• Log InLog In
  • Register
Liquid`
Team Liquid Liquipedia
EDT 23:47
CEST 05:47
KST 12:47
  • Home
  • Forum
  • Calendar
  • Streams
  • Liquipedia
  • Features
  • Store
  • EPT
  • TL+
  • StarCraft 2
  • Brood War
  • Smash
  • Heroes
  • Counter-Strike
  • Overwatch
  • Liquibet
  • Fantasy StarCraft
  • TLPD
  • StarCraft 2
  • Brood War
  • Blogs
Forum Sidebar
Events/Features
News
Featured News
BGE Stara Zagora 2025: Info & Preview27Code S RO12 Preview: GuMiho, Bunny, SHIN, ByuN3The Memories We Share - Facing the Final(?) GSL47Code S RO12 Preview: Cure, Zoun, Solar, Creator4[ASL19] Finals Preview: Daunting Task30
Community News
Weekly Cups (June 2-8): herO doubles down1[BSL20] ProLeague: Bracket Stage & Dates9GSL Ro4 and Finals moved to Sunday June 15th13Weekly Cups (May 27-June 1): ByuN goes back-to-back0EWC 2025 Regional Qualifier Results26
StarCraft 2
General
The SCII GOAT: A statistical Evaluation Jim claims he and Firefly were involved in match-fixing CN community: Firefly accused of suspicious activities How does the number of casters affect your enjoyment of esports? Serious Question: Mech
Tourneys
Bellum Gens Elite: Stara Zagora 2025 $3,500 WardiTV European League 2025 Sparkling Tuna Cup - Weekly Open Tournament SOOPer7s Showmatches 2025 Master Swan Open (Global Bronze-Master 2)
Strategy
[G] Darkgrid Layout Simple Questions Simple Answers [G] PvT Cheese: 13 Gate Proxy Robo
Custom Maps
[UMS] Zillion Zerglings
External Content
Mutation # 477 Slow and Steady Mutation # 476 Charnel House Mutation # 475 Hard Target Mutation # 474 Futile Resistance
Brood War
General
BW General Discussion StarCraft & BroodWar Campaign Speedrun Quest BGH auto balance -> http://bghmmr.eu/ Will foreigners ever be able to challenge Koreans? Mihu vs Korea Players Statistics
Tourneys
[ASL19] Grand Finals NA Team League 6/8/2025 [Megathread] Daily Proleagues [BSL20] ProLeague Bracket Stage - Day 2
Strategy
I am doing this better than progamers do. [G] How to get started on ladder as a new Z player
Other Games
General Games
Stormgate/Frost Giant Megathread What do you want from future RTS games? Armies of Exigo - YesYes? Nintendo Switch Thread Path of Exile
Dota 2
Official 'what is Dota anymore' discussion
League of Legends
LiquidLegends to reintegrate into TL.net
Heroes of the Storm
Simple Questions, Simple Answers Heroes of the Storm 2.0
Hearthstone
Heroes of StarCraft mini-set
TL Mafia
TL Mafia Community Thread Vanilla Mini Mafia
Community
General
US Politics Mega-thread Things Aren’t Peaceful in Palestine Russo-Ukrainian War Thread Vape Nation Thread European Politico-economics QA Mega-thread
Fan Clubs
Maru Fan Club Serral Fan Club
Media & Entertainment
Korean Music Discussion [Manga] One Piece
Sports
2024 - 2025 Football Thread Formula 1 Discussion NHL Playoffs 2024
World Cup 2022
Tech Support
Computer Build, Upgrade & Buying Resource Thread
TL Community
The Automated Ban List
Blogs
Cognitive styles x game perf…
TrAiDoS
StarCraft improvement
iopq
Heero Yuy & the Tax…
KrillinFromwales
I was completely wrong ab…
jameswatts
Need Your Help/Advice
Glider
Trip to the Zoo
micronesia
Poker
Nebuchad
Customize Sidebar...

Website Feedback

Closed Threads



Active: 21960 users

Life's redundancy

Blogs > Tossup
Post a Reply
Normal
Tossup
Profile Blog Joined September 2010
United States208 Posts
Last Edited: 2010-10-28 20:33:58
October 28 2010 05:21 GMT
#1
I was strolling back from my class one night and realized something completely universally true.

The world of math, numbers and symbols represent things that are already there, only broken into pieces. For example, 2+2=4 is the idea of 4, broken into halves. So in that sense, two sets of 2 is the same thing as a single set of 4.

So, moving to more tangible matters, a single atom within a block of metal has equal properties to all the block of metal that make up the block. Therefore, it is equally valid to represent that block with either the atom or the block of the material.

But wait, what about the complex interactions between each of the atoms and so forth? Each interaction between itself as well as with other atoms is an inherent property of that specific atom. Therefore, the properties in a macro scale can be deduced from the properties in a micro scale.

More applicable examples are found in starcraft 2. Let's suppose a zerg and protoss are playing each other on lost temple. We have defined our universe, starcraft 2 in lost temple, as well as our variables, protoss and zerg. We start the game and our protoss friend goes to scout the zerg. From timings we inherently know to be true, the overlord from the zerg will come to the protoss base at exactly the time our 9 pylon scout will almost get to the closest positions. If we see the overlord, the zerg must be at close positions with ramps away from each other. If not, then either the zerg is stupid(must give credit to day9: underestimate the stupidity of players), or the zerg is in the far position or the closest positions. If he is not in the closest position, he must be in the farthest position. From our knowledge of the game and that we know specifics of our situations, we could deduce something that we have not seen, that the zerg must be at the far position.

Now we get into the question, "what is the meaning of life?". The answer to this cliche is pretty obvious of we consider "life" as a sum of its components. "Life" itself cannot be well visualized by simply stating what is. Life is an agglomeration of "lives" interacting with each other. Visualized this way, life is as simple as math in that their sums are equal to the final product.

If we know for certain, parts of life, deduction of the entirety is simply realizing how to put those pieces together. Therefore, the 'meaning' of the sun rising tomorrow, IS tomorrow's day which is your getting up in the morning which is you eating breakfast etc.

Then to ask, what is the meaning of life, is questioning is life = life which of course, is true in all cases. Life is the cause of itself, which isn't hard to see if you consider the mechanisms of reproduction. What do you have when you have life? You have more life. We can even see this with our expeditions into space. The limit for life on this planet is boarding on the plateau. Life is finding its way out of its limits for further propagate itself.

However, if these properties of life are true, then it should be true as well for the universe. With the mathematical evidence that the universe is in fact expanding which furthers this conclusion that deductions can be made with micro or macro level observations.

Where do we look for these observations? As with the sun rising example, signs can be found everywhere. From the movement of the smallest particle to the evidence of the ever expanding universe, our world in its entirety can be understood by putting these pieces together.


On October 28 2010 14:28 cz wrote:
So what is the meaning of life? You said the answer was obvious...


As in why does it exist? But cause it started itself.

-Part II-
Edit- 10-28-2010 1:34pm

So, I've reviewed the third page of this thread and apparently the above text is utter chaos. I admit, I probably wasn't in the best state to be writing sentences at the time...I just came back from a two-hour midterm @_@.

Okay, so....

Life
wiki:
Life (cf. biota) is a characteristic that distinguishes objects that have signaling and self-sustaining processes (biology) from those that do not,[1][2] either because such functions have ceased (death), or else because they lack such functions and are classified as inanimate.[3]

I tend to look at life as a giant machine. A self-propagating one at that. This machine called "Life" operates with the fuel that comes from the universe, which is not alive, but has all the essentials for life.

People are quoting the above "Life is an agglomeration of "lives" interacting with each other". "Life" cannot exist without its functioning parts. At least in my view, you need multiple organisms to have a working ecosystem(Life). A "life" cannot exist in its individual parts. You might say that, well stick a person on a space ship+food and that's life that's independent of other lives. True, for a short period of time, where the organism has food, it will survive. But it is impossible to sustain that state forever. Reproduction and sustenance must occur which, IMO, is an essential property of life. Both take interactions with other pieces of "life".

So a machine that reproduces itself and is sustained by other mechanisms within itself. These properties are not unique to life. The sun for example has sustained itself for billions of years. Black holes constantly grow because of their properties. The water supply on earth is constantly refreshing itself. Rocks in the earth are constantly being remade and destroyed by their own material.


Then what makes life unique to any other universal process out there? Because it happens within a time frame that we consider "fast enough"? Or perhaps "life" is solely defined as organic?

Time is no significance if you consider the vastness of the universe. It takes 9 months for a baby to be born from conception to delivery. It takes a few million years for a planet to form out of stardust. The universe was created 14 billion years ago. And before that, did time exist? It is entirely possible that time is independent from the creation of the universe, and that our universe is within another container as we are in our universe's container. So the total "time" that has ever existed maybe be infinite. Therefore, any time interval is seemingly insignificant to the total time. To the scale of the universe, the time it takes for a baby to be born on earth and a planet to be born takes relatively the same time.

Organic or not, it's not a necessity for life to have carbon or oxygen. We see the processes of life happening everywhere, but not with these elements. For example, the properties of your blood vessels are are found in electrical wiring. E = voltage * current. The simple mechanics of a body, the simple machines, are found all around inorganic nature. Every organic organism is basically a bag of chemicals that follow the processes of the universe and are not unique to life.

I'm getting tired for the time being and will continue describing my shit in a bit.

**
AcrossFiveJulys
Profile Blog Joined September 2005
United States3612 Posts
October 28 2010 05:27 GMT
#2
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reductionism
cz
Profile Blog Joined August 2007
United States3249 Posts
October 28 2010 05:28 GMT
#3
So what is the meaning of life? You said the answer was obvious...
Tossup
Profile Blog Joined September 2010
United States208 Posts
October 28 2010 05:28 GMT
#4
awww. damn. T^T
cz
Profile Blog Joined August 2007
United States3249 Posts
October 28 2010 05:33 GMT
#5
Meaning of life != Why life began.

Also, life did not start itself.
Tossup
Profile Blog Joined September 2010
United States208 Posts
Last Edited: 2010-10-28 05:38:26
October 28 2010 05:35 GMT
#6
Well how do you know that life didn't start itself?
cz
Profile Blog Joined August 2007
United States3249 Posts
October 28 2010 05:37 GMT
#7
On October 28 2010 14:35 Tossup wrote:
Well how do you know that life didn't start itself?


Because whatever starts something must exist: if X doesn't exist, X can't start Y. If X=Y, then X can't start X (by the first premise). Therefore something can't start itself; therefore life can't start itself.
Tossup
Profile Blog Joined September 2010
United States208 Posts
October 28 2010 05:39 GMT
#8
On October 28 2010 14:37 cz wrote:
Show nested quote +
On October 28 2010 14:35 Tossup wrote:
Well how do you know that life didn't start itself?


Because whatever starts something must exist: if X doesn't exist, X can't start Y. If X=Y, then X can't start X (by the first premise). Therefore something can't start itself; therefore life can't start itself.


It's the universe reacting to itself that propagated life. So in that sense, it did make itself; it was just in a parts. X already existed. Life is just a byproduct of the universe.
cz
Profile Blog Joined August 2007
United States3249 Posts
October 28 2010 05:40 GMT
#9
On October 28 2010 14:39 Tossup wrote:
Show nested quote +
On October 28 2010 14:37 cz wrote:
On October 28 2010 14:35 Tossup wrote:
Well how do you know that life didn't start itself?


Because whatever starts something must exist: if X doesn't exist, X can't start Y. If X=Y, then X can't start X (by the first premise). Therefore something can't start itself; therefore life can't start itself.


It's the universe reacting to itself that propagated life. So in that sense, it did make itself; it was just in a parts. X already existed. Life is just a byproduct of the universe.


I gave an argument that was valid. If you want to counter the argument you have to a) demonstrate that it is invalid (ie if all the premises are true the conclusion is not necessarily true) or b) demonstrate that one of the premises is false (or just question one of the premises).

I'm not sure how your response fits into it.
cz
Profile Blog Joined August 2007
United States3249 Posts
October 28 2010 05:40 GMT
#10
What do you mean by saying that life was "in parts"?
Tossup
Profile Blog Joined September 2010
United States208 Posts
October 28 2010 05:44 GMT
#11
On October 28 2010 14:40 cz wrote:
What do you mean by saying that life was "in parts"?


By parts I mean the combination of atoms together to create what we refer to as Life. What I think you mean is what is 'meaning' of the universe. By my logic, then the universe must have always existed as a form that we can observe or as a form that we cannot comprehend.
cz
Profile Blog Joined August 2007
United States3249 Posts
October 28 2010 05:46 GMT
#12
On October 28 2010 14:44 Tossup wrote:
Show nested quote +
On October 28 2010 14:40 cz wrote:
What do you mean by saying that life was "in parts"?


By parts I mean the combination of atoms together to create what we refer to as Life. What I think you mean is what is 'meaning' of the universe. By my logic, then the universe must have always existed as a form that we can observe or as a form that we cannot comprehend.


How do you define life?
Tossup
Profile Blog Joined September 2010
United States208 Posts
October 28 2010 05:48 GMT
#13
On October 28 2010 14:46 cz wrote:
Show nested quote +
On October 28 2010 14:44 Tossup wrote:
On October 28 2010 14:40 cz wrote:
What do you mean by saying that life was "in parts"?


By parts I mean the combination of atoms together to create what we refer to as Life. What I think you mean is what is 'meaning' of the universe. By my logic, then the universe must have always existed as a form that we can observe or as a form that we cannot comprehend.


How do you define life?


As components of the universe, which is the bases for what is living, interacting with each other.
cz
Profile Blog Joined August 2007
United States3249 Posts
Last Edited: 2010-10-28 05:51:00
October 28 2010 05:48 GMT
#14
On October 28 2010 14:48 Tossup wrote:
Show nested quote +
On October 28 2010 14:46 cz wrote:
On October 28 2010 14:44 Tossup wrote:
On October 28 2010 14:40 cz wrote:
What do you mean by saying that life was "in parts"?


By parts I mean the combination of atoms together to create what we refer to as Life. What I think you mean is what is 'meaning' of the universe. By my logic, then the universe must have always existed as a form that we can observe or as a form that we cannot comprehend.


How do you define life?


As components of the universe, which is the bases for what is living, interacting with each other.


That's not how others commonly use the term "life." You are using a separate definition. And if you use your own custom definitions then you can make any argument true.

Actually, by using your definition of life you've reduced your argument to something that is true by definition. Which is worthless. It's like me saying "God exists," then defining God as "the apple on my desk." By that definition, God does indeed exist, but my argument is misleading.
Tossup
Profile Blog Joined September 2010
United States208 Posts
October 28 2010 05:50 GMT
#15
On October 28 2010 14:48 cz wrote:
Show nested quote +
On October 28 2010 14:48 Tossup wrote:
On October 28 2010 14:46 cz wrote:
On October 28 2010 14:44 Tossup wrote:
On October 28 2010 14:40 cz wrote:
What do you mean by saying that life was "in parts"?


By parts I mean the combination of atoms together to create what we refer to as Life. What I think you mean is what is 'meaning' of the universe. By my logic, then the universe must have always existed as a form that we can observe or as a form that we cannot comprehend.


How do you define life?


As components of the universe, which is the bases for what is living, interacting with each other.


That's not how others commonly use the term "life." You are using a separate definition. And if you use your own custom definitions then you can make any argument true.


That's not how Newton commonly use the term "gravity." You are using a separate definition. And if you use your own custom definitions then you can make any argument true.

e.g. Einstein
cz
Profile Blog Joined August 2007
United States3249 Posts
Last Edited: 2010-10-28 05:53:02
October 28 2010 05:51 GMT
#16
On October 28 2010 14:50 Tossup wrote:
Show nested quote +
On October 28 2010 14:48 cz wrote:
On October 28 2010 14:48 Tossup wrote:
On October 28 2010 14:46 cz wrote:
On October 28 2010 14:44 Tossup wrote:
On October 28 2010 14:40 cz wrote:
What do you mean by saying that life was "in parts"?


By parts I mean the combination of atoms together to create what we refer to as Life. What I think you mean is what is 'meaning' of the universe. By my logic, then the universe must have always existed as a form that we can observe or as a form that we cannot comprehend.


How do you define life?


As components of the universe, which is the bases for what is living, interacting with each other.


That's not how others commonly use the term "life." You are using a separate definition. And if you use your own custom definitions then you can make any argument true.


That's not how Newton commonly use the term "gravity." You are using a separate definition. And if you use your own custom definitions then you can make any argument true.

e.g. Einstein


You are missing the point. I'm not trying to insult you but explain that by using separate definitions you are not coming to the conclusion you think you are.

You are arguing that life started itself: then you are defining life as something that starts itself, along with a few other properties. Don't you see how you haven't actually done anything? It's also extremely misleading when others read your use of the word "life" and apply their definition of it (the common one) while you are using your own custom definition.
Tossup
Profile Blog Joined September 2010
United States208 Posts
Last Edited: 2010-10-28 05:54:22
October 28 2010 05:53 GMT
#17
How is defining life by components of the universe a useless definition? How the formation of DNA => something alive wrong?

btw, you're editting faster than I can respond X_X.
cz
Profile Blog Joined August 2007
United States3249 Posts
October 28 2010 05:55 GMT
#18
Here, let me explain your argument via quoting you and substituting your definitions in for the words they define (that shouldn't affect anything as the word is a placeholder for the definition):

"By parts I mean the combination of atoms together to create what we refer to as Life."

Now let's take your definition of "life" and replace the word life with the definition:

"By parts I mean the combination of atoms together to create what we refer to as components of the universe, which is the bases for what is living, interacting with each other."

That sentence, if I can understand it, is basically obviously true. Which is good except that it hasn't added any new information.
Kwidowmaker
Profile Blog Joined October 2007
Canada978 Posts
October 28 2010 05:55 GMT
#19
atoms have very different properties than blocks of metal. At the atomic level there are all sorts of things that you have to consider that aren't applicable at the block level. For example, the force of gravity on the atom is insignificant compared to the coulomb (electric) forces between other atoms, whereas gravity plays a very important role with a block of metal.

Also, you could see every rational number as every other rational number in your view, kind of redundant, no?
Kk.
cz
Profile Blog Joined August 2007
United States3249 Posts
October 28 2010 05:57 GMT
#20
On October 28 2010 14:53 Tossup wrote:
How is defining life by components of the universe a useless definition? How the formation of DNA => something alive wrong?

btw, you're editting faster than I can respond X_X.


Because it's your conclusion. Instead of demonstrating how life (as commonly defined) is something that has always existed and a component of the universe you are redefining the term to become your conclusion.

It's like arguing that "god exists" by defining God as "something that exists." It makes the conclusion ("God exists") true but it hasn't added new information.
cz
Profile Blog Joined August 2007
United States3249 Posts
Last Edited: 2010-10-28 05:58:52
October 28 2010 05:57 GMT
#21
To be honest I have no idea what you are talking about, really, and I'd need you to define a lot of terms for this to continue. Actually I don't even know what I'm talking about at this point as I jumped in and started talking without asking for clear definitions.
Tossup
Profile Blog Joined September 2010
United States208 Posts
October 28 2010 06:02 GMT
#22
On October 28 2010 14:55 cz wrote:
Here, let me explain your argument via quoting you and substituting your definitions in for the words they define (that shouldn't affect anything as the word is a placeholder for the definition):

"By parts I mean the combination of atoms together to create what we refer to as Life."

Now let's take your definition of "life" and replace the word life with the definition:

"By parts I mean the combination of atoms together to create what we refer to as components of the universe, which is the bases for what is living, interacting with each other."

That sentence, if I can understand it, is basically obviously true. Which is good except that it hasn't added any new information.


Okay, What is the common definition for life?

On October 28 2010 14:55 Kwidowmaker wrote:
atoms have very different properties than blocks of metal. At the atomic level there are all sorts of things that you have to consider that aren't applicable at the block level. For example, the force of gravity on the atom is insignificant compared to the coulomb (electric) forces between other atoms, whereas gravity plays a very important role with a block of metal.

Also, you could see every rational number as every other rational number in your view, kind of
redundant, no?


Aren't we still searching for the universal force? From what I've read, there are 4 forces, gravity, magnetism, and two atomic forces.

@ your number statement
Yes! That is what math is.
Redunzl
Profile Blog Joined January 2010
862 Posts
October 28 2010 06:53 GMT
#23
You should read Soren Kierkegaard's

Concept of Anxiety The first part deals with your same problem but applied to Man and History.
Randomaccount#77123
Profile Blog Joined May 2010
United States5003 Posts
October 28 2010 07:07 GMT
#24
--- Nuked ---
HULKAMANIA
Profile Blog Joined December 2004
United States1219 Posts
October 28 2010 07:08 GMT
#25
I have read your OP at least four times at this point, and I still have no idea what you're saying. Could you perhaps try to put your thesis statement into plan English? That would probably facilitate discussion.
If it were not so, I would have told you.
GERMasta
Profile Joined October 2010
Germany212 Posts
October 28 2010 07:23 GMT
#26
On October 28 2010 14:37 cz wrote:
Because whatever starts something must exist: if X doesn't exist, X can't start Y. If X=Y, then X can't start X (by the first premise). Therefore something can't start itself; therefore life can't start itself.


As far as this argument goes, I believe we're all on the same page, unless you advocate ID. Life is not eternal, so it had to start at some point. It cannot start itself, so something that is not life had to start it. I take for granted that we don't consider the universe alive, so the universe is a pretty good candidate for starting life. That's why abiogenesis is our best bet so far when it comes to the origin of life.

Good blog entry, by the way, even though I don't agree with it.
TheAmazombie
Profile Blog Joined September 2010
United States3714 Posts
October 28 2010 08:54 GMT
#27
I am a big Kurt Vonnegut fan and he stated on many occasions that the meaning of life is "to help each other through this thing, whatever it is".

Now that may seem silly in some ways and in some ways recursive as well, but to a humanist, it actually makes perfect sense. These questions of meaning, a priori ideas, and theology/God mean nothing. They are just fodder for conversation and work well in songs, poems, and plays. I see it as we are asking the wrong questions sometimes. William of Ockham once stated not to multiply needlessly. The more complications you add that do not really matter, the further and further away from the truth you will get. Reality works, science and other epistemological philosophies work in conjunction with fact and evidence and therefore we have been able to deduce a model of the universe that does not need meaning, just causality.

I am not saying that there is not meaning or God or any other abstract human idea. Just to me, until reality requires the question, then it is the realm of myth and legend. Fun to think about and play with, but far from any truth. Meaning may be out there, but until it manifests itself in a real and measurable way, it may as well not exist.

I know this is a little off topic, but it is always my point of view when talking about the meaning of life.
We think too much and feel too little. More than machinery, we need humanity. More than cleverness, we need kindness and gentleness. Without these qualities, life will be violent and all will be lost. -Charlie Chaplin
kineSiS-
Profile Blog Joined September 2009
Korea (South)1068 Posts
October 28 2010 08:56 GMT
#28
Ridiculous amount of fluff.

Nevertheless...

You assume life started itself. Is this given the assumption that the material necessary for life to manifest itself was already there?

Also...

The world of math, numbers and symbols represent things that are already there, only broken into pieces. For example, 2+2=4 is the idea of 4, broken into halves. So in that sense, two sets of 2 is the same thing as a single set of 4.

I would have to disagree with the broken into pieces part. Although it "works" in your analogy it is incorrect. A more aptly suited statement would be the constant discovery of what is unknown but once discovered and proved is a fact. Because we discover it in infinitesimally small pieces, I guess technically it's not even pieces, but could be considered in piece because it is infinitely decreasing pieces ( if processes are included ). Math is discovered constantly, not in pieces.
Severedevil
Profile Blog Joined April 2009
United States4835 Posts
October 28 2010 09:36 GMT
#29
Our standard definition of life (cellular organisms) very clearly did not start itself. If you view life in a more general way, of patterns that propagate themselves, then life is probably inherent to our universe/reality.
My strategy is to fork people.
Tossup
Profile Blog Joined September 2010
United States208 Posts
October 28 2010 09:43 GMT
#30
"what is the meaning of life?"

define this sentence.

Okay, well here, aren't we limited to our own definitions of each word? Therefore, it is impossible to truly define life. It exists outside of language. By asking me to define this sentence, you're asking me to define language with language which as cz pointed out, is useless.

The best I can do is tell you examples of my own experiences and allow you to interpret as you will.

@ kineSiS

When I said life started itself, it's more like it was a the result of the universe. We both agree there is a starting point of what we 'commonly' call life. How it started is still a mystery but it started nonetheless. Then, it could have only started out of what was already there, the universe. What I'm trying to get at is that, this result of 'life' works in the same mechanisms as the whole of the universe. So, by understanding how life works, we can understand how our universe works as well.

I'm not quite sure what you mean with the second part after also..

So, I'm getting that you're saying math is too discrete to be in this analogy? Because 2 and 2 are pieces of 4, then the two of them combined is equal to 4. But you said that we discover our world to be in infinitesimally small pieces which does not apply to math. Basically, you're saying 4 is made up of 4 units which cannot be broken down and therefore, life cannot be like math.

Well, that's easy, 4 is just a convention that people use to tell how many measurable units, which ever they choose (apples to nanometers). In actuality, the number 4 is made up of infinitely smaller pieces, exactly how life is.
Navane
Profile Blog Joined February 2007
Netherlands2747 Posts
October 28 2010 10:01 GMT
#31

The world of math, numbers and symbols represent things that are already there, only broken into pieces. For example, 2+2=4 is the idea of 4, broken into halves. So in that sense, two sets of 2 is the same thing as a single set of 4.

So, moving to more tangible matters, a single atom within a block of metal has equal properties to all the block of metal that make up the block. Therefore, it is equally valid to represent that block with either the atom or the block of the material.


This is not true. You cannot make a block of 6 using only 4's. In the same way you cannot explain magnetism if you only use atoms instead of protons/neurons/electrons. The bigger block is a simplified model.
KrAzYfoOL
Profile Blog Joined September 2005
Australia3037 Posts
October 28 2010 10:05 GMT
#32
On October 28 2010 15:53 Redunzl wrote:
You should read Soren Kierkegaard's

Concept of Anxiety The first part deals with your same problem but applied to Man and History.


that was a hilarious read, thank you.
It's better to burn out than to fade away
HULKAMANIA
Profile Blog Joined December 2004
United States1219 Posts
Last Edited: 2010-10-28 10:13:22
October 28 2010 10:12 GMT
#33
On October 28 2010 17:54 TheAmazombie wrote:
I am a big Kurt Vonnegut fan and he stated on many occasions that the meaning of life is "to help each other through this thing, whatever it is".

Now that may seem silly in some ways and in some ways recursive as well, but to a humanist, it actually makes perfect sense. These questions of meaning, a priori ideas, and theology/God mean nothing. They are just fodder for conversation and work well in songs, poems, and plays. I see it as we are asking the wrong questions sometimes. William of Ockham once stated not to multiply needlessly. The more complications you add that do not really matter, the further and further away from the truth you will get. Reality works, science and other epistemological philosophies work in conjunction with fact and evidence and therefore we have been able to deduce a model of the universe that does not need meaning, just causality.

I am not saying that there is not meaning or God or any other abstract human idea. Just to me, until reality requires the question, then it is the realm of myth and legend. Fun to think about and play with, but far from any truth. Meaning may be out there, but until it manifests itself in a real and measurable way, it may as well not exist.

I know this is a little off topic, but it is always my point of view when talking about the meaning of life.


That's all well and good except for ideas like science, fact, and reason are a priori ideas as well. They're abstract and human. You've simply traded a few outdated cultural myths for a few trendier ones.
If it were not so, I would have told you.
HULKAMANIA
Profile Blog Joined December 2004
United States1219 Posts
October 28 2010 10:15 GMT
#34
On October 28 2010 18:43 Tossup wrote:
"what is the meaning of life?"

define this sentence.

Okay, well here, aren't we limited to our own definitions of each word? Therefore, it is impossible to truly define life. It exists outside of language. By asking me to define this sentence, you're asking me to define language with language which as cz pointed out, is useless.

The best I can do is tell you examples of my own experiences and allow you to interpret as you will.

@ kineSiS

When I said life started itself, it's more like it was a the result of the universe. We both agree there is a starting point of what we 'commonly' call life. How it started is still a mystery but it started nonetheless. Then, it could have only started out of what was already there, the universe. What I'm trying to get at is that, this result of 'life' works in the same mechanisms as the whole of the universe. So, by understanding how life works, we can understand how our universe works as well.

I'm not quite sure what you mean with the second part after also..

So, I'm getting that you're saying math is too discrete to be in this analogy? Because 2 and 2 are pieces of 4, then the two of them combined is equal to 4. But you said that we discover our world to be in infinitesimally small pieces which does not apply to math. Basically, you're saying 4 is made up of 4 units which cannot be broken down and therefore, life cannot be like math.

Well, that's easy, 4 is just a convention that people use to tell how many measurable units, which ever they choose (apples to nanometers). In actuality, the number 4 is made up of infinitely smaller pieces, exactly how life is.


Tossup, buddy, I'm doing my best, but I'm still not following you. Can we rewind for a second? I don't need any defenses of or justifications for your main idea. I just need your main idea in a comprehensible formulation.
If it were not so, I would have told you.
TheAmazombie
Profile Blog Joined September 2010
United States3714 Posts
October 28 2010 10:31 GMT
#35
That is why I specifically labeled them as epistemological philosophies. The point is that they work in reality without the need of meaning.
We think too much and feel too little. More than machinery, we need humanity. More than cleverness, we need kindness and gentleness. Without these qualities, life will be violent and all will be lost. -Charlie Chaplin
SomaliPirate
Profile Joined September 2010
United Kingdom28 Posts
October 28 2010 13:06 GMT
#36
And of every thing We have created pairs Surah 51:49 .

i was just readin some Quran seeying as i am muslim and came across that intersting .
I Will no i ShaLL be Good In ThiS GamE
Wolf
Profile Blog Joined April 2010
Korea (South)3290 Posts
October 28 2010 14:00 GMT
#37
Tossup... Oh geez. I don't even understand.
Commentatorhttp://twitter.com/proxywolf
TL+ Member
Scorcher2k
Profile Joined November 2009
United States802 Posts
October 28 2010 14:31 GMT
#38
You know I had a nice long response typed but the total denial or absence of some things and not having clear meanings for seemingly anything that is being talked about is making my head hurt. Please just define the the word life as you are using it.

Wikipedia- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life
Life (cf. biota) is a characteristic that distinguishes objects that have signaling and self-sustaining processes (biology) from those that do not,[1][2] either because such functions have ceased (death), or else because they lack such functions and are classified as inanimate.

Something like this please.
KrAzYfoOL
Profile Blog Joined September 2005
Australia3037 Posts
Last Edited: 2010-10-28 14:52:21
October 28 2010 14:51 GMT
#39
It's better to burn out than to fade away
metaphoR
Profile Joined May 2010
United States199 Posts
October 28 2010 14:58 GMT
#40
On October 28 2010 23:31 Scorcher2k wrote:
You know I had a nice long response typed but the total denial or absence of some things and not having clear meanings for seemingly anything that is being talked about is making my head hurt. Please just define the the word life as you are using it.

Wikipedia- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life
Life (cf. biota) is a characteristic that distinguishes objects that have signaling and self-sustaining processes (biology) from those that do not,[1][2] either because such functions have ceased (death), or else because they lack such functions and are classified as inanimate.

Something like this please.


Life is an agglomeration of "lives" interacting with each other


taken from OP
Scorcher2k
Profile Joined November 2009
United States802 Posts
October 28 2010 15:08 GMT
#41
On October 28 2010 23:58 metaphoR wrote:
Show nested quote +
On October 28 2010 23:31 Scorcher2k wrote:
You know I had a nice long response typed but the total denial or absence of some things and not having clear meanings for seemingly anything that is being talked about is making my head hurt. Please just define the the word life as you are using it.

Wikipedia- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life
Life (cf. biota) is a characteristic that distinguishes objects that have signaling and self-sustaining processes (biology) from those that do not,[1][2] either because such functions have ceased (death), or else because they lack such functions and are classified as inanimate.

Something like this please.


Show nested quote +
Life is an agglomeration of "lives" interacting with each other


taken from OP

And I'm obviously asking for a better definition...
ArbAttack
Profile Blog Joined September 2010
Canada198 Posts
October 28 2010 15:10 GMT
#42
Could have just said:

Reductionism. Discuss.
metaphoR
Profile Joined May 2010
United States199 Posts
October 28 2010 15:17 GMT
#43
On October 29 2010 00:08 Scorcher2k wrote:
Show nested quote +
On October 28 2010 23:58 metaphoR wrote:
On October 28 2010 23:31 Scorcher2k wrote:
You know I had a nice long response typed but the total denial or absence of some things and not having clear meanings for seemingly anything that is being talked about is making my head hurt. Please just define the the word life as you are using it.

Wikipedia- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life
Life (cf. biota) is a characteristic that distinguishes objects that have signaling and self-sustaining processes (biology) from those that do not,[1][2] either because such functions have ceased (death), or else because they lack such functions and are classified as inanimate.

Something like this please.


Life is an agglomeration of "lives" interacting with each other


taken from OP

And I'm obviously asking for a better definition...

well that's how the OP defines life. Using a different definition would be pointless to this thread where the topic of discussion uses this definition to come to certain conclusions about life made by the OP. To ignore this definition is to ignore all the points made in the OP.
KurtistheTurtle
Profile Blog Joined December 2008
United States1966 Posts
October 28 2010 15:37 GMT
#44
"This is what knowledge really is. It is finding out something for oneself with pain, with joy, with exultancy, with labor, and with all the little ticking, breathing moments of our lives." -- Thomas Wolfe
“Reject your sense of injury and the injury itself disappears."
Scorcher2k
Profile Joined November 2009
United States802 Posts
October 28 2010 15:49 GMT
#45
Ok... I thought I understood why I got confused but then I read the whole thing again and now I have no fucking clue what so ever what the OP is trying to say... Math... Starcraft.. which explains life... life explains more life... The fucking universe comes in and in the end I'm just left thinking about breakfast!

I'm not trying to troll but you are using two separate definitions for one word and throwing random shit together with seemingly no sense...
BroOd
Profile Blog Joined April 2003
Austin10831 Posts
October 28 2010 16:12 GMT
#46
You've got to be kidding me. I've been further even more decided to use even go need to do look more as anyone can. Can you really be far even as decided half as much to use go wish for that? My guess is that when one really been far even as decided once to use even go want, it is then that he has really been far even as decided to use even go want to do look more like. It's just common sense. Has anyone really been far even as decided to use even go want to do look more like?

What is what do, did you say did I say, what word is that word what, what do words the word what mean? Except that for having so decided make to use even go need to do look more like, you still haven’t going really want to do not a twice as much to use go wish for that. I disagree for when anyone really been far even as decided once to use even go want, that they have really been far even as decided to use even go want to do look more like.
ModeratorSIRL and JLIG.
HULKAMANIA
Profile Blog Joined December 2004
United States1219 Posts
October 28 2010 16:41 GMT
#47
Great now there are two walls of text in this thread that I can injure myself trying to decipher.
If it were not so, I would have told you.
-_-
Profile Blog Joined November 2003
United States7081 Posts
October 28 2010 17:16 GMT
#48
PM travis about this thread. He'll get it.
Wolf
Profile Blog Joined April 2010
Korea (South)3290 Posts
October 28 2010 18:34 GMT
#49
On October 29 2010 01:12 BroOd wrote:
You've got to be kidding me. I've been further even more decided to use even go need to do look more as anyone can. Can you really be far even as decided half as much to use go wish for that? My guess is that when one really been far even as decided once to use even go want, it is then that he has really been far even as decided to use even go want to do look more like. It's just common sense. Has anyone really been far even as decided to use even go want to do look more like?

What is what do, did you say did I say, what word is that word what, what do words the word what mean? Except that for having so decided make to use even go need to do look more like, you still haven’t going really want to do not a twice as much to use go wish for that. I disagree for when anyone really been far even as decided once to use even go want, that they have really been far even as decided to use even go want to do look more like.


BroOd, this really speaks to me.
Commentatorhttp://twitter.com/proxywolf
TL+ Member
koreasilver
Profile Blog Joined June 2008
9109 Posts
October 28 2010 18:43 GMT
#50
On October 28 2010 14:37 cz wrote:
Show nested quote +
On October 28 2010 14:35 Tossup wrote:
Well how do you know that life didn't start itself?


Because whatever starts something must exist: if X doesn't exist, X can't start Y. If X=Y, then X can't start X (by the first premise). Therefore something can't start itself; therefore life can't start itself.

Okay Aquinas.
Tossup
Profile Blog Joined September 2010
United States208 Posts
October 28 2010 20:35 GMT
#51
So i've updated with a part 2....trying to clarify some things. <3 for the discussions tho ^^
Frits
Profile Joined March 2003
11782 Posts
October 28 2010 21:19 GMT
#52
are you high?
zulu_nation8
Profile Blog Joined May 2005
China26351 Posts
October 28 2010 21:55 GMT
#53
OP are you asian by any chance?
Normal
Please log in or register to reply.
Live Events Refresh
Replay Cast
00:00
2025 KFC #10: SC Evolution
CranKy Ducklings141
Liquipedia
[ Submit Event ]
Live Streams
Refresh
StarCraft 2
PiGStarcraft376
Nina 167
RuFF_SC2 125
Ketroc 36
StarCraft: Brood War
Sea 3014
Horang2 1601
Leta 49
Noble 31
Dota 2
monkeys_forever677
LuMiX1
League of Legends
JimRising 738
Super Smash Bros
hungrybox599
Mew2King57
Other Games
shahzam1100
Maynarde117
NeuroSwarm56
Livibee53
kaitlyn44
Organizations
Other Games
gamesdonequick1046
BasetradeTV60
StarCraft 2
Blizzard YouTube
StarCraft: Brood War
BSLTrovo
sctven
[ Show 18 non-featured ]
StarCraft 2
• Berry_CruncH266
• Mapu5
• Kozan
• LaughNgamezSOOP
• sooper7s
• AfreecaTV YouTube
• Migwel
• intothetv
• IndyKCrew
StarCraft: Brood War
• RayReign 28
• STPLYoutube
• ZZZeroYoutube
• BSLYoutube
League of Legends
• Doublelift6682
• Shiphtur526
• Stunt267
• Lourlo217
Other Games
• Scarra1743
Upcoming Events
Replay Cast
6h 13m
WardiTV Invitational
7h 13m
WardiTV Invitational
7h 13m
PiGosaur Monday
20h 13m
GSL Code S
1d 5h
Rogue vs GuMiho
Maru vs Solar
Online Event
1d 20h
Replay Cast
1d 22h
GSL Code S
2 days
herO vs Zoun
Classic vs Bunny
The PondCast
2 days
Replay Cast
2 days
[ Show More ]
WardiTV Invitational
3 days
OSC
3 days
Korean StarCraft League
3 days
CranKy Ducklings
4 days
WardiTV Invitational
4 days
Cheesadelphia
4 days
GSL Code S
5 days
Sparkling Tuna Cup
5 days
Replay Cast
5 days
Replay Cast
6 days
Liquipedia Results

Completed

CSL Season 17: Qualifier 2
BGE Stara Zagora 2025
Heroes 10 EU

Ongoing

JPL Season 2
BSL 2v2 Season 3
BSL Season 20
KCM Race Survival 2025 Season 2
NPSL S3
Rose Open S1
CSL 17: 2025 SUMMER
2025 GSL S2
BLAST.tv Austin Major 2025
ESL Impact League Season 7
IEM Dallas 2025
PGL Astana 2025
Asian Champions League '25
BLAST Rivals Spring 2025
MESA Nomadic Masters
CCT Season 2 Global Finals
IEM Melbourne 2025
YaLLa Compass Qatar 2025
PGL Bucharest 2025
BLAST Open Spring 2025

Upcoming

Copa Latinoamericana 4
CSLPRO Last Chance 2025
CSLPRO Chat StarLAN 3
K-Championship
SEL Season 2 Championship
Esports World Cup 2025
HSC XXVII
Championship of Russia 2025
Murky Cup #2
Esports World Cup 2025
BLAST Bounty Fall 2025
BLAST Bounty Fall Qual
IEM Cologne 2025
FISSURE Playground #1
TLPD

1. ByuN
2. TY
3. Dark
4. Solar
5. Stats
6. Nerchio
7. sOs
8. soO
9. INnoVation
10. Elazer
1. Rain
2. Flash
3. EffOrt
4. Last
5. Bisu
6. Soulkey
7. Mini
8. Sharp
Sidebar Settings...

Advertising | Privacy Policy | Terms Of Use | Contact Us

Original banner artwork: Jim Warren
The contents of this webpage are copyright © 2025 TLnet. All Rights Reserved.