Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.

Do you think that there's anything that will remain truly unexplainable for eternity? Right and wrong aside.

Originally posted by The MISTER
Do you think that there's anything that will remain truly unexplainable for eternity? Right and wrong aside.

What is energy?

That's already explained.

unexplainable? no

explainable through rational or scientific means? maybe, but I doubt it

That's easy:

"Why is/does/do x+n?" where "x" is a factual statement about the world and x+1 is a factual statement about the world that answer "x".

define 0 and define infinity

also we will never ever ever explain what death is

0 is the additive identity of the real numbers, if that helps you any.

Why are humans the rarest event in known history? I think our disconnection to the other animals on and off earth is negative and positive. Some people seek to improve the future for all animals. Some people would destroy everything. We are a threat to peaceful life but we can enhance peaceful life with our imaginations. Why are creatures like us so rare! Not dismissing alien life but awaiting open communication with them.

That is already quite explainable.

Whatever "ultimate being" turns out to be -- the Something That Always Was/Is/Will Be -- this will forever remain "unexplainable." We'll be able to describe it, at least in part, by comparing it to familiar, lower-level phenomena. But an "explanation" (IMO) implies some comparison to a higher, more inclusive context, which would be impossible with the STAW/I/WB, since, by definition, that is already the highest context.

In other words, using figure-ground: figures can be explained in the context of an all-inclusive ground. But there is no context for that all-inclusive ground.

Eg, if the "multiverse" is the STAW/I/WB, how does one "explain" it (ie, not define or describe it)?

Originally posted by Bardock42
That is already quite explainable. Why are the cosmos full of friendly/hostile life forms communicating as we would love to?

Originally posted by The MISTER
Why aren't the cosmos full of friendly/hostile life forms communicating as we would love to?

"To the rational mind, nothing is inexplicable; only unexplained."

I have always loved that quote, even though I got it from a 70s Doctor Who episode.

It also gives me the chance to encourage the use of 'inexplicable' instead of the dodgier 'unexplainable'"

Originally posted by The MISTER
Why are the cosmos full of friendly/hostile life forms communicating as we would love to?

We don't know whether it is or not.

The square root of 2

Originally posted by Bicnarok
The square root of 2

The number that when squared equals two.

Originally posted by Bicnarok
The square root of 2 1. 41421356237309504880168872420969807856967187537694
807317667973799

had to do it on google, my calculater doesnt go that far

What π (pi) equals

You guys seem to have an insane definition of unexplainable (inexplicable).

Originally posted by Liberator
What π (pi) equals
3.1416

And there were scientific and mathematical methods used to arrive to that conclusion. Ask Google for info.


Anyways, regarding the question, yes, there are questions which may never be answered. Like most abstract questions (ie. emotions, anatomy, religion, etc.)

Originally posted by The MISTER
Do you think that there's anything that will remain truly unexplainable for eternity? Right and wrong aside.

Who killed Kennedy?

what are crop circles

Originally posted by Colossus-Big C
what are crop circles

Patterns of flattened crops in a field.

Originally posted by Colossus-Big C
define 0 and define infinity

also we will never ever ever explain what death is
zero, infinity, and death are already all defined.

people in this thread have a very low standard for "unexplainable".

Originally posted by AsbestosFlaygon
3.1416

And there were scientific and mathematical methods used to arrive to that conclusion. Ask Google for info.

No no, it's 3.141592654.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Still explainable (in fact the definiton is really really simple) and even used in mathematics. It has been over 2000 year since the Pythagoreans were the world's premiere mathematicians you know.

Yeah, shit's happened since then.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Because pi assumes a mathematically perfect object. In reality objects are built out of innumerable tiny corpuscles known as atoms. They are in fact so small that treating objects as being mathematically perfect is a close approximation for many purposes (but large enough that knowing pi to more than ten places is never needed for normal building projects).

There, you now have the scientific knowledge of a moderately intelligent highschooler from the 1900s. Congratulations.


are you calling me thick

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
There, you now have the scientific knowledge of a moderately intelligent highschooler from the 1900s. Congratulations.

tbh, I always thought that the fact pi isn't a whole number shows an inconsistency with our mathmatical understandings versus the real world systems they are meant to represent.

though, I got Ds in highschool math, so there is that

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
There, you now have the scientific knowledge of a moderately intelligent highschooler from the 1900s. Congratulations. What the hell kind of High School did you go to where,

is considered "moderate" knowledge? That isn't "moderate", that's, "only that one socially awkward kid who gets shoved into lockers would know that", knowledge. At least in High School.

Originally posted by inimalist
tbh, I always thought that the fact pi isn't a whole number shows an inconsistency with our mathmatical understandings versus the real world systems they are meant to represent.

though, I got Ds in highschool math, so there is that

It sort of is a flaw in math. Mathematicians get to describe everything conceptually and sometimes the result is results that are totally unphysical.

Like imagine a solid line. Then zoom in. You see it's made of dashes. Zoom in on one of the dashes and you see they're made of smaller ones. Again and again. There is no smallest dash. But if you do this in the real world eventually you'll scan it with a really high quality electron microscope and see the individual atoms in the paper, forcing you to stop.

Impossible things show up all the time in math. The worst is probably the guy who proved that if you take apart a mathematically perfect sphere you can put it back together into three spheres.

Originally posted by RE: Blaxican
What the hell kind of High School did you go to where

An upper middle class one srug

Originally posted by RE: Blaxican
is considered "moderate" knowledge? That isn't "moderate", that's, "only that one socially awkward kid who gets shoved into lockers would know that", knowledge. At least in High School.

In highschool you didn't know that atoms were really ****ing small?

And I didn't get shoved into lockers. I'm gigantic

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
An upper middle class one srug



In highschool you didn't know that atoms were really ****ing small?

You misread my post you fool. uhuh

Or maybe I should have clarified what I was saying better. uhuh

Don't say that too loudly. I hear DDM's a bit of a size queen.

Originally posted by inimalist
tbh, I always thought that the fact pi isn't a whole number shows an inconsistency with our mathmatical understandings versus the real world systems they are meant to represent.

though, I got Ds in highschool math, so there is that
More like that we call things that aren't really circles circles.

Originally posted by The MISTER
Do you think that there's anything that will remain truly unexplainable for eternity? Right and wrong aside. yeah, even if humans are capable of somehow perceiving and comprehending all natural phenomena, which I doubt, we'll be extinct long before it happens.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
My house is directly under the flight path of a nearby airport Whoa that sucks man.

I know, but sometimes the possibility of a string of events happening in a certain way, time and order to cause an effect seems very unlickly.

Originally posted by Bicnarok
I know, but sometimes the possibility of a string of events happening in a certain way, time and order to cause an effect seems very unlickly.

And they are, but you forget that there's a whole world of people out there for things to happen to. If an string of events have a one in a billion chance of happening to a person each day it will happen between six and seven times every day.

Wildly unlikely things happen all the time simply because of the sheer numbers of things that happen.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
And they are, but you forget that there's a whole world of people out there for things to happen to. If an string of events have a one in a billion chance of happening to a person each day it will happen between six and seven times every day.

Wildly unlikely things happen all the time simply because of the sheer numbers of things that happen.

actually, all outcomes, if you go back far enough, have improbably low odds of occuring

for instance, that I came to work today has low odds, if we add in the decisions I made to get coffee, what I wore, what bus I took, the odds get much lower, if we then add in the fact I saw a car flipped over (actually happened) or what time I woke up, what time I went to sleep, etc, we can express these odds in terms of being so low, it is impossible I ever got to work today.

I'm not disagreeing, just sort of pointing out that the odds of something occuring are not really a good measure of if something will occur.

Originally posted by inimalist
actually, all outcomes, if you go back far enough, have improbably low odds of occuring

for instance, that I came to work today has low odds, if we add in the decisions I made to get coffee, what I wore, what bus I took, the odds get much lower, if we then add in the fact I saw a car flipped over (actually happened) or what time I woke up, what time I went to sleep, etc, we can express these odds in terms of being so low, it is impossible I ever got to work today.

I'm not disagreeing, just sort of pointing out that the odds of something occuring are not really a good measure of if something will occur. But most of those events aren't random, so they're not really uo tot he the odds, no entirely anyway.

Originally posted by inimalist
actually, all outcomes, if you go back far enough, have improbably low odds of occuring

for instance, that I came to work today has low odds, if we add in the decisions I made to get coffee, what I wore, what bus I took, the odds get much lower, if we then add in the fact I saw a car flipped over (actually happened) or what time I woke up, what time I went to sleep, etc, we can express these odds in terms of being so low, it is impossible I ever got to work today.

I'm not disagreeing, just sort of pointing out that the odds of something occuring are not really a good measure of if something will occur.

Those aren't related decisions. Determining the odds of you getting to work only requires adding up the odds of all the things that would stop you. We could ignore the odds of you making coffee and just focus on the odds of the coffee sending you to the hospital.

Originally posted by inimalist
what would be "random" in the real world?
As far as we know, a lot. Determinism, predeterminism, superdeterminism etc. have never been proven.

Originally posted by inimalist
actually, all outcomes, if you go back far enough, have improbably low odds of occuring How Dr. Manhattanish of you.

for instance, that I came to work today has low odds, if we add in the decisions I made to get coffee, what I wore, what bus I took, the odds get much lower, if we then add in the fact I saw a car flipped over (actually happened) or what time I woke up, what time I went to sleep, etc, we can express these odds in terms of being so low, it is impossible I ever got to work today.

I'm not disagreeing, just sort of pointing out that the odds of something occuring are not really a good measure of if something will occur. I believe that at the quantum level, that's all we have: calculations of probability.

Originally posted by 753
As far as we know, a lot. Determinism, predeterminism, superdeterminism etc. have never been proven.

ok, I'm talking more about causality though

and you can generate odds for things that aren't random. The entirety of psychology is based on generating p-values for actions that we assume don't just vary randomly, but based on our experimental manipulations.

My point was that there probabilities rarely translate into the real world, because you can't control all of the confounding variables in the real world, and, going back far enough, you can introduce enough variables into the causality of "why" any event occured, such that the probability of that event having happened, if determined prior to the subsequent chain of actions, would seem to be impossibly low (the odds of you, ending up in the EXACT physical/social/demographic situation you are in at this moment, if calculated prior to your birth, would appear impossible, and certainly not worth betting on. The caveat being, so would every other possible outcome. Essentially, I'm saying that you can reduce certainty by introducing potential variables)

Originally posted by Mindship
I believe that at the quantum level, that's all we have: calculations of probability.

in terms of all science, that is all we really have. Hypothesis testing itself is based on what are called "p-values", which tell you how likely your results are under a null hypothesis.

eg: you want to see if a drug makes you stronger. Your null hypothesis would be "there is 0 effect from the drug". You run the test, and you see how probable it is that your results match the null, in the form of a "p-value". The lower the p-value, the less likely your results conform to the null, and the more likely, in this case, the drug makes you stronger.

So if calculations of probability...
Originally posted by inimalist
in terms of all science...is all we really have. (which I agree with) and...

Originally posted by inimalist
...the odds of something occuring are not really a good measure of if something will occur. ...then is science using poor measurement? I'm sure that's not what you mean.

Originally posted by inimalist
ok, I'm talking more about causality though

and you can generate odds for things that aren't random. The entirety of psychology is based on generating p-values for actions that we assume don't just vary randomly, but based on our experimental manipulations.

My point was that there probabilities rarely translate into the real world, because you can't control all of the confounding variables in the real world, and, going back far enough, you can introduce enough variables into the causality of "why" any event occured, such that the probability of that event having happened, if determined prior to the subsequent chain of actions, would seem to be impossibly low (the odds of you, ending up in the EXACT physical/social/demographic situation you are in at this moment, if calculated prior to your birth, would appear impossible, and certainly not worth betting on. The caveat being, so would every other possible outcome. Essentially, I'm saying that you can reduce certainty by introducing potential variables)



in terms of all science, that is all we really have. Hypothesis testing itself is based on what are called "p-values", which tell you how likely your results are under a null hypothesis.

eg: you want to see if a drug makes you stronger. Your null hypothesis would be "there is 0 effect from the drug". You run the test, and you see how probable it is that your results match the null, in the form of a "p-value". The lower the p-value, the less likely your results conform to the null, and the more likely, in this case, the drug makes you stronger. I get what you're saying, that since there are millions of possible outcomes for any of these events, the chances of any of them happening is small and the chance of a string of them happening in the particular way that they do is even smaller. But my point was that these strings aren't as improbable as they may seem because the individual happenings aren't coin tosses, they are skewed toward certain outcomes. A person born to middle class parents has much more chances of ending up in the middle class as an adult for instance.

Originally posted by 753
I get what you're saying, that since there are millions of possible outcomes for any of these events, the chances of any of them happening is small and the chance of a string of them happening in the particular way that they do is even smaller. But my point was that these strings aren't as improbable as they may seem because the individual happenings aren't coin tosses, they are skewed toward certain outcomes. A person born to middle class parents has much more chances of ending up in the middle class as an adult for instance.

actually, ya, thats exactly the bigger point I was trying to make.

It is, according to statistical probability, more likely that a middle class child will be a middle class adult, when compared to poor kids. However, for any particular instance of a middle class child, the stats don't mean that they will become middle class, and we can't infer that their status as middle class as a child is the reason they became middle class. I'm sure you already know all of this though, lol .

I guess my other point was about how it is really useless to try and say this or that even was imporbable, in terms of the real world, because the context in which something happened makes the probability essentially 1. Like, the "me going to work", the probability ranges from impossible to assured depending on where we start calculating probability from and what we consider as variables in the model. /ramble... lol

yeah, I agree it doesn't fly in real world terms

Thought this was pertinent.

98OTsYfTt-c

^ He actually has a pretty good series of videos.