Strawberry milkshake flavored pop tarts

[Matt Gregory]

These are the worst damn things I've ever eaten. I'm on my third box for christ sake and they still haven't gotten any better. They don't taste anything like a strawberry milkshake. They taste like the tart part of every other pop tart with some chewy shit in the middle that's almost like pre-chewed bubble gum after you put it in the freezer. It says "Try 'em frozen" on the box, but it doesn't help. I've resorted to licking the icing shit off and throwing away that hard biscuit thing.

I can only wonder what they were smoking when they thought of the pop tart concept. Two flat biscuits stuck together with a bubble of jelly shit in the middle, topped off with some icing that's all hard, topped off again with little colored sugar crystals. The holes in the one biscuit must be to let the air out so it doesn't explode in the toaster. That leaves me wondering why they call them pop tarts though if they don't even pop.

I heard they eat these in space, but I think that's a rumor. Could you imagine how fast these things would shoot out of a toaster in zero-gravity? No, they don't eat them, they race them across the space station.

[Matt Gregory]

Wu-men's Cautions

To maintain standards and follow rules is to tie yourself up without a rope.

To indulge freely without restraint is to behave like heretics and demons.

To maintain the mind in solitary depths is the specious Zen of quietism.

To give rein to the will and ignore karma is to fall into the pit.

To be alert and never unclear is to wear chains and an iron yoke.

To think good and evil is to belong to heaven and hell.

To have a Buddha view and a Dharma view is to be enclosed by two iron mountains.

To treat each thought as realization is to trifle with your spirit.

To cultivate samadhi is to practice in a haunted house.

To proceed is to stray from the truth.

To retreat is to violate the Tao.

Neither to proceed nor to retreat is to be a corpse with breath.

Now tell me, what do you do?

Work hard for realization in this life, or you will have regrets eternally.

[DHodges]

I can only wonder what they were smoking when they thought of the pop tart concept.

I think the concept behind the pop tart was to make something that could not possibly be confused with anything that might be found in nature, and yet still be nominally edible.

I have to confess to recently trying the S'mores flavor. They were actually pretty good, although I had imagined them to be completely disgusting.

Please remember that Pop-Tarts are NOT microwave compatible. They don't toast, they melt.

Could you imagine how fast these things would shoot out of a toaster in zero-gravity? No, they don't eat them, they race them across the space station.

A regular pop-up toaster would be hilariously inappropriate in a space ship.

So now I MUST HAVE a space ship with a pop-up toaster! (And a mechanical space-parrot, of course.)

Hey, maybe I could build a toaster into the center console of my car...

[Dave Toast]

You don't have one already?

[Matt Gregory]

I can only wonder what they were smoking when they thought of the pop tart concept.

I think the concept behind the pop tart was to make something that could not possibly be confused with anything that might be found in nature, and yet still be nominally edible.

Thank god, too. I wouldn't want to have to deal with the existence of Plop Tarts or anything.

I have to confess to recently trying the S'mores flavor. They were actually pretty good, although I had imagined them to be completely disgusting.

I tried to eat a chocolate fudge one and it was the most disgusting thing I've ever tried to eat. You would think it could possibly work, but it doesn't the way they did it.

[Matt Gregory]

"Chess is about as elaborate a waste of human intelligence as you could find anywhere outside an advertising agency." - ? (Wit for Wisdom)


That may be, but I think everyone should learn how to play it.

"Chess first of all teaches you to be objective." - Alexander Alekhine

Maybe not completely objective, I think it's a good start towards learning to think objectively. Beats most other pastimes, anyway.

[Matt Gregory]

If numbers are something we made up, how is it possible to measure the sides of a square container, calculate the volume, measure out just enough water and fill the container exactly? If math was invented, why does it work in reality?

This problem seems completely paradoxical to me.

[DHodges]

You don't have one already?

I don't even have a space ship!

[DHodges]

If numbers are something we made up, how is it possible to measure the sides of a square container, calculate the volume, measure out just enough water and fill the container exactly? If math was invented, why does it work in reality?

This problem seems completely paradoxical to me.

Math was not invented as an intellectual exercise, using an arbitrary a set of axioms. It was created to model reality.

I'm pretty sure that many mathematical tools (e.g., counting numbers and addition) were in use for quite a while before any axiomatic system was created from which they could be derived.

As I see it, there are two main schools of thought in mathematical philosophy:

One school is content to treat mathematics as a purely intellectual exercise, inventing axiomatic systems and proving theorems from them without any concern for the existence of some physical system to which it might correspond. (Abstract algebra arose this way.) This is generally called "pure math", but we could think of it as "academic math," like we talk about academic philosophy. You can create mathematical systems that don't necessarily have any relation to a real physical system (although, curiously, applications for these invented systems are sometimes found).

The other school might be called "applied math" (or, philosophically, it might be called Constructivism). The reason math works is because it was built on observations on consistent ways the world works, and you can abstract general rules from a large number of specific observations.

A caveman might observe that two rows of three apples, or three rows of two apples, always gives me a total of six apples, and from there I can abstract that the mathematically important principle doesn't rely on the nature of apples. Multiplication has more to do with the nature of rows and columns, and doesn't care what is in those rows and columns.

If I am right that numbers, counting and addition were in use before any formal axiomatic system existed - and I'm fairly confident that they were - then applied math is historically prior to pure math. I would argue that it is also philosophically prior, although it is generally taught the other way around - the usual way to teach is to present the general principle, and then show how it is applied (do some problems). But math as historically developed and generally used is an abstraction from reality. That's why it works.

[Diebert van Rhijn]

But math as historically developed and generally used is an abstraction from reality. That's why it works.

All good and well but which reality we're talking about? The totality of all in existence? If so, is abstraction here even possible? Or are we talking about a subset 'reality' of some kind? And if so, is defining or conceiving that reality not always some form of abstraction (in the mind)? And if so, isn't mathematics just part of that; in other words: a subset 'reality'? Where is the difference?

Any ideas welcome.

[Matt Gregory]

But math as historically developed and generally used is an abstraction from reality. That's why it works.

It seems to me that we abstract onto reality. We may see 2 row of 3 apples each, but even then we're abstracting "rows" and "columns" onto reality. On the other hand, reality causes us to create these abstractions, so in that sense we abstract from reality, but that's the only way I can see that phrase making any sense. Abstracting from reality seems like an act of creativity to me.


I don't mean to derail the conversation, but this is like a huge problem for me. I've been thinking about it and I think it's the consistency of math that makes it work.

But that must mean reality has some consistency, too, but the only thing that has consistency is the Totality, so where does this consistency come from? Math is different from the Totality, right? Right. Just like Diebert said.

When we define something, like the number 6, that 6 in a sense encompasses the Totality. We can go to any time or place in the universe and pick 6 objects. Even if there are no objects around we could count 6 inches of space or something. So 6 exists throughout the Totality.

What I can't figure out is how a finite definition can do this? "6" is finite in that if no one ever thought about 6 again, it would cease to exist. But the truth of 6 lives on somehow because when we were thinking of 6, we could have theoretically time-traveled to the time where no one was thinking of 6, and we could still count 6 objects.

The rules of math work the same way as just a "6", so although I find it odd that we can chain an unlimited number of rules together and still keep it consistent with reality, I guess I can kind of understand why.

I guess I'm just stuck on how we can become conscious of the Totality just because consciousness creates consistency, because that seems like the only reason there could be for it.

[DHodges]

But math as historically developed and generally used is an abstraction from reality. That's why it works.

All good and well but which reality we're talking about? The totality of all in existence? If so, is abstraction here even possible? Or are we talking about a subset 'reality' of some kind? And if so, is defining or conceiving that reality not always some form of abstraction (in the mind)? And if so, isn't mathematics just part of that; in other words: a subset 'reality'? Where is the difference?

Okay, let me restate that abstraction from reality bit as "abstraction from experience".

That this is possible in mathematics is pretty much the same, I think, as it being possible to create a language, define categories and objects.

I guess I'm just stuck on how we can become conscious of the Totality just because consciousness creates consistency, because that seems like the only reason there could be for it.

There are consistencies in experience. If there weren't consistencies, consciousness would be impossible.

so where does this consistency come from?

I don't know. I'll give it some more thought.

[Diebert van Rhijn]

DHodges, I gave some more thought to it and I'd like to comment on what you said in this paragraph:

If I am right that numbers, counting and addition were in use before any formal axiomatic system existed - and I'm fairly confident that they were - then applied math is historically prior to pure math. I would argue that it is also philosophically prior, although it is generally taught the other way around - the usual way to teach is to present the general principle, and then show how it is applied (do some problems).

What do you think about relations between applied math and philosophy then? Many philosophers in the past have tried to join them (eg Pythagoras, Demetrius, Plotinus, some Jewish and Egyptian schools). Basically those attempts have as starting point the counting numbers, or in other words: the primal sequence: 1,2,3 and so on.

The idea is that 1, unity, stands for 'A=A', a logical whole, consciousness, underlying basis of all other real or imaginary numbers as well as phenomena. It's the bit, or the pixel, of existence. Often depicted as a dot or a unity circle (note: since zero=zero, even the zero cannot be more fundamental than the 1 here defined)

When arrived at A=A one has created also something that is 'not A' to be conscious of it in the first place. Only the existence of a 'B' can give meaning or relevance to A=A. One has now duality, expressed by the symbol '2'. The 2 is born out of the one and so the sequence began. This is often depicted as a line connecting two dots, or two circles intersecting halfway.

Since A is not B but both are in existence now, there is a spatial and logical relation created that on itself can be regarded as a C that is neither A and B. So we arrive at 3. This is depicted sometimes as a triangle or the Vesica Pisces.

Now are these philosophical concepts laid over an older practical math, or could it be that math as well as the concept were born out of the same source: describing somehow the nature of reality? Do you think that from the counting numbers one can mathematically (and also geometrically) arrive at almost any shape and number?

I hope I'm not entering the swamps of numerology here. I'm aware of all the hysteria around it, but could there be fire underneath all the smoke?

[Tomas]

I've bought about three boxes my whole life. Ate half, tossed the rest in the trash. After the initial sugar rush...pretty much like eating sweetened cardboard. Munched on them with a bowl of milk, in ice cream, with coffee.

If they'd figure out how to make a better-tasting crust with a different combination of grains and cereals then perhaps I'd buy some. Using soy flour seems to be all the rage - but it makes a man's gonads shrink thus a lower sperm count :-(

Until that comes to pass, they are glorified toast with a jelly-like substance sealed inside. Better yet, a cookie with a bunch of sucrose additives.

Lest we forget the guilt-ridden consumer, some odd combo of Vitamin A, C, and Potassium added to alleviate the health-conscious human victim.


Warm Regards (with sugar on top,)

Tomas (the tank)
VietNam veteran - 1971

[DHodges]

I hope I'm not entering the swamps of numerology here.

Well, yeah, you are at least dipping in a toe. I am heavily biased against numerology, and tend to get a bit riled up about it... but I'll try to stay calm.

Anyway,

Now are these philosophical concepts laid over an older practical math, or could it be that math as well as the concept were born out of the same source: describing somehow the nature of reality?

Basic applied math, as I see it, is a very practical matter. It probably started with counting goats and so on. Being able to, say, figure out how much grain you will need to make it through the winter, could have quite a lot of survival value.

I would think that ruminating about the nature of reality and such would come quite a bit after, but that is speculative.

Do you think that from the counting numbers one can mathematically (and also geometrically) arrive at almost any shape and number?

Geometry and algebra are intertwined in a way that is not obvious until you know quite a bit about both. On the surface, they seem like separate topics; later on you may see that they are alternate ways of expressing the same things. (1) They are really just different languages. Some ideas are easier to express (and visualize!) geometrically; some algebraically. Also, people have different styles of thought; some are more disposed toward one or the other.

So we arrive at 3. This is depicted sometimes as a triangle or the Vesica Pisces

And after that, you arrive at four - which could be depicted as a rectangle - the shape of a pop tart! Thus four represents the semi-edible nature of the universe.


(1) I'm pretty sure there's a theorem about that, but I don't recall exactly at the moment.

[Leyla Shen]

Something's bugging me in trying to follow this conversation:

Diebert wrote:

When arrived at A=A one has created also something that is 'not A' to be conscious of it in the first place. Only the existence of a 'B' can give meaning or relevance to A=A. One has now duality, expressed by the symbol '2'. The 2 is born out of the one and so the sequence began.

If only the existence of a "B" gives meaning or relevance to "A" and therefore "A=A," isn't that saying that one is in fact born out of 2?

(You'll have to forgive me if I'm missing the point entirely at this stage!)

[Leyla Shen]

(laaaaughs!)

I have pasted this discussion into a word document for review.

DHodges, I just had to come back because of this:

And after that, you arrive at four - which could be depicted as a rectangle - the shape of a pop tart! Thus four represents the semi-edible nature of the universe.

That's fucking hillarious!

[sevens]

True, bravery and courage, lies in excavating your unconscious mind.

I'd rather dine on dead crow, then drink from the bitter cup.

[sevens]

Like a Zen riddle, The Totality, is a definition, to free the mind.

On the way to freedom, you may begin to apply abstraction - sourced from the unconscious, dreaming mind: the mind that is VASTLY more intelligent and wiser then our "conscious mind". Establishing a link between these two realms, you can begin to tap your own creative energy.

Through your unconscious mind, you can erase femininity.

Through abstraction, you can erase fear.

Through love, you can shine.

[sevens]

All thought is math.

Creativity is the combination of algebra and geometry --

Logic and visualization.

Since everything is experienced through the psyche ("Know Thyself"), this added set allows for the Cosmos to be, One.

Nature can be proved mathmatically.

[MKFaizi]

If all thought was math, I would have to kill myself. No kidding. Who -- in his right mind -- could want to live with rules?

Faizi

[MKFaizi]

But I thought we were talking about food -- pop tarts and stuff.

Anybody like deer meat? I love it. I got a little fry meat from someone last night. How I miss the big roasts I used to get when the Machine Gun Club was operable.

When the kids are gone and I change the locks, I might get a machine gun and kill my own meat. The deer are so plentiful that all you have to do is sit on your back porch with a M60.

Faizi

[MKFaizi]

How does mathematics account for mutations?

Nature does want nature wants to do. It cannot be reduced to math -- unless you intend to resort to A=A -- which accounts for everything.

Faizi

[sschaula]

Hey, this is Scott. I'm back from doing my army thing. I learned a lot.

Marsha,

How do you say nature can't be reduced to math? Math seems to be a character of nature.

Now on to some truth,

Poptarts are okay if you heat them up in a toaster oven, then eat them with milk. The way to eat them is seperate the frosting layer from the bottom crust area, then toss away the crust and eat the frosting and filling, putting the filling against your tongue so you get the full taste. This will alleviate the "this shit tastes like cardboard" syndrome.

At least break off the sides of the poptart, because that's where the majority of the cardboard residue resides.

- Scott

[Kevin Solway]

Hey, this is Scott. I'm back from doing my army thing. I learned a lot.

Can you summarize what you learned? It'll save me joining the army.