![]() |
![]() |
Visit The *EVEN NEWER* Barrow-Downs Photo Page |
![]() |
#17 | |||
Wight
Join Date: Jun 2016
Posts: 144
![]() |
Quote:
Do you not know what a Turning Machine is (The Earliest Conception by Turing)? A strip of paper, with encoded rules that describe various operations? Turing proved that this simple model was capable of solving any problem possible that could be computed. At that point, you are then left with the philosophical issue of: P = NP || P ≠ NP. Quote:
We have gaps in history. We have a lack of a Foundational Philosophical and Metaphysical account of the universe. And we have multiple competing Theologies, most of which appear to be categorically contradictory. It's pretty easy to accept/reject other's accounts of Middle-earth based upon a singular criteria: Do they alter the Canon? Peter Jackson didn't just alter the canon, he vomited all over it. And that doesn't even get into the metaphysical or theological minutia. All one needs to look at is the pure Historical record of Middle-earth (what Tolkien said happened, and where). Quote:
How we treat each other seems to be exactly the same as how everyone in academic gets treated. Some have more experience than others. And I didn't recruit them. We got the idea after the original Jackson movies were produced, but it really didn't go very far until the second Trilogy of movies was produced, when we all pretty much reacted with revulsion to Jackson's treatment of The Hobbit, and began wondering a bit more deeply about a simple question (which also sums up the goal): "What would need to be true given what is true in Tolkien's works?" Another way to put that is: "What is necessarily True in Middle-earth given the Observation of Middle-earth?" (not necessarily referring to the books by the same name there). This is the essence of the Sciences (What is Necessarily True given what we Observe of the Universe?). MB |
|||
![]() |
![]() |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
![]() |