Malaikat Maut

I would rather know a lot about a few things...and just wiki the rest. In this age, so much useless information is readily available that no one needs to bother acquiring such trivia. As Awi and Burns mentioned, I would much prefer to possess deep and profound knowledge of few topics than to be able to recount that which could be learned with a quick internet search.

I'll choose number 73.

I believe that Mur may have stumbled on to something that I often consider in philosophical and religious debates, being the subjective application of mathematics. To my knowledge, empiricists have failed to express logic in terms of pure mathematics. Godel showed in his [url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G%C3%B6del%27s_incompleteness_theorems"]Two Incompleteness Theorems[/url] that math is not robust enough to validate its own truths, let alone the absolute truths beyond it.

I'm unfamiliar with either of those programs, but something that I've done in the past is to use one of the several Linux builds that will boot entirely from CD and run from RAM memory (LiveCD). Knoppix and MEPIS I know will do it. This may save you from dealing with a cumbersome application platform since you can just boot into a Linux O/S, plug in a USB external drive, and copy the unrecovered data. Linux being HPFS will have no problem seing the NTFS or FAT of your Windows partiation(s).

Name – Malaikat Maut Player ID – 164331 Title/Tag – The Fallen (unoffically) Role – A fallen angel of death seeking peace and purpose in mortality. Interests – All manner of knowledge and lore appeals to me, but I shall focus on metaphysics primarily. Petition – I feel a personal affinity to the desert, as I do to Peace. My past, present, and future are all represented therein. It is harsh and unforgiving as I once was. A taker of life and bringer of death. However, it holds mystery and knowledge just as I have found in my new existence: mortality. Finally, it most closely resembles what I expect in my next life. My final and eternal condemnation.

By royal decree of Queen Peace, ruler of the Necrovion Desert: All persons seeking citizenship herein are hereby required to relinquish such information as noted upon this scroll. Please prepare it into a form which is to be submitted via private message (in game or here in the forum) or posted publicly here within the hall of records (this thread). As citizens, you will be held to the highest standards of loyalty and dedication to the land of Necrovion, the Shades, and Queen Peace. As you profess and prove your commitment to these cornerstones, you will be blessed by all manner of knowledge and aid that are readily available within the lands you serve. Required Information: Name – Player ID – Title/Tag – Role – (A brief description please) Interests – (Necrovion Lore, Shades, Black Water, Liquid Dust, Creatures, Battle, etc.) Petition – (Reason(s) you wish to be considered for citizenship)

[quote name='Kafuuka' date='09 December 2009 - 12:27 PM' timestamp='1260379633' post='49513'] The agony of choice. I have once read a very funny thought experiment on it: Suppose you have a donkey that is equally thirsty as he is hungry. To the left at 10 meters is a pond and to the right at 10 meters is a batch of hay (or whatever donkeys like to eat). ie there is no logical way to decide whether the donkey should first have a drink or go for a bite and thus he will be unable to decide until he dies. It has been proposed that instead of choosing to either first have a drink, or eat first, a third option is available: decide to do something random. If one is truly without limits, that includes knowing whether an optimal solution exists or that a coin toss is needed and the problem of choice will not occur. Ironically you will never actually choose something because omniscience will put you on a deterministic path. If you accept that thought, then it is clear that a minimum of restriction is needed to ensure a positive amount of freedom exists for a one-person universe. For multiple people it is easier to see, since the freedom of person A is limited by that of person B.[/quote] It's an interesting thought, but one that I feel is impractical. We have limits. Physical law and logic still govern the universe...I believe that even God, while beyond physical law, operates within the confines of logic. Most beings will survive a great deal longer with no food than with no water. The donkey's rational decision would be to drink first and eat after, though I understand you're attempt to remove such guides in the analogy. [quote]Even if it will be horribly off-topic, it must be said that the current economic crisis is the result of capitalist reforms leading to financial irresponsibility of those who owned large amounts of money. After 1929 laws were imposed upon banks to prevent a similar crash and these laws have been circumvented by constructions involving insurance companies. The crash has also been quite accurately predicted by people from various disciplines (historians, physicist and economists to name some). (When asked if the prediction would change the behavior of people and thus nullify itself, a professor answered: "One word: Greed")[/quote] Replied via PM.

[quote name='Liberty4life' date='08 December 2009 - 02:51 PM' timestamp='1260301870' post='49459'] for example freedom of choice, when we need to pick something, we can pick anything, and out of all possibilities we usually dont know wot to pick, it depends on individual person will he pick something asap, will he take long time to pick something, will he pick something then change his mind, will he pick something to find out later that he doesnt likes it and then suffer becoz of it, or maybe number of choices will paralyze him so he picks nothing, in here its clear that the more we limit freedom of choice, the more will be limited number of possible choices... so limitations can actually guide individual person to make choice, instead of not making it, and if rules are pretty good he will most of time pick right choice out of which he will be almost always on gain, but limiting freedom of choice is considered bad limitation, and limiting it is an unrealistic example i would say, but that doesnt matters, it is the point in it that matters[/quote] This is something I've thought a great deal about, mostly in the context of American culture and social ideology. The problem with any regulation that limits or removes freedom is that it also removes individual responsibility. If we each maintain unhindered freedom of choice, than we have only ourselves to blame or praise for the outcome of those choices. However, if choice is limited or regulated than the result is a dissociation between cause and effect, action and response, behavior and consequence. For instance, consider the manner in which our (American) Electoral College system breeds complacent voters, or how social reforms (welfare, social security, etc.) may contribute to financial irresponsibility. [quote]its said that human can do anything, so can we? we are limited to walk on ground we cant fly by our nature, we need airplanes for that, this is example of limitation for which we found relative solution, then we have limitation of our time on this world, we have our need for food, water, air, etc we cant live outside those conditions, are all those good or bad limitations for us? if its said that we can achieve anything, are we capable of breaking those limitations eternally or can we just find temporal solutions for them and then count those temporal solutions as achieving impossible, we have fact that humans can achieve anything, fact that humans need water to survive, means that its impossible for us to live without it, and to be able to achieve anything means we can achieve impossible..... but its not logical that we can live without water, or that we can live forever[/quote] You've moved from the context of social limitations to actual physical limitations. Everyone is bound to exist within our physical universe, and therefore to abide by the laws that govern it. Planes don't fly in opposition to physical law...they fly because of it. From this perspective, no limitation has been removed. I've always evaluated arguments of free will with the assumption that physical law provides guidelines that simply can not be removed, and I see no reason to do otherwise. [quote]if temporal solutions for those total limitations are considered as achieving anything, which logically doesnt looks right, then total limitation is end across which we cant go, then we dont have total freedom in its full meaning... ...meaning that human in same time can achieve everything and nothing[/quote] This depends entirely on what you consider to be an "achievement". The underlying argument would be for purpose, which, plain and simple, doesn't exist in a universe with no designer. If we have a designer, and therefore a greater purpose than mere perpetuation of our species, I suppose the next logical step would be to debate the existence of free will vs. the logical limitations of it. If we don't have a true purpose, we achieve nothing of meaning regardless of freedom or limitation. Even in immortality or infinity, the hollow achievements of our existence would be entirely self serving.

"There was a joke, how long is the coast of England..answer was that it depends on the length of the ruler you measure it with. If you divide it in smaller chunks is longer, if thery are bigger chunks the coast appears smaller. Eventualy with an endlessly small ruler, it would be endlessly big" That's known as the Dichotomy Paradox, and is one of Zeno's three paradoxes of motion. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zeno%27s_paradoxes#The_Paradoxes_of_Motion

From Mur's article in the archive: [quote] The purpose of life itself is to breed observers, for nothing exists without someone to observe it. Existence is relative too. Universe itself would not mean anything without something to witness its greatness. [/quote] Without meaning is not the same as not existing. You're making two different statements here, and I don't believe in subjective reality. The Earth has always been round...even when there was no conscious entity to observe it as being so. Regardless, I feel that observing a universe that is devoid of purpose is no purpose at all. It appears as though you're arguing that the purpose of humanity is to observe and therefore grant purpose to the universe of which we are part. It seems to be a circular and self defeating argument.

About zero and infinity, I don't know that you should evaluate them so linearly. Rather than split negative and positive numbers by a central zero, like on a number line, you should merely consider the infinite set of real numbers on the whole. Now you have the infinity of real numbers being balanced by a single zero, and in this way, it's much more applicable to the practical terms "nothing" and "everything" which are very obviously opposites. [quote name='Muratus del Mur' date='06 December 2009 - 09:06 PM' timestamp='1260151589' post='49339'] infinity does not exist actualy. [/quote] You acknowledge that infinity doesn't truly exist, or at least it sounds like you do, so I don't understand how you can argue that infinite energy or information can be created. [quote]Muratus del Mur: in math, there are irrational numbers that are ..endless Grido: yeah Muratus del Mur: so a simple equation, causes an endless source of information[/quote] In application, if you tear one piece of paper into thirds, you've merely created three more pieces of paper. You've divided the size but multiplied the quantity, and in neither case have you created anything infinite. I don't know if it applies, but something interesting to consider is the fact that .[u]9[/u] = 1 1/3 = .[u]3[/u] 3*(1/3)= 3*.[u]3[/u] Therefore .[u]9[/u] = 1 Here you see infinite information equaling something finite. You then go on to discuss the universe: [quote] Muratus del Mur: theoreticaly..... the universe should be endless Muratus del Mur: not in size Muratus del Mur: in everything Muratus del Mur: here is the dangerous trap that the mind cant agree to so we must fill it with a name Muratus del Mur: because an absolute world it is, and that leave no place for an outside ... Muratus del Mur: "outside" i mean Grido: yeah Grido: the old if the universe is constantly expanding, what's it expanding into[/quote] I don't believe that any theory states the universe is endless. It contains a measurable (and relatively small) number of particles, and a finite amount of energy. It also isn't infinite in size or age. Scientific discoveries have strengthened the belief in entities beyond our own universe, and if you consider that our universe exists at all that fact should be apparent if you accept that it hasn't always been here. According to Big Bang Cosmology, in order for our universe to have had an origin something logically must have existed outside of it prior to that point.

Very interesting. Thanks for posting this, and I'd love to read Mur's thoughts when they are finally assembled.

[quote name='awiiya' date='02 December 2009 - 01:15 PM' timestamp='1259777755' post='48927'] Whoah, 4 WP? That's intense and unfair, mainly because to get 4 WP is difficult. 2 is a more reasonable cost. Awi [/quote] I have 3 with little over 100 active days, and I haven't completed the Broken Pattern Puzzle.

Once reasoned men's appeals were lost on me why they should life repeal for such as thee, with fragile limbs so scarce to even bloom, and call thee by such famed non de plume, why one and all their heart's compassion flows as water from their hands in your repose, and how they rationed actions to be good which lessened lives of men to that of wood, but now it is in wisdom that I see that things are sometimes more than what they seem, and now it is in truth that I should know that yours is but a symbol born of hope. Edit: Whether out of coincidence or something more, Bob began to bloom immediately after my recital of this to him. I had always thought Z was crazy...

I wish nothing but the best for you, and I hope that, in your absence from us, you find the happiness you desire and deserve. Long days...pleasant nights.

I voted to allow forum mods to edit the PLs also. However, I did want to express that I don't believe the last option to be viable as it doesn't make provisions for players who are unwilling or unable (because they no longer play) to edit the PL.

Thank you Indny and all others involved in this quest. Perhaps you should post the names of the tomes, as I know that I verily enjoyed researching each. Well done.

I'm always in the middle of way too many books. The Science of God - Gerald Schroeder The Limitations of Scientific Truth - Nigel Brush House of Leaves - Mark Z. Danielewski The Count of Monte Cristo - Alexandre Dumas The Magician's Nephew - C.S. Lewis The Best Poems of the English Language - Harold Bloom

[quote name='Observer' date='18 November 2009 - 11:52 AM' timestamp='1258563130' post='47796'] EDIT: It seems Malaikat Maut removed his post (or the censorship has started o.O) either way it was him stating that this new system might make bias easier. [/quote] Well, I edited that out of my post seconds after submitting it, but now it appears the entire thing was removed and I have a -1 in my profile. I'm not going to cry about it, although I thought it was made in good taste and also applied to the topic. In addition, I was attempting to strengthen Akasha's point... There are many forums that have a "No Spam" policy, and I understand the need for them and support them here fully. However, perhaps it would be beneficial to post clear and concise rules to possibly deter or guide well-meaning posters such as myself?

I'm actually a fan of essay quests. In my short time here, I've hosted one and participated in three others, two of which I have won. However, I agree that there is a need for diversity and I will strive to include some unique elements in my next quest.

heh, the problem with this is that Romania is about the size of Utah... You'd need to have 75 different parties (likely to consist of 1 or 2 people each) in order for this to become viable in the States.

[quote name='cryxus' date='10 November 2009 - 12:57 PM' timestamp='1257875837' post='47151'] what was the answer you were looking for? [/quote] Tarquinus spoke well on my behalf as there were no inherently right or wrong answers. I was and remain much more interested in how or why you (or your character) would hold your individual pursuits in such high esteem. As stated in my first forum post, and alluded to in the quest details on my hate page, such beliefs are relative and subjective. For instance, my (Malaikat's) answer is simply that some mortals may consider the Angel of Death to be like God, but I myself once answered to an even higher power. In addition, I envy and therefore worship the fact that the future is obscured from mortals. The unknown grants peace and purpose, while, as Death, my eternal condemnation has been prophesied. As my status currently claims, there is beauty in mortality. Thus, my background offers me a unique and varied perspective on the question, and I was hoping that some of you may do some similar soul searching in order to truly define for yourselves, "who is like god".

My apologies for the one day delay, but, after much deliberation, here are my quest results: First place and winner of the Wishpoint reward is Lucius Tarquinus Superbus. Please find Peace in game for your reward. The winners of my two angiens are Yoshi and Rhah de la Rey. Congratulations!

This quest is officially closed. All submissions will be reviewed and winners selected/announced on or before Monday the 9th. Once again, thank you and good luck to all who participated, and please look forward to more quests from me in the future.