RunUO Community
This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!
You may now sleep tonight...
- Thread starter BeneathTheStars
- Start date
shrundowr
Lord
Because you keep on going back to the same thing, even after marlberg has proven it to you.Joeku said:I already told you that you have no business in this conversation since you refuse to look at my "proof."
Why wouldn't you have told that to DDTS when he argued my point just a minute ago? "Only 'stop beating a dead horse' if it's against my opinion"
shrundowr
Lord
and as far as me always taking DontDroptheSoad's side, where the hell have you been? Not Starbucks, thats for sure. This is quite possibly the first time I have ever agreed with him on something. I agree with your opinions certainly more than his most of the time. You are being childish and immature, whether there is another context or not, he is in college, you are a teenager who needs to be doing better things with his time like getting laid, drunk and partying, normal teenager stuff rather than participating in adult conversations. You are intelliegent, that doesn't make you right, especially in a matter where there is no clear black or white, right or wrong. And just cause you are smart for your age doesn't mean you can successfully argue with someone like marlberg, who obviously has studied this before.
The point still stands that you only see the need for the conversation to end when the last word is aganst your opinion.Anti-Basic said:
Does it look like I care?Anti-Basic said:
THAT's the pot calling the kettle black!Anti-Basic said:
No, I was informing him that he misunderstood my statement, none of you should have felt the need to interfere.
He's not "in college," he has his college degree. Did you even read his post? Or did you assume that, since he's older, he's automatically correct?Anti-Basic said:
Yes, his statement was correct. No, it did not pertain to my statement.
That's immaturity. If you choose to do that, thats fine with me.Anti-Basic said:
I believe I started this conversation, and I also believe that his post was pertaining to mine. You shouldn't be participating in my conversation with Marlberg.Anti-Basic said:
I never said that I was "right," but I'm certainly not "wrong." F.Y.I. Marlberg even stated that he commends me for standing up for my beliefs.Anti-Basic said:
Again, his post was irrelevant to mine, if you would actually read and not just look at word countAnti-Basic said:
I'm not trying to "make myself shine against Marlberg," in fact, everything he said was (to my knowledge) completely correct. YET AGAIN, I'm informing him that he misunderstood my statement.Anti-Basic said:
And, why do you care anyways, you already said that you don't give a damn...
I hope you feel better.
Good luck. It's when I hear things like this that I'm glad I still have 3 years to prepare 
TMSTKSBK
Lord
Your analysis of entropy is incomplete.
Any system that gives off/produces heat generally becomes more chaotic due to the heating of the matter within the system. Surely you won't debate that, it's obvious. CH 101.
Therefore, as you stated, a system that must give off Amount X of heat will become more disordered due to the heat during the time the heat is produced. This, we call, entropy.
I'm kinda reading and responding. Gimme a bit.
Oh. ID is very falsifiable...disprove the existence of a higher being. QED. Done.
Edit2: I wasn't even thinking about the eye, just about entropy...although I notice that you simply said "the eye is specialized matter that arose from non-specialized matter" (yah, paraphrase). Show me one instance of something specialized coming from something unspecialized without intelligent intervention and we'll talk.
(No need to post an essay, btw...)
Any system that gives off/produces heat generally becomes more chaotic due to the heating of the matter within the system. Surely you won't debate that, it's obvious. CH 101.
Therefore, as you stated, a system that must give off Amount X of heat will become more disordered due to the heat during the time the heat is produced. This, we call, entropy.
I'm kinda reading and responding. Gimme a bit.
Oh. ID is very falsifiable...disprove the existence of a higher being. QED. Done.
Edit2: I wasn't even thinking about the eye, just about entropy...although I notice that you simply said "the eye is specialized matter that arose from non-specialized matter" (yah, paraphrase). Show me one instance of something specialized coming from something unspecialized without intelligent intervention and we'll talk.
(No need to post an essay, btw...)
TMSTKSBK said:
This is very true if your observations come from OUTSIDE of that closed system. Unfortunately the heat that you give off and that I give off and that every particle of matter in motion gives off within our own closed system prevents us from being able to discover the X in the above pseudo equation. Notice the First clause of your statement its the important one here: Any system that gives off/proiduces heat.... For components Of that system it would be impossible for them to accurately observe that amount of energy needed to do work. Any "accurate" ( i am using this word in the most loosely based macro sense possible) guesses at this quantity that must include all of the universe no matter the amount of precision will still be woefully wide of the mark. Further more Heisenburg states quite unequivocally (and no one yet has been able to come up with a better explanation for observable fact on his Hypothesis) that you can not know in which direction your guess is off. Therefore you cannot say for a credible certainty that X is a value of such and so for the Universe as a whole.
If that is so then your analysis falls apart, for a central theme of it is that there is not enough heat energy for natural processes to have given rise to complex systems.
On another note, but still speaking of chaos and mankinds slight glimmerings into what it may mean when taken into context with observable phenomenae, did you know that there are several equations (literally thousands but the word suffices unto example here) that give rise to order from inheritly chaotic beginings?
Foureir transformations are among these as well as Mandelbrot equations. There inputs are not ordered (i.e.random values within a given range) and yet they produce patterns, which are some of the most complex ever found in nature or on a mathematicians graph.
antipose to these are other iterative functions most notably the sin of e^x log when the value of the input will start as ordered and degenerate into chaos on successive iterations. it is even possible to start with an additive equation of positive decimal numbers that iterates several thousand or more iterations and produces somewhere along the line a negative number as a result of one of those iterations.
We call both of these subtypes of equations, equations of inital dependence in other words the outcome whether orderd or chaotic is highly dependent on the initial values of those varibles at the begining of he iterative process.
You are probably a fairly intelligent individual so here is a bit of opportunity for you to prove to yourself what you probably already know in your gut is true.
Take the following equation begining with the prescribed values and iterate through (using a spreadsheet or other calculating tool) until you have results that either stabalize or become chaotic:
x= rx(1-x) Start with an initial value of r at 1.475 and x at .01 continually iterate the function by solving for r*x*(1-x) with the above values for r and x on the first iteration. on the second iteration replace x with the new value obtained from the first iteration. do this through 100 steps you will find that the your answers start at .49 and after only a few iterations stabilize at
.49... Now do this same equation with different initial values for r and x say 1.7 = r and .4=x surely not a large difference in the initial conditions right but the results if you do them will surprise you
All this really goes to show is that functions we thought we knew about were so absolutely sure that they did nothing strange under the right conditions will do very strange things indeed. Now my point in all this is that as I stated much earlier it is impossible being on the inside to properly quantify the values necessary for work in a system that we are a part of. The numbers go "funny" on us not because the values are necessarily wrong but because what we do affects the outcome of the equations.
Therefore Unlike the ID crowd out there who are so absolutely sure of the fact that evolution CANT explain how we evolved or how anything evolved within what we THINK is the right timeframe, I simply observe my surroundings. If I find a pattern within that chaos I attempt to duplicate the events that produce the pattern. If I can then I can record my findings. If I can do this I let others know about the phenomenon that I have observed and see if they can reproduce the phenomenon. If they cant then I stop there I go back and reexamine the initial conditions to make sure they are as close as possible to correct. If they can then I try to find out what caused the effect in the first place, by varying very carefully the those inital conditions. If I get reproducable results Then I combine my observations and those of others into a framework that can generalize about a given phenomenon and its relation to the world around it, and in certain general terms predict the behavior to a limited extent. Then of course I publish my findings in a Peer Review Journal and several decades later I get a call that Im on my way to Switzerland. But Notice at no time have I attempted to discount or discredit any other postualtion unless that postulation does not fit the facts at hand (not really a reason to discredit yet) is not logically consistent, is not predictive, and or is not testable. There are Many Many phenomenae in science that we can not test satisfactorily, Does that mean that because Science can not test a phenomenon that is absolute proof of an existence of God? I certainly Hope Not. For if tomorrow you or I actually PROVE his existence or his absence, then what more mysteries will there be left to solve?
I was bored, and thought "You don't need a spreadsheet for that... you can do it in C#!"Marlberg said:
Here's the code:
Code:
using System;
using Server;
namespace Server.Misc
{
public class Function
{
public static void Initialize(){ Server.Commands.Register( "Function1", AccessLevel.Player, new CommandEventHandler( Function1_OnCommand ) );
Server.Commands.Register( "Function2", AccessLevel.Player, new CommandEventHandler( Function2_OnCommand ) ); }
public static void Function1_OnCommand( CommandEventArgs e )
{
double x = 0.01, r = 1.475;
Console.WriteLine( "Function 1:" );
Console.WriteLine( "-------------------" );
for( int i = 0; i < 100; ++i )
{
double X = r * x * ( x-1 );
Console.WriteLine( "X = {0}", X );
x = X;
}
Console.WriteLine( "-------------------" );
Console.WriteLine();
}
public static void Function2_OnCommand( CommandEventArgs e )
{
double x = 0.4, r = 1.7;
Console.WriteLine( "Function 2:" );
Console.WriteLine( "-------------------" );
for( int i = 0; i < 100; ++i )
{
double X = r * x * ( x-1 );
Console.WriteLine( "X = {0}", X );
x = X;
}
Console.WriteLine( "-------------------" );
Console.WriteLine();
}
}
}
Code:
Function 1:
-------------------
X = -0.0146025
X = 0.0218532061842188
X = -0.0315290742564409
X = 0.047971656250366
X = -0.06736380525927
X = 0.106054989089461
X = -0.139840809358576
X = 0.23510948544794
X = -0.265253697568009
X = 0.495029501921227
X = -0.368713558869552
X = 0.744378289861609
X = -0.280661895880365
X = 0.530163668627301
X = -0.36740797581504
X = 0.741034979848629
X = -0.283055654271822
X = 0.53568483258843
X = -0.366871724266625
X = 0.739663214841163
X = -0.284028276591698
X = 0.537932999280638
X = -0.366627604159223
X = 0.739039021328864
X = -0.284469010766155
X = 0.538952652557333
X = -0.366511969016653
X = 0.738743413862447
X = -0.284677333947524
X = 0.539434814656216
X = -0.366456220704719
X = 0.73860091403691
X = -0.284777665635608
X = 0.539667077108699
X = -0.366429121415637
X = 0.738531648094683
X = -0.28482641296442
X = 0.539779935267733
X = -0.36641589620639
X = 0.738497845168705
X = -0.284850197328579
X = 0.539835002563897
X = -0.366409429541833
X = 0.738481316908532
X = -0.284861825691219
X = 0.539861926005347
X = -0.366406264611338
X = 0.738473227652713
X = -0.284867516547024
X = 0.539875102332772
X = -0.366404714915578
X = 0.738469266791217
X = -0.284870302974188
X = 0.53988155392392
X = -0.366403955943505
X = 0.738467326939968
X = -0.284871667623607
X = 0.539884713591436
X = -0.36640358419205
X = 0.738466376783727
X = -0.284872336036872
X = 0.539886261217065
X = -0.366403402095033
X = 0.738465911363725
X = -0.284872663448265
X = 0.539887019296852
X = -0.366403312895129
X = 0.73846568337859
X = -0.284872823829904
X = 0.539887390640423
X = -0.36640326920015
X = 0.738465571699044
X = -0.284872902393516
X = 0.539887572544642
X = -0.366403247795831
X = 0.738465516991968
X = -0.284872940878486
X = 0.539887661651784
X = -0.36640323731073
X = 0.738465490193208
X = -0.284872959730697
X = 0.539887705301725
X = -0.3664032321745
X = 0.73846547706557
X = -0.284872968965638
X = 0.539887726684079
X = -0.366403229658465
X = 0.738465470634863
X = -0.284872973489468
X = 0.539887737158444
X = -0.366403228425959
X = 0.738465467484714
X = -0.284872975705513
X = 0.53988774228942
X = -0.366403227822203
X = 0.73846546594158
X = -0.284872976791066
X = 0.539887744802883
X = -0.366403227526447
X = 0.73846546518566
-------------------
Code:
Function 2:
-------------------
X = -0.408
X = 0.9765888
X = -0.0388672967147521
X = 0.06864253789673
X = -0.108682257809304
X = 0.204839954652115
X = -0.276896930971398
X = 0.601067030299722
X = -0.407635274156872
X = 0.975463044519493
X = -0.0406893186036328
X = 0.0719863967285032
X = -0.113567404204735
X = 0.214990431154311
X = -0.286908227632871
X = 0.62768174981772
X = -0.397285530297925
X = 0.943706248899448
X = -0.0903120999688886
X = 0.167396238128454
X = -0.236937053901124
X = 0.498229576401195
X = -0.424994671520477
X = 1.02954574198017
X = 0.0517117778438567
X = -0.0833640387893434
X = 0.153533122979445
X = -0.22093319531696
X = 0.458565942586867
X = -0.422081472106685
X = 1.02039821004413
X = 0.0353843049291329
X = -0.0580248350194855
X = 0.104365918047491
X = -0.158905244435912
X = 0.313065405946753
X = -0.365594277828451
X = 0.848730871475909
X = -0.21825752477541
X = 0.452019582224048
X = -0.421086395167077
X = 1.0172802505152
X = 0.0298840578742093
X = -0.0492847016306063
X = 0.0879132618572211
X = -0.136313684419636
X = 0.263321678465477
X = -0.329771732596521
X = 0.745485917967596
X = -0.322552328935331
X = 0.725206967522793
X = -0.338779097024619
X = 0.771035635129239
X = -0.300117463633153
X = 0.663319524538274
X = -0.379655445937806
X = 0.89044929606567
X = -0.165833890243099
X = 0.32866910797364
X = -0.375097733243668
X = 0.87685327263795
X = -0.183568738533514
X = 0.36935257451051
X = -0.395983125362046
X = 0.939735793587017
X = -0.0962751341252737
X = 0.179424860479392
X = -0.250293685866283
X = 0.531999045586381
X = -0.423259303838653
X = 1.02409316161188
X = 0.0419451914821687
X = -0.068315847069278
X = 0.124070933451121
X = -0.18475147277027
X = 0.372103785083792
X = -0.397192348957182
X = 0.943421988746419
X = -0.0907407978234894
X = 0.168256973362326
X = -0.237909159271368
X = 0.500666876472181
X = -0.42499924396881
X = 1.02956012228288
X = 0.0517376692908405
X = -0.0834035008742266
X = 0.153611396214916
X = -0.221025389785295
X = 0.458791941615561
X = -0.422113223071114
X = 1.02049775347642
X = 0.0355604493357945
X = -0.0583030364240125
X = 0.104893876816463
X = -0.159614957418888
X = 0.314656216486227
X = -0.36660105925176
X = 0.851695573023662
X = -0.214727380656449
X = 0.443419888722048
-------------------Even though it doesn't appear that you change the variables very much, "x" is increased by 3900% and "r" is increased by 15%. You increased one variable 260 times more than you increased the other. Saying that there isn't a large difference in those equations is a grave inaccuracy. To test this properly, you would have to change both variables by an equal amount.