Skwiggs
Moon
[AWD:1902181c]
Look Deeper.
Posts: 201
|
Post by Skwiggs on Nov 7, 2010 23:15:24 GMT -5
Douglas Adams was a Great weaver of logical fallacies (and that's why i enjoyed the books) the fallacy woven here is that almost 0 equals 0. So to answer your question. Yes he's a genius but for his skill at fallacies, and as far as your concerned.. maybe you lost that 1 marble that says "almost true isn't true".. but i'm sure you'll find it  the rest seems to be accounted for  |
|
Skwiggs
Moon
[AWD:1902181c]
Look Deeper.
Posts: 201
|
Post by Skwiggs on Nov 7, 2010 23:26:43 GMT -5
Actually, it looks more like 7b SHHH. yeah it look more like a 7.. if you cut off the bottom so i'll cut off the top and bottom and say it's / b "forward slash, be" (that sounds violent) if it's any number then it's still 2 so i'm siding with Swimfellow on this one |
|
|
|
Post by Ryan on Nov 7, 2010 23:30:40 GMT -5
The number of natural numbers (counting numbers) is infinite.
The number of real numbers (rational numbers, i.e. numbers that can be written as fractions in addition to irrational numbers, including but not limited to Pi, sqrt(2), etc.) is infinite
The number of natural numbers is less infinite than the number of real numbers.
In fact, the number of real numbers (A_1) is equal to 2 raised to the power of the number of natural numbers (A_0).
or
A_1 = 2^(A_0)
so yes, it is quite feasible that there are an infinite number of worlds (since we cannot ever be sure for reasons I won't explain here). And it is possible that there are an infinite number of inhabited worlds. And it is possible that the number of inhabited worlds is less infinite than the number of worlds. Either way, it is impossible to say that even the average population of the universe is zero.
In other news, Douglas Adams does not necessarily believe what he writes, but as Skwiggs said above, his ability to write eloquently enough to make such an illogical argument sound logical and incorporate it into his books is definitely a great capacity of a great writer. It does however have no affect on real life.
If you really want to question the existence of things, look at Descartes as his arguments are much better.
|
|
|
|
Post by rialvestro on Nov 8, 2010 0:21:32 GMT -5
Douglas Adams was a Great weaver of logical fallacies (and that's why i enjoyed the books) the fallacy woven here is that almost 0 equals 0. So to answer your question. Yes he's a genius but for his skill at fallacies, and as far as your concerned.. maybe you lost that 1 marble that says "almost true isn't true".. but i'm sure you'll find it the rest seems to be accounted for This bit here made me laugh quite allot. Anyway... it might interest you to know that works of fiction often have some basis in reality. Star Trek for example of was notorious for works of fiction about alien worlds that some what mirror the very real events of human history. One example of this is a race of people who have black and white skin. Some of these aliens who have white on the right side and black on the left side are racist against another group of the same race who have black on the right side and white on the left side which obviously mimics the very real racism of white humans and black humans. Sense the idea of the population of the universe being 0 is meant to be a statistic and in real life people often take statistics to mean facts there is some logical sense to believe that the population of the universe is 0 based on a simple statistic. That is to say that if statistically girls mature faster than boy than people believe that girls always mature faster than boys and continue to believe this even when some boys do indeed mature faster than girls in the same way that one can believe that the population of the universe is 0 even when the real facts show that there are indeed people in the universe. Thus the genius of Douglas Adams is not that he some how proved that we don't exist but that he's a genius because he used this fictional statistic to prove that very real statistics are a load of dingo's kidneys. Of course I have no idea if this was intended but is simply my interpretation of his work. On the other hand if the statistics are true than there's really no proof that any of you people exist as I myself don't really exist (as I am simply an alter of someone else I'm not so sure even exists) so you must all just be figments of my own deranged imagination and therefore I have lost all my marbles. I haven't quite decided yet if I have my marbles or not. This seems a rather difficult task for me to figure out so when you figure it, you let me know.  |
|
Skwiggs
Moon
[AWD:1902181c]
Look Deeper.
Posts: 201
|
Post by Skwiggs on Nov 8, 2010 0:34:37 GMT -5
On the other hand if the statistics are true than there's really no proof that any of you people exist as I myself don't really exist (as I am simply an alter of someone else I'm not so sure even exists) so you must all just be figments of my own deranged imagination and therefore I have lost all my marbles. I haven't quite decided yet if I have my marbles or not. This seems a rather difficult task for me to figure out so when you figure it, you let me know. Off point: So it's official, when a person with multiple personalities attempts suicide it IS a hostage situation... If you don't exist then your "marbles" never did either. ergo you never lost them because you never had them.. or more accuratly... there was never a you to have them in the first place LOL.. so.. (this is a fun idea btw ) The new question is "do 'marbles' exist if there is nothing to have them?" **Gotta love trying to make sense of non-sense this is a great exercise** |
|
|
|
Post by Ryan on Nov 8, 2010 0:36:15 GMT -5
The statistic is a fallacy.
1 planet is known to have population. (premise one)
1> 0 (truth)
There are infinite worlds (not proven, but acceptable premise)
infinity > 0 (truth)
So the average population (P) of the universe = population of the known planets/number of planets
since 1 =/= 0 and infinity =/= 0 and 1> 0 and infinity >0, then P>0. Therefore the average population of the universe is not zero.
P is very close to 0. But that is irrelevant. Since it does not relate to elephants, it is also irrelephant.
|
|
|
|
Post by rialvestro on Nov 8, 2010 3:11:50 GMT -5
The statistic is a fallacy. 1 planet is known to have population. (premise one) 1> 0 (truth) There are infinite worlds (not proven, but acceptable premise) infinity > 0 (truth) So the average population (P) of the universe = population of the known planets/number of planets since 1 =/= 0 and infinity =/= 0 and 1> 0 and infinity >0, then P>0. Therefore the average population of the universe is not zero. P is very close to 0. But that is irrelevant. Since it does not relate to elephants, it is also irrelephant. That made a great deal of sense up till the bits about elephants. Anyway, to dumb down the statistics to apply to just our own galaxy then the population of our galaxy would be 0 because out of 9 planets in our galaxy only the Earth is actually populated and in statistics the larger number is seen as fact while the smaller number seems to be ultimately ignored as if it doesn't matter at all. Thus if 8 of 9 planets are not populated than the statistic population of the galaxy is indeed 0 sense the one populated planet would be ignored as irrelevant just as the number of boys who mature faster than girls are statistically ignored as irrelevant. |
|
|
|
Post by qooqǝɯɐƃ on Nov 8, 2010 4:02:29 GMT -5
This "debate" is dumb. Btw there are only 8 planets in our solar system!
|
|
|
|
Post by Ryan on Nov 8, 2010 8:07:54 GMT -5
The part about elephants is a pun.
Outliers are not always ignored in statistics.
There are not 9 planets in our galaxy.
There are not 9 planets in our solar system.
And the average population of our solar system is 0.125, not 0.
If outliers skew data, the outliers undergo analysis, and if the outliers has sufficient cause to be dropped from statistical data, new results are tabulated, but in the vast majority of cases, outliers are always included.
|
|
|
|
Post by rialvestro on Nov 8, 2010 8:49:37 GMT -5
This "debate" is dumb. Btw there are only 8 planets in our solar system! That depends on weather or not you consider Pluto to be a planet. Someone a few years ago finally decided Pluto was too small to be a planet and reclassified the thing. (I think it's meant to be one of Neptune's moons now or some such thing.) The thing is though that nothing new was really learned about it before it was reclassified. We've known for years about it's smallish size and it's orbital pattern and it was never an issue before so I don't see why it should be an issue now. Short version. I don't see any damn good reason why I can't call Pluto a planet. That being said someone should start a different topic for this and the pronouncement of the planet Uranus sense this topic is about Douglas Adams and his books. BTW, this wasn't actually intended to be a "debate", I originally posted this in "Anything and Everything" but I guess because I jokingly used the word "debate" in my original post one of the admins didn't get that it was a joke and moved it here anyway. (or perhaps the joke is on me and the admin seriously wanted to debate about the loss of my marbles.) I think you have to actually be a fan of Douglas Adams to understand of the style of humor that has been lined into all of my posts on this topic. Even my "decision" that I have lost my marbles (which is not something one just chooses to do.) was taken from Arthur Dent's decision that he was finally going to go "mad" (mad meaning crazy or insane in this case.) some time after being trapped in the prehistoric era with no one to talk to but some trees. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 8, 2010 10:34:43 GMT -5
That depends on weather or not you consider Pluto to be a planet. Someone a few years ago finally decided Pluto was too small to be a planet and reclassified the thing. (I think it's meant to be one of Neptune's moons now or some such thing.). What?! Call it a planet if you want but don't call it one of Neptune's moons. It didn't suddenly jump from orbiting the Sun to orbiting Neptune when people stopped calling it a planet, did it? We've known for years about it's smallish size and it's orbital pattern and it was never an issue before so I don't see why it should be an issue now. Short version. I don't see any damn good reason why I can't call Pluto a planet. Calling Pluto a planet was stopped because there are requirements to be a planet and Pluto doesn't have all of them. And its size and orbital pattern are not the reasons it isn't a planet. |
|
Quinn
Star
[AWD:191c07]
The eye of compromise.
Posts: 580
|
Post by Quinn on Nov 8, 2010 10:36:41 GMT -5
This "debate" is dumb. Btw there are only 8 planets in our solar system! *facepalm* He is talking about the UNIVERSE!!! |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 8, 2010 10:43:38 GMT -5
This "debate" is dumb. Btw there are only 8 planets in our solar system! *facepalm* He is talking about the UNIVERSE!!! *facepalm* He's talking about THIS: Anyway, to dumb down the statistics to apply to just our own galaxy then the population of our galaxy would be 0 because out of 9 planets in our galaxy only the Earth is actually populated... Which, as Gameboob pointed out, is bollocks for more than one reason. |
|
Skwiggs
Moon
[AWD:1902181c]
Look Deeper.
Posts: 201
|
Post by Skwiggs on Nov 8, 2010 15:06:31 GMT -5
yeah statistics are like cheap prostitutes once you engage their "services".. deny it all you want but the outcome will always be uncertain
|
|
|
|
Post by qooqǝɯɐƃ on Nov 8, 2010 19:03:01 GMT -5
That depends on weather or not you consider Pluto to be a planet. Someone a few years ago finally decided Pluto was too small to be a planet and reclassified the thing. (I think it's meant to be one of Neptune's moons now or some such thing.). What?! Call it a planet if you want but don't call it one of Neptune's moons. It didn't suddenly jump from orbiting the Sun to orbiting Neptune when people stopped calling it a planet, did it? We've known for years about it's smallish size and it's orbital pattern and it was never an issue before so I don't see why it should be an issue now. Short version. I don't see any damn good reason why I can't call Pluto a planet. Calling Pluto a planet was stopped because there are requirements to be a planet and Pluto doesn't have all of them. And its size and orbital pattern are not the reasons it isn't a planet. Thank you, and *facepalm* He is talking about the UNIVERSE!!! *facepalm* He's talking about THIS: Anyway, to dumb down the statistics to apply to just our own galaxy then the population of our galaxy would be 0 because out of 9 planets in our galaxy only the Earth is actually populated... Which, as Gameboob pointed out, is bollocks for more than one reason. thank you. |
|
Quinn
Star
[AWD:191c07]
The eye of compromise.
Posts: 580
|
Post by Quinn on Nov 8, 2010 22:05:43 GMT -5
My stupidity is stupid.
(Believe it or not everyone is stupid sometimes.)
|
|
|
|
Post by rialvestro on Nov 9, 2010 2:45:33 GMT -5
That depends on weather or not you consider Pluto to be a planet. Someone a few years ago finally decided Pluto was too small to be a planet and reclassified the thing. (I think it's meant to be one of Neptune's moons now or some such thing.). What?! Call it a planet if you want but don't call it one of Neptune's moons. It didn't suddenly jump from orbiting the Sun to orbiting Neptune when people stopped calling it a planet, did it? Actually it's always orbited Neptune... well sort of... Every so often (I forget the exact time) Pluto ends up being the 8th planet from the Sun rather than the 9th. (At least that's what was taught back when it still was a planet.) I don't know what's being taught about it now sense I haven't studied the planets much sense before it was reclassified. I only know of the reclassification because I saw it in a news article a couple years ago but it's kinda hard to remember all the details of a news article I saw once a couple years ago after 7 years of learning it was planet in elementary school. Right so they simply changed what the requirements are. And the thing I read just said that some scientist suddenly decided it was too small to be called a planet. There was allot more to said article but it mainly just said the same thing, that it's too small to be a planet, over and over again. |
|
|
|
Post by Ryan on Nov 9, 2010 7:45:59 GMT -5
Rialvestro - go do more research. You make a lot of these pots with 'facts' that are not verifiable. Unless you can quote good sources and not your memory, your posts like the above one, do not hold any value. Pluto has an elliptical orbit around the sun, which means that occasionally (twice every 248 years) its orbit will cross over Neptune's orbit and it will be closer to the sun than Neptune. In order to orbit Neptune, it would have to revolve around Neptune, not simply cross in front of it. However, due to its size, strange orbit pattern, and the distance it is from the sun at it's furthest point, it cannot be considered a planet (is in orbit around the Sun, has sufficient mass to assume hydrostatic equilibrium (a nearly round shape), and has "cleared the neighbourhood" around its orbit).
We hardly ever learn about Ceres, which - like Pluto - is a dwarf planet. It was discovered before Neptune, and was considered a planet for more than 50 years during the 19th century. It was then reclassified. As we discover more and more about the universe and our solar system, it is natural that our definitions change of what is and isn't a planet.
Pluto is not a planet - get over it.
|
|
|
|
Post by rialvestro on Nov 9, 2010 8:08:21 GMT -5
Pluto has an elliptical orbit around the sun, which means that occasionally (twice every 248 years) its orbit will cross over Neptune's orbit and it will be closer to the sun than Neptune. In order to orbit Neptune, it would have to revolve around Neptune, not simply cross in front of it. What exactly are you trying to argue here? What you just said there is just a more detailed explination of what I said here. "Actually it's always orbited Neptune... well sort of... Every so often (I forget the exact time) Pluto ends up being the 8th planet from the Sun rather than the 9th. (At least that's what was taught back when it still was a planet.)" This is simply a communication error. To translate... it's always orbited Neptune... well sort of... = Pluto has an elliptical orbit around the sun The problem here being that you didn't pay attention to or didn't understand what I meant when I said "well sort of" as it was there to make the first part not quite as literal sounded as it would when taken out of context. Every so often (I forget the exact time) Pluto ends up being the 8th planet from the Sun rather than the 9th. = occasionally (twice every 248 years) its orbit will cross over Neptune's orbit and it will be closer to the sun than Neptune. The only difference here being that you had the exact time frame while I didn't. Moving on, why is a topic about Douglas Adams being turned into a debate about weather or not Pluto is a planet? Can we get back on topic please? Don't make me feed your grandmother to the Ravenous Bugblatter Beast of Traal. |
|
|
|
Post by Ryan on Nov 9, 2010 9:59:59 GMT -5
Ok, so the sum up of this thread thus far.
Douglas Adams wrote fiction.
In his fiction he uses fallacious statistical reasoning to say that the average population of the universe is 0.
The average population of the universe, even statistically, is greater than zero.
The average population of the solar system is greater than zero.
The solar system has 8 planets.
Pluto is not a planet.
Pluto does not orbit Neptune.
I don't think that there's any more debate to be had.
If there is, it would relate to our own existence, which since the original post of this thread, is really not in question here - as there has yet to be any actual argument against our existence. Fictional arguments don't count. Fallacious ones don't hold weight.
Continue if you must - or just let the thread die.
|
|
