Chaos

I'm familiar with Discordianism. That is what Will (Shivertongue), our graphic monkey, believes in. But yeah, this. I don't need faith to be happy. It's just kind of how it is. Skaa's points are interesting, as he made me think, "what would be a religion I could actually believe in?" I wasn't saying that knowledge should be it, but it felt off to me that it lacked that entirely. But what could I believe in? I don't think anything. Worship isn't for me. I'm just not spiritual at all. That said, if aliens came and said "hey do this, here's evidence why you should do these things," I would listen. But spiritual belief? Not for me. Incoming math ahead, because I have been summoned! (I'm sorry. Eh, not really. I'm a math professor, so I love talking about it.) This is actually inaccurate. Pure math is independent from the world and its physical constants. You're merging science and mathematics, and while science does use mathematics, math itself is different. Physicists concern themselves with such things as physicality of the universe, while math is a pure distillation of logic, that humanity creates. Mathematics actually has very little to do with numbers. It is pure logic, and the numbers take the backseat. Mathematicians do invent totally new definitions. They are not likely to be things most people would care about, admittedly, but it's very easy to invent new definitions or operations. The definitions that lead to useful results are the ones that stick, but ultimately, they are invented. Calculus was created by Newton and Leibniz in the 1600s, and it worked, but the rigorous definition of the limit--the core of calculus--didn't even exist until Cauchy created it in the 1800s. It wasn't until then that calculus was rigorously proven from the ground up, so people were certain forever that it was true. But the definition is simply words. Let me show you what it is. Yeah. That's kind of gobbleygook if you don't read very carefully, but that was how Cauchy defined what it means for a function to get "really close" to a number. There are very few numbers in the definition, but the way the definition operates has nothing to do with the numbers. The actual numbers that are represented by each letter there are meaningless, it is the relationships that matter. It also is worth noting that such a definition is effectively worthless on its own; it's just something that someone defined. But as it turns out, that definition allowed all the results of calculus to be proven with total rigor, so that there can never be any doubt ever again that calculus is true. Another example I really like is something called "uniform convergence." It's an example that exemplifies that math is created, not discovered. Basically, it involved the question of what it means when you add up a bunch of functions together. Does it "converge"--in other words, approach some "limiting function"? So people created a definition of what it meant for a series of functions to converge, and called pointwise convergence. It was the most natural definition, but it turned out functions that had this pointwise convergence did not behave nicely. They didn't have the nice properties one would like. If you had a series of functions, each of which were continuous, the limiting function under pointwise convergence was not continuous. This sucked, and was a definition that sucked for all purposes. So mathematicians thought of an entirely different, unobvious way for a series of functions to converge to a limiting function. They had to do this because the first definition just wasn't nice or useful. And they did! They came up with the idea of a series of functions "uniformly converging" to a limit. Series that satisfied this condition were the nice things that had the properties that really should have been there. That is where the results came into play. By the way, every word that you might not understand here has a specific, concrete definition. And they are just words on paper. There's no data collection or experiments here, unlike science. Mathematics is thought and logic. There are some observations, but they are more like "how can I generalize properties of real numbers to more than just numbers?" That's abstract algebra. The subject of topology is even stranger, because it starts at such bizarre definitions, but then you work your way through it and you get to results about the real numbers and more. The definitions that lead to results? Created. Created by humanity. That's frankly amazing. (On this religious discussion, it's why I can't really accept the concept of sin. Humanity is incredible that we can do all this solely with our brains. Humans are awesome.) Math is the most powerful of all truths. Its definitions are not designed to be easy to read, which sucks, but rather, they are designed to never be misunderstood. They are concrete. Specific. Limited. And from there, you use true steps to prove a theorem. Then the theorem is true forever, for all eternity. When our planet is absorbed by the sun and our civilization is eradicated, our mathematical truths will still be true. That's why I like math so much. It really is capital-T Truth. Science quantifies uncertainty, and gets within some error bars of the truth. People feel differently about religion. But at the end of the day, mathematical proofs are done. They cannot be argued. You took true steps, and if every step of your proof is true, then the result is true, and is now true forever. Whether you should care about these truths? Eh, maybe not, but don't let anyone tell you that there's no truth that exists. Math is always there for anyone who wishes to learn how to read it. Also, regarding science and the Big Bang and origin of life? Just because we can't figure it out now doesn't mean it lacks a natural explanation. We've discovered so much purely with natural causes and effects, such an astounding body of facts, that I see no reason to give up and say that it can never be known. It might take a while, but the answer and method exists, and is surely natural. That said, why the Big Bang occurred will be difficult as there's literally no way to observe it. But maybe someday we can come up with some experimental strategy. But science relishes in unanswered questions. Science is less about answers and much more about asking just the right question. I'm just saying that hey, if divinities want to convert everyone, maybe they should appeal to both. One half without the other is useless. Stories are certainly compelling to make people think about things, but I think something truly divine could do better than an author, frankly. (But again, faith really just isn't for me.)

I'm going to be honest: this reply is incredibly frustrating to me as a nonbeliever. I see what you're saying, and evidently, a lot of people think the same way, given how much the post has been upvoted. Perhaps I need to explain better why I find this so bothersome, because I know people are going to say that it is supposed to be about faith. Faith, it seems, is not for me, then. I feel like I need to go into detail on why I believe what I believe for this to make sense, so bear with me. I see the world as totally logical. Yes, everything in the world has a logic to it. That leaf fell off of that tree for a reason. It's never going to be a philosophically enlightening reason why (the bonds between the leaf and branch broke, etc.), but there is always a reason. I'd say basically every event does not have some metaphysical meaning behind it. I grabbed the blanket because I'm cold, or I'm thirsty right now. These are reasons for actions. People, once you get to know them, are also logical, but this does require understanding of emotion for it to truly make sense. Everything is logical. Even the finest, craziest of art has logic to it. Art techniques have logic to it. If there weren't, no one could ever learn it. Absolutely everything in the universe has reasons for how they happen. And there are certainly things we don't understand, but simply because we haven't discovered the logic for things does not mean it does not exist. There is a critical difference, however. I actually don't care why things happen. But Eric, you just said everything happens for a reason. There's a logic to it. Yes, to how it occurs. Why is an entirely different question. Why did this person I know get in a car crash? I can't answer that, but how it happened is because that guy was drunk driving. Does there need to even be a "why" to things? I would say not. Not considering that in any reasonable definition of the word "event," most events have no significance whatsoever. I go through my day and feel no metaphysical significance whatsoever, and I generally don't feel that most events that occur have some metaphysical significance. Maybe you guys do feel that way; that's fine. I would say that it is weird how humans tend to focus on the events important to them, requiring there be some powerful reason why it happened, when most events don't have that significance at all. So I actually never think about that question. I can't say I've ever worried about the meaning of life. Or, more to my interest, why does math exist? Why does light work the way it does? Why is the speed of light this? I'm sure some could give answers, but at the end of the day, I'd say most physical phenomena have this question chain end with "because it does." If you can describe exactly how something works--like, say, electronics--I am not going to concern myself with metaphysical meaning. It doesn't have to mean anything. Since I feel so incredibly strongly that the universe is logical and can be understood, I ascribe no supernatural causes for things. I can't think of any phenomena that require an explanation that is not natural. So when some have tried to convert me, saying that there is this creator who is omniscient and omnipotent... I don't know, that's kind of a powerful claim right there, and it makes me uncomfortable to make exotic claims like that. Mathematics isn't like that. Mathematical proof is very simple: given these certain things that people are true, and these definitions, if every step you make after that is true, then your result is true. Thing is, the truths you start with--mathematical axioms--are designed to be so simple that yeah, they seem incredibly reasonable. To me, religion seems to go the opposite direction, starting with a very strong and unobvious axiom--that there exists something that can actually be all powerful and all knowing--and drawing truth from there. To me, the stronger the claim--and I do think saying that something is literally all powerful is basically the strongest claim that can even exist--the stronger the evidence should be. The evidence should be everywhere. It should be shouted from all the mountaintops, from my bones, to the crazy disarray of laundry I really need to do. It should be obvious as gravity, as measurable and understood as any fundamental force. I don't see it. I see natural causes for everything. No god is required. The best I can get is that yeah, we'll probably never observe what happened prior to the Big Bang, or why that exactly occurred, but I'd say that if I can't measure or observe it, it is philosophy, and philosophy has nothing against the cold, numerical accuracy of data. I open a religious text and see nothing about the glory of the natural world. I see nothing on the true, genuine beauty I feel from the fact that humans--apparently our sinful selves--can determine so much about the universe, using the power of logical deduction and careful observation. That this truth can be discovered, and can be made ours. There's nothing that even sets us on this path of self-enlightenment. Oh, there's certainly enlightenment to be had, but it always must be derived from some divine source. But there's so much truth and power to be had that requires nothing of gods. This omniscient being (or beings) that made this, they would know how I feel. They would know the truth of the universe. They know all the truths. And instead of giving me that beauty, I read platitudes on how to live life. Just words. I expected more from something omniscient and omnipotent, that maybe they would actually know this power and wonder I feel purely from the natural world. Maybe they could lead people to this source of awe. But there is nothing there for me. It made me start to wonder about this, and I came to a core problem that I think will always bother me. Nothing in religious texts couldn't have simply be a fabrication that some people wrote. They certainly might be true. But it seems very strange to me how they focus on platitudes, and not knowledge that literally no one on the planet could possibly know. Anyone can write platitudes and can moralize on how to live life. Humans happen to be very good at that. We read fantasy. It's very easy to make up religions. No doubt there exists truth in there, or else no one would follow such things, but it feels off to me. This omniscient, omnipotent being would know all about numbers and how powerful they are. Couldn't there just be a commandment to use his language, and give us proper numerals? In my mind, math is the real language of the divine, but no religious text wants to speak it. It is very curious indeed. And when I hear this logic of "he wanted us to discover it ourselves," I find it ludicrously strange. If that's actually God's intent, he literally constructed a universe and religious books in such a way that I can never, ever believe in him. He gives such an amazing natural world that can be known, and mentions nothing about it himself. The messages that I receive from self-discovery that have done such amazing things are too different from what God--apparently--found worthwhile to talk about. It really does make me automatically disbelieve religions, because none of them have math in it. It makes me think that these are not written by the divine at all, and may just be stories that have nice morals in them instead. That, at least, is one reason why I do not believe. The realization of all this really drove me from simply being agnostic to atheism. I hope you found this interesting to read at least! I'm going to bed now

Moving this to General Discussion

There are three quality statuses you can apply to Content articles. (Make sure each article has such a thing, right below references.) They are: Stubs, Partially complete, and Complete. To apply them you use {{stub}}, {{partial}}, or {{complete}} respectively. Mark articles as {{complete}} when you feel that it contains all known content on the subject is in the article. It really is that simple. Using {{complete}} actually puts it in the "nearing completion" category, which means we need to review it. Wiki admins will verify it does indeed contain all knowledge on the subject, and make appropriate style edits. From there it will be in the category of "Complete articles". So completeness is pretty easy: it contains everything, and is effectively finished until new info is released. Stubs are the lowest on the totem pole. They are basically awful placeholder articles. If you work on stubs and you add content to them, but are not sure if you've grabbed everything (because only use {{complete}} when you're certain it is done), use the {{partial}} tag in place of {{stub}}. Partially complete articles are articles that are more than one line. Partials don't really have a good definition, honestly. They are longer than stubs but aren't complete yet. Does that help?

I don't know why this would be. I think this has happened a bit. However, I'm going to be honest, I'm spending dev time on the new software. It's a big update that will change everything, so I'm going to be working on that. I'd recommend pasting your post into a text editor, then refreshing it to see if anything needs changing on your post

Hey guys! So the Why is 17th Shard So Awesome topic got us thinking... there wasn't really a place on the forums where you even could generally discuss the site. This got us to thinking about forum layout, and then... well, the forum home page looks different now. For the 17th Shard category, we've merged Shardcast and Suggestions and Site Issues into News and Guides. Specific technical support is a subforum. But we basically thought, some of the Suggestions were really "general 17th Shard stuff," and Shardcast and News and Guides didn't get nearly enough traffic. I think it makes sense to have those merged. Then, you have the Coppermind, because that's a very distinct entity. Next up, a new category: Brandon Sanderson. But wait, you say, weren't the book discussions called that? Yes, they were, but it really didn't make sense to have General Brandon Discussion--which is both cosmere and non-cosmere stuff--sorted in with the cosmere stuff. So we've given General Brandon Discussion a new home next to Events and Signings (which are obviously more related to Brandon than 17S itself). We've also linked the Interview Database right there, so you know exactly where to find quotes. (And that forum miiiight just be more than a link sometime... ) Otherwise, not much else, though we did merge Other Books and Entertainment Discussion, because shockingly, books are entertainment. Crazy, I know. I quite like the new, more compact layout, which should make more sense and also get into book discussion faster. And of course, now you have a spot for all your general site discussions! We're also looking into splitting up the Community forum, as RPing, Creator's Corner, and Social Groups are incredibly active. That will definitely be a thing at some point, given their crazy growth!

I can't say about any "goodness" outside of gods, but that would be more because I don't think "good" or "evil" are even useful concepts. However, there's certainly truth totally independent of any divinity. Mathematics is a purely human constructed set of things that will always be true (and it is constructed. Mathematicians make up definitions, and from those, derive truth). The fact that religious texts, the divine inspired truths, lacks mathematics, which will be forever true, regardless of religion, regardless of if we are all dead... It bothers me a lot. These books should contain these eternal truths, and they don't. And the best part is that mathematical proof is the strongest way humans have to be totally and completely sure of anything No faith required. It is true, and will be forever, and everyone can read the true steps to derive such conclusions. I frankly find it much more powerful that humanity can come up with such rigor, such knowledge, with purely our own mental fortitude.

It is the best name and anyone who disagrees with that... I'll fight you to the death

Yeah, you could've warned me about the singing I was not expecting that. That said, guys, Matt's wedding was amazing. A passage from Well of Ascension was read--Sazed's lock and key talk--and his pastors made the most heartfelt speech, which talked a lot about tradition, and tradition's role in love. It was awesome. For such awesomeness I am more than happy to fake sing some hymns, though I think an old guy next to me was giving me the stink-eye for not singing. That is not accurate, to my knowledge. I do think agnostic as a word is losing meaning, as it can mean a lot of different things to different people. However, by definition: In basically all definitions of agnostic, it never says "this person believes in some higher power." Rather, agnosticism is remarkable by its lack of belief regarding God or gods. I like this definition, though. Agnostics do have belief, that you just don't get to know anything about this higher power. Good definition, though I'm sure some who identify as agnostic will differ in opinion. However, agnostic, etymologically, is the opposite of "gnostic," which judging from my quick search generally involved higher powers and spirituality. So agnostics don't do that. There are certainly agnostics who are waiting for more evidence, though. For myself personally, I switched from agnostic to atheist because I began to think that really, there probably isn't a god. I do generally like the agnostic mentality that you can't know. From a scientific perspective, is most accurate, as anyone who says they know what caused the Big Bang is wrong. If it can't be tested, it isn't science, and is essentially philosophy. So, I like that about agnosticism, but I was practically atheist anyway, so I decided to identify that way. It's a "yeah, we can't know what is beyond this universe, but no, I do not believe in an omnipotent, omniscient being."

Oh totally, I get why they happen, and that's cool. It's just--like a lot of things churches do--they are a bit irrelevant to nonbelievers

It's not really a spoiler that dragons exist in the cosmere. There's a whole series called Dragonsteel, and he's said dragons are in it.

I believe the 1-2 million in Luthadel, but none of the other values.

You are a very lucky person, and I'm not going to lie, I am a bit jealous

See, as far as music goes for me, I rarely pay attention to lyrics. I find lyrics hard to listen to (I get them wrong) and whenever anyone links music to me saying the lyrics are great, that's usually irrelevant to me. The music behind the lyrics are much more important. However, if I'm actually singing something like "Jesus is my savior," that's just... I can't. It's a lie, and I figure that if there were divinities, they'd like me to be honest about my beliefs at least

I'm going to go with "anywhere you want it to be".

Eh, truly random data has clustering.

Could I make a long essay about the nature of randomness and then claim the rest of the topic was off topic?

I must have missed where the 100 million in the Final Empire and 15 million in Alloy times came from. It's been a while since I've read, so I might have missed that.

Atheist for me. I'm not sure how in depth I'm supposed to share. My dad technically raised me as Christian, but he was the kind of Christian who never opened his Bible or went to Church. Needless to say, it has never been any part of my life, so when I got on my own, I was agnostic. It just wasn't relevant in my life, and I suspect it never will. I then dated a Mormon girl, and I have a lot of respect for Mormons, but... ugh. The conflict that arose in that relationship made me move solidly from agnostic to being atheist. Pro tip: don't date extremely religious people if you aren't religious. But that's an entirely different story Totally unrelated, but as hymns go... let me say that as a nonbeliever, they've made me incredibly uncomfortable in the few occasions I've gone to church as an adult. It's not just the singing in public, but the lyrics do make me very uncomfortable, so in those times I just mouth the words, but don't sing them. It's probably one of the most disconcerting emotions I've had. It makes total sense for believers, but whoa, they are extremely weird if you aren't.

Well I'd like my wife to be pretty sold on Mia or Jenna, but I would probably be pretty insistent and/or endlessly bother her about it

See Help:Images; that should have everything you need, enna.

Please do. There are, to my knowledge, no duplicate articles, and I don't think anyone has worked on that one.

Yeah. I'm kind of banking on the person I marry knowing how to name boys, and I'll just name girls

True Adamir, we can look at that once we see your final Jasnah draft. I look forward to it!

The best names are Mia and Jenna. I love those names so much. I totally haven't been interested in a girl for being named that. That would be silly and vain... Other female names I love would be Emma, Zoey, Evie (or any variant of spelling of Evelyn), and Medora. I have a very hard time finding male names I actually like, though. It's a bit weird.