HOME | DD | Gallery | Favourites | RSS
| kryshen
kryshen
βοΈ
[6515438]
[2008-01-27 04:50:45 +0000 UTC]
"chris"
(Canada)
# Statistics
Favourites: 210; Deviations: 210; Watchers: 18
Watching: 34; Pageviews: 11025; Comments Made: 2240; Friends: 34
# Interests
Favorite visual artist: Salvador DaliFavorite movies: monty python and the quest for the holy grail
Favorite bands / musical artists: 3 Inches of Blood, Children of Bodom, Lamb of God, Iron Maiden, Ensiferum..... TOOOOOOOOL
Favorite writers: RA Salvator, Logan Mayhem.... Myself
Favorite games: Dungeons and Dragons version 3.5...... fuck version 4... seriously.....
Favorite gaming platform: the middle one
Tools of the Trade: a hammer and sickle.... both +5
Other Interests: writing, music, philosophy, manipulation of the cosmos, alchemy, plotting mass murder
# Comments
Comments: 332
Okay, I spent all of yesterday to solve this issue. 
Planck length = 1.6E-36 m
Planck time (Pt) = 5.33702552317043279320922743159869618868130431753556655517998388071523800642109549000061902824786873057360235526672255377418467278453015652581893838036445866826976681314644679953889967438740570318149898220588324473459569153003842411539252264978593957823982349816151812598300921899776411319860488284865391777134033171708409022084204666683109152799300908363745428178850316507962318384940824628750333672503529091448991688776907122860308914108839922850894401085967279403673323896627179326839503080494439923502011514912760080175199070551668114345958629819833559655460044962171796863548848850627189560585943759799320902195611605412701876576227945000537671965049901288710872106062121149158462151839723733143413501082805758909385238770749863227046225425724352278401880276788017128836509956497971673456841932961502320381922349761047024071566203309891138088603950136730924698579308489475075453699372250385298218542909441704500785006405998379051950666484078128476467543422990314185955938891564777123245708869700784800930515736990288127928822011926664279192774089066643564462185369586582461657524419777097928194044161044238144243108343973082871884655617320433057725554923733271502113638896145946406697129118571755397529046577949602721493413953729282942801716512828351405691466727958846783263640341479170900289959929545659217350958175205328214094031678408667638997109126741273791484107315334797381727328177148472494261346628006232231499299425337778177194837903493889762897237394811313098476947008453428137942015872860951024992096365546327386261331497538874043322330677178009594891142991996149549566053459557011270777198804647713986187070790153099848829419184387887436447784153395880292625640368844769270346354076725972872873272882668716102257649190094034987364492004665440916462281382675744297743474253778592388738478537708910609085436031883096939016391132828298168861873102891734521220010144484688804279392512269271297011748040706214163666518922233860866506521655057780005926633417842686356039016832104562150125871412E-45 s
(120 s) / (1 Pt) = 22484434350000000000000000000000000000000000000.0That result looked neat. However, I later used a more official number for the Planck time - after all, some professional scientist most likely gets the numbers more exact than me - and got not so pretty results:(120 s) / (1 Pt) = 2225907335477624066510111184071407107322122180.05364436678501074000289367953612091128646314453929282923951875883406973767682051396200376178339695718467240208790108067801137438648429065897986666815060489031841604434007412271427140488141478670242957
Finally I realized that all I did so far was pointless because it had not much to do with the supertask of Thomson's lamp. So I scrapped the entire program and started from scratch. This time, I emulated what actually happens with Thomson's lamp. With the only difference that whenever the span of time would become smaller than a Planck time - which is physically not possible, after all - I would just add a Planck time to the time instead of this even shorter time. Like this, Thomson's lamp actually comes to an end!
You can find the results at the end of Thomson.java .
π: 0 β©: 2
Wait, did more research. You want to smart-ass your way around an infinite regression? Why in god's name would you want to do that? it's solveable if you just add science to it, but you're changing the thought experiment. Thought experiments are, by nature, not constrained by laws of physics.
π: 0 β©: 1
Yes, exactly as I said, haha. 
π: 0 β©: 0
Hahahaha, this is amazing. I wish I understood most of it though. I'm not much of a physics person. Not in the technical sense, you know?
π: 0 β©: 0
You know what annoys me? I would like to solve (or rather smart-ass my way around) Thomson's lamp scientifically by assuming that it is not actually a supertask because time is not a continuum (and thus infinite) but discrete (see chronon ). However, the values for one Planck time , the smallest possible time unit, are not accurate enough to be able to tell exactly how many Planck times there are in two minutes. But this is crucial for telling wether Thomson's lamp would be on or off after exactly two minutes. ):
π: 0 β©: 0
Awesome, man, now you are one year older. It is time to celebrate!
π: 0 β©: 0
I watched a video and they mentioned Jungian shadows. Is this what you ment in Paths?
On a different note, I thought my most recent journal would be of interest to you. It seems you know my philosophy thoroughly, so I would love to hear your thoughts on it.
π: 0 β©: 0
Godel, Escher, Bach, Douglas Hofstadter: [link]
π: 0 β©: 2
I got around to buying GΓΆdel, Escher, Bach: An Eternal Golden Braid. I didn't know this book is so huge. But that is not a problem. For some reason I actually enjoy reading this book, unlike most books of such a length.
Oh, also: The Atheist Puritan .
π: 0 β©: 1
The book is maaaaassive. I enjoyed reading it mostly because Hofstadter is a fantastic and literary writer.
As for the Atheist Puritan.... he made himself a little foolish in that video. To call marijuana a terrifically harmful drug is foolish. I despise social followers as well, as well as true psuedo-intellectuals, and self-loathers... but I don't think those four categories are true. He meanders around the abstract and the concrete an awful lot. I think his main objection is that he feels it undermines his intellect. Which suggests it is essentially an insecurity, rather than a genuine criticism.
[link]
This is better
π: 0 β©: 1
Man, that Alan Watts is hardly audible on this recording.
Not sure how I like his anarchism.
Also, you need to respond to the other stuff.
π: 0 β©: 1
I have been looking for it! I checked DA a long time ago and my messages are no longer in my inbox.... I have no idea what I missed.
π: 0 β©: 1
"Through illustration and analysis, the book discusses how self-reference and formal rules allow systems to acquire meaning despite being made of "meaningless" elements."
I don't see how you could do that. According to GΓΆdel's Incompleteness Theorem, every assumption relies on assumptions. I guess I will have to read that.
Never mind. Overread "self-reference".
Did you read it? Does it answer the question well? If so, I am amazed that I haven't heard of it earlier, because it looks like one of the biggest problems of (ethical) epistemology to me. Either way, definitly goes on my book list.
Also, I am so glad you replied.
π: 0 β©: 1
Funny story to all of that. I moved about two months ago now and we have been completely unable to set up internet. Prior to that my landlord (at the time) had her internet just... fail. So I have been without internet for the past three months or so. Our internet provider is trying to tell us that our house doesn't exist.... it inspired quite the existential crisis. I've been reading GEB for a bit now, about a third of the way through. It's very intense, especially since math is not my forte, but it's up there with The Gay Science as my favourite philosophy book. It's beautiful in a way that Wittgenstein is beautiful to those who love him. The explanation of self-referential systems having power unto themselves is amazing, I definitely would recommend it. I have your comment on Wacken, but I seem to be missing the latest addition to our debate. must dig...
π: 0 β©: 1
Oh, I see. But seeing how you have internet this very moment, I assume everything ended up well, didn't it?
Don't mind the debate.
π: 0 β©: 1
I get to leech internet off McDonalds for awhile. It's very exciting.
π: 0 β©: 1
Ha. I oppose McDonald's, so I advocate your actions!
π: 0 β©: 0
So, just returned from Wacken 2011. I saw Blind Guardian.
But let me tell you a tale.
Once upon a time...
As I was on my way back to my tent after Children Of Bodom's gig, it started raining. I took shelter beneath an abandoned pavilion tent that happened to be next to the path I walked.
By coincidence others gathered there as well. One of those's extraversion caused one guy to start a conversation with these strangers. He was with some friends as well.
However, I never intended to talk with people holding large beers. My antipathy and apathy apparently showed through, as at one point he told me that my "sinister look" possibly fits my style, but gave me the advice that a smile is more likely to turn one's life positive. Referring to the axiom of his reasoning that the look on my face is an artificial creation based on my outward appearance, I simply replied: "Your implications are incorrect."
Obviously, this rather unusual wording in company with my behaviour of simply staring into the far without moving or speaking caused them to label me as a freak. As they were joking around, they compared the whole group standing there with characters from a bad movie. I would be the crazy psychopath saying and doing nothing until he suddenly kills everyone (which I admittedly found pretty hilarious).
To me, it was obvious why they were trying to be funny. An unknown girl - who are considered a rarity on Metal festivals - was with us. They tried to impress her, but their ungraceful macho behaviour merely resulted in the opposite.
Much rather, she was talking to me, how I looked like Marilyn Manson in his early years. She even knew what Straight Edge was, which really surprised me, and as such asked me if I am vegan. She said she could never be vegan but tried a vegetarian way of living once but failed.
She was one of those kind-hearted and naturally friendly humans. I was amazed by her honest interest in me. It was one of those moments which make me realize that I am not merely a freak but a deviant with a reasonable opinion. At this point, I felt this sensation of great accomplishment.
Eventually, from all of half the dozen of people standing beneath this tent, I was the only one she said farewell to. When she walked away a marginal distance, she turned around and smiled at me specifically, urging me to follow. I smiled, too, and let her leave alone.
π: 0 β©: 1
A quote comes to mind: "The voice of disappointment - I voiced my opinion and listened for an echo, but heard only praise."
The implication of not fitting in is to be expected, but it seems to me that you;re still in the same paradigm as them, wanting to fit in. the primary, and admirable, difference, is that you don't try to fit in. Also, for you, it's an expression of power and resistance. I wonder, how long will that remain satisfying? It didn't last for me, though i make no claim that you are the same as I, nor do I condemn you to my experience.
π: 0 β©: 1
That quote is so fitting. Who said that? Google does not want to tell me.
As for the actual reply, two things:
"It"? Not trying to fit in, you mean?
π: 0 β©: 1
Nietzsche in Beyond Good and Evil.
As for the responses, 1. Hearing an echo, to continue the quote. You want someone to agree with you, that is fitting in. The problem then is that someone who agrees with you would necessarily reject you. And 2. Yes. Self-affirmation, controlling yourself and the situation by not engaging in it.
π: 0 β©: 1
Nietzsche! Who else. That guy uttered something perfect about every little thing there is.
But I am trying to make people agree with me (what you call trying to fit in). The sheer fact we are talking shows that.
Besides, I don't see how wanting someone to agree with me qualifies for fitting in either. D: This post is confusing me so much.
"The problem then is that someone who agrees with you would necessarily reject you."
Wha- Why? Sometimes I feel like you know my philosophy better than I do...
Assuming you're refering to the drive for rationality when you're speaking of my opinion, why would I reject someone who agrees with me (or someone else agreeing with me reject me)?
You may be a bit mistaken on my misanthropy. I do not hate humans, I hate their nature. Human's nature manifests itself in emotionality. So I would not hate someone who is not going for emotions (as he or she agrees with me). In context of misanthropy, I only hate the ones who are not critical of their values and thus emotions.
Or maybe you're assuming I reject emotions and thus friendship, which is why someone of my opinion would reject a friendship with me as well?
π: 0 β©: 1
That quote is not so much philosophy as it is psychology. Your mentality is exclusionary, it resists the idea of dependence on another and fundamentally flawed joy. Yet meeting someone who shares your ideals would feel joyful, no? So it would be a "bad" thing, rather than a great one. So, in short, the third point, but less extreme. I don't think you reject friendship, I think you avoid it.
π: 0 β©: 1
Dayum, you really know me. :O
You know, when I went to university, I did not even want to have new friends. It just happened I got some. /:
π: 0 β©: 1
haha, no matter how many times people say that to me, I have to wonder if they're screwing with me. I can't believe they're that amazed. Most of these things seem patently obvious. That was my experience of university too. Probably the best part of it.
π: 0 β©: 1
I am not screwing with you. If you think it is obvious, then you probably have a very good sense for humans.
So you liked university or not?
π: 0 β©: 1
Still there, and I absolutely adore it haha. I would stay here until the end of time if I could.
π: 0 β©: 1
For what reasons? Do you enjoy learning so much?
π: 0 β©: 1
Learning, ease of living (I can mostly survive on scholarships and student loans), social approbation, and generally just social environment. It's a very comfortable state of being for me. Are you finished university?
π: 0 β©: 1
No, I just recently got into university. Don't know if I can stay with the money I get.
π: 0 β©: 1
Isn't there student support in Germany? I know I'll be graduating about $90,000 in debt, but I think it's still sustainable. Alternatively, become a tutor. If it's at all like Canada, people are always looking to pay people to help them study or do work.
π: 0 β©: 1
There is, but some bureaucratic bullshit eats my student support up.
Yes, I could work, but I am living in a small village and one hour on the bus just to work after doing homework... no thanks.
π: 0 β©: 1
Yeah, I know what you mean. I've made it through three years with no job, and I'll be honest, it gets realllly tight. But the way I figure it, there's a conceivable way to afford it, you just need to be puritanically rational and full of willpower
π: 0 β©: 1
Believe me, I hardly spend money.
π: 0 β©: 1
Grats haha, you've more willpower than I. I'm sure you'll get through, you've got the grit for it. More than most people I know anyways
π: 0 β©: 0
I'll admit it, the best state of being.
π: 0 β©: 1
Glad you agree. And yet, our lives are so much different.
π: 0 β©: 1
Upaya: though truth takes but one form, the paths that lead to it are infinite
π: 0 β©: 1
Which is why I try to tolerate everyone's opinion. I realize there are so many people who think about important matter at least as much as I do, and yet they can come to totally different conclusions.
π: 0 β©: 1
Check this out, I think you might be interested: [link]
π: 0 β©: 1
Haha. I laughed hard when it said:You must die! We want volunteers.
I stopped reading when it said:You finally understand. The message you communicate with an other human being has nothing to do with what you say, it has nothing to do with the look on the musculature on the face, it's much deeper than that, much deeper! It's the vibrations that emanate from you!Now it was turning into nonsense and heading too far away from scientific facts.
They assume too much faith. Though interesting indeed.
π: 0 β©: 0
I was looking through my messages and went "wait, why do I not get updates from you?" and then I realized I never watched you... and I was like -__-
π: 0 β©: 1
Haha. Happened to me once before as well.
π: 0 β©: 0
Not much, not much. I'm kind of DA zombie at the moment. Haven't been doing a lot of writing now that I'm working full-time. What have you been up to?
π: 0 β©: 1
Being a hermit and a recluse. Dodging a lot of social interaction as you can see haha (but mainly forgetting about DA bleh). But I understand the lack of writing. I'm about to get back on that train myself.
What do you do for work?
π: 0 β©: 1
| Next =>