RE: Astrology (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Casual Banter] >> Off the Grid



Message

luckydog1 -> RE: Astrology (2/15/2008 10:05:23 PM)

Thanks Cl.  It was just a random question that this topic brought up in my mind. 

The second part of what you said, was over my head.  What is the implication of that.  What do the timelines become prey to?



luckydog1 -> RE: Astrology (2/15/2008 10:08:38 PM)

Mnot, you think I am a Christian?  Your way confused.  That explains a lot of your posting.  So anyway, you don't even have a clue as to what is being discussed.

So, I have "no capacity for thought", yet you spend time talking to me. 

Interesting implications, from that do flow, indeed.



summerblossom -> RE: Astrology (2/15/2008 10:11:35 PM)

I am a weird combination. I am a Pisces with Pisces Rising and  no earth elements anywhere in my birth chart....I firmly believe in astrology and have studied it. I know how to draw up natal charts but, that being said, I do not believe in horoscopes at all.



mnottertail -> RE: Astrology (2/15/2008 10:12:33 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: CuriousLord

quote:

ORIGINAL: mnottertail

Completely unrelated question about the Infinite universe theory....according to the math, can there be exact copies of the same universe, or is each universe required to be unique?  anyone know?


Depends on your point of view.  While no such requirement (for uniqueness) exists.. are two completely identical universes not the same, particularly when at least one of them must be hypothetical?

However, this does raise the point that timelines then become prey to.. oh Karana, I can't even remember basic theory names these days.. that one that says the limit of two infinity-approaching values with one being divided by the other can be found by taking the derivatives of them until at least one of them no longer approaches infinity..


Uh that little shitbrether that says original mnotterail is pretending and a lie, I wouldnt ask a question that first of all, I can answer trivially, ask among clueless dogs, or ask anyone here if they know in public (there are some here I might even have a private conversation in front of all of you, but many of you would be clueless)

So---  



mnottertail -> RE: Astrology (2/15/2008 10:18:02 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: luckydog1

Mnot, you think I am a Christian?  Your way confused.  That explains a lot of your posting.  So anyway, you don't even have a clue as to what is being discussed.

So, I have "no capacity for thought", yet you spend time talking to me. 

Interesting implications, from that do flow, indeed.
\

nope just answering your post.  you are one of a thousand. So, maybe I popped in a little late, why dont you waltz me thru the pangyric of discussion to date. I am sure it is abobe me, just tighten it up, give me the high points, I am a quick study.
LOL, I will grab on and see if I can hang, ok dear?



CuriousLord -> RE: Astrology (2/15/2008 10:18:51 PM)

The math thoery I was referring to, I'm sure someone can name.  But it refers to a property of limits.  (Such as, the limit of (x+1) as x goes to infitinty also goes to infinity.)  If you take the limit of a value going to infinity (say, x) over the value of another that goes to infininity (say, 2x), you get infinity over infinity, yielding an undecided answer.

So the theory says that you take the derivative of each x and 2x (yielding 1 and 2, repsecively), then take the limit again.  The limit of 1 over 2 is just itself (as is the case with all constants), so the answer's one half.

I took this with the infinite universes and probability.  What's the probability of a particular possibility being true?  It's the number of universes with that possibility as truth over all possible universes.  As the latter is an infinite value, one must resort to the above theory to solve this (unless of course the primer is entirely impossible, in which case the possibility defaults to 0).

First problem: uniqueness isn't a requirement.  Screws us pretty quickly.  But just apply the math equation once, and that's gone; it effectually acts as a proof of equivalence between an infinity of identitical copies.

After this, we're left with a set of universes in which the possibility is true (likely an infinity) over all universes (max infinity).  So we need to apply it again.

Repetativeness aside, the conclusion one reaches is that there's only one possibility.  Somehow, according to my memory, this possibility is a singularity in and of itself.. but I'm afraid I've long since forgotten how to prove that; as such, the only useful bit I can prove from my theory now is that there's a definate outcome.  Not so surprising to some, but I'm sure it'll irk some quantum physists.

PS-  Just to point out the humor in this.. this theory is the only one I know which is a practical consquence of the infinite-universe notion.  And it's also a disproof of it validity.  (Which I'm a geek enough to actually think is funny.)



mnottertail -> RE: Astrology (2/15/2008 10:23:40 PM)

well; ' " '''...primes.

Where there are real world answers it works pretty fucking good, of course you do reality checks and say how can I have plus or minus 5 or 17 dollars and still have 20 left over???????????????

Outcomes and Plastics son.

Mr Robinson 



CuriousLord -> RE: Astrology (2/15/2008 10:30:12 PM)

A fascinating consquence is.. is the marble under the middle cup or no?  A brighter man than I could tell you, regardless of being unaware of which reality he's in.  It extends so far..

I've gotten a lot of shit for being abstract and boarderline cryptic lately, but I think you might get the style.  :P



Hippiekinkster -> RE: Astrology (2/15/2008 10:35:21 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: luckydog1

"The laws of science are various established scientific laws, or physical laws as they are sometimes called, that are considered universal and invariable facts of the physical world."

Yep that is exactly what I said hippie.  The universal and invariable part is very important to the idea I put forward. The laws are the underlying rules we have figured out.  No scientist pretends we know all the rules yet.  Even if the rules make an infinite number of universes everytime an action occurs.
If you kept reading, you would find that there have been previous "laws" which were invalidated. It could be that certain laws which are used today may also be invalidated in the future (I seriously doubt it, and I cannot think of any offhand).
I find the word "law" to be ambiguous and imprecise. It's good shorthand for "empirically-derived principle" if one understands that that is what it means.



mnottertail -> RE: Astrology (2/15/2008 10:38:43 PM)

Ok, really fundamental......I will play with you fine young cannibals for just a couple minutes.  Say I give you a plane, an area.......................of some ponderable substance (I don't wanna cheat you or trick you), and I say look, come up with a measuing system that we can pick out any point under any condition in this space time on this agreed space.............question one...would you think along the lines of a cartesian coordinate system?  is there something newer than the 16th century for a measurement system that will suffice for our eyeballs?



CuriousLord -> RE: Astrology (2/15/2008 10:44:48 PM)

Why not cartesian?  The system would be arbitrary as abstract alegebra could transform it however we'd like.  (Hell, linear would take care of basically anything.)  It's a viable component of description.

But what are you referring to?  A coordinate system, the set of physics on it, the availiablity of data.. what?  What are you even trying to measure?



Aswad -> RE: Astrology (2/15/2008 10:45:30 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Zensee

You can only do what it is written you shall do, Ron. I won't hold you responsible but I would have to reconsider my position on the whole matter.


Predetermination is a red herring. If our lives are predetermined, then so are our musings about predetermination, and our conclusions on that topic. Consequently, we may as well get on with it and ignore the question altogether. Karma (the old idea of entropy and causality, not the new age deferral of responsibility crap) happens, with or without predetermination. We may as well face it on our feet and act as if the outcome is not predetermined, since either (a) it is, and we'll have made the decision because it was preordained, or (b) it isn't, and we will have chosen to take responsibility for our own life and our own actions.

Health,
al-Aswad.



CuriousLord -> RE: Astrology (2/15/2008 10:48:36 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Aswad

If our lives are predetermined, then so are our musings about predetermination, and our conclusions on that topic. Consequently, we may as well get on with it and ignore the question altogether.


My friend, this strikes me as a bit of a cynical view on predetermination.  Just because it's predetermined doesn't mean we can't affect things, afterall.. it just means that we, too, are predetermined.  It's not that we have no choice; it's that our choice and reality happen to coincide.. if I make any sense in saying this.



mnottertail -> RE: Astrology (2/15/2008 10:48:42 PM)

lotta questions there CL. (and for a post or two let me dance, Hippie)

So, you have chose the cartesian coordinate system, and I gotta tell you it is a hella good pick.

Describe it for the great unwashed, Mr. Lord, prithee.



CuriousLord -> RE: Astrology (2/15/2008 10:50:57 PM)

Erm.. you just asked me if the cartesan system would work to measure something, right?  I basically said, yes, it pobably could.  I still don't know what you want to measure, though..



mnottertail -> RE: Astrology (2/15/2008 10:54:50 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Aswad

quote:

ORIGINAL: Zensee

You can only do what it is written you shall do, Ron. I won't hold you responsible but I would have to reconsider my position on the whole matter.


Predetermination is a red herring. If our lives are predetermined, then so are our musings about predetermination, and our conclusions on that topic. Consequently, we may as well get on with it and ignore the question altogether. Karma (the old idea of entropy and causality, not the new age deferral of responsibility crap) happens, with or without predetermination. We may as well face it on our feet and act as if the outcome is not predetermined, since either (a) it is, and we'll have made the decision because it was preordained, or (b) it isn't, and we will have chosen to take responsibility for our own life and our own actions.

Health,
al-Aswad.



LOL, ass in the wind and the only chance you have to better it is stand on the hill, but ths problem is that you may be walking towards the lighning or away from it........isnt there something like that in the Havamal, Dustwad?  But by dog (LOL) we must try......



Aswad -> RE: Astrology (2/15/2008 10:59:12 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Alumbrado

Is that why burning/drowning witches, was such a cool idea?


Morals, like faith, are arbitrary beliefs that cannot be substantiated by science, and which are inherently unfalsifiable.
In light of that... what was wrong (or right, for that matter) about burning/drowning purported witches?
Is it any different from all the other arbitrary reasons we will do such things for, really?

My faith, my morals, and your morals, agree that it wasn't such a cool idea.

quote:

Because it was based on 'faith' that God wouldn't let anyone innocent perish?


Clearly, they have a bit of reconciling to do. Such happens when faith is not paired with reason. And while I support people's right to pick their own axioms, I find it distasteful when people use faith as an excuse not to live or be accountable, rather than as something that reaffirms and celebrates life, free will and personal accountability. The observations on the burning/drowning on witches support two courses of action; either (a) abandoning the notion that God would have intervened and rejecting the acts, or (b) sanctioning the acts and infering things about God's nature from this. Those inferences are incongruent with what these people posited as his nature, thus reasoned examination of the faith is required in both cases, if one is to have a belief system with Integrity to it.

Health,
al-Aswad.



mnottertail -> RE: Astrology (2/15/2008 11:03:34 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: CuriousLord

Erm.. you just asked me if the cartesan system would work to measure something, right?  I basically said, yes, it pobably could.  I still don't know what you want to measure, though..


ok, so we got X, Y and Z.......there are only three dimensions after all.  Simple problem, you make a wood lattice (we are not going to be too pedantic) such that it resembles in every respect a cartesian graph.   lay it upon your lovers bed, and work your filthy ways upon her..........I might suggest  a caresian sort of coordinate sytem that is called minkowski space that is more like a net......the area in the squares is inviolate.

probably better than a plane, which is kinda a dream when you think on it.



Zensee -> RE: Astrology (2/15/2008 11:05:25 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: CuriousLord

Just because it's predetermined doesn't mean we can't affect things, afterall.. it just means that we, too, are predetermined.  It's not that we have no choice; it's that our choice and reality happen to coincide.. if I make any sense in saying this.


Uh no - the boldfaced portion above is called a contradiction.

Predetermined means exactly that, we have no effect because it is predetermined. Try as I might I cannot resist typing this scentence here. Or this next one... Oh god, please let me stop in your infinite mercy... please... I don't want to discuss this any more... please stop... you friggin' sadistic bastard... I bet you enjoyed torching Sodom too didn't you!...

Something like that, only I would not know I was an automaton.

Makes perfect sense, right?


Z.



Aswad -> RE: Astrology (2/15/2008 11:06:04 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: CuriousLord

My friend, this strikes me as a bit of a cynical view on predetermination.  Just because it's predetermined doesn't mean we can't affect things, afterall.. it just means that we, too, are predetermined.  It's not that we have no choice; it's that our choice and reality happen to coincide.. if I make any sense in saying this.


You seem to be restating my position. [:D]

I'm not saying it in a defeatist manner; just saying that predetermination is inconsequential at a human level- a red herring.

Health,
al-Aswad.



Page: <<   < prev  6 7 [8] 9 10   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy
4.736328E-02