Jump to content


Photo

Three!


  • Please log in to reply
37 replies to this topic

#1 Mithril

Mithril

    496

  • Hosted
  • 1,386 posts
  • Location:UK
  • Projects:Heh! You're not going to ask me that question.

Posted 03 December 2004 - 06:59 PM

Many things are present in three forms or states.

Take pH for example:

pH scale

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14

1 - 6 = Acidic
8 - 14 = Alkaline
7 = Neutral


Or time:

Past>Present>Future


Many things can be seen in that way if the mental eye is stretched far and put into soft focus.

My question can be stated as follows:

There is a passive and an active state. What is the third state?

Edited by Mithril, 03 December 2004 - 07:01 PM.

Command & Conquer: Red Alert - ReGeneration

"Not the faintest clue =\"

-ComradeJ

#2 Daz

Daz

    title available

  • Hosted
  • 2,654 posts
  •  Revora Co-Founder

Posted 03 December 2004 - 07:24 PM

Third state is neutral.

#3 Guest_ImmoMan_*

Guest_ImmoMan_*
  • Guests

Posted 03 December 2004 - 07:39 PM

There's 2 bits: 1 and 0, so which is the third?

The answer is that some things DON'T come in triplets. :grin:

#4 Mithril

Mithril

    496

  • Hosted
  • 1,386 posts
  • Location:UK
  • Projects:Heh! You're not going to ask me that question.

Posted 03 December 2004 - 08:10 PM

The answer is that some things DON'T come in triplets


That's not what I'm after. This is meant to be a mental investigation, not a rapid dismission of possibilities :grin:

Third state is neutral.


How would a neutral object behave?
Command & Conquer: Red Alert - ReGeneration

"Not the faintest clue =\"

-ComradeJ

#5 Wishes

Wishes
  • New Members
  • 60 posts
  • Location:UK

Posted 03 December 2004 - 08:56 PM

neutrally :grin:
So just look. And wonder.

#6 Daz

Daz

    title available

  • Hosted
  • 2,654 posts
  •  Revora Co-Founder

Posted 03 December 2004 - 09:16 PM

It wouldn't behave.
It would just be.

#7 Mithril

Mithril

    496

  • Hosted
  • 1,386 posts
  • Location:UK
  • Projects:Heh! You're not going to ask me that question.

Posted 03 December 2004 - 09:28 PM

It wouldn't behave.
It would just be.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>


That's more like it :grin:

I was thinking about this earlier. I assume this state can be compared to the one found in Schroedinger's hypothetical cat (which is practically a neither state, in our case the object is neither passive nor active, a certain factor causes the object to shift into any of the two states).

Hypothetically anyway.
Command & Conquer: Red Alert - ReGeneration

"Not the faintest clue =\"

-ComradeJ

#8 Detail

Detail

    King Detail

  • Hosted
  • 7,767 posts
  • Location:Dayonic
  • Projects:Dayvi.com
  •  Blu Spy

Posted 03 December 2004 - 09:34 PM

Active = You punch.
Nutral = No punching.
Passive = You get punched.

I can't think of a 3rd for Alive and Dead though :grin:

#9 Daz

Daz

    title available

  • Hosted
  • 2,654 posts
  •  Revora Co-Founder

Posted 03 December 2004 - 10:04 PM

Isn't Schroedinger's cat actually two states?
And when you open the box a reality is choosen and it becomes either one or the other.

#10 Mithril

Mithril

    496

  • Hosted
  • 1,386 posts
  • Location:UK
  • Projects:Heh! You're not going to ask me that question.

Posted 04 December 2004 - 11:28 AM

Isn't Schroedinger's cat actually two states?
And when you open the box a reality is choosen and it becomes either one or the other.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>


Yes *shakes head*

Before the box is opened it is not in both possible states, but rather in neither of them, which is roughly what I said earlier.

Active = You punch.
Neutral = No punching.
Passive = You get punched.


Yes indeed - that is possibly the most likely candidate for the Truth Election.

Alive and Dead.. hmm..

The third state may be when the organism\living thing is just about to die, but still alive, though not really. What is "alive"? Aaah, memories..

Is the following a definition of "alive" ?
M (ovement)
R (respiration)
S (ensitivity)
G (rowth)
R (espiration)
E (excretion)
N (utrition)
?


If so, then time will make a huge difference to this scenario, since I haven't seen a living thing yet that does all of the mentioned simultaneously (except maybe ali, but that's an exception).

The "Dead" state would be invoked when none of the seven are active, right ?
Command & Conquer: Red Alert - ReGeneration

"Not the faintest clue =\"

-ComradeJ

#11 Hostile

Hostile

    Benefitting Humanity Simply by Showing Up!

  • Veterans
  • 9,551 posts
  • Location:Washington DC
  •  T3A Founder
  • Division:Revora
  • Job:Global Administrator
  • Donated
  • Association

Posted 04 December 2004 - 11:56 AM

-1. 0. 1

not yet born, alive, dead.

Sounds like a couple of triplets to me.


I don't know about the (E)xcretion part. One could be constipated. :D :grin:

Edited by Hostile, 04 December 2004 - 11:57 AM.


#12 Mithril

Mithril

    496

  • Hosted
  • 1,386 posts
  • Location:UK
  • Projects:Heh! You're not going to ask me that question.

Posted 04 December 2004 - 12:46 PM

-1. 0. 1


<{POST_SNAPBACK}>


Yes!

Many years ago most (or many) people would not have this kind of thinking (usually termed as "out of the box"). I have yet to develop it - the existance of this thread is justified by the need for details about the subject :grin:

Thanks for all yer help.
Command & Conquer: Red Alert - ReGeneration

"Not the faintest clue =\"

-ComradeJ

#13 Ash

Ash

    Foxtrot Oscar.

  • Undead
  • 15,526 posts
  • Location:England
  • Projects:Robot Storm
  •  Keep calm and carry on.

Posted 04 December 2004 - 06:32 PM

I'm confused by this topic, completely =/

I tried. I just can't wrap my head around where some of this came from. The topic didn't stay linear...more it seemed to jump several times.

And some of it seems so rigid as to not make sense in itself. Basically, after reading through all this...I haven't a clue what Mithril was getting at, what he was trying to prove/discuss, where the topic went/ended up, nor what exactly happened in it.

Simply put, I'm at a complete and total loss here :grin:

#14 AdmiralGT

AdmiralGT

    title available

  • Members
  • 1,702 posts
  • Location:Bristol, UK
  • Projects:Petrolution

Posted 04 December 2004 - 07:18 PM

What I think Mithril was trying to show is that people in general have lost the ability to think "outside of the box" and conceive ideas that havent previously been thought of.

He also seemed to be at a loss of what the third term in the Active/Passive triplet for which Hostile apparently gave the "right" answer of -1, 0 and 1. Its either Active (1), Passive (0), Not yet either (-1).

At least thats what it looks like from here.

#15 Mithril

Mithril

    496

  • Hosted
  • 1,386 posts
  • Location:UK
  • Projects:Heh! You're not going to ask me that question.

Posted 04 December 2004 - 09:15 PM

What I think Mithril was trying to show is that people in general have lost the ability to think "outside of the box" and conceive ideas that havent previously been thought of.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>


Yes, that is precise. The replies had been very interesting so far, in combination with the present background information that is currently being transferred to the subconscious of many individuals in most cases. In most cases.

He also seemed to be at a loss of what the third term in the Active/Passive triplet for which Hostile apparently gave the "right" answer of -1, 0 and 1. Its either Active (1), Passive (0), Not yet either (-1).


Correct as well - I think to be able to see that it is necessary to have a kind of mental "null system" in which nothing is assumed - the details of which I have progressively forgotten.
Command & Conquer: Red Alert - ReGeneration

"Not the faintest clue =\"

-ComradeJ

#16 AdmiralGT

AdmiralGT

    title available

  • Members
  • 1,702 posts
  • Location:Bristol, UK
  • Projects:Petrolution

Posted 04 December 2004 - 09:26 PM

Surely though with the Active/Passive triangle we can bring in the 4th option of It being neither but having been something. Why can it be neither beforehand and then be Active or Passive but thus always remain Active or Passive. Surely it can stop being Active or Passive and thus either go back to its original neither state or to a new neither state?

#17 Mithril

Mithril

    496

  • Hosted
  • 1,386 posts
  • Location:UK
  • Projects:Heh! You're not going to ask me that question.

Posted 04 December 2004 - 09:35 PM

Surely it can stop being Active or Passive and thus either go back to its original neither state or to a new neither state?


Another neither state would mean either a larger number of states or a combination of a few states (in which case it should rather be called an any state, or something like that).

For the sake of consistency I believe it would be wise to assume that all elements or elementary components of our object are always under the influence of any mentioned state, whether abstract or not is another matter. Complications would arise when we assume that only a part of the object is in a specific state while another is in a completely different state - we would end up with a huge number of states that possibly deny us to draw any sensible conclusion\further speculation.
Command & Conquer: Red Alert - ReGeneration

"Not the faintest clue =\"

-ComradeJ

#18 AdmiralGT

AdmiralGT

    title available

  • Members
  • 1,702 posts
  • Location:Bristol, UK
  • Projects:Petrolution

Posted 04 December 2004 - 09:42 PM

But why limit ourselves to 3 states? Why cant we have an infinite number of states? Surely after any event happens there are an infinite number of states of which an object can be in depending on what it did. Its like Einsteins parallel dimension theory. Every time an event occurs it creates a million branches of what could happen, its just we live through one (the 3rd) while there are infinite other outcomes which could have occured.

#19 Mithril

Mithril

    496

  • Hosted
  • 1,386 posts
  • Location:UK
  • Projects:Heh! You're not going to ask me that question.

Posted 04 December 2004 - 09:51 PM

But why limit ourselves to 3 states? Why cant we have an infinite number of states? Surely after any event happens there are an infinite number of states of which an object can be in depending on what it did. Its like Einsteins parallel dimension theory. Every time an event occurs it creates a million branches of what could happen, its just we live through one (the 3rd) while there are infinite other outcomes which could have occured.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>


Certainly we can have it, as it can be derived simply from the things we discussed, but wasn't the aim to discover trinity in some scenarios instead of infinity?

Yet - you are probably right. My aim in this topic was to find the reactions and inputs of the members when confronted with a box problem. It is interesting indeed that we now end up in infinity.
Command & Conquer: Red Alert - ReGeneration

"Not the faintest clue =\"

-ComradeJ

#20 Deathblow Luc

Deathblow Luc

    Unique

  • Undead
  • 3,768 posts
  • Location:Argentina
  • Division:Ex - Network Leader

Posted 04 December 2004 - 10:41 PM

If Dead and Alive are two states, not yet born falls into non alive. It has an attribute that one of the states doesnt have; life. Then id think there are still two states: a) Possession of life, b) not Posession of life, in which b) has: a) potential to change b) impossibility to change.

Margret Thatcher - Fenring's the one for me

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>





0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users