westerling | (no subject)

What about computer scientists?

What about them?

Where are they on this line?

Indication that CP has made a "joke" at PC's expense that PC has failed to "get." Offering of insincere apology.

Failure macro of failure directed squarely at PC's failure to make funny joke.

Humor macro.

"Getting it" macro.

Noting that PC and PPC are having a party on OP's blog without OP. Whiny tantrum.

Cat macro of laughter.

Sulking.

Poking.

Declaration that CP is ticklish. Frowning and scrunching up of face, while trying not to laugh.

Further poking.

Hiding of facial expression. Attempt to continue sulking, but with mixed results.

Hugs.

Complete inability to sulk further.

Amusement.

Giggling. But also exiting of intarwebz for the evening.

Wishing of good slumber.

I think you can't put computer scientists in the cartoon until you decide what Math is in your view of reality. Where would you put linguistics?

Well, mathematics is the basis of computer science just as much as any other science (read Alan Turing's and Alonzo Church's papers for this). However, CS doesn't have anything to do with the real world, so....

So maybe it belongs somewhere else? I definitely agree that CS is based on Math, and furthermore I also think that almost everything else is based on Math. But then, that's also based on the idea that Mathematics is the most accurate way for humans to describe the nature of reality.

CS is based on Math, but it is then applied to a construct created by humans that does have applications in the everyday world, but is still a construct. It's pretty amazing how big of a construct it is, particularly when you consider the internet, and how reliant most of us have become upon it. And would you say it's a fairly consistent construct, too? It seems like it ought to be, but I can't say firsthand.

Yes, it does seem to be a consistent construct. However, one of the results of this construct is that no construct in itself can ever be used to prove the consistency of a given construct. This is what Gödel's theorem proved for just regular arithmetic. As such, there really is no way to truly know whether the construct of computer science - or anything with mathematics for that matter - is really consistent.

Which is similar in essence, I believe, to certain considerations in neurology regarding the ability of the brain to study the brain. These are the paths of reasoning that lead some people to start drinking heavily. :)

In-deed. Or smoking marijuana. :P

Or using the Internets heavily.

Or all of the above, combined!

Whoa. I never thought of that. brb.

Oho?

Did you ever notice how the internet is, like, the inter-Net? That's so amazing.

Like dude.

Wow, this thread has gone from the sublime to the ridiculous. :)

Isn't that how life is, though?

Mine certainly is. And back again.

From the sublime to the ridiculous again. Yay!

There and back again.

And there again and back again.

And back again and there again.

Argh, LJ logged me out and I didn't notice. Gr.

Isn't "There and back again" the subtitle of The Hobbit? (The Road goes ever on and on...)

Indeed it is. :)