› ›
Our new Indie Games subforum is now open for business in G&T. Go and check it out, you might land a code for a free game. If you're developing an indie game and want to post about it, follow these directions. If you don't, he'll break your legs! Hahaha! Seriously though.
Our rules have been updated and given their own forum. Go and look at them! They are nice, and there may be new ones that you didn't know about! Hooray for rules! Hooray for The System! Hooray for Conforming!

[Chat] Goose & Lightning: The Snow Sabbath Shark Swallow

1…111112113114115117»

Posts

  • CindersCinders Registered User regular
    Why is this lizard doing laps on my wall.

    [SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
    • Agree Awesome
  • ChanusChanus Registered User regular
    Cinders wrote: »
    Why is this lizard doing laps on my wall.

    It's plotting your doom.

    g65uPd73MZbtxKsuhj9CIN4-rlYqu9ptxE4yvIJVwZY
    • Agree Awesome
  • PodlyPodly RUDEASS TITTIES Registered User regular
    Elldren wrote: »
    Podly wrote: »
    Elldren wrote: »
    Why not?

    The universe is a set. There is no such material-thing as "the universe." Everything that exists, presumably, composes the universe. If anything exists, it exists within the universe. The universe cannot be a member of something, because then the universe is encompassed by something other than itself, in which case what we were speaking of as "the universe" is not really the universe. Thus, the universe cannot compose part of the universe.

    However, if the universe composes everything that exists, and the universe is not part of the universe, then how can we say that the universe exists?

    It's a variation on Russell's Paradox

    but it is not being encompassed by anything other than itself but rather by itself.

    Were there no matter, no other beings at all, would the universe be an empty set, or would it still be comprise of itself?

    follow my music twitter soundcloud tumblr
    biden%20sig.png
    • Agree Awesome
  • Casual EddyCasual Eddy Registered User regular
    Podly wrote: »
    Elldren wrote: »
    Why not?

    The universe is a set. There is no such material-thing as "the universe." Everything that exists, presumably, composes the universe. If anything exists, it exists within the universe. The universe cannot be a member of something, because then the universe is encompassed by something other than itself, in which case what we were speaking of as "the universe" is not really the universe. Thus, the universe cannot compose part of the universe.

    However, if the universe composes everything that exists, and the universe is not part of the universe, then how can we say that the universe exists?

    It's a variation on Russell's Paradox

    what about parallel universes

    [SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
    • Agree Awesome
  • Casual EddyCasual Eddy Registered User regular
    hehe I got my first secret sodomizer gift

    :D

    [SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
    • Agree Awesome
  • Donkey KongDonkey Kong and a cast of thousands Registered User regular
    Cinders wrote: »
    Why is this lizard doing laps on my wall.

    Attempting to wear away a circular entrance for his bear accomplice.

    dkmouthsig.png
    • Agree Awesome
  • VariableVariable Analrapist InsertmeanywhereRegistered User regular
    Casual Eddy wrote: »
    hehe I got my first secret sodomizer gift

    :D

    I must get moving.

    someone is getting someone such a cool gift that I really feel the need to step up.

    I'm afraid I just blue myself
    Sig%20-%20Blue%20Myself.jpg
    • Agree Awesome
  • electricitylikesmeelectricitylikesme Registered User regular
    God fucking damn it.

    At least now I understand why the guy who wrote this app didn't implement multiple file import, because his data structure makes that fucking impossible to do cleanly.

    Dis' wrote: »
    Cancer is when cells stop letting the body mooch off their hard work - clearly a community of like-minded cells should isolate themselves and do the best job each can do, even if the rest of the body collapses!
    • Agree Awesome
  • monikermoniker Registered User regular
    Podly wrote: »
    Elldren wrote: »
    Podly wrote: »
    Elldren wrote: »
    Why not?

    The universe is a set. There is no such material-thing as "the universe." Everything that exists, presumably, composes the universe. If anything exists, it exists within the universe. The universe cannot be a member of something, because then the universe is encompassed by something other than itself, in which case what we were speaking of as "the universe" is not really the universe. Thus, the universe cannot compose part of the universe.

    However, if the universe composes everything that exists, and the universe is not part of the universe, then how can we say that the universe exists?

    It's a variation on Russell's Paradox

    but it is not being encompassed by anything other than itself but rather by itself.

    Were there no matter, no other beings at all, would the universe be an empty set, or would it still be comprise of itself?

    How can nothingness exist in its own right?

    tea-1.jpg
    • Agree Awesome
  • ElldrenElldren Registered User regular
    Podly wrote: »
    Elldren wrote: »
    Podly wrote: »
    Elldren wrote: »
    Why not?

    The universe is a set. There is no such material-thing as "the universe." Everything that exists, presumably, composes the universe. If anything exists, it exists within the universe. The universe cannot be a member of something, because then the universe is encompassed by something other than itself, in which case what we were speaking of as "the universe" is not really the universe. Thus, the universe cannot compose part of the universe.

    However, if the universe composes everything that exists, and the universe is not part of the universe, then how can we say that the universe exists?

    It's a variation on Russell's Paradox

    but it is not being encompassed by anything other than itself but rather by itself.

    Were there no matter, no other beings at all, would the universe be an empty set, or would it still be comprise of itself?

    Were that the case this conversation would be impossible on every level.

    It is an absurd hypothetical

    • Agree Awesome
  • PodlyPodly RUDEASS TITTIES Registered User regular
    electricitylikesme wrote: »
    Oh man.

    So I did that thing Podly mentioned where cold-brew coffee overnight in a french press. Wow does that ever turn out delicious.

    :^:

    @Eddy: You could totally say that. There are philosophers like David Lewis who believe that there are modal universes, in which everything that is possible is. (I.e., unicorns exist because it is possible for unicorns to exist.)

    @Vari: It could, but my spidey-senses tell me that such a definition would introduce a veritable cornucopia of paradoxes.

    follow my music twitter soundcloud tumblr
    biden%20sig.png
    • Agree Awesome
  • ElldrenElldren Registered User regular
    Casual Eddy wrote: »
    Podly wrote: »
    Elldren wrote: »
    Why not?

    The universe is a set. There is no such material-thing as "the universe." Everything that exists, presumably, composes the universe. If anything exists, it exists within the universe. The universe cannot be a member of something, because then the universe is encompassed by something other than itself, in which case what we were speaking of as "the universe" is not really the universe. Thus, the universe cannot compose part of the universe.

    However, if the universe composes everything that exists, and the universe is not part of the universe, then how can we say that the universe exists?

    It's a variation on Russell's Paradox

    what about parallel universes

    "parallel universe" is a misnomer.

    • Agree Awesome
  • TaminTamin Registered User regular
    Podly wrote: »
    Elldren wrote: »
    Podly wrote: »
    Elldren wrote: »
    Why not?

    The universe is a set. There is no such material-thing as "the universe." Everything that exists, presumably, composes the universe. If anything exists, it exists within the universe. The universe cannot be a member of something, because then the universe is encompassed by something other than itself, in which case what we were speaking of as "the universe" is not really the universe. Thus, the universe cannot compose part of the universe.

    However, if the universe composes everything that exists, and the universe is not part of the universe, then how can we say that the universe exists?

    It's a variation on Russell's Paradox

    but it is not being encompassed by anything other than itself but rather by itself.

    Were there no matter, no other beings at all, would the universe be an empty set, or would it still be comprise of itself?

    But there's no such thing as 'the universe'; there's only the objects/matter/*things* which exist within it. It's not a separate object. It's a word that means 'everything that exists'.

    I'm not overly sure that makes sense.

    • Agree Awesome
  • JokermanJokerman Lord Paramount of the Neckbeards Registered User regular
    Casual Eddy wrote: »
    hehe I got my first secret sodomizer gift

    :D

    are you gonna wait or are you gonna man up?

    SS Wish-list :: Last.FM :: Last.FM PA Group :: Books :: Podcast :: Steam
    • Agree Awesome
  • ElendilElendil Registered User regular
    the universe is Being

    Per3th.jpg
    • Agree Awesome
  • electricitylikesmeelectricitylikesme Registered User regular
    So in a complete twist, the best way to do this seems to be my original stupid way - manually invent the underlying data structure, then just reload the relevant notebook which will very accurately detect it.

    Dis' wrote: »
    Cancer is when cells stop letting the body mooch off their hard work - clearly a community of like-minded cells should isolate themselves and do the best job each can do, even if the rest of the body collapses!
    • Agree Awesome
  • Irond WillIrond Will Super Moderator, Moderator mod
    First one after 11 PM eastern is new chat.

    • Agree Awesome
This discussion has been closed.
› ›