Knowing everything about the world/universe/?

Post Reply New Topic

From atoms to the Atlantic Ocean to Australia to psychology to oranges to... well, you get it.


I'm reading Wikipedia, from the portals first, then subportals, then sub-sub-potals, all the way down. All I want is to know all the names, I don't even read the articles, just what belongs where, that's all I want to know.


Will I be able to finish? How long will it take me? I don't even want to memorize it; just to write it all down in order (portals, subportals, etc) in Microsoft Word, and then build a big complex with a club for each subject (each word) that has a kitchen and bathroom and another room, with whatever is needed for that kind of a club. I already have all the design for the building, so I don't worry about that.


How long do you think it will take me to get the Wikipedia thing organized the way I want it in Microsoft Word? Thanks.

I actually toyed with doing the same. We don't know enough about you to guess though. HECK, I don't know enough about myself! Sometimes I can see something ONCE and retain it for DECADES! Other times I struggle to remember it for a minute. 8-(

Why didn't you do it? Too dull, boring, hard? But doable if you're like on Ritalin or something??

Although Wikipedia can be useful it is a source modifiable by any jerk with peculiar ideas. Don't start memorizing bogus material.

I used to do that to some degree when I was in school. I thought about wikipedia a few times, but something always came up. I STILL sometimes get that feeling like when I first learned to read, learned electronics, learned my first few computer languages, etc... HECK, I even remember 2 times in public when I almost absorbed it from someone else. Have you ever heard a kid squeal with delight that they can read more than simple first year books? So I only consider it boring if I learn nothing or I don't care for the subject. Still, there IS fluff and minutia in the encyclopedia, so I might ignore a lot, and a lot of the rest is stuff I know, or can relate to other info.

This is going to sound a bit cliché but, if we knew everything about the universe, what would be the fun of living in it?

I don't mean reading the articles themselves; just what belongs in what category and that. Most people aren't so specialized that I would need to go deeper and memorize every single thing to start a club on, every single word.

And I'm doing too because I want to see what everything is like, so that I can find a way to figure out myself and get out of my head and find the most stimulating place outside, and make more as much stimulation with everything as I can!

Last edited by Ana54 on 01 Dec 2007, 11:02 pm, edited 1 time in total.

I can't speak for ana54, but knowing things is onkly the first step to actually applying them.

Think of the things one could build and the new concepts one could form and understand with that knowledge! If anything, it would make life even more interesting.

Yeah, I won't even BEGIN to say some of the garbage I heard about what people are doing/planned to do, with wikipedia. It was APALLING. I actually slowed some of it down. Still, it is one of the best free sources on the internet. It is just that ANY such thing must be taken with a grain of salt.

Anything anywhere should be taken with a grain of salt, welcome to the real world.

Sorry, sometimes I over mitigate. I meant that any source should be taken with a grain of salt. IBM made a mistake in a manual, and copied it for YEARS! It was copied in many workalike manuals!! !! ! One of the switch settings was BACKWARDS! I believe it was the one for the 8087. Luckily, FEW ever had to use the info. The DSM/GILBERG AS definitions are ANOTHER popular example! They contradict one another. MANY have said that Steven Jobs created the apple, etc... He had NOTHING to do with it!(He merely lined up UNNEEDED financing, invested a little money, and encouraged stephen wozniak to do everything else and/or get it done. When jobs got involved, things collapsed!) HECK, Wozniak even SIGNED the apple II schematics! And those were POPULAR/obvious things. They had to do with FACTS, not discoveries or inventions. SO, CLEARLY, you have to be careful!

Anyway, I hope you weren't rolling your eyes at me, etc... I certainly don't deserve it.

Yeah. AS isn't all that well established, people still don't know the cause, how to "fix it" or if it should be fixed. And some people don't even agree it exists, and a lot of those people are the ones doing the research. Yeah I know I get it, take information with a grain of salt, I thought I was the one telling you that.

It seemed appropiate, you know in a sort of "Duh, it's pretty simple" sort of way. I probably could have just stuck with everything before the comma but I tend to be dramatic for no reason other than to be dramatic.

I don't think you will finish. Wikipedia is being expanded at a faster rate than you can read it. Further, one sub, sub catagory, is another main catagory.

I think knowledge is like a tree, with each branch touching and twisting with other branches.

Best,

Idaho Aspie

Yeah, well I considered that. I am wierd, and some of you guys are VERY close to how I am wierd. So I don't much care what they call it, it exists. Fix the social component, accept the rest, and I could live with THAT.

All I'm saying is that it's not hard to understand why the criteria given Gilberg and the DSM could contradict each other.

That doesn't explain the why. It only explains the how and that they do.