Why do we care about a number in the grand scheme of things?

easyrider · 1 Jan 2017 at 20:33

dowie said:
WTF are you smoking

you're not a philosopher, you're just a silly internet poster who should have paid more attention in physics classes at school

You deem to betting getting frustrated ?

Why ?

h4rm0ny · 1 Jan 2017 at 20:45

datalol-jack said:
Standard GD reply #71:

If only I had known. I could have just typed "#71" and saved myself three characters. Is this list available anywhere? I know "Poo through their letterbox" is #1 and the #10's through #20's are the ones about immigrants, but the rest I can't seem to find anywhere. If you could drop me a link, that'd be grand.

adolf hamster · 1 Jan 2017 at 20:54

h4rm0ny said:
If only I had known. I could have just typed "#71" and saved myself three characters. Is this list available anywhere? I know "Poo through their letterbox" is #1 and the #10's through #20's are the ones about immigrants, but the rest I can't seem to find anywhere. If you could drop me a link, that'd be grand.

iirc:
1. poo through letterbox
2. it's a queen wasp, i should know my dad kills them for a living
3. nuke from orbit, it's the only way to be sure
4. fist under chin
5. because brexit (a relatively recent entry that's been promising at ascending the ranks)
6. daily fail link
7. aliens.jpg
8. kill it with fire (took a slide after the takeover of nuke from orbit)
9. tl:dr
10. is there a tl:dr version?

dowie · 1 Jan 2017 at 21:19

easyrider said:
You deem to betting getting frustrated ?

Why ?

More just very baffled... I assumed you were drunk, now it just seems you're a bit ignorant.

AndyCr15 · 1 Jan 2017 at 21:22

regulus said:
Didn't celebrate my birthday or NYE and nothing happened.

Is it just me that thinks actually that sounds a little sad? Whilst, sure it's not that important, I like to celebrate things with people. Are you saying it's your preference not to, or just that you didn't and that's fine?

I didn't do anything last night, but I think I would have preferred to if there was a decent option.

sigma · 1 Jan 2017 at 21:25

SPG said:
Yes, (wrong matter level for it not to) its a glove which you have just put in a box, same goes for the cat.

Things do not just disappear with our level of technology, or 90% of GD would be upto there necks in poop.

I thought things can disappear at a quantum level?

SPG · 1 Jan 2017 at 21:27

Takes all sorts, you only understand this more as you get older

Personally i just wanted a utter quiet break this year, no running around visiting family, friends aside from christmas day with the old folks, done nothing socially and its been fantastic. Could quite happily be a techno hermit.

easyrider · 1 Jan 2017 at 21:41

dowie said:
More just very baffled... I assumed you were drunk, now it just seems you're a bit ignorant.

Of what?

sigma · 1 Jan 2017 at 21:43

easyrider said:
Of what?

Time is a thing, I don't think that's not disputed. What is unknown is why time exists in the first place and why we are here to observe it.

dowie · 1 Jan 2017 at 22:26

easyrider said:
Of what?

Time

Amadeus · 1 Jan 2017 at 22:32

Read this The Power of Now by Eckhart Tolle, in fact get the audiobook he reads it...and it will free you of thought of time but bring the ego self into the now

honest try it

Angilion · 2 Jan 2017 at 00:37

adolf hamster said:
we should care about numbers, after all it is scientifically proven that the higher the number of birthdays you've had, the higher your chance of dying.

I no longer have birthdays, therefore I will live forever. When the earth is in approximately the same place relative to the sun that it was in when I was born...I don't care.

"New" year is even sillier because it's relevant to nothing. The earth is in an arbitrarily chosen position of no importance on its orbit. Which happens every day. It's not even at apogee or perigee, which would still be of no importance but at least would be a thing.

Angilion · 2 Jan 2017 at 00:46

sigma said:
I thought things can disappear at a quantum level?

Even if they do, it wouldn't be relevant in this context because quantum effects don't apply on a macroscopic level. A glove in a box wouldn't cease to exist because of quantum stuff. There's no chance of an antimatter glove spontaneously coming into existence and annihilating it.

Although that might explain why some of my socks seem to disappear

I doubt if the entire universe is so anthropocentric that every part of it only exists when a human is perceiving it (which is what the OP is arguing).

The_Abyss · 2 Jan 2017 at 00:50

adolf hamster said:
we should care about numbers, after all it is scientifically proven that the higher the number of birthdays you've had, the higher your chance of dying.

Wrong.

https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopula...senglandandwalesdeathsbysingleyearofagetables

FoxEye · 2 Jan 2017 at 01:41

dal said:
This thread is very strange, very strange indeed.

It didn't have a very good start in life. You have to make allowances.

Akagi · 2 Jan 2017 at 01:45

Aliens.

adolf hamster · 2 Jan 2017 at 01:58

The_Abyss said:
Wrong.

https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopula...senglandandwalesdeathsbysingleyearofagetables

Worse in other countries, especially for infant mortality rates, but then in keeping with this thread i took some poetic licence

asim18 · 2 Jan 2017 at 02:03

adolf hamster said:
we should care about numbers, after all it is scientifically proven that the higher the number of birthdays you've had, the higher your chance of dying.

You cant be serious?

Everybody has the same "chance" of dying whether you've just been born or whether you're 80 on your death bed.

But yeah I'm not surprised with this lack of understanding of probability and statistics etc. OcUK posters are incapable of understanding basic concepts.

FoxEye · 2 Jan 2017 at 02:08

asim18 said:
You cant be serious?

Everybody has the same chance of dying whether you've just been born or whether you're 80 on your death bed.

For that to be mathematically correct, and assuming an average life expectancy of 70, you'd have to have as many people living to 140 as died between 0 and 1.

But you should know otherwise, regardless. Mortality rates are much higher during infancy (esp 3rd world), and past 50 (ish).

asim18 · 2 Jan 2017 at 02:11

FoxEye said:
For that to be mathematically correct, and assuming an average life expectancy of 70, you'd have to have as many people living to 140 as died between 0 and 1.

But you should know otherwise, regardless. Mortality rates are much higher during infancy (esp 3rd world), and past 50 (ish).

More nonsense.

All life dies. Death is a conditional factor of life. There is no "chance" when it comes to death.

The state of being alive, equals death. Just because you're 50, doesn't mean you're more likely to die compared to someone who's just been born lmao.