1 2011-07-31 00:04:28 <b4epoche_> BlueMatt:  I don't have boost_unit_test_framework
  2 2011-07-31 00:04:43 <b4epoche_> well, hold on maybe I do
  3 2011-07-31 00:05:37 <BlueMatt> sorry, Im off to bed, can you give me the result with ;;later tell BlueMatt foo?
  4 2011-07-31 00:09:51 <b4epoche_> ;;later seems to work
  5 2011-07-31 00:09:51 <gribble> Error: The "Later" plugin is loaded, but there is no command named "seems" in it.  Try "list Later" to see the commands in the "Later" plugin.
  6 2011-07-31 00:10:23 <b4epoche_> ;;later tell test_bitcoin seems to work
  7 2011-07-31 00:10:24 <gribble> The operation succeeded.
  8 2011-07-31 00:11:10 <josephcp> i think you need to do ;;later tell BlueMatt test_bitcoin seems to work
  9 2011-07-31 00:11:29 <zeropointo> lol
 10 2011-07-31 00:11:39 <josephcp> also BlueMatt is still here, so you should probably just do a straight /msg
 11 2011-07-31 00:16:59 <b4epoche_> see message above&  he went to bed...
 12 2011-07-31 00:17:27 <b4epoche_> and yes, I forgot to put his nick&  wonder who's going to get message
 13 2011-07-31 00:17:47 <b4epoche_> ;;later tell BlueMatt test_bitcoin from head seems to work
 14 2011-07-31 00:17:47 <gribble> The operation succeeded.
 15 2011-07-31 00:18:26 <b4epoche_> ;;later tell BlueMatt your test_bitcoin needs libz (I think) in LIBS
 16 2011-07-31 00:18:26 <gribble> The operation succeeded.
 17 2011-07-31 00:19:24 <JFK911> ..later tell MagicalTux hey tradehill is having a sale
 18 2011-07-31 00:19:55 <nanotube> a sale on what? :)
 19 2011-07-31 00:20:06 <JFK911> fees, heh
 20 2011-07-31 00:21:54 <nanotube> ah
 21 2011-07-31 00:22:10 <cjdelisle> heh
 22 2011-07-31 00:25:00 <upb> were pretty much doomed, its the blue elephant pattern http://i51.tinypic.com/2dhxvgh.png
 23 2011-07-31 00:27:40 <nanotube> upb: no no, it's the fat barfing bunny pattern, so we're ok!
 24 2011-07-31 00:29:05 <random_cat> does that signal a high liklihood of a pink elephant pattern?
 25 2011-07-31 00:30:11 <CIA-103> bitcoin: phantomcircuit construct * rbd9c3d4acc03 bitcoin-alt/bitcoin/net/message.py: change message.py so it can process buffers easily http://tinyurl.com/3gpm5xu
 26 2011-07-31 00:44:29 <b4epoche_> ;;later tell BlueMatt your test_bitcoin builds with libz in LIB
 27 2011-07-31 00:44:29 <gribble> The operation succeeded.
 28 2011-07-31 00:47:32 <woodruff> any markets actually sell coins for ccard without bullshit liberty account?
 29 2011-07-31 00:58:06 <nanotube> woodruff: you're welcome to open one up - be prepared to lose a lot of money to chargebacks.
 30 2011-07-31 00:59:25 <upb> haha somethings pretty screwed with bitcoin7
 31 2011-07-31 00:59:26 <upb> 31 05:54 <+amphipod> Jul31 02:55:29 b7           0.7294 @    13.30       USD
 32 2011-07-31 01:00:00 <upb> smallest ask is 13.6, biggest bid 13.47
 33 2011-07-31 01:01:05 <Omnicidio> yes, but. . i need one
 34 2011-07-31 01:01:24 <Omnicidio> however useless it is
 35 2011-07-31 01:02:12 <Omnicidio> the analogue solver spit out some coins but i need to check it
 36 2011-07-31 01:02:27 <Omnicidio> fking 140 tubes
 37 2011-07-31 01:02:49 <Omnicidio> plus the bar
 38 2011-07-31 01:03:24 <Omnicidio> if it works, it should solve each in 4 minutes
 39 2011-07-31 01:04:10 <Omnicidio> someone send me one and its data
 40 2011-07-31 01:04:46 <Omnicidio> coinbot@royalgardens.us
 41 2011-07-31 01:05:58 <Omnicidio> i need to get another electric main installed, tubes are too hot
 42 2011-07-31 01:06:29 <Omnicidio> anyone else build nonlinear solvers?
 43 2011-07-31 01:21:43 <Omnicidio> bbl lava
 44 2011-07-31 02:07:47 <aviadbd> so.. what does it mean that the cg-miner says "work will be refreshed every 4000 ms"?
 45 2011-07-31 02:08:03 <aviadbd> that means that "getwork" is called every 4 seconds, no matter how many nonces the miner went through?
 46 2011-07-31 02:10:13 <CIA-103> bitcoin: Luke Dashjr combo * ra4b85b..4e1658 poclbm-personal/ (5 files): (5 commits) http://tinyurl.com/3kqqyk5
 47 2011-07-31 02:33:20 <TuxBlackEdo> what is lukejr's poclbm?
 48 2011-07-31 02:40:12 <CIA-103> bitcoin: Luke Dashjr combo * rc9cfb1232976 poclbm-personal/BitcoinMiner.py: Merge branch 'bugfix_no_update_when_work_already_queued' into combo http://tinyurl.com/42qsdq2
 49 2011-07-31 02:50:13 <CIA-103> bitcoin: Luke Dashjr combo * r8c40cb8ca5c3 poclbm-personal/BitcoinMiner.py: Merge branch 'bugfix_no_update_when_work_already_queued' into combo http://tinyurl.com/3fq6kjc
 50 2011-07-31 02:50:43 <aviadbd> guys?
 51 2011-07-31 02:56:05 <forrestv> aviadbd, yes, though it might just ignore that if long polling is enabled
 52 2011-07-31 02:56:24 <aviadbd> Hmm. Okay.
 53 2011-07-31 03:00:41 <aviadbd> Now I need help with this: http://stackoverflow.com/questions/6887620/using-midstate-in-cc-sha256
 54 2011-07-31 03:00:43 <aviadbd> :)
 55 2011-07-31 03:01:03 <aviadbd> but I've got to go - cya !
 56 2011-07-31 03:20:12 <CIA-103> bitcoin: Luke Dashjr combo * r36f702955014 poclbm-personal/ (BitcoinMiner.py HttpTransport.py): Merge branch 'bugfix_no_update_when_work_already_queued' into combo http://tinyurl.com/3lvhde2
 57 2011-07-31 03:27:39 <luke-jr> forrestv: I don't think it does, actually :x
 58 2011-07-31 03:29:44 <luke-jr> if anyone wants to help me debug this pushpool-dies-when-we-find-a-block issue, mine on 67.77.87.241 (with failover to Eligius)
 59 2011-07-31 03:29:51 <luke-jr> NOTE: this is testnet, and you don't get anything for it
 60 2011-07-31 03:31:09 <luke-jr> doh, wrong channel
 61 2011-07-31 03:31:18 <luke-jr> but I don't mind help from here either XD
 62 2011-07-31 03:33:54 <forrestv> ah ... i'm sure at least one miner does, though
 63 2011-07-31 04:32:14 <coingenuity> hey luke-jr you awake?
 64 2011-07-31 04:32:22 <luke-jr> &
 65 2011-07-31 04:32:34 <coingenuity> where do I know your name from?
 66 2011-07-31 04:35:27 <luke-jr> who knows, I'm everywhere
 67 2011-07-31 04:35:51 <coingenuity> hmm
 68 2011-07-31 04:35:59 <coingenuity> very interesting, wireshark for bitcoin's protocol
 69 2011-07-31 04:36:25 <coingenuity> you're not the guy who started the ASIC cluster, are you?
 70 2011-07-31 04:36:50 <coingenuity> also very interesting, wordpress btc plugin...
 71 2011-07-31 04:36:55 <coingenuity> i like your projects
 72 2011-07-31 04:37:03 <luke-jr> no
 73 2011-07-31 04:37:16 <luke-jr> my Bitcoin-related projects are mainly Spesmilo and Eligius
 74 2011-07-31 04:37:23 <luke-jr> nothing to do with wireshark or wordpress
 75 2011-07-31 04:37:34 <luke-jr> and TBC ofc
 76 2011-07-31 04:38:00 <coingenuity> oh, you just manage a bunch of btc related gits?
 77 2011-07-31 04:39:45 <luke-jr> coingenuity: oh, BitGit is just a mirror of everything
 78 2011-07-31 04:41:16 <coingenuity> ah, I see.....here I was thinking you were one productive-ass mofo lol
 79 2011-07-31 04:41:54 <coingenuity> I know what Eligius is, what's Spesmilo about? the bitcoin.it article is....lacking in explaination
 80 2011-07-31 04:42:17 <coingenuity> is it just an RPC client?
 81 2011-07-31 04:42:31 <luke-jr> more or less
 82 2011-07-31 04:42:46 <luke-jr> it can manage its own bitcoind too if you want it to
 83 2011-07-31 04:42:55 <coingenuity> ah, OK.n
 84 2011-07-31 04:42:58 <coingenuity> that comes in handy
 85 2011-07-31 04:44:29 <coingenuity> mind if I ask....how's it been for you devving open source for the BTC community, donation wise?
 86 2011-07-31 04:45:12 <luke-jr> coingenuity: in a word: terrible :p
 87 2011-07-31 04:46:02 <coingenuity> I'm interested in open-sourcing some of my software but running everything closed-source SaaS seems to be the only way to do it....seems to be against the ethos of the bitcoin development types but I don't have much of a choice it seems
 88 2011-07-31 04:46:57 <coingenuity> FYI, Spesmilo could become very useful to me in a project I'm rolling out in the next couple of days/weeks depending on what kind of infusion I can raise, but if I do start generating some revenue and Spesmilo helps I'll donate some BTC your way
 89 2011-07-31 04:47:16 <coingenuity> <<<poor software dev
 90 2011-07-31 04:47:26 <coingenuity> I understand where you're coming from :)\n1400294
 91 2011-07-31 04:48:46 <luke-jr> coingenuity: what software?
 92 2011-07-31 04:49:24 <coingenuity> For example...one thing that would really come in handy for folks right now is my bitcoin babysitter
 93 2011-07-31 04:49:36 <luke-jr> O.o
 94 2011-07-31 04:49:51 <coingenuity> HFT autotrader to move against market positions to maximize profits in volatile markets
 95 2011-07-31 04:50:04 <coingenuity> check the spot price
 96 2011-07-31 04:50:17 <coingenuity> people would have been stabilizing the market by using my app over the last few hours
 97 2011-07-31 04:50:38 <coingenuity> (volatility from the mybitcoin scandal)
 98 2011-07-31 04:51:58 <luke-jr> is there actually a scandal? or just overreaction to their site being down?
 99 2011-07-31 04:52:38 <coingenuity> I'm a web-app guy...if I had that much BTC liquid, my site would <b>never</b> go down
100 2011-07-31 04:53:20 <coingenuity> shit, I'd have the most redundant system you could imagine in your life. Even failover DNS and SSL certs, etc.
101 2011-07-31 04:53:42 <coingenuity> so them being offline for a couple days is a scandal in and of itself
102 2011-07-31 04:54:06 <vragnaroda> luke-jr: so far, probably just an overreaction, but the whole model is kinda suspicious, so who knows?
103 2011-07-31 04:54:27 <[Tycho]> Keeping your BTC in some third-party service that you know nothing about is careless.
104 2011-07-31 04:54:54 <coingenuity> suspicion aside, this is the first major e-wallet outage, so it's big news for the bitcoin community
105 2011-07-31 04:55:20 <coingenuity> aka scandalous, regardless of any impropriety on the part of mybitcoin.com
106 2011-07-31 04:55:24 <coingenuity> :D
107 2011-07-31 04:55:25 <[Tycho]> I need to implement something to prevent people from keeping money in deepbit :)
108 2011-07-31 04:55:43 <[Tycho]> And from sending rewards to temporary addresses.
109 2011-07-31 04:55:47 <coingenuity> you can use some of my code tycho
110 2011-07-31 04:55:55 <coingenuity> what's deepbit written in, php?
111 2011-07-31 04:56:08 <luke-jr> [Tycho]: what's wrong with temporary addresses?
112 2011-07-31 04:56:10 <[Tycho]> Are you kidding ? :)
113 2011-07-31 04:56:30 <coingenuity> to me or like tycho lol
114 2011-07-31 04:56:42 <vragnaroda> isn't that MagicalTux's thing on the forums?
115 2011-07-31 04:56:44 <[Tycho]> coingenuity, to you.
116 2011-07-31 04:57:02 <luke-jr> trying to write a pool in PHP = lol
117 2011-07-31 04:57:13 <[Tycho]> Yes, almost anything. But sometimes it doesn't fits the task.
118 2011-07-31 04:57:15 <coingenuity> i'm talking about the front-end luke
119 2011-07-31 04:57:18 <coingenuity> not the backend
120 2011-07-31 04:57:38 <luke-jr> letting the front-end make payouts = lol ;)
121 2011-07-31 04:57:48 <[Tycho]> Oh, that's LISP trying to emulate Apache with PHP
122 2011-07-31 04:58:06 <[Tycho]> What your code you are talking about ?
123 2011-07-31 04:58:24 <coingenuity> oh, interesting.
124 2011-07-31 04:59:20 <coingenuity> i have some code to automate withdrawals to mtgox from bitcoind
125 2011-07-31 04:59:52 <coingenuity> part of my experiments with HFT
126 2011-07-31 05:00:17 <coingenuity> but it's useless to you since you're running lisp
127 2011-07-31 05:00:20 <coingenuity> :)
128 2011-07-31 05:06:48 <lfm> what's a temporary address. my understanding is all addresses are permanent
129 2011-07-31 05:08:51 <coingenuity> lfm bitcoin service providers circulate a bunch of addresses amongst users. they'll assign one from their keypool to a user temporarily, but recycle it later on
130 2011-07-31 05:09:56 <mabus> where can i find out more about when the client will let me send a tx without a fee
131 2011-07-31 05:10:00 <mabus> i have not been able to get a straight answer anywhere
132 2011-07-31 05:10:09 <lfm> why cant they just make new ones when they need new ones?
133 2011-07-31 05:10:39 <lfm> mabus there are no straight answers
134 2011-07-31 05:11:51 <lfm> seems pretty stupid to reuse addresses for different things
135 2011-07-31 05:12:04 <mabus> that was a pretty gay answer
136 2011-07-31 05:12:28 <[Tycho]> lfm, some service providers think that this is "not secure" :)
137 2011-07-31 05:13:03 <[Tycho]> mabus, it depends on your client's will and network rules.
138 2011-07-31 05:13:29 <lfm> huh? who is this fool. let me at em to smarten em up.
139 2011-07-31 05:14:06 <mabus> okay and where is the source for these rules
140 2011-07-31 05:14:36 <lfm> mabus the source is where you find all the source. it is bitcoin(d)
141 2011-07-31 05:14:46 <mabus> big tree
142 2011-07-31 05:14:52 <lfm> yup
143 2011-07-31 05:14:56 <mabus> 'i have no clue' or not saying anything is an acceptable answer
144 2011-07-31 05:14:58 <mabus> thanks
145 2011-07-31 05:15:29 <lfm> mabus its complex, if you want a simple answer I cant help
146 2011-07-31 05:16:18 <mabus> i was asking for where i could read the complex answer
147 2011-07-31 05:16:27 <[Tycho]> mabus, in the source.
148 2011-07-31 05:16:44 <mabus> where, in the source
149 2011-07-31 05:16:55 <lfm> in the source to bitcoin. you can download it from the home page at bitcoin.org
150 2011-07-31 05:17:06 <mabus> i have the source
151 2011-07-31 05:17:13 <mabus> thats fine if you guys have no idea
152 2011-07-31 05:17:16 <mabus> i will look for myself later
153 2011-07-31 05:17:17 <[Tycho]> mabus, usually you can send free TX unless it's too big (size in bytes, not bitcoins) or too small (less than 0.01 BTC).
154 2011-07-31 05:17:18 <lfm> then you have the answer
155 2011-07-31 05:17:36 <nanotube> ;;bc,wiki transaction fee
156 2011-07-31 05:17:37 <gribble> https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Transaction_fees | Jul 23, 2011 ... Transaction fees may be included with any transfer of bitcoins from one address to another. At the moment, many transactions are typically ...
157 2011-07-31 05:17:43 <nanotube> mabus: ^ that's a decent overview
158 2011-07-31 05:17:46 <lfm> also depends how many bytes of txn since the last bl0ock
159 2011-07-31 05:18:50 <[Tycho]> That's not the strict rule.
160 2011-07-31 05:19:22 <lfm> you can always send a txn without a fee. it may or may not get "confirmed" in a block in a reasonable time depending on your reasonableness
161 2011-07-31 05:23:10 <lfm> A quote I justcame across seems appropriate "True understanding destroys certianty."
162 2011-07-31 05:23:32 <Namegduf> A fallibilist after my own heart.
163 2011-07-31 05:24:22 <lfm> you know Godel?
164 2011-07-31 05:27:14 <Namegduf> Ah, that was a quote from him?
165 2011-07-31 05:27:26 <nanotube> lfm: and the key takeaway from that quote is, the person doesn't know how to spell 'certainty' ? :D
166 2011-07-31 05:27:35 <lfm> not really but they relate in my mind.
167 2011-07-31 05:27:38 <Namegduf> I'm assuming it was rewritten
168 2011-07-31 05:27:52 <Namegduf> If not they can't be after my own heart anymore.
169 2011-07-31 05:28:18 <lfm> oh, please dont blame the source for my typos.
170 2011-07-31 05:28:38 <Namegduf> Anyways, I don't think they do
171 2011-07-31 05:29:10 <Namegduf> The lack of any certainty is distinct from showing that at least *something* can't be certain even given axioms.
172 2011-07-31 05:29:27 <lfm> they relate in my mind via the "uncertainty principle" of course.
173 2011-07-31 05:30:07 <Namegduf> The uncertainty principle is entirely unnecessary for certainty to be impossible
174 2011-07-31 05:30:18 <Namegduf> Logic itself provides reason.
175 2011-07-31 05:30:50 <lfm> It isnt saying there is no certainty possible. But certainty only exists in a lack of understanding.
176 2011-07-31 05:31:24 <Namegduf> I was referring to certainty in a formal meaning
177 2011-07-31 05:32:17 <Namegduf> Nevermind, not worth it.
178 2011-07-31 05:32:30 <lfm> if certainty is impossible then it is a concept without an example which to me is an oxymoron
179 2011-07-31 05:33:21 <Namegduf> "without an example"?
180 2011-07-31 05:33:40 <Namegduf> "oxymoron"?
181 2011-07-31 05:33:53 <Namegduf> Please define the words "concept" and "example" for me
182 2011-07-31 05:34:02 <Namegduf> Because "oxymoron" means "contradictory by definition"
183 2011-07-31 05:34:08 <lfm> Id rather not.
184 2011-07-31 05:34:13 <Namegduf> ANd I want to know what definitions you're using for those two which are contradictory by definition
185 2011-07-31 05:34:47 <Namegduf> Also I don't think I've ever seen the word oxymoron applied to anything not a combination of two words, "self-contradictory" is favoured for words which are, well, that.
186 2011-07-31 05:36:07 <lfm> yes well I admit to loose use of the language.
187 2011-07-31 05:36:22 <Namegduf> Well, I don't understand what you mean.
188 2011-07-31 05:37:02 <Namegduf> I was referring to logical certainty not conditional on the assumption of any axioms.
189 2011-07-31 05:37:09 <Namegduf> i.e. something being logically proven.
190 2011-07-31 05:37:42 <lfm> if certainty is impossible then what is it that we call certainty? That which we (mistakenly?) call certainty sure does seem to exist.
191 2011-07-31 05:37:56 <Namegduf> Things don't have to exist to be concepts, dude
192 2011-07-31 05:38:01 <Namegduf> Have you ever read a fictional book?
193 2011-07-31 05:38:12 <lfm> fictions exist.
194 2011-07-31 05:38:31 <Namegduf> They're a subset of concepts.
195 2011-07-31 05:38:59 <lfm> so what do you mean by impossible?
196 2011-07-31 05:39:02 <Namegduf> Abstract ideas also exist, but don't have to have real world examples.
197 2011-07-31 05:39:59 <Namegduf> I was referring to logical certainty not conditional on the assumption of any axioms, i.e. something being logically proven unconditionally (which is conceivable and an entirely valid concept).
198 2011-07-31 05:40:16 <Namegduf> It's impossible, though, because of how logic works.
199 2011-07-31 05:40:36 <Namegduf> Logic can only prove that given A, B, and C, X, Y, and Z must also be true.
200 2011-07-31 05:41:20 <Namegduf> You can build chains, but all your statements are only valid assuming the initial A, B, and C.
201 2011-07-31 05:41:56 <Namegduf> And if those are wrong, you can be wrong.
202 2011-07-31 05:42:05 <lfm> certainty is just a beleif which we are not willing to give up.
203 2011-07-31 05:42:36 <lfm> it may be a premise, not always a conclusion
204 2011-07-31 05:42:51 <Namegduf> I apologise for getting my logic in your diatribe, I'll back out now.
205 2011-07-31 05:43:10 <vragnaroda> lol
206 2011-07-31 05:44:03 <Namegduf> My point was that all knowledge is conditional, even if you never bothered to note down the assumptions you made, and thus can be wrong.
207 2011-07-31 05:44:23 <Namegduf> It is not, essentially, a possibility worth caring about, though. :P
208 2011-07-31 05:44:39 <lfm> actually I suspet we agree on principles, just disagree on some of the terminology
209 2011-07-31 05:46:12 <lfm> some assumptions we are not willing to consider being possibly wrong tho.
210 2011-07-31 05:46:41 <Namegduf> Well, yeah. That a single objective reality exists to begin with is one.
211 2011-07-31 05:47:01 <Namegduf> It's just not worth mentioning "that's only if there's a single objective reality".
212 2011-07-31 05:47:43 <Namegduf> You just have to accept that you can't prove there is and take it as a working assumption.
213 2011-07-31 05:48:00 <lfm> and 2 + 2 = 4 evn if some try to break it down into simpler steps
214 2011-07-31 05:48:14 <Namegduf> Math is weird
215 2011-07-31 05:48:56 <lfm> math may be the major source of my own weirdness.
216 2011-07-31 05:49:24 <Namegduf> That statement boils down to a tautology.
217 2011-07-31 05:49:52 <lfm> yum
218 2011-07-31 05:49:52 <Namegduf> + (given <definition of +>), with the values 2 and 2, gives 4
219 2011-07-31 05:50:07 <Namegduf> Math is basically an exercise in totally arbitrary definitions and numbers and their results
220 2011-07-31 05:50:34 <lfm> and the concepts of numbers and operations on them
221 2011-07-31 05:51:08 <Namegduf> The operations with totally arbitrary definitions, yes.
222 2011-07-31 05:51:17 <Namegduf> The numbers are similarly interestingly defined.
223 2011-07-31 05:51:19 <lfm> and the realy weird part is they seem so strongly linked to your objective reality
224 2011-07-31 05:51:22 <Namegduf> are you familiar with induction?
225 2011-07-31 05:51:26 <Namegduf> And yes, that is the weird part.
226 2011-07-31 05:52:21 <Namegduf> Math is basically Logic: The Game. You take definitions of what a set is, and of particular sets, and of operations using these sets, and you show they imply a bunch of things.
227 2011-07-31 05:52:56 <Namegduf> All of it with at least no connection to the real world in terms of definitions.
228 2011-07-31 05:53:07 <Namegduf> But things in the real world obey according to the resulting rules.
229 2011-07-31 05:55:16 <lfm> or is it that we only accept rules wich conform to our experience and resist rules which we dont have experience. (ie we resist the weirdness of quantum mechainics)
230 2011-07-31 05:55:32 <Namegduf> I'm unable to parse that sentence.
231 2011-07-31 05:56:03 <Namegduf> I don't have sufficient context to guess what actual operation is (or is not) being done by whom at "accept rules">
232 2011-07-31 05:57:05 <lfm> are we shaping our veiw of reality with math or is reality shaping or math to descripbe itself.
233 2011-07-31 05:57:38 <Namegduf> "reality shaping our math" is still too vague.
234 2011-07-31 05:58:20 <Namegduf> One of the major other assumptions is that reality is basically logical
235 2011-07-31 05:58:43 <Namegduf> Math being basically a giant exercise of logic, anything else logical which fits into the same reasoning used should spit out the same results
236 2011-07-31 05:59:22 <Namegduf> That's part of the way logic works (which is in itself an assumption but one that works as well as the others so far)
237 2011-07-31 05:59:44 <lfm> do we select matematic priciples which coincide with our veiw of reality and reject principles of math which might describe things just because we dont perceive those things (qm again)
238 2011-07-31 05:59:44 <Namegduf> The weird part is where you do really arcane things with math and find it has real world implications
239 2011-07-31 05:59:58 <Namegduf> QM has absolutely no relation to any of this.
240 2011-07-31 06:00:09 <Namegduf> Stop trying to crash physics and philosophy into each other
241 2011-07-31 06:00:12 <Namegduf> It doesn't work
242 2011-07-31 06:00:39 <lfm> physics is the main point of collision between math and reality in my veiw
243 2011-07-31 06:01:10 <Namegduf> It's one of the various applications of logic, including math, to reality.
244 2011-07-31 06:02:00 <Namegduf> The acceptance or lack thereof of any of its conclusions by the general populace say nothing about logic itself. In fact, nothing they do ever implies anything about logic.
245 2011-07-31 06:02:27 <Namegduf> QM does not contain mathematical principles
246 2011-07-31 06:02:32 <Namegduf> It contains theories about the universe
247 2011-07-31 06:02:59 <lfm> priciples of randomness and probability certainly are math
248 2011-07-31 06:03:20 <Namegduf> Which "principles"?
249 2011-07-31 06:03:27 <Namegduf> I've never heard of anything referred to by those names.
250 2011-07-31 06:04:16 <Namegduf> I've also never heard QM contain any definitions of anything relating to probability, merely assertions that the universe operates in a probablistic manner.
251 2011-07-31 06:05:17 <lfm> seems like you're saying particles dont act the way the QM guys think they act.
252 2011-07-31 06:05:33 <Namegduf> Er
253 2011-07-31 06:05:39 <Namegduf> I don't know how you got that from what I said
254 2011-07-31 06:05:47 <Namegduf> But no, that is not even related to anything I meant
255 2011-07-31 06:05:59 <Namegduf> I said that QM says absolutely squat all that relates to math.
256 2011-07-31 06:06:24 <Namegduf> Math makes definitions, and then shows what those definitions result in. Physics tries to figure out if parts of the universe meet those definitions, and thus are subject to the resulting logically derived rules.
257 2011-07-31 06:06:39 <lfm> when qm predicts the decay of a atom and we measure the radioactivity of a group of thos atoms we are doing math I think.
258 2011-07-31 06:06:47 <Namegduf> Whether a theory in physics is correct, or incorrect, or accepted, or not, has absolutely no principles for hte underlying mathematics.
259 2011-07-31 06:07:26 <Namegduf> You are USING mathematics, yes.
260 2011-07-31 06:07:57 <Namegduf> The correctness of your application of it says nothing at all about the mathematics
261 2011-07-31 06:08:14 <vragnaroda> *pities
262 2011-07-31 06:08:16 <vragnaroda> holy fuck
263 2011-07-31 06:08:37 <lfm> its just an accident the math works?
264 2011-07-31 06:09:04 <Namegduf> I don't see how that has anything to do with what I said either.
265 2011-07-31 06:09:10 <vragnaroda> how would you go about providing evidence for that one way or the other?
266 2011-07-31 06:09:16 <Namegduf> Could you like, read everything from "Math makes definitions" again
267 2011-07-31 06:09:20 <Namegduf> And pretend I repeated it?
268 2011-07-31 06:09:27 <Namegduf> Because I don't feel like spamming it
269 2011-07-31 06:10:16 <Namegduf> Math works because it's a really weirdass way of showing that anything meeting certain logical conditions has certain behaviour when subjected to certain operations as defined
270 2011-07-31 06:10:30 <Namegduf> And parts of the real world meet those conditions.
271 2011-07-31 06:11:04 <Namegduf> You can add and subtract amounts of physical objects because amounts of physical objects meet the mathematical definition of natural numbers, and thus are subject to properties proven about the natural numbers.
272 2011-07-31 06:11:15 <lfm> yes, that wierdass way indicates there is something mathematical at the very basis of our reality
273 2011-07-31 06:11:32 <Namegduf> Not really
274 2011-07-31 06:11:40 <Namegduf> It appearing to work assumes that our reality is logical
275 2011-07-31 06:11:50 <Namegduf> Logic being the underpinning of math, as well, and what it expresses
276 2011-07-31 06:12:11 <lfm> logic is just stripped down math
277 2011-07-31 06:12:45 <Namegduf> No, math is the application of logical principles given arbitrary definitions.
278 2011-07-31 06:13:14 <lfm> when you use phrases like "appearing to work" it seems you are saying it is some sort od illusion rather than reality?
279 2011-07-31 06:13:47 <Namegduf> No.
280 2011-07-31 06:13:49 <vragnaroda> no, it means he's not implying agency in the universe
281 2011-07-31 06:14:08 <Namegduf> I'm referring back to the whole "assuming things about the universe which certainly appear to be true" thing.
282 2011-07-31 06:14:36 <vragnaroda> Namegduf: it's turtles all the way down
283 2011-07-31 06:14:51 <lfm> and yet we dont seem to get very far assuming the opposite
284 2011-07-31 06:14:59 <Namegduf> What's your point?
285 2011-07-31 06:15:52 <lfm> maybe that math is more "real" than you want to admit
286 2011-07-31 06:16:16 <lfm> its not pure abstractions of philosophy
287 2011-07-31 06:16:21 <Namegduf> By what definition of "math", and what definition of "real"?
288 2011-07-31 06:16:37 <Namegduf> What physical law or state of reality are you suggesting exists?
289 2011-07-31 06:16:48 <lfm> definitions are regressions I'd rather avoid
290 2011-07-31 06:17:04 <vragnaroda> trololololololol
291 2011-07-31 06:17:15 <Namegduf> If you use words in ways that are not valid by their traditional meaning
292 2011-07-31 06:17:17 <Namegduf> And do not define them
293 2011-07-31 06:17:35 <Namegduf> YOu have not made a statement I can comprehend
294 2011-07-31 06:17:57 <lfm> math includes 2 + 2 = 4 but is not limited to just that
295 2011-07-31 06:18:00 <OneFixt> http://www.amazon.com/Where-Mathematics-Comes-Embodied-Brings/dp/0465037704
296 2011-07-31 06:18:44 <lfm> embodied?
297 2011-07-31 06:18:54 <OneFixt> yes, one that is inside the human body
298 2011-07-31 06:19:25 <OneFixt> this causes many mathematical principles to be based on metaphors with the body's senses
299 2011-07-31 06:19:29 <Namegduf> Simply put, math shows that given a definition of natural numbers, and given a definition of addition, it is a tautology that 2 + 2 = 4. THis is Logic.
300 2011-07-31 06:19:53 <Namegduf> It is applicable to the real world because things in the real world (seem to) meet the definition of natural numbers
301 2011-07-31 06:20:08 <Namegduf> And various things we do with them seem to meet the definition of addition
302 2011-07-31 06:20:23 <lfm> only seems?
303 2011-07-31 06:20:34 <Namegduf> You can't prove they do.
304 2011-07-31 06:20:44 <lfm> I can assert they do.
305 2011-07-31 06:20:50 <Namegduf> With certainty?
306 2011-07-31 06:21:01 <vragnaroda> you can assert that I am a pink elephant with wings, too.
307 2011-07-31 06:21:07 <lfm> as much certainty as you will allow me.
308 2011-07-31 06:21:39 <lfm> I wouldnt do that but on the internet nobody knows if you're a pink elephant with wings.
309 2011-07-31 06:21:58 <Namegduf> I will not allow total certainty, because you are making assumptions like your memory being basically functional.
310 2011-07-31 06:22:05 <vragnaroda> i'm not sure if that's particularly meaningful (a degree of certainty to which something is asserted)
311 2011-07-31 06:22:26 <Namegduf> It doesn't mean anything, anyway.
312 2011-07-31 06:22:38 <lfm> ah yes, degrees of certainty. there is some math for that too I beleive
313 2011-07-31 06:22:39 <Namegduf> I said "seem to" because I can't prove they do.
314 2011-07-31 06:22:50 <vragnaroda> How can you prove that you've been around longer than 5 seconds and God didn't magic you into your current life?
315 2011-07-31 06:23:04 <Namegduf> I love Last Thursdayism
316 2011-07-31 06:23:20 <lfm> I dont need to prove my own existance. I assert it. it is a premis.
317 2011-07-31 06:23:43 <vragnaroda> *premise
318 2011-07-31 06:23:53 <Namegduf> And thus everything based on it is based on that assumption, and thus capable of being wrong if that assumption is.
319 2011-07-31 06:24:18 <Namegduf> So, yes, "seems to". I cannot, technically speaking, prove that counts of physical objects behave like natural numbers do.
320 2011-07-31 06:24:23 <Namegduf> But they certainly "seem" to.
321 2011-07-31 06:24:28 <Namegduf> It's a sensible assumption that they do.
322 2011-07-31 06:24:46 <OneFixt> i really recommend that book =) it talks about all this
323 2011-07-31 06:25:02 <lfm> yes, everything I say is based on my existance. if in fact I do not exist then none of what I say has meaning. that gets us nowhere.
324 2011-07-31 06:25:04 <OneFixt> human mathematics is inextricably linked to human bodies and our current condition
325 2011-07-31 06:25:36 <Namegduf> Our application of it might be, but the principles and the reasons they work are logical.
326 2011-07-31 06:25:51 <lfm> OneFixt: um well then we would never get past base 10 and invent hexadecimal.
327 2011-07-31 06:25:57 <OneFixt> though i would say math is a language with a grammar, and like formal logic, you can be sure that your "sentense" makes grammatical sense if you put it together properly
328 2011-07-31 06:26:10 <Namegduf> lfm: Well, we're getting nowhere anywhere because every time I note that a statement about the universe is technically speaking just an assumption you go off gibbering about how I'm implying it isn't
329 2011-07-31 06:26:14 <OneFixt> lfm: mathematics arose out of metaphors with the senses
330 2011-07-31 06:26:25 <vragnaroda> lfm: base 10 is a rather recent development (proto-germanic had a base-5 number system until the romans ruined it)
331 2011-07-31 06:26:42 <OneFixt> numbers are not "bigger" or "smaller" - that's a physical metaphor
332 2011-07-31 06:26:49 <vragnaroda> this 10="natural human number base" claim is bullshit
333 2011-07-31 06:26:50 <Namegduf> That's stupid
334 2011-07-31 06:26:54 <lfm> OneFixt: I hope it has gotten beyond that to at least some extent.
335 2011-07-31 06:27:13 <Namegduf> Bigger and smaller mean different things when applied to numbers, that's all
336 2011-07-31 06:27:43 <Namegduf> The reasoning for porting that word to that second meaning probably WAS a physical metaphor
337 2011-07-31 06:27:44 <OneFixt> but the ideas come from our physical senses, that's how we came up with mathematical concepts
338 2011-07-31 06:28:12 <lfm> vragnaroda: ya, and the babylonians had a base 60 system. still 5 and multiples of 5 are based on our fingers as you say. what body part(s) are hex based on?
339 2011-07-31 06:28:22 <Namegduf> But we certainly have a definition of bigger and smaller in standard usage for numbers, and thus they are "bigger" or "smaller".
340 2011-07-31 06:28:37 <vragnaroda> lfm: so what about base-3 number systems in other languages?
341 2011-07-31 06:28:47 <OneFixt> the number line is a physical metaphor as well, so are sets (metaphors for physical containers and boundaries)
342 2011-07-31 06:28:57 <Namegduf> Um
343 2011-07-31 06:29:02 <Namegduf> Sets are about combinations of objects
344 2011-07-31 06:29:12 <Namegduf> Not about containers
345 2011-07-31 06:29:20 <OneFixt> take a container in space
346 2011-07-31 06:29:21 <Namegduf> They also only arose relatively recently and in formal mathematics
347 2011-07-31 06:29:25 <Namegduf> And are not used in everyday math
348 2011-07-31 06:29:27 <lfm> Namegduf: but why do we need to say that it "seems" 2 + 2 = 4 in the real world as in abstract math. can't we say it is?
349 2011-07-31 06:29:27 <OneFixt> it has a boundary, an inside and an outside
350 2011-07-31 06:29:43 <Namegduf> Sets have none of those things.
351 2011-07-31 06:29:48 <OneFixt> of course they do!
352 2011-07-31 06:29:52 <Namegduf> Nope.
353 2011-07-31 06:30:11 <Namegduf> Sets have no boundaries. You're confusing them with Venn diagrams, which are just a simple way to explain them using a physical metaphor.
354 2011-07-31 06:30:11 <OneFixt> they have direct metaphorical mappings to those things
355 2011-07-31 06:30:19 <Namegduf> Sets. Have. No. Boundaries.
356 2011-07-31 06:30:22 <Namegduf> They JUST have elements.
357 2011-07-31 06:30:23 <Namegduf> That's it.
358 2011-07-31 06:30:33 <Namegduf> They MAY, or MAY NOT, exist in a "universe" of other elements
359 2011-07-31 06:30:40 <Namegduf> They are quite capable of not being so
360 2011-07-31 06:30:45 <OneFixt> In topology and mathematics in general, the boundary of a subset S of a topological space X is the set of points which can be approached both from S and from the outside of S.
361 2011-07-31 06:30:51 <OneFixt> -wiki
362 2011-07-31 06:30:56 <Namegduf> Sets are not a topological space.
363 2011-07-31 06:31:25 <OneFixt> if a set did not have a "boundary" it would be everything, and could not be a subset
364 2011-07-31 06:31:27 <Namegduf> And topology has nothing to do with them at all, it's an entirely unrelated part of mathematics.
365 2011-07-31 06:31:33 <lfm> topology is sets tho
366 2011-07-31 06:31:33 <Namegduf> Wrong.
367 2011-07-31 06:31:52 <Namegduf> If a circle on a venn diagram did not have a boundary
368 2011-07-31 06:31:55 <lfm> sets of points
369 2011-07-31 06:31:55 <Namegduf> It would contain everything
370 2011-07-31 06:32:07 <OneFixt> that's what i said
371 2011-07-31 06:32:11 <Namegduf> But a set is not a circle on a venn diagram
372 2011-07-31 06:32:18 <Namegduf> It is not essentially a set of points, it is just a set.
373 2011-07-31 06:32:27 <Namegduf> And it just has a defined list of elements.
374 2011-07-31 06:32:28 <OneFixt> "X is the set of points which can be approached both from S and from the outside of S"
375 2011-07-31 06:32:35 <Namegduf> And that has no relevance.
376 2011-07-31 06:32:35 <OneFixt> x is the boundary
377 2011-07-31 06:32:48 <lfm> yes, sets are not topology but topology is sets
378 2011-07-31 06:33:05 <Namegduf> lfm: The second part of that sentence is not relevant.
379 2011-07-31 06:33:22 <Namegduf> (Also wrong. is and uses are different things)
380 2011-07-31 06:33:35 <Namegduf> OneFixt: Sets, in general, are not sets of points, and do not have boundaries.
381 2011-07-31 06:33:48 <lfm> not relevant to your point(s) ya, ok. but perhpas onefixt was trying to fork the topic
382 2011-07-31 06:34:03 <Namegduf> Some sets, used in specific areas of mathematics, like sets of continuous points in a space, may have boundaries.
383 2011-07-31 06:34:05 <Namegduf> But sets do not.
384 2011-07-31 06:34:07 <random_cat> in that case, sets are between bumps and spikes
385 2011-07-31 06:34:09 <Namegduf> Sets only have elements.
386 2011-07-31 06:34:14 <OneFixt> i'm just saying that all of our mathematics comes from some kind of metaphor with the physicality that we live in
387 2011-07-31 06:34:41 <Namegduf> And I'm saying, having studied mathematics, that that's stupid.
388 2011-07-31 06:34:48 <Namegduf> A lot of mathematical terms were invented by mathematicians
389 2011-07-31 06:34:56 <Namegduf> Who were doing logic with existing mathematical concepts
390 2011-07-31 06:35:05 <Namegduf> And needed a word for something created entirely through that process
391 2011-07-31 06:35:20 <OneFixt> when we have that, it's inherently difficult for the human mind to grasp
392 2011-07-31 06:35:22 <lfm> yes but set theory is just one way of trying to examine the basis of math, there are other ways which are just as valid.
393 2011-07-31 06:35:23 <Namegduf> Such things are usually the most unintuitive and painful to use, but they are a big part of mathematics proper.
394 2011-07-31 06:35:27 <OneFixt> because the mind needs a metaphor
395 2011-07-31 06:35:30 <Namegduf> It is inherently difficult, yes.
396 2011-07-31 06:35:40 <OneFixt> yep we a gree there
397 2011-07-31 06:35:47 <Namegduf> But it exists.
398 2011-07-31 06:35:48 <OneFixt> agree*
399 2011-07-31 06:36:14 <Namegduf> lfm: That sentence is entirely disconnected from anything else in the conversation...
400 2011-07-31 06:36:28 <OneFixt> anyway, i joined late - what is the actual topic being debated?
401 2011-07-31 06:36:56 <OneFixt> (although i'll maintain that every set must have a boundary)
402 2011-07-31 06:36:57 <Namegduf> lfm is saying that Quantum Mechanics is math and people are rejecting it, redefining math because they don't like it
403 2011-07-31 06:37:19 <OneFixt> hrm
404 2011-07-31 06:37:25 <Namegduf> OneFixt: Sets were part of the basic crap covered as a simple precursor to my studies.
405 2011-07-31 06:37:36 <Namegduf> They're just an arbitrary list of elements with no duplicates.
406 2011-07-31 06:37:49 <lfm> OneFixt: someone asked for the true story about bitcoin fees and I came out with the quote "True understanding destroys certainty."
407 2011-07-31 06:37:49 <Namegduf> I can explain that they can't always have boundaries intuitively, I think
408 2011-07-31 06:37:53 <Namegduf> Are you familiar with powersets?
409 2011-07-31 06:37:54 <OneFixt> yep, i'm not saying they're advanced, i did my share of mathematics study
410 2011-07-31 06:38:08 <Namegduf> The set of all subsets of a set?
411 2011-07-31 06:38:13 <OneFixt> yeah
412 2011-07-31 06:38:26 <OneFixt> btw the boundary could be the null set for some cases
413 2011-07-31 06:38:54 <lfm> the boundry is another set
414 2011-07-31 06:39:03 <OneFixt> naturally
415 2011-07-31 06:39:55 <Namegduf> Yeah, okay, I've changed my mind, I'm not even going to try to work out what this definition is. I'm just going to say that a set of concepts doesn't have a boundary.
416 2011-07-31 06:40:01 <Namegduf> And is a perfectly valid set.
417 2011-07-31 06:40:15 <Namegduf> Or a set of logical predicates, as used for a list of rules
418 2011-07-31 06:40:18 <OneFixt> ah i see what you're saying
419 2011-07-31 06:40:21 <OneFixt> hmm
420 2011-07-31 06:40:26 <lfm> perhaps you can define the boundry as that which distinguises members of the set from non-menbers?
421 2011-07-31 06:40:42 <Namegduf> That's the rule construction of a set and is one way to build a set, but not the only way
422 2011-07-31 06:40:46 <lfm> *never mind the typos
423 2011-07-31 06:40:48 <Namegduf> Not all sets are defined thay way
424 2011-07-31 06:40:50 <Namegduf> *that way
425 2011-07-31 06:41:03 <OneFixt> yes, i was talking about sets of numbers
426 2011-07-31 06:41:21 <Namegduf> That's a fairly limited subset of sets
427 2011-07-31 06:41:32 <OneFixt> if you have a set [orange, penguin, 5, moon] ... yeah
428 2011-07-31 06:42:03 <lfm> some sets can only be defined by enumeration
429 2011-07-31 06:42:33 <Namegduf> Anyways, my point was that mathematics was used in Quantum Mechanics, but QM says nothing about mathematics.
430 2011-07-31 06:43:05 <lfm> ie the shortest boundry or definition includes the set itself
431 2011-07-31 06:43:06 <Namegduf> Also that mathematics isn't something accepted or rejected. It's just the application of logic to arbitrary definitions.
432 2011-07-31 06:43:31 <Namegduf> Stop making up your own definition of boundary that has nothing to do with any existing definitions in order to try to win an argument
433 2011-07-31 06:43:31 <OneFixt> Namegduf: agreed on that
434 2011-07-31 06:44:01 <Namegduf> It doesn't work if it wasn't the definition of boundary used in the original claim
435 2011-07-31 06:44:19 <OneFixt> but intuitively i would say that a boundary must exist if there is something "inside" the set and "outside" the set
436 2011-07-31 06:44:22 <lfm> actually there are many examples of "rejected" math, non-euclidian geometry for instance was rejected for ages.
437 2011-07-31 06:44:29 <Namegduf> OneFixt: Not all things have "position"
438 2011-07-31 06:44:42 <Namegduf> OneFixt: And not all sets are a continuous region, amongst things which do have positions
439 2011-07-31 06:44:48 <OneFixt> but a set necessarily defines something included in it
440 2011-07-31 06:45:00 <Namegduf> Yes, but those somethings do not essentially have position
441 2011-07-31 06:45:07 <OneFixt> i'm not talking about position but about inclusion/exclusion
442 2011-07-31 06:45:13 <OneFixt> then a boundary takes on a different meaning, yes
443 2011-07-31 06:45:23 <lfm> the set of all things without definitions?
444 2011-07-31 06:45:33 <OneFixt> i'm approaching it froma cognitive perspective, not from any particular branch of math
445 2011-07-31 06:45:43 <OneFixt> from a*
446 2011-07-31 06:45:52 <Namegduf> YOu're going to have to write out a definition of "boundary"
447 2011-07-31 06:46:21 <Namegduf> But at the very least a boundary is not part of the definition of a set, and is not part of set theory.
448 2011-07-31 06:46:36 <lfm> OneFixt: we can have a set of say emotions without defining the emotions
449 2011-07-31 06:47:08 <Namegduf> If you come up with a definition of "boundary" that is valid for all sets, then it is a tautology that it exists for all sets
450 2011-07-31 06:47:12 <Namegduf> But that says nothing
451 2011-07-31 06:47:33 <Namegduf> It is not a term used in set theory proper
452 2011-07-31 06:48:01 <OneFixt> yes, i'm not arguing that it is
453 2011-07-31 06:48:14 <OneFixt> just talking about the concept of boundary and that it is necessarily in the background when we think of a set
454 2011-07-31 06:48:31 <Namegduf> I don't agree, and have never thought of it with sets.
455 2011-07-31 06:49:03 <OneFixt> a background that we don't think of
456 2011-07-31 06:49:06 <OneFixt> or notice
457 2011-07-31 06:49:20 <OneFixt> just a metaphor of inclusion/exclusion
458 2011-07-31 06:49:23 <vragnaroda> i'm not sure if that's meaningful
459 2011-07-31 06:49:27 <OneFixt> but anyway, that's a side argument
460 2011-07-31 06:49:31 <Namegduf> I'm sure it's not meaningful
461 2011-07-31 06:49:37 <Namegduf> But okay, if we can move on, let's do so
462 2011-07-31 06:49:50 <OneFixt> as for math, it's a language that follows rules
463 2011-07-31 06:49:55 <OneFixt> very much like formal logic
464 2011-07-31 06:50:04 <Namegduf> More, it's the making of rules and the logical reasoning with them.
465 2011-07-31 06:50:06 <OneFixt> and very much not like an ambiguous language
466 2011-07-31 06:50:12 <lfm> I agree with Namegduf on that we use boundries to show sets in some representations but they are not an essential part of the concept.
467 2011-07-31 06:50:32 <Namegduf> My original point was that math works in the real world because it's like templated logic.
468 2011-07-31 06:50:44 <OneFixt> yes i agree, they are not essential to actually doing the math, they're just something involved in the metaphor
469 2011-07-31 06:50:48 <Namegduf> Anything meeting the generic definitions used in math obeys the rules proven for them.
470 2011-07-31 06:50:57 <OneFixt> i'd agree with that
471 2011-07-31 06:51:05 <Namegduf> It works in the real world because the real world is logical.
472 2011-07-31 06:51:16 <OneFixt> although we cannot fully prove that without being "god"
473 2011-07-31 06:51:23 <OneFixt> because we cannot prove causality
474 2011-07-31 06:51:27 <Namegduf> We can't, technically, prove that, no, which was one of my original statements.
475 2011-07-31 06:51:57 <OneFixt> A -> B  could actually be C -> A and C -> B at the same time, and we'd never know
476 2011-07-31 06:51:58 <Namegduf> We can't prove that the real world obeys logic, and we can't prove any particular aspects of it meet any particular mathematical definitions.
477 2011-07-31 06:52:41 <OneFixt> yup
478 2011-07-31 06:52:44 <Namegduf> The parts of math that don't seem to fit the real world, we just don't claim that the real world behaves like.
479 2011-07-31 06:53:12 <OneFixt> or perhaps we just haven't found the application yet
480 2011-07-31 06:53:25 <Namegduf> The crazy comes from really long weird chains of operations involving other defined things partway through, which still result in conclusions for anything meeting a given definition.
481 2011-07-31 06:53:32 <Namegduf> Which work.
482 2011-07-31 06:53:45 <OneFixt> yep
483 2011-07-31 06:53:51 <Namegduf> I tend to call those "voodoo" but it's still logic, really.
484 2011-07-31 06:53:51 <OneFixt> that's the beauty of it, too
485 2011-07-31 06:54:02 <lfm> Namegduf: you're constricting what is provable unessearily. in practise we prove things about reality and its mathematical nature all the time.
486 2011-07-31 06:54:14 <Namegduf> We don't prove, we assume.
487 2011-07-31 06:54:17 <Namegduf> And that works fine.
488 2011-07-31 06:54:25 <OneFixt> nah you can't prove anything about reality unless you prove what consciousness is
489 2011-07-31 06:54:42 <Namegduf> You can't prove anything without assumptions.
490 2011-07-31 06:54:48 <Namegduf> It's just how logic works.
491 2011-07-31 06:54:52 <OneFixt> you'd have to be outside of yourself to do that
492 2011-07-31 06:55:12 <Namegduf> You prove A -> B, but you can't prove A, and if you're really picky you can't prove that the -> bit, the logic, works either
493 2011-07-31 06:55:25 <OneFixt> yep
494 2011-07-31 06:55:39 <Namegduf> Logic is either circular, in which case it says nothing (just, it's true if it's true), or it says one assumption implies a result.
495 2011-07-31 06:56:00 <Namegduf> That's very useful- you can show some obvious, agreed assumptions mean some useful things
496 2011-07-31 06:56:09 <lfm> we assume gravity works or we accept that gravity works. then we should be able to accpet that the acceleration of gravity follows the math. if it isnt proven to your definition then you are using a different idea of proof to what everyone else uses.
497 2011-07-31 06:56:12 <Namegduf> But no, you can't prove anything independent of axioms.
498 2011-07-31 06:56:12 <OneFixt> and when you dig deep enough, philosophy, math, religion, and any science takes you to the same question of what is real and what is consciousness
499 2011-07-31 06:56:34 <Namegduf> It's why arguing with a theist is a waste of time
500 2011-07-31 06:56:42 <lfm> true
501 2011-07-31 06:56:42 <Namegduf> They have different axioms to you
502 2011-07-31 06:56:56 <Namegduf> Short of showing them self-contradictory
503 2011-07-31 06:57:04 <Namegduf> There's very little that could render them invalid
504 2011-07-31 06:57:15 <OneFixt> i've found that theists and atheists generally disagree only on the definitions of words and concepts
505 2011-07-31 06:57:18 <OneFixt> they just don't realize it
506 2011-07-31 06:57:22 <lfm> Namegduf: nope self-contradictions don't bother theists! grin
507 2011-07-31 06:57:27 <Namegduf> Hah
508 2011-07-31 06:57:50 <OneFixt> since we're speaking in an ambigious language, we argue the existence of "god"
509 2011-07-31 06:57:56 <OneFixt> which is not a very meaningful argument
510 2011-07-31 06:58:08 <Namegduf> Oh, there's some name for that.
511 2011-07-31 06:58:42 <OneFixt> but there's a definition for "god" which agrees with both the beliefs of theists and atheists quite well
512 2011-07-31 06:58:43 <lfm> one man's delusion is another man's faith.
513 2011-07-31 06:58:53 <Namegduf> Ignosticism
514 2011-07-31 06:58:55 <OneFixt> nah, i think we miss the point when we argue about this
515 2011-07-31 06:59:11 <OneFixt> the point of religion and of science is really similar, to learn about the world
516 2011-07-31 06:59:15 <Namegduf> The theological position that before the existence of a god can be evaluated, you have to finish defining it first.
517 2011-07-31 06:59:40 <Namegduf> What is a god, what would it existing mean, etc.
518 2011-07-31 07:00:05 <Namegduf> Which is technically true, but I hold that you can't prove it anyway due to the impossibility of unconditional proof
519 2011-07-31 07:00:09 <OneFixt> perhaps by simply acknowledging that we, as humans, cannot prove our own existence is very similar to what a religious person believes when he thinks that god is "greater etc." than a human
520 2011-07-31 07:00:14 <OneFixt> or something outside of the human world
521 2011-07-31 07:00:37 <OneFixt> or "we cannot know god"
522 2011-07-31 07:00:40 <OneFixt> similar idea
523 2011-07-31 07:01:20 <lfm> but they have a personal relationship with him anyway
524 2011-07-31 07:01:28 <OneFixt> as do we all, since we exist
525 2011-07-31 07:01:41 <OneFixt> but it doesn't have to be "him"
526 2011-07-31 07:01:48 <Namegduf> OneFixt: That's bad reasoning; there's "god" the supposed entity and "god" the concept
527 2011-07-31 07:01:52 <Namegduf> Concepts by definition can be defined
528 2011-07-31 07:02:04 <Namegduf> They basically ARE definitions
529 2011-07-31 07:02:21 <lfm> and gods the history
530 2011-07-31 07:02:21 <Namegduf> Ones not in words, often, but they are things conceived of.
531 2011-07-31 07:03:11 <Namegduf> We can argue the existence/non-existence of a well-defined concept. You can talk about things outside of our ability to conceive, but the existence of such things is in itself conceivable
532 2011-07-31 07:03:15 <OneFixt> i would venture to say that most theists and atheists misunderstand what implied by "god"
533 2011-07-31 07:03:23 <OneFixt> is implied*
534 2011-07-31 07:04:01 <OneFixt> there are also things which we cannot possibly put into words but ones that we can experience
535 2011-07-31 07:04:11 <lfm> If I say "I beleive there are no gods." do I really need to understand them all?
536 2011-07-31 07:04:36 <OneFixt> i think that statement is talking simply about the "mytical" gods, the beings from stories
537 2011-07-31 07:04:42 <Namegduf> No, but I'd be interested to know what you mean by "believe"
538 2011-07-31 07:04:44 <OneFixt> and it's a rather shallow and clear statement
539 2011-07-31 07:05:20 <lfm> well thats all I mean when I say I am an atheist
540 2011-07-31 07:05:55 <OneFixt> i've found that there's a trap that atheists fall into - when they disagree with religion they tend to throw out "god" with the religious ideas
541 2011-07-31 07:06:08 <OneFixt> but "god" has nothing to do with religion or mythology
542 2011-07-31 07:06:11 <wumpus> why wouldn't they?
543 2011-07-31 07:06:13 <nhodges> how do i identify the from/to from this? http://blockexplorer.com/rawtx/c73d94beca698a076c352bb96416932a4d52dd227e89f5fd6341372d6f993ae1
544 2011-07-31 07:06:15 <nhodges> or is it not possible
545 2011-07-31 07:07:29 <OneFixt> there are certain things that any individual can discover about the universe which are not taught in schools or clearly defined in books
546 2011-07-31 07:07:46 <OneFixt> and when you dig deep enough, you become at a loss for words to describe those things
547 2011-07-31 07:07:54 <lfm> nhodges: do a base58 eencode of the "out" keys to see where the bitcoins are going to. look up the "in" transactions to see where they are coming from.
548 2011-07-31 07:08:17 <OneFixt> so to convey them to other people you have to talk "about" those things, and it gets messy and confusing for someone who hasn't experienced them
549 2011-07-31 07:08:25 <wumpus> why would that need the name "god"?
550 2011-07-31 07:08:33 <OneFixt> so if the listener takes your words literally or misinterprets them... you get a mess, like many religious interpretations
551 2011-07-31 07:08:39 <OneFixt> it doesn't need the name
552 2011-07-31 07:08:48 <OneFixt> it needs no name at all, of course
553 2011-07-31 07:09:14 <OneFixt> but in my personal definition god is a fitting name for those things, when used properly
554 2011-07-31 07:09:24 <nhodges> out->value base58 to get wallet ids (send and receive), i got that far, but then
555 2011-07-31 07:09:24 <OneFixt> just as a word
556 2011-07-31 07:09:28 <lfm> I think when I say "I beleive there are no gods." it includes your abstract ideas of "god" (lower case) as well.
557 2011-07-31 07:09:30 <nhodges> i look at in->prev_out ?
558 2011-07-31 07:09:31 <vragnaroda> this One True Definition That No One Uses is a bit odd
559 2011-07-31 07:09:43 <wumpus> isn't spiritualism a better word?
560 2011-07-31 07:09:51 <OneFixt> sure, that's a good word for it, too
561 2011-07-31 07:09:55 <Namegduf> Did someone mention Wicca?
562 2011-07-31 07:10:00 <OneFixt> though some people have different definitions of it as well
563 2011-07-31 07:10:24 <OneFixt> i'm trying to say that it's possible to cross over from intellectual knowledge to direct experience, which cannot be put into words
564 2011-07-31 07:10:32 <lfm> nhodges: ya, the prev_out is a hash of another transaction that is the source(s) of the bitocins for this transaction.
565 2011-07-31 07:10:35 <wumpus> right, but in my eyes 'god' imples an all-powerful being, using the word for something else is.. strange
566 2011-07-31 07:10:37 <OneFixt> i can never actually explain to you in words what i mean by "god" or "spirituality"
567 2011-07-31 07:11:03 <Namegduf> How about pictures?
568 2011-07-31 07:11:18 <vragnaroda> lol
569 2011-07-31 07:11:24 <lfm> nhodges: the prev_out -> n number is the output number in that previous transaction
570 2011-07-31 07:11:27 <nhodges> so pretty much i have to verify which wallet existed in the last transaction in this bitcoin trail/chain
571 2011-07-31 07:11:51 <lfm> nhodges: ya you kinda do.
572 2011-07-31 07:11:59 <OneFixt> nope, no way to show someone other than "being" that other person
573 2011-07-31 07:12:01 <nhodges> what if for some reason they were both in the last transaction?
574 2011-07-31 07:12:09 <nhodges> eg: both were paid out from eligius
575 2011-07-31 07:12:13 <nhodges> in a generated block
576 2011-07-31 07:12:16 <nhodges> ?
577 2011-07-31 07:12:18 <nhodges> could that happen?
578 2011-07-31 07:12:26 <nhodges> and would there be a way to differentiate
579 2011-07-31 07:12:53 <OneFixt> the funny thing is that people who have a certain awareness do not need to talk about it to others who have it
580 2011-07-31 07:13:09 <lfm> nhodges: the hash would be the same, the "n" number would index each particular output value
581 2011-07-31 07:13:10 <OneFixt> just like sighted people both see that the sky is blue (if we ignore obvious colorblindness etc.)
582 2011-07-31 07:13:52 <OneFixt> so if a person really experiences "god" (let's not define it here), then another person who experiences "god" knows exactly what it is
583 2011-07-31 07:13:57 <OneFixt> and they both know that they know
584 2011-07-31 07:14:03 <OneFixt> but no way to convey that to someone who doesn't know
585 2011-07-31 07:14:07 <nhodges> cool
586 2011-07-31 07:14:11 <Namegduf> I had some god brownies once
587 2011-07-31 07:14:13 <nhodges> i think i got my head wrapped around it now
588 2011-07-31 07:14:14 <nhodges> thanks much :)
589 2011-07-31 07:14:17 <Namegduf> They were great
590 2011-07-31 07:14:28 <lfm> nhodges: you're welcome, have fun...
591 2011-07-31 07:14:33 <nhodges> lol
592 2011-07-31 07:14:50 <OneFixt> Namegduf: can't relate to that, but i'm sure someone here can
593 2011-07-31 07:14:53 <nhodges> already am, i always have fun :D
594 2011-07-31 07:16:17 <vragnaroda> Namegduf: brownies are good
595 2011-07-31 07:16:35 <lfm> brownies live under mushrooms
596 2011-07-31 07:18:01 <lfm> sez so in my monster manual
597 2011-07-31 07:19:21 <Graet> i agree with OneFixt , and I like brownies !
598 2011-07-31 07:19:23 <Graet> :D
599 2011-07-31 07:46:32 <random_cat> i'm curious as to why wumpus thinks a god should be all powerful
600 2011-07-31 07:54:47 <wumpus> well yeah I guess that isn't strictly neccesary...
601 2011-07-31 07:57:13 <wumpus> it's one of thse words that means a different thing to everyone, I guess
602 2011-07-31 07:57:40 <RaffleBot> Remember, type @rafflebot to play and be sure to join #rafflebit for a live feed.
603 2011-07-31 08:03:35 <josephcp> can you not spam rafflebot in bitoin-dev please, it's not bitcoin development related
604 2011-07-31 08:04:53 <coingenuity> josephcp i'm testing something, didn't mean to spam him :)
605 2011-07-31 08:05:17 <josephcp> can you test somewhere else? it definitely isn't bitcoin development related
606 2011-07-31 08:05:30 <marf> kick this bot
607 2011-07-31 08:05:42 <coingenuity> uh, developing a bitcoin app isn't bitcoin related? okay josephcp
608 2011-07-31 08:06:00 <josephcp> coingenuity: advertising gambling isn't bitcoin development related
609 2011-07-31 08:06:16 <coingenuity> lmfao
610 2011-07-31 08:06:18 <josephcp> if you need help linking your bot to the bitcoin app that is more than welcome here
611 2011-07-31 08:06:38 <coingenuity> i'm not advertising gambling, dude, i'm working on the service my users requested
612 2011-07-31 08:06:49 <coingenuity> so they can see what the pot is on rafflebit
613 2011-07-31 08:06:57 <coingenuity> and i'm testing the multichannel functionality right now
614 2011-07-31 08:07:01 <coingenuity> aka DEVELOPING
615 2011-07-31 08:07:14 <josephcp> can you test on another channel please?
616 2011-07-31 08:07:28 <coingenuity> so don't tell me i don't belong in bitcoin-dev to develop, when you've been talking about religion in the dev room for 2 hours
617 2011-07-31 08:07:33 <josephcp> this isn't a bot testing channel, you can have it join a channel like #bot-testing or something like that
618 2011-07-31 08:07:58 <coingenuity> no, i can't
619 2011-07-31 08:08:04 <coingenuity> because i'm testing multichannel functionality
620 2011-07-31 08:08:10 <marf> lol
621 2011-07-31 08:08:12 <coingenuity> but i'm done arguing with you josephchildporn
622 2011-07-31 08:08:13 <xelister> coingenuity: I will develop my boot in your ass if you continue to spam all bitcoin channels
623 2011-07-31 08:08:15 <coingenuity> :)
624 2011-07-31 08:08:18 <josephcp> look, i'm trying to be as polite as possible
625 2011-07-31 08:08:22 <wumpus> I don't see josephcp in the religion discussion at all
626 2011-07-31 08:08:26 <coingenuity> i'm done with the dev process anyway
627 2011-07-31 08:08:33 <josephcp> it's obvious you're not testing multichannel functionality, you're adveritising here
628 2011-07-31 08:08:37 <Rabbit67890> ...
629 2011-07-31 08:08:39 <josephcp> just stop it ok?
630 2011-07-31 08:08:48 <coingenuity> LOL, dude
631 2011-07-31 08:08:48 <Rabbit67890> he was testing the bot
632 2011-07-31 08:08:49 <coingenuity> are you kidding
633 2011-07-31 08:09:07 <xelister> coingenuity: we dont care about your fucking bot, go jump off a clif
634 2011-07-31 08:09:19 <xelister> take rabbit with you
635 2011-07-31 08:09:26 <Rabbit67890> ...
636 2011-07-31 08:09:28 <wumpus> but  I agree that this channel is not for testing bots, doing it once was ok but please don't do it again
637 2011-07-31 08:09:33 <Rabbit67890> i was just watching and just saw it
638 2011-07-31 08:10:18 <coingenuity> like i said, done arguing with you
639 2011-07-31 08:10:33 <coingenuity> go back to talking about god, or masturbation, or anime, or whatever you do in here
640 2011-07-31 08:10:47 <josephcp> coingenuity: ok thanks, can you please have RaffleBot /leave this channel? Thanks!
641 2011-07-31 08:11:03 <Rabbit67890> lol masterbstion
642 2011-07-31 08:11:14 <xelister> I think his bot can stay if he doesnt flood
643 2011-07-31 08:12:15 <coingenuity> lol, the bot isn't meant to flood xelister you troll
644 2011-07-31 08:12:30 <coingenuity> it's meant to PM users when they talk to it
645 2011-07-31 08:13:16 <coingenuity> in fact....i dumped all the main functionality from IRC dealing with channels for the most part, since the bot interacts with users one-on-one
646 2011-07-31 08:13:50 <josephcp> right, so it's not necessary for the bot to be in this channel, and it can stay in #bitcoin, correct?
647 2011-07-31 08:14:25 <coingenuity> nope, you're wrong
648 2011-07-31 08:15:30 <josephcp> ok well we're never going to be in agreement here, just a heads up that you're violating social convention by doing something like this. the channel wouldn't work if we had 100 people like you with 100 rafflebots. bye.
649 2011-07-31 08:16:08 <coingenuity> you sound like the lady who told me i was breaking "starbucks law" a couple days ago
650 2011-07-31 08:16:14 <Rabbit67890> lol
651 2011-07-31 08:17:47 <lfm> the old slipery slope argument, if one happens then what happens if there is too many.
652 2011-07-31 08:18:08 <lfm> just cuz one happens doesnt always mean there will be too many later
653 2011-07-31 08:19:14 <coingenuity> plus, having 100 people with 100 rafflebots would mean that natural selection would kill the weak and promote the strong, thusly leading to overall better QOS for btc irc
654 2011-07-31 08:19:25 <coingenuity> :D
655 2011-07-31 08:19:39 <wumpus> right...
656 2011-07-31 08:19:42 <josephcp> lfm: it's not a slippery slope argument, he's still violating social convention
657 2011-07-31 08:19:53 <wumpus> too much philosophy too little coding here :p
658 2011-07-31 08:19:58 <coingenuity> lmfao
659 2011-07-31 08:20:13 <coingenuity> i like how people get mad about the only coding going on at the moment, too
660 2011-07-31 08:20:13 <josephcp> lfm: would be appropriate for me to advertise a bitcoin website every hour on the hour here? that is functionally similar to what the rafflebot is doing
661 2011-07-31 08:20:17 <wumpus> go write unit tests for bitcoind if you're bored
662 2011-07-31 08:21:03 <coingenuity> hey josephchildporn, have you used rafflebot?
663 2011-07-31 08:21:06 <coingenuity> do you know what it does?