/lit/ - Literature

>>14956200
The answer to the pic is point C:
Where point C is defined along any arbitrary point in the XYZ axis, AND
We make the geometry undergo a wick rotation, giving us access to the temporal dimension (T) under the notion of imaginary time, and to treat it as a spatial dimension. Because distance is measured as a quantity, and thus we must take the absolute value, the imaginary unit being bound to our temporal plot is essentially irrelevant, as we are taking the absolute value, so it DOES increase the distance required to travel.

Additionally, it is possible to interpret the question as asking to solve for the maximum T, as opposed to distance, so being able to arbitrarily set T is obviously a great boon to the solution of this problem, however there is a stipulation; under this wick rotation, Minkowski time T is equal to -iT in Euclidean space. But again, since we may arbitrarily define T, we can easily convert this into a positive number X.

So the longest distance being point C, we plot the time coordinate at i * infinity, or imaginary infinity. It will take the fly an infinite amount of time to reach point C, and it will cover an infinite distance to do so.

Ultimately, a very trivial exercise.

>>14605865
Read the Maxims of Ptahhotep.

>>14605908
Ptahhotep did it earlier, and he did it with far more brevity, and dare I say better.

>>14538128
For the first part of your post, read Varzi. Start with Theory and Problems of Logic, then Model-Theoretic Conventionalism, then finish off with Il Mondo Messo A Fuoco. That should get you up to speed on things.

For the second, yes. Rejection of inconsistency is a rule of logic (and not even all logic-derived structures, at that) and as God is above logic, inconsistency does not matter. Hence the original assertion, God can make an impossible task, and complete the impossible task, preserving the impossibility while doing so, as God is beyond logic. "No rules apply, not even this one." You would do well to study dialetheic thought.

Finally, you appear to have lost your composure, so having pointed you in the direction to further learning, I will allow you the space you have requested to study further. There is nothing more for me in replying to you except to suffer tepid insults from a poster who is stuck in 18th century thought. Have a nice night :)

>>14361272
Counterpoint:
Something capable of killing God is also capable of rewriting the immanent rules of reality, making any assertion of "impossibility" completely self-refuting.

>>14361299
You will not find Hegel in hell, purgatory or heaven. Like all true believers, he has wandered into mystery. Someday, he may return.

>>14337298
>>14337314
This is a false dilemma. These people and their actions are parts of and a mechanism of society. They are not produced as deficits, nor is their production stoppable. It's all a part of a complex system of self-imposed stressors, and the lifecycle of norms.

I know it seems counter-intuitive to suggest that we view those who cause great "harm" as a valuable and irreplaceable part of the superorganism. It's best to look at everything in the world less like an unstable system, and more like a finely wound watch. The journey to do that begins with reading literature on observations of deviance in social structures.

How we believe we organize society is very different from the mechanical reality of it. The ultimate mundane realization is that two perceived opposing forces drive a singular wheel. 'Good' and 'evil' are cogs in the same machine. Trying to understand the whole machine without accounting for all components is ludicrous. This is the first of many esoteric secrets, enigmatic knowledge of grand-scale sociology.

>>14204506
You're making an assumption about what timeframe I am talking about, and you insult me for it? For what purpose? Naturally I had assumed the time-frame doesn't need to be acknowledged, but it appears in lack of doing so, you have taken this basic axiom and assumed my own ignorance in order to attack me for it. It's incredibly poor form to assume that common knowledge axioms are somehow enigmatic and obscure, and that your opponent is ignorant of them. It reads like pretentious self-aggrandizement in the absolute worst way. The entire purpose of that post is to elongate and expand the scale at which you are thinking, and in this context. your rhetorical strategy is in extremely poor taste.

Anyways, let us return to the big picture. Even the lifespan of an entire culture is a tiny blip in the grand scheme of our history. Yet all of these are made of generations of minute changes, reversions, with a bias of increasing complexity, hence the reference to "generations". It is important to note that the process of adaptation is always happening, hence why it's important to count each successive generation. Your second assumption is that recent developments in culture are only bound to last for a few generations, and I think that's incredibly naive with no historical basis. If you could quantify your assertion, I'd be interested in hearing it.

>>14204494
That isn't what a lobotomy does, and those procedures were routinely criticized for the short time period that they were "popularized" by psychiatric hacks. What an absolutely pathetic post.

>>14204509
>Imagine what these "people" would become.
No matter what path our descendants take, I assure you with equal time passed you would find the result existentially horrifying by the very nature of its implications.

If the past hundred million years are extrapolated, physiologically I like to use the zeta reticulan of pop culture fame to provoke such thought. Hairless, androgynous bodies. Pale, unpigmented skin. Atrophied muscles, massive skulls in proportion to the rest of the body. Huge eyes and small mouths. The nose however may become more prominent, rather than less, as it is an important feature on humans.

Personally I believe that the grey alien could be a projection of the collective consciousness, a prescient image of what our distant children will look like. But I could never assert this as anything more than personal fictionalization of what is to be.