Print

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

[Vector]

What happens when you learn that learning everything is impossible?

He builds a time machine and gutpunches Godel.

Duh.

[Criptfeind]

Oh boy. A time capsule.

I want to be here when it opens.

I want to see real personal growth and see the growing out of what I see to be some phases.

I want less stress and more just chill.

[Heliman]

I'd like to see me get better at mafia.

Knowing me and my ego, next year I'll be all "lol remember when I was still stumbling with mafia?"

Remember that, me. I called this shit before myself one year in advance, so I can just go suck it.

[Criptfeind]

Well. I am glad to see I am not the only one who does not insult and leave traps and stuff for my past and future self.

The bastards.

[Acanthus117]

Ooh, time capsules.

I will fix my aggravating self-confidence issues, and I will have an awesome work ethic. I will have have at least three original pieces of fiction that aren't 2 page snippets under my belt.

I'll come back in a year and see if I actually did it.

[Heron TSG]

The reward is in the journey, not the destination. At least for this particular journey. Today I studied the crap out of Roman mythology and its relations to Greek mythology. I freakin' love learning things.

What happens when you learn that learning everything is impossible?

If it is indeed possible to learn everything, then I will not have to learn that it is impossible. If it is not possible, I will not have learned everything yet and thus I cannot have learned this.

[Vector]

What happens when you learn that learning everything is impossible?

If it is indeed possible to learn everything, then I will not have to learn that it is impossible. If it is not possible, I will not have learned everything yet and thus I cannot have learned this.

. . .

There are other proofs than the method of exhaustion, you know.  If you do major in math, it should take you about one year to learn this concept, if you're sufficiently sharp.

[Criptfeind]

Vector, you missed the point so far it is pretty depressing.

[Vector]

Vector, you missed the point so far it is pretty depressing.

I kind of doubt it.  I'm just saying that we've already mathematically proven that we'll never know everything, provided that we permit ourselves to count.  And since counting is possible in any language structure (I won't explain how, but I'll just say "think for a while about set theory and Saussure"), the conclusion is a bit obvious.

At this point, the expressed statement seems somewhat naive.  That's all I mean.

EDIT: Maybe I am taking this too literally.

[Criptfeind]

God. You sound like Armok.

[Vector]

God. You sound like Armok.

Sorry.  I'll go do something else tonight, as it seems I'm not really fit to post here in my current state of mind.

[Heron TSG]

Of course it's naive. I don't know everything. Yet.

[Heliman]

Actually I consider it a very impressive insight, (though perhaps something more popular, like all the decimals of Pi, would have been a better example, but this is besides the point you crazy mathematician you.)

[Criptfeind]

Of course it's naive. I don't know everything. Yet.

It's not going to work.

[Vector]

Actually I consider it a very impressive insight, (though perhaps something more popular, like all the decimals of Pi, would have been a better example, but this is besides the point you crazy mathematician you.)

Oh, really?

Thank you.  I feel better.  It is something I discovered when I was thinking about my rhetoric class a little while ago.  Set theory as expressing the "definition of language as negation" seemed like a very nice identification between the sciences of hermeneutics and mathematics, thus unifying Wittgenstein's two chief interests into one surprising whole

But I am just fangirling now.