The Black Vault

DIss0n80r wrote:Yeah.

What he said.

Welcome back to the land of the living

And Tairaa's sig is worthy of some discussion, methinks.
"George Bush says he speaks to god every day, and christians love him for it. If George Bush said he spoke to god through his hair dryer, they would think he was mad. I fail to see how the addition of a hair dryer makes it any more absurd."


I'm quite leery of stories of people hearing God's voice in natural language, don't get me wrong. But I did want to point out that your sig has nothing intrinsically to do with god.
"George Bush says he speaks to his confidant every day, and christians love him for it. If George Bush said he spoke to his confidant through his hair dryer, they would think he was mad. I fail to see how the addition of a hair dryer makes it any more absurd."
Your original argument (or whatever you wish to call it) is meant to entail that talking to god is absurd yet when I make the modified argument, the conclusion should be that talking to a confidant is absurd. But talking to a confidant isn't inherently absurd.

at1with0 wrote:

DIss0n80r wrote:Yeah.

What he said.

Welcome back to the land of the living

And Tairaa's sig is worthy of some discussion, methinks.
"George Bush says he speaks to god every day, and christians love him for it. If George Bush said he spoke to god through his hair dryer, they would think he was mad. I fail to see how the addition of a hair dryer makes it any more absurd."


I'm quite leery of stories of people hearing God's voice in natural language, don't get me wrong. But I did want to point out that your sig has nothing intrinsically to do with god.
"George Bush says he speaks to his confidant every day, and christians love him for it. If George Bush said he spoke to his confidant through his hair dryer, they would think he was mad. I fail to see how the addition of a hair dryer makes it any more absurd."
Your original argument (or whatever you wish to call it) is meant to entail that talking to god is absurd yet when I make the modified argument, the conclusion should be that talking to a confidant is absurd. But talking to a confidant isn't inherently absurd.

I've had a busy day today and I'm beat. But I still have to go back out here in a few hours AGAIN.

But enough about my boring life, I want to know whether or not we live in a pocket reality with a ruleset that is abnormal relative to the rest of reality!

Oh and as for Tairaa, see my sig. I might also add that she seems to get defensive and hostile rather easily. Perhaps she is insecure and feels others think they are superior and are belittling her? Perhaps she has trouble controlling her prosodic projections? I dunno.

DIss0n80r wrote:I've had a busy day today and I'm beat. But I still have to go back out here in a few hours AGAIN.

But enough about my boring life, I want to know whether or not we live in a pocket reality with a ruleset that is abnormal relative to the rest of reality!

It's predicted by Max Tegmark's 4 level multiverse hierarchy.

The multiverse may be an amalgam of all mathematical structures. The rules in a particular structure such as the one isomorphic to the one we live in could be way different compared to the rules in a different structure.

DIss0n80r wrote:Oh and as for Tairaa, see my sig. I might also add that she seems to get defensive and hostile rather easily. Perhaps she is insecure and feels others think they are superior and are belittling her? Perhaps she has trouble controlling her prosodic projections? I dunno.

Who can say?

I might be guilty of your analysis to a degree.

at1with0 wrote:

DIss0n80r wrote:I've had a busy day today and I'm beat. But I still have to go back out here in a few hours AGAIN.

But enough about my boring life, I want to know whether or not we live in a pocket reality with a ruleset that is abnormal relative to the rest of reality!

It's predicted by Max Tegmark's 4 level multiverse hierarchy.

The multiverse may be an amalgam of all mathematical structures. The rules in a particular structure such as the one isomorphic to the one we live in could be way different compared to the rules in a different structure.

You and your precious Tegmark.

What exactly does ALL math structures mean?

And please keep in mind that I suck at math when you answer.

at1with0 wrote:

DIss0n80r wrote:Oh and as for Tairaa, see my sig. I might also add that she seems to get defensive and hostile rather easily. Perhaps she is insecure and feels others think they are superior and are belittling her? Perhaps she has trouble controlling her prosodic projections? I dunno.

Who can say?

I might be guilty of your analysis to a degree.

I judge you to be INFERIOR.

I was a bit annoyed by her myself. It was like she had to be dragged kicking and screaming from one idea to the next.

Oh and I just bought me a new mouse today for my pooter.

It's a wireless. . . lesse, man I don't know what half this stufff means. . .

It says It's an optical 2.4 GHz wireless with auto synch, scalable DPI, scroll wheel, and a stowable nano receiver. . . is that good?

DIss0n80r wrote:You and your precious Tegmark.

What exactly does ALL math structures mean?

And please keep in mind that I suck at math when you answer.

I used to be a teacher so I will try to not suck at explaining this.

A structure as such is essentially a "corporation" comprised of some specific things: an underlying set (which could be called the universe of discourse), as well as distinguished elements in that set (such as 0 in the set of natural numbers), as well as distinguished relations and functions acting on the set. Using the numbers structure as a continued example, one possible distinguished relation is less than and a distinguished function is successor.

The notation would look something like this:
N = {n, 0, <, S}
N is the name of the structure, n is the name of the set of natural numbers, you got the distinguished element 0, the relation less than, and the function Successor (which inputs a number and outputs its successor).

All structures can be "glued" together to form that amalgam of all structures. And this amalgam is itself a structure (when the "gluing" is done right). My continued problem has been to show that every structure is embedded within the amalgam. This type of inclusivity would underscore the importance of that amalgam and, at least in the context of Tegmark's speculation, make that amalgam a candidate for what the multiverse is (or is like).

DIss0n80r wrote:I judge you to be INFERIOR.

Point well taken.

DIss0n80r wrote:I was a bit annoyed by her myself. It was like she had to be dragged kicking and screaming from one idea to the next.

Oh I dunno, I think she's doing just fine.

DIss0n80r wrote:Oh and I just bought me a new mouse today for my pooter.

It's a wireless. . . lesse, man I don't know what half this stufff means. . .

It says It's an optical 2.4 GHz wireless with auto synch, scalable DPI, scroll wheel, and a stowable nano receiver. . . is that good?

It just means you're going to get a lot of range outta it.
So you could, perhaps, use your mouse while in bed to watch videos on your screen from long range. 2.4Ghz is probably gonna reach beyond the confines of your room.