Home Original Content Funny Pictures Funny GIFs YouTube Funny Text Funny Movies Channels Search

hide menu

auryn    

Rank #53 on Comments
no avatar Level 325 Comments: Covered In Thumbs
Offline
Send mail to auryn Block auryn Invite auryn to be your friend
Last status update:
-
Personal Info
Gender: male
Age: 24
Date Signed Up:3/17/2012
Last Login:10/23/2014
Location:The Netherlands
Funnyjunk Career Stats
Comment Ranking:#53
Highest Content Rank:#14558
Highest Comment Rank:#49
Content Thumbs: 95 total,  175 ,  80
Comment Thumbs: 30901 total,  38762 ,  7861
Content Level Progress: 80% (4/5)
Level 8 Content: New Here → Level 9 Content: New Here
Comment Level Progress: 48.6% (486/1000)
Level 325 Comments: Covered In Thumbs → Level 326 Comments: Covered In Thumbs
Subscribers:2
Content Views:12780
Times Content Favorited:14 times
Total Comments Made:6140
FJ Points:25369

latest user's comments

#1 - I love blasting this through my car stereo with my windows dow… 07/14/2012 on little girls +2
#8 - My bad, I assumed you posted this. Didn't look at the user… 07/14/2012 on No Punchline. :D -2
#6 - You have an odd sense of humour  [+] (2 new replies) 07/14/2012 on No Punchline. :D 0
#7 - doctorwhen has deleted their comment.
#8 - auryn (07/14/2012) [-]
My bad, I assumed you posted this.
Didn't look at the usernames.

I understand that there's no joke, it was just my way of saying this was a horrible post.
#4 - I still don't get it.  [+] (4 new replies) 07/14/2012 on No Punchline. :D 0
#5 - doctorwhen has deleted their comment.
#6 - auryn (07/14/2012) [-]
You have an odd sense of humour
#7 - doctorwhen has deleted their comment.
#8 - auryn (07/14/2012) [-]
My bad, I assumed you posted this.
Didn't look at the usernames.

I understand that there's no joke, it was just my way of saying this was a horrible post.
#2 - That would be most awesome to see in person while on shrooms or acid.  [+] (3 new replies) 07/14/2012 on Amazing Light +1
#7 - thedeadlykoala (07/15/2012) [-]
I've looked everywhere, but I cannot find the wallpaper version of that picture.
#14 - lordcuntdestroyer (07/15/2012) [-]
Heres a bigger version
#26 - werttit (07/15/2012) [-]
that's just resized...
#1 - I don't get the joke.  [+] (6 new replies) 07/14/2012 on No Punchline. :D 0
#3 - doctorwhen has deleted their comment.
#4 - auryn (07/14/2012) [-]
I still don't get it.
#5 - doctorwhen has deleted their comment.
#6 - auryn (07/14/2012) [-]
You have an odd sense of humour
#7 - doctorwhen has deleted their comment.
#8 - auryn (07/14/2012) [-]
My bad, I assumed you posted this.
Didn't look at the usernames.

I understand that there's no joke, it was just my way of saying this was a horrible post.
#1 - Comment deleted 07/14/2012 on Genius 0
#2 - well they are based on amphibious animals, so she isn't far off.  [+] (1 new reply) 07/14/2012 on Girls and pokemon 0
User avatar #12 - theoriginalzombie (07/15/2012) [-]
Based on tadpoles to be exact
#2 - I saw a dishwasher 07/14/2012 on Illusion girlfriend +1
#2 - Picture 07/14/2012 on Morbid For DDR Players 0
#3 - Picture 07/14/2012 on Sarcasm 0
#1 - Don't worry, I think you're stupid either way.  [+] (2 new replies) 07/14/2012 on Sarcasm +1
#2 - zonkybonky (07/14/2012) [-]
why do you think that?
#3 - auryn (07/14/2012) [-]
#24 - Alright, fair enough. Do you perhaps know the name of…  [+] (1 new reply) 07/12/2012 on Sigh 0
User avatar #25 - ewowo (07/12/2012) [-]
I had this explained to me by a friend who studies chemistry. I don't know the actual name of the theory, sorry.
#22 - You do know what circular reasoning means? That theor…  [+] (3 new replies) 07/11/2012 on Sigh 0
User avatar #23 - ewowo (07/11/2012) [-]
Why am I even arguing this? I'm not a fucking scientist.
Look.
Our logic dictates that it's impossible for something to originate from nothing, but that logic, we know, is flawed. We don't even fully comprehend the notion of 'nothing'.
The theory I mentioned is an attempt to explain this dilemma, and I can, with my limited understanding, only explain it so far. If you would be so kind as to take up this argument with the person who put this theory forward, I'm sure he'll do better than me.
I should have said this from the beginning, I'm not even remotely qualified to to defend this point.
#24 - auryn (07/12/2012) [-]
Alright, fair enough.

Do you perhaps know the name of this theory, or the person who made it up?
Or a link or any other source?

I'm curious.
User avatar #25 - ewowo (07/12/2012) [-]
I had this explained to me by a friend who studies chemistry. I don't know the actual name of the theory, sorry.
#20 - We base our logic on the existing laws of universe, those laws…  [+] (5 new replies) 07/11/2012 on Sigh 0
User avatar #21 - ewowo (07/11/2012) [-]
Now look back at comment #15. You just disproved it.
#22 - auryn (07/11/2012) [-]
You do know what circular reasoning means?

That theory doesn't explain or solve the problem at all, it just shifts it.

It still doesn't explain why there's something in the first place instead of nothing.
User avatar #23 - ewowo (07/11/2012) [-]
Why am I even arguing this? I'm not a fucking scientist.
Look.
Our logic dictates that it's impossible for something to originate from nothing, but that logic, we know, is flawed. We don't even fully comprehend the notion of 'nothing'.
The theory I mentioned is an attempt to explain this dilemma, and I can, with my limited understanding, only explain it so far. If you would be so kind as to take up this argument with the person who put this theory forward, I'm sure he'll do better than me.
I should have said this from the beginning, I'm not even remotely qualified to to defend this point.
#24 - auryn (07/12/2012) [-]
Alright, fair enough.

Do you perhaps know the name of this theory, or the person who made it up?
Or a link or any other source?

I'm curious.
User avatar #25 - ewowo (07/12/2012) [-]
I had this explained to me by a friend who studies chemistry. I don't know the actual name of the theory, sorry.
#10 - Yeah, although harcore is not really my thing it's alright. …  [+] (3 new replies) 07/11/2012 on Clever Title -2
#12 - partygavinparty has deleted their comment.
#15 - auryn (07/20/2012) [-]
On the faggot chart they rate just as high.
#11 - sexynippleguy (07/12/2012) [-]
oooow it was all a mistake ; D
#779 - Who are you to say what is possible and what is impossible to …  [+] (1 new reply) 07/11/2012 on XXX PORN XXX 0
#780 - jetmb (07/11/2012) [-]
We know for a fact they are extinct...
#18 - You're referring to quantum mechanics, yet another topic of so…  [+] (7 new replies) 07/11/2012 on Sigh 0
User avatar #19 - ewowo (07/11/2012) [-]
Our view of logic is 100% correct. Why? because we invented logic. Logic isn't something that exists outside of us.
#20 - auryn (07/11/2012) [-]
We base our logic on the existing laws of universe, those laws do exist outside of us.
Just because we can't logically explain something with our current knowledge doesn't mean we'll never be able to.

Our logic is limited by what we know, and unless we'll somehow one day know everything (literally everything, like omniscience) our logic is never going to be complete and correct.

User avatar #21 - ewowo (07/11/2012) [-]
Now look back at comment #15. You just disproved it.
#22 - auryn (07/11/2012) [-]
You do know what circular reasoning means?

That theory doesn't explain or solve the problem at all, it just shifts it.

It still doesn't explain why there's something in the first place instead of nothing.
User avatar #23 - ewowo (07/11/2012) [-]
Why am I even arguing this? I'm not a fucking scientist.
Look.
Our logic dictates that it's impossible for something to originate from nothing, but that logic, we know, is flawed. We don't even fully comprehend the notion of 'nothing'.
The theory I mentioned is an attempt to explain this dilemma, and I can, with my limited understanding, only explain it so far. If you would be so kind as to take up this argument with the person who put this theory forward, I'm sure he'll do better than me.
I should have said this from the beginning, I'm not even remotely qualified to to defend this point.
#24 - auryn (07/12/2012) [-]
Alright, fair enough.

Do you perhaps know the name of this theory, or the person who made it up?
Or a link or any other source?

I'm curious.
User avatar #25 - ewowo (07/12/2012) [-]
I had this explained to me by a friend who studies chemistry. I don't know the actual name of the theory, sorry.
#17 - Comment deleted 07/11/2012 on Sigh 0
#15 - How can an effect be it's own cause? That's just circular reas…  [+] (10 new replies) 07/10/2012 on Sigh 0
User avatar #16 - ewowo (07/10/2012) [-]
Impossible you say?

Electrons are particles, made up of solid matter. When observed by an electron microscope they act like perfectly normal particles.

When unobserved they gain the properties of waves rather than particles.

This is impossible. It's also true. A great many things that seem to go against logic or common sense are true. Logic and common sense originiate in our own brains, they are not governing laws of this universe.
#18 - auryn (07/11/2012) [-]
You're referring to quantum mechanics, yet another topic of something we know very little about.
It only seems illogical because we can't see or measure the underlying cause. We can only see the tip of iceberg.
Science is and always will be very limited because it is limited by it's tools to observe/measure and the tools on their turn are limited by the very matter they're made of.

If our logic fails it's only because we don't see the complete picture, it's because of our lack of knowledge of how things really work.
Just because it doesn't appear to be logic to us doesn't mean it's not logical, it doesn't say anything except that our view of logic is incomplete or simply wrong.
User avatar #19 - ewowo (07/11/2012) [-]
Our view of logic is 100% correct. Why? because we invented logic. Logic isn't something that exists outside of us.
#20 - auryn (07/11/2012) [-]
We base our logic on the existing laws of universe, those laws do exist outside of us.
Just because we can't logically explain something with our current knowledge doesn't mean we'll never be able to.

Our logic is limited by what we know, and unless we'll somehow one day know everything (literally everything, like omniscience) our logic is never going to be complete and correct.

User avatar #21 - ewowo (07/11/2012) [-]
Now look back at comment #15. You just disproved it.
#22 - auryn (07/11/2012) [-]
You do know what circular reasoning means?

That theory doesn't explain or solve the problem at all, it just shifts it.

It still doesn't explain why there's something in the first place instead of nothing.
User avatar #23 - ewowo (07/11/2012) [-]
Why am I even arguing this? I'm not a fucking scientist.
Look.
Our logic dictates that it's impossible for something to originate from nothing, but that logic, we know, is flawed. We don't even fully comprehend the notion of 'nothing'.
The theory I mentioned is an attempt to explain this dilemma, and I can, with my limited understanding, only explain it so far. If you would be so kind as to take up this argument with the person who put this theory forward, I'm sure he'll do better than me.
I should have said this from the beginning, I'm not even remotely qualified to to defend this point.
#24 - auryn (07/12/2012) [-]
Alright, fair enough.

Do you perhaps know the name of this theory, or the person who made it up?
Or a link or any other source?

I'm curious.
User avatar #25 - ewowo (07/12/2012) [-]
I had this explained to me by a friend who studies chemistry. I don't know the actual name of the theory, sorry.
#17 - auryn has deleted their comment.
#13 - that's still exactly the same like saying "There once wa…  [+] (12 new replies) 07/10/2012 on Sigh 0
User avatar #14 - ewowo (07/10/2012) [-]
It's not exactly the same.

It's saying that an event preceded it's own cause.

The Big Bang was caused by something from when the universe already existed.
#15 - auryn (07/10/2012) [-]
How can an effect be it's own cause? That's just circular reasoning, a logical paradox.

Don't you see the impossibility of what you're implying?
User avatar #16 - ewowo (07/10/2012) [-]
Impossible you say?

Electrons are particles, made up of solid matter. When observed by an electron microscope they act like perfectly normal particles.

When unobserved they gain the properties of waves rather than particles.

This is impossible. It's also true. A great many things that seem to go against logic or common sense are true. Logic and common sense originiate in our own brains, they are not governing laws of this universe.
#18 - auryn (07/11/2012) [-]
You're referring to quantum mechanics, yet another topic of something we know very little about.
It only seems illogical because we can't see or measure the underlying cause. We can only see the tip of iceberg.
Science is and always will be very limited because it is limited by it's tools to observe/measure and the tools on their turn are limited by the very matter they're made of.

If our logic fails it's only because we don't see the complete picture, it's because of our lack of knowledge of how things really work.
Just because it doesn't appear to be logic to us doesn't mean it's not logical, it doesn't say anything except that our view of logic is incomplete or simply wrong.
User avatar #19 - ewowo (07/11/2012) [-]
Our view of logic is 100% correct. Why? because we invented logic. Logic isn't something that exists outside of us.
#20 - auryn (07/11/2012) [-]
We base our logic on the existing laws of universe, those laws do exist outside of us.
Just because we can't logically explain something with our current knowledge doesn't mean we'll never be able to.

Our logic is limited by what we know, and unless we'll somehow one day know everything (literally everything, like omniscience) our logic is never going to be complete and correct.

User avatar #21 - ewowo (07/11/2012) [-]
Now look back at comment #15. You just disproved it.
#22 - auryn (07/11/2012) [-]
You do know what circular reasoning means?

That theory doesn't explain or solve the problem at all, it just shifts it.

It still doesn't explain why there's something in the first place instead of nothing.
User avatar #23 - ewowo (07/11/2012) [-]
Why am I even arguing this? I'm not a fucking scientist.
Look.
Our logic dictates that it's impossible for something to originate from nothing, but that logic, we know, is flawed. We don't even fully comprehend the notion of 'nothing'.
The theory I mentioned is an attempt to explain this dilemma, and I can, with my limited understanding, only explain it so far. If you would be so kind as to take up this argument with the person who put this theory forward, I'm sure he'll do better than me.
I should have said this from the beginning, I'm not even remotely qualified to to defend this point.
#24 - auryn (07/12/2012) [-]
Alright, fair enough.

Do you perhaps know the name of this theory, or the person who made it up?
Or a link or any other source?

I'm curious.
User avatar #25 - ewowo (07/12/2012) [-]
I had this explained to me by a friend who studies chemistry. I don't know the actual name of the theory, sorry.
#17 - auryn has deleted their comment.
#11 - No. As I said, it's not a theory. It's just an affirm… 07/10/2012 on Sigh 0
#10 - It isn't far-fetched. It just doesn't say anything. C…  [+] (14 new replies) 07/10/2012 on Sigh 0
User avatar #12 - ewowo (07/10/2012) [-]
causality began with the Big Bang. Therefore the event causing the Big Bang must have happened before the Big Bang. But, since causality did not exist before the big Bang, it was possible for the event to happen after the Big Bang. Both these statements are apparently true. If you want a better explanation, ask an actual scientist.
#13 - auryn (07/10/2012) [-]
that's still exactly the same like saying "There once was absolutely nothing. And nothing happened to the nothing until the nothing magically exploded (for no reason)."
User avatar #14 - ewowo (07/10/2012) [-]
It's not exactly the same.

It's saying that an event preceded it's own cause.

The Big Bang was caused by something from when the universe already existed.
#15 - auryn (07/10/2012) [-]
How can an effect be it's own cause? That's just circular reasoning, a logical paradox.

Don't you see the impossibility of what you're implying?
User avatar #16 - ewowo (07/10/2012) [-]
Impossible you say?

Electrons are particles, made up of solid matter. When observed by an electron microscope they act like perfectly normal particles.

When unobserved they gain the properties of waves rather than particles.

This is impossible. It's also true. A great many things that seem to go against logic or common sense are true. Logic and common sense originiate in our own brains, they are not governing laws of this universe.
#18 - auryn (07/11/2012) [-]
You're referring to quantum mechanics, yet another topic of something we know very little about.
It only seems illogical because we can't see or measure the underlying cause. We can only see the tip of iceberg.
Science is and always will be very limited because it is limited by it's tools to observe/measure and the tools on their turn are limited by the very matter they're made of.

If our logic fails it's only because we don't see the complete picture, it's because of our lack of knowledge of how things really work.
Just because it doesn't appear to be logic to us doesn't mean it's not logical, it doesn't say anything except that our view of logic is incomplete or simply wrong.
User avatar #19 - ewowo (07/11/2012) [-]
Our view of logic is 100% correct. Why? because we invented logic. Logic isn't something that exists outside of us.
#20 - auryn (07/11/2012) [-]
We base our logic on the existing laws of universe, those laws do exist outside of us.
Just because we can't logically explain something with our current knowledge doesn't mean we'll never be able to.

Our logic is limited by what we know, and unless we'll somehow one day know everything (literally everything, like omniscience) our logic is never going to be complete and correct.

User avatar #21 - ewowo (07/11/2012) [-]
Now look back at comment #15. You just disproved it.
#22 - auryn (07/11/2012) [-]
You do know what circular reasoning means?

That theory doesn't explain or solve the problem at all, it just shifts it.

It still doesn't explain why there's something in the first place instead of nothing.
User avatar #23 - ewowo (07/11/2012) [-]
Why am I even arguing this? I'm not a fucking scientist.
Look.
Our logic dictates that it's impossible for something to originate from nothing, but that logic, we know, is flawed. We don't even fully comprehend the notion of 'nothing'.
The theory I mentioned is an attempt to explain this dilemma, and I can, with my limited understanding, only explain it so far. If you would be so kind as to take up this argument with the person who put this theory forward, I'm sure he'll do better than me.
I should have said this from the beginning, I'm not even remotely qualified to to defend this point.
#24 - auryn (07/12/2012) [-]
Alright, fair enough.

Do you perhaps know the name of this theory, or the person who made it up?
Or a link or any other source?

I'm curious.
User avatar #25 - ewowo (07/12/2012) [-]
I had this explained to me by a friend who studies chemistry. I don't know the actual name of the theory, sorry.
#17 - auryn has deleted their comment.
#7 - Ofcourse time and casuality did not exists before the universe…  [+] (18 new replies) 07/10/2012 on Sigh 0
User avatar #8 - ewowo (07/10/2012) [-]
I just gave you an answer and you seem to have overlooked it. Because of the absence of causality, it was theoretically possible for an event, i.e. the Big Bang, to precede its own cause.
#11 - auryn (07/10/2012) [-]
No.

As I said, it's not a theory. It's just an affirmation of the lack of our understanding.

It still does not explain where all matter and energy comes from.
User avatar #9 - ewowo (07/10/2012) [-]
Just adding, I know this theory is quite far-fetched, I'm jsut adding to what you originally said that science HAS come up with a theory.
#10 - auryn (07/10/2012) [-]
It isn't far-fetched. It just doesn't say anything.

Casuality has to begin somewhere that's just common sense.

User avatar #12 - ewowo (07/10/2012) [-]
causality began with the Big Bang. Therefore the event causing the Big Bang must have happened before the Big Bang. But, since causality did not exist before the big Bang, it was possible for the event to happen after the Big Bang. Both these statements are apparently true. If you want a better explanation, ask an actual scientist.
#13 - auryn (07/10/2012) [-]
that's still exactly the same like saying "There once was absolutely nothing. And nothing happened to the nothing until the nothing magically exploded (for no reason)."
User avatar #14 - ewowo (07/10/2012) [-]
It's not exactly the same.

It's saying that an event preceded it's own cause.

The Big Bang was caused by something from when the universe already existed.
#15 - auryn (07/10/2012) [-]
How can an effect be it's own cause? That's just circular reasoning, a logical paradox.

Don't you see the impossibility of what you're implying?
User avatar #16 - ewowo (07/10/2012) [-]
Impossible you say?

Electrons are particles, made up of solid matter. When observed by an electron microscope they act like perfectly normal particles.

When unobserved they gain the properties of waves rather than particles.

This is impossible. It's also true. A great many things that seem to go against logic or common sense are true. Logic and common sense originiate in our own brains, they are not governing laws of this universe.
#18 - auryn (07/11/2012) [-]
You're referring to quantum mechanics, yet another topic of something we know very little about.
It only seems illogical because we can't see or measure the underlying cause. We can only see the tip of iceberg.
Science is and always will be very limited because it is limited by it's tools to observe/measure and the tools on their turn are limited by the very matter they're made of.

If our logic fails it's only because we don't see the complete picture, it's because of our lack of knowledge of how things really work.
Just because it doesn't appear to be logic to us doesn't mean it's not logical, it doesn't say anything except that our view of logic is incomplete or simply wrong.
User avatar #19 - ewowo (07/11/2012) [-]
Our view of logic is 100% correct. Why? because we invented logic. Logic isn't something that exists outside of us.
#20 - auryn (07/11/2012) [-]
We base our logic on the existing laws of universe, those laws do exist outside of us.
Just because we can't logically explain something with our current knowledge doesn't mean we'll never be able to.

Our logic is limited by what we know, and unless we'll somehow one day know everything (literally everything, like omniscience) our logic is never going to be complete and correct.

User avatar #21 - ewowo (07/11/2012) [-]
Now look back at comment #15. You just disproved it.
#22 - auryn (07/11/2012) [-]
You do know what circular reasoning means?

That theory doesn't explain or solve the problem at all, it just shifts it.

It still doesn't explain why there's something in the first place instead of nothing.
User avatar #23 - ewowo (07/11/2012) [-]
Why am I even arguing this? I'm not a fucking scientist.
Look.
Our logic dictates that it's impossible for something to originate from nothing, but that logic, we know, is flawed. We don't even fully comprehend the notion of 'nothing'.
The theory I mentioned is an attempt to explain this dilemma, and I can, with my limited understanding, only explain it so far. If you would be so kind as to take up this argument with the person who put this theory forward, I'm sure he'll do better than me.
I should have said this from the beginning, I'm not even remotely qualified to to defend this point.
#24 - auryn (07/12/2012) [-]
Alright, fair enough.

Do you perhaps know the name of this theory, or the person who made it up?
Or a link or any other source?

I'm curious.
User avatar #25 - ewowo (07/12/2012) [-]
I had this explained to me by a friend who studies chemistry. I don't know the actual name of the theory, sorry.
#17 - auryn has deleted their comment.
#5 - Scientific knowledge and understanding on what happened during…  [+] (20 new replies) 07/10/2012 on Sigh 0
User avatar #6 - ewowo (07/10/2012) [-]
Yes but there is a theory that is steadily gainign popularity, stating that in the state of nothingness that preceded the universe, time did not exist, therefore causality did also not exist. That would make it possible for the events that caused the Big Bang to occur AFTER the actual Big Bang. This is of course, a dumbed-down version, because I suck at science.
#7 - auryn (07/10/2012) [-]
Ofcourse time and casuality did not exists before the universe or whatever triggered the big bang, but that doesn't explain anything about how it came to be.
On the opposite, that's just a lack of an explanation.

The problem remains, how something (everything) came from nothing.
And even more, why would something come out of nothing. Why wouldn't it just remain in it's original state.

That theory is basically saying "Just because" when somebody asks "Why did the universe came to be"
User avatar #8 - ewowo (07/10/2012) [-]
I just gave you an answer and you seem to have overlooked it. Because of the absence of causality, it was theoretically possible for an event, i.e. the Big Bang, to precede its own cause.
#11 - auryn (07/10/2012) [-]
No.

As I said, it's not a theory. It's just an affirmation of the lack of our understanding.

It still does not explain where all matter and energy comes from.
User avatar #9 - ewowo (07/10/2012) [-]
Just adding, I know this theory is quite far-fetched, I'm jsut adding to what you originally said that science HAS come up with a theory.
#10 - auryn (07/10/2012) [-]
It isn't far-fetched. It just doesn't say anything.

Casuality has to begin somewhere that's just common sense.

User avatar #12 - ewowo (07/10/2012) [-]
causality began with the Big Bang. Therefore the event causing the Big Bang must have happened before the Big Bang. But, since causality did not exist before the big Bang, it was possible for the event to happen after the Big Bang. Both these statements are apparently true. If you want a better explanation, ask an actual scientist.
#13 - auryn (07/10/2012) [-]
that's still exactly the same like saying "There once was absolutely nothing. And nothing happened to the nothing until the nothing magically exploded (for no reason)."
User avatar #14 - ewowo (07/10/2012) [-]
It's not exactly the same.

It's saying that an event preceded it's own cause.

The Big Bang was caused by something from when the universe already existed.
#15 - auryn (07/10/2012) [-]
How can an effect be it's own cause? That's just circular reasoning, a logical paradox.

Don't you see the impossibility of what you're implying?
User avatar #16 - ewowo (07/10/2012) [-]
Impossible you say?

Electrons are particles, made up of solid matter. When observed by an electron microscope they act like perfectly normal particles.

When unobserved they gain the properties of waves rather than particles.

This is impossible. It's also true. A great many things that seem to go against logic or common sense are true. Logic and common sense originiate in our own brains, they are not governing laws of this universe.
#18 - auryn (07/11/2012) [-]
You're referring to quantum mechanics, yet another topic of something we know very little about.
It only seems illogical because we can't see or measure the underlying cause. We can only see the tip of iceberg.
Science is and always will be very limited because it is limited by it's tools to observe/measure and the tools on their turn are limited by the very matter they're made of.

If our logic fails it's only because we don't see the complete picture, it's because of our lack of knowledge of how things really work.
Just because it doesn't appear to be logic to us doesn't mean it's not logical, it doesn't say anything except that our view of logic is incomplete or simply wrong.
User avatar #19 - ewowo (07/11/2012) [-]
Our view of logic is 100% correct. Why? because we invented logic. Logic isn't something that exists outside of us.
#20 - auryn (07/11/2012) [-]
We base our logic on the existing laws of universe, those laws do exist outside of us.
Just because we can't logically explain something with our current knowledge doesn't mean we'll never be able to.

Our logic is limited by what we know, and unless we'll somehow one day know everything (literally everything, like omniscience) our logic is never going to be complete and correct.

User avatar #21 - ewowo (07/11/2012) [-]
Now look back at comment #15. You just disproved it.
#22 - auryn (07/11/2012) [-]
You do know what circular reasoning means?

That theory doesn't explain or solve the problem at all, it just shifts it.

It still doesn't explain why there's something in the first place instead of nothing.
User avatar #23 - ewowo (07/11/2012) [-]
Why am I even arguing this? I'm not a fucking scientist.
Look.
Our logic dictates that it's impossible for something to originate from nothing, but that logic, we know, is flawed. We don't even fully comprehend the notion of 'nothing'.
The theory I mentioned is an attempt to explain this dilemma, and I can, with my limited understanding, only explain it so far. If you would be so kind as to take up this argument with the person who put this theory forward, I'm sure he'll do better than me.
I should have said this from the beginning, I'm not even remotely qualified to to defend this point.
#24 - auryn (07/12/2012) [-]
Alright, fair enough.

Do you perhaps know the name of this theory, or the person who made it up?
Or a link or any other source?

I'm curious.
User avatar #25 - ewowo (07/12/2012) [-]
I had this explained to me by a friend who studies chemistry. I don't know the actual name of the theory, sorry.
#17 - auryn has deleted their comment.
Show:
Sort by:
Order:

items

Total unique items point value: 0 / Total items point value: 0

Show All Replies Show Shortcuts
Per page:
Order:
What do you think? Give us your opinion. Anonymous comments allowed.
User avatar #62 - maybetraffy (09/05/2014) [-]
you're not ajrin
User avatar #65 to #64 - maybetraffy (09/06/2014) [-]
death by dying
User avatar #63 to #62 - ajrin (09/05/2014) [-]
no he's not
#37 - konradkurze ONLINE (04/24/2014) [-]
here have more LEARNING on FJ
#42 to #37 - auryn (04/24/2014) [-]
The fact that you think this would even annoy me the slightest cheers me up.

I wish I could thumb that comment up.
User avatar #46 to #42 - konradkurze ONLINE (04/24/2014) [-]
so when someone else posts something educational and not funny to you, you bitch, when i do it, you want to thumb me up

logic is a white woman and youre the ****** raping her
#49 to #46 - auryn (04/25/2014) [-]
I didn't bitch.

I tried to explain the fallacy in your assumptions.

On the other hand, you started by rebuking the people who had a different opinion.
Haha, that hypocrisy thing again, huh.
User avatar #29 - drewsky (01/18/2013) [-]
You're literally on a track to get yourself banned from too many thumbs down because you feel the need to post your opinion. You know that, right?
#30 to #29 - auryn (01/18/2013) [-]
I need over 7500 more red thumbs to get close to that, so I've got a while.

Although I once managed to get over 9000 red thumbs within 3 weeks on my previous account.
Definitely worth the ********** .
#36 to #30 - konradkurze ONLINE (04/24/2014) [-]
so you admit to what i said

you troll for fun
#38 to #36 - auryn (04/24/2014) [-]
I hardly do, check my previous comments.

And even if I did, it wouln't make a difference, my intentions doesn't take away from my arguments, even if I were trolling it doesn't mean I'm not right, and most certainly doesn't make any of what you said any less ridiculous. lol.
User avatar #39 to #38 - konradkurze ONLINE (04/24/2014) [-]
ahem....9000 red thumbs in 3 weeks = Troll
#40 to #39 - auryn (04/24/2014) [-]
You're point being?
User avatar #41 to #40 - konradkurze ONLINE (04/24/2014) [-]
stating my fact
youre a troll who comes here to be a dick for a giggle

again ill hope you hit puberty soon
#43 to #41 - auryn (04/24/2014) [-]
Yes, I come here for a giggle.

You're point being?
#45 to #43 - konradkurze ONLINE (04/24/2014) [-]
* comes here for a giggle   
* bitches at me for having a different opinion
* comes here for a giggle
* bitches at me for having a different opinion
#47 to #45 - auryn (04/24/2014) [-]
I didn't bitch at you for having a different opinion.

I tried to explain some things to you that you had, and still have, difficulty understanding.
Things like that people might have thumbed the content down for other reasons.
User avatar #53 to #47 - konradkurze ONLINE (04/25/2014) [-]
well you obviously dont know funnyjunkers

if you ever paid attention to them. they largely bitch at anything that contradicts mainstream ideals of political corectness

in the case of this pic, providing the non-PC truth about race/species, the FJ kids would bitch about it being 'racist'

then again you seem to devote your time to ************ others instead of paying attention to them
#52 to #47 - konradkurze has deleted their comment [-]
#48 to #47 - konradkurze has deleted their comment [-]
#51 to #48 - auryn (04/25/2014) [-]
Read back all the comments of our conversation and you'll find that 90% of the ************ is done by you. I've said a thing or two but you resort to ungrounded insults pretty much every comment.

Hypocrisy much?
#50 to #48 - auryn (04/25/2014) [-]
Read back all the comments of our conversation and you'll find that 90% of the ************ is done by you. I've said a thing or two but you resort to ungrounded insults pretty much every comment.

Hypocrisy much?
#44 to #43 - auryn (04/24/2014) [-]
Your*
#31 to #30 - drewsky (01/18/2013) [-]
WHAT, 9000?!?!
#32 to #31 - auryn (01/18/2013) [-]
Haha, yeah.

It was on the ponytime channel, bronies are very easily to startle.
#33 to #32 - drewsky (01/18/2013) [-]
What if I told you that I'm a brony?
What if I told you that I'm a brony?
#35 to #34 - drewsky (01/18/2013) [-]
Well, then good day, sir.
Well, then good day, sir.
User avatar #14 - wittyuser (05/31/2012) [-]
your user name is my name without the L
inb4 cool story bro
#15 to #15 - auryn (05/31/2012) [-]
I picked Auryn because I liked the symbol of the talisman and what it represents, both depicting duality and infinity.
User avatar #55 to #15 - Falkor (05/21/2014) [-]
you didn't pick it for the neverending story? : (
#56 to #55 - auryn (05/21/2014) [-]
Ofcourse I did!

That's why I chose it in the first place.
User avatar #57 to #56 - Falkor (05/21/2014) [-]
i just looked up what talisman was, lol
User avatar #12 - kylecolb (05/05/2012) [-]
are you on bodybuilding.com? do you have a profile there? love that site
#13 to #12 - auryn (05/05/2012) [-]
I've read an assload of articles and threads on that site, but I don't have a profile.
#10 - sharkwaffle **User deleted account** has deleted their comment [-]
#7 - neededllama (04/02/2012) [-]
So you're gonna keep trolling?
Also, why did you choose this name, and not another Trek name?
Did you not want to be known as Trek anymore?
#8 to #7 - auryn (04/02/2012) [-]
I figured I'll just keep a low profile this time and keep the trolling to a minimum.

User avatar #3 - coolponyboy ONLINE (03/29/2012) [-]
hey whats up?
#6 to #3 - auryn (03/31/2012) [-]
The sky.
 Friends (0)