Pastafarian Theology Doctoral Theses

The place for general discussion about the Flying Spaghetti Monster and most things related to Him.

Moderator: All Things Mods

User avatar
StayThirstyMyAguila
Definitely not Eric
Posts: 1236
Joined: Thu Dec 15, 2016 2:16 pm
Location: The depths of Archaide.

Re: Pastafarian Theology Doctoral Theses

Postby StayThirstyMyAguila » Mon Mar 06, 2017 12:19 pm

Roy Hunter wrote:
StayThirstyMyAguila wrote:If you would, be a dear and explain to me what is so wrong with it.

No. Because you didn't ask nicely.
Good thing I wasn't asking you. You had your chance.
And, if I may be a Brit, How in the bIoody heII preceding spiel make you think I was referring to you as, "reasonable"?

User avatar
Nef Yoo BlackBeard
Tagliatelle Trainee Monk
Posts: 4079
Joined: Thu Jan 29, 2009 10:45 pm
Location: off me leesh
Contact:

Re: Pastafarian Theology Doctoral Theses

Postby Nef Yoo BlackBeard » Mon Mar 06, 2017 1:20 pm

StayThirstyMyAguila wrote:
Roy Hunter wrote:
StayThirstyMyAguila wrote:If you would, be a dear and explain to me what is so wrong with it.

No. Because you didn't ask nicely.
Good thing I a nobby jobby :idiot: :idiot: .
And, if I may be a Loose Canon Feef
cabin boy fir hyer. jyint hat no hextra charj.

User avatar
daftbeaker
Help! I've fallen and can't get curry.
Posts: 9838
Joined: Mon Feb 02, 2009 2:11 pm
Location: Surrey, England.

Re: Pastafarian Theology Doctoral Theses

Postby daftbeaker » Tue Mar 07, 2017 5:11 pm

StayThirstyMyAguila wrote:
Roy Hunter wrote:Is that it? A bunch of self-referential, self congratulatory hogwash based on reading the Gospel, some questionable assumptions about Islam, and some self-cancelling logic?
I read it over 6 times before I posted it (no, really).

Seriously? Try and take this as constructive criticism but you have quite a bit to learn about clarity in extended writing.

Bullet point what you want to say.
Sort that into paragraphs (ideally not more than 2 points per paragraph)
Then put all the grammatical fluff around the key points.

It's something I'm currently trying to get adolescents to do and it's difficult to learn but makes communication much clearer.
Not to blow my own trumpet but have a look at this for an idea about laying out written ideas for clarity.
StayThirstyMyAguila wrote:And I saw what Nef Yoo wrote for this thread. If that's perfectly acceptable, then all bets are off.

Erm, Nef Yoo got his own 'special' doctorate. Think a 'well done for not vomiting on the carpet' badge.


StayThirstyMyAguila wrote:
Roy Hunter wrote:Also, Professor Roland's not exactly sober right now...
Great, which is why I turn to the (rather dwindling) masses of these forums for an outright opinion based on observation, logical conjecture, and a desire to aid improvement, not biting (EDIT: no, criticism isn't the word I'm looking for . . . insults! That's the ticket!) insults that have no actual helpfully (or even neutrally) critical intent, frankly make an ɑss out of you, and are probably quoted from the comments section of a modern news article.

Ah, see, this is probably a cultural issue. Generally speaking, British people are very happy with self-demeaning humour and the only thing we prefer is putting other people down. Paradoxically, many of the most offensive words we can think of are used to indicate affection with friends. I have been known to greet people I know down the pub with 'Alright wankers?' and I believe the young fellows around Roy's neck of the woods use rather more uncouth language to show affection.

To cut a long story short, if you think Roy was being insulting then you are seriously mistaken. He (and I) can be insulting if you want? :idiot:

StayThirstyMyAguila wrote:Now seriously, did something happen? Did someone you know kick it or something? Or are you just too deep in that cup there, Dolly Parton?
Don't look at me like that, I'm giving you a way to explain this nonsensical ranting.

Not clever. See, you don't know anyone on here. I will admit I don't either but after 8 years or so you get a pretty good grasp on what people are like. Now, if what you had said was correct? All you have achieved is making someone feel upset or angry about circumstances they cannot control. Roy, for all that you feel he is insulting and belittling you, is attacking your thoughts and voluntarily posted ideas, not who you are.

Would you feel happy attacking someone for their gender, age or skin colour? No? Then other things they cannot change are off limits as well.

StayThirstyMyAguila wrote:
daftbeaker wrote:
Roy Hunter wrote:The way it works in tertiary education is that you write a thesis, and your peers decide what qualification you are getting.

I suspect you'd get a BS.

That is something different to a BSc I assume? I think FA might be more likely :idiot:
I had to look up that last abbreviation (which I hesitate to write because of my school's multiple programs on this laptop, monitoring my very keystrokes). I get the feeling it's one of the less flattering ones. I feel you're going to be much more reasonable and direct than my not-so-dear boy/girl/other over here. If you would, be a dear and explain to me what is so wrong with it.

If you continue with the patronising 'be a dear' stuff, no.

This is with my exam marking hat on:

Alright, here goes nothin':
Oh, before we start, I'll mention that it's going to have a name not uncouth to those of episodes of "The Big Bang Theory". irrelevant

The Creation Implication

 We all know the argument against a creator, intelligent or otherwise: The creator must have had a creator, and that creator a creator, et cetera this isn't your high school - lose this(no, the correct grammar would NOT be, 'and et cetera", because, "et" is Latin, and coincidentally also French, for, "and", so the translation would therefore be, "and and cetera", and while this phrase has its uses, this isn't one of them). This, as seems obvious to my mind, must also apply to the Big Bang, for the Big Bang is as much a creator as anything else.this is ascribing consciousness to an either unconscious or unknowable process
 If you have yet to read The Gospel Of The Flying Spaghetti Monster by Bobby Henderson, then I strongly suggest you do so, or at least to read the passage on pages 164-169 if you need clarification on the 'infinite creators' idea.without a relevant quote this is less useful - I can't be arsed to find my copy and most other people will be the same

 The source of our apparent problem, at least, as mine eyes see it, is that any creator implies a mightier creator from whence they came. The answer to this conundrum, my dear boy, girls, and others, is the Greeks.
 As usual, the Greeks (and through them, the thieving warlords we call, "Romans") were right. The evidence and its inherent logic, at least, suggests they were correct in their assumption that everything in existence started as Chaos.this bit, apart from rather florid language, is ok

 Consider the nature of Chaos: chaos, by definition, follows no patterns and no laws, not those of physics, morality, federal government, states, provinces, religion, nor even those of time itself. Therefore, chaos would follow no timeline¹, and would assume every form and no form all at once.evidence?

 Where were we? Oh yes: logically, one of these 'forms' must be one that has the characteristic of rules, and would be subject to those rules (there would be other forms as well, but these are irrelevant). This form would take no time at all (since time cannot exist in pure chaos) to become dominant, because it would immediately denature itself, a.k.a. the chaos and take on that shape until some external influence forced it to do otherwise.this is philosophical nonsense - chaos theory is a very interesting branch of mathematics that does not say what you claim here

 Some may argue that this theory does not mention the Flying Spaghetti Monster, but this is not necessarily so. I direct your attention to The Gospel Of The Flying Spaghetti Monster by Bobby Henderson, specifically pages 199-202. This passage, in case you don't have access to it or are simply too lazy to check, uses Kolmogorov complexity to provide proof and a greater understanding of His noodly goodness. It also illustrates how a creator complex enough to create life could have come from something as simple as a box of straight lines (or a box of, "simple carbohydrates", as some would say).
See what I did there?

 I now propose my theorem: I propose that the origin-chaos-of-many-forms-all-at-once became a single form that followed certain rules, forcing itself to degenerate to a state of a rule-driven reality, and immediately created a box of spaghetti, along with some way to quickly increase the complexity of that spaghetti, giving us the FSM and, in turn, the world as we see it now.

 Unfortunately, if you count the rules of logical conjecture as rules, then chaos does not necessarily have to conform to this logic, and the entire theorem is null and void.and this last sentence sums up why we got in a hissy fit :haha:
Too old to give up but too young to rest - Pete Townshend

I would rather be a rising ape than a falling angel - Sir Terry Pratchett

I liked his explanation about what brought him to chemistry as much as the video itself - pieces o'nine

User avatar
StayThirstyMyAguila
Definitely not Eric
Posts: 1236
Joined: Thu Dec 15, 2016 2:16 pm
Location: The depths of Archaide.

Re: Pastafarian Theology Doctoral Theses

Postby StayThirstyMyAguila » Wed Mar 08, 2017 11:03 am

daftbeaker wrote:Try and take this as constructive criticism but you have quite a bit to learn about clarity in extended writing.

Bullet point what you want to say.
Sort that into paragraphs (ideally not more than 2 points per paragraph)
Then put all the grammatical fluff around the key points.
See? This is what I'm looking for *coughRoycough*.
Yeah, I get the clarity thing a lot in most classes. Except for, strangely, science-based ones.
daftbeaker wrote:
StayThirstyMyAguila wrote:And I saw what Nef Yoo wrote for this thread. If that's perfectly acceptable, then all bets are off.

Erm, Nef Yoo got his own 'special' doctorate. Think a 'well done for not vomiting on the carpet' badge.
Ahhh . . . okay.
I assume that means I can't tell him what his doctorate actually says? Since Nef Yoo can't read and all, of course (he uses text-to-speech to traverse these forums).
daftbeaker wrote:
StayThirstyMyAguila wrote:
Roy Hunter wrote:Also, Professor Roland's not exactly sober right now...
Great, which is why I turn to the (rather dwindling) masses of these forums for an outright opinion based on observation, logical conjecture, and a desire to aid improvement, not biting (EDIT: no, criticism isn't the word I'm looking for . . . insults! That's the ticket!) insults that have no actual helpfully (or even neutrally) critical intent, frankly make an ɑss out of you, and are probably quoted from the comments section of a modern news article.

Ah, see, this is probably a cultural issue. Generally speaking, British people are very happy with self-demeaning humour and the only thing we prefer is putting other people down. Paradoxically, many of the most offensive words we can think of are used to indicate affection with friends. I have been known to greet people I know down the pub with 'Alright wankers?' and I believe the young fellows around Roy's neck of the woods use rather more uncouth language to show affection.

To cut a long story short, if you think Roy was being insulting then you are seriously mistaken. He (and I) can be insulting if you want? :idiot:
It's the Muslim bit that made me scratch my head. We do the same thing in America (albeit less so than your post seems to imply). On the other hand, we usually try to keep the Muslim community out of it.
And no thank you on the insult bit. I'll manage.
daftbeaker wrote:
StayThirstyMyAguila wrote:Now seriously, did something happen? Did someone you know kick it or something? Or are you just too deep in that cup there, Dolly Parton?
Don't look at me like that, I'm giving you a way to explain this nonsensical ranting.

Not clever. See, you don't know anyone on here. I will admit I don't either but after 8 years or so you get a pretty good grasp on what people are like. Now, if what you had said was correct? All you have achieved is making someone feel upset or angry about circumstances they cannot control. Roy, for all that you feel he is insulting and belittling you, is attacking your thoughts and voluntarily posted ideas, not who you are.

Would you feel happy attacking someone for their gender, age or skin colour? No? Then other things they cannot change are off limits as well.
You know that thing where you say something, and then you realize that it didn't sound nearly as good out loud as it did in your head?
That's kinda what happened there.
I was genuinely inquiring as to whether something had happened in Roy's life, because I could think of no better explanation for (what at least very much seemed like, and if it looks/sounds/walks like a duck . . . ) his nonsensically lashing out at me.
daftbeaker wrote:
StayThirstyMyAguila wrote:
daftbeaker wrote:That is something different to a BSc I assume? I think FA might be more likely :idiot:
I had to look up that last abbreviation (which I hesitate to write because of my school's multiple programs on this laptop, monitoring my very keystrokes). I get the feeling it's one of the less flattering ones. I feel you're going to be much more reasonable and direct than my not-so-dear boy/girl/other over here. If you would, be a dear and explain to me what is so wrong with it.

If you continue with the patronising 'be a dear' stuff, no.
I don't know about Britain, but in America, that phrase isn't patronizing, unless you try very hard to put a patronizing connotation on it (which I didn't).
daftbeaker wrote:This is with my exam marking hat on:
I know this is completely irrelevant, but what does that hat look like? I'm imagining either a subdued orange hemispherical cone (or conical hemisphere?), or maybe a velvety-black cross between a graduation cap and a beret.
daftbeaker wrote:Alright, here goes nothin':
Oh, before we start, I'll mention that it's going to have a name not uncouth to those of episodes of "The Big Bang Theory". irrelevant

The Creation Implication

 We all know the argument against a creator, intelligent or otherwise: The creator must have had a creator, and that creator a creator, et cetera this isn't your high school - lose this(no, the correct grammar would NOT be, 'and et cetera", because, "et" is Latin, and coincidentally also French, for, "and", so the translation would therefore be, "and and cetera", and while this phrase has its uses, this isn't one of them). This, as seems obvious to my mind, must also apply to the Big Bang, for the Big Bang is as much a creator as anything else.this is ascribing consciousness to an either unconscious or unknowable process
 If you have yet to read The Gospel Of The Flying Spaghetti Monster by Bobby Henderson, then I strongly suggest you do so, or at least to read the passage on pages 164-169 if you need clarification on the 'infinite creators' idea.without a relevant quote this is less useful - I can't be arsed to find my copy and most other people will be the same
daftbeaker wrote:  The source of our apparent problem, at least, as mine eyes see it, is that any creator implies a mightier creator from whence they came. The answer to this conundrum, my dear boy, girls, and others, is the Greeks.
 As usual, the Greeks (and through them, the thieving warlords we call, "Romans") were right. The evidence and its inherent logic, at least, suggests they were correct in their assumption that everything in existence started as Chaos.this bit, apart from rather florid language, is ok

 Consider the nature of Chaos: chaos, by definition, follows no patterns and no laws, not those of physics, morality, federal government, states, provinces, religion, nor even those of time itself. Therefore, chaos would follow no timeline¹, and would assume every form and no form all at once.evidence?
I couldn't find any chaos to conduct an experiment on.
daftbeaker wrote:  Where were we? Oh yes: logically, one of these 'forms' must be one that has the characteristic of rules, and would be subject to those rules (there would be other forms as well, but these are irrelevant). This form would take no time at all (since time cannot exist in pure chaos) to become dominant, because it would immediately denature itself, a.k.a. the chaos and take on that shape until some external influence forced it to do otherwise.this is philosophical nonsense - chaos theory is a very interesting branch of mathematics that does not say what you claim here
Isn't chaos theory largely based on the, "if a butterfly flaps its wings in China, it can cause a hurricane in Canada" thing? Because that has absolutely zip to do with this (except for being a theory and involving chaos, of course).
daftbeaker wrote:  Some may argue that this theory does not mention the Flying Spaghetti Monster, but this is not necessarily so. I direct your attention to The Gospel Of The Flying Spaghetti Monster by Bobby Henderson, specifically pages 199-202. This passage, in case you don't have access to it or are simply too lazy to check, uses Kolmogorov complexity to provide proof and a greater understanding of His noodly goodness. It also illustrates how a creator complex enough to create life could have come from something as simple as a box of straight lines (or a box of, "simple carbohydrates", as some would say).
See what I did there?

 I now propose my theorem: I propose that the origin-chaos-of-many-forms-all-at-once became a single form that followed certain rules, forcing itself to degenerate to a state of a rule-driven reality, and immediately created a box of spaghetti, along with some way to quickly increase the complexity of that spaghetti, giving us the FSM and, in turn, the world as we see it now.

 Unfortunately, if you count the rules of logical conjecture as rules, then chaos does not necessarily have to conform to this logic, and the entire theorem is null and void.and this last sentence sums up why we got in a hissy fit :haha:
I'd already written almost the entire thing. I didn't want to just throw it all out. And besides, there are ways to discredit the last statement. For example:

"  Of course, if chaos were unbound by the rules of logic, and we consider the previous sentence [the last sentence of the theory] to be based on logical conjecture (which, of course, involves the use of logic), then chaos would be unbound by the last sentence.

 This creates an infinite spiral of logical statements proving the previous statement false by way of said previous statement. The only way to get out of this infinite loop is to follow a more illogical path, which I present . . . presently.

 Once upon a non-time, the chaos dɑmn well felt like following the rules of logic.

 If we assume chaos did NOT have feelings, the statement previous to this was illogical. We can therefore NOT apply the rule of, "chaos doesn't follow the rules of logic, so the last statement was false, et cetera" to it as we did with the other statements."

User avatar
Monobaz
Farfalle First Mate
Posts: 483
Joined: Thu Sep 11, 2014 3:19 am
Location: Melbourne

Re: Pastafarian Theology Doctoral Theses

Postby Monobaz » Wed Mar 08, 2017 4:12 pm

This Doctorate thing all seems a bit too involved. Why don't you just focus on becoming a Saint or Prophet or Messiah or something? :evilgrin:
"There was a time when religion ruled the world. It is known as the Dark Ages." Ruth Hurmence Green

User avatar
StayThirstyMyAguila
Definitely not Eric
Posts: 1236
Joined: Thu Dec 15, 2016 2:16 pm
Location: The depths of Archaide.

Re: Pastafarian Theology Doctoral Theses

Postby StayThirstyMyAguila » Thu Mar 09, 2017 9:37 am

Monobaz wrote:This Doctorate thing all seems a bit too involved. Why don't you just focus on becoming a Saint or Prophet or Messiah or something? :evilgrin:
That sock looks great on your hand! What color is that, Republican blue?
I'll focus on my thesis, but thank you for the generous offer.
Oh, and you'd do well to remember that I'm a natural predator and breakfast wasn't too filling *snaps beak shut pointedly*.

User avatar
'Murican Bald Eagle
Cannelloni Cannoneer
Posts: 133
Joined: Sat Feb 18, 2017 12:31 pm
Location: Tha deep south but north of tha wall

Re: Pastafarian Theology Doctoral Theses

Postby 'Murican Bald Eagle » Fri Mar 10, 2017 1:05 pm

StayThirstyMyAguila wrote:.................. I'm a natural predator and breakfast wasn't too filling *snaps beak shut pointedly*.


So the majestic baldy takes his opportunity, swoops down from on high and wires the adolescent aguila's beak shut, much to the relief of the entire forum.

User avatar
StayThirstyMyAguila
Definitely not Eric
Posts: 1236
Joined: Thu Dec 15, 2016 2:16 pm
Location: The depths of Archaide.

Re: Pastafarian Theology Doctoral Theses

Postby StayThirstyMyAguila » Sat Mar 11, 2017 1:09 pm

'Murican Bald Eagle wrote:
StayThirstyMyAguila wrote:.................. I'm a natural predator and breakfast wasn't too filling *snaps beak shut pointedly*.


So the majestic baldy takes his opportunity, swoops down from on high and wires the adolescent aguila's beak shut, much to the relief of the entire forum.
^Can't cause his wall prevents him from crossing the border to Mexico, the Aguila's natural habitat.
Also, muzzling a bird is generally considered cruel.
Hablas INGLAIS?!?!?!

EDIT: Revised thesis is en route, ETA Monday morning, it's on my school laptop.

User avatar
Cardinal Fang
Lord of Linguini
Posts: 1365
Joined: Sat Apr 07, 2007 7:46 pm
Location: A dungeon on Viltvodle VI

Re: Pastafarian Theology Doctoral Theses

Postby Cardinal Fang » Sat Mar 11, 2017 4:00 pm

StayThirstyMyAguila wrote:EDIT: Revised thesis is en route, ETA Monday morning, it's on my school laptop.


School laptop?!?!?

In my day were were lucky to to have a slate and a piece of chalk.

Laptop? Luxury

CF
Image
Cardinal Fang's Python Site
http://www.cardinalfang.net


My contact e-mail address is FAKE.
To contact me, my email is "latinum" at "hotmail" dot "com".

User avatar
'Murican Bald Eagle
Cannelloni Cannoneer
Posts: 133
Joined: Sat Feb 18, 2017 12:31 pm
Location: Tha deep south but north of tha wall

Re: Pastafarian Theology Doctoral Theses

Postby 'Murican Bald Eagle » Sat Mar 11, 2017 4:14 pm

Cardinal Fang wrote:..............In my day were were lucky to to have a slate and a piece of chalk................CF


Slate and chalk, sheer luxury! We had to draw in the sand with a stick.

User avatar
daftbeaker
Help! I've fallen and can't get curry.
Posts: 9838
Joined: Mon Feb 02, 2009 2:11 pm
Location: Surrey, England.

Re: Pastafarian Theology Doctoral Theses

Postby daftbeaker » Sat Mar 11, 2017 5:45 pm

'Murican Bald Eagle wrote:
Cardinal Fang wrote:..............In my day were were lucky to to have a slate and a piece of chalk................CF


Slate and chalk, sheer luxury! We had to draw in the sand with a stick.

A stick and sand? Luxury!

We had to answer by hitting our heads against the wall before we were asked the questions.

Edit - although there are some kids I think might try this :idiot: Also, while Python references are great, this is getting a tad off-topic for a good thread.
Too old to give up but too young to rest - Pete Townshend

I would rather be a rising ape than a falling angel - Sir Terry Pratchett

I liked his explanation about what brought him to chemistry as much as the video itself - pieces o'nine

User avatar
Roy Hunter
If it's not Scottish, it's crap.
Posts: 15137
Joined: Sun Nov 09, 2008 6:13 pm
Location: It's the place where you are, but that's not important right now.
Contact:

Re: Pastafarian Theology Doctoral Theses

Postby Roy Hunter » Sat Mar 11, 2017 5:56 pm

daftbeaker wrote:Also, while Python references are great, this is getting a tad off-topic for a good thread.
A good thread? Where? :paranoid:

Professor Roland is off the grid again. I checked, see? If you want a doctorate, you'll need to make your own.
"I don't mean to sound bitter, cynical and cruel; but I am, so that's how it comes out." Bill Hicks.
"One should not believe everything one reads on the internet." Abraham Lincoln
"Are you OK?" daftbeaker (<-- very good question, people should ask it more often.)

Beware the Ides of June!

User avatar
StayThirstyMyAguila
Definitely not Eric
Posts: 1236
Joined: Thu Dec 15, 2016 2:16 pm
Location: The depths of Archaide.

Re: Pastafarian Theology Doctoral Theses

Postby StayThirstyMyAguila » Mon Mar 13, 2017 8:51 am

Cardinal Fang wrote:
StayThirstyMyAguila wrote:EDIT: Revised thesis is en route, ETA Monday morning, it's on my school laptop.


School laptop?!?!?

In my day were were lucky to to have a slate and a piece of chalk.

Laptop? Luxury

CF
Apparently we can't afford normal, white paper, but we can afford to give every high/middle school student a (shat though it is) laptop of their own, about 5 less than a teacher per subject per grade, a projector in every classroom, and laptops for both elementary schools.
"Why is the school so underfunded?", they ask. "How come we can't afford regular paper?", they ask. :facewall: :facepalm:
daftbeaker wrote:We had to answer by hitting our heads against the wall before we were asked the questions.
What, did you need to learn Morse code or summat?
Also, that explains a lot . . . *coughTrumpcough*.
Roy Hunter wrote:If you want a doctorate, you'll need to make your own.
Challenge accepted. *whips out stick and bucket of sand*

User avatar
StayThirstyMyAguila
Definitely not Eric
Posts: 1236
Joined: Thu Dec 15, 2016 2:16 pm
Location: The depths of Archaide.

Re: Pastafarian Theology Doctoral Theses (Revised)

Postby StayThirstyMyAguila » Mon Mar 13, 2017 2:34 pm

You know what they say:
Anonymous wrote:If at first you don't succeed; call it version 1.0.

The Creation Implication                                                                             Version 2.0

     We all know the argument against a creator, intelligent or otherwise: The creator must have had a creator, and that creator a creator, et cetera. This even applies to the Big Bang, because where did the Big Bang come from?
     If you have yet to read The Gospel Of The Flying Spaghetti Monster by Bobby Henderson, then I strongly suggest you do so, or at least that you read the passage on pages 164-169 if you need clarification on the 'infinite creators' idea. If you do not have access to a copy of The Gospel, or are simply too lazy to check the passage, it reads, in part, "The basic argument is that the complexity of the known universe implies the existence of a creator. The union of the creator and creation is a set that is more complex than just the universe and thus implies a creator of the larger set. An induction hypothesis follows readily from this approach." (Henderson, page 164).

     The source of our apparent problem, at least, as mine eyes see it, is that any creator implies a mightier creator from whence they came. The answer to this conundrum, my dear boys, girls, and others, is the Greeks.
     As usual, the Greeks (and through them, the thieving warlords we call, "Romans") were right. The evidence and its inherent logic, at least, suggests they were correct in their assumption that everything in existence started as Chaos.

     Consider the nature of Chaos: chaos, by definition, follows no patterns and no laws, not those of physics, morality, federal government, states, provinces, religion, nor even those of time itself. Therefore, chaos would follow no timeline¹, and would also assume every form and no form all at once.
     Of course, some may question the validity of this statement and demand proof for it, but remember that this is a theory only, and thus does not need to be proven. Demanding evidence is much more reasonable. Nevertheless, I will assume myself correct until someone conducts a proper, scientific study on the nature of chaos and finds evidence that disproves my hypothesis.²

     Where were we? Oh yes: logically, one of these 'forms' must be one that has the characteristic of rules, and would be subject to those rules (there would be other forms as well, but these are irrelevant). This form would take no time at all (since time cannot exist in pure chaos) to become dominant, because it would immediately denature itself, a.k.a. the chaos and take on that shape until some external influence forced it to do otherwise.³

     Some may argue that this theory does not mention the Flying Spaghetti Monster, but this is not necessarily so. I direct your attention to The Gospel Of The Flying Spaghetti Monster by Bobby Henderson, specifically pages 199-202. This passage, in case you don't have access to it or are simply too lazy to check, uses Kolmogorov complexity to provide proof and a greater understanding of His noodly goodness. It also illustrates how a creator complex enough to create life could have come from something as simple as a box of straight lines (or a box of, "simple carbohydrates", as some would say).
     See what I did there?

     I now propose my theorem: I propose that the origin-chaos-of-many-forms-all-at-once became a single form that followed certain rules, forcing itself to degenerate to a state of a rule-driven reality, and immediately created a box of spaghetti, along with some way to quickly increase the complexity of that spaghetti, giving us the FSM and, in turn, the world as we taste it now.

     Unfortunately, if you count the rules of logical conjecture as rules, then chaos does not necessarily have to conform to this logic, and the entire theorem is null and void.
     Of course, if chaos is unbound by the rules of logic, and we consider the previous sentence [the last sentence of the theory] to be based on logical conjecture (which, of course, involves the use of logic), then chaos would be unbound by the last sentence. This train of thought creates an infinite spiral of logical statements proving the previous statement false by way of said previous statement, and so on and so forth, and the only way to get out of this infinite loop is to follow a more illogical path, which I present to you presently.
     Ahem:
    "Once upon a non-time, Chaos decided that it dɑmn well felt like following the rules of logic."
     If we assume that the chaos in question did NOT have feelings, the statement previous to this was illogical (a.k.a. not logical). We can therefore NOT apply the rule of, "chaos doesn't follow the rules of logic, so any logical statement about it is false" to it as we did with the other statements.



    ______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
       ¹The immediately obvious counterargument is that Chaos counts as a creator, too. While this point is valid, chaos does not, as we have already concluded, follow a timeline. Since a 'before' phase is part of a timeline and necessary for there to have been a creator for the chaos, then we can conclude that if there IS no 'before' phase, then chaos cannot have had a creator. We already concluded that chaos follows no timeline, so there cannot have been a 'before' phase, as that would imply the existence of a timeline within the chaos. As such, chaos must have been point (0, 0, 0, 0) in the universe (that's x, y, z, and T coords for anyone who got confuzzled).
       ²This has become perfectly acceptable 'scientific' practice in Kansas schools.
       ³In response to an apparent confusion of ideas, this theory, while a theory involving chaos, has absolutely nothing to do with chaos theory.

User avatar
DaveL
Site Admin
Posts: 5085
Joined: Fri Aug 26, 2005 8:57 pm
Location: Van Diemens Land

Re: Pastafarian Theology Doctoral Theses

Postby DaveL » Sun Mar 19, 2017 2:48 am

Say what? Can you translate that for the pirates in here. They don't speak land lubber too well.
Manatee Singles
http://www.hotdugong.com

Is it June 2017 yet?


Return to “All Things FSM”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest