WHY does anything exist?

Status
Not open for further replies.
Dywyddyr said:
provided the person doing so actually knows what they're talking about.
Click to expand...
"just because you don't know what i am talking about, doesn't mean i don't."
ever meet a smart moron? i think the way i am using the term is equivalent to 'eccentric scientist' the ones that are autistic like.
Big Chiller said:
There's no ruthless logic or nice logic only logic.
Click to expand...
Big..meet dyw..he will change your mind about that..:D
 
NMSquirrel said:
"just because you don't know what i am talking about, doesn't mean i don't."
Click to expand...
Hmm, yes. But you'll note that the cases in question were (essentially): in an engineering environment and discussing engineering. :p
When you get a newbie with three months of college coming into the office and trying to lay down what's right and what isn't to people with 20 or more years of experience AND college under their belts it tends not work out the way they planned. At least I had the sense to keep my mouth shut as a newby in the office.

ever meet a smart moron? i think the way i am using the term is equivalent to 'eccentric scientist' the ones that are autistic like.
Click to expand...
Yep, they tend to be good at remembering facts, not so much stringing them together to make conclusions. (Not knocking them, I've known a few guys that fit into that category, and got on well with them).
Edit: I just re-read that. In point of fact I'm probably as close as I know to your description of "smart moron". My mother refused to ask me to make the coffee/ tea after couple of disastrous attempts - some things just slip over my head. I had no idea at all what a "mortgage" was until a year before I had to get one.

Big..meet dyw..he will change your mind about that..:D
Click to expand...
We've already met. ;)
 
Last edited:
Big Chiller said:
How is logic in itself ruthless, it doesn't have any inherent qualities.
Click to expand...
Correct. If it has no inherent qualities then it is, of necessity, without compassion, pity or mercy.
I wonder what the word is that describes that situation?
Oh, wait...

Regardless, have you considered the other option I noted: that it is the application that is ruthless?
Ever heard of colloquial English? Imprecise language? Everyday usage?
 
Dywyddyr said:
Regardless, have you considered the other option I noted: that it is the application that is ruthless?
Ever heard of colloquial English? Imprecise language? Everyday usage?
Click to expand...



Ah, I was aware of this. I would argue that humans can't function without ruthlessness (of varying levels), its more unavoidable than love afterall.
 
Indeed.
Certain applications of ruthlessness can be beneficial.
Not least in decision-making.
I.e. no matter that one really really likes mint chocolate chip ice cream AND also likes cheese and crackers, you're only allowed one or the other.
Plus, I suppose there may be other, far more trivial occasions.
Do we we sell the car or the kids now I've been fired and money's tight.... Etc. :D
 
Tch. You should be more ruthless.
You can't have a day out driving to a beauty spot on a kid. You need a car for that.
 
Dywyddyr said:
One way to look at it* (although it can be unsatisfactory) is the gross example below:
There's a cow in field and someone says "It's brown and 6 foot at the shoulder.**"
So I give you a tape measure and send you off to check.
When you come back I ask "What can you tell me about the cow from what you have measured?"
The obvious, and only, answer is "it's six foot tall". There's nothing you can say about the cow's colour by using a tape measure.
Click to expand...

Reminds me of something from Father Ted.
Father Ted and Dougal are in a caravan looking out the window at a field.
Dougal is looking puzzled.
Father Ted says "No, Dougal. The little cows are further away"
 
Rav said:
More correctly the interference pattern is the result of the interaction of multiple photons. You might have read somewhere that an interference pattern emerges even when firing photons one at a time but this is because temporally separated photons can still interfere with each other. As if it wasn't already freaky enough huh?
Click to expand...

That's another way of looking at it.
The TV program I watched described it as each single photon passing through both slits and interfering with itself.
It would be hard to measure the interference pattern from a single photon, I grant you.
 
Last edited:
Dywyddyr said:
Tch. You should be more ruthless.
You can't have a day out driving to a beauty spot on a kid. You need a car for that.
Click to expand...

I can beg to differ. You could also steal a tank then drive. Sure it may cause a bit of chaos but hey! It is still an option. :D
 
Or that the photons, when measured, have to choose which slit to go through. Consciousness and choice, if they are not an illusion, may begin at a very simple level.
 
The reason things exist

The world (experience) indicates that existence is improbable because that existence provides a possibilty of nothing - which a rational being (with that knowledge and only that knowledge) would accept as a true solution (that is mathematically to deduce).

Does it perhaps tells us this - all experience is in some way a mask hiding true reality - its true nature if known would SHOUT nothing cannot be. Reality as we comprehend, is unknown to us - only indicated by our sense.

We are not privy to reality in its full glory - only a very small part of the whole and as such, any conclusion must be flawed.

Newton, Einsten, Darwin - mere children playing with cloured bricks.
 
God_33 said:
The world (experience) indicates that existence is improbable
Click to expand...
Given that we're here, i.e. we do exist, how do you deduce this?

Does it perhaps tells us this - all experience is in some way a mask hiding true reality
Click to expand...
Does it?

We are not privy to reality in its full glory - only a very small part of the whole and as such, any conclusion must be flawed.
Click to expand...
And your point would be...?
Or did you think we're somehow not aware of this?
(Accepting "flawed" as a near synonym for "incomplete", at least)
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top