Page 743 of 965

Re: off topic

Posted: 10 Nov 2015 22:34
by ENIHCAMBUS
Mr. Scheinbaum? That means glowing tree...

Image

I don't have an evil twin, but why not make appearence of avihS, Shiva's evil twin? While Shiva is the good of ordered destruction, avihS is the good of chaotic destruction, just saying...

Re: off topic

Posted: 10 Nov 2015 22:37
by Vortex
see? even the name is related :P
ENIHCAMBUS wrote:why not make appearence of avihS, Shiva's evil twin? While Shiva is the good of ordered destruction, avihS is the good of chaotic destruction, just saying...
Well, I don't know if ordered destruction makes much sense XD but yeah, why not.

Re: off topic

Posted: 10 Nov 2015 22:43
by Sublevel 114
why not submachinE?
I never saw him during my travel through Outer Lands, but I think it exists... somewhere...

also, I think Shiva is just fakename for computer, so...

Re: off topic

Posted: 10 Nov 2015 22:45
by Vortex
if we are to go with the name in reverse, it would properly be SUBMACHINE, in all caps. Ehnic has made it difficult to have an evil twin XD
Sublevel 104 wrote:also, I think Shiva is just fakename for computer, so...
Me too.

Re: off topic

Posted: 10 Nov 2015 22:51
by ENIHCAMBUS
Ordered destruction is that one were the side affects of entropy are nullyfied to prevent any possible loss of matter and energy in infinity, abilitating that the pass of the matter and energy of said destruyed beings back to the cosmos. (In our universe, this happens thanks to the cycles of energy and matter, such as the cycle of life of the stars for example).

In chaotic destruction, the side effects of entropy are left unattended, the matter and energy pass from order to chaos, and they went lost in infinity in a jorney withouth variables, implying that when something is destroying, anything with it is lost forever. (If our Universe didn't had cycles, nothing would have been formed after Big Bang).

Also, if Shiva's computer, then why cannot avihS being it too, one with a rogue AI! :twisted:

Re: off topic

Posted: 10 Nov 2015 23:03
by Vortex
ENIHCAMBUS wrote:Ordered destruction is that one were the side affects of entropy are nullyfied to prevent any possible loss of matter and energy in infinity, abilitating that the pass of the matter and energy of said destruyed beings back to the cosmos. (In our universe, this happens thanks to the cycles of energy and matter, such as the cycle of life of the stars for example).

In chaotic destruction, the side effects of entropy are left unattended, the matter and energy pass from order to chaos, and they went lost in infinity in a jorney withouth variables, implying that when something is destroying, anything with it is lost forever. (If our Universe didn't had cycles, nothing would have been formed after Big Bang).
I think I'm lost. I think you are trying to define ordered destruction as destruction that happens through a reversible process? But then you put he example of the cycle of life of stars, and that isn't a reversible process. Stars come in different generations, each one born using the material in the death of another, and this process can't happen forever, when you reach iron you can't continue fusing elements.
ENIHCAMBUS wrote:Also, if Shiva's computer, then why cannot avihS being it too, one with a rogue AI! :twisted:
well, yeah, I don't see a reason why it couldn't :P

Re: off topic

Posted: 10 Nov 2015 23:16
by ENIHCAMBUS
I think expressed myself a bit wrong there, I meant that something destroyed can't be reversed back, but doesn't meants its matter and energy are lost forever in infinity, cos then became part of new beings.

Re: off topic

Posted: 10 Nov 2015 23:20
by Vortex
Oh, ok, I think I understand. It's irreversible, but not completely irreversible, as in it doesn't reach the "maximal chaos" equilibrium state in the process. Right?

Re: off topic

Posted: 10 Nov 2015 23:25
by ENIHCAMBUS
Yeah, just as the Universe cannot be "Maximal Order", because that would mean that the Universe could be perfect, and we know it isn't like that.

In my opinion, if something were "perfect", it would be imposible to determine when it orginated, neither if its going to end.

Re: off topic

Posted: 10 Nov 2015 23:40
by Vortex
Yeah, also perfection is unstable against small changes. There are many factors that would make a thing perfect, and if any one of them goes wrong it spoils everything. (that's the 2nd law of thermodynamics right there! XD)