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

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.

Originally Posted by ryanawe123

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.

Originally Posted by Dywyddyr

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

Originally Posted by Dywyddyr

Assuming you mean humanity as a whole

and yes, i am assuming humanity as a whole, not specific individuals

Originally Posted by Dywyddyr

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.

"We think we are able to know everything, because we cant think of anything we are unable to know."-True?

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?

Originally Posted by ryanawe123

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.

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.

Originally Posted by Dywyddyr

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.

Originally Posted by ryanawe123

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.

Originally Posted by Dywyddyr

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?

Originally Posted by ryanawe123

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.

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.

@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.)

Originally Posted by ryanawe123

@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.

i thought you also said

Originally Posted by Dywyddyr

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

Originally Posted by Dywyddyr

Science is an ongoing process if finding things we don't understand and turning them into things we do understand.

able to understand a piece of information that we have access to.

Post #7 - Until someone comes along with something we cannot (or never will) understand then the question is moot.
Again.

Originally Posted by Dywyddyr

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?

Originally Posted by ryanawe123

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.

Originally Posted by ryanawe123

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.

Originally Posted by Neverfly

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?

Originally Posted by Dywyddyr

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.

Originally Posted by ryanawe123

@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 ...

Originally Posted by ryanawe123

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.

Originally Posted by tk421

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".

Originally Posted by ryanawe123

Originally Posted by Dywyddyr

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?

Originally Posted by Dywyddyr

Originally Posted by tk421

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.

Originally Posted by PhDemon

Buy a dictionary.

Will HIS personal view be found there?
And HOW would YOU know, Oh Clever One!

There is such a thing, but only men don't understand it. These things are usually referred to as women.

Originally Posted by sigurdV

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.

Originally Posted by PhDemon

Originally Posted by sigurdV

Originally Posted by PhDemon

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?

Originally Posted by PhDemon

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.

Originally Posted by PhDemon

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!

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.

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

Originally Posted by sculptor

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...

Originally Posted by ryanawe123

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"

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?"

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?

Originally Posted by ryanawe123

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?

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."

Originally Posted by ryanawe123

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.

So are there things that the human mind is unable to comprehend?
could you list some

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.

uhh

let me rephrase my question

So is there anything too complex for humans to manipulate?
could you list some

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...

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.

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.

Originally Posted by ryanawe123

Originally Posted by Dywyddyr

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.

Originally Posted by sculptor

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.

Originally Posted by ryanawe123

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.

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?

Originally Posted by Therapy

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.

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.

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.

Originally Posted by ryanawe123

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.

If it cant be understood then its not important to understand!

Originally Posted by sigurdV

If it cant be understood then its not important to understand!

How does one come to that conclusion?

Originally Posted by Eldritch

Originally Posted by sigurdV

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.

Originally Posted by Eldritch

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.

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?

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...

Originally Posted by sigurdV

What has concequences CAN be understood...

This is an unsupported assertion.

Originally Posted by Strange

Originally Posted by sigurdV

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!

Originally Posted by Strange

Originally Posted by sigurdV

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.

Originally Posted by Strange

Originally Posted by sigurdV

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...

Originally Posted by Eldritch

Originally Posted by Strange

Originally Posted by sigurdV

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!

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!

Originally Posted by sigurdV

Originally Posted by Strange

Originally Posted by sigurdV

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.

Originally Posted by sigurdV

Originally Posted by Eldritch

Originally Posted by Strange

Originally Posted by sigurdV

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.

Originally Posted by Eldritch

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...

Originally Posted by Strange

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.

Originally Posted by Strange

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.

Originally Posted by sigurdV

Originally Posted by Strange

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...

Originally Posted by Neverfly

Originally Posted by sigurdV

Originally Posted by Strange

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

Originally Posted by sigurdV

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.

Originally Posted by ryanawe123

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.

Originally Posted by ryanawe123

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...

Originally Posted by Neverfly

Originally Posted by sigurdV

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.

Originally Posted by sigurdV

I obviously claim that IF

it has concequences (be it any kind)

THEN it can be understood.

Please prove this assertion.

Originally Posted by sigurdV

Are you happy now?

Little bit... yeah.

Originally Posted by sigurdV

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.

Originally Posted by sigurdV

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.

Originally Posted by Strange

That is certainly not true.

Begs the question: Who is?

Originally Posted by Neverfly

Begs the question: Who is?

It does, doesn't it ...

Originally Posted by sigurdV

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?

Originally Posted by Neverfly

Originally Posted by sigurdV

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.

Originally Posted by Strange

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.

Originally Posted by Strange

Originally Posted by sigurdV

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?

Originally Posted by Strange

Originally Posted by sigurdV

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.

Originally Posted by Strange

Originally Posted by Neverfly

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!

Originally Posted by ryanawe123

Originally Posted by sigurdV

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: }

I am, both on this forum and in school a freshman, so I ask, is he a troll or is he for real?

Originally Posted by Eldritch

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.

Originally Posted by Neverfly

Originally Posted by Eldritch

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...

Sorry mosquitos go buzzing elsewhere ... I intend to "kill" Ryanawe123

Originally Posted by sigurdV

Originally Posted by Strange

Originally Posted by sigurdV

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.

Originally Posted by Eldritch

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.

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.

Originally Posted by sigurdV

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.

Originally Posted by Pong

Originally Posted by sigurdV

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:http://www.thescienceforum.com/biology/32323-theory-life.html

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.