Randomness thread, part two.

[eugmac]

oh, 156. i see. use the keyboard, not the mouse ldo.

[eugmac]

i'll let luco keep his record.

[Luco]

how in the hell are you guys getting into triple digits?

We've obv had more whacking practice than you

hit it with the tip I think

[eugmac]

now that you brought it back up i had to, sorry.

169.

[wufwugy]

Maybe that's what makes her perfect? So perfect she has imperfections?

perfection always includes imperfections


also stop girl could be saying stop without the "p" there. say it yourself the way she would there and you'll find it sounds like "stAAAAAWWWp"

[jyms]

She isn't saying stop, she is saying "NO"

[Savy]

Stop girl ain't even anything special, wufs bird >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

[eugmac]

hmm, i'm siding with bikes here. although i'd hit both before you guys are done arguing about it.

[eugmac]

except i wouldn't because i'm married?

[wufwugy]

how the fuck is bikes winning this? time to bring out the big guns.



there. better than stop girl. i win. deal

[MadMojoMonkey]

perfection always includes imperfections

This makes no logical sense. By any reasonable definition a thing is either perfect or imperfect, but it can't be both. Sure the subjective criteria of perfection can be in dispute. Even still... Once the criteria are decided, it is a yes/no case. Either it could be better, or it could not.

I don't understand the use of the word perfect if there's a gray area.

[eugmac]

i think he's trying to be a poet, illuminating some paradoxical characteristic of human perception.

[wufwugy]

This makes no logical sense. By any reasonable definition a thing is either perfect or imperfect, but it can't be both. Sure the subjective criteria of perfection can be in dispute. Even still... Once the criteria are decided, it is a yes/no case. Either it could be better, or it could not.

I don't understand the use of the word perfect if there's a gray area.

If we want to get strictly logical, "perfection" is a meaningless term since it is simultaneously impossible and the makeup of all things. How is an electron not perfect? An atom? A compound? A cell? An organism? The whole idea is meaningless

Colloquially, however, it's hyperbole, and when thought of practically in certain contexts, like one of aesthetics, it involves quirks and nuances of imperfection. Because our sense of aesthetics views some flaws as desirable, we tend to call the imperfect perfect. All things being equal, a face with character is prettier than one without

[eugmac]

the latest girl wuf posted is an improvement but if i'm critical i'd say she has a bit of resting bitch face happening which does make her rank down a bit. she's not a stick-thin praying mantis which is a very good thing though. body is indeed quite close to ideal.

[a500lbgorilla]

A priori perfection, bro. You don't even need to experience it.

There's actually an awesome web-a-thing on this.

[a500lbgorilla]

http://www.radiolab.org/story/257203-snowflakes/

[jyms]

That isn't even close to what my perfect would be wuf

Of course that would validate your second argument

[eugmac]

concepts exist, non-tangibly but nonetheless real. in the same way, the concept of perfection exists. that's my whisky thesis for the evneing.

[eugmac]

i think rilla beat me to it by one minute.

[a500lbgorilla]

That one perfect minute.

[bikes]

Why cant you all admit stop girl is the best?

[wufwugy]

concepts exist, non-tangibly but nonetheless real. in the same way, the concept of perfection exists. that's my whisky thesis for the evneing.

Sounds like some Plato shit. Ain't no love for that mouth-breather in this heart

[a500lbgorilla]

Because of many of the pixels.

[wufwugy]

looked up a priori. how is this not begging the question i.e. assuming the premise?

[a500lbgorilla]

looked up a priori. how is this not begging the question i.e. assuming the premise?

The question is well exampled in that link I posted. One dude is obsessed with snowflakes and takes perfect pictures of them as part of his life's purpose. A German comes along and, with his humorless German rigor, takes snowflake pics of his own discovering that the perfect snowflake simply does not exist. This liar had photochopped his snowflakes (circa 1890)! The obsessor returns that the scientist strives above all to be true to Nature and that the intended, crystalline, symmetrical form was the True form and the only form which deserved to be captured.

You can go either way, I prefer realism in all things and I always ignore the whole a priori/a post-whateveri divide. But Math is a kind of perfect, a priori, tautologic, robust, well-formed; and something that does have a real impact on this world. So I can fork either way on this question.

[a500lbgorilla]

But I would tend to agree, nothing is perfect - chaos always has a say.

[eugmac]

maybe chaos is perfect.

[a500lbgorilla]

[wufwugy]

Math is an abstraction, not a material. All material, even atoms, don't have perfect symmetry or provide perfect information. Math, however, I think, does

[surviva316]

So I was at the ship & print, doin' my thang. The printer I was using was coming up with an error message, and when the technician rectified it, something printed out that wasn't mine. I skimmed through it, partly because I was making sure my printing wasn't folded in there, partly because it had me curious.

Each page had just like 10 lines of text with like 8 words each (kinda like a double-spaced poem). It was some sort of Islamic something or other, mostly in English with some arabic lines sporadically included throughout. Most of it sounded like trick questions on a test of Islam or some shit (~"Mohammed is the great prophet. / Should you pray to Allah?" type stuff), but some of it talked about Kaafirs (~"Kaafir are not muslims" type stuff) and other more cryptic shit I couldn't understand. One of them ended with the line "Kaafir are very bad people."

Wasn't sure what to make of it.

[rong]

Dude, call the police. It's prob not a terrorist at the end of it, but it will be a cool experience which you can draw on for future books.

[Savy]

You all have some crazy ass definitions of what perfect is. Interesting how this can all start up a conversation (which I like btw) when it's pretty obvious what wuf meant in his first post on the subject.

But you all need to look up what perfect actually means

Adjective
Having all the required or desirable elements, qualities, or characteristics; as good as it is possible to be.

So it's all relative to the criteria and obviously a perfect woman to me isn't going to be a perfect woman to you because we have different, and I'd imagine ever evolving, definitions of what perfect would be. Although I'd imagine none of us have any idea what our idea of perfection really is.

As for Maths being a perfect system, I dunno. I think that's a much more complicated discussion. But I'd air on the side that it isn't.

[a500lbgorilla]

lol @ dictionary definitions.

We don't speak dictionary.

[MadMojoMonkey]

Math is an abstraction, not a material. All material, even atoms, don't have perfect symmetry or provide perfect information. Math, however, I think, does

You have not stated the criteria by which you are judging perfection, or, if you have stated some criteria, you have not stated how it is necessary to the functionality you deem to evaluate as perfect or imperfect. The choice of criteria dictate the utility being ascertained, and provide a clear logical framework for the discussion.

I don't agree with the stipulation that perfection is or can be a priori. To assume a thing/trait/idea/etc. has a given functionality outside the presence of an intended use seems like an illogical starting point. The notion of intent is subjective, and so, I don't think an a priori definition of perfect makes any sense.

[a500lbgorilla]

You have not stated the criteria by which you are judging perfection, or, if you have stated some criteria, you have not stated how it is necessary to the functionality you deem to evaluate as perfect or imperfect. The choice of criteria dictate the utility being ascertained, and provide a clear logical framework for the discussion.

For all stuff, there is a thing such that that thing's existence implies it is unequal to any other thing.

If everything is different, nothing is perfect.

edit or would it be: For each thing, across all stuff, it's existence implies it is unequal to any other thing.

This is why philosophers don't math!

[MadMojoMonkey]

For all stuff, there is a thing such that that thing's existence implies it is unequal to any other thing.

If everything is different, nothing is perfect.

edit or would it be: For each thing, across all stuff, it's existence implies it is unequal to any other thing.

This is why philosophers don't math!

I don't know what kind of pseudo-talk this is, but it's not convincing me of anything other than that you don't understand what you're trying to say, or else it wouldn't be so cryptic coming from someone so eloquent as you.

FWIW, Quantum Physics describes fundamental particles, such as electrons, as indistinguishable. I.e. they are exactly identical.

[a500lbgorilla]

I don't agree with the stipulation that perfection is or can be a priori. To assume a thing/trait/idea/etc. has a given functionality outside the presence of an intended use seems like an illogical starting point. The notion of intent is subjective, and so, I don't think an a priori definition of perfect makes any sense.

None of this is ringing to me. Euclidean geometry - perfect y/n/m?

I'd say yes. Once the assumptions are laid down, the world it builds is coherent, consistent, complete, and tautologically true. Everything is true because the assumptions can't be anything but true. Every time you enter into the modeled world of Euclidean geometry, you're entering an identical world to the last time anyone else visited. Dropping the a priori nonsense because it's useless, the world of Euclidean geometry is a kind of perfect. Any flaw you have with it isn't with it, it's with you and your application of it.

This is how I fork.

[a500lbgorilla]

I don't know what kind of pseudo-talk this is, but it's not convincing me of anything other than that you don't understand what you're trying to say, or else it wouldn't be so cryptic coming from someone so eloquent as you.

FWIW, Quantum Physics describes fundamental particles, such as electrons, as indistinguishable. I.e. they are exactly identical.

Math talk isn't eloquent. I was trying to math talk you.

You were looking for rigorous and specific, I tried to feed your needs. That you would turn the talk away from the topic and towards me as the speaker is a bad step.

[MadMojoMonkey]

None of this is ringing to me. Euclidean geometry - perfect y/n/m?

It is perfect for describing a certain class of questions, not even close to adequate, much less perfect, when dealing with other classes of questions, and may be of marginal use to answer a third class of questions.

Criteria means everything.

[MadMojoMonkey]

That you would turn the talk away from the topic and towards me as the speaker is a bad step.

Agreed. Sorry for that.

[MadMojoMonkey]

Math talk isn't eloquent. I was trying to math talk you.

But it read like this:
Given A
This implies B, such that B != A.
Therefore nothing is perfect.

So I don't get what you're saying.

[a500lbgorilla]

It is perfect for describing a certain class of questions, not even close to adequate, much less perfect, when dealing with other classes of questions, and may be of marginal use to answer a third class of questions.

Criteria means everything.

Sometimes, maybe, you can strip away everything and find the Zen beauty of this perfect little corner of knowing for what it is. *hummmmm*

I am taking stabs in the dark from time to time, but I do like my thought that if everything is different, then nothing is perfect. In any case, I'm on to lighter fare.

[a500lbgorilla]

I was going to post the 'let me be the first to say' turtle pic from years ago, but its res sucked.



Consolation

[MadMojoMonkey]

Sometimes, maybe, you can strip away everything and find the Zen beauty of this perfect little corner of knowing for what it is. *hummmmm*

Oh, you know how hard it is for me to argue when someone's giving me a hummer.

[a500lbgorilla]

But it read like this:
Given A
This implies B, such that B != A.
Therefore nothing is perfect.

So I don't get what you're saying.

Tried to give you math talk. I was shooting from my hips.

[a500lbgorilla]

Oh, you know how hard it is for me to argue when someone's giving me a hummer.

[surviva316]

lol @ dictionary definitions.

We don't speak dictionary.

I agree with this, but context clues should kinda point to the fact that this is what wuf meant. This is ONE possible use of perfection, and it seems most likely that it's the use he meant.

I'll say that I'm with you guys, though, that I'm personally a stickler with this word. It just so happens that the word "optimal" is rare in everyday usage and seems very nerdy/informal/heartless to use, eg, in this context where we're calling someone the "optimal woman." In fact, I've had people cross out the word "optimal" in my essays and stories and shit telling me that I should just use perfect instead, and it pisses me off. Perfect should mean flawless, without imperfections, not just as good as possible given the restraints but actually good WITHOUT restraint (at least in philosophical discussion; context clues should obviously dominate in colloquial conversation).

This is probably just a nerve for me as someone who gets in a lot of theological arguments.

Fun fact: spoony has two separate arguments with himself regarding perfection. Hahaha, okay, I'll gtfo with that shit and go back into my Randomness Thread avoiding hovel.

[wufwugy]

You have not stated the criteria by which you are judging perfection.

Because there isn't one.

Y'all think I'm whack for calling Plato a dumbshit. While I am exaggerating, he was the fool who planted the seed of the idea of perfection in the minds of the classical, thus the renaissance, thus the modern product of those. He was wrong. It's a stupid idea, and I'm not sure I wouldn't blame him for Christianity and Islam. I'm not sure we don't know if the idea of the ideal was a thing before Plato, and those religions, and all the problems they have created, are unique in that they worship the ideal and originated from the Hellenized world

So yeah, "perfection" works colloquially, but is not a characteristic of the physical universe other than the idea that it is a characteristic of the physical universe. Beyond that, like it was pointed out, it's a paradox

[a500lbgorilla]

Optimal... optimal is the word we were looking for.

Nice catch, surv. You're 'surv' now.

[wufwugy]

If an idea is not perfect, is it not perfectly imperfect, thus perfect?

If perfection is related to context, are not all contexts unique, thus all things perfect?

If perfection is related to context, then in which context is a claim of perfection credible?

[a500lbgorilla]

If an idea is not perfect, is it not perfectly imperfect, thus perfect?

If perfection is related to context, are not all contexts unique, thus all things perfect?

If perfection is related to context, then in which context is a claim of perfection credible?

The last one is good.

[MadMojoMonkey]

[...]is it not perfectly imperfect[...]

By any definition, this is not a thing.

[Savy]

By any definition, this is not a thing.

If you throw enough shit at a wall though.

[MadMojoMonkey]

If perfection is related to context, are not all contexts unique, thus all things perfect?

This supposes an infinite variation of contexts.

[a500lbgorilla]

Drawing a total blank, falling back to sweet Euclid.

The interface between Euclid and the real world are the assumptions. They're the passkey for gaining access to the world. I would claim that Euclid's world is perfect in the context of its world alone. It can plug into any other world by way of the passkey.

In any case, I'm over to the drunk thread and then out to walk this world.

[MadMojoMonkey]

If you throw enough shit at a wall though.

You have a stinky wall...?

[wufwugy]

The last one is good.

I meant "is not related to context", but they both work. Because it takes context to apply context

[a500lbgorilla]

You have a stinky wall...?

Hahaha! I get what ImSavy is on about, but ha!

[MadMojoMonkey]

The interface between Euclid and the real world are the assumptions. They're the passkey for gaining access to the world. I would claim that Euclid's world is perfect in the context of its world alone. It can plug into any other world by way of the passkey.

Except that you can't describe General Relativity in Euclidean Space.

[a500lbgorilla]

Except that you can't describe General Relativity in Euclidean Space.

General Relativity isn't a thing in Euclidean Geometry. All the things in Euclidean Geometry are true, GR ain't (in Euclidean Geometry).

[wufwugy]

By any definition, this is not a thing.

That's kinda the point. The definitions aren't absolutes anyways

This supposes an infinite variation of contexts.

For our intents, there is

[a500lbgorilla]

It's like how you use models to solve problems in the real world. You translate a problem in the real world into some consistent model, use the model to calculate forward and translate the result back into the real world. The model, which is useful, isn't a part of this world. It's just a really swell tool for managing in it.

[abelardx]

"What is Reality? An icicle forming in fire." - Dogen

[Savy]

General Relativity isn't a thing in Euclidean Geometry. All the things in Euclidean Geometry are true, GR ain't.

Are you arguing that Euclidean Geometry is perfect under it's own predefined rules and assumptions?

If so I'm pretty sure there are problems that arise in Euclidean Geometry which can't be solved by Euclidean Geometry in itself, but I would have to look that up to be sure. However I know it to be true for other systems or models or whatever you want to call them.

[MadMojoMonkey]

The interface between Euclid and the real world are the assumptions.

General Relativity isn't a thing in Euclidean Geometry. All the things in Euclidean Geometry are true, GR ain't.

Then Euclidean Geometry does not describe the real world.

GR ain't true, eh? I won't even go there with all my it predicted... and explained... and provides us with... which is part of your everyday life.

If the mathematical framework which provides us with a way to define and demonstrate truth for Euclidean Geometry is adequate, then those same criteria are adequate to describe the mathematical truths in frameworks outside of Euclidean Space.

[a500lbgorilla]

Are you arguing that Euclidean Geometry is perfect under it's own predefined rules and assumptions?

If so I'm pretty sure there are problems that arise in Euclidean Geometry which can't be solved by Euclidean Geometry in itself, but I would have to look that up to be sure.

Yup, it's consistent. Which means that no two truths contradict one another.

[a500lbgorilla]

Then Euclidean Geometry does not describe the real world.

GR ain't true, eh? I won't even go there with all my it predicted... and explained... and provides us with... which is part of your everyday life.

If the mathematical framework which provides us with a way to define and demonstrate truth for Euclidean Geometry is adequate, then those same criteria are adequate to describe the mathematical truths in frameworks outside of Euclidean Space.

I walked back to clarify because I saw this coming!

I already said I forked from my normal position of pro-realism for the hell of it. GR ain't true *in Euclidean Geometry*. Once you go in, you're not allowed to leave. If EG doesn't work in GR, that just means GR ain't true to those of us in EG.

[a500lbgorilla]

Oh and to your last sentence, yeah, I already had a twist where I was gonna move on to the fact that EG is true even though its assumptions are apparent to people who experience this world because non-EG is just as true. In any case, I flee!

[MadMojoMonkey]

If EG doesn't work in GR, that just means GR ain't true to those of us in EG.

No, it means that EG is "perfect" to answer questions within the context of its boundaries. It makes no statements of truth about things beyond its boundaries... 'cause math is perfect in the respect that it does not answer questions whose premises negate the initial assumptions of that branch of mathematics.

[a500lbgorilla]

Yes, it means that EG is "perfect" to answer questions within the context of its boundaries. It makes no statements of truth about things beyond its boundaries... 'cause math is perfect in the respect that it does not answer questions whose premises negate the initial assumptions of that branch of mathematics.

Phone boasting ain't easy

[a500lbgorilla]

And I realize my drop from perfect to 'if nothing is identical, nothing is perfect' is just shifting the burden from perfect to identical. This is why realism is the bees knees - there's an answer key.

[wufwugy]

Realism isn't just the bees knees, it's the only thing. Find something that isn't real and you've found something that isn't

[wufwugy]

Realism isn't just the bees knees, it's the only thing. Find something that isn't real and you've found something that isn't

Also the fact that this paradoxical sentence can be formed, yet still makes sense, demonstrates the problem of abstract ideals

[wufwugy]

Does anybody know if I'm right about Plato? As far as I can tell, he is the origin of the idea of the ideal

[a500lbgorilla]

Well this post was a god damn chore.