Ben Banana

Bump (cannot edit): ... Whatever. I meant indexicality in the context of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory_of_relations EDIT: You are quite close: e.g. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Symmetric_relation I recommend you expand your idea across this horizon (i.e. beyond symmetric relations) to ensure its natural essence.

None in particular. Any language which is good for making games (at least) -- satisfactory for your ambition and comfortable for you to use -- is good for your purpose of developing simulation games. Flash isn't a programming *language* itself, though ActionScript (Flash's scripting component) is.

Explain this desire a bit more. Do you want to learn programming? What kind of things do you imagine doing/creating with your desired skills? If you're open to any direction I think is fun, then I'd say learn C++ and try to write game AI, perhaps for competitions.

I've been begging him to try! Don't ruin it.

Of course not. Compile a list of real investigations and it will affect your argument by nothing. This is my point, again. It's not a game about how much you can cite or how much investigation there is into a certain aspect of your belief, such as "psychology." This is my point: it's called fanaticism. Citation is not considered evidence at all... You obviously misunderstand the purpose of citation: "then try to refute it by citing." That's crazy. You may use citation to affirm refutation, but things don't work by throwing various sources against each other. Obviously... and that's the problem. You can say that as much as you would like, but it's extremely far from being absolutely evident.

Integrated with Facebook, as in built into Facebook's website, or does it just spam messages about player "achievements" onto Facebook? "Game engine" isn't such a generic term. No. There is no such almighty powerful engine required to make a simulation game. In fact, I programmed a graphical chicken farming game when I was 11 years old. Simulation games are very very easy to make in comparison to other genres. Facebook has no business providing game engines anyway...

The reason I made this remark was exactly my understanding of why the idea will not die out. You can continue investigating, but apparently you aren't. You're becoming an expert at quoting other people's investigations, who are no more capable of analyzing truth in any spectacular way than any mere person. I think this means you're a reasonless fanatic. We already know the answer: bullshit. Where does this answer come from? Try to answer that. So far, your answer has been: "They're unwilling, closed-minded jerks!" Okay, fine... but why would you suppose? It's human nature? Judging by what you've said specifically, you believe so indeed yourself. This is exactly the difference between you and I. You've only had an orgasm. You've discontinued your real investigation, and now you're just massaging the parts you liked most.. So, why is it right for us to call bullshit now? Doesn't that mean a discontinuation of our investigation? No, it's a conclusion. How can I say this, that you have merely discontinued real investigation, and we have concluded it? This topic is 11 pages. 11 pages. Does that number matter? Doesn't it require great effort to share brilliant but very controversial ideas with others? 'Depends. I've already addressed how. You didn't answer. Where we left off: And at the god fucking damn core of it all, we've repeatedly shown you why the "evidence" you assert is completely wrong, and your responses have only been inadequate counters!

I'm probably going to make a cake after this topic is closed (if that ever happens)... just waiting for the day... impatiently...

... I'm not talking about characters. Symbol, as in symbolic or representation. In other words, yes, I mean an expression. ... you would partition a volume with plane anyway, not a line (lines partition planes). I don't see why you're asking this. Let's throw in another term, shall we? Pure homogeneity, absolute homogeneity, total homogeneity, banana homogeneity... heck, whatever makes you happy.

Well I guess it can either be a singularity of coincidence or an infinite homogeneity. That's a problem with: "Absolute symmetry in every way, mirror, translation, scale etc.." We get the idea, but technically it really doesn't make any concrete sense at all, unless you already assume these transformations don't even exist meaningfully. Again, that's only because you can't really apply his definition to anything... but apparently 'nothing' sure works.

They are indistinguishable symbols until you consider the very fact of such symmetry: the equality. Otherwise, you're actually talking of a coincidence. The same applies to moth wings: they have an axis. That axis distinguishes the two half-spaces. Now this is different (a statement composed with symmetry; not merely the property of symmetry itself), but can't you see what this reduces to? Is there any reason to name symmetry in particular? Homogeneity. It's also like trying to represent anything meaningful in a closed serial quantification using only a single symbol. You're still asserting an unnecessarily arbitrary correlation to 'nothing.' If you want to seriously address these questions, then you should know that they are a matter of indexicality, as I said before.

What's not relevant? This is the least relevant remark I made. Please look at the other things I said. The core of my argument: I only spend my time afterwards hazarding the nature of your speculative behavior. To philosophers? I never said "you," though your behavior strikes me as being quite similar to faulted philosophers'. Hmm... Do I win? Well, thank you Mr. moth. It has been my pleasure!

My point exactly. What are you talking about? Read what I said two posts ago: http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/69384-what-is-nothing/page__st__20__p__705194#entry705194

I understand what you are saying. You don't need to elaborate it again. Moth wings are symmetrical... but what does it matter? And of course there are fine distinctions in symmetry, just as -69 is different from 69. If you don't even comprehend thoroughly enough to include the component of these numbers (the sign) which denotes symmetry, then you're speaking of coincidence. Now lets jump for that! Behold, coincidence is nothing! ... Oh damn, that's a great idea. You're confining yourself within a hazy intellectual construct which only idealizes your silly ideas. Definitely. It does not matter what I think... whether nothing can be asymmetric, if I think nothing can be ugly, or if I believe in the chances that nothing will molest moths in very uncomfortable ways. This is completely flawed. Can you give some examples which denote the differences between pirates and earthquakes? Otherwise, I'm all for believing in whatever arbitrary truth they imply. Tip: PLEASE read my previous response. You can find it here: http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/69384-what-is-nothing/page__st__20__p__705194#entry705194

No. I began with equality. You spoke of inequality afterward while you believed you were correctly referring to my analogy. See, equality is inequal to inequality. Inequality doesn't make any sense for your purposes, especially if you try to put it in the form of my original analogy: 1 does not equal 0 ... yeah, and? There's no symmetry there. What can you learn from this? Your association between symmetry and inequality is an invalid assertion you've naively made, in addition to your original speculation regarding symmetry and 'nothing'. I mean, that's completely ludicrous! If 'nothing' is symmetry, then what kind of symmetry is 'nothing' ? Does this idea apply to my analogy? Let's try. 1 = 1. Is that 'nothing' ? How so? Clearly, you're just tossing around arbitrary logic. Also, symmetry is definitely not the only property you can abuse... there's a lot of arbitrary logic you can employ to drag yourself nowhere. Once you're satisfied with this useless idea, you're free to enjoy it as much as you would like: only leaving it behind and forgetting it as useless at it is, regardless of my criticism. I would love to see more interesting results come from this idea. Ultimately, my point here is that you clearly are not working with a rigid concept. Your vague conception has already deceived you into asserting that there exists a clear bridge between nothing, symmetry and... inequality? Ooops! You could have only meant equality, which demonstrates how your own grasp is too vague to be handled coherently even by yourself. This is how the field of philosophy is being abused by naive and radical thinkers who only thought they couldn't fit their ideas into the mainstream fields... which is not true. It's a common and fundamental problem with the way these "philosophers" try to approach theory. They believe it makes sense to dance in their own theory without any valid or coherent basis. A lot of people don't know how to appropriately establish new ideas, and this leads them to wondering why their brilliant light-bulbs can't screw in anywhere but philosophy; the only field which appears to accept their desperation.

Cooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooool. Too bad.

You constructed that reasoning without using a necessary derivation from the essence of nothing. This reasoning can be applied to a lot of things: it's not meant to explore *truth*, only to surface implicit character. "some part of nothing" <-- assumes too many characteristics about 'nothing' in the first place ... which is quite silly especially by the nature of our subject here, 'nothing.' 'Nothing' labels a certain phenomenon of indexicality. 'Random' is another (more obvious) kind of this indexical phenomena etc. EDIT: Also notice how you jumped by my analysis of your analogy -- where I referred to nothing and equality -- to begin referring to inequality... which really exhibits to me how you're just spewing nonsense.

1 = 1. 1 - 1 = 0. There's no clear bridge between "nothing" and equality. Define it. Regardless, that's arbitrary... so have fun making bridges out of thin air.

No. I'm saying you understand nothing. (i.e. Clueless. Puns are great.) Seriously though, that's not what I'm saying. I'm saying... what pantheory said.

I'd say nothing is nothing but a conceivable association. Now suck that self-reflexive masterpiece.

No...