Castle Paradox

Bagne · Posted: Wed Dec 16, 2009 4:29 pm Post subject:

Euhm...
Good question.
Let me ask you this:
If I say "Bagne partakes of icecream" and "Bagne is a component of the castle paradox", is it correct to say that "castle paradox partakes of ice cream?"
I want to say no.

But if I say "My fist punches your face" and "My fist is a component of me"
I think that it is correct to say "I am punching you in the face."

What do you think?

To get uniqueness form the axioms, you say:
A) E cannot be self created (see above)
B) Therefore one or more of its components, call them G1, G2, ... Gn must have caused E.
C) However, this would also mean that each of G1 ... Gn are responsible for creating one another, which contradicts (1).
Which says that a phenomenon is either self created or created by something else (but not both).

After reading your baking soda example, I'm wondering if (1) should be reworded to state that every non-composite phenomenon is either self created or created by something else.
Because I think you're right, it's possible for two things to create a composite phenomenon by causing its individual parts.
Gravity makes these bubbles, the reaction makes those bubbles which together are components of the fizz phenomenon.

And yes, I agree that this proof provides little information about G. It doesn't say anything about G being all-loving for example.
_________________
Working on rain and cloud formation

Moogle1 · Posted: Wed Dec 16, 2009 4:42 pm Post subject:

I think the problem is that E is poorly-formed. As I said, at the moment G is self-created, if nothing exists, then G = E. You are positing that G must be the only self-created thing in E, since E cannot be self-created, but E is self-created until such time as E != G. This can happen one of two ways:

- G creates some entity A. In this case, G has caused E != G, so we can say that G "created" E.

- Entity A creates itself. In this case, A has caused E != G, but it does not follow that there exists a unique, non-composite, self-caused cause of everything, since A did not cause G.
_________________

Slime Salad :: Independent Game Design

Bob the Hamster · Posted: Wed Dec 16, 2009 4:47 pm Post subject:

@Bagne

I guess this model also assumes that recursive systems are not allowed.

However:

1) I like ice cream
2) I dislike face-punches

I approve of any logical model that results in more ice cream and fewer face punches :)

J_Taylor · Posted: Thu Dec 17, 2009 4:56 am Post subject:

How are you guys still following each other? I got lost about 15 posts ago.

Still following the argument, though. Nice job @ James, Moogle1, and Bagne.
_________________
Elemental: .75%
Heart of Darkness: 0% (crash)
The Mansion: .05%
Shattered Alliance: .05%

See a pattern forming? I do, dammit.

AJHunter · Posted: Thu Dec 17, 2009 5:39 am Post subject:

MY BRAIN HURTS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!11!!!! Really confused

Bob the Hamster · Posted: Thu Dec 17, 2009 8:17 am Post subject:

Yeah, mine too, a bit :)
All part of the fun, I suppose :)

Bagne · Posted: Thu Dec 17, 2009 8:55 am Post subject:

Bob the Hamster · Posted: Thu Dec 17, 2009 9:29 am Post subject:

Bagne · Posted: Thu Dec 17, 2009 9:24 pm Post subject:

Oh, you mean that kind of recursion Raspberry!

Those eggs make infinitely delicious omelets. But in eating them, you actually eat yourself. Infinitely. So there's a tradeoff.

Maybe it would work ... like, if E was a subset of E ... uh ... and somewhere in there is G ... meaning there's infinite Gs.
Yeah, maybe that doesn't work.

That could be a serious problem - I mean. Fractals exist - at least, in theory they do.

That reminds me of something I wanted to try with the OHR engine ...
_________________
Working on rain and cloud formation

AJHunter · Posted: Fri Dec 18, 2009 4:27 am Post subject:

Dracon · Posted: Fri Dec 18, 2009 6:26 am Post subject:

Two words, Free Will. I have no idea what happened to my post that said this earlier today, but I might have posted a new thread Happy

So if there's a thread that has a really weird thing about 8 words and free will. DELETE IT Ha ha ha!

_________________
THIS AREA LEFT BLANK FOR LACK OF CREATIVITY

Building 2 games!

J_Taylor · Posted: Fri Dec 18, 2009 7:10 am Post subject:

Bagne · Posted: Fri Dec 18, 2009 7:22 am Post subject:

The same guy who wrote the "proof of God's existence" that I posted earlier wrote another argument about the "problem of evil" that you mentioned.
And I really like it.

I forget exactly how it goes, but essentially it boils down to this:
God did not create a discrete system where things are either "Good", "Neutral" or "Evil".
God created a system where the "goodness" of things belong to a continuous spectrum.

GOODNESS SPECTRUM

apostrophes, murder, stealing, swearing, staring contest, sharing ice cream, working hard, self sacrifice and heroism
<---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------->

To say that murder is "evil" is equivalent to saying that it is "less good" than staring contests. Furthermore when we say that "God created evil" we're actually just saying "God make it possible for some things to be better than other things", and this isn't such a bad thing.

In fact, this arguably is a really good thing! This means that no matter who you are, or where you are in life, there is always the chance for you to become a better person.

Presumably, an "infinitely good" God would found at infinity on the "good" end of the spectrum.

Comments anyone?

EDIT:
Check out the help! post I just made. I want to build a Mandelbrot fractal with the OHR.
_________________
Working on rain and cloud formation

J_Taylor · Posted: Fri Dec 18, 2009 8:28 am Post subject:

I've heard that before, too. I happen to subscribe to that particular form of logic.

Ever notice how the stories where the bad guy is intrinsically evil are harder to relate to than when the bad guy THINKS he/she is doing the right thing, through a warped sense of morals?
In my opinion, nothing is EVIL, nor is anything GOOD. Saying that is painting everything with a very wide brush. Everybody believes different things.

A pope, for instance, is probably going to think 'Something in your Mouth' is a EVIL song, because it suggests extra-marital sex. Somebody who listens to that kind of music constantly is probably going to think that song is GOOD. Are either of them right? I suggest they both are. It all depends on the individuals' personal morals.

Morals. Ugh. That could be a whole other topic. I'll try to remember that when we spin out of control again.

(I can't believe I just caught hold of the thread again. This time I'll try to understand it a little better)

Just Googled 'Bizarre search', by the way. Second item:
http://rosedesrochers.todays-woman.net/2009/11/21/google-bizarre-search-terms/

Cracked. Me. Up.
_________________
Elemental: .75%
Heart of Darkness: 0% (crash)
The Mansion: .05%
Shattered Alliance: .05%

See a pattern forming? I do, dammit.