it is entirely possible for a non-understandable problem to be described, reported and talked about WITHOUT it being understood.

    1 Though, so far, that has not been the case.
    "[Dywyddyr] makes a grumpy bastard like me seem like a happy go lucky scamp" - PhDemon
    Reply With Quote  
     

  22. #21  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Apocalyptic Paradise
    Posts
    6,613
    Quote Originally Posted by ryanawe123 View Post
    Neverfly,im talking about the-technically impossibility of the human mind to compute any volume of information. im talking about inability of the human mind to understand any type of information (disregarding the vol. of info.)
    Then, as such, I would posit that the human brain is capable of understanding all things within the Universe.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  23. #22  
    Genius Duck Moderator Dywyddyr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Scunthorpe, UK
    Posts
    10,655
    Quote Originally Posted by Neverfly View Post
    Then, as such, I would posit that the human brain is capable of understanding all things within the Universe.

    Ooh! Got one!!

    Why does ryanawe123 keep asking the same questions after getting answers?
    Why does he quote (presumably after reading) those answers and then come back with the exact same question?
    "[Dywyddyr] makes a grumpy bastard like me seem like a happy go lucky scamp" - PhDemon
    Reply With Quote  
     

  24. #23  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Apocalyptic Paradise
    Posts
    6,613
    Quote Originally Posted by Dywyddyr View Post
    Why does ryanawe123 keep asking the same questions after getting answers?
    Why does he quote (presumably after reading) those answers and then come back with the exact same question?
    My personal opinion is that Ryanawe123 is young and being heavily influenced by people close to him that have strong beliefs. These people feed him misinformation, not necessarily intentionally- they believe it themselves- in the hope of retaining him as a part of the close group.
    This is family and friends as well as church setting.
    Ryanawe123 is confused by all of the conflicting information he's being given. So he asks the hard questions and he has the foresight to question some of what he's being told, even though he's believed parts of it. He's also skeptical of some parts.

    I believe that Ryanawe123 is starting down the road toward skeptical thinking. He';s just getting started and taking baby steps for now... but the more he learns, the more he is made aware of and the clearer his thinking gets, the more he will progress.
    He's not at the point of being able to have clarity of thought yet. But I hope he learns how to do so soon.

    In the meantime, I hope that the Heavily influential types do not get distressed at his participation here and try to retain his faith by preventing him from accessing sources for Critical Learning.
    Strange, tk421 and seagypsy like this.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  25. #24  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    16,489
    Quote Originally Posted by ryanawe123 View Post
    @Dywyddyr[COLOR=#333333][FONT=Tahoma] , im talking about the inability of the human mind to grasp any piece of information due to complexity (whether discovered, or undiscovered[unknown]).
    not if we have discovered something/or not.
    The human brain is finite. It is therefore limited in the amount of information it can store/process. Which is why we develop tools to allow us to understand and manage systems of any arbitrary complexity.

    @Neverfly, im talking about the-technically impossibility of the human mind to compute any volume of information. im talking about inability of the human mind to understand any type of information (disregarding the vol. of info.)
    The human mind is limited in its ability to compute in the same way that any finite computing system is. It is possible to define which functions are computable and which are not. Anything the human brain can compute a computer can (in principle). And vice versa.

    Any function that is not effectively computable is not computable by the human brain.

    Church–Turing thesis

    Similarly, Godel proved that no axiomatic set of theorems can prove all truths about arithmetic (*). The human brain is limited in exactly the same way. We don't have some magic insight into "truth".

    Gödel's incompleteness theorems - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

    (*) Grossly simplifying it ...
    Without wishing to overstate my case, everything in the observable universe definitely has its origins in Northamptonshire -- Alan Moore
    Reply With Quote  
     

  26. #25  
    Forum Isotope
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    Western US
    Posts
    2,637
    Quote Originally Posted by ryanawe123 View Post
    but still, "things too complex for the human mind to understand" may possibly exist right?
    The key words are "may" and "understand." People differ surprisingly as to what constitutes understanding. Scientists certainly have a different view of the term than do non-scientists, for example.

    All that aside, it is important to acknowledge that we're not pitting a single human mind against the infinities of the unknown. We're talking about the collective effort of a great many minds, over potentially infinite spans of time (yes, I'm making many assumptions here about the longevity of our species), augmented by increasingly powerful tools created by those many minds.

    I'm not sure where you're going with this thought, though. Perhaps your question was informed by the specious argument that goes something like this: The unknowable is infinite; god is infinite; the existence of the unknowable therefore implies the existence of god. Or something like that. I can never fully reproduce the logic, because it's so broken. But it's sort of an inversion of the "god of the gaps" argument/fallacy.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  27. #26  
    Genius Duck Moderator Dywyddyr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Scunthorpe, UK
    Posts
    10,655
    Quote Originally Posted by tk421 View Post
    I'm not sure where you're going with this thought, though. Perhaps your question was informed by the specious argument that goes something like this: The unknowable is infinite; god is infinite; the existence of the unknowable therefore implies the existence of god. Or something like that. I can never fully reproduce the logic, because it's so broken. But it's sort of an inversion of the "god of the gaps" argument/fallacy.
    Oh I hope not.
    I was expecting something a little more subtle.
    Along the lines of "God is not understandable by humans, therefore he can't be refuted by humans".
    "[Dywyddyr] makes a grumpy bastard like me seem like a happy go lucky scamp" - PhDemon
    Reply With Quote  
     

  28. #27  
    Forum Masters Degree
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Posts
    715
    Quote Originally Posted by ryanawe123 View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Dywyddyr View Post
    Until someone comes along with something we cannot (or never will) understand then the question is moot.
    so, since:
    No human can come along with with a piece of information that any human is unable to understand,
    this is a paradox,
    then the title of this thread is an answerable question?

    but still, "things too complex for the human mind to understand" may possibly exist right?
    What is information,what is understanding and what is a paradox?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  29. #28  
    Forum Isotope
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    Western US
    Posts
    2,637
    Quote Originally Posted by Dywyddyr View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by tk421 View Post
    I'm not sure where you're going with this thought, though. Perhaps your question was informed by the specious argument that goes something like this: The unknowable is infinite; god is infinite; the existence of the unknowable therefore implies the existence of god. Or something like that. I can never fully reproduce the logic, because it's so broken. But it's sort of an inversion of the "god of the gaps" argument/fallacy.
    Oh I hope not.
    I was expecting something a little more subtle.
    Along the lines of "God is not understandable by humans, therefore he can't be refuted by humans".
    I hope that you're right, that his intent is to offer something a bit more interesting. It's just that I've had too many debates with evangelicals whose entire argument is essentially "Humans don't know everything...therefore, god." The amazing thing is that they say it with not a hint of awareness that it doesn't make any sense.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  30. #29  
    Forum Masters Degree
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Posts
    715
    Quote Originally Posted by PhDemon View Post
    Buy a dictionary.
    Will HIS personal view be found there?
    And HOW would YOU know, Oh Clever One!
    Reply With Quote  
     

  31. #30  
    Malignant Pimple shlunka's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Dogbox in front of Dywyddyr's house.
    Posts
    1,784
    There is such a thing, but only men don't understand it. These things are usually referred to as women.
    "MODERATOR NOTE : We don't entertain trolls here, not even in the trash can. Banned." -Markus Hanke
    Reply With Quote  
     

  32. #31  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    16,489
    Quote Originally Posted by sigurdV View Post
    What is information,what is understanding and what is a paradox?
    Oh great. Just when I thought one of ryan's threads couldn't get any worse.
    Neverfly likes this.
    Without wishing to overstate my case, everything in the observable universe definitely has its origins in Northamptonshire -- Alan Moore
    Reply With Quote  
     

  33. #32  
    Forum Masters Degree
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Posts
    715
    Quote Originally Posted by PhDemon View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by sigurdV View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by PhDemon View Post
    Buy a dictionary.
    Will HIS personal view be found there?
    And HOW would YOU know, Oh Clever One!
    The personal view of WHOM?
    I know you will find out what those words mean there...
    Not what those words mean to Ryanawe ... Words mean things in themselves yes...and you can find those in a dictionary. But words USED by somebody usually carries more than dictionary sense.
    Im not sure if you are aware of that...Come to think of it im not sure you are aware at all...Are you?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  34. #33  
    Forum Masters Degree
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Posts
    715
    Quote Originally Posted by PhDemon View Post
    Good comeback - only a week late but still.

    I'm quite aware, thank you, especially of how much drivel you are spouting. As we are "communicating" in English (although this is a bit of a stretch for you I admit) that seems to imply we have a common agreement of what words mean in that language. Only cranks like yourself change meanings to support delusions.
    Unproven accusations... Youre a nice guy really (or once were) why dont you try being yourself for a change? Nahh I dont believe you your reactions are too predictable...Youre a bot!
    All you know how is to insult. But youre not creative enough to be real. Youre programmer was not first class.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  35. #34  
    Forum Masters Degree
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Posts
    715
    Quote Originally Posted by PhDemon View Post
    Which accusation? Crank - self-evident I'd've thought. Your above post has about as much meaningful content as most of your others - I'm bored of them. The Ignore list beckons...
    Great! Put me on ignore please!
    Reply With Quote  
     

  36. #35  
    Malignant Pimple shlunka's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Dogbox in front of Dywyddyr's house.
    Posts
    1,784
    Does that damned refrigerator light go off when I close the door? Really this is an ambiguous question, considering certain individuals seem to struggle with basic grammar, while others thrive on discovering everything about a Universe that doesn't give a rat's posterior about its observers.
    "MODERATOR NOTE : We don't entertain trolls here, not even in the trash can. Banned." -Markus Hanke
    Reply With Quote  
     

  37. #36  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope sculptor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    4,211
    jeeeeezzzzzzzzzz you guys really didn't get it that sigurd was using those 3 simple questions in the manner of socrates?
    ................................
    on to the op:

    I'm quite confident that the volume of what I, we, homo-sapiens-sapiens do not understand is far greater than what we do understand.

    That's why we have science and books and these communication devices and teachers and collaberators and peers to review our ideas.

    There may indeed be an upper limit of understanding which our limited electrochemical brains can comprehend, but we won't know what/where that is untill we get there.

    Our understanding is increasing exponentially.
    If we could know the depths of the unknown, and quantify that, then we could guess when sapiens sapiens will understand all that there is to understand.

    but
    personally
    I'll die ignorant
    Reply With Quote  
     

  38. #37  
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Posts
    908
    Quote Originally Posted by sculptor View Post
    Our understanding is increasing exponentially.
    If we could know the depths of the unknown, and quantify that, then we could guess when sapiens sapiens will understand all that there is to understand.
    The ability to understand a piece of given information...
    Quote Originally Posted by jocular View Post
    If thy right nipple offend thee, pluck it off! Goes for the other, too!
    Reply With Quote  
     

  39. #38  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope sculptor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    4,211
    Quote Originally Posted by ryanawe123 View Post
    The ability to understand a piece of given information...
    if the information is given, the understanding is implicit/implicent
    ...........................

    long ago, I studied with bucky fuller, and one of his thoughts/teachings (I call then buckyisms)
    was
    "if you cant find the answer don't blame the ...
    just change the question, when you find the right question, the answer becomes obvious"
    Reply With Quote  
     

  40. #39  
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Posts
    908
    Say i post another question. "Is there such a thing as something too complex for a monkey's mind to understand?"

    then the next question.
    "Is there such a thing as something too complex for a human's mind to understand?"
    Quote Originally Posted by jocular View Post
    If thy right nipple offend thee, pluck it off! Goes for the other, too!
    Reply With Quote  
     

  41. #40  
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Posts
    908
    If we agree that there are information (too high complexity, not volume) for a monkey to comprehend, why do we not think there are information (too high complexity, not volume) for a human to understand?

    because we cant think of anything we are unable to understand?
    Quote Originally Posted by jocular View Post
    If thy right nipple offend thee, pluck it off! Goes for the other, too!
    Reply With Quote  
     

  42. #41  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    16,489
    Quote Originally Posted by ryanawe123 View Post
    If we agree that there are information (too high complexity, not volume) for a monkey to comprehend, why do we not think there are information (too high complexity, not volume) for a human to understand?
    Perhaps because monkeys cannot pool their (mental) resources to solve bigger problems? And because they can't use tools like language and mathematics to abstract complex ideas?
    Without wishing to overstate my case, everything in the observable universe definitely has its origins in Northamptonshire -- Alan Moore
    Reply With Quote  
     

  43. #42  
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Posts
    908
    and what makes humans's pool of mental resources to solve bigger problems infinitely larger than a monkey's?

    note i used infinite,as the asumption is that: "the human mind can understand anything of any complexity with no limit."
    Quote Originally Posted by jocular View Post
    If thy right nipple offend thee, pluck it off! Goes for the other, too!
    Reply With Quote  
     

  44. #43  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    16,489
    Quote Originally Posted by ryanawe123 View Post
    and what makes humans's pool of mental resources to solve bigger problems infinitely larger than a monkey's?
    It isn't infinitely larger. But we can communicate and therefore share problems. And, more importantly, we can use tools like language and mathematics to abstract complex ideas so that they are manageable.
    Without wishing to overstate my case, everything in the observable universe definitely has its origins in Northamptonshire -- Alan Moore
    Reply With Quote  
     

  45. #44  
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Posts
    908
    So are there things that the human mind is unable to comprehend?
    could you list some
    Quote Originally Posted by jocular View Post
    If thy right nipple offend thee, pluck it off! Goes for the other, too!
    Reply With Quote  
     

  46. #45  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    16,489
    The human brain is not able to comprehend the entire universe at the level of every electron and proton. Heck we probably can't even understand a single transistor at that level. That doesn't stop us combining millions of transistors to build processors which can be used to simulate the evolution of the universe.

    ABSTRACTION.
    Without wishing to overstate my case, everything in the observable universe definitely has its origins in Northamptonshire -- Alan Moore
    Reply With Quote  
     

  47. #46  
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Posts
    908
    uhh

    let me rephrase my question

    So is there anything too complex for humans to manipulate?
    could you list some
    Quote Originally Posted by jocular View Post
    If thy right nipple offend thee, pluck it off! Goes for the other, too!
    Reply With Quote  
     

  48. #47  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    16,489
    My answer would be the same. (Although it might depend what you mean by "manipulate").

    A designer has to manipulate transistors and the connections between them to design an electronic circuit. Another designer can take those circuits and manipulate them to design and n=build a computer processor. They don't have to worry about the electrons in the transistors. Someone else can take those millions of transistors and manipulate them by writing code. They don't need to know about the transistors. Nowadays, they don't even have to know about how the data is represented and what the instructions are.

    Writing a program for 2 processors is somewhat more complex than writing a program for 1. But, in principle, I can write a program for one billion processors as easily as I can write a program for 2 or 20.

    It all comes down to the appropriate abstractions. And team work: I can design the processor but not the transistor. I write the code but not the compiler. And so on...
    Without wishing to overstate my case, everything in the observable universe definitely has its origins in Northamptonshire -- Alan Moore
    Reply With Quote  
     

  49. #48  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Location
    Planet X
    Posts
    34
    I agree. There are just some things that we will never know because there is no answer; just interpretation. An example of this would be the concept of infinity; the value/concept s so huge that what we think we "know" are just hypotheses that can never be proven.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  50. #49  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope sculptor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    4,211
    The primary thing I will never know is the future.'
    I do know that our knowledge base is increasing exponentially.
    And just what that will lead to as/re understanding ever more complex structures is beyond our current knowledge base and thereby understanding.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  51. #50  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Posts
    425
    Quote Originally Posted by ryanawe123 View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Dywyddyr View Post
    Ergo, there is nothing we are unable to understand.
    no, you think there is nothing we are unable to understand (because you can not say we do not understand something that we do not understand),
    because you cant think of the things (exist or not?) that we are unable to know.
    I think we are not able to understand ourselves. I think we are not able to understand male/female relationships. I think we are not able to understand why we cannot understand. I think we are not able to understand space or time. I also think complexity is simplicity.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  52. #51  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Posts
    425
    Quote Originally Posted by sculptor View Post
    The primary thing I will never know is the future.'
    I do know that our knowledge base is increasing exponentially.
    And just what that will lead to as/re understanding ever more complex structures is beyond our current knowledge base and thereby understanding.
    I think we will never know the future because the DNA is constantly taking another twist.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  53. #52  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Posts
    425
    Quote Originally Posted by ryanawe123 View Post
    uhh

    let me rephrase my question

    So is there anything too complex for humans to manipulate?
    could you list some
    The present here and now, time and space. The past just to name a few.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  54. #53  
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Posts
    908
    So we look down on the life of a monkey and think that he has a small intellectual superiority....

    and a higher being of higher intellect (for e.g. aliens) look down on us that we have small intellectual capability....
    they think of us of how we think of monkey's intellectual capability.
    they know of complex things (not of volume) that we cannot comprehend.

    so why should we assume we can know all complexity things?
    Quote Originally Posted by jocular View Post
    If thy right nipple offend thee, pluck it off! Goes for the other, too!
    Reply With Quote  
     

  55. #54  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    16,489
    Quote Originally Posted by Therapy View Post
    I think we will never know the future because the DNA is constantly taking another twist.
    As a metaphor, that is rather clever. I like it.

    As a description of reality, it is nonsense of course.
    Neverfly likes this.
    Without wishing to overstate my case, everything in the observable universe definitely has its origins in Northamptonshire -- Alan Moore
    Reply With Quote  
     

  56. #55  
    New Member
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Posts
    4
    I continuously receive information i don't understand yet, but thinking i am in possession of a subset of knowledge, i think there are things i cannot ever know, and therefore cannot understand.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  57. #56  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    5,305
    Understanding, in the reductionist direction, I don't expect we'll ever hit a wall. But the converse understanding, one could call holism or appreciation, is demonstrably limited. Economics or environmental issues are examples. This makes sense theoretically, because a basic law of emergence is that the individual parts can't possibly comprehend ("appreciate") the whole. We must accept that we're cogs of things greater than - and somewhat foreign to - our selves. For analogy you coould say the human individual is like a muscle cell in a blacksmith, or a neuron in a mind.
    A pong by any other name is still a pong. -williampinn
    Reply With Quote  
     

  58. #57  
    Forum Freshman Eldritch's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Posts
    83
    Quote Originally Posted by ryanawe123 View Post
    We think we are able to understand any depth of information no matter how complex;
    However the endless depth of technically complex information we think we can understand,
    is limited to the depth of complex information that human mind is able to understand.

    We can not think we are unable to understand a depth of complex information,
    as thinking it would be understanding it.
    We can not understand that certain depth of complex information that we are unable to understand,
    since what the human mind is able to understand is only limited to the highest depth of understandable complex information.

    If we can do something that we are unable to,
    it would be a paradox.
    If the human mind can understand a depth of information that the human mind is unable to understand,
    it would be a paradox.
    Asking for someone to provide information that the human mind is unable to understand,
    it would be a paradox.

    Do you confess that there are information that the human mind is unable to understand?
    Or can someone can give some information that the human mind is unable to understand?

    I can.
    That would be understanding other people's minds.

    Screw the degeneration of the human intellect.
    I know this is a while after its posting, but I wish to deposit my two cents. The arguing aside, your queries do pose interesting implications, though not any of particular relevance or substance. I suppose what it comes down to is that, insofar as our brains are concerned, there are limits to what we can actually, really, understand. Sure, one can talk all about something one doesn't understand, they can name it, they can pick at it. They still do not understand every aspect of it, its inner workings, etc. This is not a paradox. This is every human in the history of forever.
    There is also the question of "what makes consciousness?"—a tired discussion to be sure. If humans could transfer their consciousnesses beyond their limited capacity brains, then it is conceivable that there would be new plateaus that we could grasp. But something that is noteworthy: there are plenty of things that an ant does not know, and finds out by discovery. Likewise, humans, for all intents and purposes, so much higher intellectually, also have plenty of things that we do not know and find out by discovery. If this is so, then ascending insofar as perception of reality is concerned may always present us with more questions that we are unable to understand at the time. The universe is not static, nor is it likely that it is the single thing in all reality.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  59. #58  
    Forum Masters Degree
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Posts
    715
    If it cant be understood then its not important to understand!
    Reply With Quote  
     

  60. #59  
    Forum Freshman Eldritch's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Posts
    83
    Quote Originally Posted by sigurdV View Post
    If it cant be understood then its not important to understand!
    How does one come to that conclusion?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  61. #60  
    Forum Masters Degree
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Posts
    715
    Quote Originally Posted by Eldritch View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by sigurdV View Post
    If it cant be understood then its not important to understand!
    How does one come to that conclusion?
    By the same method you come to ANY conclusion:
    But you will not agree to this conclusion.

    Post Scriptum: Ok...I give up ...
    Im supposed to be harder to understand than the Oracle at Delphi ever was,
    but I decided to help you out: What has concequences CAN be understood...
    Therefore what cant be understood is of no concequence.
    Last edited by sigurdV; May 20th, 2013 at 05:43 AM.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  62. #61  
    Forum Masters Degree
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Posts
    715
    Quote Originally Posted by Eldritch View Post
    But something that is noteworthy: there are plenty of things that an ant does not know, and finds out by discovery. Likewise, humans, for all intents and purposes, so much higher intellectually, also have plenty of things that we do not know and find out by discovery. If this is so, then ascending insofar as perception of reality is concerned may always present us with more questions that we are unable to understand at the time. The universe is not static, nor is it likely that it is the single thing in all reality.
    Yes. It is indeed so.
    To know EVERYTHING there is to know is a NEW experience
    never before experienced by you (?): So you should examine it carefully.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  63. #62  
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Posts
    908
    So there is no conclusion?

    #50 post.

    since humans are just a part of the evolution cycle, and we know that inferior-intellect beings cannot understand some things, even though information is provided. we are unable to understand some things too, even if information is provided, right? or do we have infinitely superior intellect?
    Quote Originally Posted by jocular View Post
    If thy right nipple offend thee, pluck it off! Goes for the other, too!
    Reply With Quote  
     

  64. #63 Super Brains 
    Forum Masters Degree
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Posts
    715
    Human beings have skulls preventing the brains they contain
    from having as many neurons as they wish.
    And theres also gravity...
    Together preventing brains of the size of Planets or more...
    Reply With Quote  
     

  65. #64  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    16,489
    Quote Originally Posted by sigurdV View Post
    What has concequences CAN be understood...
    This is an unsupported assertion.
    Without wishing to overstate my case, everything in the observable universe definitely has its origins in Northamptonshire -- Alan Moore
    Reply With Quote  
     

  66. #65  
    Forum Masters Degree
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Posts
    715
    Quote Originally Posted by Strange View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by sigurdV View Post
    What has concequences CAN be understood...
    This is an unsupported assertion.
    Try to prove its opposite then!

    1 First find something that has no concequenses...
    2 Then show it to somebody...
    3 If you CAN then a contradiction arises:

    A consequense of the thing that has no consequenses was that Strange showed it to somebody!
    Reply With Quote  
     

  67. #66  
    Forum Freshman Eldritch's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Posts
    83
    Quote Originally Posted by Strange View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by sigurdV View Post
    What has concequences CAN be understood...
    This is an unsupported assertion.
    Thank you. That summarizes the discussion fairly well. If, at the current time, there is something that cannot be understood, that is by no means indication of the fact that said factoid is not important to understand. I doubt that this ceases to be true for things that are, on the whole, completely impossible for any human or consciousness of human genesis to comprehend.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  68. #67  
    Forum Masters Degree
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Posts
    715
    Quote Originally Posted by Strange View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by sigurdV View Post
    What has concequences CAN be understood...
    This is an unsupported assertion.
    1 This is an unsupported assertion.
    2 This = "This is an unsupported assertion."
    3 "This is an unsupported assertion."is an unsupported assertion.

    Strange does not understand how unsupported his assertion is:
    It cannot even support itself! Hit The Road Strange...
    Reply With Quote  
     

  69. #68  
    Forum Masters Degree
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Posts
    715
    Quote Originally Posted by Eldritch View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Strange View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by sigurdV View Post
    What has concequences CAN be understood...
    This is an unsupported assertion.
    Thank you. That summarizes the discussion fairly well. If, at the current time, there is something that cannot be understood, that is by no means indication of the fact that said factoid is not important to understand. I doubt that this ceases to be true for things that are, on the whole, completely impossible for any human or consciousness of human genesis to comprehend.
    Its nice to see that you support Strange. It warms my heart to see human friendship.
    I think Strange will now become famous! He will prove something VERY STRANGE INDEED:

    That there is some x such, that in order for x to be understood, x need not have ANY consequence!
    Reply With Quote  
     

  70. #69  
    Forum Masters Degree
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Posts
    715
    Originally Posted by sigurdV
    What has concequences CAN be understood...

    Originally Posted by Strange
    This is an unsupported assertion.

    Either Strange means the following:

    Statement 1: "This is an unsupported assertion." is an unsupported assertion.

    Or he means the following:

    Statement 2: "What has concequences CAN be understood" is an unsupported assertion.

    Obviously he did not INTEND to prove himself wrong
    so the first interpretation is excluded.
    Therefore he MEANT:

    That there may be some x such, that in order for x to be understood, x need not have ANY consequences!
    Reply With Quote  
     

  71. #70  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    16,489
    Quote Originally Posted by sigurdV View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Strange View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by sigurdV View Post
    What has concequences CAN be understood...
    This is an unsupported assertion.
    Try to prove its opposite then!

    1 First find something that has no concequenses...
    2 Then show it to somebody...
    3 If you CAN then a contradiction arises:

    A consequense of the thing that has no consequenses was that Strange showed it to somebody!
    So, what you mean by "consequence" of something being understood is that someone understood. A very profound tautology indeed. Well done.

    Keep moving those goalposts and changing the meanings of words and eventually you might say something that makes sense.
    PhDemon likes this.
    Without wishing to overstate my case, everything in the observable universe definitely has its origins in Northamptonshire -- Alan Moore
    Reply With Quote  
     

  72. #71  
    Forum Freshman Eldritch's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Posts
    83
    Quote Originally Posted by sigurdV View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Eldritch View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Strange View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by sigurdV View Post
    What has concequences CAN be understood...
    This is an unsupported assertion.
    Thank you. That summarizes the discussion fairly well. If, at the current time, there is something that cannot be understood, that is by no means indication of the fact that said factoid is not important to understand. I doubt that this ceases to be true for things that are, on the whole, completely impossible for any human or consciousness of human genesis to comprehend.
    Its nice to see that you support Strange. It warms my heart to see human friendship.
    I think Strange will now become famous! He will prove something VERY STRANGE INDEED:

    That there is some x such, that in order for x to be understood, x need not have ANY consequence!
    That something does not necessarily have any consequence is not the same as it not having any at all.
    For someone who dislikes Dwyddyr's attitude, one would think you yourself would display a less aggressive posture.
    Strange and Neverfly like this.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  73. #72  
    Forum Masters Degree
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Posts
    715
    Quote Originally Posted by Eldritch View Post

    That something does not necessarily have any consequence is not the same as it not having any at all.
    For someone who dislikes Dwyddyr's attitude, one would think you yourself would display a less aggressive posture.
    What makes you speak of necessity? Where did Strange mention that word?
    Dont you know Im considered the number one aggressor in here?
    BTW You really should pay more attention to what they tell you...
    Reply With Quote  
     

  74. #73  
    Forum Masters Degree
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Posts
    715
    Quote Originally Posted by Strange View Post
    So, what you mean by
    "consequence" of something being understood
    is that someone understood.
    A very profound tautology indeed. Well done.
    Where did I speak of something being understood?

    What has concequences CAN be understood...
    I obviously claim that IF

    it has concequences (be it any kind)

    THEN it can be understood.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  75. #74  
    Forum Masters Degree
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Posts
    715
    Quote Originally Posted by Strange View Post
    Keep moving those goalposts and changing the meanings of words and eventually you might say something that makes sense.
    I will never make sense to you:
    You will not understand this.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  76. #75  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Apocalyptic Paradise
    Posts
    6,613
    Quote Originally Posted by sigurdV View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Strange View Post
    Keep moving those goalposts and changing the meanings of words and eventually you might say something that makes sense.
    Alas old pal...I will never make sense to you. Will pigs fly?
    Not just to him...
    Reply With Quote  
     

  77. #76  
    Forum Masters Degree
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Posts
    715
    Quote Originally Posted by Neverfly View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by sigurdV View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Strange View Post
    Keep moving those goalposts and changing the meanings of words and eventually you might say something that makes sense.
    Alas old pal...I will never make sense to you. Will pigs fly?
    Not just to him...
    Come on! Be a good looser
    Reply With Quote  
     

  78. #77  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Apocalyptic Paradise
    Posts
    6,613
    Quote Originally Posted by sigurdV View Post
    Come on! Be a good looser
    Unless you are claiming I am a person that makes things 'not tight,' the word is spelled, "loser."

    Fascinating... calling someone a loser and you can't even spell it right.

    Even more so considering that the use of the word did not even apply to the conversation in the first place. I guess it goes to show, understanding you will never be an easy task.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  79. #78  
    Forum Masters Degree
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Posts
    715
    Quote Originally Posted by ryanawe123 View Post
    We think we are able to understand any depth of information no matter how complex;
    However the endless depth of technically complex information we think we can understand,
    is limited to the depth of complex information that human mind is able to understand.
    Clever, but not sizing me up.
    Quote Originally Posted by ryanawe123 View Post
    We can not think we are unable to understand a depth of complex information,
    as thinking it would be understanding it.
    We can not understand that certain depth of complex information that we are unable to understand,
    since what the human mind is able to understand is only limited to the highest depth of understandable complex information.

    Maybe theres a "," missing somewhere?
    Im unable to understand you...



    Reply With Quote  
     

  80. #79  
    Forum Masters Degree
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Posts
    715
    Quote Originally Posted by Neverfly View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by sigurdV View Post
    Come on! Be a good looser
    Unless you are claiming I am a person that makes things 'not tight,' the word is spelled, "loser."

    Fascinating... calling someone a loser and you can't even spell it right.

    Even more so considering that the use of the word did not even apply to the conversation in the first place. I guess it goes to show, understanding you will never be an easy task.
    Are you happy now?

    EDIT: BTW Did you spot this?

    http://arxiv.org/abs/1304.3381
    Alexei A. Sharov, Richard Gordon
    (Submitted on 28 Mar 2013)

    An extrapolation
    of the genetic complexity
    of organisms

    to earlier times suggests that

    life began before the Earth was formed.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  81. #80  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    16,489
    Quote Originally Posted by sigurdV View Post
    I obviously claim that IF

    it has concequences (be it any kind)

    THEN it can be understood.
    Please prove this assertion.
    Without wishing to overstate my case, everything in the observable universe definitely has its origins in Northamptonshire -- Alan Moore
    Reply With Quote  
     

  82. #81  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Apocalyptic Paradise
    Posts
    6,613
    Quote Originally Posted by sigurdV View Post
    Are you happy now?
    Little bit... yeah.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  83. #82  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    16,489
    Quote Originally Posted by sigurdV View Post
    Dont you know [B]Im considered the number one aggressor in here?
    That is certainly not true. You not even the number one writer of nonsense. You probably rate quite highly on arrogance though.
    Without wishing to overstate my case, everything in the observable universe definitely has its origins in Northamptonshire -- Alan Moore
    Reply With Quote  
     

  84. #83  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Apocalyptic Paradise
    Posts
    6,613
    Quote Originally Posted by sigurdV View Post

    EDIT: BTW Did you spot this?
    Yeah, I saw it.
    It's a speculative paper, nothing more. It has some subjective evidence but nothing empirical or conclusive. Personally, I don't much care if life had its origins here or elsewhere and traveled here.
    The end result is the same.
    We may never really know for sure.
    Quote Originally Posted by Strange View Post
    That is certainly not true.
    Begs the question: Who is?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  85. #84  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    16,489
    Quote Originally Posted by Neverfly View Post
    Begs the question: Who is?
    It does, doesn't it ...
    Without wishing to overstate my case, everything in the observable universe definitely has its origins in Northamptonshire -- Alan Moore
    Reply With Quote  
     

  86. #85  
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Posts
    908
    Quote Originally Posted by sigurdV View Post
    1 This is an unsupported assertion.
    2 This = "This is an unsupported assertion."
    3 "This is an unsupported assertion."is an unsupported assertion.
    1 This sentence is a lie.
    2 The sentence above is the truth.
    3 All sentences are lies.
    4 The previous sentence is the truth.

    get it?
    Quote Originally Posted by jocular View Post
    If thy right nipple offend thee, pluck it off! Goes for the other, too!
    Reply With Quote  
     

  87. #86  
    Forum Masters Degree
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Posts
    715
    Quote Originally Posted by Neverfly View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by sigurdV View Post

    EDIT: BTW Did you spot this?
    Yeah, I saw it.
    It's a speculative paper, nothing more. It has some subjective evidence but nothing empirical or conclusive. Personally, I don't much care if life had its origins here or elsewhere and traveled here.
    The end result is the same.
    We may never really know for sure.
    Quote Originally Posted by Strange View Post
    That is certainly not true.
    Begs the question: Who is?
    Its the first somebody except me
    saying it is POSSIBLE that Planets
    are not neccessary for origins of life!

    As long as life begins in almost every solar system
    it doesnt really matter where...there I agree with you.
    Last edited by sigurdV; May 20th, 2013 at 08:05 PM.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  88. #87  
    Forum Masters Degree
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Posts
    715
    Quote Originally Posted by Strange View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by sigurdV View Post
    Dont you know [B]Im considered the number one aggressor in here?
    That is certainly not true. You not even the number one writer of nonsense. You probably rate quite highly on arrogance though.
    I forgot that youre the expert around here!
    How are you progressing?
    Any results yet?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  89. #88  
    Forum Masters Degree
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Posts
    715
    Quote Originally Posted by Strange View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by sigurdV View Post
    I obviously claim that IF

    it has concequences (be it any kind)

    THEN it can be understood.
    Please prove this assertion.
    Please demonstrate ability
    to understand and examine proofs.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  90. #89  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Apocalyptic Paradise
    Posts
    6,613
    Quote Originally Posted by Strange View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Neverfly View Post
    Begs the question: Who is?
    It does, doesn't it ...
    Well, I refuse to be labeled down, I tell you that, right now. Wanna make something of it?

    AH'M the hootinest tootinest sweetest guy aroun' and AIN'T nobody kin till me otherwise! AH'M gentlest, kindest, easiest goin'est and thar ain't a skinned critter aroun' that dare say otherwise!
    I'll hammer ya into the ground ya dirty rabbit!
    Reply With Quote  
     

  91. #90  
    Forum Masters Degree
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Posts
    715
    Quote Originally Posted by ryanawe123 View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by sigurdV View Post
    1 This is an unsupported assertion.
    2 This = "This is an unsupported assertion."
    3 "This is an unsupported assertion."is an unsupported assertion.
    1 This sentence is a lie.
    2 The sentence above is the truth.
    3 All sentences are lies.
    4 The previous sentence is the truth.

    get it?
    Yes! I understand what you are trying to do!

    1 This sentence is a lie.

    IF: This = "This sentence is a lie."

    THEN: This is true = "This sentence is a lie." is true

    AND: This is true = This sentence is a lie.

    SO: The supposition that ( This = "This sentence is a lie." ) is false

    SO: Sentence 1 does NOT claim that it is a lie. QED

    {Your Move: }
    Reply With Quote  
     

  92. #91  
    Forum Freshman Eldritch's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Posts
    83
    I am, both on this forum and in school a freshman, so I ask, is he a troll or is he for real?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  93. #92  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Apocalyptic Paradise
    Posts
    6,613
    Quote Originally Posted by Eldritch View Post
    I am, both on this forum and in school a freshman, so I ask, is he a troll or is he for real?
    I vote both: He's a Real Troll.
    Strange likes this.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  94. #93  
    Forum Freshman Eldritch's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Posts
    83
    Quote Originally Posted by Neverfly View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Eldritch View Post
    I am, both on this forum and in school a freshman, so I ask, is he a troll or is he for real?
    I vote both: He's a Real Troll.

    Well, that assuages part of me...
    Reply With Quote  
     

  95. #94  
    Forum Masters Degree
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Posts
    715
    Sorry mosquitos go buzzing elsewhere ... I intend to "kill" Ryanawe123
    Reply With Quote  
     

  96. #95  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    16,489
    Quote Originally Posted by sigurdV View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Strange View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by sigurdV View Post
    I obviously claim that IF

    it has concequences (be it any kind)

    THEN it can be understood.
    Please prove this assertion.
    Please demonstrate ability
    to understand and examine proofs.
    I'll take that as an admission that you are unable to. Thanks.
    Without wishing to overstate my case, everything in the observable universe definitely has its origins in Northamptonshire -- Alan Moore
    Reply With Quote  
     

  97. #96  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    16,489
    Quote Originally Posted by Eldritch View Post
    I am, both on this forum and in school a freshman, so I ask, is he a troll or is he for real?
    He seems to think he is some sort of genius. I think he read part of a chapter from an introductory book on logic (written in a language he doesn't know) and mistakenly thought that he understood it. He is one of those people for whom the phrase "a little learning is a dangerous thing" was invented. He has had screaming arguments with people who have tried to explain the most basic aspects of relativity to him. A bit sad, really.
    PhDemon likes this.
    Without wishing to overstate my case, everything in the observable universe definitely has its origins in Northamptonshire -- Alan Moore
    Reply With Quote  
     

  98. #97  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    city of wine and roses
    Posts
    6,225
    Sorry mosquitos go buzzing elsewhere ... I intend to .......
    I suspect you think this is funny.

    You're wrong.

    This is unpleasant and offensive and [several other words but won't wear out my thesaurus].

    In fact, you've been here long enough to know how this was likely to be received. You're doing that pre-schooler, testing the boundaries thing. Again. Have a few days off.
    "Courage is what it takes to stand up and speak; courage is also what it takes to sit down and listen." Winston Churchill
    "nature is like a game of Jenga; you never know which brick you pull out will cause the whole stack to collapse" Lucy Cooke
    Reply With Quote  
     

  99. #98  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    5,305
    Quote Originally Posted by sigurdV View Post
    Its the first somebody except me
    saying it is POSSIBLE that Planets
    are not neccessary for origins of life!
    That's been speculated here before, years ago. In a cosmology thread, because we were talking about protoplanetary discs, then the revelation that our solar system's disc and early planetisimals composition would have offered enormous variety and sheer volume of "goldilocks" conditions. The statistical likelihood of ripe conditions seemed higher there than on any of the later-formed planets. It's nice to see others stumbled onto this possibility from another direction.

    Sorry we can't be unique in anything on the internet. But at least we can find porn of it.
    A pong by any other name is still a pong. -williampinn
    Reply With Quote  
     

  100. #99  
    Forum Masters Degree
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Posts
    715
    Quote Originally Posted by Pong View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by sigurdV View Post
    Its the first somebody except me
    saying it is POSSIBLE that Planets
    are not neccessary for origins of life!
    That's been speculated here before, years ago. In a cosmology thread, because we were talking about protoplanetary discs, then the revelation that our solar system's disc and early planetisimals composition would have offered enormous variety and sheer volume of "goldilocks" conditions. The statistical likelihood of ripe conditions seemed higher there than on any of the later-formed planets. It's nice to see others stumbled onto this possibility from another direction.

    Sorry we can't be unique in anything on the internet. But at least we can find porn of it.
    I think Fred Hoyle was first...you know the discoverer of nucleosynthesis? Its remarkable how strong mobbing is everywhere ... Did he get a knighthood for his brilliancy? Nah! If you think life can have its origin in free fall then your a HERETIC! Its just like in here: Youd better copy elementary text books to get appreciated.

    In my case it was Gould or Wilson or ...dont remember really who... who noted that it took a million years to create a cell but TWO billion years to make a complex cell ... how come? So I looked outside the Earth for the solution. I Opened a thread for it and the moderators and their darlings had a hilarious time making fun of me. Check it out if you like:Theory of life

















    Last edited by sigurdV; May 30th, 2013 at 03:16 AM.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  101. #100  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Apocalyptic Paradise
    Posts
    6,613
    Either that or have good evidence to support your assertions. It's funny how you whiners ignore the successful scientists that backed up their hypotheses.
    Reply With Quote  
     

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. The hardest thing for a human to comprehend
    By macusual in forum General Discussion
    Replies: 42
    Last Post: February 18th, 2014, 11:08 AM
  2. Do animals understand Human Speech?
    By scoobydoo1 in forum Behavior and Psychology
    Replies: 48
    Last Post: May 20th, 2013, 04:04 AM
  3. Prime number thing that I don't understand?
    By m84uily in forum Mathematics
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: July 19th, 2011, 06:36 AM
  4. Replies: 9
    Last Post: January 24th, 2010, 08:10 PM
Bookmarks
Bookmarks
Posting Permissions
  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •