This site makes extensive use of JavaScript.
Please enable JavaScript in your browser.
Live
PTR
10.2.7
PTR
10.2.6
Beta
Mods Please Lock
Return to board index
Post by
Kinesis
Interesting. But why are there moose in Africa? And not regular moose,
poisoned
moose.
Well, I just picked an animal off of the top of my head, to be honest. And I presume if an animal had consumed enough of a mushroom poisonous to humans, it would become poisonous to humans?
Feel free to replace moose with gazelle, impala, etc.
Post by
273605
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
Hyperspacerebel
Okay, wtf? I never attacked you. You're the one attacking me by throwing false accusations at my face; you're not the first, but it's starting to *!@# me off. 'Enlightened discussion' is what you wanted? Does that mean only those who agree with the position you're holding are worthy of writing in this thread? And why am I the one being singled out as being argumentative when Squish holds the same position as me? I normally think it would be funny that the second we bring a counter-argument into the thread you revert to pointing fingers and pouting about 'enlightened discussion.' You asked for opinions, I gave you mine and provided reasons for holding them. If you don't want that, don't post here.
I'm sorry for the rant, but this has happened one too many times.
He never specified any names. The fact that you're attacking him in this post is a pretty big sign of guilt.
Please, please, please work on your reading comprehension. The post was clearly directed at the 'complexity' advocates. And then Gorefiend came and directly singled me out (go to the first page, hit ctrl-f, search for hyper, ?, profit). Then he went and quoted Gorefiend naming me and did not say 'Oh, no I did not mean HSR.'
Post by
273605
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
470626
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
Hyperspacerebel
I'm pretty sure Gorefiend and Kinesis aren't the same person.Wow, you indeed didn't even understand that post.
Please, please, please work on your reading comprehension.
Post by
Kinesis
I don't know what you want for this! At the end of the day, this is the butterfly effect. For those unsure what's even being discussed, basically it means that when X happens Y,Z,N happen. However, had Y happened in the first place, A,C,D happen. It's something discussed and contained in the Chaos Theory.
Theory
.
Everyone can give opinions, but nobody will agree and we'll all fall out and everyone goes to bed a sad, sad being!
However, if you'd have said 'how awesome is this?', we'd all say either 'yeah, very! How cool is it that such a small cause can have such massive effects?' or 'don't be silly. Those large effects would have happened with or without this small cause!'
That's my opinion. I for one kind of believe it. I don't think it HAS to be though - just because a butterfly flaps its wings doesn't believe X will happen, but it might.
While I'm happy that you seem to have a firm grasp of the topic being discussed, and would love for you to continue discussing it, I'd ask that you refrain from posting here while: getting absolutely wasted ready for my mate's 21st and listeneing to Basshunter and Infected Mushroom 8x louder than I should be
Post by
Kinesis
Wow, you indeed didn't even understand that post.
Please, please, please work on your reading comprehension.
While I hate to go back on what I said and join in on such a stupid argument, I was not referring to you. I was referring simply to anyone who was coming here to attack me. I did not specify "complexity advocates."
But since you asked:
If you are coming to this thread to discuss it, you need to accept the theory behind it. You need to accept that the term
chaos theory
refers to the state of nature that allows the butterfly effect to occur. I don't care if you think it's a misnomer. That's what chaos theory is. Get over it, and accept the premise, or get out.
Post by
273605
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
Hyperspacerebel
If you are coming to this thread to discuss it,
you need to accept the theory behind it.
You need to accept that the term
chaos theory
refers to the state of nature that allows the butterfly effect to occur. I don't care if you think it's a misnomer. That's what chaos theory is. Get over it, and accept the premise, or get out.
Sorry, but I'm here, and I deny your premise and I gave suitable reasons as did Squish.
And no I won't get out.
Post by
470626
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
Kinesis
If you are coming to this thread to discuss it,
you need to accept the theory behind it.
You need to accept that the term
chaos theory
refers to the state of nature that allows the butterfly effect to occur. I don't care if you think it's a misnomer. That's what chaos theory is. Get over it, and accept the premise, or get out.
Sorry, but I'm here, and I deny your premise and I gave suitable reasons as did Squish.
And no I won't get out.
Then I'll be forced to ignore you in the same way that you ignore what a term means.
This will be my last post addressing you, good sir.
You can't claim that a book isn't sheets of writing bound by a cover, by justifying "book sounds like the sound a baseball makes when you throw it against a wall. I'm going to use the word book as "baseball" from now on.
Post by
Kinesis
I don't know what you want for this! At the end of the day, this is the butterfly effect. For those unsure what's even being discussed, basically it means that when X happens Y,Z,N happen. However, had Y happened in the first place, A,C,D happen. It's something discussed and contained in the Chaos Theory.
Theory
.
Everyone can give opinions, but nobody will agree and we'll all fall out and everyone goes to bed a sad, sad being!
However, if you'd have said 'how awesome is this?', we'd all say either 'yeah, very! How cool is it that such a small cause can have such massive effects?' or 'don't be silly. Those large effects would have happened with or without this small cause!'
That's my opinion. I for one kind of believe it. I don't think it HAS to be though - just because a butterfly flaps its wings doesn't believe X will happen, but it might.
While I'm happy that you seem to have a firm grasp of the topic being discussed, and would love for you to continue discussing it, I'd ask that you refrain from posting here while: getting absolutely wasted ready for my mate's 21st and listeneing to Basshunter and Infected Mushroom 8x louder than I should be
I'm no smart ass but I will point out that I said
getting
. xD
I'm also not generally an $%^&*!@, but I do wonder how you can ask me to 'refrain from posting' on a public forum, where the answers you get make no difference to anything seeing as they are under 'randomness'? There was nothing wrong with my post and as such it stand valid dammit!
No hard feelings anyway squire ;)
I'm just saying, I'd appreciate it if you would restate your opinions when sober, because as it is now, I have a hard time understanding exactly what it is you're trying to say.
No offense.
Post by
Hyperspacerebel
I'm not ignoring what a term means.
Chaos : according to Gorefiend (and I can only assume you because you didn't correct or clarify him) is unpredictable determinism.
I'm saying that fact that we cannot predict something has no bearing on whether it can be predicted or not. We're dumb animals, the universe is a complex machine -- to say something is inherently unpredictable because we can't predict it is an ignorant thing to do.
Post by
470626
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
470626
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
Kinesis
Ok sorry. That's nothing to do with my state of sobriety - i just ramble like hell.
Let's try and put forward my opinion in an understandable way. Hmm.
First off, my basic opinion is that I agree with it. I think that the butterfly effect is valid for reasons I'll leave for now :P
Secondly, I was essentially saying that to ask for opinions on Wowhead or indeed any public forum is akin to posting it under "Trolls fed here". You'll get countless arguments full of "You're wrong" "Prove it." "DONT SINGLE ME OUT BULLIEZ!"
And thirdly, I was saying that while I agree with it, I don't think it's something set in stone. Just because that butterfly flapped one wing and the boy ended up not hunting and his other meant that he did end up hunting doesn't mean that it has to have something to do with the butterfly. We couldn't possibly know, but maybe the butterfly didn't have any input in this occasion?
(TL;DR - sometimes the butterfly effect is (Y) and works, sometimes (N) it doesn't?)
Hope that helps :/
yeah, that's much clearer now. For one thing - as to the "Trolls fed here", that makes me very, very sad. :(. See how sad that face is?
Also, as to whether or not the butterfly changed that event - well, if the butterfly flaps to the right, he trips and doesn't go hunting. If it flaps to the left, he doesn't trip, and goes hunting. The specific set of actions that follows inherently depends on the butterfly. True, in many situations this isn't the case, but it is in the example I put forth.
Thanks for posting coherently :).
Post by
Hyperspacerebel
I'm not ignoring what a term means.
Chaos : according to Gorefiend (and I can only assume you because you didn't correct or clarify him) is unpredictable determinism.
I'm saying that fact that we cannot predict something has no bearing on whether it can be predicted or not. We're dumb animals, the universe is a complex machine -- to say something is inherently unpredictable because we can't predict it is an ignorant thing to do.
But I think that because we are such dumb animals we'll never know. Complexity is not the same as chaos as someone said, but beyond a certain level the differences to us are barely registrable (is that even a word?). I don't think you should say a definite 'no' to something we can't comprehend as a race.
See, that's the problem with Chaos Theory being a
scientific
theory. It's based on the fact that we as viewers are not smart enough. To be truly scientific, it should not rely on what the observers do and don't know.
Post by
470626
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
Hyperspacerebel
I agree to some extent. However, in order for science to progress we had to extend our boundaries past things we didn't know, to things individuals thought. Without Galileo and the revolutionaries, would we still think the earth flat? (THIS MIGHT BE WRONG. I can't remember who it was, I wanna say Columbus? Sorry!)Without newton, would we even know what gravity is?
Remember, Galileo was threatened with death for saying that the sun actually didn't revolve around us! Look at what we have come from - why can't we go further?
Knowledge that the earth was round has been around since the 4th century BC. That Columbus' peers thought it was flat is just a myth.
But to point, those examples really have nothing to do with the issue at hand. The early Greeks who mathematically proved that the earth was round had mathematical and astronomical proof that it was so. Anyone who didn't accept it was either too ignorant to understand it or just being willfully resistant. Same for the heliocentric system. There was never a period of non-knowledge.
This is different. We don't know, and there are no Galileos around to give us the proof we need. So what are people doing instead? Running out a limb and saying that we cannot know it. That's not something Galileo nor the Greeks ever did,
Post Reply
This topic is locked. You cannot post a reply.