Random Off-Topic

dancash1808 wrote:Here's one for darkson when he gets back. if you talk randomly in the random topic are you in fact being random

Uuuuuhh... yes, I guess then I'm just randomly being random in the random topic. But I guess a random topic can only be called a topic if the "random" is supposed to indicate that this topic was randomly decided to be the current topic, not if it indicates that the topic is in fact totally random/consists of random posts with random/no context, then I think it can't be a topic, even if it's called off-topic, which in the case of Serious's'seses "Random Off-Topic" only indicates that this topic (consisting of seperate random topics) is just not about the souls games, although people talk about these here too, because it is random UGH :suspect: help me do I even make sense still?

Btw "random" is such a great word. I can't really think of a German word that can be used in all the same ways "random" can be used, in my language there are only like more specific words for every context. I love how you can say for example "and then some random guy showed up", I can't think of a German word that would give it the same "effect".

But you are not being random because being random in a topic that is stated as such is predictable. which is the opposite of random

I would help you out there but I barely scraped a "C" in my german GCSE so I doubt I could pick anything out.

So much weirdness in this topic >.<

It's true, being random in a random "topic" is predictable, but it does not change the fact that I'm being random still - it may be predictable that I'm gonna be random in there, but with a random topic technically not being a real topic without any context and such, I'm still being random when posting random things in there, because these random things are in fact random and therefore not predictable ZING!

I knew you were gonna say that.

... did he just "Zing" me ? *cracks knuckles and takes a deep breath*
The title random suggests you should not know what to expect If you regard it as not being a real topic then I suppose it could be argued that you were being random however I disagree. it was intended to be a paradox. however I dont feel I am representing it well. too tired possibly. ahh well
well done for managing to confuse me

I did not confuse you really, I just refuted your arguments, and now you are just still trying to hold on to them, but you can't really without getting confused! There you have it! This proves me right!

Spoiler:

Nope, see it hinges on whether you consider randomness a topic or not
and I was confused because you use so damn many reversals in your arguments not because I am wrong!

whatevaaaa :roll:

Fearandwhiskey said he knew that I (?) was gonna say what I said, does that mean he/she is on your or my side?

And Berkut said "so much weirdness in this topic" right after your post, so that maybe means that he was mainly referring to your post, you know, because it made so less sense.

And also: submarines don't have gills. You see my point.

that means he is on my side because you are being predictable and not random. then again this conversation has not been random for quite a while.

also stop adding randomness to the end of your post you *shakes fist*

Ha! but I thought being random here in the Random Off-Topic thread would make me predictable! But I wasn't random, I was being predictable, so what now? So in both cases I'm being predictable: when I try not to be predictable (=random) and when I try to be predictable? I think my head might explode if we go on like that...

that is the case true randomness is something that (to my knowledge) is impossible to achieve although if anybody is better educated than myself do explain
I suppose half lives of unstable isotopes and the occurence of pair production could count but I personally believe that they are simply to complex and on a small scale for us to understand yet. but that is complete opinion.

Yes, I totally believe that too!

But for the in this case more subjective (right words?) randomness, imagine this:

Person A tells person B to raise his arm and point in a random direction.

Now you could say that B isn't acting completely random, because when raising his arm and pointing in some random direction he is acting predictable, because A told him to do so.

But on the other hand A didn't tell in what direction B should point at, it's free to chose for B - it is not predictable in what direction he will point at, so while B is being told to point in a random direction, the fact stays that (to us) B will still point in a random direction. Ultimately.

So it just depends on how you look at it. I guess? Like with everything in life...

Apropos, I got another paradoxon:

If true randomness does not exist, but also true objectivity does not exist, then how will we ever be able to objectively explain all the coherences of those seemingly random things?

Brain... hurt. me no like logical paradoxes when used on me.
As for the question itself it a good one.... hrm. well we would have to get concrete evidence that was open to only minimal interpretation however were there such a concrete mechanic we would then be investigating how that concrete mechanic occurs and what causes it. ad infinitum or until we reached something we just could not explain.
damn that's a frustrating view...

Not even if humanity happens to last for a million years from now and happens to have built space ships that go way over light speed and such and whatnot and whatever... I don't believe one human alone (or any being) will ever be able to view something truly objectively, just by the fact that we all are different beings who see trough different eyes of course, we can only assume the most probable, trying to view things more objectively. But most importantly we need to communicate and try to agree on certain theories, and, just exactly as you said, together we will have to keep trying to explain why and why why and why why why ad infinitum... Maybe until we finally will become the universe! (we are really just are a virus)

Nope, if by that you mean we are self copying things that could be viewed as some kind of an infection on the universe then yes, but we are not viruses
and heres one for you. but its less a paradox more opinion. is there such a thing as truly objective? or is it simply a concept.

Wow. That was... random, to say the least.

Who here wants to start a company that makes misfortune cookies? We'll be billionaires

dancash1808 wrote:Nope, if by that you mean we are self copying things that could be viewed as some kind of an infection on the universe then yes, but we are not viruses
and heres one for you. but its less a paradox more opinion. is there such a thing as truly objective? or is it simply a concept.

I don't know what's the exact definition of a virus (school dropuot, I'm obviously less educated than you I guess I was just referring to that all humans do is move to and spread out over some area, exploit it, breed and spread out further and such. That's of course what all living beings do, but we kind of got out of the natural cycle.

I think I guess I believe true objectivity is just a concept, of course I can't objectively judge that...

cloudyeki wrote:Who here wants to start a company that makes misfortune cookies? We'll be billionaires

I thought those already exist though...?

'Random' = Organised Chaos.

I am like, perma tired because I never go to bed early.

I blame video games and having to wake up early for work. (ノಠ益ಠ)ノ彡┻━┻

I blame the waking schedule given to me.

I also blame this week in general for its many activities.

I blame it on the boogie.

HIYA EVERYBODY!!!