Prove it?

Servers are up my rear end.

Prove its not

Prove its not

Is this your way of getting off? :[

Learn to Burden of Proof

You sir should have your finger nails removed and replaced with rubbing alcohol.

I hate you and your family.

But then I would have to reveal my Multiverse tansporter and the world is not ready. With great power comes great responsiblity.

+ 1

Same here

Servers are up my rear end.

Damnit, can i have my own test, they aren't ready but I want to go to the Multiverse that has life based off of liquor and not carbon

From the wiki "Burden of proof is also an important concept in the public arena of ideas. Assuming both sides have agreed to reasoned discourse." when has a game forum ever been "reasoned discourse"? No reasoned discourse so no need for burden of proof however you could use quantum entanglement. Viewing the server determines its value of on or off. Check Schr+¦dinger's cat. Lol thats what I look at when servers are down lol

Viewing the server determines its value of on or off. Check Schr+¦dinger's cat. Lol thats what I look at when servers are down lol

Schr+¦dinger implies multiverse [as long as you don't look in the box of course]

Somewhere in the Multiverse

You mean in the Underverse?

I never understood the concept of Schrodinger's cat from a philosophical perspective. I understand that it can be one or the other until you check, but it certainly can't be both at the same time. The concepts of life and death are contradictory, meaning something can't be an instance of both at the same time.

It would be like saying it's both raining and not raining outside at the same time in the same place--it's literally impossible based on definitions alone.

Servers are up my rear end.

Ask a waitress to surprise you and cook you whatever she wants and put it in a box, now until you open the box any thing on the restaurants menu could be in the box( and the crazy part is they all are) until you open the box then you have seen it so you set the results. It really deals with particles but in a multiverse theory it works on any unknown.

That (underlined) would be the part I deny. As you say, it could be anything (on the menu) in the box, but to say it's all of them doesn't make any sense to me. You're saying it's both the vegetarian burger and the chicken sandwich (and everything else on the menu) at the same time? wut

That (underlined) would be the part I deny. As you say, it could be anything (on the menu) in the box, but to say it's all of them doesn't make any sense to me. You're saying it's both the vegetarian burger and the chicken sandwich (and everything else on the menu) at the same time? wut

Untill you open the box, yes! Get it?

Their potential exists in the box - you are trying to think of things in a Newtonian model (which means the object has already been realized) - think of it as all the stuff to make any of those things is in the box, but they will come together to form one of the options when someone observes (tests) it

Their potential exists in the box - you are trying to think of things in a Newtonian model (which means the object has already been realized) - think of it as all the stuff to make any of those things is in the box, but they will come together to form one of the options when someone observes (tests) it

It's called a waveform.
See also; light bubbles, Schrodinger's Cat, etc

Really though if the waitress has to cook your meal something has gone horribly, horribly wrong.

Is server working already?

Wait how do wave forms come into this ?

troll post turned into highly intelligent discussion... Now I've officially seen the most unlikely of events

It's all quantum theory, it's been well known in the scientific community since the 30's with guys like Einstien and Schrodinger. I just looked it up on Wikipedia a few moths ago cuz I saw something on it on tv.

The box doesn't contain waffles or steak & eggs or pancakes or anything else on the menu. It contains a waveform which, upon observation, resolves into a cat which ate your breakfast.

Then I'd probably question the use of the word "is". To say something "is", to me, says it exists as "this" and "not that". If you want to say "their potential", which I'm fine with, then you should use the phrase "could be X, Y or Z" which I'm also fine with. But to say it "is" everything just doesn't make sense to me. I guess if we're using different definitions of "is" then it works out (though we already have words for what you want that definition to be, it's "could be").

troll post turned into highly intelligent discussion... Now I've officially seen the most unlikely of events

troll post turned into highly intelligent discussion... Now I've officially seen the most unlikely of events

Wait so nothing exists unless its observed ?

Edit: and see that cats always up to no good!

This really is not the place for those kind of questions

Yea I dont get get it either.

yea I made a thread requesting Magic in Dust and that went of off all strange 2

could be is fine and you are right - most of the time - these actual science debates are screwy due to lack of common reference but then again, what isnt these days - but a war of semantics. I just want to point out that the concept of every option being calculated (in this case every dish has been created) at some point. So, in the many worlds theory, one of each path exists simultaneously with different outcomes depending on the state of the variables when you observe it or solve it

The answer domain for what's in the box is all states of the menu

Wait how do wave forms come into this ?
Brb off to google light bubbles

Well then it seems, even if we do accept the many worlds theory, that the question falls into a sort of equivocation trap. In other words, when we say "possibility X is this and that and that, etc" we're using different definitions of "is". Unless we want that definition to include every possible other world and all events/objects therein.

And once we do that, it seems all epistemic (knowledge-based) claims become meaningless, because even once you saw the cat as alive or dead, let's say alive, couldn't you also say the cat is dead (again, if we use the definition of "is" that includes all possible other worlds) because in another world it is, in fact, dead? Once you allow for that, all statements become meaningless since their exact opposite or any other variations would be true too.

So you're saying that you poisoned his cat.

Well then it seems, even if we do accept the many worlds theory, that the question falls into a sort of equivocation trap. In other words, when we say "possibility X is this and that and that, etc" we're using different definitions of "is". Unless we want that definition to include every possible other world and all events/objects therein.

And once we do that, it seems all epistemic (knowledge-based) claims become meaningless, because even once you saw the cat as alive or dead, let's say alive, couldn't you also say the cat is dead (again, if we use the definition of "is" that includes all possible other worlds) because in another world it is, in fact, dead? Once you allow for that, all statements become meaningless since their exact opposite or any other variations would be true too.

sort of - but we are not changing the rules [dynamic systems equations] so its not meaningless per se, its more just playing out all possibilities. It gets crazy to think about - that's for sure - but yes - in my model "is" represents the complete "is"

fun stuff

Well then it seems, even if we do accept the many worlds theory, that the question falls into a sort of equivocation trap. In other words, when we say "possibility X is this and that and that, etc" we're using different definitions of "is" (before and after we check the box). Unless we want that definition to include every possible other world and all events/objects therein.

And once we do that, it seems all epistemic (knowledge-based) claims become meaningless, because even once you saw the cat as alive or dead, let's say alive, couldn't you also say the cat is dead (again, if we use the definition of "is" that includes all possible other worlds) because in another world it is, in fact, dead? Once you allow for that, all statements become meaningless since their exact opposite or any other variations would be true too.

Well then it seems, even if we do accept the many worlds theory, that the question falls into a sort of equivocation trap. In other words, when we say "possibility X is this and that and that, etc" we're using different definitions of "is" (before and after we check the box). Unless we want that definition to include every possible other world and all events/objects therein.

And once we do that, it seems all epistemic (knowledge-based) claims become meaningless, because even once you saw the cat as alive or dead, let's say alive, couldn't you also say the cat is dead (again, if we use the definition of "is" that includes all possible other worlds) because in another world it is, in fact, dead? Once you allow for that, all statements become meaningless since their exact opposite or any other variations would be true too.

And that is why there are so very many worlds in the multiverse. Each observation causes another version of the multiverse to come into being. All statements do not become meaningless, all statements just become one more version of "the world" in the multiverse.

Totally different from quantum flux.

I like the discussion on what "is" means. But when you see the cat it can no longer be alive and dead because seeing it defines it. It is only both when it is unseen and so undefined.

In a way it is the same word. While the cat is unseen it "is" both alive and dead because it's still at an unknown state and then once you see it, the cat is whatever you observed it as. The hard part isn't the word "is" the hard part is understanding that the cat can be both alive and dead in the same space in the same version on the world and only upon observation does it become what you see when the box is opened.

Then I guess I'll never get it, because if you want to say it is both alive and dead at the same time, in this world, then to me that statement is just gibberish. The definitions don't allow it to be both at the same time in the same place. It just seems to me that you're talking about potential, in which case we should be using the worlds "could be".

So my girlfriend is having some friends over... so i download the update... kinda mess around see if i can get in a game.. oh f*cking sweet its up,play along with the friendly sh*t.... oh ya now i just have to convince her to go with her friends (20 minutes later) and servers are down! WTF.!!! invite some friends over for a fire... getting dark out(4 hours later).. they all decided to bail.. go back to dust... ITS STILL DOWN!!!!!!! WHAT ARE YOU DOING!?!?!?!

Then I guess I'll never get it, because if you want to say it is both alive and dead at the same time, in this world, then to me that statement is just gibberish. The definitions don't allow it to be both at the same time in the same place. It just seems to me that you're talking about potential, in which case we should be using the words "could be".

And I'm not entirely sure it's a question of semantics, because it appears as if people are fine with accepting the contradiction.

You didnt read the whole thread did you ?

In a way it is the same word. While the cat is unseen it "is" both alive and dead because it's still at an unknown state and then once you see it, the cat is whatever you observed it as. The hard part isn't the word "is" the hard part is understanding that the cat can be both alive and dead in the same space in the same version on the world and only upon observation does it become what you see when the box is opened.

Schrodinger's cat does not really illustrate a philosophical perspective. It is a way to think about some aspects of quantum physics. Though the disciplines may sometimes intersect and inform each other, they are still distinct and do not really address the same sorts of problems, as it were. At the quantum level it is possible for a single "thing" to be in two places at once, or to be in two states at once, though it would be extremely rare for something like that to occur at the Newtonian level, or level of observable reality, or, since you mentioned Kant, at the level of Phenomena... wait , when did I get kicked out of Arkombine? But... but I... I liked Arkombine!

The cat would say you are all wrong. From the cat's point of view, none of you exist until some force opens the box.

The cat would say you are all wrong. From the cat's point of view, none of you exist until some force opens the box.

Cats can't talk.

The cat would say you are all wrong. From the cat's point of view, none of you exist until some force opens the box.

Think this thread still gets anyone ?