question about parking

[spencedawg006]

so the other day I was in a parking lot and two cars parked too close on either side of the car in the middle. It was at a mall, and apparently the owners of the cars were going to movies because the cars were there for about 3 or 3 1/2 hours. Needless to say, the unlucky middle owner was stuck for about 2 hours. My question is, who is at fault, the car that parked too close on the driver's side, or the passenger side?

[Yoda]

Well, if they were both too close, then they're both at fault. I guess whoever was more over the line than the other guy is more at fault, though. And I'd say whoever parked second was being particularly inconsiderate because they could see what was happening.

[Sedai]

Neither, because one of their legs were both the same, and the higher they flew, the much!

[earlsmoviepicks]

Naturally, the last one to park in the 3rd spot was at fault.

[Brodinski]

I wonder what you have to do in such a situation. I'd probably call a tow service and try to have one of them towed so I can get out. I'd basically do anything to have those other guys go through similar discomfort that I had to go through.

[chipper]

both were at fault.
the last one who parked was particulary selfish.

[planet news]

This question reminds me of this thing:There is an old story about an old man who has to cross a desert.
He has two enemies.

One night the first enemy slips into his tent, and puts poison in his water bottle. Later the same night, the second enemy, not knowing of this, slips into his tent and puts a tiny puncture into the bottle.

In the morning, the man sets off across the desert; when the time comes to drink water, there is nothing in the bottle. As a consequence, he dies from thirst.

Who murdered him?

[Yoda]

I know you're not necessarily supposed to be able to answer that, but I say the second guy, if only because there was no guarantee he would have drunk the poison. Gotta attribute the murder to the guy who brought about the actual cause of death; can't convict a guy for poisoning someone if he isn't poisoned.

Though, to be really literal, I don't think it's murder to steal someone's water and then have them not realize it and die of thirst. I mean, really dude, check your stuff before you go journeying across the desert. That's, like, desert-journeying 101.

[will.15]

I think it would be considered murder in the eyes of the law to put puncture holes in it because it was a contributing factor to his death. That reminds me of that old standby in muder mysteries when someone shoots someone, but is not guilty of murder because the intended victim was already did. In the Gazebo the bullet missed, but the person shot at had a heart attack at that moment and died.

[will.15]

The water was already poisoned thinking about it. Maybe nobody legally killed him. I guess Yoda is right. If he checked to make sure he had water he would have been okay. The second guy actually did him an unintentional favor.

[7thson]

This question reminds me of this thing:

It is George Bushes fault because he caused more terroism in the middle east and if he had not done that these guys would never have been enemies in the first place.

:rolleyes:

As far as the parking goes: anyone not within the limits of their own parking space would be at fault. If all cars were within the limits the mall needs to remark the lot.
Have you ever went to park and it was a bit crowded and you find a spot but the person next to it parked over the line causing you to have to park over the line to fit? Then you come out later to find he left and you are the bad guy parking lilke an idiot. I also like how some guy (or gal :) ) thinks their car is so special they get two place so no one parks next to them so they park right in th emiddle. I like to park right up against the driver door of these idiots. I will risk the ticket to piss them off.

[earlsmoviepicks]

I hope Cody Lundin isn't reading this thread, he'd have a fit.

[rufnek]

I don't think it's murder to steal someone's water and then have them not realize it and die of thirst. I mean, really dude, check your stuff before you go journeying across the desert. That's, like, desert-journeying 101.

I agree with Yoda--there was no murder: the guy committed suicide by not making sure his water bottle was full!

As an aside, is it just me or does anyone else think it's stupid when in desert films, the guy takes his last drink of water and then throws away his canteen. What if a mile later he comes across an oasis but now he has no canteen to fill?? What kind of goober would throw away a perfectly good canteen on the assumption he will never again encounter water? :rolleyes:

[planet news]

I know you're not necessarily supposed to be able to answer that, but I say the second guy, if only because there was no guarantee he would have drunk the poison.The guarantee is inscribed into the situation. He went to drink, because he got thirsty. This is the guarantee.

If he checked to make sure he had water he would have been okay.Again, the situation guarantees that the man only checks the water level when he first feels thirsty at which point all the water is already gone.

The second guy actually did him an unintentional favor.How was it a favor if all the water is gone in order for the favor to actualize itself as a favor? The favor is simply a guarantee that he will die in man-2's method.

I agree with Yoda--there was no murder: the guy committed suicide by not making sure his water bottle was full!I don't understand this logic. If he checked to make sure it was full, he would have found it wasn't full. Then he would probably have either tried sealing the water bottle or drinking some or all of it in order to get it into his body. Sealing the water bottle would only prolong the amount of time he risked dying from poison. Drinking all of it at one time would make death from poison a certainty.

[Yoda]

Well, the law as we know it only works because things like that cannot be guaranteed. If they could, the law would be completely different.

So, I guess it's fun as a thought puzzle, but as a thought puzzle the question can't be about legality, because the legal system admittedly breaks down if you're suddenly able to posit things like "this guy will definitely drink this in the morning." The question has to be modified to be a moral one, or something else entirely. But the phrase "murder" implies a level of legality that could and would not exist in a world where these other stipulations could be made.

This reminds me of the whole "sound of one hand clapping thing," particularly the part where I bend a single hand and manage to make a rough clapping sound with it, thus simultaneously answering and ruining the question.

[planet news]

The law is evaluatory and therefore retrospective. The situation guaranteed that he went to drink and that he did not have a poison detector or a spare water container. The past is pure and guaranteed. You do not answer, ruin, or even address/interact with any such question when you change the question itself, Kirk.

[will.15]

If before he left he checked and saw it was empty, he would have to refill it and there wouldn't be any poison.

Obviously both enemies are guilty of attempted murder, but actual murder would depend on the circumstances and Planet News is making assumptions not in his initial description. He should check before going out in the desert if he has water before he is thirsty.

You can get hemmed in a parking lot if the spaces are small, but not designated for small cars and when you get back two SUVs are stadddling close to the line but not crossing it

One more thing, wouldn't he have noticed he was getting wet if the canteen was leaking?

Anybody who would go out with just one canteen into the desert is a dope.

[gandalf26]

Can the driver not climb into car through Boot or Window?

[planet news]

He should check before going out in the desert if he has water before he is thirsty.He didn't check though.

If before he left he checked and saw it was empty, he would have to refill it and there wouldn't be any poison.He didn't check though.

One more thing, wouldn't he have noticed he was getting wet if the canteen was leaking?He didn't notice though.

Anybody who would go out with just one canteen into the desert is a dope.He was a dope though.

Planet News is making assumptions not in his initial description.I'm making assumptions in order to not betray the initial description. You're the one who's adding facts in order to create a new situation as demonstrated above.

Protip: you, Will, are not going to outwit it.

[Brodinski]

Screw these thought puzzles and laws of logic. Time for a story.


I also like how some guy (or gal :) ) thinks their car is so special they get two place so no one parks next to them so they park right in th emiddle. I like to park right up against the driver door of these idiots. I will risk the ticket to piss them off.

Last week, I went shopping at my local warehouse (comparable to Costco's) and on my arrival home, I wanted to park in front of our house so I could unload my groceries (lots) without inconveniencing anyone. Now, there are 4 parking spots in front of my house, but you have to park like this, instead of parking straight:

http://i50.tinypic.com/5ob9sj.jpg

You can't imagine how many people park their cars straight. As a result, most of the time only 3 or even 2 of the available 4 spots are used.

So, naturally, when I drove up to our house, someone had taken the liberty to park their car straight, thus taking up two spots. I parked my car right behind theirs and went to open our front door. When I had done that and walked back to my car, some older woman was standing by that very car and we had the following "conversation":

Woman: Is that your car?
Me: Yes
Woman: MOVE IT! I HAVE TO BE SOMEWHERE
Me: There wouldn't of been a problem had you parked in the correct manner...
Woman: WHAT??? JUST MOVE YOUR CAR! I HAVE TO BE SOMEWHERE URGENTLY
Me: You know what, I think I'll unload my groceries first. And then, I have to tell my dad something. It's urgent, so you'll have to wait a little longer.
*Woman steps into her car, her face was so red it looked like it was about to explode*

So I took in my groceries, took a piss and washed my hands. When I finally walked towards my car, I waved at the woman, who looked like she was seriously considering running me over.

It's moments like these that make your day. There's something about annoying inconsiderate people that's fills me with great joy.

[planet news]

dealwithit.jpeg

nice

[will.15]

He didn't check though.

He didn't check though.

He didn't notice though.

He was a dope though.

I'm making assumptions in order to not betray the initial description. You're the one who's adding facts in order to create a new situation as demonstrated above.

Protip: you, Will, are not going to outwit it.

But if the enemies were being investigated by the police so the district attorney could press charges all this would be relevant. But I will say this. Since he didn't drink the poison there is no way the first enemy is guilty of murder. We don't know if the guy drank the poison it would have klled him and it may have tasted funny and he didn't drink enough of it to cause a problem. This guy must have been a major a-hole to have two people who wanted him dead that bad.

[rufnek]

I don't understand this logic. If he checked to make sure it was full, he would have found it wasn't full. Then he would probably have either tried sealing the water bottle or drinking some or all of it in order to get it into his body. Sealing the water bottle would only prolong the amount of time he risked dying from poison. Drinking all of it at one time would make death from poison a certainty.

If he had checked to make sure it was full, he would have discovered that particular water bottle was defective as a result of the hole and probably would have obtained another water bottle that had been neither poisoned nor punctured since replacing the water bottle would be simpler than repairing it. By failing to check his equipment (and ignoring god knows how many signs that the defective bottle was leaking) he brought about his own death, a form of suicide. If as you say the past is pure and guaranteed, then picking up the poisoned, penetrated water bottle, knowing he has 2 enemies willing to kill him, shows a complete disregard for safety in that he failed to check and secure his vital water supply before setting out on his desert trip. It indicates a possible death wish, leading to what was essentially a suicide.

[will.15]

Legally that is not suicide becuae it wasn't intentional. But you gotta be extra careful out in the desert. Reminds me of that One Step Beyond episode when this desert traveler died from thirst, but he was actul bedridden at home with a glass of water within reach.

[rufnek]

There's something about annoying inconsiderate people that's fills me with great joy.

How can you tell the inconsiderate ones without a program?

[planet news]

But if the enemies were being investigated by the police so the district attorney could press charges all this would be relevant.You're correct. These details would be relevant. But the situation is already given. The details are accounted for in keeping with the situation. You cannot create facts out of thin air. You can only show fidelity to the situation. The past is pure.

But I will say this. Since he didn't drink the poison there is no way the first enemy is guilty of murder.Now we're getting somewhere.

We don't know if the guy drank the poison it would have klled him and it may have tasted funny and he didn't drink enough of it to cause a problem.Any amount of poison would have killed him. It is simply described as poison, not "poisonous at high concentrations".

This guy must have been a major a-hole to have two people who wanted him dead that bad.This 1) has nothing to do with the situation or the verdict 2) is not mentioned in the situation.

[planet news]

If he had checked to make sure it was full, he would have discovered that particular water bottle was defective as a result of the hole and probably would have obtained another water bottle that had been neither poisoned nor punctured since replacing the water bottle would be simpler than repairing it.He didn't though.

By failing to check his equipment (and ignoring god knows how many signs that the defective bottle was leaking) he brought about his own death, a form of suicide.This is assuming any of these things were obviously noticeable, which they were not.

picking up the poisoned, penetrated water bottleHe did not know this at any point in the situation.

knowing he has 2 enemies willing to kill himThis was never stipulated.

shows a complete disregard for safety in that he failed to check and secure his vital water supply before setting out on his desert trip.Where does it say that he had reason suspect danger?

It indicates a possible death wish, leading to what was essentially a suicide.This conclusion cannot be drawn, since all your previous statements have been rendered moot.

[will.15]

Look, he didn't drink poison because it was empty, but if he drank it he would have died for sure according to you (tell that to Rasputin).

[rufnek]

Legally that is not suicide becuae it wasn't intentional. But you gotta be extra careful out in the desert. Reminds me of that One Step Beyond episode when this desert traveler died from thirst, but he was actul bedridden at home with a glass of water within reach.

No, it wasn't actually suicide. You know that and I know that. But I love thowing in things like that to get Planet's reaction. My first mention of suicide was just an exaggeration for effect, like what I said in another discussion about stomping klansmen like roaches. Never expected anyone to think it was a serious remark. But when folks take it serious and start telling me all the ways my statement is wrong, I just gotta take and run with it to see where it leads.

As for that TV program, think someone could sleep and dream for enough days to die of thirst? Maybe he was in a diabetic coma, but either he was well enough earlier to bring the glass of water to his bedside or someone was taking care of him and put the glass of water there. Such stories require one to buy in on impossible circumstances, or else you got no story.

[7thson]

Alright for fun and old time sake let’s break this down:

There is an old story about an old man who has to cross a desert.
He has two enemies.

An important fact here is that this man is old and he lives in, or is about to experience an extended time in a desert. Is this mentioned to make the listener aware that he is feeble or wise or maybe even both? I say that it is to point out his health because as the story unfolds he certainly does not appear to be wise. The story implies he is aware of these enemies or at least knows they exist, but does he really? It may be that he is old and tired and just does not care anymore. There can be many caveats that crisscross and may change the setup to the story, but the main issue from this introduction here is his age and his health and the conditions he is living in.


One night the first enemy slips into his tent, and puts poison in his water bottle. Later the same night, the second enemy, not knowing of this, slips into his tent and puts a tiny puncture into the bottle.


The first enemy has nothing whatsoever to do with the direct death of the old man. He used poison and this did not alter the second enemy’s actions nor did the poison play a factor at all. So although the intent and the attempt are there, that is all it is – a failed attempt.


In the morning, the man sets off across the desert; when the time comes to drink water, there is nothing in the bottle. As a consequence, he dies from thirst.

It is funny how in this last sentence the adjective “old” is not used again. It causes the reader to refocus or to set aside this fact. The old man’s enemies obviously know he is in poor health, or at least the second one does. I mean this guy is crossing a desert with only one bottle of water and it states as a consequence, he dies of thirst. The ambiguity of time is a bit of an important factor here. How long did he wait to drink? Why did he not drink before he left, why did he not check his supplies? This man has two enemies trying to kill him, you would think he had to have known he was on a hit list or at least that someone wanted to do him harm.

Taking all this into account and that I do not think this old man was weak of mind, only of body and he was tired of life. I think he was aware of everything that happened or had an idea. I think he looked and saw he had no water and was in fact planning on pouring the water out before he left anyway. He wanted to die in the land he grew up in and he wanted the sand to take him.

Who murdered him?

He was not murdered, he committed suicide.


Then in heaven (or wherever) he could park his camel wherever he wanted without having to worry about other rude camel parkers.

[planet news]

My first mention of suicide was just an exaggeration for effect, like what I said in another discussion about stomping klansmen like roaches. Never expected anyone to think it was a serious remark. But when folks take it serious and start telling me all the ways my statement is wrong, I just gotta take and run with it to see where it leads.So you trolled everyone page after page for over a week in multiple threads just to see our reactions? Wow. Even I can't compete with that level of duplicity.

Such stories require one to buy in on impossible circumstances, or else you got no story.Finally...

[will.15]

I have one for you, Planet News. You are on President Nixon's enemy list, but you were not born yet. There is no one else that was alive then with that name. Did Nixon truly consider you to be his enemy or was he just drunk and messed up the spelling? Maybe he confused Planet News with the Daily Planet and thought you were Perry White.

[ash_is_the_gal]

jesus. when did you all turn so... serious and hijacky?

[will.15]

So you trolled everyone page after page for over a week in multiple threads just to see our reactions? Wow. Even I can't compete with that level of duplicity.

Yes, you can (I am thinking of something specifically). It wasn't in multiple threads, but the comments were much more outrageous.

[rufnek]

This is assuming any of these things were obviously noticeable, which they were not.

How could he not notice a leaking bottle? If it were on a table when he awoke, there would be a pool of water on the table. If it were hanging somewhere, it would have wet whatever it was hanging against, plus the floor or sand underneath would have been wet. If he hung the bottle on his camel, he could see the leak. If he carried it on his person, he would have felt it. You didn't stipulate the victim was blind or totally stupid or couldn't have obtained another water bottle before setting out on his trip.

This (knowing he has two enemies willing to kill him) was never stipulated . . . Where does it say that he had reason suspect danger?

But you did stipulate he had 2 enemies. And you did stipulate each tried to kill him in different ways. It's possible but highly unlikely one could make such dangerous enemies without knowing it. But since he was setting out alone on a desert trip (implied by the fact there is no other source of water for days after his runs out) he would know there would be dangers and he must be prepared for such dangers, including making sure he had sufficient water.

This conclusion cannot be drawn, since all your previous statements have been rendered moot.

Only if we stick to your carefully stacked story and completely ignore human nature and one's physical senses. So I rewrote your story to make more sense. Unlike the victim in your tale, I'm not limited to your historic facts. The triumph of free will over destiny.

Here's another possibility for you--what if the dead man is covered by the shifting desert sand and no one ever finds his body. If no one knows he died, then no one would ever suspect he had been murdered. Is a murder without knowledge that the victim is even missing (it's not stipulated anyone saw him set out on his trip or that anyone was expecting him at his destination) like the tree falling in a forest with no one to hear it?

[planet news]

Yes, you can (I am thinking of something specifically). It wasn't in multiple threads, but the comments were much more outrageous.Outrageousness is a signifier of farce. Subtly is a tactic of duplicity.

[planet news]

How could he not notice a leaking bottle? If it were on a table when he awoke, there would be a pool of water on the table. If it were hanging somewhere, it would have wet whatever it was hanging against, plus the floor or sand underneath would have been wet. If he hung the bottle on his camel, he could see the leak. If he carried it on his person, he would have felt it. You didn't stipulate the victim was blind or totally stupid or couldn't have obtained another water bottle before setting out on his trip.Whatever you need to realize the situation, you have. Whatever you want in order to change the situation, you are prohibited.

But you did stipulate he had 2 enemies. And you did stipulate each tried to kill him in different ways. It's possible but highly unlikely one could make such dangerous enemies without knowing it. But since he was setting out alone on a desert trip (implied by the fact there is no other source of water for days after his runs out) he would know there would be dangers and he must be prepared for such dangers, including making sure he had sufficient water.This is a highly unlikely situation. Perhaps even more than that actually. I even agreed with you that it was impossible.

Only if we stick to your carefully stacked story and completely ignore human nature and one's physical senses. So I rewrote your story to make more sense. Unlike the victim in your tale, I'm not limited to your historic facts. The triumph of free will over destiny.No matter how much "free will" you think you have, the past is pure; the situation is enshrined in its presentation.

Is a murder without knowledge that the victim is even missing (it's not stipulated anyone saw him set out on his trip or that anyone was expecting him at his destination) like the tree falling in a forest with no one to hear it?Yes.

[planet news]

jesus. when did you all turn so... serious and hijacky?When Will last changed his avatar.

[7thson]

Or:

Old Man = A
Tent = B
Enemy 1 = C
Enemy 2 = D
Water = E
Desert = F
Water Bottle = G
Poison = H
Nothing = I

If C enters B and then H enters G and then (E+H) enters A after or before A enters F: Old man dies

or if (E-H) enters A after A enters F he lives

If E does not exist and if A enters F he dies

If I is in G then A enters F then because of I he dies, then he dies of nothing, meaning he is not dead. No one murdered anyone.

[will.15]

Outrageous is not a synonym for farce and it wasn't obvious the statement were intended to be humorous. I took it you were fooling around because of previous events, but others took it serious so you were being subtle as well.

[rufnek]

So you trolled everyone page after page for over a week in multiple threads just to see our reactions? Wow. Even I can't compete with that level of duplicity.

Hey, I never set out to start an argument. You guys were the ones who started analyzing and commenting on what was originally a throw-away exaggerated statement, like me saying it was a suicide. I didn't want to spoil your opportunity to demonstrate your mental and moral superiority, Planet. Duplicity? C'mon! Isn't that somewhat of a throw-away exaggeration, too?

[planet news]

Or:

Old Man = A
Tent = B
Enemy 1 = C
Enemy 2 = D
Water = E
Desert = F
Water Bottle = G
Poison = H
Nothing = I

If C enters B and then H enters G and then (E+H) enters A after or before A enters F: Old man dies

or if (E-H) enters A after A enters F he lives

If E does not exist and if A enters F he dies

If I is in G then A enters F then because of I he dies, then he dies of nothing, meaning he is not dead. No one murdered anyone.We have a winrar. The solution was always mathematical; never practical. This whole thread has been like arguing about whether triangles can happen.

[7thson]

FTR I am not butting in on anyones debate or bunched knickers, my statements are of their own misguided merit.

Oh hi there ashley :)

[rufnek]

No matter how much "free will" you think you have, the past is pure . . .

But that's just your version of a non-existant past. My version has additional assumptions. There's nothing to keep me from rejecting your version and adopting my own. Free will--I do what I damn well please. :)

[planet news]

Outrageous is not a synonym for farce and it wasn't obvious the statement were intended to be humorous."Signifier" is not a synonym for "synonym".

Signifiers are more "obvious" in bulk or in presence at all.

I took it you were fooling around because of previous events, but others took it serious so you were being subtle as well.I think it is safe to say that absolutely no one took rufnek for fooling around other than himself.

[ash_is_the_gal]

logic isn't everything.

[planet news]

But that's just your version of a non-existant past. My version has additional assumptions. There's nothing to keep me from rejecting your version and adopting my own. Free will--I do what I damn well please. :)Whatever it is you're doing, you're doing it wrong.

[ash_is_the_gal]

like half the members signed in right now are looking and/or responding to this thread.

a sad day on Mofos.

[planet news]

You guys were the ones who started analyzing and commenting on what was originally a throw-away exaggerated statement, like me saying it was a suicide.Will did that. Will did that because Will is Will and Will would do that.

Duplicity? C'mon! Isn't that somewhat of a throw-away exaggeration, too?No. It's an irony. Because we all know you were absolutely serious about everything you said.

[7thson]

Good stuff here.

[will.15]

Who are you, Dr. McCoy?



logic isn't everything.

[planet news]

Contribute to the discussion or leave.

[ash_is_the_gal]

Contribute to the discussion or leave.

here's your reminder, p.

so the other day I was in a parking lot and two cars parked too close on either side of the car in the middle. It was at a mall, and apparently the owners of the cars were going to movies because the cars were there for about 3 or 3 1/2 hours. Needless to say, the unlucky middle owner was stuck for about 2 hours. My question is, who is at fault, the car that parked too close on the driver's side, or the passenger side?

[rufnek]

I think it is safe to say that absolutely no one took rufnek for fooling around other than himself.

:laugh: Oh, now that would have been subtle! You don't know me at all, Planet, but take it anyway you wanna. I'm not keeping score.

[Plainview]

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_VZQWFayyhhA/S_1si1-U43I/AAAAAAAAAJs/PeLi4U3a_NM/s1600/walter+sobchak+car.jpg
This is what happens when you F@&$ a stranger in the a$@

[planet news]

/thread

[7thson]

:laugh: Oh, now that would have been subtle! You don't know me at all, Planet, but take it anyway you wanna. I'm not keeping score.

Wait there is not score here? Its like playing 21 on the basketball court with 50 guys at once. Im out ;)

[rufnek]

Contribute to the discussion or leave.


C'mon, Planet, you ain't so superior that you run off other participants.

[planet news]

C'mon.

[will.15]

This old man had two enemies who parked next to him, making it impossible to leave the shopping center. When he went to call security one of his enemies smashed his windshield. The other one flattened his tires. When he got back with security and saw what they did he had a stroke, thus delaying his journey into the desert, which would surely have killed him because of his age. Did his enmeies actually save his life?

[Sexy Celebrity]

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_VZQWFayyhhA/S_1si1-U43I/AAAAAAAAAJs/PeLi4U3a_NM/s1600/walter+sobchak+car.jpg
This is what happens when you F@&$ a stranger in the a$@

Only if you don't call me later.

[planet news]

0) Agents A affect patients P causing some effect E further causing some result R. A(P) ⊃ E ⊃ R 1) Two agents A1 and A2 can affect some patient P with corresponding effects E1 and E2. A1(P) ⊃ E1 , A2(P) ⊃ E22) The effects E1 and E2 of both affects themselves cause an identical result R. E1 ⊃ R, E2 ⊃ R 3) The affect of one agent nullifies the effect of the other agent and vice versa. A1(P) ⊃ n(E2), A2(P) ⊃ n(E1)
4) One agent's nullification of another agent's affect is part of the first agent's affect and vice versa.
n(E2) ∈ E1 , n(E1) ∈ E2
5) We assume A2 affects last.
A1(P) ⊃ E1
A2(P) ⊃ E2
A2(P) ⊃ n(E1)
___________

A2(P) ⊃ E2 ⊃ R
6) ButA2(P) ⊃ n(E1) ⊃ n(R)
soA2(P) ⊃ R, A2(P) ⊃ n(R)
and vice versa. This both R and "not" R is the source of the confusion, since R is taken to be death, a single term. While there might only be one such state befitting of the name of death, there are many routes to this state.

7) So, assuming R is death in this situation, both agents A1 and A2 will first save the patient from the other agent and then murder the patient themselves if they affect last. In other words, affecting last ensures that the certain effect -- either E1 or E2 -- is carried out on the patient.

So yeah: Yoda was right.

[ash_is_the_gal]

it must be fun being a Mod. if i were a Mod, i'd just go around randomly closing active threads. especially when i saw someone "replying to [said thread]" for nearly 15 minutes. BOOM. thread closed. fuuuuun.

[ash_is_the_gal]

i'd totally get into a debate with someone, make a really great response, THEN close the thread. oh man.

[planet news]

I'd rather go into a thread and make a series of posts which serve no other purpose than to try to make the people already posting in the thread feel bad about doing so. Fuuuun.

[mark f]

http://www.dailypundit.com/sfrealblog/parking%20space.png

[Yoda]

The law is evaluatory and therefore retrospective. The situation guaranteed that he went to drink and that he did not have a poison detector or a spare water container. The past is pure and guaranteed. You do not answer, ruin, or even address/interact with any such question when you change the question itself, Kirk.
Sure, that's what happened, and it is therefore "pure" and unchangeable, but the law also deals in reasonable expectations. You could drop a marble and someone a week later could step on it, slip, and break their neck, but because the connection between your act and its eventual effect is so indirect, it isn't regarded as murder (and probably not even usually as manslaughter).

I still think I'd have to say "neither." But, again, if it has to be one of them, it's definitely the second guy.

Also, for the record, when I said I had "ruined" the question, I meant it in a self-deprecating way, not a self-aggrandizing way.

[ash_is_the_gal]

back to the original post. it actually reminds me of something. there was something going around on Myspace (back when everyone thought Myspace was hawesome) that talked about how to be safe in public. one of the 'tips' it gave was that if you're leaving a store and approaching your vehicle, do not get into your car if there is a person sitting in the passenger seat of the car next to you, because he may try to jump out and kidnap you as you are getting into your car. instead, you're supposed to go around your car and enter through your passenger side.

but what if both cars parked on either side of you has someone sitting in them; the passenger side (on the right side in America), and someone sitting in the driver's seat (on the left side in America)? clearly your only choice is to buy a car with a sunroof so you can enter that way.

so maybe if the guy who had two people park really close to him in a parking lot had bought a car with a sunroof, he'd have had a solution.

my first car was a 1998 T-bird. it had a sunroof. i miss it.

[Yoda]

We have a winrar. The solution was always mathematical; never practical. This whole thread has been like arguing about whether triangles can happen.
Pics or triangles didn't happen.

[will.15]

In the eyes of the law, if there was an investigation and that presumes the old man's body was found and there was suspicion of foul play, or perhaps his enemies under interrogation admitted what they did, they would both be guilty of attempted murder because that's what they tried to do (intent). There are all sorts of CSI episodes like that. If you shoot at someone and miss entirely you can still be charged with attempted murder.

[7thson]

This is an "old" story - let us not bring technology into it please.

No murder weapon no crime - sheshhh....

[Sedai]

WOW, I never thought this thread would run out to 4 pages...The philosophy folks must have joined in! ;)

[Yoda]

And not only have we not answered the first question, but we've asked another that we can't answer. Now that's philosophy.

[planet news]

Not sure if the same applies to the original question, but I think Earl's answer (which was, like, the third reply) corresponds most with the "conclusion" reached above.

Naturally, the last one to park in the 3rd spot was at fault.In other words, the last affecting agent leaves the "most trace" of the act, even though the "dilemma" is a totality. This, incidentally, also works to explain the "truth" of the one hand clap. The act of the clap is a totality and thus is rendered unintelligible when separated into its constituent parts. The difference here is that, as opposed to the simultaneous clap, the totality is "built" one car at a time so that we may conveniently -- though not totally justly, since the past is pure -- blame the last agent involved in its construction as the only agent involved in its construction, since the construction was only virtually prefigured before his arrival.

Ambiguities arise within this logic when we start asking questions such as whether or not the person to place the last piece of a 100-piece puzzle -- 99 of which were placed by someone else -- can be reasonably given credit for the completion of the entire puzzle.

[Yoda]

Which is why we need more information. The last car bears some additional responsibility for having the perspective to see what's about to happen and prevent it. But if the first guy is WAY over the line, and the last guy only slightly so, that responsibility is mitigated. It could be a situation where he doesn't do bad so much as ignores the chance to do good by, saying, overcompensating in how he parks.

So: pics or it can't be answered.

[Sedai]

Well, since we are at it...

http://images.wikia.com/psychology/images/a/ae/Katze.jpg


Discuss!

[7thson]

http://www.rnrh.net/images/blog/*******_park.jpg

[Yoda]

Well, since we are at it...

http://images.wikia.com/psychology/images/a/ae/Katze.jpg


Discuss!
Reminds me of a joke I heard recently: someone comes over to Schrodinger's house and sits down. They look inside a box on his coffee table.

They ask him: "Did you know there's a dead cat in this box?"
He replies: "Now I do."

[planet news]

Quantum superposition is supposedly actual though; it's not just a matter of knowledge. And since it's a pure past, knowledge is not really a question. We're just attempting to represent or code a situation into the law through mathematical parameters. This is difficult because reality is complex.

Pics or triangles didn't happen.BRILLIANT.tiff

[Yoda]

I've always felt that Schrodinger's Cat wasn't really an illustration of quantum mechanics, but more an illustration of how little we understand about it. It's sort of a form of satire, though I don't think people always take it that way. It's kind of amusing and/or weird that the scientific community has, with anything even approaching consensus, decided that this stuff is random, when every other thing EVER has just looked random until we figured out how to look at it correctly.

That said, I am intrigued by the idea that, while not random, we might be forever forced to treat it as such by the physical limitations of observational tools. It's hard to imagine an issue of technology or miniaturization that we can't hurdle, which is why it would be so freaky and fascinating if we realized we'd actually found one, even if only for a few decades or centuries.

[planet news]

It's kind of amusing and/or weird that the scientific community has, with anything even approaching consensus, decided that this stuff is random, when every other thing EVER has just looked random until we figured out how to look at it correctly.

That said, I am intrigued by the idea that, while not random, we might be forever forced to treat it as such by the physical limitations of observational tools. It's hard to imagine an issue of technology or miniaturization that we can't hurdle, which is why it would be so freaky and fascinating if we realized we'd actually found one, even if only for a few decades or centuries.Common misconception spurred on by popular applications of the uncertainty principle to macroscopic phenomenon without the presence of the quantum phenomenon which, you'll notice, is always included with the cat example or Wigner's friend. Currently, I'm thinking of analyses of gonzo journalism or the speeches in The Man Who Wasn't There, which makes it seem like -- while it is difficult to witness a crime scene without changing it -- we could still somehow go deeper (e.g. build a hidden compartment [better "observational tools"]) and see how it really happened in a controlled environment. But there is no going deeper this time, Cobb.

There is simply more at work here than the tree falling in the woods with no one around to see it fall or hear the noise it makes when it does.

A good way to confront this distinction is to mention that a "random" process acts both qualitatively and quantitatively different than a fully determinate but unknowable process at quantum levels. The interference pattern of the famous two-slit experiment can only occur if a particle is in superposition, randomized, or "stretched out" along all its possible trajectories so it appears wave-like. This pattern could not occur if it was in a certain position and just happened to be unknowable to us. A particle (e.g. electron) is both here and there and many places in between (just like the cat). This is the only way that one, particular particle can "interfere with itself"; it is in two places at once (two states at once).

In current theories, light and other particles are particles, not waves. Particles only appear wave-like when they are in superposition (result of self-interference). Particles themselves, however, might be thought of as "crystallizations" of intersecting energy waves (but I don't understand this very well).

So the cat is literal, since particles are literally in superposition. It is simply inconsistent with observation to think that superposition is like an error bound and could be rectified with more perceptive instruments. We are seeing the real when we see an interference pattern coming from a single particle. However, observing it (getting a precise location) will cause this superposition to collapse, so -- for example, if we shine a laser in front of the slit so that the particle passes through it first before we see the interference pattern (thereby determining its speed [don't ask me how this works]) -- there will be no interference pattern but a dot where the particle struck. Doing so ruins the superposition in the same way that opening the box ruins the superposition of the cat.

More "precise" observational instruments are impossible, but theoretically if we were able to look inside the box "before it is opened", we would see a cat self-interference pattern, and it would look weird. But it would be there in actually as a self-interference.

[Yoda]

I'm aware of the slit experiment and why it looks that way. The conclusion is not unreasonable, I just find it wholly out of character with everything else we've discovered. You say, correctly enough in a technical sense, that the particle has to be in two places for what we observe to be possible. But we must always consider "The Field" as a viable option. That is to say, we have to allow for the possibility that we're missing something fundamental here that explains the seeming contradiction. The cumulative plausibility of ALL the things we haven't thought of is, has been, and always will be, the smartest bet against any one vanguard theory about anything. So I take "The Field." It is almost always a profitable wager.

You say we can't go deeper. But every single time someone has said this, they've been wrong. The fact that the next level of the material universe is fundamentally different from those that came before it (and not merely smaller) doesn't seem like a great reason to assume we've hit bottom and must turn over our spade. I think it would be better to say "we can't go deeper with the tools we have now" or, better still, "we can't go deeper in the way we've become accustomed to." This problem won't be solved by an awesomer microscope, in other words, but I don't think the appearance of a totally different type of problem should cause us to believe it is unsolvable. Graveyards are lousy with the embarrassed ghosts of people who have made this very mistake throughout history.

Schrodinger's Cat is useful because it shows how absurd these claims are if you follow them to their logical conclusion. As a thought experiment or abstraction it sounds fine, but the idea that any creature can be both dead and alive is, of course, nonsense. You say it's "literal," but I find it hard to believe that anyone really believes this when you get down to it (you don't really, right? I mean...c'mon). So if we can so easily construct a nonsense scenario using these principles, I'm tempted to suggest that our principles are in the wrong.

One-sentence summary: our current inability to know something does not make it unknowable.

[will.15]

I heard this a month ago or so. it was a radio drama starring peter Cushing and Vincent Price.

A rich eccentric man marries a beautiful professional swimmer younger than him. They live on his estate which had a swimming pool. He gets sick. She takes care of him and hires a chauffeur. For some reason one night the medication she has been giving him to sleep doesn't work and he sees his wife and the chauffeur making out in the pool, which is pitch black, no lights on. It turns out this is her old swimming partner. Their affair ends the following evening. The man drained the water from the pool before he went to bed. Is he guilty of murder?

[planet news]

One-sentence summary: our current inability to know something does not make it unknowable.Thanks. I only read this sentence (kidding).

I think the connotation you're latched onto is that superposition represents unknowability, absurdity, anomaly, nonsense, or just invisible space magic. You simply have to deflate your awe of it. A particle in superposition is just a thing, an object. Furthermore, it is an object just like any other object in science. The only "special" thing about it is that it vibrates back and forth between several states like a metronome. This is its behavior. In Deleuzian terms, it has a very expressive phase space. It does this because quantum energy levels are discrete, and when you approach or go below those levels, you can only appear macroscopically as a superposition. But a superposition is absolutely real. It is not an absurdity. Neither is the cat example. Do not forget that we too have a superposition as all matter as a wave-particle duality. It's just that our mass appears to us as being so large that our quantized energy levels are crushed down to almost nothing and appear continuous.

It is the same mental move you have to make with relativity. It seems absurd that space and time are infinitely flexible, but that's only because nothing around you is moving anywhere near the speed of light.

Perhaps you're over-blowing this bombastic claim that a particle is in two places at once. It's not that there are two particles; that would violate conservation of energy. There is only one particle, but it appears in many places because a quantized energy level is spread out over a space.[ ]
If those brackets were a quantized energy level, they take up some space. Moving around within that space is still moving around within a space. However, the nature of a quantized energy level is that it is the base energy unit of reality. Therefore, whenever anything is moving around within that small amount of space, it has to appear simultaneously at all parts of that space, since that's how energy appears to us. But the thing to realize is that this phenomenon is real in science. This is how things happen.

===

So to now confront your "aesthetic" judgment of science. Our universe is either finite or infinite. Everyone believes that. Another universal belief is that objects in our universe are divisible. How much further do you think we can divide something before we have divided it into the pure multiplicity of the void? Into something of magnitude = 0, variance = ∞. If this is indeed possible, then there certainly is no God, since all matter would be -- like calculus -- built upon the void. (Incidentally, this is actually what I believe, but the time will come for that discussion someday!) However, in regards to scientific knowledge specifically -- a knowledge built upon observation, namely our observation -- is it not reasonable to assume that we have reached a limit when we have identified the very base unit of what we ourselves are composed?

Of course, it is "unfortunate" that we must now interact with subatomic particles in the form of probability distributions, but never forget that we are always interacting with the real of science. This is the fundamental mind-f*ck of quantum mechanics that I still don't think you actually get, which is why you're calling one of its basic tenets nonsense.

When you touch your keyboard, you're touching a probability distribution. You are touching something that is in many states at once. It's just that those states are so bunched in close together you don't notice. You yourself are a probability distribution. But you're huge (don't take this the wrong way), so you don't notice it.

The cat is merely a way of showing that in a certain theoretical macroscopic environment completely determined (since non-probabilistic determinism applies very well to macroscopic environments [due, again, to the crushing down of energy levels in the presence of large mass]) by a quantum effect, the macroscopic environment necessarily mirrors that quantum effect. This is not nonsense. This is a current theoretical certainty. Whether or not you choose to believe it is up to you. The same applies for evolution, relativity, or any other hard to accept notion in science.

[rufnek]

I'd rather go into a thread and make a series of posts which serve no other purpose than to try to make the people already posting in the thread feel bad about doing so. Fuuuun.


:laugh: Like we didn't already know you're just feeding your superiority complex.

[rufnek]

the past is pure

You keep saying that like it actually meant something. History--the facts of what actually happened--cannot be changed after they occur, but they can be interpreted in different ways. However, your old man in the desert and the two would-be killers are fictional, and anyone can rewrite fiction.

[will.15]

But we weren't rewriting fiction. We were given certain facts, but they were just basic facts. If we asked logical questions or inferences based on the facts PN would say nor relevant. But if it was a real incident rather than a pure puzzle it would be relevant. A puzzle that involves the question of if a crime has been committed is irrelevant if it doesn't allow assumptions and questions that would be relevant in a real investigation.

[planet news]

I get you. But the puzzle persists subtly even in a real situation. Other things might make the culprit more clear in a real situation because nothing is identical or fully completed in reality. For example, one car was definitely closer to the center car than the other (even if by inches or less), so maybe we could use that discrepancy to nail a culprit. However, that ends up avoiding the puzzle altogether which arises again when you begin to describe the situation generally: three cars, one on each side, etc. As far as we know from the linguistic description, all three cars are identical and therefore countable as members of a set and therefore applicable to mathematical logic.

But words fail to capture reality, big time, so there are always other ways out of confronting the puzzle.

[ash_is_the_gal]

i love how earl comes to a conclusion in one sentence, and planet has to "in other words" it x 3.

PHILOSOPHY