Showing off
(AKA the-post-about-me,-an-italian-woman-and-why-I-am-in-love-with-her AKA the-post-in-which-we-discuss-the-foundations-of-reality)
Gertjan: lol
question
theoretically
do you think statistically everything has a chance to happen?
Chiara:: in principle, I guess so
Gertjan: cool
Chiara:: how big a chance depends on the conditions and situations
Gertjan: so if i write the following code:
while 1 < 10
blahblahblah
end while
it will actually at some time in the next billion years or so eventually find that 1 really is larger than 10 and stop functioning?
Chiara:: nope
Gertjan: theoretically anything could statistically happen including 1 > 10
Chiara:: still depending on the conditions and situations and since arithmetics is an conventional system based on mutually agreed assumptions I see no reason why these should change and allow for 1>10
Gertjan: hmm so 1 is not really smaller than 10, it is a mutually agreed assumption like language?
Chiara:: it is language
Gertjan: no it's not
if I got 1 rock and you have 10 rocks
no matter how I call them
I will always have fewer rocks
no matter what we agree on
if ET has 1 rock and I have 10 rocks
reality determines that I have more rocks
simply because I am capable of throwing more than ET can
so I think it is more than a mutually agreed assumption
Chiara:: absolutely correct
but the fact remains that your code is not counting rocks
Gertjan: thank you
Chiara:: it is working on symbols, namely the figures 1 and 10
and managing the meaning of these symbols
Gertjan: my code is counting electrons
bits
Chiara:: does it also have little hands to count them with? :P
Gertjan: in memory banks
lol
Chiara:: it all boils down to the difference between first-hand actions
(counting the rocks)
and theoretical actions
Gertjan: (for neither you need hands) :P
Chiara:: (comparing figures representing rocks, or not)
for the first you do
Gertjan: you do not need hands to count rocks :P
however
what's the difference between
a rock and the symbol 1, a bunch of rocks and the symbol 10
if
a rock is always fewer than a bunch of rocks
then
1 is always fewer than 10
it's more than just a symbol
it's a substitute
Chiara:: hmmmmm
if we - me and you - decide that one rock is going to be called 10 and a bunch of rocks is going to be called 1, then 10 will be smaller than 1 and the rocks won't have moved
Gertjan: ah yes
but that was not my point
do you think statistically everything has a chance to happen?
I illustrated with 1 and 10
now
I could also have said
while a rock < a bunch of rocks
blah blah blah
end while
do you still believe there is a statistical theoretical chance of the program ever stopping because it finds a rock actually being more than a bunch of rocks (not counting shapes, sizes, form and any other kind of thing that might dilute the argument)
Chiara:: hmf - always spoiling my arguments with those dry touches of rationality....
I still believe there is a statistical theoretical chance
but in that case it is so small as to be negligible
Gertjan: hm
easy way out :P
so you basically say
that given the computer to run a billion billion years
Aristotle would get a heart attack :P
can I reduce your argument to: 1 is usually smaller than 10? or: A rock is usually fewer than a bunch of rocks?
Chiara:: that's quite a lot of reducing
but for your prosaic and layman purposes I think you could, yes
:P
Gertjan: ahum
right yes
Chiara:: (subtle details and shades of deep philosophical meaning to be explained at a later date, hopefully with a better functioning brain)
Gertjan: lol
I cannot wait to see you unravel the foundations of existence :P
Chiara:: are we getting smug, milord?
Gertjan: in this case yes :P
Chiara:: * this* case?
Gertjan: hihihi
Chiara:: humility is one of the virtues of the great, you know?
Gertjan: if I would posses humility too, I'd be perfect
and as no man is perfect
i find glory in my faults
Chiara:: right
Gertjan: unless you are now going to reason that usually no man is perfect :P
Chiara:: I could
and even if I did you would not qualify :P
question
theoretically
do you think statistically everything has a chance to happen?
Chiara:: in principle, I guess so
Gertjan: cool
Chiara:: how big a chance depends on the conditions and situations
Gertjan: so if i write the following code:
while 1 < 10
blahblahblah
end while
it will actually at some time in the next billion years or so eventually find that 1 really is larger than 10 and stop functioning?
Chiara:: nope
Gertjan: theoretically anything could statistically happen including 1 > 10
Chiara:: still depending on the conditions and situations and since arithmetics is an conventional system based on mutually agreed assumptions I see no reason why these should change and allow for 1>10
Gertjan: hmm so 1 is not really smaller than 10, it is a mutually agreed assumption like language?
Chiara:: it is language
Gertjan: no it's not
if I got 1 rock and you have 10 rocks
no matter how I call them
I will always have fewer rocks
no matter what we agree on
if ET has 1 rock and I have 10 rocks
reality determines that I have more rocks
simply because I am capable of throwing more than ET can
so I think it is more than a mutually agreed assumption
Chiara:: absolutely correct
but the fact remains that your code is not counting rocks
Gertjan: thank you
Chiara:: it is working on symbols, namely the figures 1 and 10
and managing the meaning of these symbols
Gertjan: my code is counting electrons
bits
Chiara:: does it also have little hands to count them with? :P
Gertjan: in memory banks
lol
Chiara:: it all boils down to the difference between first-hand actions
(counting the rocks)
and theoretical actions
Gertjan: (for neither you need hands) :P
Chiara:: (comparing figures representing rocks, or not)
for the first you do
Gertjan: you do not need hands to count rocks :P
however
what's the difference between
a rock and the symbol 1, a bunch of rocks and the symbol 10
if
a rock is always fewer than a bunch of rocks
then
1 is always fewer than 10
it's more than just a symbol
it's a substitute
Chiara:: hmmmmm
if we - me and you - decide that one rock is going to be called 10 and a bunch of rocks is going to be called 1, then 10 will be smaller than 1 and the rocks won't have moved
Gertjan: ah yes
but that was not my point
do you think statistically everything has a chance to happen?
I illustrated with 1 and 10
now
I could also have said
while a rock < a bunch of rocks
blah blah blah
end while
do you still believe there is a statistical theoretical chance of the program ever stopping because it finds a rock actually being more than a bunch of rocks (not counting shapes, sizes, form and any other kind of thing that might dilute the argument)
Chiara:: hmf - always spoiling my arguments with those dry touches of rationality....
I still believe there is a statistical theoretical chance
but in that case it is so small as to be negligible
Gertjan: hm
easy way out :P
so you basically say
that given the computer to run a billion billion years
Aristotle would get a heart attack :P
can I reduce your argument to: 1 is usually smaller than 10? or: A rock is usually fewer than a bunch of rocks?
Chiara:: that's quite a lot of reducing
but for your prosaic and layman purposes I think you could, yes
:P
Gertjan: ahum
right yes
Chiara:: (subtle details and shades of deep philosophical meaning to be explained at a later date, hopefully with a better functioning brain)
Gertjan: lol
I cannot wait to see you unravel the foundations of existence :P
Chiara:: are we getting smug, milord?
Gertjan: in this case yes :P
Chiara:: * this* case?
Gertjan: hihihi
Chiara:: humility is one of the virtues of the great, you know?
Gertjan: if I would posses humility too, I'd be perfect
and as no man is perfect
i find glory in my faults
Chiara:: right
Gertjan: unless you are now going to reason that usually no man is perfect :P
Chiara:: I could
and even if I did you would not qualify :P
posted by TheFabulousJourney at
4:53 pm
0 Comments
