alexwang32

Then what did you mena by self referential? If you mean something that uses itself as a reference point, then you basically saying a radar can detect itself. Please be more specific in your words, manipulating ambiguity is an easy way to defend yourself against possible retorts. I see your constent mentioning of other people's disagreement upon my posts as a method of intimidation as well as to seemingly strengthen your own arguements. As far as I can see most of the "other people" are tangled in their own arguements. You didn't make any useful points. "The subject's actions would include merely the presence of the subject if something different would have happened had the subject not been present." So? How does this support your claim that the observer is the observed? Please forgive me for my failure to understand your highly sophisticated and unfathomable reasoning .

I see that you gave examples of self-replication etc. as a counter example. What you failed to prove is how you were able to deduce plants for example have self-awareness. Scientists have observed that "A plant can see, smell and feel. It can mount a defense when under siege, and warn its neighbors of trouble on the way. (from Scientific America)" Yes this may appear to be true, but these are all reasonings. You are not the plant. A plant may just be an entitiy programed to grow, blosom, reproduce etc., whatever deductions made based on its behavior are external. Therefore the only way to answer this question is to analyze ourselves. When you say "I am myself", there exists an observer, and an observed self. Who is the observed self? The body? The mind? Whatever it may be, it is a seperate entity from the consciousness that's observing all this, yet you are too much identified with it that you fail to realize. As I said this is more of a spiritual question and beyond realm of discussion. It would be impossible to understand it intellectually because the way of the intellect is dialectical, dualistic. Intellectual approachs seperates the knower and the known, you can't be science and a scientist at the same time, then how can you be the observer and the observed at the same time? This really comes down to the "Who truley you are" question, but I see you are not open for such question thus I suggest we end the argument right here.

Ah, now you're playing with the notion of time difference. First you tried to argue that by staying outside of the forest, or distance in space can isolate the event and the observer, now you're using time. On the surface your arguement seems plausible, yet it negelected the simple constraint that one must observe in order to conclude. We hear sounds that we interpret as originating from the big bang ( although there are many other theroies out there about the orgin of the univerese yet because the big bang is publically accpeted we will adapt it and even go as far as to say some ramdom sound wave came from this imaginary explosion of the universe... fine lets just say that's all correct ), very well. Assuming there was no observer during the big bang, and there was sound created that has been propagating across the universe for billions of years, now thanks to scientific apparatus we've collected that sound and we have come to the conclusion that it came from the big bang. All is correct so far. But let us imagine something else, imagine there was a microphone put next to the big bang, it recorded the sounds and now we listening to it. We say there was no observer at that time. Is that right? Any scientific apparatus that acts as a sensor is basically an extension of an observer's senses, a microphone is essentially the same as an observer who can only hear. See what I'm getting at? Even though "at the time of the big bang" there was no observer, but in the PRESENT time we are hearing there sounds, we're STILL examining the sounds that originated from the big bang. Meaning, we could only conclude that there were sounds during the big bang by means of analysing the sounds in the present day. It like recording the sounds on a tape and listening to it later. Let me point this out again in bold black : Observing an event from a distance in space or after a period of time is ESSENTIALLY the same as observing it right there right now. This really comes down to this simple fact: In order to observe an event there must be interaction between the subject and the event, whether it be direct or indirect interaction. This is something very subtle and can be easily misunderstood.

Speaking of Windows 98, you've probably noticed that the space needed for the Windows Operating system has grown considerably, this wouldn't be possible without the simultaneous advances made in data storage device as well as CPU speed. Though this comparision is not paticularly pleasing, it wouldn't be too wrong to say Windows is now a fat and obese thing that swallows about 50 GB for the average user. Compare that to operating system that could run on a couple of MB. And you also need to spend money on anti virus sofwares... what a pain. If you really need Windows, use Windows 98 Note: For fans of Windows ( or those who spent money on it ), please don't feel offended these are just my personal opinions.

Well we have to have an independent observer right? To say that I observe myself, you must first objectify yourself. But at the same time in order to observe you must be a subject. It's like using a binocular, you see through it to observe others, but you can't use it to view the binocular itself. The way I view it is that when we say things like: "I hate my life" or something like that, we have inadvertantly divided ourselves into two entities, though this may be subtle and easily overlooked. This of course is not within the discussion realm of this topic.

Interesting, I never thought of that. But since hearing and seeing are two main sensations experienced by a subject, through which he/she explores and interacts with the enviroment/world, as well as making observations, saying that they are the effect of a paticular event also requires an observation. Who can observe that one's observation is the effect of an event? The same observer obviously, since the conclusion is about his/her own observation. But then that would be saying something like: " The sky is blue because it is blue." I observe that my observation is cause by... the bird chirping. See what's wrong here? There can't be two "me". Either you're the observer or the observed, you can't be both.

I believe there are two reasons to why meat is bad vegetarian/vegan diet is relatively better: Animal cruelty: There's this saying which goes: "If all the slaughter house walls were made of glass, you wouldn't dare take another bit out of your bacon". So yeah this point needn't be emphasized any further. Though I would also like to point out that vegetarian/diary is still somewhat curel. Do a Google search on how they actually treat milk cows and you'd be surprized. Unhealthy: There's something called organic meat on the market now. Why? You probably don't want to know if you still want to eat meat, or you're gonna have to be super ignorant. Antibiotics, hormones, excessive salt, radiation... it's endless. Resources: There's a joke saying global warming is caused by cow farts, well it's not completely false. The resources and cost to produce meat is much more than it takes to produce crops, vegetables, or fruits. Fields stomped by cows are rendered useless for a long time. This is something that cannot be denied. Meant was luxurious back in the old days, it only became cheaper with the commerical production. So yeah, the above three reasons are concrete and undeniable. Whether or not vegan diet is healthier doesn't matter, though I myself believe vegans aren't anyless robust and strong than anyone else.

You can still run it on a virtual machine, like QEMU or Virtual Box, although you probably will find it very inconvenient to utilize. I actually still use Windows XP as a virtual machine under a linux operating system, since there are times when you just have to use Windows, but mostly linux is versatile enough.

Oh I'm sorry, I didn't mean to offend, it's just that the questions you raise seem to inculde obvious flaws. If you are standing on "objective world" ground, then I choose not to argue with you, since it would be pointless. If we introduce a subjective world, then we must consider the influnce induced by the subject upon its environment. The fact that wild animals running away does not necessarily imply a tree fell ( it may have been caused by fire ). What you're aruguing is basically that we can observe phenomenons that are consequences of an event and theryby deduce an event occured. Fundamental flaw here. The tree falling is the cause of perhaps a series of other phenomenons, i.e. a sound wave is created that propagates across nearby mediums, as well as leaves that drop on the ground, but these are all effects. Cause create effects, but effects don't necessaily point to the same cause. We're talking about whether a falling tree makes a sound under the condition that no one knows about it. This raises a lot of arguments... if one subject is introduced, all other "people" should be considered as objects. Therefore only one persons knowledge of the tree affects it outcomes. Though this may not be accepted in general. A better way of putting this would be that, as long as those other people have absolutly no knowledge of the tree whatsoever than they have no subjective influence on its outcomes. Yes that's only true if you don't use some parabolic micophone to probe it. That would be essentially the same as staying inside the forest. Besides, as I said earlier, a sound inside the forest doesn't necessarily imply a tree fell. In order to conclude that a tree fell AND it made a sound, there has to be a confirmation of the exsistence of a tree, a sound, and the falling of a tree, the simultaneity between the tree falling and the creation of a sound. All this requires a conscientious observer. If we assume there's some unknown correlation between the subject and the event, then obviously the subject's examination should interfere with the outcomes. This is accpeted as true even in science ( although it applies to microscopic scales mainly ). I would like to point out three levels to this question: Sound Level: Whether or not it makes a "sound". Falling Level: Can a tree be said to have fallen when there is no subject? Tree Level: Does a tree exist when no one is looking at it?

First, to get rid of the literal ambiguity, lets assume "sound" means vibrations. Since from both an objective and subject view point, if a sound is heard there must be a vibration, and a vibration would be interpreted as a sound by a subject, thus the two can be equated. Instead of answering that, can you first tell me what part of the "no one is there to hear it" you don't understand? Hearing a sound from a distance is instrisically the same as listening to it close up. You've violated the pre-condition that there musn't be anyone to hear it. Using any apparatus to detect the sound is a mean to "hearing" it. Science assumes that there's a objective world. If you're affiliated with such premisis then it's really waste of time to argue any further, because we know from natural laws that it will make a sound.

Hmm... you're right. This comes down to the definition of "sound". Though if I were to refute your statement, I would question how you came to the conclusion that "there are perturbations travelling through the air/ground from the falling tree". We are talking about a tree that isn't obeserved. There's no possible way to infer what becomes of an event if the condition for the event to occur is that there musn't be any subject present during the event. Such an event is both logically and scientifically impossible to analyze. Just a brain riddle for 2015

The classical question of whether it makes a sound or not is probably over-talked and therefore seems unworthy of further discussion, but just for fun lets all improvise and come up with some new perspectives. I'll summarise a couple of "answers" I thought of: Scientific ( Objectivity ) -- The world around us can exsist without the need of a subject, therefore events, such as a tree falling can occur withought our knowledge. According to phsyical laws a falling tree will impact the ground so that a vibration is created, which travels through the air as a sound wave, therefore it DOES makes a sound. Spiritual/Philosophical ( Subjective ) -- Therory 1. A world cannot be said to be in exsistence without a sentient being ( or subject ) to observe it. Thus events that are unseen by the eye have unknown outcomes. There isn't anything that can be said to a falling tree that isn't under observation, except that it's possible that it will make a sound or not ( kind of like the uncertainity priciple in quantum mechanics ). Therory 2. A sound a a percetion experienced by a subject, in the absence of a subject there's no one to hear the sound, hence it can be said that there is no sound. Literal Analysis -- If a tree falls in the forest and no one is there to see it, does it make a sound? Well before we look into that, we'll revisit Newton's First Law of motion: In a frictionless ( no external forces ) state all object are either static or moving in uniform rectilinear motion. Now, this imaginary state cannot be produced in the real world: It's impossible to create an enviorment in which object expereince no external force. That's why it's called an imaginary experiment. Now back to the tree... the question is about a tree that fell in a forest... and no one saw it... lets stop it right here. If no one saw the tree, how do you know it fell? You IMAGINED that it fell. So I have to judge whether some tree in your imagination make a sound or not. How can there possibly be a definite answer to that? So there you have it, please come up with your own speculations or evaluate these theories. Thank you.

What do you mean by 'reach the top'?

Ok fine I'll stay out of this.

If I'm not mistaken, it has something to do with his wife.

Umm... the people invited... how could they learn about the party? From a history textbook? And are these people in the past or future? What the hell is all this about, it seems so strange.

I suggest you learn Python. It's the first language I learned, it's considered the simplist yet quite effective language. It's both procedure and object oriented.

Umm... this is a lot of homework, don't you have a TA or someone to look at it for you? And can you use latex? it's hard to distinguish the math...

Boy, this sounds pretty cool. I'm no rocket scientist so I dunno how it will go, but it sounds promising.

Thanks for agreeing with me. As far as I can see, my solution seems to be correct. As a matter of fact I did study pretty hard on 'Volume of revolution' in my Calculus course Another way of solving this... though is may seem rather too complicated, is to roatate the parabolas 90 degrees, so that one can calculate it's volume of revolution about the x-axis. It's a good practice for students who want to master translation and volume of revolution,

The center of mass... you mean the centroid? That can be calculated using an integral, I studied this just recently in Engineering Mechanics, I had the chance to learn how it was derived in my Calculus course. But if you just want to know the centroid of a triangle... the intersection point of the 3 medians is the center of mass.

Since this thread has been here a long time, I'd like to give it a try. My answer is not [latex]20\pi[/latex]... here's how I did it: First, translate the functions so that x=7 becomes the 'y-axis'( the parabola is placed at x = 7). [latex]y=\frac{1}{4}(x-7)^2[/latex] [latex]y=5-(x-7)^2[/latex] The upper and lower bond are 9 and 5. As illustrated here: Then by using the volume of revolution about the y-axis formula: We get [latex]2\pi\int_{5}^{9} x(5-\frac{5}{4}(x-7)^2)dx=\frac{560\pi}{3}[/latex]. Am I right? [latex]20\pi[/latex] is not correct because you can simply estimate the volume by calculating [latex]2\pi\int_{5}^{9}5x~dx[/latex], which equals [latex]280\pi[/latex]