by Max Barry

Latest Forum Topics

Advertisement

Search

Search

[+] Advanced...

Author:

Region:

Sort:

«12. . .3,2933,2943,2953,2963,2973,2983,299. . .8,7238,724»

Sneyland maybe this Android can serve another purpose. We do need a third moose farm hand....

not sure if it's able to do basic labor work? :/

Also, we're running low on moose meat again. We need to start promoting love again. Those Rocky and Bullwinkle moviez aren't helping.

Treadwellia and Loftegen 2

Kappan wrote:I wish someone would make another RP that I can tag along with, 'cause I'm currently creatively bankrupt.

u wanna be a moose farm hand? It may involving milking.....

yea...

Treadwellia and Loftegen 2

Zapatian workers state

Leonism wrote:Welcome back to the living world!

I have a truly revolutionary idea:

How about stay in the region where I'm spawned for once instead of going off to some dustbin?

Treadwellia, Loftegen 2, and Leonism

Zapatian workers state

You guys make me jump through hoops though just to get started, I've got to say. I'm still not done registering myself properly as a wage slave.

Loftegen 2

Zapatian workers state

My favorite music is...

ANYTHING BUT THE LOOP ON THE FORUM WEBSITE

Your imaginary friend and Loftegen 2

Greetings!
*Sips Apple cider*

Treadwellia, Your imaginary friend, and Loftegen 2

Zapatian workers state

Although I said I would do it tomorrow, I just decided to fill out the citizenship app now. Soon is time to overthrow capitalism from within!

Your imaginary friend and Loftegen 2

Your imaginary friend wrote:GOP has decided to visit Kappan because she wishes to gain insight into its particular religion and relevant customs... She's spent most of her life in her home country and is at the moment facing a bit of an identity crisis and wishes to resolve it in travel. In true Imaginary fashion, she first talks to everyone she knows who is knowledgeable about Kappan in order to perfect the language and understand its culture better. Then she gathers together a reasonable wardrobe for a 16 year old in Kappan (which is what exactly?) and sets off towards the country in a small sailing vessel along the coast of Custadia, sending a letter in advance to Pope Saul XVI of her decision to visit his country.

Deep within the recesses of the inner sanctum of Devotion, the rhymic clicking of Derby shoes on hard tile resounds to indicate the approach of the small framed messenger. The dim lights of a few candles mask the expression of the pope, much to the dismay of the poor messenger. "Holy father," the messenger began, before waiting for the Pope to raise his gaze up. When the great man finally lifted his chin, the echo borne of the messenger's voice was still resounding. Coupled with the ominous lighting and the hard stares of towering guards, the tension in the room unnerved the messenger before he could even relay his information.

In a bid to leave as soon as possible, the messenger nervously stammered out his report, repeating himself. "Holy father, the nation of Your imaginary friend has requested a visit to our glorious nation. Under the orders of cardinal Gabriel, I have delivered this note directly to your holiness". The messenger nervously shuffled through his courier bag, inadvertently crumpling the letter in the process, before pulling the paper out and stepping closer to the throne to deliver it to the pope's waiting hands.

As the letter left his hand, the messenger looked up, in a bout of courage, to discern the pope's expression. In an instant, the atmosphere changed.

"Guests? How long has it been since an important foreigner has stepped on our shores? Glorious days!" Saul beamed as he stood from his chair, forcing the messenger to quickly step back in shock. 'His Holiness' leaped from his chair with astonishing dexterity for a man who was almost a centenarian. All of a sudden, the room seemed a lot brighter. But before the messenger could even comment on the change, the pope made for the exit, with two guards following silently in perfect sync behind him. Just as soon as he had begun moving, he quickly came to a stop and turned to face the messenger, and indicated with his hand for him to follow.

"These two aren't much for conversation see," he pointed his thumb towards the two guards and chuckled softly. Despite the heavy helmets both guards wore, he could almost see them roll their eyes. "Would you mind traveling with me to Ira to welcome our guest? Oh, sorry, could you give me your name too?". The sheer impulsiveness, joviality, and borderline comical behavior made it incredibly difficult for the messenger to comprehend that this, in fact, was the pope. Yet he projected an almost irrefutable air of authority around him. "Your Holiness, all you need do is ask. My name is Dominick,".

Treadwellia, Your imaginary friend, Loftegen 2, and Leonism

page=WA_past_resolution/id=467/council=1

this some bullshit forcing one opinions on another is a violation of freedom. not to mention it is a mental illness because unless you are born with both body parts you cant chose what u are. its all in these sick peoples heads and excepting it is as crazy as allowing a serial killer to kill because he "identifies" as a murderer. nanbaric needs help with legislation perhaps our region leader can draft up a proposal to remove this resolution

Loftegen 2

its legislation like this that makes nanbaric want to leave the wa for good

Loftegen 2

Your imaginary friend

Zapatian workers state wrote:Although I said I would do it tomorrow, I just decided to fill out the citizenship app now. Soon is time to overthrow capitalism from within!

Oh dear, someone's finally come to break through the corruption that is LazCorp, eek.

Anyway, welcome back to the game! You seem cool... except that you don't like Old Town Road by Lil Nas X?? Gah, what's wrong with ya man? =P <3

--

I'll respond to your post later today Kappan ^-^ Gotta go do breakfast things and some hw first.

Treadwellia and Loftegen 2

Currently taking bets in the TSP Fight Club and Toy Emporium!

page=poll/p=146373

Cianlandia, Your imaginary friend, and Loftegen 2

144 days of Treadwellia!

That's gross. :-)

Auphelia, Mzeusia, and Loftegen 2

Shout out to all our nations who just got refounded.

Treadwellia, Your imaginary friend, Loftegen 2, and Leonism

Morpegoe

Aigania wrote:

Secretarial marginalia: His Holiness Fra Liberatus intends for this papal bull to be the last extended word on this matter, as he is quite preoccupied in crushing heretics and schismatics within the Moriphygian realm. You are welcome to offer a response, but His Holiness cannot promise you further commentary.

1) You err gravely here, namely by the petitio principii fallacy.
[Bold statement for a Monotheistic apologist using the Prime Mover argument]
You seek the conclusion that physical, instrumental causes are the sole causes of effects--to the exclusion of a Prime Mover , yet you argue as your first premise that all effects are the products of one of such instrumental causes.
[Nope, not even close. You see you suffer from epistemological closure. You are seeking an equivalent to a monotheistic cause of all of a God in a secular worldview. Did you really expect that I will answer something like the Big Bang as the origin of the Universe and hence the equivalent?]
No. You see, you have a limited worldview. Simplifying there are several meta frames of reference.
Monotheistic: an only God (or cause) responsible for all things. Religious or Secular versions.
Polytheistic: different agents with different agendas, in competition or cooperation. Both versions.
Philosophical: a set of impersonal rules (no agent) that govern existence.
***You fail to understand my argument correctly. With regard to my objection, it does not matter whether there’s one physical cause of all or many; it is only pertinent that neither precludes the possibility of a prior divine cause. God can act through a singular causality or a multiplicity of causalities.***
You are assuming that I am following a secular version of a monotheistic/mono causal worldview, a mirrored version of yourself. Alas it is not.
***Oh, how I rejoice that you have mentioned the concept of epistemological closure. Was it not a Cardinal of our own Church, Nicholas of Cusa, who first exposited this idea so brilliantly in his On Learned Ignorance almost six hundred years ago? Indeed, he has presented us with a precious gift: the realization that if we were to grasp the truth, we must be conscious of the limits of our human perspective and acknowledge that something lies beyond, and strive for that beyond with the nature of our limitations in mind. He thus founded modern science, dismissing Aristotelian and Ptolemaic cosmology as lacking that learned ignorance, and positing in its place an infinite, homogeneous universe with only relative centers, and even the possibility of a more noble race of aliens. And he achieved all such through a Christian intellectual and epistemological humility, which Aristotle and the pagans lacked in their arrogant rationalism. Perhaps it is no wonder that Kepler called Nicholas a most divine man.***
You have proven nothing, but only reiterated the conclusion that you fancy.
[No. Science is descriptive. I only describe the ultimate (as our present understanding) of the ultimate elements that form the existence.
***You speak descriptively if you simply described to me the nature of these ultimate elements. However, in asserting that the discipline of the natural sciences covers whole truth, to the exclusion of the divine causality, which lies outside of this discipline, you are moving beyond the descriptive and putting forth a thesis that is very difficult, if not impossible to defend.***
You must answer this question: what part of the interaction between space-time and quantum fields, etc, precludes the possibility that these causes are not contingent upon a cause that is still prior to it?
[Because we have not proof? We haven't found anything more fundamental or that be a cause before. It we find something like that (branes, strings or something like that it will be incorporated). We are not epistemological closed].
***We have no empirical proof proper to the natural sciences, of course. But as I have mentioned above, discussions of divine causality lies outside of the scope of the natural sciences, as God is the creator of nature, and thus exists outside of nature. Do not imagine that this lack of empirical evidence is grounds for you to dismiss the possibility of divine causality. This is your most serious error. If we apply this sort of scientism to our whole thought, then we would undermine the validity of the natural sciences themselves. Remember the words of the Philosopher in the first of the Posterior Analytics, that no science can prove the validity of its own first principles. Indeed, scientific evidence cannot be used to validate scientific method, since such evidence presupposes the validity of the method, and this would result in an egregious example of circular reasoning. We came to accept empirical science through deep developments in metaphysics and epistemology, by the way of Aristotle and the schoolmen, particularly William of Ockham and Roger Bacon. All this lies outside of the scope of the natural sciences themselves, and you certainly do not want to dismiss it as a proponent of science.***
2) I suppose that your scribe has erred in recording your dictation onto this manuscript, and that you meant to say "There cannot be a first cause alone to predetermine everything at the end."
[Probably. I am usually in a hurry and not writing in my native language]
Your argument is yet again inadequate. [Which one? As far as I recall I was describing]
The Philosopher has stated in the first of the Metaphysics that the most intelligible thing in itself is the least intelligible to the human mind.
[And? it is a complicated way of describing how the thought process that we deemed easy are being quite complex to implement in a computing system, but those deemed complex are relativity easy to implement.
You have merely pointed out that the workings of cosmological determinacy cannot be grasped by the human mind, and not that it cannot exist.
[No. They are fundamental limits for a cognitive system. Of course cognitive systems can be improved. In fact AIs systems currently are reaching conclusions based on unknown basis. There have been able to train an AI system to determine if a picture of a retina is from a man or a woman. But the researchers don't know how the system reached that conclusion.
On the other hand, some lifeforms sans nerve system are capable of feats of computing. For example after decades of planning by hundreds of engineers the Tokyo railway system to be optimal, the resulting grid was simulated as optimal using the growth of a fungus with the stations as a food that the organism has to reach to eat]
***This statement is not germane to my objection at all. You are once again speaking of the limits of human cognition and its technological means. These subjective limits do not preclude the objective possibility that a God of inscrutable counsel has predestined all things.***
3)Please clarify this statement. [¿?]
4) You have spoken well in arguing that we cannot assign simplistic moral values to order and chaos while considering the effects that flow from each.
[thank you for your honesty]
God instrumentalizes the latter to achieve an order that is inscrutable in the present situation.
[That's ascribe intentionally and agency as the working of the world ... and assume only a monotheistic god. Why no a pantheon (Greek, Egyptian?), or a principle (Tao, Karma, ...) if we are in the supernatural mindset?
***I have addressed this objection below.***
Your example of life is a prime example, the apparent chaos described thence is only desirable insofar as it is a part of an the ordered equilibrium that is the living being.
[It is not desired, it is given. It seems that life may be a consequence of entropy]
https://www.quantamagazine.org/first-support-for-a-physics-theory-of-life-20170726/
(links for articles, but paywalls. The abstracts are available)
***The inherent desirability of life opens up a whole other world of discourse, one which I will look over as of now as it is not particularly relevant to the main thrust of my argument. That life is the consequence of entropy does not undermine my argument at all, as I have stated that works towards the existence of a higher order.***
I challenge you to name one instance in which chaos is desired for its own sake--you cannot.
[I am afraid that chaos is currently use in engineering.]
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1877050912000129
Besides, if you have to use some statistical tools you need random numbers. In fact one time pad, a very secure encryption system relies on the use of random numbers.
Or combinatorial chemistry. Or the Monte Carlo method for computer algorithms. Chaos and randomness are quite needed.
***You have taken up my challenge, and just as I expected, you failed. In every instance you allude to, engineers desire randomness and chaos only in service of order--namely encryption and research, and functioning algorithms. In these cases, truly desiring chaos for its own end would be for the engineers to desire for the encryption system to fail and not respond regularly to any commands, and for the algorithms to malfunction for a random cause every single time--for no further cause than for the sake of this dysfunction alone.***
If you suppose that adherence to science and rationality is moral.
[No. Science is a form to discover knowledge and rationality is a tool used for it. Science don't require adherence, it doesn't work like that. Science is a form of view the world, a form to inquire and get answers.
***Science does not require adherence? Are you aware of how long it took for empiricism to triumph over radical skepticism and mystical cosmologies? Science is one worldview among many, and I believe it to be the correct one for various reasons.***
Of course it needs a set of values (moral) to work.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mertonian_norms#Four_Mertonian_norms
What rationality and science can do is using the best available information at a time suggest what to do. Given a input of what it is the desired outcome.
At most it can be said that the intrinsic values needed to do or understand science bent people towards utilitarian ethical outlooks, but it is independent of science itself.
***You have once again misunderstood my argument. The sort of “morality” I am speaking of goes something like this: is it moral or immoral to teach our children ancient hermetic witchcraft and to shutter them from science classes? If the former, then you are asserting that order is inherently morally superior to chaos, since science is an orderly and functional methodology of apprehending reality compared to the chaotic, subjective traditionalism of ancient superstition.***
and that belief in witchcraft and superstition is immoral,
[that's the question. Science can not answer if it is moral or not. What it can say it is that they are simply incorrect]
you are assigning intrinsic moral value to the order
[I think I may have cleared that]
-the adaequatio rei et intellectus that undergirds the former, and spurning the pagan intuition of a abysmally melancholic world ruled by conflicting, unseen, and fundamentally chaotic forces.
[I am disregarding because we don't have proofs]
***This is the weakness of your narrowly scientistic worldview--you cannot even affirm the philosophical principles that first began to justify modern empiricism in the Late Middle Ages--just because it lies outside the scope of physical evidence.***
Why not a pantheon? Why not another supreme God? Because the Lord Jesus Christ has revealed to me the truth with regard to this matter with an assurance more certain than my intuition that the external world exists.
[There are billions of believers that will be assured the contrary. Even between Christians. We demand proofs.]
By the same token you ask me to discard my certainty in the existence and nature of God, I can ask you to discard that nebulous feeling of certainty that holds you back from solipsism.
[No. Even more it is not evident that God exist otherwise there wouldn't be all the scholarly theological work trying to proof it existence like Thomas Aquinas that you quoted.
***Necessary is distinct from beneficial--cosmological arguments are bright ornaments to the indestructible edifice that is my epistemological certainty in God. ***
Neither nebulous; the main and egotistical argument pro science it simply that it works. Certainty? Yes because we have tested, but, we are not closed. We don't have a faith, we have theories, descriptive frameworks and we actively try to smash them, test them to destruction. We don't hold them in a throne. We put them to test after test, to perfect them, and if they are mistaken, we discard and look for others.
***You certainly hold articles of faith: that once again, there is an adequatio rem et intellectus--a correspondence between the things external to the mind and our mind’s apprehension of these things--at the basis of any sort of confidence in empirical observation. The medieval schoolmen accepted this correspondence because they believed that there exists a benevolent and omnipotent God who does not wish to deceive us, and atheist scientists nowadays take it as a “just is.” Both constitute an article of faith. How do you know that we can trust our carnal senses at all? Why are you rejecting the arguments of Parmenides, Melissus, Zeno of Elea, Plato, the Academic Skeptics, and the Pyrrhonians against the validity of sense-perception? Why does repeated, controlled, observation equal scientific truth? It is all a nebulous but deep-seated feeling of assurance that we can indeed trust what we see--whether with or without the instrumentation of the scientific method. It is only on account of this faith that you have the confidence to test frameworks and perfect them the way you do. And I applaud you for this faith, because I am a fellow-believer.***
The solipsism accusation is comically wrong. Yes, because science needs:
a) Constant interaction with reality
b) It is a communal exercise
c) "Information wants to be free" is the antithesis of secrets. It needs the flow of information between different agents. So it is contrary to solipsism.
]
***You call my argument “comically wrong,” but it is your own misunderstanding of this same argument that is worthy of derision. I am not at all likening science to solipsism. In fact, it is quite the opposite. I have had a basic education--and beyond a basic education. I am saying that the same feeling of assurance that makes me certain of the Christian truth accrues no more epistemological suspicion than that feeling of assurance which also tells me that there is indeed a correspondence between our internal apprehension and external objects--which allows us to trust in empirical observation.***
Also, there have been millions of words written in support of other lines of argument, and there is not enough room to review all of them here.
[For any matter, it is true]
I see that you are quite novice to the field of biblical exegesis.
[I am afraid is a field a bit far from my interests currently]
That verse can be read in an infinite amount of ways
[As every text. Particularly religious ones]
, but the tradition of orthodoxy--St. Augustine, Pope St. Gregory IX, Pope Boniface VIII--
[The opinion of the Roman Catholic Church only]
***Not only the Roman Catholic Church, which apostatized with that scoundrel and antipope Alejandro Borgias, who slew the righteous prophet Fra Savonarola of the Order of Preachers. The Moriphygian Catholic Church, the rightful inheritor of the keys of Peter, also puts forth this opinion.***
has revealed to us the correct interpretation--and it is certainly contrary to yours.
[Surely. I was going for a polite and quick way of presenting the separation of religious and secular worlds, by citing the Bible. It was neater that going full 2 magisteria by Gould or going full Dawkins. Or simply reviewing the last two millenia of back and forth between secular and religious authorities. Do you really want to go back to the Guelphs and Ghibellines?

***The argument for non-overlapping magisteria will be of no avail to you here, as no political and ecclesiological conclusions necessarily flow from it. You may want to think twice before citing Professor Dawkins, as his reputation within the philosophical of religion community is not a thread above that of laughing stock. His atheist peers--who are actually trained in philosophy and apologetics--have pleaded to him repeatedly to stop embarrassing their cause. Anyone with a BA in philosophy can easily refute all of Prof. Dawkins’ arguments against Christianity.***

Zapatian workers state

Your imaginary friend wrote:Oh dear, someone's finally come to break through the corruption that is LazCorp, eek.

Anyway, welcome back to the game! You seem cool... except that you don't like Old Town Road by Lil Nas X?? Gah, what's wrong with ya man? =P <3

--

I'll respond to your post later today Kappan ^-^ Gotta go do breakfast things and some hw first.

You should replace it with "Cheeseburger in Paradise"

Tuesday tarting

🥧 We have another issue of Tuesday Tarting Out! 🥧

Enjoy your tarts, and remember: Endorsements are love!

page=dispatch/id=1252076

Sneyland can you please open the baby moose petting zoo? And give our visitors baby bottles to feed teh moose. :)

Android sneyland can you please follow me into that barn over there? Yea... that dark barn on the edge of the farm.

*reloads shotgun*

e____e don't worry, it'll be short.

Treadwellia and Loftegen 2

Treadwellia we'll be sending the BMS (Baby Moose Services) shortly to check on how those adopted moose are going.

Treadwellia and Loftegen 2

Tubbius and Mrs. Tubbius are enjoying caring for babies of Their own, feeding and cleaning and playing with the eternally baby princes and princesses, all of whom have their own plush, baby moose dolls.

His Adiposity and Her Maternity are dressed down for the occasion, wearing just a Tubbra and a Tummy Sling each. Why wear a lot of clothes when a fussy baby might mess on them?

Loftegen 2

Adelsin wrote:Treadwellia we'll be sending the BMS (Baby Moose Services) shortly to check on how those adopted moose are going.

The Baby Moose are doing very well, already being the fattest, happiest baby moose ever. They have basically become adopted family with the royal pigs, Porcus and her mate Hoggum and their piglets.

Loftegen 2

Cianlandia wrote:Shout out to all our nations who just got refounded.

THEY SHOULD HAVE STAYED DEAD!

...THEN AGAIN, IN 8 WEEKS TIME THINGS NOT STAYING DEAD WILL BE COMMONPLACE.

Loftegen 2

The Grimm Reaper wrote:THEY SHOULD HAVE STAYED DEAD!

...THEN AGAIN, IN 8 WEEKS TIME THINGS NOT STAYING DEAD WILL BE COMMONPLACE.

But Lady Zaharra needs fresh skeletons!

Speaking of Lady Zaharra, the Living Nightmare, has returned from a much needed rest in a parallel timeline. Her reign of sometimes perplexing and baffling behavior will now resume.

Show

Post by Logan matthew suppressed by Treadwellia.

Someone text me (513)578-7189

«12. . .3,2933,2943,2953,2963,2973,2983,299. . .8,7238,724»

Advertisement