h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

It will be edited if someone yikeses it, if one of us finds it offensive. Some postings seem to vanish anyway. And you'll get an email about it.

As an ACE I'm meant to discourage it.

Naughty boy.

Sure I'd know, 'cause Stones is Rock and Abba is Pop ...

That's a good point. At least imagination not necessarily is reality, as, for example, the special theory of relativity demonstrates. People before Einstein thought that if a body accelerates and accelerates more, it will travel faster than light after a certain time... But that's wrong, even if it's what people imagine.

So at least I can only say that I don't like the idea of not existing from my state of existence... Which, at least might be caused by that people are afraid of what they don't know.

Stones win hands down. Easily.

Damn, I'm glad imagination isn't reality. It'd be exciting and terrifying. In some ways better (for me, at least) and in others a lot worse.

Fear of the unknown. Hit the nail on the head.

Yes, Descartes DID disprove maths using logic, and you've hit the nail on the head with the fact that this undermines it all. However, he (pretty feebly, in my mind) digs himself out by saying something is probably true if he has a clear and distinct idea of it. It's a pretty common philosophical mistake; Wittgenstein did the same thing when he wrote a book denying that language works.

Yeah. People rave about Descartes but much of his stuff is feeble. I really don't like that clear and distinct business.

Me neither. But you shouldn't extrapolate from that to "Descartes was dumb." The first person clever enough to ask a new type question usually gets the answer wrong. Not to mention there was no free speech back then, and a wrong word could seriously shorten your life expectancy.

Noggin

No, of course not. He was on fire with scepticism.

I don't like his dualism though. But his version of the ontological argument deserves examination in its own right.

there
are
no
righteous
wars

Very true...
?

Worried?
Who Worried?
Wouldn't be? Worried?

Did you see that thing on yesterday about what we got wrong in Iraq?

To save you two hours of viewing: everything.

Um... sure...

There are, however, necessary wars.

"Sure" was to Mal's post,

Not suggesting the war in Iraq is necessary.
And it's only necessary on oen side anyway, the defense.

Show me a necessary war and I'll show you a private schedule behind it.
Iraq? Well, the thing about Iraq is - aw, heck. There's a hell of a good universe next door - why not?

Necessary?
Offense?
You know, AK, okay, there's necessary and there's necessary.
If, big if, quantum mechanics is correct, there is no necessary. Some particles can have "nonlocal" - ie, nonrelated in space or time- effects, or even nonlocal causes. If A then B then C then D happened, chronogically speaking, it seems that A wouldn't only effect B and through B, C, and so on - it'd affect D, and be effected by C, and so on and so on. Point? Conclusion? You're looking in the wrong place here, pal.

um... okay...

well, not a necessary war, but necessary... battle...
um. I've confused myself. No it's not necessary to invade somebody, but isn't it necessary to defend yourself?
Not quantum-stuff-necessary(unnecessary, or whatever), just... necessary.

btw what does Ezra mean?

Indeed, what's in an Ezra?
Some say it's named after great poet Ezra Pound. Some say it's simple "arze" backwards. Others still go-
-{ahem}-

poot.

Me, I say it's a combination of all of them. An arzepoundoot. If you will.

If no one attacked, no one would have to defend. Obviously. Anyway, you miss the logical point. But once again you're looking in the wrong place for it. (/\&lt

well, yes...

Okay, then, I retract my comment. There you go.

Sorry. I'm just feeling a
[little] surreal.
s_
_c
r_
_e
w_
_i
n_
_g
with
_____________you