Regarding Franko...

[MRC_Hans]

But Han-Job, you told me specifically that the Mandelbrot set was a closed system, and that the image of the Mandelbrot set was not art because it was determined by the algorithm that generated it.

Right. Wheee, you actually understood.

I would assume that be the same token the English language is also a fractal, because the English language is determined by the 26 letter character set, and the rules (algorithm) of English grammar and spelling. Ergo in the same way that the Mandelbrot image is not an artwork because it is determined, no written word can be considered "Art" because everything written with the English language is determined by the Laws of English.

If not, then explain the contradiction?

As you have demonstrated repeatedly yourself, semantics is not a precise science. Basically, of course, given some maximum length, there is a finite (although astronomical) number of different texts that could be written in English before all meaningful letter combinations were exhausted. But the semantics would still not be anyway nearly totally defined. Let's just take one pertinent example:

You say: You obey the laws of physics.
I say: You obey the laws of physics.

Now, to the uninformed observer, it would seem that we are saying the same thing, but in reality, with the possible exception of "of", there isn't a single word in the two sentences we agree on the meaning of.

Therefore, language is not deterministic.

I kept asking you to precisely define the term "Art", but you A-Theists Hate to actually pin yourselves down by defining a term.

And I kept answering that "art" is not definable. Actually, the lack of definability (if such a word exists) is one of the main characteristics of art.

Hans

 

[Franko]

As you have demonstrated repeatedly yourself, semantics is not a precise science. Basically, of course, given some maximum length, there is a finite (although astronomical) number of different texts that could be written in English before all meaningful letter combinations were exhausted. But the semantics would still not be anyway nearly totally defined. Let's just take one pertinent example:

You say: You obey the laws of physics.
I say: You obey the laws of physics.

Now, to the uninformed observer, it would seem that we are saying the same thing, but in reality, with the possible exception of "of", there isn't a single word in the two sentences we agree on the meaning of.

Therefore, language is not deterministic.

As you have demonstrated repeatedly yourself, semantics is not a precise science. Basically, of course, given some maximum length, there is a finite (although astronomical) number of different texts that could be written in English before all meaningful letter combinations were exhausted. But the semantics would still not be anyway nearly totally defined. Let's just take one pertinent example:

You say: 2 + 2 = 4
I say: 2 + 2 = 4

Now, to the uninformed observer, it would seem that we are saying the same thing, but in reality, with the possible exception of "=", there isn't a single word in the two sentences we agree on the meaning of.

Therefore, mathematics is not deterministic. And ergo neither is the Mandelbrot set, or any fractals.

 

[Max560]

First you will need to write in a manner that can be comprehended by people who haven’t been brainwashed into your pessimistic little cult (A-Theism).

Okay, so far you have a subroutine of Fatalism …

So if by TLOL you mean the English rules of grammar, spelling, punctuation, etc. then yes, I would agree. All of you posts in English are bound by your knowledge of the rules of the English language. The same is True for me and everyone else here.

Is this your way of being a mini-Fatalists?

Come on Sparky, try to keep up. You keep frothing about fatalism, "mini-Fatalists"(whatever that means). This of course is irrelevant. What you are saying is meaningless. You are merely shuffling letters about.

Look:

Letters obey TLOL
Your "argument" contains letters
Your "argument" obeys TLOL

TLOL controls Letters controls Your "Arguement"

Is this not clear enough for you, or is it hard for someone who believes they have A_soul to understand logic?

blah blah blah Fatalism blah blah. Show me some arguements instead of letter shuffling! Either that, or go study your Dungeon Master's Guide for more of your quasi-religious nonsense.

 

[Franko]

Come on Sparky, try to keep up. You keep frothing about fatalism, "mini-Fatalists"(whatever that means). This of course is irrelevant. What you are saying is meaningless. You are merely shuffling letters about.

Right … we have already agreed on that. So why are you telling us again that we are merely shuffling letters around? Do you have to say everything 10 times to yourself before it fully sinks in?

Look:

Letters obey TLOL
Your "argument" contains letters
Your "argument" obeys TLOL

TLOL controls Letters controls Your "Arguement"

So if by TLOL you mean the English rules of grammar, spelling, punctuation, etc. then yes, I would agree. All of you posts in English are bound by your knowledge of the rules of the English language. The same is True for me and everyone else here.

Is this your way of being a mini-Fatalists?

Is this not clear enough for you, or is it hard for someone who believes they have A_soul to understand logic?

No … apparently that is what You thought. 1) we have your post here as evidence of this, 2) since I doubt you can read minds, I seriously doubt that you know what I believe, and 3) I am most likely just a figment of your imagination anyway.

blah blah blah Fatalism blah blah. Show me some arguements instead of letter shuffling! Either that, or go study your Dungeon Master's Guide for more of your quasi-religious nonsense.

Yeah! Another A-Theist Sockpuppet! Wow! How totally unpredictable? Why would someone dedicate their Time and Identity to Me? It seems so counter-productive to your unconsciously stated goals and purpose?

I guess more evidence of A-Theist predictability (repetitious logical fallacy) is more evidence for “free willy”?

Hey Maxipad, I suggest you run along and argue with that idiot MRC. He claims you are all wrong, because of something or another about semantics, and 2 + 2 not equaling 4.

 

[MRC_Hans]

As you have demonstrated repeatedly yourself, semantics is not a precise science. Basically, of course, given some maximum length, there is a finite (although astronomical) number of different texts that could be written in English before all meaningful letter combinations were exhausted. But the semantics would still not be anyway nearly totally defined. Let's just take one pertinent example:

You say: 2 + 2 = 4
I say: 2 + 2 = 4

Now, to the uninformed observer, it would seem that we are saying the same thing, but in reality, with the possible exception of "=", there isn't a single word in the two sentences we agree on the meaning of.

Therefore, mathematics is not deterministic. And ergo neither is the Mandelbrot set, or any fractals.

No comments. No comments at all.

Hans

 

[Franko]

You said that your fractal logic did not apply to written language, because written language is subject to interpretation.

But aren't TWO and FOUR also simply words MRC? Why doesn't your semantics argument apply to ALL words? Why does it only seem to apply to words that don't contradict your a priori religious conclusions?

 

[Max560]

Yeah! Another A-Theist Sockpuppet! Wow! How totally unpredictable? Why would someone dedicate their Time and Identity to Me? It seems so counter-productive to your unconsciously stated goals and purpose?

I guess more evidence of A-Theist predictability (repetitious logical fallacy) is more evidence for “free willy”?

Hey Maxipad, I suggest you run along and argue with that idiot MRC. He claims you are all wrong, because of something or another about semantics, and 2 + 2 not equaling 4.

What are you trying to say Sparky? Consider the following before you compose your thoghts:


Letters obey TLOL
Your "argument" contains letters
Your "argument" obeys TLOL

TLOL controls Letters controls Your "Arguement"

What this means is that "meaning" in what you are trying to say does not exist.

You don't seem to understand this. Perhaps your myopic Anselm-lite view of the universe has clouded your ability to think clearly.

BTW, Why do you keep insisting that you are a fignut in everyone else's imagination?

 

[neutrino_cannon]

BTW, Why do you keep insisting that you are a fignut in everyone else's imagination?

I'll never touch fignuts again/

 

[MRC_Hans]

You said that your fractal logic did not apply to written language, because written language is subject to interpretation.

So you did understand it. Then why play dumb?

But aren't TWO and FOUR also simply words MRC? Why doesn't your semantics argument apply to ALL words? Why does it only seem to apply to words that don't contradict your a priori religious conclusions?

One of you strange things about you, Frank, is that you seem to view the world as some exclusive binary system. Is it really so incomprehensible for you that not all rules are universal?

So, in semantics, the words "two" and "four" have very well-defined meanings.Thus, there can be little debate about the sentence "two plus two equals four". In contrast,the meanings of the words "God", "rules", and "you" are far more ambigous, so the sentence "God rules you" can be (and has been) discussed for centuries, even among people who do not question the existence of God.

Hans

 

[fsol]

Fractal logic does not apply to written language because...

Grammer rules change, the number of symbols in the alphabet change, the symbols themselves change. There is no need to argue about the meanings of words because they change too.

As MRC Hans stated the Mandelbrot set has always been the same.

 

[Franko]

Franko:
You said that your fractal logic did not apply to written language, because written language is subject to interpretation.

MRC:
So you did understand it. Then why play dumb?

Who’s playing Dumb MRC? You are the one with the stated Logical Contradiction. Why are YOU playing dumb instead of addressing it? It’s like I told you before, if you are going to NOT respond to my post, you shouldn’t do it so publicly.

If words cannot be precisely defined because of semantics, then how are we able to do mathematics? Are numbers just words with precise definitions? Why don’t you explain yourself for once A-Theist??/

Ohhh, that’s right! If you actually explain yourself then everyone would just see the utter absurdity of the nonsense you believe.

Franko:
But aren't TWO and FOUR also simply words MRC? Why doesn't your semantics argument apply to ALL words? Why does it only seem to apply to words that don't contradict your a priori religious conclusions?

MRC:
One of you strange things about you, Frank, is that you seem to view the world as some exclusive binary system. Is it really so incomprehensible for you that not all rules are universal?

Really? How about an example? Are you claiming that 2 + 2 is not ALWAYS equal to 4?

MRC, I realize that as an A-Theist you believe we live in a magical universe where things happen for magical reasons without prior cause or logical reason.

I see no evidence for your claim, and I lack-o-belief in your whacky magical universe.

MRC:
So, in semantics, the words "two" and "four" have very well-defined meanings.Thus, there can be little debate about the sentence "two plus two equals four". In contrast,the meanings of the words "God", "rules", and "you" are far more ambigous, so the sentence "God rules you" can be (and has been) discussed for centuries, even among people who do not question the existence of God.

Well explain how computer languages work then? I notice you tend to skip questions in my posts when they point out the obvious flaws in your arguments. Face it MRC, you are a brainwashed A-Theist desperately trying to cling to your absurd dogmatic magical beliefs. You have NO evidence for “free will”, and without “free will” your no god claim has more holes than Swiss cheese. You A-Theists all think you are so smart, but the fact is you are the biggest bunch of religious idiots to ever walk the Earth. You all going down …

 

[Franko]

Grammer rules change, the number of symbols in the alphabet change, the symbols themselves change. There is no need to argue about the meanings of words because they change too.

As MRC Hans stated the Mandelbrot set has always been the same.

Listen nitwit boy (MRC's sockpuppet) fractal programs are written on computers. Are you claiming that all computer programs are limited to numbers only?

If not, then MRC's math only fractal nonsense is just that -- nonsense.

 

[MRC_Hans]

fsol,

In the past, Franko ignored newbies, but lately his paranoia has progressed and he's looking for sockpuppets (other posters using alternative names) everywhere, so now you get the full treatment right away. Take it as a compliment, have fun, but dont expect logic.

Cheers,
Hans

 

[MRC_Hans]

Who’s playing Dumb MRC? You are the one with the stated Logical Contradiction. Why are YOU playing dumb instead of addressing it? It’s like I told you before, if you are going to NOT respond to my post, you shouldn’t do it so publicly.

Uhhh, I lost track, sorry: Which logical contradiction are we talking about presently?

If words cannot be precisely defined because of semantics, then how are we able to do mathematics? Are numbers just words with precise definitions? Why don’t you explain yourself for once A-Theist??/

Mmmm, I do belive that was exactly what I said: Words for numbers have exact and unambigous definitions. --- Just looked, yeah, that was what I said, glad you sorta understood it.

Ohhh, that’s right! If you actually explain yourself then everyone would just see the utter absurdity of the nonsense you believe.

Really? How about an example? Are you claiming that 2 + 2 is not ALWAYS equal to 4?

No, thats not what I claim. Provided 2 and 4 are integers, of course

MRC, I realize that as an A-Theist you believe we live in a magical universe where things happen for magical reasons without prior cause or logical reason.

No, you seem to get that wrong. Magic is not included in the atheist cosmology, the way I understand it. But of course, atheist cosmology is not well standardized, so SOME atheists may belive in magic, but I dont. ---- Mmmm, I do believe I told you this several times before?

I see no evidence for your claim, and I lack-o-belief in your whacky magical universe.

Me too, no whacky magical universe for me, thanks.

Well explain how computer languages work then?

Computer languages are also very precisely defined. Actually, they are so well-defined that they dont HAVE semantics, just syntax. Human languages, on the other hand ----

I notice you tend to skip questions in my posts when they point out the obvious flaws in your arguments.

Mmm, we could make a tally of who have skipped most questions, but ----- are you SURE you wanna do that?

Face it MRC, you are a brainwashed A-Theist desperately trying to cling to your absurd dogmatic magical beliefs. You have NO evidence for “free will”, and without “free will” your no god claim has more holes than Swiss cheese.

Oh? I thought this was about semantics and Determinism. Why is free will such a big issue for you?

You A-Theists all think you are so smart, but the fact is you are the biggest bunch of religious idiots to ever walk the Earth. You all going down …

Well, certainly a bigger bunch than the Logical Deists, --- go figure.

Hans

 

[Franko]

So MRC, convert me to A-Theism.

Why should I believe your "superior" metaphsical belief system based on absolutely no evidence?

What about Fatalism and Determinism. They seem like direct evidence for God to me? How do you refute this? Why do you believe that there is more evidence for "free will" then there is for "God"? If you honestly believe this then why have you repeatedly refused to provide a side by side comparsion of the evidence?

I don't see any evidence that YOU have "free will'. I don't see ANY evidence that Indeterminism is True. I don't see any evidence that there is a "YOU" to even make decisions, "YOU" are nothing but a physical brain made up of atoms (chemicals) and obeying the natural laws of chemistry (TLOP).

Besides if your decisons are not made algorithmically (deterministically, like a computer), then how exactly are they being made? That makes no sense what-so-ever, and you have repeatedly refused to address this point? Why are you so embarassed to posts your beliefs?!?!

MRC, why would the Universe make us, and then force us to watch a show? It is not like we can actually change anything that is going to happen, because it is all cause and event as decreed by TLOP and the Initial State. That doesn't seem to jive with your belief that there is no "God".

 

[Q-Source]

Upchurch, Tricky, MRC_Hans, CWL and Franko,

Come on guys give us all a rest on the R&P forum!

Why don't you bring new ideas and topics?.
You all are spamming the forum with the same stuff. Stick to one or two threads only please.

Of course you can ignore me, but this is a sincere opinion of someone who feels the same as many people.

Q-S

This is a copy. Just in case anyone may misundestand the purpose of my post on the flame war forum.

 

[MRC_Hans]

So MRC, convert me to A-Theism.

Oh, no, heaven forbid! Frank, in any competition, I would always want you on the side of the opposition!

Why should I believe your "superior" metaphsical belief system based on absolutely no evidence?

Why, you shouldnt. First of all, my belief system is not metaphysical, secondly, one of the few dogmas of my belief system is that nobody should believe in anything without evidence.

What about Fatalism and Determinism. They seem like direct evidence for God to me? How do you refute this? Why do you believe that there is more evidence for "free will" then there is for "God"? If you honestly believe this then why have you repeatedly refused to provide a side by side comparsion of the evidence?

I quite agree, Fatalism and Determinism don't make sense at all without a god. However, Fatalism and Determinism have some difficulties in the face of empirical evidence (you have still ignored my challenge to explain a simple phenomenon like phosphorescense in a deterministic way).

I don't see any evidence that YOU have "free will'. I don't see ANY evidence that Indeterminism is True. I don't see any evidence that there is a "YOU" to even make decisions, "YOU" are nothing but a physical brain made up of atoms (chemicals) and obeying the natural laws of chemistry (TLOP).

If you dont see an evidence of a "ME" why do you keep trying to communicate with me? If you dont believe I can make decisions, why do you keep telling me what I should do?

Besides if your decisons are not made algorithmically (deterministically, like a computer), then how exactly are they being made? That makes no sense what-so-ever, and you have repeatedly refused to address this point? Why are you so embarassed to posts your beliefs?!?!

I dont know, Frank. All I know is that observations show that the world is not Deterministic.

MRC, why would the Universe make us, and then force us to watch a show? It is not like we can actually change anything that is going to happen, because it is all cause and event as decreed by TLOP and the Initial State.

Thats your cosmology, not mine. Do try not to mix our beliefs up, it makes you seem insincere.

That doesn't seem to jive with your belief that there is no "God".

It certainly doesn't. But then, neither is part of my belief system, so I can live with that.

Hans

 

[Franko]

Whats the YOU making the decisons Han-job?

You never could explain that? Aren't YOU just atoms obeying TLOP?

How can TLOP control your brain and be less conscious then YOU?

I guess the same way that YOU control CAR while being less conscious then CAR? Or is it more like your BRAIN controls your LEGs, ergo LEGS are more conscious then your BRAIN (for you that's prabably True).

 

[MRC_Hans]

Whats the YOU making the decisons Han-job?

I dont know.

You never could explain that? Aren't YOU just atoms obeying TLOP?

I dont know.

How can TLOP control your brain and be less conscious then YOU?

The same way as a wall can control me and be less conscious than me. The same way as the rules of baseball can control the players and be less conscious than them.

I guess the same way that YOU control CAR while being less conscious then CAR? Or is it more like your BRAIN controls your LEGs, ergo LEGS are more conscious then your BRAIN (for you that's prabably True).

I think not.

Hans

 

[Franko]

Okay ... lets try this ...

How do you know that you are more "intelligent" ("more conscious") then a chimpanzee, a dog, or a cat?