Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

I am religious and believe in free will

71 (27.7%)

I am religious and do not believe in free will

10 (3.9%)

I am not religious and believe in free will

114 (44.5%)

I am not religious and do not believe in free will

61 (23.8%)

Total Members Voted: 251

[Loud Whispers]

Fuck, the Aztec human-sacrifice Gods were proably better.

The Aztec gods demanded human sacrifice because they were expending all their power and sacrificing themselves to keep the world from ending. Gotta keep the world going. Now, would you kindly climb up this here pyramid with me?

Dark souls with aztec theme wen

[TempAcc]

This is the timecube thread now.

[inteuniso]

This is the timecube thread now.

Acceptable to Zalthor.

All irrational numbers, in their extended decimal sequence, contain every single possible combination of numbers. All of them.

Correct. Very correct. They're infinitely extending numbers that do not repeat, so there's no way you can't be correct about that. Problem with your quibble: the number the riddle refers to is rational. The spoilered number? Terminates at the 46th decimal. If you had opened the last spoiler, you would have noticed the wiki's creator points out how it's probably tied to the human genome as it has 46 chromosomes and all of the DNA bases are clip art on the last page of the riddle.

So, you're right. I'm not a math genius, I never got past the MVT and Taylor polynomials. I struggle with multivariable calculus. Sue me. Doesn't mean this isn't some cool math, at the least. It's cool to see rational numbers come out like this, even if it's just coincidental that railgunny/supernatural numbers show up.

[Gentlefish]

All repeating/terminating chains of decimals have a rational number whose decimal representation is that decimal. So it's trivial to do this problem in reverse- come up with some bunch of "important" numbers in a big decimal expansion, find the rational number whose decimal representation is that decimal number, factor the numerator and denominator. Things that look amazing backwards can actually be rather boring looking at them forwards.

Boo, you wet blanket. Let people have their fun.

[Putnam]

All irrational numbers, in their extended decimal sequence, contain every single possible combination of numbers. All of them.

Correct. Very correct.

No, that is, in fact, completely wrong. Here's an irrational number:

0.101001000100001000001000000100000001...

It is a decimal number, base 10. It is irrational. It does not contain the number 2 anywhere in its expansion.

The type of number you are referring to are called "normal numbers". Almost all real numbers are normal, but not all irrational numbers are normal. The page gives a specific example of an irrational but non-normal number.

Please do not make shit up or affirm others' shit they made up.

All repeating/terminating chains of decimals have a rational number whose decimal representation is that decimal. So it's trivial to do this problem in reverse- come up with some bunch of "important" numbers in a big decimal expansion, find the rational number whose decimal representation is that decimal number, factor the numerator and denominator. Things that look amazing backwards can actually be rather boring looking at them forwards.

Boo, you wet blanket. Let people have their fun.

By the same logic, I might as well say that everyone deserves to die because the Sun is purple. I can't let people base any sort of philosophy or eschatology on things that are verifiably incorrect, that's morally wrong.

[TD1]

Humbug. Religion in general is intellectually dishonest, we still let them carry on with it.

[Loud Whispers]

Humbug. Religion in general is intellectually dishonest, we still let them carry on with it.

We don't let anyone carry on with anything, even communism couldn't kill it even when they were literally killing tens of millions of them and controlling every information input in their lives

Until we have the Man Emperor of Mankind of course

[TD1]

Of course we let them carry on with it, by not challenging it. Most of us do not challenge the right to religion, right? Ergo, we let it happen.

Whether or not it would happen without our support is beside the point.

[Loud Whispers]

Of course we let them carry on with it, by not challenging it. Most of us do not challenge the right to religion, right? Ergo, we let it happen.

Whether or not it would happen without our support is beside the point.

Not allowing someone to do something is saying you have the ability to stop it but choose not to

[Rolepgeek]

Humbug. Religion in general is intellectually dishonest, we still let them carry on with it.

That's a very strong statement you've got there. Specially considering it's only fairly recently that science and faith have become considered to be opposed. Religion is just a form of philosophy/ideology, at it's heart. If you'd like to say that philosophy is intellectually dishonest, that's one thing, but if you're not prepared to go that far, I'mma challenge that assertion.

[TD1]

Philosophy in so far as it extrapolates meaningfully from the world which we inhabit is not intellectually dishonest. It looks into the future which science has not revealed, then readily changes itself if it finds itself opposed to science. I would almost go so far as to say that philosophy is a form of science.

Whilst not diametrically opposed to science, religion nevertheless asserts that it holds truth, no matter what science says. It is this which marks it as intellectually dishonest, as it seeks to shape reality to what it already believes rather than exploring reality and deducing certain truths from that.

[MetalSlimeHunt]

In philosophical terms, religious beliefs are symbolism disconnected from the real world. This is most apparent in light of the "earliest religion" being animism.

[Rolepgeek]

Disconnected in what sense, though? Modeling natural forces as agents is a fallacy, but not all that terrible of one in some cases. The motivations might be off, obviously, but still, we do it with evolution all the time, and it works for most purposes.

Furthermore, philosophy as a whole changes in response to new discovery, as does to some extent, religion as a whole. Most philosophy which believes in truth believes itself to be true, by it's nature (if it didn't, people wouldn't hold the philosophy).

I mean, like, look at, say, absurdism, solipsism, epicureanism, nihilism, empiricism, rationality (in terms of the philosophy), egoism, platonic forms...these are all (mostly) separate philosophies, and I'm not sure how much you can say that they're based on solid reasoning and science whereas religion is all hocus pocus bollox that no one of any intellectual integrity would believe. Religion is a way of explaining and viewing the world, which originated as an attempt to explain the unexplainable. Which is why I'm guessing you think of it as intellectually dishonest; we now have science which does that, for much of the things religion previously did. And yet, religion is still a way to find meaning in the world, much like philosophy is a way of finding meaning (or a lack thereof) in the world.

Theology and philosophy are on the same level of scientific merit; it's difficult if not impossible to find a way to bridge the is/ought barrier, after all.

[Gentlefish]

By the same logic, I might as well say that everyone deserves to die because the Sun is purple. I can't let people base any sort of philosophy or eschatology on things that are verifiably incorrect, that's morally wrong.

I... What? No, I think you missed my point. How is it even at all similar? If someone wants to believe that the riddle is sign of extraterrestrial life and wants to solve it, how is that the same as believing everyone should die because they disagree on the color of the sun?

I do not think this is at all the same logic.

[Silverthrone]

Humbug. Religion in general is intellectually dishonest, we still let them carry on with it.

Why, yes, thank you kindly for allowing me to "carry on with it". Your grace and mercy knows no bounds, Sir.