Oh good grief, do you not speak English? A system is an infrastructure, a way of operating. IT IS NOT A DISCRETE UNIT, it is the underlying structure, the interplay between the units. "Big picture" or not there is no entity that constitutes nature.
god does. and a system is a unit if the unit in question happens to be a system. yes. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
And yet despite that opinion, it is still a topic of discussion... Carry on then. Again with the quickness to judge. Slow down. I've made no claims whatsoever as to my position on the concept. Now that you've brought it up however, I will say this: I do maintain that the concept is a pragmatic impossibility. You should be more careful in your reading, and in your tossing about accusations. My critique was two-fold: Firstly, as noted above, I made no reference whatsoever to my position on the topic; I was simply playing Devil's Advocate. Secondly, all my critiques were value-neutral; you made semantic errors that had to be pointed out.
Constitutes nature. And is an entity btw. I've worked with plenty of systems, that were entities. They had jobs, rules, according to code, which is analogous to laws of nature. The whole universe is an entity, alive and full of energy. Actions have consequences according to observed laws. Everything happens for a reason, and matters. It is communial, and the lack of an appreciation for that among humans prohibits utopia.
Neither of those statements can be shown to be true. No you haven't. It's not possible. Yes. Neither of those can be shown to be irrefutably true (especially the latter). And that's speculation.
Its been shown to me. Yes I have. Computers make it possible. But science has done a pretty good job of presenting a case. And you're a naysayer and I'm a yaysayer.
You believe. Still wrong. Computers may have the code to monitor, implement and maintain a system but a system is a non-physical series of relationships and procedures: hence they are not discrete entities. You cannot put a system in a box. You cannot point to anything and say "That, there, is the system". Really? Link please. Nope: I've simply not seen any evidence and you're subject to wishful thinking.
because i have experienced. yes i can, when i can say, "this is the input, these are the rules, this is the output, and that makes sense. you want a link to science? yes i am, and for a damn good reason.
Purely subjective experience. Unsupported by evidence. Really? And what exactly is the input? Or the output? Numbers? You can hold them in your hand? Rules? You can point out a rule? Still wrong. No I want a link that substantiates your claim that science has presented a case that "lack of an appreciation for that among humans prohibits utopia" per your claim. Good luck with that.
i was presented with evidence, and it convinced me. you're babbling. have you lost your mind? do you have to hold everything in your hand for it to be real and meaningful and accomplishing? yeah, numbers. thanks. sin is contrary to the greater good, and to life and quality of life for all. sin is a natural instinct in humans, but one who's natural consequence is death. sin can be identified. right and wrong can be identified. and if humans weren't so bent on owning everything, and profiting over everything, and giving in to the whims of their egos, this world would be a much better place. what do we do with the science we find? capitalize on it? own the rights to it? pervert it? find ways to circumvent it to satisfy our selfish desires? we need to live in communion with nature, not against it, exploiting it, in spite of it. there lies utopia.
Seems Lori is unable to capitalise. Anyway, you mention abstract like 'the greater good' and say 'sin' is contrary to it, but what is this abstract, and which sins detriment that abstract in which ways please? I mean, gluttony means people buy products, which is good for the economy. Coveting things means people might strive harder to achieve goals. Fornication ensures the continuity of the population. So on balance, your claims seem a little unfounded.
No you're completely misunderstanding (or avoiding) the meaning of discrete unit. No not numbers - you cannot point at, hold or isolate a number. What, exactly is "seven" for example? You can see seven apples, seven ducks etc, but you cannot see, hold or isolate "seven". Real, meaningful and "accomplishing" are not in dispute here, the properties that constitute an entity, however, are. And systems are not entities. So in order to support your claim that science supports your contention you resort to non-scientific babble. Sin is not a scientific concept. Keep trying. So you still can't actually back up your claim that science has done a good job of presenting your case.
Devil's Advocate? Value-neutral? Let me go ponder the irony in that. Semantic errors? How petty. I'm glad Utopia is just a delusion!
oh, it's you! you are the reason we can't have a utopia! ha, i knew it! gluttony ensures waste, coveting ensures jealousy and hatred, and fornication does not generally lead to the development and nurture of loving and healthy families. if you don't believe me, then hop on over to the abortion thread.
HA! You wouldn't have too many families if people weren't fornicatingPlease Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Its funny that with women having abortions the global problem still remains overpopulation and not underpopulation.
