May 24, 2016
When dealing with Zero, it is false you are dealing with Nothing...
an explanation found here
Loading...
seen from United Kingdom
seen from Chile
seen from Sweden
seen from Angola
seen from China
seen from United States
seen from United States
seen from Bulgaria
seen from Australia
seen from Saudi Arabia
seen from Netherlands
seen from Yemen
seen from Angola
seen from United States
seen from United States
seen from Italy
seen from Netherlands
seen from Singapore
seen from Australia
seen from Russia
When dealing with Zero, it is false you are dealing with Nothing...
an explanation found here
Anya is live and ready to show you everything. Watch her strip, dance, and perform exclusive shows just for you. Interact in real-time and make your fantasies come true.
Free to watch ⢠No registration required ⢠HD streaming
If spending money counts as speech then could I use my freedom of speech to "talkâ to a prostitute?
Time and Change
Can anyone think of a kind of change that does not involve time? If not, is time synonymous with change and if so then why do we have different words for them?Â
A new take on the trolley problem
So I saw this recently and wanted to ask for input. Think of the usually trolley dilemma with two different tracks and you at the track switch. Both tracks are running infinitely long with people strapped at equal distance to each other running along both of these tracks, going on forever. Now the difference between the two choices is that one track has an incline to it that would force the trolley to go twice as fast as if it went on the other track. What is the more ethical choice (if any),
@ontologicalidiot @jaysocrates25?
Problem 27 - Achilles and the Tortoise
In a race, the quickest runner, Achilles, can never overtake the slowest, the tortoise, since the pursuer must first reach the point whence the pursued started, so that the slower (tortoise) must always hold a lead. â as recounted by Aristotle, Physics VI:9, 239b15
This problem at its heart is that it is a paradox. How can both the deductive reasoning of the division of space and the inductive reasoning of observation of the faster overtaking the slower be true? To begin to understand letâs begin with rooting out the premises to see how underlying this structure develops into this paradox.
This paradox assumes that space is infinitely divisible. If it didnât then Achilles would eventually get to the smallest interval of distance and cross it, though any motion would be less then observed (another paradox for another day). This problem also assumes that space is dividable and proceeds in a linear direction. Finally the paradox relies on inductive reasoning to act as a premise.
There have been several solutions to this paradox with two fairly famous ones, one the creator of the paradox no doubt supported, and the other one from Aristotle. To better make sense of this paradox a small philosophy history would help give better context to how the two solutions relate to each other.
Zeno of Elea was the author of this and about forty other paradoxes, of which about ten. Of the ten surviving paradoxes most of these can be found in the writings of Aristotle and he was mostly commenting on them. Zeno was a student of Parmenides and could be considered his successor. Parmenides taught that The World was static, unchanging, and a unified oneness. For this would necessitate that any change we observe to be understood as a falsehood of some kind.
This theory is âeggâ for the Law of Conservation of Energy. Parmenides model of oneness included time, space, energy, and matter. This would make Existence seem like a block of everything. Time too would be apart of this block but for some reason or another we only experience one layer of the brick at a time but the whole of the brick exists the entire time. Determinism finds its roots in this theory as well. However these both the Law of Conservation of Energy Determinism only partially use the theories of Parmenides that could be found in what could be considered the Parmenidean Solution.
Zeno had yet to intend to want to confound people in general and to send philosophy students in a deterministic nihilism, he was simply trying to fully illustrate his teacherâs lessons. The first problem to be pointed out is the assumption that space is multiplicitous and dividable. Remember Parmenides taught the world was one and undividable. This would include time as well. Finally the inductive reasoning of still observing change can be answered like this, Achilles can over take tortoise because while he is behind him, he exists everywhere at once, there is only place existing and Achilles is there. This would allow for the illusion of motion without actually granting motion.
This did not settle well for many people and even more were uninclined to follow Parmenides train of thought because there did not seem for a plausible explanation for the existence of motion (most of Parmenidesâ writings were lost but there are a few commentaries on it). It took some time for the Hellenic world to mull over Parmenidesâ teaching until finally it got to one of the most renowned Philosopher, Aristotle.
Aristotle wrote of Parmenides in the context of looking at the âNatural Philosophersâ (Today the phrase âPre-Socratic Philosophersâ is more often used). Aristotle spoke of Parmenides in comparison to what many would consider his counter opposite, Heraclitus, who believed Existence was in a state of flux. Aristotle was writing about these two men in particular so that he could synthesize a new understanding from them, which often ended up with him criticizing previous people and then putting forth his solutions.
Aristotle doesnât criticize the premises as Zeno probably intended but includes additional ideas to the paradox to try to resolve it. Aristotle said that with each division of space there must also be a division of time. This would continue on and on to infinitesimal levels. This would mean the divisions of time and space are proportional to each other and allowed for the race to be viewed mathematically as a whole equation. While this would leave room for some elements like the block universe, it would allow for motion and even Achilles beating the tortoise, (does Achilles time over the distance to the goal beat the tortoiseâs time over his/her distance to the goal).
While this would seem like it is avoiding the issues brought up by Parmenides, Aristotle is simply trying to point out the fact that with the given evidence these things must not necessarily be as Parmenides prescribed. While motion is not addressed, Aristotle would later go on to explain his ideas of motion, which would be held as the model of physics until Galileo came around.
Anya is live and ready to show you everything. Watch her strip, dance, and perform exclusive shows just for you. Interact in real-time and make your fantasies come true.
Free to watch ⢠No registration required ⢠HD streaming
The Ultimate Razor
I came up with a solution to anything. The Ultimate Razorâs name comes from William of Ockham that, in a nutshell says, âthe simplest solution is the correct one.â My explanation is, âYou are delusional and there is only chaos.â This can literally explain anything you pose a question about, for example what is the answer to 2+2? Well, you are delusional to think there is 2+2, there is only chaos. I came up with this in an epistemology class, my professor was not amused.
Unconditional Love
In modern times the world has been polluted utterly with fallacies. This could be something concrete like that global warming is a myth, to something like the more abstract and obscure like believing in an all-knowing god that still is capable of getting angry. None of these however, are as grave as the fantasies we have developed towards love. This is not a problem that started in modern times but with the advent of the technological revolution these problems have been enhanced exponentially. In ancient times, the love of one woman launched a thousand ships on a ten-year war, but in modern times love of oneâs country can result in complete and total destruction of humanity. There are many types of love but none of these are more intense and dangerous then unconditional love. This kind of love becomes even more hazardous when left unexamined. While it seems it is the strongest possible bonds between two people, the people experiencing it have a profound misunderstanding of what they are experiencing. To properly illustrate this it is necessary to examine the question, âwhat is love?â and how love interacts with people. Â Â Â Â Â Â The question asked in the iconic 90âs song by Haddaway, âWhat is Love?â has been on mankindâs mind surely since they have first experienced it. In Platoâs Symposium this is the main topic of the dialogue. Each person presents a different take on the topic that would then likely affect how that person perceives the world. At the end of the dialogue Socrates recounts an explanation given to him by a Priestess who went by the name of Diotima. She explains to Socrates that love resides in the intermediary between all things. Love is the desire to possess fair and beautiful things. This beauty is not a solely physical trait but what a person perceives as beautiful. Love, being a desire means that a person never actually possesses the desired object. If a person were to possess the desired object then their desire is sated and they would no longer be in love. This also means that a person must possess something already for the desire to reside in. The only thing a person is truly capable of possessing is themselves. This is something that everyone has achieved whether they realize it or not. Great deals of people have confused themselves for other things or other people. A good example of this is the story of Narcissus. In it, Narcissus comes across a beautiful nymph named Echo who was in love with him. He scorns her and then rest near a pond. For the first time he witnesses his reflection, perhaps the most beautiful man in Greece. He desires to possess this image, not realizing that he already possessed it. Narcissus is capable of controlling the image to any degree he wishes. Instead, he sits by the pond unwilling to leave this image or even to drink the water since it would disturb the image with ripples. He dies in the end because of his failure to realize what he possessed and how this desire functioned. All of this shows two prerequisites for love emerging from this examination. The first is that a person needs to know who they are or at the very least to recognize themselves. The second prerequisite for love is that the person needs to be able to direct their desire in a certain direction to someone or something. This highlights the problem of unconditional love. While in a great deal of romantic comedies a character goes through a long speech culminating with the assertion of their unconditional love to the other person there exist two conditions for this love. These conditions are, âI am meâ, and, âyou are youâ. After all if, being âyouâ was not a requirement for this love then âIâ would be content to love a different person with an equal intensity as âyouâ. This then shows the most literal concept of unconditional love is an illusion. This doesnât mean that the sensations a person experiences why experiencing what they describe as unconditional love isnât real. On the contrary they are very real and some of the strongest motivators to affect change in this world. The reason why people value âunconditional loveâ is not due to the illusionary nature but because of its minimalistic nature. It requires only one trait from each person per desire. Both people do not have to be successful, intelligent, faithful, etc but only need to be themselves. In the end it may be more apt to label this kind of love bi-conditional love.
A Zero and Nothing Paradox
âI am overwhelmed with zero things to doâ implies you are under, or less then zero. Since negative numbers only exist as an exchange between two or more entities, how can something be less then zero in itself?