Originally posted by masterbruce
whoever wrote that story and whoever okayed it for publication should both be fired.They're insulting the intelligence of their readers.
Well, Amazo is an Robot, he follows an programm, or am I worng? Ethtical or not, he is bound to it, and if it's designed to copy only the powers of JLA members, well then I think this ending is good enough 😉.
Although this is off-topic, I feel compelled to interject my 2-cents worth on the side dish of "infinity"(and hell, this is my thread)...
Seems to me, most people tend to associate infinity with mathematics, especially some kind of linear quantity, eg, 1, 2, 3.... But this is 1 dimensional. Obviously, a "larger" infinity (say, 2D) might involve 1x1, 2x2, 3x3.... Then of course, you'd have 3D infinity (eg, 1x1x1, 2x2x2, 3x3x3...). And this can go on (4D infinity, 5D infinity), ad infinitum.
This is why when I refer to infinity in its grandest sense, I will use a qualifier, usually (following the examples above) Full-Dimensional Infinity or Absolute Infinity (which in some philosophical venues is redundant).
My only gripe with infinity is this: when people use the term "nearly infinite." IMO, that's just verbal fizz. Sounds impressive but it's really empty, void of any logical meaning.
Originally posted by Mindship
Although this is off-topic, I feel compelled to interject my 2-cents worth on the side dish of "infinity"(and hell, this is my thread)...Seems to me, most people tend to associate infinity with mathematics, especially some kind of linear quantity, eg, 1, 2, 3.... But this is 1 dimensional. Obviously, a "larger" infinity (say, 2D) might involve 1x1, 2x2, 3x3.... Then of course, you'd have 3D infinity (eg, 1x1x1, 2x2x2, 3x3x3...). And this can go on (4D infinity, 5D infinity), ad infinitum.
This is why when I refer to infinity in its grandest sense, I will use a qualifier, usually (following the examples above) Full-Dimensional Infinity or Absolute Infinity (which in some philosophical venues is redundant).
My only gripe with infinity is this: when people use the term "nearly infinite." IMO, that's just verbal fizz. Sounds impressive but it's really empty, void of any logical meaning.
So did you just prove my thing about multiple infinities?
Originally posted by Evil_Ash
Following KMC logic:"Has he never done it before, then he can't do it" 313 dur
Its not that much of a leap of faith, when you consider he already has a Bio electrical aura providing him with much of his durability. Its already evolved beyond the Guardians and the Radiants energy attacks, and was able to counter Wave Riders chronal energy. I don't t think its that impossible. 🙂
Originally posted by Symmetric ChaosI think "infinity" is a term which (like so many) is best discussed if operationally defined beforehand.
So did you just prove my thing about multiple infinities?
We can certainly regard a series of infinities (eg, 1D infinity, 2D infinity, 3D infinity, etc) as multiple infinities. But "multiple infinities" doesn't work, obviously, if we define that series as a single unit, so to speak. Again, I might use the term Absolute Infinity, which means Infinite in every facet imaginable, but this could allow, in turn, division into "lesser infinities," even, theoretically, an infinite number of lesser infinities (I hope that made sense).
"Has he never done it before, then he can't do it"
Originally posted by Mindship
Again, I might use the term Absolute Infinity, which means Infinite in every facet imaginable, but this could allow, in turn, division into "lesser infinities," even, theoretically, an infinite number of lesser infinities (I hope that made sense).
They aren't actually lesser amounts in mathematical quantifiable extent, but only a subjective sense. This is the main problem with Anselm's Ontological argument.
Originally posted by Mindship
It's a matter of how one interprets a character's powers: either following, as they say, the "letter of the law" or the "spirit of the law." Some character's powers (eg, Spider-Man) you'd best follow to the letter, as his powers are very specific. On the other hand, someone like the Surfer's powers are best interpreted "in the spirit," as power cosmic is very open-ended. My feeling is, Doomsday's evolving power is also open-ended.
I agree
Originally posted by Donkey Punch
Anselm's Ontological argument.
This is off-topic, but I had to comment as my interest in God is on par with my interest in comics. 😎
Originally posted by Mindship
I have problems with any ontological arguments for God's existence. Even if we define God as Anslem did (a being of which nothing greater can exist), then by definition this being exceeds the bounds of logic. At best, logic can hint of God's existence, but not encompass it, otherwise we have to conclude that logic, at the very least, is equal to God.This is off-topic, but I had to comment as my interest in God is on par with my interest in comics. 😎
I'm not talking about the argument as such, but the definition attributed to him. The same is applicable to an Actual infinite, By definition it cannot be surpassed or lessened.
Originally posted by Donkey Punch
I'm not talking about the argument as such, but the definition attributed to him. The same is applicable to an Actual infinite, By definition it cannot be surpassed or lessened.
you guys are way off base here...
But IMO an Actual Infinite is the only one that can exist.
Any other type of infinite is conceptual in basis only, and
fall under the descripton of relative values.
You see anything that at any point has the potential to be restricted or surpassed in any way shape or form.....is not infinite.
Originally posted by Soljer
Mathematically, and in the real world, one infinity CAN be larger than another.The function y=x is unbounded, yes? The function y = x^10 is also unbounded, yes?
Evaluated at x = infinity, both are infinity, yes?
But when the two infinities are divided, you get zero. Go figure.
no.
its unbounded yes, but the lesser function is never a true infinite as long as it is being defined.
Thats equivalent to saying I=infinity.
you have 2 values.
1. I
2. I x10
the first loses all ability to be an infinite as the 2nd(being greater and unrestricted) now defines and restricts it to being a lesser value.
Not true. The fact that a larger infinity exists does not 'eliminate' a lesser infinity.
As was mentioned before, the set of real numbers is larger than the set of even numbers, which is equal to the set of odd numbers, which is larger than the set of prime numbers.
There are an infinite number of values between one and one point one. But between one and two, there are a larger infinite number of values.
Originally posted by Soljer
Not true. The fact that a larger infinity exists does not 'eliminate' a lesser infinity.As was mentioned before, the set of real numbers is larger than the set of even numbers, which is equal to the set of odd numbers, which is larger than the set of prime numbers.
There are an infinite number of values between one and one point one. But between one and two, there are a larger infinite number of values.
No, True Infinity can not have a value applied to it.
Attempting to do so, restricts it in itself...True Infinity has none whatsoever. It cant be gauged, weighted, or otherwise measured
nono
Originally posted by SoljerBut again...
Not true. The fact that a larger infinity exists does not 'eliminate' a lesser infinity.As was mentioned before, the set of real numbers is larger than the set of even numbers, which is equal to the set of odd numbers, which is larger than the set of prime numbers.
There are an infinite number of values between one and one point one. But between one and two, there are a larger infinite number of values.
If both are truly infinite, then they would never end.
If one of them ever did end, then it wasn't truly infinite to begin with.
So assuming both sets of values are truly infinite, then how could one ever be greater or lesser then the other?
They would both go on..... well...... Infinitley. 😕