Author Topic: Awesome stuff you have to share  (Read 292887 times)

Offline bhu

  • Uncle Kittie
  • DnD Handbook Writer
  • ****
  • Posts: 16306
  • Fnord bitches
    • View Profile
Re: Awesome stuff you have to share
« Reply #440 on: August 18, 2012, 03:35:11 AM »
it would be nice if dat were true

Offline Morph Bark

  • Member
  • **
  • Posts: 77
  • I'm new!
    • View Profile
Re: Awesome stuff you have to share
« Reply #441 on: August 18, 2012, 04:26:35 AM »
That was hilarious. I remember the similar cow vid with fond disturbance.

Offline dman11235

  • DnD Handbook Writer
  • ****
  • Posts: 2571
  • Disclaimer: not at full capacity yet
    • View Profile
Re: Awesome stuff you have to share
« Reply #442 on: August 18, 2012, 05:35:10 AM »
I was playing Halo Reach the other day on Spire.  I get to the Falcon first, and hop in the driver's seat, get a single guy in one of the turrets.  I proceed go get 0 kills and 0 deaths because I had 54 driving assists.  Unfortunately for my guy, he died part way through, and only managed to have a streak of 35, then the other few on his third life.  This was the match after I got my first Perfection medal.
My Sig's Handy Haversack  Need help?  Want to see what I've done?  Want to see what others have done well?  Check it out.

Avatar d20

Offline radionausea

  • Sr. Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 425
    • View Profile
Re: Awesome stuff you have to share
« Reply #443 on: August 18, 2012, 05:40:51 AM »
29 degrees, clear blue skies, pleasant breeze, mowed the lawn, barbecue later in the day, hello saturday!
Something inside me dies when I see the word fallacy applied to ideas held about roleplaying. And a small bit of vomit comes up when I see a character called a 'toon'.

Offline veekie

  • Spinner of Fortunes
  • Epic Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 5423
  • Chaos Dice
    • View Profile
Everything is edible. Just that there are things only edible once per lifetime.
It's a god-eat-god world.

Procrastination is the thief of time; Year after year it steals, till all are fled,
And to the mercies of a moment leaves; The vast concerns of an eternal scene.

Offline bhu

  • Uncle Kittie
  • DnD Handbook Writer
  • ****
  • Posts: 16306
  • Fnord bitches
    • View Profile
Re: Awesome stuff you have to share
« Reply #445 on: August 18, 2012, 04:22:32 PM »
want!

Offline veekie

  • Spinner of Fortunes
  • Epic Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 5423
  • Chaos Dice
    • View Profile
Everything is edible. Just that there are things only edible once per lifetime.
It's a god-eat-god world.

Procrastination is the thief of time; Year after year it steals, till all are fled,
And to the mercies of a moment leaves; The vast concerns of an eternal scene.

Offline Kuroimaken

  • Epic Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 5348
  • No obstacle too great for the FLAMES IN MY HEART!!
    • View Profile
Re: Awesome stuff you have to share
« Reply #447 on: August 18, 2012, 07:15:42 PM »
Today I had a recording session. The songs in question were Houki Boshi and Sorairo Days, in this order.

While technically the mic did NOT burst into flames, it DID smoke a bit...

And there was time left over to do a take of Pegasus Fantasy.
Kami darou ga akuma darou ga, ore no michi ni tateru mono NASHI!!

Give me internets. Now.

Offline littha

  • Epic Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 2952
  • +1 Holy Muffin
    • View Profile
Re: Awesome stuff you have to share
« Reply #448 on: August 18, 2012, 08:02:17 PM »

Offline Kuroimaken

  • Epic Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 5348
  • No obstacle too great for the FLAMES IN MY HEART!!
    • View Profile
Re: Awesome stuff you have to share
« Reply #449 on: August 18, 2012, 08:16:19 PM »
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NkYYYew8CUI

Sing that and it will.
My voice is crazy awesome, not awesome crazy.  :p
Kami darou ga akuma darou ga, ore no michi ni tateru mono NASHI!!

Give me internets. Now.

Offline sirpercival

  • Epic Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 10855
  • you can't escape the miles
    • View Profile
Re: Awesome stuff you have to share
« Reply #450 on: August 20, 2012, 01:45:12 PM »
I am the assassin of productivity

(member in good standing of the troll-feeders guild)

It's begun — my things have overgrown the previous sig.

Offline Jackinthegreen

  • DnD Handbook Writer
  • ****
  • Posts: 6176
  • I like green.
    • View Profile
Re: Awesome stuff you have to share
« Reply #451 on: August 21, 2012, 03:45:19 AM »

Offline DonQuixote

  • Epic Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 2946
  • What is sickness to the body of a knight errant?
    • View Profile
    • The Spellshaping Codices (Homebrew Board)
“Hast thou not felt in forest gloom, as gloaming falls on dark-some dells, when comes a whisper, hum and hiss; savage growling sounds a-near, dazzling flashes around thee flicker, whirring waxes and fills thine ears: has thou not felt then grisly horrors that grip thee and hold thee?”

Offline Pencil

  • Sr. Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 446
  • - your advertisement could stand here -
    • View Profile
Re: Awesome stuff you have to share
« Reply #453 on: August 22, 2012, 09:55:09 AM »
If you are into philosophical logic, check this out.It is an amazing project.

http://www.necessarybeing.net/
Movie Quote of the Week (Brazil):
Sam Lowry: Is that one of your triplets?
Jack Lint: Yeah, probably.

Offline radionausea

  • Sr. Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 425
    • View Profile
Re: Awesome stuff you have to share
« Reply #454 on: August 22, 2012, 10:10:21 AM »
Isn't it just a mash up of a few ontological arguments?
Something inside me dies when I see the word fallacy applied to ideas held about roleplaying. And a small bit of vomit comes up when I see a character called a 'toon'.

Offline Pencil

  • Sr. Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 446
  • - your advertisement could stand here -
    • View Profile
Re: Awesome stuff you have to share
« Reply #455 on: August 22, 2012, 10:15:45 AM »
It is, but in the end you get to see if you contradicted yourself in your statements and how you can be proven wrong by logical means.
Movie Quote of the Week (Brazil):
Sam Lowry: Is that one of your triplets?
Jack Lint: Yeah, probably.

Offline InnaBinder

  • Legendary Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1244
  • Onna table
    • View Profile
Re: Awesome stuff you have to share
« Reply #456 on: August 22, 2012, 10:29:23 AM »
It is, but in the end you get to see if you contradicted yourself in your statements and how you can be proven wrong by logical means.
Answering honestly just wound up getting me a "Thank you for taking our survey" boilerplate end screen.   :???
Arguing on the internet is like running in the Special Olympics.  Even if you win, you're still retarded.

shugenja handbook; talk about it here

Offline Pencil

  • Sr. Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 446
  • - your advertisement could stand here -
    • View Profile
Re: Awesome stuff you have to share
« Reply #457 on: August 22, 2012, 10:31:59 AM »
I got a logcial argument showing where I contradicted myself that consisted of 50 steps....

Don`t know what you are doing wrong  :p
Movie Quote of the Week (Brazil):
Sam Lowry: Is that one of your triplets?
Jack Lint: Yeah, probably.

Offline brujon

  • Epic Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 2554
  • Insufferable Fool
    • View Profile
    • My Blog (in PT-BR)
Re: Awesome stuff you have to share
« Reply #458 on: August 22, 2012, 02:03:15 PM »
I got a logcial argument showing where I contradicted myself that consisted of 50 steps....

Don`t know what you are doing wrong  :p


Congratulations! Your answers (or a subset of them) appear to have an interesting implication: they imply that there is a Necessary Being.
Here's how:

I will first show that a Necessary Being is possible:

    1. Define 'C' as an event in which all contingent things begin to exist.

    2. It is possible that C occurs. (by your report)

    3. Necessarily, if C occurs, then there is an event C* that is a change from there being no contingent thngs to there being some contingent things. (By definition of 'beginning' and definition of 'C')

    4. Therefore, it is possible that C* occurs. (2, 3)

    5. No possible event is impossible to cause. (by your report)

    6. Therefore, it is possible that C* has a cause. (4, 5)

    7. It is not possible for a contingent thing to exist prior to a beginning of all contingent things. (by definition of 'prior to': otherwise a contingent thing would exist while there are no contingent things, which is contradictory [note])

    8. Therefore, it is not possible for a contingent thing to cause a beginning of all contingent things. (by definition of 'cause' & 7)

    9. Therefore, it is possible that C* is caused by something that is not contingent. (by 6 & 8)

    10. Therefore, it is possible that C* is caused by a Necessary Being. (by definition of 'Necessary Being')

    11. Therefore, it is possible that there is a Necessary Being.

    [note] To be clear, the 'all' in 'all contingent things' doesn't rigidly designate any particular contingent things: C* is an event in which there first begins to be some contingent things (where no contingent things previously existed).

I will now show that if a Necessary Being possibly exists, then one actually exists. To begin, recall (from your report) that if X and Y are each possible, then if X were actual, Y would still be possible (for any X and Y). In other words, a possible situation would be possible no matter what might happen to be actual. Therefore, whatever is possible is necessarily possible (by definition of 'necessarily such and such'). Call this principle 'the necessity of possibility' (which is also known as S5).

The deduction using the above principle is well known. Below is one way to spell it out.

    Let '~' abbreviate 'it is not the case that'.

    Let '◊' abbreviate 'it is possible that'.

    Let '□' abbreviate 'it is necessary that' (or '~◊~').

    Let 'N' abbreviate 'there is a Necessary Being'.

The deduction now proceeds as follows:

    1. ◊N.

    2. So: ◊□N. (by definition of 'N')

    3. Now suppose (for the sake of argument) that ◊~N.

    4. Then: □◊~N. (by the necessity of possibility)

    5. Then: ~◊~◊~N. (by substituting '~◊~' for '□')

    6. Then: ~◊~~□~~N. (by substituting '~□~' for the second '◊')

    7. Then: ~◊□N. (because '~~X' is equivalent to 'X')

    8. But (7) contradicts (2).

    9. So: (3) is not true. (because (3) implies (7))

    10. So: ~◊~N.

    11. So: □N. (by substituting '□' for '~◊~')

    12. So: N. (because □X implies X)

The above reasoning is intended to be a semi-formal demonstration based upon your reports. The presentation leaves implicit certain basic rules of logic. If you have any questions about the reasoning, or if you think you perceive a flaw in it (when interpreted charitably), feel free to send comments to NecessaryConcreta@gmail.com.

------

Now, i did not once contradict myself, analyzing all the logical argumentation presented by the site, it's factual that the site railroads you into a circular logic, whereas if you A) Affirm that it's not possible for C (an event that causes all contingent things to occur) to have a cause, or if B) You affirm that it's possible for C to have a prior cause (And it deliberately cites the Big Bang as an example), it will simply recur to the nature of a "Necessary Being" (One that by it's very nature necessarily exists).

Analyzing my own answers. Up to step 11, i have nothing to disagree with the logic therefore presented. It does leave an open possibility for existing a "Necessary Being", but the entire logic relies on the fact that the "Necessary Being" is, in fact, Necessary, and it's a fallacious premise when the site only actively answers you about *Possible* events, not *Necessary* events, and as such, the implication that the being is necessary is in itself being used to justify the existence of that very same being, only on the possibility that it actually exists.

It's not logic, but fallacious applicaiton of formal logic, because it's based on a previous fallacious premise.

I will show that now by presenting my different responses going from the basis of premise A)

-----

Congratulations! Your answers (or a subset of them) appear to have an interesting implication: they imply that there is a Necessary Being.
Here's how:

I will first show that a Necessary Being is possible:

    1. Necessarily, no cause of a member of an entire chain of causes is outside that chain. (by definition of 'entire')

    2. Therefore, necessarily, an entire chain of causes is ungrounded. (by definition of 'ungrounded')

    3. Necessarily, every concrete thing that is included in a chain of causes is included in an entire chain of causes. (by definition of 'chain')

    4. Therefore, necessarily, every concrete thing that is included in a chain of causes is included in an ungrounded chain of causes. (by 1-3)

    5. It is not necessary that every concrete thing is included in a chain of causes that is both infinite and ungrounded. (by your report)

    6. Therefore, it is possible for there to be a concrete thing that is at a head of an entire chain of causes. (by 4 & 5)

    7. Necessarily, any head of an entire chain of causes has no cause. (by definition of 'head')

    8. Therefore, it is possible for there to be a concrete thing that has no cause. (by 5 & 6)

    9. There cannot be a contingent thing that has no cause. (by your report)

    10. Therefore, it possible that there is a concrete thing that is not contingent. (by 8 & 9)

    11. Therefore, it is possible that there is a Necessary Being. (by definition of 'Necessary Being')

I will now show that if a Necessary Being possibly exists, then one actually exists. To begin, recall (from your report) that if X and Y are each possible, then if X were actual, Y would still be possible (for any X and Y). In other words, a possible situation would be possible no matter what might happen to be actual. Therefore, whatever is possible is necessarily possible (by definition of 'necessarily such and such'). Call this principle 'the necessity of possibility' (which is also known as S5).

The deduction using the above principle is well known. Below is one way to spell it out.

    Let '~' abbreviate 'it is not the case that'.

    Let '◊' abbreviate 'it is possible that'.

    Let '□' abbreviate 'it is necessary that' (or '~◊~').

    Let 'N' abbreviate 'there is a Necessary Being'.

The deduction now proceeds as follows:

    1. ◊N.

    2. So: ◊□N. (by definition of 'N')

    3. Now suppose (for the sake of argument) that ◊~N.

    4. Then: □◊~N. (by the necessity of possibility)

    5. Then: ~◊~◊~N. (by substituting '~◊~' for '□')

    6. Then: ~◊~~□~~N. (by substituting '~□~' for the second '◊')

    7. Then: ~◊□N. (because '~~X' is equivalent to 'X')

    8. But (7) contradicts (2).

    9. So: (3) is not true. (because (3) implies (7))

    10. So: ~◊~N.

    11. So: □N. (by substituting '□' for '~◊~')

    12. So: N. (because □X implies X)

The above reasoning is intended to be a semi-formal demonstration based upon your reports. The presentation leaves implicit certain basic rules of logic. If you have any questions about the reasoning, or if you think you perceive a flaw in it (when interpreted charitably), feel free to send comments to NecessaryConcreta@gmail.com.


-------

You see that the logic he uses is the same. It only ever recurs to the fact that the bein is in fact, Necessary, to prove that in the event that it's even remotely possible, then it therefore must exist.


EDIT: Yet another subset of answers, rebutted using the same logic. I deliberately argumented proactively to cause a situation where the only answer possible was the existence of a necessary being. Here's what i got:

Congratulations! Your answers (or a subset of them) appear to have an interesting implication: they imply that there is a Necessary Being.
Here's how:

I will first show that a Necessary Being is possible:

    1. Define 'C' as an event in which all contingent things begin to exist.

    2. It is possible that C occurs. (by your report)

    3. Necessarily, if C occurs, then there is an event C* that is a change from there being no contingent thngs to there being some contingent things. (By definition of 'beginning' and definition of 'C')

    4. Therefore, it is possible that C* occurs. (2, 3)

    5. No possible event is impossible to cause. (by your report)

    6. Therefore, it is possible that C* has a cause. (4, 5)

    7. It is not possible for a contingent thing to exist prior to a beginning of all contingent things. (by definition of 'prior to': otherwise a contingent thing would exist while there are no contingent things, which is contradictory [note])

    8. Therefore, it is not possible for a contingent thing to cause a beginning of all contingent things. (by definition of 'cause' & 7)

    9. Therefore, it is possible that C* is caused by something that is not contingent. (by 6 & 8)

    10. Therefore, it is possible that C* is caused by a Necessary Being. (by definition of 'Necessary Being')

    11. Therefore, it is possible that there is a Necessary Being.

    [note] To be clear, the 'all' in 'all contingent things' doesn't rigidly designate any particular contingent things: C* is an event in which there first begins to be some contingent things (where no contingent things previously existed).

I will now show that if a Necessary Being possibly exists, then one actually exists. To begin, recall (from your report) that if X and Y are each possible, then if X were actual, Y would still be possible (for any X and Y). In other words, a possible situation would be possible no matter what might happen to be actual. Therefore, whatever is possible is necessarily possible (by definition of 'necessarily such and such'). Call this principle 'the necessity of possibility' (which is also known as S5).

The deduction using the above principle is well known. Below is one way to spell it out.

    Let '~' abbreviate 'it is not the case that'.

    Let '◊' abbreviate 'it is possible that'.

    Let '□' abbreviate 'it is necessary that' (or '~◊~').

    Let 'N' abbreviate 'there is a Necessary Being'.

The deduction now proceeds as follows:

    1. ◊N.

    2. So: ◊□N. (by definition of 'N')

    3. Now suppose (for the sake of argument) that ◊~N.

    4. Then: □◊~N. (by the necessity of possibility)

    5. Then: ~◊~◊~N. (by substituting '~◊~' for '□')

    6. Then: ~◊~~□~~N. (by substituting '~□~' for the second '◊')

    7. Then: ~◊□N. (because '~~X' is equivalent to 'X')

    8. But (7) contradicts (2).

    9. So: (3) is not true. (because (3) implies (7))

    10. So: ~◊~N.

    11. So: □N. (by substituting '□' for '~◊~')

    12. So: N. (because □X implies X)

The above reasoning is intended to be a semi-formal demonstration based upon your reports. The presentation leaves implicit certain basic rules of logic. If you have any questions about the reasoning, or if you think you perceive a flaw in it (when interpreted charitably), feel free to send comments to NecessaryConcreta@gmail.com.


EDIT2: Responding every question with "I can't say" leads to:


Thank you for taking the survey. None of your reports imply that there is a Necessary Being, as far as I can tell.

-----

Ever more evidence for there being implict logical flaws leading to the circular logic argument to "prove" the existence of a necessary being.
« Last Edit: August 22, 2012, 02:09:10 PM by brujon »
"All the pride and pleasure of the world, mirrored in the dull consciousness of a fool, are poor indeed compared with the imagination of Cervantes writing his Don Quixote in a miserable prison" - Schopenhauer, Aphorisms: The Wisdom of Life

Offline RedWarlock

  • Hero Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 628
  • Crimson-colored caster of calamity
    • View Profile
    • Red Blade Studios
Re: Awesome stuff you have to share
« Reply #459 on: August 22, 2012, 02:11:23 PM »
Oddly enough, when I did it, I got the response that my responses imply the possibility of a necessary being, with no mention of a contradiction in the analysis.
WarCraft post-d20: A new take on the World of WarCraft for tabletop. I need your eyes and comments!