Love the pic!
I celebrate the season of chocolate. Merry Chocomas!
Bamboo Shoots!
Age 35, Male
Poet/Designer/Etc
ACCOMPLISHED
Sweden
Joined on 1/17/04
- Rank:
- Sup. Commander
- Global Rank:
- 6
- Blams:
- 32,800
- Saves:
- 237,324
- B/P Bonus:
- 60%
- Whistle:
- Deity
- Trophies:
- 42
- Medals:
- 11,249
- Supporter:
- 11y 11m 3d
- Gear:
- 11
Thanks!
Haha, it's an item worth celebrating! :D Merry Chocomas to you too! And all other savorable foodstuff that gives us such efficient euphoria!!
I can't find all of the references in that one... You did a good job hiding them...
Ah, thanks, there are just two though. one all-seeing eye and one 666. Still missing any?
I had to do a double take on that network app website I PMed you... it's legit
Aight, I checked it out, plenty of interesting info to get lost in... bit few visual references!
No choices at all, you can't go anywhere, i am telling you, it is not a game.
Norm? yeah the 24h but do people follow it? no, and what do most people use? it depends on the region really, it gets really crazy sometimes.
Na the orbit would remain the same, the axis would change, meaning that the principal and most fundamental danger wouldn't be crashing into another planet, but getting a dramatic life endangering climate change.
Ah hmm, what a rip-off bummer shame! Sounds like a fun 'experience' though...
How about the region you live in?
Hmm, I'd assume the planet's rotation somehow affects the overall orbit though. If for example it started rotating the other way it'd be pulling 'into' orbit rather than away from it, wouldn't it? I imagined it was the motion required to balance out our steadily decreasing distance from the sun (though that's decreasing anyway, just oh so slowly). Yeah, sudden climate change could be pretty catastrophic!
\/ I worry about solar winds cooking our wiring and plantlife. Maybe car engine blocks wouldn't warp, but pretty much anything metal would distort into uselessness, and our EM field is practically non-existent just now, just waiting for the polar shift (N to S), then it will start building itself up again... Didn't they just find another underground city in Turkey? Too many of them to be coincidence...
Woah, underground city?! Implying... Inca prophecy doomsday type thing? Hadn't heard about the potential for metal warping... powerful solar storms could easily nullify any HD data that isn't kept in underground bunkers too, just that could be a pretty apocalyptic prospect in a society where we are so dependent on data. Like bank records... and the real danger is in how unexpected they can be, not much time for preparation. Wonder how much use chem trails would be.
Ever read a hentai manga? well this is the same, with less sex and in color.
If you ever ask someone for what time it is, they will tell you the minutes needed for the next hour, for example instead of saying 2:40 they will tell you "20 more minutes for 3 pm", some older people even use fractions instead of minutes they will be all "1/4th for 3, son", in essence it is presumed that the one asking is going late to their destination, however to just state time the PM system is generally used, for anything else you better have a translator.
-What generates gravity between 2 celestial bodies, is their mass, not their spin.
-What generates gravity within a celestial body is its mass, not its spin.
-What generates the spin of a planet is the gravity of other celestial bodies affecting the planet, a body in space's spin can accelerate or decelerate according to its gravitational relation with other bodies in space as this body orbits them (but not the other way around).
-The spin of a planet generates a different force that is not gravity, this rotations are known as the centrifugal and centripetal forces, and they can add or reduce "weight" to a body in the surface of a planet; If our planet didn't had a moon to stabilize its orbit, it would spin faster, and have a different axis, meaning different weather, and more fierce winds, it would have the same gravity, but the extra spin would make weight fill less heavy due to the centrifugal force.
-If our planet didn't had a moon, the gravity pull that our moon makes in our planet would create a change in orbit around the sun, this change however would be relatively small, compared to the change of spin.
-Gravity is a different force apart from the Centrifugal and Centripetal forces.
-Gravity is a well studied force, but we don't comprehend it too well.
-Gravitons the particles that are said to produce gravity, are still hypothetical elementary particles and we haven't been able to confirm their existence.
-If gravitons are ever confirmed, they will become theoretical particles.
-A theory is a hypotheses that has been confirmed by the empirical process of experimentation, but it is still subjected to changes, and to being falsed, or proven wrong upon the light of new evidence.
-Space is expanding and thus everything is distancing from each other, not only our planet from our sun, similarly as space expands, gravity pulls things towards each other.
And that's pretty much it, you can always Google the concepts, the key words are: Gravity; Centrifugal and Centripetal forces; Planet Orbits; Graviton; Space Expansion/Acceleration Universe/Space(time) dilation.
I am feeling too lazy to put links, but YT has good videos on it.
Mmm... in color! :D Good knowing.
Ah, it's like they're always counting down! Looking for the future! Not really living in the present! We have a similar practice though, it's pretty common to say quarter to _, ten (minutes) to _, twenty (minutes) to _. Yet if it's more than half an hour it usually turns to 'over' instead of 'until'. Which I guess is the normal way, btw. Though exact times can be used too. That's part of out Americanization speaking.
VERY nice cheat sheet on the forces of (inter)planetary motion! Easy to follow. I just have one question: how would gravitons become only theoretical particles if they're confirmed? Wouldn't that imply its 'concerned with or involving the theory of a subject or area of study rather than its practical application.'?
Well actually, two: I thought the space expanding thing was only a theory, not proven?
No need for YT vids with this concise summary, thanks! Though even if I know the facts, it still feels strange that a 'spin' would have no effect on which way the spinning item pulls/moves...
I don't know what i was thinking when i wrote that, there're plenty of hentai mangas in color out there.
Nowadays i just don't care i wait for the surprise then i translate:
-"a quarter for 3, son"
- "thanks" *i see so that is 2:45 good...*
They become theoretical because we can say with certainty that the things we call gravitons actually exist, is just that, they thus become a theoretical fact, and it just happens that theories can be changed, like finding that magnetism and electricity are the same force, so now we call it the electromagnetic force, or finding that pretty much everything behaves like a wave and a particle (not just light) just that they do it at different degrees of intensity.
Yes it is a theory, if it was not proven then it wont be one:
-A theory is a proven hypothesis, an hypothesis is an idea on how the world works but that is not backed by an empirical experiment.
-The common use of theory is wrong, what people mean by "it is just a theory" really means "it is just an hypothesis".
-In essence the process goes like this: you get an idea by whatever source -> using that idea you formulate an hypothesis that explains the idea -> then you make an experiment to prove if the idea is true -> if successful the hypothesis becomes a theory. Thus theories are actually facts.
-An axiom is an absolute fact, these are like theories that would never ever change, very basic and fundamental, they are usually part of the realms of the logical world and not of the physical one.
Think about our moon for example its rotation is synchronized perfectly with earth (and the same goes for our satellites and the ISS) so one of its faces is always looking at the earth, but is all thanks to the gravity that the 2 exert on each other, it has little to do with the spin, this is called gravitational locking http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tidal_locking in essence how fast a body spins is all a result of gravity.
The direction has more to do with how the body got to that orbit, which is part of the processes NASA uses when they launch their proves to explore space in a process known as Orbital maneuver http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orbital_maneuver if you play the Kerbal Space Program game you will be using these techniques a lot XD, actually i think we have a game with about this mechanics here on NG.
Correction we have a bunch of them but this one allows to explore the idea the best http://cyberdevil.newgrounds.com/news/post/915551 try to put 2 dots in orbit going towards different directions. BTW as you can notice none of the orbital games actually take into account the spin: http://www.newgrounds.com/portal/search/games/Orbit/1
And this is my favorite game about this subject: http://www.newgrounds.com/portal/view/630267
lmao
I used to think it was easier that way when I lived abroad, but feels like I've come to terms with the different type of time telling a few years after moving back, 'quarter to' is just as easy to visualize as :45 now... though it might have something to do with how that's the format my parents always used anyway, regardless of where we were... the British way of counting's still a bit confusing, like how "half seven" is actually "half PAST seven"...
Ah, k. My usage of theory is definitely wrong... better start using 'idea' instead, for all those general items to which 'hypothesis' would be overly empirical. Hmm, the only axiom is that there are no axioms? Though sounds kind of silly and unscientific with such a serious substitute for 'truth'...
Hmm, glad the Earth isn't tidally locked!
Hah yeah, just played one of countless ones. :P http://www.newgrounds.com/portal/view/651533
Well, it makes sense, but I guess it's hard to envision the spin in a void when you haven't really been in one. If you spin something in air, the air pushes the item further in the direction to which it spins, right? And on that topic, since they recently discovered even empty space is full of dark matter you'd (well, I'd) think that'd have some effect... I'll bow to these research, just can't change my inner 'logic' so easily.
Replace the link of your post with this link http://www.newgrounds.com/portal/view/563148
Which is the actual game i mention to put 2 dots in orbit...
Ahh, was honored you'd link to my interplanetary image as an example, but did think it was kind of strange. :P Good game. Much easit to get started/try again than the other example, though... it's so hard to get a perfect orbit!! Wonder how realistic it really is...
Haha loved it! "yo is half seven" is not even how much time you have left before you make it on time, it is how much time you already wasted!
Well all put on context you can say that "theory" has 2 uses the proper scientific one, and the general speech one, the problem is that in general speech theory and hypothesis mean the same.
There are Axioms, for example: all the sides of a triangle sum up to 180° degrees that's an axiom.
The problem with the "truth" like i was telling you before when i talked about skepticism and "true happiness" is that we don't have certainty of what the "truth" is, we just have approximations to the apparent truth, and we justify those approximations with the justified believe, in the case of the sciences the justified belief is based on empirical proof, in the case of some religions it is based on faith, in the case of some human relationships it is based on feelings, etc. All of these are problems of epistemology, the field that research knowledge http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epistemology that's one of the fields i find the most interesting in philosophy along with Ethics and another bunch.
Haha oh man a whole side would be completely burned and the other one frozen, just like Punk Hazard.
I played all of them searching for a simple one that can show how orbits work, trying to illustrate how the direction of the orbit depends not on the spin! but on which direction the body arrived to the orbit, that's also why i can make the wild claim that "BTW as you can notice none of the orbital games actually take into account the spin"
Space is empty so if something is spinning on it, there is no air that would generate friction and change its movement.
XD oh man that's a hard one, Dark Matter, alright i will try my best:
-Dark Matter is an as of now, unknown "thing" that exist in abundance in space.
-Dark Matter hasn't been observed, but its claimed that's its effects on the universe have been observed, and thus they are attributed to Dark Matter, these effects are thus called Dark Energy.
-Dark Energy which we believe is produced by Dark Matter is what holds the universe together, it is like glue, like gravity but is not gravity (i know weird).
-Dark Energy and Dark Matter, are called that because they don't emit/reflect any kind of light or radiation, also we have no idea what they exactly are, or what they "really" do, or if what they do is really what we think that they do, thus we call them "Dark" because we haven't been able to put light on it and observe it.
-If there has ever been an hyphotesis on how the universe works then Dark Matter is the go to example.
-Dark Matter's principal use is to solve the disparities on our universal models, let me make a dramatization:
Astrophysicist 1: "My universal model according to the theories is just wrong! look at this mess it looks nothing like what we see today"
Astrophysicist 2: "Hey man why don't you add Dark Matter"
Astrophysicist 1: "The hell is that?"
Astrophysicist 2: "Gravitational pulls scattered all over space that come from outside normal matter, they don't emit any-kind of light or other kind of radiation at all! yet they somehow affect normal matter."
Astrophysicist 1: "that sounds like an ass pull, i can't put that in my model simulation!"
Astrophysicist 2: "Just try it, if it doesn't works blame it on me"
Astrophysicist 1: "aigth dog, here goes nothing, i just filled the model with Dark Matter, Dark Matter all over this bitch!"
-Some hours of hardcore computation later-
Astrophysicist 1: "I can't fucking believe it! it works!!!! it works!!!" *drops to the floor crying with joy*
Astrophysicist 2:"Told you man, Dark Matter"
Astrophysicist 1:"Now it all makes sense! ALL MAKES SENSE!!!!!!!!11111ELEVEN!!!"
And that's in part why we say that Dark Matter exist and it is all over the place, similarly that's how we prove that it "exist", because the thing makes the model works, why are planets, light and space curving and moving like that? nig ga... Dark Matter.
But if you ask me, i believe that maybe the so called Dark Energy is just another representation of Gravity, and even more that infamous pesky Graviton we haven't been able to prove? i bet your ass gravitons will end being Dark Matter all along, give it 5 to 10 maybe 15 years, but since there's this thing called "prudence" so we can't go making such wild claims, specially when Gravitons and Dark Matter are both hypothetical, undiscovered as of now, just like the Higgs boson, we knew about it for a long time, but it was only recently that it was discovered/proven, that's what gives particles mass, and man that one is too hard for me to explain, i don't even know how it really works, i would have to sneak in a class about it.
Back to Dark Matter, even if we were able to take it out of its hypothetical status, it wont behave like atoms (air), meaning that even with that, the spin of a planet wont be interacting with Dark Matter like ball in the air having friction with it, if it did we would have it easier proving it real.
Yeeeah, it gets complicated! XD
Mmm, a problem indeed, and it's not like changing the way we use the word will change how others perceive our use of the word, might become one of those words that shifts definition entirely to suit our new understanding of it. Like gay: formerly happy.
But is there a difference between axiom and truth? A triangle axiom implies that triangles are real, and who can prove reality. Hmm, Epistemology seems... like a complicated topic! Interesting stuff. And yeah, truth's complicated too.
....with ginormous fire-breathing dragons and blob monsters! :D
Mmm, the games definitely don't take projectile spin into account, if it could be taken into account at all. As I see it the path in which an item enters orbit is definitely the one with the bigger power, but as the item spins as it continues this orbit... it does like it should have some effect. If dark matter's gravity, wouldn't it have all the greater effect? But hey, that's my just my intuition/inner logic/naivety/you-name-it speaking. I don't think these games have the most elaborate; realistic simulations of orbits anyway: they probably all work according to accepted theories of physics, not the axioms.
Was going to post this link but no need! http://www.space.com/4850-pools-invisible-matter-mapped-space.html
Interesting theory on dark energy being gravity. And Higgs boson hmm, man where do you find the time to learn all this stuff!
Well is not like everyone is able to change what they hold as true and possible that easily, Einstein himself despite being a cornerstone and principal figure for quantum mechanics, he hated the notion, he refused to believe in quantum physics: "As I have said so many times, God doesn't play dice with the world", oh but he was so wrong, randomness is all over the place! and thanks to it we have PCs now.
I see it as important to clarify:
-For Einstein "God" is not an entity, but the universe itself, he believed in the phanteonic god of Spinoza (great philosopher), which in essence it is the world itself, and among many things is also perfectly organized.
-So when Einstein says "God" and "World", he means the same things, and by dice he means random inputs organizing the world, like what can be seen in quantum physics.
-So Einstein refused to believe that the universe would organize itself randomly.
Well it so just happens that God is a chronic gambler, that bastard XD.
Einsten believed in God!? Hmm, good quote!
I hear God's been betting on humanity for a long time now. ;)
Na the scientific world is too big and solid for that to happen, specially when you get people that go around negating the realities of climate change and evolution XD.
Well you can't find a triangle in nature, a triangle in itself is a category first of all, for a set of figures that share the characteristics of triangle, and then a triangle is from the mathematical world, which some say is "the language of the universe" but language is just an human invention, so yeah... it is a truth inside a fiction, that we can use to understand the world, which may or not be real...
It is, specially because it tries to understand how is that we know, and in the process it attacks and even destroys what you know, and i love it, it humbles all your knowledge, everything you know could turn to be false the next day, and i guess that's ok, and at the same time is problematic, what if the very tools you used to understand that what you know is accurate or not, are actually not accurate at all!? how can you be certain about anything!? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bW7Op86ox9g na but really it is interesting to see how we struggle to demonstrate that we know, and at some point the different thinkers convince you, and then they debate each other and the world crumbles and is remade, and so and so, it is a ride.
And a giant ocean filled with sharks in the middle of it! wait a minute...
But... for a theory of physics to be accepted, it has to take all the relevant axioms into account...
"It's all these gravitational effects, from something that can't be seen, that indicates dark matter exists."
That pesky invisible thing pulling all the other things together! it is Dark Matter i tell you!
Hehe of course it is, whatever it may end being it will be known as Dark Matter or at least previously known as Dark Matter.
I like to inform myself, i watch videos, read articles, sneak into classes, get scolded by my relatives because whatever i matriculated in a semester has nothing to do with my actual career... then i actually change careers and they tell me to concentrate in just one thing this time, i tell them i will, but really there is a lot of things out there and it is not like i will turn out a philosopher or a physicist or sociologist, etc. And is true the majority of my credits would never be transferred... so in retrospective as far as graduating goes i guess i have wasted years. Yeah... i guess that's the secret.
Chronic gamblers don't have nor make the best judgments...
Is a that a theory? :P
Mmm.
Hah, thought that'd be a video lecture you linked to, short pause for effect. :P Yeah, everything is constantly changing, our fundamental laws of existence, our ideals, our cultural preconceptions, everything we take for granted about the world we live in; how we act, interact, believe and visualize ourselves.
Jaw aw aw aw aw! (just trying a new kind OP laugh here, suitable primarily for particularly vicious teeth-wielding Fishman creatures)
Mmm well I mean: they work according to the world as we perceive it, not necessarily how it really is, because nobody knows for certain what they know for certain is certain is really curtain. Curtain call.
Mmm
Sounds like you are a philosopher already! Indeed; don't we all. Sounds like you're wasting those years efficiently, though, picking up all kinds of tidbits of knowledge and axiom along the way!
Unless they're chronic winners! I hear some people make a living off of such things.
Sadly yes too many idiots on this world.
Yeah, it is also interesting to see which changes are harder to accept, because there is were we can observe to what things we are clinging to.
That one sounds kinda painful XD.
Got it, but then that would mean that axioms are also subject to perception, and if that were the case they wont be able to be axioms.
"All humans are philosophers" said Karl Popper, however he also said that there are some fake philosophers out there, which is quite contradictory given his initial statement, but that didn't impede him to go and lay waste onto some of the greatest minds of both the past and his time, indeed his views even lead to an eventual confrontation with Ludwig Wittgenstein http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wittgenstein's_Poker, that said Wittgesntein as brilliant as he was, he was a piece of work to understand, as a person his life didn't seem to apply what his Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus preached, but if i have to pick i would go with a mixture of both.
Yeah somehow there are people that manage to live out of gambling, in a way life at large is just a big gamble, but they don't have to go to such extremes...
Mmm.
Sha ah ah ark. :P Seems like an unlimited potential for these types of laughs.
Indeed. :)
Aha.
Life- just like a gamble in any other game - figure out how it works and yo can make a living. :P
Haha good one it even has a cough kinda thing at the end.
And since they are axioms, that means that they are independent from perception.
I guess you don't know about Karl P or Wittgenstein? KP was a philosopher of science, he was against the pretentiousness of the circle of Vienna and other elitist philosophers, while he maintains an objective way to address metaphysical things and try to solve the problems they invoke, he was an atheist/agnostic, on the other hand Wittgenstein a philosopher of logic maintained that most problems in philosophy were not real problems but just mere misunderstandings products of a bad use of language and logic, and the final thesis of his Tractatus closes with the phrase "Whereof one cannot speak, thereof one must be silent." meaning that we shouldn't talk about the things that we can't know of, because we can't prove if they exist, we can't perceive them in any form, but here's the thing with Wittgenstein, he was a christian... not old school, but he was into all that metaphysical stuff, miracles and shit, and that is the kind of stuff he himself tell us to abstain from!
There you go: become a biologist, get rich.
Hehe
And yet perception is all we really have to go by!
Nope, neither of them. I did check the link though. Hmm, if we can't speak of things we don't know of; can't prove to exist, we can't really speak of anything... but that's a good follow-up on the Axiom thing. Shame about that nullifying religious counter though.
Find out how to capture and contain a soul, that'd do it. :P
Yes and that's why i tell you that math is an human invention.
Ok let me explain Wittgenstein, for example if i were to speak of a chair, i can show you an example of a thing used to be sit on, that's a chair, even if reality is an illusion, it still exist inside this illusion, (BTW talking about reality being an illusion would also be a waste of time because we can't prove if is real or not, so may aswell aboid the theme) however if i were to talk about the soul i can't show it to you, i can't even show you an example of it, so i better not even talk about it, otherwise i would be talking nonsense.
KP maintains that even if we can't prove the existence of something like the soul, we at least could discuss the ideas behind it, and the things that lead us to believe that such a thing exist, or at least maintain the possibility that it could be, etc.
Yeah good luck with that XD.
Mmm.
Ahh, got it! KP's approach does seem more reasonable. Wouldn't be much to philosophy if you could back it up. Philosophy is something I relate to debates of the abstract; unknowable. The future, purpose, death... all those topics that science can't really cover.
Could be a bit problematic finding live subjects to attain a soul from hmm... think I'll pass on the calling to whomever wants it. :P
However KP and Wittgenstein where philosophers of logic and science, so they tried to avoid the abstract; and the unknowable, with KP actually trying to defend that, even if that was not his main topic of study.
As for the future, that's a field of science because they can make predictions, purpose is a field of ethics and some philosopher start writing about the human telos starting from the negation of an inherent telos, others try to argue about imperative native things in humans but either fail to address it, or forget to explore it more in-deep, a thing that KP criticizes of Kant, on death only theologist that happen to also be philosophers touch the theme, but the theme of what happens after death is a theology theme, the theme of how a life should be lived according to certain ideals, is a theme of both philosophy and politics, in short philosophy is not about metaphysics.
Lol.
Well, if you believe in definitions, Philosophy is the study of general and fundamental problems, such as those connected with reality, existence, knowledge, values, reason, mind, and language. So all items mentioned fit in, even if some fields overlap. Some do say Politics applies to everything, as does Religion, as does Science... though they all approach these topics in different ways. I suppose I like the philosophical approach since it's open to interpretation...
" I suppose I like the philosophical approach since it's open to interpretation..." some professors depending on the mood they are may go ahead and slap you Wittgenstein style if they hear you saying that XD.
Or they will tell you to take some introduction classes, specially because the same Wikipedia article from which you take that definition says this in the immediate next sentence "Philosophy is distinguished from other ways of addressing such problems by its critical, generally systematic approach and its reliance on rational argument."
And here's the thing with arguments, they are not supposed to depend on interpretation.
lol man, guess I shouldn't be skimming Google search results and getting quick impressions for the short segments of text they index! Philosophy really isn't what I thought it was huh. Rational argument's a subjective thing, but not so sure I like the 'critical and generally systematic approach'. Do you know of a category for 'the study of general and fundamental problems, such as those connected with reality, existence, knowledge, values, reason, mind, and language without crital or generally systematic approach in adressing such problems?' ... brainstorming? Dreaming?
Well that's open for interpretation. :/
Oh man arguments being subjective? ok that is only half true, if an argument is dependent on the accepted factors of a particular audience, then yes it is subjected to what that particular audience holds as valid or invalid, however if an argument is addressed to the universal audience, then it should withstand its validity everywhere, what constitutes the universal audience you may ask? that's the trick the universal audience is constantly changing with time and it may depend on the orator, but in essence an argument that is addressed to the universal audience should also have strength, efficacy and validity on the particular audience, ergo it can't be denied or it proves to be hard to deny, and if an argument is a rational one that means that it's data, warranty, backing, and claims are also rational and thus go beyond subjectivity.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cha%C3%AFm_Perelman#The_New_Rhetoric
For example scientist claim that the climate change of the earth is towards the warming of the planet, the arguments that support this claim have a base of studies over time that show thus.
It so just happens that North Carolina had winter, and the weather of some dais was unusually harsh, using that as a basis a random republican politician claims that climate change doesn't exist, ignoring that what he uses as a reference only has North Carolina as an example, it only has that one winter, and to top it all off it is a reference to weather not climate, meaning his argument is not a rational one.
Yeah there is, it is called quackery, but as thus, it would never be acknowledged as a "study".
Hmm, have to copy in a definition again: "Rationality is the quality or state of being reasonable, based on facts or reason. Rationality implies the conformity of one's beliefs with one's reasons to believe, or of one's actions with one's reasons for action." So, half right as in you'd go by either facts or reason? Reason's definitely subjective then? OK ok, I stand corrected, 'rational arguments can be a subjective thing'.
The promotion of fraudulent or ignorant medical practices? Not sure how we got into the medical area here. :P There's got to be a more positive approach to pondering the problems of the world...
You are doing this again man, why? it is not even that long of a read. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rationality at least just the introduction.
Rationality is dependent on the amount of information available and the purpose that is seek after. In other words the relativity of rationality. In this case yes, rationality is subjective, in the sense of to what it is applied to.
The article then gives us an example of behavior, Self-interest VS group interest, in this case a rational behavior would be a behavior that shares the same principle of interest, so it has group interest and it has a behavior that benefits the group, then it has a rational behavior, because it is consistent.
And then the article ends with this: "It is thus meaningless to assert rationality without also specifying the background model assumptions describing how the problem is framed and formulated."
So which is our background model assumptions? Philosophy.
And how are problems framed and formulated in Philosophy? in various ways, but in this case we were talking about Rational Arguments.
Ok so then what is considered rational in Philosophy? being the goal of philosophy to know the truth about the world, then the things that are rational would be those that are consistent with what we know it is true, and the truth can't be subjective, otherwise it wont be the truth.
When i say: "and if an argument is a rational one that means that it's data, warranty, backing, and claims are also rational and thus go beyond subjectivity." rationality has philosophy for its background model of assumption, which is to come closer to the truth.
In short, no, a rational argument in philosophy can't be subjective, you can't use an opinion as a basis for an argument, well you can, but then you will end with an argument that has no validity.
And here's were i get a little bit annoyed, did you know that if you click "rational argument" on this page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophy which you used for your definition of philosophy, that the link will lead you here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dialectic , which can give you the context of rationality, and that after overcoming the history of argumentation you will eventually just find http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cha%C3%AFm_Perelman#The_New_Rhetoric which i linked yesterday? really i am annoyed because we got out of context, reasons can be subjective, but we are talking about the field of philosophy, and as subjective as a reason can be they all need to be coherent with their objectives.
By quackery i mean a sham, not necessarily linked to the medical world.
You can ponder about the problems of the world, but if you do it without any methodology, you may not go far.
Mmm, going around in circles it seems! The difference between our views here seems to be: I don't believe in an absolute truth, and thus I don't believe in arguments that can't be subjective, and as my belief is my opinion: all my arguments may lack validity. This however doesn't really matter to me, as I don't contemplate the problems of the world with focus on facts, but primarily on knowledge attained through experience; perspective; bestowed upon me by others as well as myself. Facts factor in, but I'd rather first and foremost go by what 'I know' than by what I'm told. One thing that always bothered me during University studies was how I'd have to continually link to references to motivate my reasoning, even though I felt like I wanted to speak for myself; make my own theories, motives, etc, not incorporate the ideas of everyone else into my conclusions. This is what I felt was the big difference between science and philosophy. Whereas the first was focused entirely on facts and irrefutable evidence, the other was focused more on logic and reasoning, both very subjective terms... or so I thought! If philosophy is not a term I can use to classify my unmethodical ponderings, I search for a better word that'd honor this will for debate and improvement. The much less dignified realm of quackery and sham does not seem suitable.
Actually my bad, now i remember that you have limited internet, so you may not want to actually open the page, and thus you are limited to just the first part of the introduction, however i still don't know why we passed from rationally on philosophy, to rationality in general.
Well I don't mind loading the full page, but actually reading all of that information... that's a looot of information! Just reading, digesting and responding to these messages takes up a great portion of time, so when I'm linked to articles I can't read through in less than half an hour, I tend to skim. Aaaanyway, I suppose this debate's pretty much concluded? The terms do blend easily; each new message moves in a different direction.
Doomroar
You can't "play" the game, because it is just a linear stream of text with fan-service, is a cheap (for what little it offers it is actually expensive) digital picture book, there's no interaction other than seeing the next line of dialogue, however rumors has it that at the very end of the game they give you a dialogue choice that apparently has no effect at all on the ending of the story XD.
Yeah i guess all that is part of that culture, but calling it a hentai game... it is more of a watered down hentai picture book haha, is not even proper hentai.
We use both systems AM/PM and 24h, i like 24h more.
@S3C check this video on time, energy, and force: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PplaBASQ_3M
But technically you could watch a Toonami episode, travel really fast ahead and watch it again, but nothing special has happened really, except that you have a nice means of travel XD.
Lol if the earth rotated on a different axis things would be different, and Dr S3C would have the same timezone as the NG HQ.
Wait, wait wait, inst our "universal" clock located in that whole line covering the UK and the western side of Africa ? why are we using Egypt now?
"us equatorial people have pretty consistent days annually"
I am lost Dr. S3C you just said you were close to the NG HQ...
Cyberdevil (Updated )
No choices at al?! I can see why it wouldn't be a game then, but even the simplest multiple-choice decisions are fundamentals of gameplay basics. Go left, or right? It's a game! :D
Haha alright, sounds like fun though. :P
Interesting. Is there a norm though? Which do most people use?
This time it gets complicated! :P
Haha yeah
If we could change the way which the world rotates things would get interesting quickly! We'd probably end up messing up our course and crashing into some other planet though, as we commonly do completely ignoring the potential pitfalls of revolutionary progress...