You weren't stranded in an island after having crashed landed from flight 815 were you - when you were talking about all that?
Was your friends' name Daniel Faraday by any chance?
P.S You better patent that theory..
this twisted my head
- Thread starter cm1179
- Start date
You weren't stranded in an island after having crashed landed from flight 815 were you - when you were talking about all that?
Was your friends' name Daniel Faraday by any chance?
P.S You better patent that theory..
Whether it is or not, we experience time as a linear line, like travelling down a straight road, so long as your still moving/living then you are always getting closer to the end of that road irrespective of whether you know where the finish line is.
Your mate claiming "all it did was put me 90 minutes closer to death" is nonsensical simply because at that exact time he said that, he was 90 minutes closer to his death regardless of if he had watched a film or not.
Your mate claiming "all it did was put me 90 minutes closer to death" is nonsensical simply because at that exact time he said that, he was 90 minutes closer to his death regardless of if he had watched a film or not.
That's not the point. The point is that all it did was bring him closer to death. It would have been nice if he had enjoyed those 90 minutes, or discovered some great truth about life, or whatever.
i think it came down to the odds being greater of living another 24 hours for every 24 hours passed as in, you're not closer to death, you're closer to living for another 24 hours in terms of odds being in your favour for living longer as opposed to dying earlier
If that were the case then by the time you were 70 you'd be almost certain to live to 140.
...
This would make sense, perhaps, if we weren't biological organisms. It's true that our deaths aren't predefined, but the passage of time and aging exponentially increases the likelihood of death.
Exactly.
You're excused.
i think it's a case of for every minute/hour/day you live, the odds of you doing it again tomorrow are greater in favour than against, therefore you're older but not closer to death, rather in a more favourable chance of doing it again tomorrow
oh do explain please? makes sense to me
lol some drunken whiskey sipping hiccup .. hiccup.... oxford nabs coming up with a theory about something so simple to explain hiccup..hiccup while in a drunken state.. hiccup... bicycle, innertube ,badger ,rubber ,giraffe wheelbarrow hiccup ..... i was rather drunk .
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NPiGJBHVadA
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NPiGJBHVadA
Soldato
- Joined
- 16 Jun 2009
- Posts
- 2,566
- Location
- Bucks
I just imagined a voodoo ritual that involves playing the DVD of Road Trip backwards over a fresh grave.
I'm sure a cleverer OCUKER could elucidate this concept better in terms of an equation or something, but here goes.
Surviving a day does not impart any advantage to your survivability the next day, aside from the obvious fact of your continued existence*. So while you've spent 90 minutes safe in the cinema, that doesn't have any bearing on the likelihood you'll get hit by a car or if you develop terminal cancer in the future. It's in the past.
I can almost understand what he's saying in terms of the probability of encountering a life threatening event within those 90 minutes, but the argument falls down in the face of aging among other things, as has been pointed out more than once.
The time I took to write this post, sitting at my desk, hasn't given me extra time to use in the future, nor has it reduced the possibility of me slipping and breaking my tailbone on the icy pavements when I walk home later today.
*This is not the same as your chances of surviving.
Surviving a day does not impart any advantage to your survivability the next day, aside from the obvious fact of your continued existence*. So while you've spent 90 minutes safe in the cinema, that doesn't have any bearing on the likelihood you'll get hit by a car or if you develop terminal cancer in the future. It's in the past.
I can almost understand what he's saying in terms of the probability of encountering a life threatening event within those 90 minutes, but the argument falls down in the face of aging among other things, as has been pointed out more than once.
The time I took to write this post, sitting at my desk, hasn't given me extra time to use in the future, nor has it reduced the possibility of me slipping and breaking my tailbone on the icy pavements when I walk home later today.
*This is not the same as your chances of surviving.
it is about the odds of you making it through to the next day being greater, you are not closer to death, you are, infact in a better position 'odds' wise, to make it through the next day, therefore you are not closer to death as the chances of you being here tomorrow are in your favour. obviously this cannot take into account the probabilty that there is a chance you could die tomorrow but the chances of this happening are not as great as it not happening. you will still die but the chances of you living for another 50 years are greater than you living for another 50 minutes.
So I was right. It means what it says. It was a wasted 90 minutes.
Only in GD could someone make something so simple so complicated!
if you did regular excercise, ate well and got the weathers vitamins every day, you'd more than likely hit your late mid 80's, though it wouldn't have been the most interesting life one could lead