|
Post by Dario on Jul 22, 2005 2:48:05 GMT
This is specially for my philosphal mr Penguin: Suposse an object on wich you can define a frontal side. (for eg a 2-D square with one of its faces with a slight difference, could be colour) Can you define on it what is it's left and what is it's right side without comparing with an object that has allready defined a left and a right side? (answering "I stand with my back in front of teh object's front and my left is it's left" is not valid ). If there is an answer to that question, please let me know coz its killing me!.
|
|
|
Post by khamski on Jul 22, 2005 6:49:01 GMT
i know an answer... a girlfriend!!! jk well seriously... hmm... where u got this quistion from? some kind of a test?
|
|
|
Post by Frosty on Jul 22, 2005 7:39:40 GMT
If you can define it's front then, it's left, I believe should be defined from it's viewpoint.
.........Front .......______ ......|.........| Left |.........|Right ......|.........| .......¯¯¯¯¯¯ .........Back
|
|
|
Post by Frosty on Jul 22, 2005 7:41:18 GMT
If it's a 3d object the same thing would apply but only if you can assume what is up and down.
|
|
|
Post by MrTPenguin on Jul 22, 2005 10:44:03 GMT
Easy question For an object to have a left and a right side, it must have a direction that can be defined as forwards and one that can be defined a up. The up-vector and the forwards-vector describe a plane that divides the object in two. If you align yourself with the forwards-vector and rotate clockwise, then you're on the object's right, and if you rotate anticlockwise you're on its left. There is no absolute left and right, and there can never be one, due to space not being absolute, but that's another story
|
|
|
Post by Mielu on Jul 22, 2005 14:19:51 GMT
Depends on how open-minded you want to be. The thing is, when you're defining something, you're setting the rules for that something, that's the point of the word 'definition'. So, the question is not if you *can* define a 'left' and a 'right' without referring to another definition of 'left' and 'right'; the real question is if you *want* to relate to such a definition. If you were able to define a 'front', then (in 'normal' euclidean space) you are also able to define a 'back'. If you're willing to ignore any other definition of left and right, and roll your own, then you can go for the following one: The 'front' is the 'left' and the 'back' is the 'right'. There you go, this is what they call 'an open-minded definition' If I have the time to discuss philosophical questions, I should be able to play a worms game, shouldn't I?
|
|
|
Post by Dario on Jul 22, 2005 17:11:49 GMT
Nice answer mielu. Penguin, there is a problem, the clockwise and anticlockwise directions are based on the concept of left and right, so, in a way, you are definig the right as the right side and the left as the left side . The best thing that got throught my mind was: (if u can understand my english.. ) having an object with its up, down, front and back sides defined, "facing" a wire on wich electricity goes upwards, where the vector that defines the magnetic field created points to the front side of the object is the left, and the other the right. But.. i like more mielu's definition
|
|
|
Post by MrTPenguin on Jul 22, 2005 20:15:14 GMT
Ah yes, I didn't realise that clockwise and anticlockwise are themselves based on the left/right definitions... To learn which is which, any physical demonstration will do. To be honest with you, I don't think this is a very interesting question ;-)
|
|
|
Post by Dario on Jul 22, 2005 23:11:15 GMT
Definitivelly, after thinking about it for a while, ends up not being interesting at all
|
|
|
Post by Mielu on Jul 23, 2005 0:39:51 GMT
Thanks dario, I'm glad you liked my Zen-type answer. I actually think this is a very interesting question, because it makes one think a bit more about some things we usually take for granted. Doing that almost always ends up enhancing your view of reality in some way. Doing it in the company of a bottle of good wine will also have a few other enjoyable side effects. Doing it in the company of a few good friends can be even better, but then you'll need more bottles.
Your answer is also interesting in the way it manages to avoid using the terms left and right directly. Instead, it uses concepts that are effectively equivalent to them.
Why? Because our concepts of left, right, up, down, front, back are all derived from lots of clues we get from reality: everthing we get from our senses, the perception of gravity (up / down), the 'feeling' of internal organs (think about the heart - left - and about the back of your neck - back); and these are only a few obvious examples.
As any other concept, they're nothing more than tools - they help the mind organize the ocean of thoughts and perceptions into something usable. And in order to do that, they must be consistent.
And here we go back to your question: if you want a useful definition of 'left' and 'right', then it must be consistent with the already existing huge base of spatially-related concepts that you're familiar with. Defining them in terms of the spatial properties of some physical phenomenon will accomplish that; relating them to the spatial properties of another object will do just as well. The first alternative may allow you to avoid spelling 'left' and 'right' directly, but it's equivalent to the second one.
So this is the non-Zen answer to your question in my opinion: if you just want to give a definition, then yes, you can; if you want the definition to be useful in real life, then no, you can't.
|
|
|
Post by MasterTool on Jul 23, 2005 13:56:58 GMT
I have been thinking about this. To have the ability to play strategic and tactical games, like Worms, at this level needs ascertain type of mind; to be able to think things in creative way (possibilities about what will come). This mind must be mature enough, this does not necessarily have to have anything to do with players age, tough I have met only one really pro player under age 16, but the structure of his/her mind. I personally enjoy a lot of that feeling having an opponent other side of the world, or table if we play chess , and having that sense to feel his/her skill, ability and as I like to say "force" through the screen, hear his/her brains working to beat me in this game/puzzle. Worms is ambivalent game. These worms look so cute, but U must lead them to do as much harm to the opponents worms as possible. Kind of violent. Appearance can be so deceatefull! To be hard pro (I'm not saying I am ) one must have intelligence. Anyway, I wish the best gl to everyone still in cwt, and please horry up, cause I know that some people, including myself, are waiting anxiously to get their qualifiers started! :-)
|
|
|
Post by MrTPenguin on Aug 1, 2005 10:07:10 GMT
Here's one for the thinkers: What's the definition of "free will"?
Here's a better one: Do human beings actually have free will?
|
|
|
Post by MasterTool on Aug 1, 2005 13:30:25 GMT
Hmm... have to think about this. This is one of the big questions. Goes philosophical, again ps. earlier when I wrote "force", I ment "Force"...
|
|
|
Post by khamski on Aug 1, 2005 18:04:05 GMT
"Every man dies not every man really lives" (c) Braveheart Yes we have a free will but most of us are afraid to use it
|
|
Jigsaw
Member
Inevitability
Posts: 643
|
Post by Jigsaw on Aug 2, 2005 22:46:20 GMT
we do have a free will but it is bounded by numerous factors, culture, beliefs, law, fear etc. still, one can become an anarchists and where does this question coem from penguin? have you been playing Legacy of Kain or Sould Reaver by any chance? "but does one ever truly have a choice? one can only match, move by move the machinations of Fate, and thus defy the tyrannous stars..." - intro of Legacy of Kain: Defiance (my current signature comes from there as well)
|
|