Anger is ''natural'', yes, but is it reasonable? That's a question a thinking animal would ask. I say ''thinking animal'' because I've seen dogs not getting angry and I've seen people not thinking.

As far as humans are concerned we always(?) need a reason. Be it getting angry, what to wear or thinking about the universe itself. This also applies to emotions. So, in short, there's a reason for anger.

The OP's question is one I'd expect from a thinking animal (no offence intended). To answer I'd like to give is from a Buddhist perspective since it seems most apt to me.

The Buddhist doctrine of Impermanence inevitably results in a loss of attachment (to not only external objects but also of the self). Everything is subject to death and decay and this realization motivates the Buddhist to value each experience, each moment. From this perspective, any reason for anger fades into the night.

So, it's ''natural'' to feel anger but for the benefit of the thinking animal, there's no real reason to be angry at all.

There's a big difference between using rationality to discover the truths of the universe and using rationality to decide which option to choose from that will result in the best outcome for myself and/or the most people — Harry Hindu

What is this difference?

Rational, because it prevents her from starving and she doesn't want to starve — andrewk

Tossing a coin is neither rational nor irrational - it's just an action — andrewk

Do you think it irrational that, at the beginning of a football or cricket match, the two captains agree to toss a coin to decide which one gets to choose which direction to run (football) or whether to bat (cricket)? — andrewk

If tossing a coin is rational then why not use it for ALL situations, from what we should eat to whether God exists or not? It's rational (according to you) after all.

Rational, because it prevents her from starving and she doesn't want to starve — andrewk

If a rational choice could be made, as you're suggesting, why did the ass have to toss a coin?

I think humans are in a unique position. We're in some kind of transition phase between animals and, what I call, something higher. Perhaps ''higher'' is a loaded word but you'll probably let that slide. So, we're torn between our animal instincts (that knows no shame or, more pertinently, morality) and our higher selves (our rationality, morality). Much of our ''problems'', including the one the OP discusses, arises from this tension - like a circus lion divided between trained obedience and unchained aggression.

But is this decision by the ass to be guided by a coin toss rational or irrational?

Perhaps what I have to say is childish but kindly answer my question.

From the very basic math books I've read the invention of zero is celebrated as a great acheivement in the field. I have a vague idea of what that means. For instance the trivial? solution to 2 - 2 is zero. Also I think the concept of negative numbers would probably not exist without zero to connect the positive integers and negative integers.

However, we can't divide by zero. Neither is there an accepted solution to 0^0. My understanding is division and exponents are very fundamental operations in math and so, I reckon this difficulty with zero with respect to fundamental math operations gets transmitted, like a disease, into all branches of math where zero is a number.

My question is:

Isn't zero more of a problem than a solution?

I don't agree with that claim, however. — Terrapin Station

But why?

We describe something as random when we don't know all the rules — andrewk

Ok. I'm still confused but I'll agree with you for the moment.

How do you fit your interpretation of random with my OP, especially with Buridan's ass paradox? It's my view that the ass is left with no option but to choose randomly. Reason can't assist in this decision because, well, there is no reason to guide the choice. I think the absence of reason in this case implies the decision is/has to be irrational. I have a feeling you'll disagree. I don't know.

That's the case whether we're talking about paintings, natural language or mathematics. — Terrapin Station

What I don't understand is how you seem to see no difference at all between math and natural language.

I agree that natural language has a longer history than math (some may disagree). I also agree that math is a language - to be truthful it's an extension of natural language invented to simplify and refine quantitave thought. That is why you may see stuff like ''gravity is inversely proportional to the square of the distance between two objects''. It's easier to write and read it in math but natural language captures the meaning too.

What I want to say is that math and natural language differ from each other in a significant way:

Imagine you're an explorer who knows math and English. Your expedition in a foreign land has discovered a couple of books written in a different language. One is on science and the other is on history. Lukily you find a translator and begin work on deciphering these books. What you'll find is that the science book, being mathematically based, matches number to number with what scientists in your world know of the universe. However this will not be the case with the history book. In essence, the laws of the universe are mathematical and, well, universal. Therefore the concordance between people, cultures, civilizations, and even galaxies.

You'd have to translate mathematics just as much as any natural language. You need to figure out their words and symbols and syntax etc. just the same way.

What you'd not have to translate is their representational visual art, whatever media they use. — Terrapin Station

I see where you're misunderstanding me.

All languages are symbolic (including math). This is true. And symbols being arbitrary we have to translate if two culture are to understand each other.

However, there is something different between the message contained in natural language and math. The laws of nature are mathematical - the numbers that describe them are unalterable. For instance gravity will always be inversely proportional to the square of the distance between two objects. This element of necessity doesn't exist in natural language e.g. The sky may not be blue everywhere. To further clarify, the objective facts in the universe doesn't affect natural language but they do affect the mathematical formulae describing them.

Strange then to have the word "random" in our dictionary, isn't it? If everything follows rules why have the word "random", "unpredictable", "erratic", "chaos", etc?

Can you tell me?

Wait, "the cat is on the mat" doesn't describe any objective fact in your view? — Terrapin Station

What does this have to do with what I'm saying?

Do you think natural language and mathematics are completely identical?

I'll give you an analogy to describe the situation as it is.

We have two languages - natural language and mathematics. You travel to a distant galaxy and find an alien civilization. Which language do you think would be shared by you and aliens?

In fact I don't have to create such an elaborate scenario. Look at us. We have thousands of language which come under the term of natural language. They're not universal and people need translators if we're to understand each other . However, mathematics is universal e.g. Pythagora's theorem is exactly the same whether you're in China or USA. This is what I mean.

Does this forum enrich your life? — schopenhauer1

Ask not what your forum can do for you. Ask what you can do for your forum. :P

That's where you're getting into difficulty. Randomness is not breaking rules. It's just a different set of rules from non-randomness. If you study probability theory you will see that it is formally logical in exactly the same way as other branches of mathematics. — andrewk

In my opinion randomness is a total absence of rules. If I were to behave randomly that would necessitate an inability on the part of anyone to predict my behavior. Had I been, contrariwise, behaving as per some rules it would be only a matter of time before someone would decipher my rule-based method and predict my actions. And I think this view of randomness conforms with the general consensus on the matter.

Why would you say that randomness has a "different set of rules"? Can you cite some examples of such rules

Your argument was that if the world itself is not x, then x could not describe the world.qq

Natural languages and paints on a canvas are two other things that can describe the world. Would you say that the world thus must be natural language and paints on a canvas? — Terrapin Station

Natural language seems to be entirely arbitrary - words and their referents are a matter of convention. I question this view but that's another topic.

But math is not like that. It probably started off as a language but its uncanny ability to describe the laws of nature isn't accidental (as you suggest). While natural language is not expected to be universal - there are so many languages on earth itself - the general consensus among scientists is that math is. Many interstellar messages have been beamed to nearby stars and their content is, well, mathematical.

I would probably think that their ability to speak english was impaired. I certainly wouldn't conclude that "I am Groot" is the only thing worth saying.[/quote — geospiza

Give me one word to describe:

1. life
2. your job
3. your best friend
4. your worldview
5. religion
6. music
7. the universe
etc.
Such requests force you to seek the heart of an issue, sifting through the superficial, the superfluous, the irrelevant and achieve a realization of the real truth. I'm not imagining this because there are many people who seek the truth in whatever field that draws their attention.

Have you never faced a dilemma? Most dilemmas are loss-oriented in the sense the options provided are all undesirable. There are common English expressions that describe such situations e.g. ''Hobson's choice'', ''Catch 22''. These dilemmas are characterized by mental paralysis, the rational mind in particular, and a decision cannot be made. So, here's a situation you're surely familiar with that captures the essence of what I want to say - failure of rationality under certain circumstances.

I am trying to understand what that is. — geospiza

If someone were to answer your every question with the same sentence/phrase/word e.g. ''I am Groot'', what would go through your mind?

Do you believe that the world is comprised of natural language, too?

What about paints? — Terrapin Station

What at first seems wrong could on analysis be true. Are we so dead sure that there's no hidden connection between words and their referents and all there is is simply convention?

Also, to answer your question, the laws of nature are mathematical. The laws are quantitative and so mathematics describes them accurately. We can't change the laws of nature by manipulating language, natural or mathematical.

Could you expand on what you intended by the phrase "a real world twin"? — geospiza

Perhaps my words were poorly chosen. I only wanted to say that there's a similarity between the two (the movie and real life).

I believe that mathematics is an invented language we employ to talk about the world. I don't believe that the world itself is mathematical per se. — Terrapin Station

Following your lead, the language is only as good as the information it can convey. What I want to say is if the universe is not mathematical then our invented language would fail to describe it. This is not the case as mathematics has, up till now, seen amazing success in expressing the facts of our universe.

Oh. I've made a mistake. However, I hope it doesn't spoil my story, the main point of which is the mathematical nature of the universe.

Sure. What exactly is it that you do not understand? — andrewk

A very simple conception of the issue:

Rationality has rules.

Irrationality is breaking rules

Randomness is also breaking rules

So I don't see the distinction you between the last two.

However, if I've understood correctly, you make a distinction between rational and random. Otherwise you wouldn't have said:

It is rational in such a situation to decide to act upon the outcome of a random or pseudo-random phenomenon, because it will break the deadlock and prevent starvation — andrewk

So, you've floated three ideas here:
1. Rational
2. Random
3. Irrational

Please clarify

Yet you avoid the term ''irrational''. Does that mean you see a difference between random and irrational?

Thanks

Yes, the ass has survived but at the cost of its rationality. You may say that the rational course of action for the ass is to eat because, well, it would die otherwise. But the act of choosing between the two equally attractive options is not rational for the simple reason that there's no valid rational factor to tip the balance in favor of either pile of hay. So, in this case, the act of choosing is completely irrational. Sometimes it's rational to be irrational.

They even do - Abraham Lincoln, Martin Luther King, Mahatma Gandhi, etc.

Depends on the message. — Wosret

Religion is, generally speaking, about love and peace.

I think that is a very Christian/theistic/Western perspective on it, which is quite alien to the Taoists. — Wayfarer

Then is there something more important than being good and shunning evil? Your comment suggests that Taoism is something different.

I don't like proclaimed super-humans and mediators, no — Wosret

Is your issue with the messenger only or do you not the like the message too?

This isn't a paradox at all — Harry Hindu

But the whole point of the Buridan's Ass paradox is the failure of rationality to provide a solution. You may say that it is rational to choose to live and make a choice BUT the choice itself is has no rational basis - at best it's random and at worst it's irrational.

So, one could say, the rational decision is to be irrational.

Solved the problem of suffering by pulling people from their families to keep fucking images alive? Great success. — Wosret

I guess you don't like religion.

no one is truly innocent. — Wosret

I think I'm taking this out of context of the OP but it's an interesting point of view which I'd like to discuss.

A problem with all religions has always been reconciling the suffering that is obvious in our world with an all-good deity. Abrahamic religions, if I've understood correctly, face the greatest challenge from the undeniable presence of suffering in the world - they even have a term for this viz. the problem of evil.

I find it strange though that a solution for the problem of evil presents itself in the Abrahamic religions to wit the concept of original sin. A simple conception, perhaps simplistic, of which would be we're all sinners from birth. This is never, perhaps I'm mistaken, proffered as a solution. Probably the idea of inheritable sin is equally problematic.

One religion that I think has satisfactorily solved the problem of evil is Buddhism. With its concept of rebirth and Karma our circumstances, good or bad, are simply the effects of our past deeds. Delete the all-good deity, solve the problem of evil.

The quest for immortality isn't new. It's a staple of many ancient legends which span across cultures and geography.

The search for happiness is also not new. History proves it and we, ourselves, are living proof of this.

The two, immortality and happiness, are married together in religion.

It appears to me that the combination of the two, as seen in religion, necessarily implies that one is not the guarantee of the other - we could be immortals in hell and we can be happy mortals. This relationship is quite symmetric - happiness is devalued by death and immortality is devalued by suffering. The two are tied together to be of any worth, as far as we're concerned.

As the OP states immortality seems to be within reach of modern medicine and technology. I don't know when and how BUT I'm quite optimistic in this regard because we do have very long-lived species and to me, perhaps in very simple terms, all we need to do is unravel the secret of longevity, adapt it to humans and implement the remedy. In a nutshell, we're not simply daydreaming on the subject of life-extension.

Happiness, however, is not so easily dealt with. It's a complex emotion and 2 thousand years of thought by the best minds humanity has to offer hasn't yielded definitive answers. People are deeply divided on the meaning of happiness.

Perhaps it's a mirage and there is no such thing as a universally meanigful definition of happiness and we're free, individually, to find and live in our own private versions of happiness. If this is the case then immortality seems even more attractive as we're relieved of the burden of trying to find happiness and we may live our eternal existence in our own terms - doing what give us joy.

So, I do find the prospect of immortality very attractive. People wouldn't be lamenting ''so much to do and so little time'' and great minds will have the chance to maximize their potential - imagine if Enistein, Aristotle, etc. were still alive.

That said I think immortality, if realized, will have broad and deep impact on every facet of civilization.

I agree that it's quite arbitrary that the ''dark'' connote evil. I don't know for sure why this is so. Perhaps it's an ancient intuition - the dark hides predators.


The main point however is the meaning of Yin-Yang, in particular the small circles (black in the white and white in the black). What does that signify?

The idea is both that nothing is "purely" x or y, and that the interplay of opposites or complements is such that each contains seeds of the other, so to speak. — Terrapin Station

That's exactly what I mean (couldn't put it as well). So, given that interpretation, don't you think evil personalities (Hitler, Stalin, etc.) have in them a certain kind of ''innocence'' that redeems them? Similarly, isn't there ''evil'' in being too good, after all there's a hidden agenda - that of reward in the afterlife? This description therefore suggests the prescription, that of a balance between the two extremes.

I never took it as a prescription, but as a description. — Terrapin Station

That's odd. The prescription is determined by the description, don't you think? Otherwise, given human propensity for lofty things such as meaning of life, we'd be running (foolishly?) into the walls of impossibility.