View Full Version : Things you should never pick your nose with and more

15th Apr 2000, 08:30 PM
I was sitting around the other day, going to relieve myself, and, as everybody knows, the greatest revelations occur when you're on the toilet and the only thing around to scribble them down is your girl's broken mascara pencil and the last kleenex in the box, since you never checked for toilet paper, so you're either gunna wipe your ass with the most important discovery in human history or write it down and not wipe your ass and when you finally receive your doctorate everybody's going to refer to you as Dr. Sid Skidmarks. The revelation was this:

People are ****ed up. I don't know why, I can't tell you what causes it, but every single person in the world, down to all the people who consider themselves "normal", are royally ****ed up. Either you're some socially stunted reject, brain dead lingo using brain washed turd, or some sort of man who wears a straight jacket. I was thinking, "Jesus H. Christ, man, this world is worse than you always thought it was." And you know what? It turns out I was right.

Only man can build an empire founded around killing people for pieces of paper and chunks of metal with numbers and faces printed on them or over lines on a map, only man can be so petty and have such violent fits of ego that he needs to place his wants and desires over those of others just so he can pass down some ativisticly violent tendencies to his children and their children and their children's children. Only he can be so ****ed up that on the one hand you have sweet, naive innocence, always ready to keep their chin up and turn the other cheek, and on the other hand you have bitter, hateful people, always ready to cold cock you.

No other animal displays this behaviour. No other living thing that we know of acts like this. Everything acts within a set of boundaries and rules dictated by emotion and instinct and natural abilities, but we attempt to defy that because we like to think that we're special in some way, above everything else, and that leads to violent, chaotic, suicidal tendencies. We are not mammals, we are not animals, we aren't even a virus. We are weapons against ourselves let run rampant by a God that has long stopped caring about some failed expiriment that long ago perverted every reason why He birthed the creation.

Everybody's always said I was pretty ****ed up, and as much as it would reassure them to know that they're right, this is sadly not the case. I am the only one with enough balls to open my eyes and stop being blinded by petty whims and self-affirming actions brought on by some narcissistic masturbatory tendencies. I am the only one who sees this pile of cess and filth for exactly what it is (or rather, exactly what we made it be.)

The moral of this goddam story is this:

Happiness does not exist within the realm of human comprehension, hope is a lucid dream that you will always find yourself waking from, and God is an atheist.

[This message has been edited by Bad.Mojo (edited 04-15-2000).]

15th Apr 2000, 08:49 PM
Speak for yourself, dude. I'm perfectly normal (Except for my unsatiable appetite for animated porn. Just one of those things...) /infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

On a side note, if everyone is, as you put it, "****ed up", by default wouldn't they then become "normal"? Just wonderin'.


If the past is an idea that can only occur in the here-and-now, and the future is also just a concept happening strictly in the present, is there really a past and future? Or just a continuum of present moments?

15th Apr 2000, 10:13 PM
No, because everybody's demons are different. Everybody is haunted by some warped evil that dwells within the darkest recesses of their soul that sets them apart from the masses or the individuals. Either way, everybody's id is ruled by a different minion of Hell.

15th Apr 2000, 11:53 PM
Are you dpressed now Mojo? when I philosophize I get depressed because I see how meaningless we all are. But then I stop and I become happy again.

What is your major malfunction, numbnuts?!!
Didn't Mommy and Daddy show you enough
attention when you were a child?!!!

Mr. T
16th Apr 2000, 12:02 AM
It's all about the human brain, Mojo. The human brain is too sophisticated. Sometimes it can't control itself, or understand itself, which can lead to further instability. And it hates uncertainty. It hates the unknown. It can't STAND the unknown.

You see, God doesn't really exist. God is just an example of our brain trying to understand our own existence. Trying to explain the unexplainable. Because our brains are afraid of the unknown. We are terrified of the unknown. We want to be in control. We want to feel safe, secure and have the power to maintain that security. And our brains will do anything to achieve that security, that comfort, that control.

Most other species don't have that, whatever the hell it is. They just do what they need to do to survive today, and then tomorrow they do what they need to do, to survive tomorrow, and don't worry about anything else. If they are hungry, they eat. If they are tired, they sleep. They don't have sex for pleasure. They aren't concerned with power, money, or dominance over another species, simply to feel better about themselves. They don't feel jealously, or a need for revenge. They don't kill other members of their species, because of their religion or other beliefs. They aren't threatened by others beliefs, because they don't have beliefs. Our brains are weird. They contain a higher level of sophistication, that we haven't learned how to handle very well.

[This message has been edited by Mr. T (edited 04-15-2000).]

16th Apr 2000, 04:46 AM
The only thing I doubt is that God part. Isn't the afterlife just as unknown as a no-afterlife? Isn't that what atheists reject God? Because their minds can't handle the unknown of conciousless death? I just think the Universe wouldn't defy itself to go to all the trouble of existing. I mean, the frigging thing would have to break its own rules just to exist without something to create it. And that's pretty impressive in its own right, so I suppose that that would make it God aswell. So even if God doesn't exist, God still exists. WTF?

And yiah, I'm pretty goddam depressed. In fact I'm downright spiteful right now.

Mr. T
16th Apr 2000, 05:53 AM
Well, I've read some books about the universe/astro-physics, and it IS pretty weird how the universe is set up. I mean, there is hardly any leeway here or there in the composition of our universe, for us to exist in. I mean hardly any leeway AT ALL.

So I suppose you can take that to mean that there is a God that set it all up that way, so that we may exist. But I think it was all just coincidence. I mean the Universe just happen to be set up that way, and we developed from it. If it were to be set up some other way, then, well something else would have developed from it. Maybe just some bacteria.

If you get into the question of what set it up, then I have no answer for that. But that's why people developed the idea of a God, because they couldn't handle not having an answer for their existence. But why do we have to have an explanation? Personally I have no problem accepting the idea that there is no afterlife. I won't care too much when I'm dead. I mean, I won't be conscious of it, so why should I care.

I don't understand what your so depressed about.

[This message has been edited by Mr. T (edited 04-16-2000).]

16th Apr 2000, 03:28 PM
My point is that whatever created the universe = God. God = Creator = whatever. Therefore, even if some cosmic force birthed everything, that cosmic force is still God.

Mr. T
17th Apr 2000, 01:21 AM
I hear you.

Whatever the hell "God" is, in the way you describe it, is interesting to think about. But I don't have to conjure up some set of beliefs in order to help provide an explanation that allows me to feel more at ease about my life.

I guess I just don't like it when people answer with "God" or "Faith", when a question is presented to them that they don't have an answer for. It just seems to be a cop out to me. Not that I have all the answers. But people should at least base their beliefs and opinions, to a degree, on data we can measure and validate. Speculate about the rest, sure. That's great. But why create our own "truth", just for the sake of having an explanation.

17th Apr 2000, 01:35 PM
Yo... T, Mojo...

Before I start diving deep in skit...are we talking about the standard, v1.0 christian god or something else here ?

This is your brain...
THIS IS YOUR BRAIN ON INF... (bold /infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif)

Mr. T
17th Apr 2000, 02:56 PM
I don't know what the hell I'm talking about. /infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

I think I was just seriously digressing off on some tanget with my tendencies toward Atheist thought.

Sorry if I offended anyone. I actually think religion serves a very good purpose for a lot of people, so I don't totally reject it. Don't take any ramblings from me as an attack on your way of life. I just have my own feelings, but I respect others as well.

17th Apr 2000, 04:33 PM
No, Chand, I'm actually talking about God 98 and the soon to be released God Millennium, which sports an improved NT/9x kernel hybrid.

Microsoft, making God more user friendly for all of us.

Mr. T, go up to a scientist and ask him "where did the universe come from?"

He'll answer some scientific mumbo jumbo like "The Big Bang".

Now ask him where the matter for the big bang came from, since it can be neither created nor destroyed.

He'll answer with "well, science will find an answer".

Science is just another faith.

17th Apr 2000, 11:03 PM
Jeez, the Religious people never give up.

Fine! Let em beleive what they beleive!
I'm just sick and tired of having people force beleifs down each other's throat!

"Out of darkness,
Out of Mind, Cast down into the halls of the blind!"
-The book of the blind, Game Diablo

17th Apr 2000, 11:06 PM
they are banning books for crying out loud!

Mr. Religeous dude: Ah, That book is the work of satan.


For example, They Want to ban harry potter, while Classic 'ol Wizard of oz or narnia is NOT going to be banned! Something wrong with this picture!

"Out of darkness,
Out of Mind, Cast down into the halls of the blind!"
-The book of the blind, Game Diablo

18th Apr 2000, 05:29 AM
Last time any nuts wanted to ban any way of thinking, we had 1) The Crusades, 2) The Inquisition, and 3) The Second World War.

Off the top of my head, of course.

p.s.: Nuts people don't like being reminded they're nuts, it tends to make them more volatile than usual.

Yiah, censorship is bad, and its pretty stupid, but everything has to be measured in shades of grey. I mean, why not just allow child pornography to run rampant? Hell, some people get off on the exploitation of young children and the mass consumption of paedophilia, so if its right for them, why isn't it right for everybody?

Everything's comin' up grey, baby.

[This message has been edited by Bad.Mojo (edited 04-18-2000).]

18th Apr 2000, 06:46 AM
I'm not a 'religious person'...I am a Christian.
I was reading some interesting stuff about proving God with quantum theory...and disproving unassisted evolution with the 'irreducible complexity' logic. Too bad I don't have the article (at a relative's)...but I woulnd't tell you guys off, regardless. And censoring, I hate. If we had full-on censoring, I couldn't listen to Jethro Tull, or Metallica (or play UT and hear 'die, bitch!'). Censoring should be kept as little as is humanly possible.

fozum borgu...

Mr. T
18th Apr 2000, 02:17 PM
A pure truth cannot be derived from a theory. It's just based on a theory, an idea. Quantum theory has just as many flaws as any other theory. And anyone knowledgeable enough about the properties of any given theory and how they are related, can twist it around, or interpret it in a way to make it compatible with their own beliefs. Now let me say that that doesn't make these different interpretations any less interesting, and I'd like to read that article before I comment any further. Sounds cool.

A few yrs ago I read a book by a creationist who attempted to describe a scientific theory that would explain the possibility of our existence only being about 10,000 yrs. old, why evolution is false, etc... It was interesting, but there were a lot of flaws and shortcomings that seemed obvious to me.

The thing that bothered me about the book was that all he seemed to be concerned about was finding and expounding on the flaws that exist in the theory of evolution, and the big bang theory, which anyone can do. You see, he was confusing science with a religion, assuming both are based on an absolute truth. So he wanted to prove that these selected scientific theories are false, because the so-called absolute truths they are based on are false.
In his theory, the absolute truths (or axioms) consisted of the existence of God and anything God wills it true. Or to put it another way, God exists. Anything associated with God is Truth. God wrote the Bible, therefore anything written in the Bible = Truth. You can see the difficulty in arguing with such a rigid philosophy, based on an inflexible absolute truth.

Scientific theories are just ideas, ideas based on data and phenomena we can experience, measure, test, and attempt to predict. These sets of data and phenomena are subject to change at any time, and can be interpreted in many ways. Nothing in science is absolute, which is it's main disctintion from how many people feel about a religious belief.

This is the problem a lot religions have with science. This inability to derive from it an absolute truth, or the fact that it isn't based on an absolute truth to begin with. To many people, it's not very comforting basing your life around something that may or may not be true.

But science is not about true and false. It’s not about what someone considers to be morally right or wrong. It’s only about finding ideas that best describe what it is we experience, and using these ideas to predict what we might possibly experience in the future.

[This message has been edited by Mr. T (edited 04-18-2000).]

Mr. T
18th Apr 2000, 04:12 PM
I guess I have to amend my statements above. The accepted truth behind science is mathematics, which are based on what we observe. So I guess scientists have faith in what we observe. Without that, almost all scientific theories would be rendered useless. But a good scientist would still need to be open to this possibility, and qualify any theory by stating that it is based on a given set of axioms, which are accepted to be true, but are not absolutely true.

18th Apr 2000, 05:40 PM
To me, alot of is it black and white, Mojo... child pornography interferes with the child's rights, and is bad. If it doesn't interfere with anyone's rights, I'm ok with it. If it's evil, immoral, or whatever doesn't matter, if there are no victims it should be left alone. (No, contrary to what liberals might lead you to believe, you don't have the right to not being offended.)

18th Apr 2000, 06:29 PM
Well said there, all. Personally I believe the earth being 10,000 years old is a big ****load, just like the earth being flat, or the sun turning around the earth. Neanderthals are people with rickets?!? WTF?? :-)

fozum borgu...

20th Apr 2000, 09:14 AM
Well, **** it.

I'll tell you what.

We'll all know when we're dead.

For the time being, who care's who's right?

20th Apr 2000, 03:34 PM
I was reading an article in the newspaper a while back about how some buerocrats were lobbying to force U.S. public schools to teach creationism alonside evolution (or in some cases, abolish evolution altogether and teach creationism exclusively). They were also trying to force mandatory prayer at the begining of class to "enstill a proper system of beliefs that will prevent another Columbine inccident". Now, i'm not a religious person, and I don't have a problem with religious people, but you've got to wonder what ever happened to "freedom of religion" when the state is forcing you to pray in school, whether you want to or not.

On a side note, it is true that the Theory of Evolution hasn't been proven (thats why it's always called the "theory" of evolution). However, all things being true, since you can't prove everything that happened in the bible, shouldn't it be called the "Theory of Creation" as well?


If the past is an idea that can only occur in the here-and-now, and the future is also just a concept happening strictly in the present, is there really a past and future? Or just a continuum of present moments?

[This message has been edited by Keiichi (edited 04-20-2000).]

20th Apr 2000, 09:04 PM
I don't care what they call either one, as I don't strictly believe in either one.
As for prayer in schools, I don't think that the public school system should be doing something the churches should (even if they aren't). And that statement by the lobbyists seems to say that atheist people are evil and prone to blowing up schools. I know many atheists, and they're not exactly like that. Kansas? Just plain silly, but so are the evolutionist people that call evolution pure fact, and are denying scholarships to people from Kansas (Scientific American and Discover have a few of those people).

fozum borgu...

Mr. T
24th Apr 2000, 11:55 AM
That’s correct keiichi. Evolution is just a theory. There is a lot of evidence out there that supports evolution, but there is a lot of evidence that contradicts it as well. Creationists have attacked evolution, claiming that it is based on invalid evidence derived from faulty scientific processes.
Oh, and there biggest complaint is that it doesn’t agree with what’s clearly stated in the Bible. (Clear to them, anyway)

I’d say they probably feel that the Bible is really the only evidence they need to prove themselves correct, but in order to convince those that aren’t "Bible" types, they are trying to show that the means with which scientists have obtained evidence to support evolution is flawed, from a scientific perspective. But like I said earlier, anyone can critique a theory. Some of these creationists, who take this approach, claim to be scientists, but in my mind, a true scientist is just as objective toward his/her own theory as they would be with any other. I’ve attended a Creationist seminar, and I didn’t see that happening. I just saw a lot of narrow mindedness. But I think they feel the same way about the evolutionists.

30th Apr 2000, 01:31 PM
Personaly, I strongly dissagree with forcing children to say prayers before going to class. What about the children who come from other religions? IMHO I say that we should have a choice on whether to learn about evolution or creationism. Of course, I'm a Canadian so my opinions on what should be done in the U.S. aren't really valid.


30th Apr 2000, 07:36 PM
First off I might as well state that I'm not exactly an atheist, more like an anti-christian. To me, religion is all fine (I'm thinking about converting to buddhism - the only religion I know which 1: encourages its followers to think and reason instead of blindly follow and 2: hasn't been at least a partial cause of any war), as long as it doesn't make people suffer/die - which christianity has done in many and most countries.


I don't understand the problem so many religions have with science. Take christianity for example (only since it's the religion I'm most familiar with - I've done much research on it in order to be able to make myself my -own- opinion) - many (not all) 'hardcore' christians say that big bang can't be right because God created the world, evolution is wrong because God created all animals bla bla. Well, that just isn't true. Science leaves plenty of space for most of the biblical statements to still be valid. For example, God created Earth. Well, if he is God, he created the Universe too, right? So he created Big Bang. Science will probably never be able to say that he didn't (if you want to know why, read that astrophysics book by whatshisname, that really smart physicist.. uuhh... is it Stephen Hawkings, or am I messing his name up?) and so leaves a big nice spot open for God. As for evolution - if God created the first bacteriae, and then simply controlled evolution, he would have created all animals and everything living on Earth today - and there is nothing in the theory of evolution as far as I know that strictly states that evolution could not have been controlled by an external entity. Big open spot there too.

Allright, my point is, why can't religion and science exist together? Both scientists and religious ppl are often too stubborn to admit the other side to be possibly valid - why?

047 079 105 116 117 099 114 101 109

Mr. T
1st May 2000, 12:16 AM
Well, some religions take what's written in the Bible literally, which would obviously contradict a lot of popular scientific theories. Or at least show that many scientific theories aren't based on evidence found in the Bible, which is considered to be the ultimate truth. This discussion wasn't grouping all religions together. I'm sure there are many religions that don't reject science.

6th May 2000, 12:01 AM
Well. First of all, religion cannot be proven/disproven. But, first of all. Christianity has been around 2000 years. But, in Egypt, people worshipped Ra for 5000 years at LEAST. So, there is no way that "God" can be truely as the christian belief sees him as.

Second, if "God" is all powerful, why isn't he here? That was a trick question, being as if he was, he could simply will that we do not know of his existence, yet still say "What's happening, God", everyday.

So, basically those two arguments sum up any other arguments i would wish to make during this post.

On the idea of "Death". Again, quoted. Being as i do Not believe people die. I happen to believe Quantum Thoery, and if it is true, and in a universe of infinite possiblity, than you do not exist. You are simply an indefinently complex set of electrons, reacting to everything else in the universe, to create what "seems" as far as we as humans can tell, thought and reality. Contradictory of what i say, a great Greek philosopher once said, "I think, therefore i am". Now, both statements are contradictory, but both are true. But, false again. In a universe of infinite possibility, there can be not truths nor falsities. With this in mind, you cannot die. Death is an illusion given to us by evolution(or god, hell even Ra), to keep the human race in existence. If you think about, it makes sense.

One side not. If you met me in real life, you would not understand how the hell i thought of this from what you may or may not have seen of me. So, you shouldn't generalize people by what they say.

Abour Quantum Thoery, there have been certain advances that you may not be aware of. Bell and IBM, among others, have successful made a Quantum Computational Computer. Thoeretically, you could test Quantum Thoery simply with a program on one. It is very interesting, i did a project on it, and you should look it up on one the search engines.

Now that i think about it, "Science" can only be true as it is VERY general. It ecompasses the study of nothing and everything. And, the word science is not meant the same way as religion.

It might be helpful for me to tell you, that i do in fact know about the contradictions that i made above. Assume everything as probability.

Mr. T
6th May 2000, 04:15 AM
Your arguments don't make any sense. But maybe that was your intention all along. You must be some kind of hopped up genius, trying to drive me crazy. AHHHHHHHHHHHHHH!

Actually, quantum theory is very cool. I need to read more about it. Since I've only touched on it's surface to gain a general understanding, I really haven't fully grasped it's total "coolness".

6th May 2000, 10:39 AM
Boy, you all have really problems with unanswered questions. IMO everybody believes what is most comfortable to him/her.
I personally don't believe in any god and I don't beleive in life after death.
This has two important consequences for me.

1. I don't give a **** why I am here and where I will go. I am here and only this matters.

2. It makes me alone responsible for any of my actions. If I kill soemone I cannot say Satan drove me or it was gods will - I did it because I thought it to be right at the moment; the other thing is, that I am not responsible for anything I did, after I die. No big trial about my sins and ****; I can wipe out a civilization and they won't get me for it. hehe

Call me crazy, but I like the world and mankind how it is. It shows us, that any reason is right for us to make 'our' world better - ignoring the fact that we destroy someone elses world by doing this.

If you see the holocaust with my eyes, you'll find that the Nazis just wanted to do the world something good; which proved to be rather bad as well for themselves as the rest of the world. So in fact all the good/bad things and the rights/wrongs are solely subjective.

What do we need a god or a life after death for; just to let everybody think he has to behave right in this world/life. The climbing crime rates show that many discover the real sense of religion: to keep people from anarchy, because laws won't do this.
If your parents and the friendly priest tell you you'll go to hell if you kill someone, you'll rather tend not to do so. If you know that no god and no other force will make you responsible for killing twelvehundred human beings you'll do it, when you get away with it in this world..

Hey, and if all the world was peaceful, we wouldn't have INF, because there were no weapons and no wars!
I like this planet, because there are weapons and wars - and I can't imagine any age of mankind without war.

Snakeye /infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

anything you do can get you killed, including doing nothing

Christopher Webb
7th May 2000, 03:50 AM
The reason i hate most modern religions is that the push the "you're going to a better life afterwards if you follow our rules, so shut up and take life as it is" line. People should be taught that they can make a difference to the world. That and the fact that most religous people inevitably go into "god favours me" mode, mostly because they belive that god's values and their values are one and the same.

By the book christians should remember that people used to beleive the earth was the centre of the universe, about which rotated the sun and moon. The stars were just little shiny things which rotates about a dome (supported on pillars), above which resided god and heaven. The earth was flat, and below it was hades. Bypassing all the major flaws in this theory let's skip to one or two important ones:

a) The entire earth came before the sun idea partially stemmed from the belief that the sun was a tiny ball of bright flame which orbited fairly close to the earth

b) The entire dome notion was because the idea of the heavans above was a lot easier to come up with than the idea of eternity and ifinity. Remember they didn't have the number 0 for a while.

Look at it this way though; if god exists, would it create all the universe individualy, or would it (i prefer to refer to god as an it. Actually, this should be It. Think about it (as in the word); what makes god a he or a she? Isn't it rather insulting to put human values on a being which might of created the universe) create the entire universe in a Big Bang (TM) and then let it expand outwards?

In other words, Christians would rather people beleie in a tiny set world than in the marvel of the infinite universe. Given most fundamentalists; it figures.

For me, chaos theory explains the link between god and science (that and 0/0=?1). The entire idea 7 days thing is just another in a long series of creationist myths that mankind has had to come up with over the eons to explain what he couldn't explain. I think god would just lightly touch certains 'things' in order to change it for whatever reasons he might have. Which one is easier; picking up a few key rocks and changing the status of a dew key layers of rock; or pointing at the ground and shouting "volcanoe!!!"

Christopher "ScOrN" Webb

PS If you're wondering what came before the universe (ie the Big Bang), the current (i think) theory is the the universe came before the universe. Basically the theory states that as the planets, galaxies and stars (refered to from now on as the 'stars') spread out, the gravity that each one emits sucks it back towards the centre. The stars slowly decellerate, reach the equilibrium stated in the laws of Thermodynamics; then begin to move back in. Basically, time reverses from the manner we know it now as. All the matter of the universe now collapses back into itself until it reaches the size of an electron, then BOOM!!! Big Bang. And so on.

<insert cute/ interesting/ bizarre signature here>

7th May 2000, 09:29 AM
Actually there is no -widely accepted- theory on what existed before BB, since the environment under which things existed were such that the common laws of physics were not valid, thus we cannot know a single little thing about what existed before.

047 079 105 116 117 099 114 101 109

7th May 2000, 09:40 AM
ahm: 0/0 is NOT 1!!!
At least not always.
It's rather fascinating, that any division by zero is forbidden, but 0/0 has a possible answer.
In fact 0/0=R where R is any real number(for those hardcore mathematicians out there 0/0=C C is any complex number.
This theory can easily be proven:
0/0 -> now make the same as in 1/1 or 2/2 etc. You'll get 1. Right.
But now:
0*5/0*3. You don't multiply 0/0 but rather take the 5 and 3 out of it, like in 6=3*2.
Now once again take away the 0 and you got 5/3 for 0/0.
Same **** for any other number; in fact you can produce any number you want with 0/0. The only problem is, that it's not allowed to scratch the zero away in maths; but you are allowed to multiply any term by zero.
Has something to do with being allowed to make a false term correct but not a correct term false..
enough maths for now..

Why does anybody believe in some kind of god?
Do you really have that low self esteem to need something that is bigger than you? I can live pefectly with the thought of no god being out there. After all it is IMPOSSIBLE to prove that there is a god as well as to prove there is no god. Why don't anybody leave me alone with these god discussions. I don't tell anyone not to believe in a god so leave me alone with this 'belive in god' thing.

Snakeye /infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

anything you do can get you killed, including doing nothing

Christopher Webb
8th May 2000, 05:23 AM
I was kinda speekin' theortically there...

Maybe I should clarify

if 0/0=1, then perhaps this means that there is a god, if you keep in mind that 0=nothingness and 1/0=infinity. In reality, as I recalled, 0/0=infinity, but it's a different kind of infinity than the one that=1/0. Namely, that 1/0= somethin' that's beyond human measurment, while 0/0=everything. Of course, there is only 1 of everything, while there is only 1 everything.

Human maths is only geared towards counting entities (1 apple, 2 apples), which is not how the universe operates

<insert cute/ interesting/ bizarre signature here>

9th May 2000, 10:51 AM
ahm, I don't know what you do for a living, but I doubt it's maths - no insult, just a remark..

1/0 is NOT infinity.
Any division by 0 is NOT forbidden, but mathematically NOT defined. This is true for any 1/0, 2/0, 3/0, any any other real/complex number you want to divide by zero.

If you want any discussion about this topic, write to the maths teacher on our university - that guy really is good in his job.

The thing you probably mean is the 1/x where x goes thowards zero. The 1/x would go to infinity, BUT x will never reach zero!

After all I doubt you should make your belief/not belief in god dependend from a damn mathematical equation! And I don't even think about 'how our universe works and if maths could have anything to do with it'; any answer to this would be more than speculative - just like saying 0/0=1.
If you did enough maths examples using x-> 0 or infinity with the rule of 'de l'hopital' you'll find there are many results for 0/0.
Don't brake your head thinking about things the whole human intelligence together couldn't understand.

Snakeye http://geocities.com/r337m0nk3y/net/biggrin.gif

anything you do can get you killed, including doing nothing

9th May 2000, 02:49 PM
Well, i wouldn't say that you shouldn't speculate. Often times, the most incredible ideas come from individuals.


realworld maps (http:///www.planetunreal.com/realmaps)!

9th May 2000, 04:01 PM
"0*5/0*3. You don't multiply 0/0 but rather take the 5 and 3 out of it, like in 6=3*2.Now once again take away the 0 and you got 5/3 for 0/0."

What you are trying to do is extracting the fractions of zero. Well, you really can't do that, since the fractions used in such equations are always the smallest possible prime number you can use to get the original number. For example, the fraction of 24 would be 2*2*2*3(not 8*3 or 4*2*3 or anything like that, it has to be the smallest possible primes), the fraction of 27 is 3^3 etc. So the fraction of 0 is 0*0, and (0*0)/(0*0)=0/0=undefined.

As for 1/0 - this is, as you say, mathematically not defined, and thus never used. As such, the equation has no relevance. However, philosophically/practically, 1/0 is infinite since you are trying to divide a unit into parts that don't exist, and to do so you need an infinite number of parts which becomes evident in certain cases in physics which I am making (futile) attempts to sort out. This philosophy is, however, never used in maths as far as I know.

047 079 105 116 117 099 114 101 109

10th May 2000, 01:25 AM
I can do that. It's not mathematically correct to scratch away the 0 but the rest is OK.
The fact is not trying to take any same number out, like in 8/12 -> 4*2/4*3. The fact is, that the term stays correct though you transform it. This is true for 0*5=0 and for 0*3=0. So mathematically I CAN say that 5*0/3*0=0/0, because the one side is exactly the same as the other. I also can say that 287371287489126321638176383*0=0.
So if I can say 6*0=0 and 13*0=0 I also can say 13*0/6*0=0/0!
It's a correct term and therefore mathematically correct.
The thin you are (officially) NOT allowed to do is to say 0/0 = 13/6, because it changes the correctness of the term. That didn't hold me off doing it, and my maths pro at the university said that my conclusions were correct, if you were able to scratch away the 0.
And I know that a div by zero is called infinity in technical applications, though being exact you never divide by zero, but let the divisor go to zero.
I'm studying electronic engineering and boy, you need a lot more maths here than an average man can take..especially the zero stories and complex numbers..

Snakeye http://geocities.com/r337m0nk3y/net/biggrin.gif

anything you do can get you killed, including doing nothing

Christopher Webb
10th May 2000, 04:38 AM
Wow!!! ANOTHER electrical engineer.

By the way, most of the stuff i've repeated is just wierd maths that I've been thinking about for a while. zeesh, i never said it was law. It's basically all theoritical anyway. But on the other hand, as i recall, there's something that says that infinity=0. It's kinda wierd i know, but there's supposedly something behind it.

hmmm 1/0 is undefined...yeah, i seem to remember something about that...but i thought it was just claculators and such that spat it out because they couldn't compute it.

snakeye, where do you study electrical engineering? I'm kinda studying electrical engineering at Monash, Clayton in Australia (and for those who don't know it's a big uni in melbourne). THe actual course is "Bachelor of Computer Systems Engineering". I do stuff that covers both hardware/software and there's some maths and physics on the side too at the moment.

<insert cute/ interesting/ bizarre signature here>

10th May 2000, 10:54 AM
0=infinity... I came to that conclusion once after reasoning with one of my friends (we both love these pointless discussions). My reasoning wasn't waterproof however, and I doubt any reasoning with a conclusion such as that can be :-) Kinda like the famous 1=2 equation (if you've heard of it).

Btw snakeyes, that 0/0 != 13/6 is obvious. But 0/0 != 0*X/0*x is also true since you should never need to do equations like that, although I don't study electronic engineering so maybe I'm wrong there although I doubt it. Btw, 0 doesn't have a fraction at all, so a division performed with 0 like that is not valid.

047 079 105 116 117 099 114 101 109

Christopher Webb
11th May 2000, 06:06 AM
It could be argued that the 0/0 != 0*X/0*x thing is all really a matter of order in mathematics...like BODMAS. In this case, you cancel out the x's first, THEN go to the 0's. But that's just a thought. Our mathematical system is good for somethings, bad for others. And to think this all started as a conversation about how ****ed people are /infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

<insert cute/ interesting/ bizarre signature here>

11th May 2000, 05:05 PM
OK boys, we have a party and I drank a little bit

anything you do can get you killed, including doing nothing

11th May 2000, 08:25 PM
Odd, as i read through the post, i dont recall anyone talking about picking there nose?

Also, there are mathematics designed specifically to figure things such that basic math cannot figure. For example, long time ago decimals were non-existent.

I personally like how the thread progressed from the wildly negative people are F'ed up, to a meaningful discussion. I guess it's just one of those things?

or is it.... (muwahaha)


<pre> HTML rulz

Christopher Webb
12th May 2000, 06:15 AM
Dammit, let's change the topic right here and now back to the subject line...

i choose...the crowbar

Anyway, i think we concluded that modern mathematics is somewhat lacking, but if anybodies come up with a better, i'd to hear it.

<insert cute/ interesting/ bizarre signature here>