The Ultimate Vampire Resource and Directory

I have been watching the Time Machine remake and I like both the one with Rod Taylor and this one with Guy Pearce. What stands out though is the musical score of the new version of the Time Machine. I have been playing it alot because my grandsons like the music and so do I as well as the story. The remake was very creative. Guy Pearce is really unusual looking but in this part he is awesome. I think his looks set him apart as this character. His facial expressions and his physical actions are great in the part of Alexander Hardegen. Seems like it was a long time ago but it was only in 2002.



Score Composer:



Klaus Badelt, born in Frankfurt, Germany in 1968 is a composer, best known for composing film scores. Badelt started his musical career composing for many successful movies and commercials in his homeland. In 1998, Oscar-winning film composer Hans Zimmer invited Badelt to work at Media Ventures in Santa Monica, his studio co-owned by Jay Rifkin. Since then, Badelt has been working on a number of his own film and television projects such as The Time Machine and K-19: The Widowmaker. He has also collaborated with other Media Ventures composers, such as Harry Gregson-Williams, John Powell, and Zimmer.



While collaborating with Zimmer, Badelt has contributed to the Oscar-nominated scores for The Thin Red Line and The Prince of Egypt, as well as writing music for many well known directors including Ridley Scott, Tony Scott, Terrence Mallick, John Woo, Kathryn Bigelow, Jeffrey Katzenberg, Tom Cruise, Sean Penn, Gore Verbinski, and Steven Spielberg.



Badelt co-produced the score to Hollywood box office hit Gladiator, directed by Ridley Scott, as well as writing portions of the score with singer/composer Lisa Gerrard. Having contributed music to Gladiator, Mission: Impossible 2 and Michael Kamen's score for X-Men, Badelt was involved in the three most successful movies in 2000. Badelt also collaborated with Zimmer on other successful films, such as The Pledge, and 2001 blockbusters Hannibal and Pearl Harbor. He also was credited for scoring Pirates of the Caribbean: The Curse of the Black Pearl, though there is debate[who?] over how much of the score he actually composed, and how much was contributed by Zimmer and other Media Ventures composers.



Among Badelt's most critically celebrated scores are the Chinese fantasy film The Promise and Dreamworks' remake of The Time Machine, the latter which earned him the Discovery of the Year Award at the World Soundtrack Awards 2003.

Logic is a complex topic and most who post in the forum don't use it, lol. It is not proof of anything it is just an organized way of looking at things. Most of what is put up there is based on opinion only and no matter what this writer says or another most often again it is extrapolations on hints of what might be truths again boiling down to folklore/mythology and yes, opinion. You cannot refute something that one has no way of proving one way or another. Most often one of two things happen, the person resorts to some fringe person's writings or religion. Neither of the two can be considered valid.



-------------------------------------------------------------



A modal is an expression (like ‘necessarily’ or ‘possibly’) that is used to qualify the truth of a judgement. Modal logic is, strictly speaking, the study of the deductive behavior of the expressions ‘it is necessary that’ and ‘it is possible that’. However, the term ‘modal logic’ may be used more broadly for a family of related systems. These include logics for belief, for tense and other temporal expressions, for the deontic (moral) expressions such as ‘it is obligatory that’ and ‘it is permitted that’, and many others. An understanding of modal logic is particularly valuable in the formal analysis of philosophical argument, where expressions from the modal family are both common and confusing. Modal logic also has important applications in computer science.



http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/logic-modal/



A modal logic is any system of formal logic that attempts to deal with modalities. Modals qualify the truth of a judgment. For example, if it is true that "John is happy," we might qualify this statement by saying that "John is very happy," in which case the term "very" would be a modality. Traditionally, there are three "modes" or "moods" or "modalities" represented by modal logic, namely, possibility, probability, and necessity.



The semantics for modal logic are usually given like so:[1] First we define a frame, which consists of a non-empty set, G, whose members are generally called possible worlds, and a binary relation, R, that maps the possible worlds of G on to other possible worlds. This binary relation is called the accessibility relation, and is often read off the page as "can see." For example, w R v means that the inhabitants of world w can see world v. That is to say, the state of affairs known as v is a live possibility for w. This gives us a pair, .



Next, we extend our frame to a model by defining the truth-values of all propositions at each particular world in G. We do so by defining a relation ⊨ between possible worlds and propositional letters. This relation is often referred to as the "forcing" relation (i.e., w ⊨ P is read as "w forces P"). If there is a world w such that w ⊨ P, then P is true at w. A model can be written as an ordered triple, .



Then we define truth in a model:



According to these semantics, a truth is necessary with respect to a possible world w if it is true at every world that w can see, and possible if it is true at some world that w can see. Possibility thereby depends upon the accessibility relation R, and this allows us to express the relative nature of possibility. For example, we might say that at our own world it is not possible to travel faster than the speed of light, but that given other circumstances it might have been possible to do so. If we accept this principle, then we reject the axiom that P → P (or equivalently, that P → P). We reject the principle that the impossibility of something at every possible world we can see implies the impossibility of that thing at the worlds that can be seen from the worlds we can see.



There are several systems like this one that have been espoused, which are variously based around different characterizations of the accessibility relation (also called frame conditions). The accessibility relation is:



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modal_logic



Rationalization =. sounds reasonable so is acceptable.



Intellectualize = analyze and conclude based on logic.



-------------------------------------------------------



The term "logic" came from the Greek word logos, which is sometimes translated as "sentence", "discourse", "reason", "rule", and "ratio". Of course, these translations are not enough to help us understand the more specialized meaning of "logic" as it is used today.

So what is logic? Briefly speaking, we might define logic as the study of the principles of correct reasoning. This is a rough definition, because how logic should be properly defined is actually quite a controversial matter. However, for the purpose of this tour, we thought it would be useful to give you at least some rough idea as to the subject matter that you will be studying. So this is what we shall try to do on this page.



One thing you should note about this definition is that logic is concerned with the principles of correct reasoning. Studying the correct principles of reasoning is not the same as studying the psychology of reasoning. Logic is the former discipline, and it tells us how we ought to reason if we want to reason correctly. Whether people actually follow these rules of correct reasoning is an empirical matter, something that is not the concern of logic.



The psychology of reasoning, on the other hand, is an empirical science. It tells us about the actual reasoning habits of people, including their mistakes. A psychologist studying reasoning might be interested in how people's ability to reason varies with age. But such empirical facts are of no concern to the logician.



So what are these principles of reasoning that are part of logic? There are many such principles, but the main (not the only) thing that we study in logic are principles governing the validity of arguments - whether certain conclusions follow from some given assumptions. For example, consider the following three arguments :



If Tom is a philosopher, then Tom is poor.

Tom is a philosopher.

Therefore, Tom is poor.



These three arguments here are obviously good arguments in the sense that their conclusions follow from the assumptions. If the assumptions of the argument are true, the conclusion of the argument must also be true. A logician will tell us that they are all cases of a particular form of argument known as "modus ponens" :



We shall be discussing validity again later on. It should be pointed out that logic is not just concerned with the validity of arguments. Logic also studies consistency, and logical truths, and properties of logical systems such as completeness and soundness. But we shall see that these other concepts are also very much related to the concept of validity.



Modus ponens might be used to illustrate two features about the rules of reasoing in logic. The first feature is its topic-neutrality. As the four examples suggest, modus ponens can be used in reasoning about diverse topics. This is true of all the principles of reasoning in logic. The laws of biology might be true only of living creatures, and the laws of economics are only applicable to collections of agents that enagage in financial transactions. But the principles of logic are universal principles which are more general than biology and economics. This is in part what is implied in the following definitions of logic by two very famous logicians :



To discover truths is the task of all sciences; it falls to logic to discern the laws of truth. ... I assign to logic the task of discovering the laws of truth, not of assertion or thought." - Gottlob Frege (1848-1925)

From his 1956 paper "The Thought : A Logical Inquiry" in Mind Vol. 65.



"logic" ... [is] ... the name of a discipline which analyzes the meaning of the concepts common to all the sciences, and establishes the general laws governing the concepts. - Alfred Tarski (1901-1983)

From his Introduction to logic and to the methodology of deductive sciences, Dover, page xi.



A second feature of the principles of logic is that they are non-contingent, in the sense that they do not depend on any particular accidental features of the world. Physics and the other empirical sciences investigate the way the world actually is. Physicists might tell us that no signal can travel faster than the speed of light, but if the laws of physics have been different, then perhaps this would not have been true. Similarly, biologists might study how dolphins communicate with each other, but if the course of evolution had been different, then perhaps dolphins might not have existed. So the theories in the empirical sciences are contingent in the sense that they could have been otherwise. The principles of logic, on the other hand, are derived using reasoning only, and their validity does not depend on any contingent features of the world.



For example, logic tells us that any statement of the form "If P then P." is necessarily true. This is a principle of the second kind that logician study. This principle tells us that a statement such as "if it is raining, then it is raining" must be true. We can easily see that this is indeed the case, whether or not it is actually raining. Furthermore, even if the laws of physics or weather patterns were to change, this statement will remain true. Thus we say that scientific truths (mathematics aside) are contingent whereas logical truths are necessary. Again this shows how logic is different from the empirical sciences like physics, chemistry or biology.



Sometimes a distinction is made between informal logic and formal logic. The term "informal logic" is often used to mean the same thing as critical thinking. Sometimes it is used to refer to the study of reasoning and fallacies in the context of everyday life. "Formal logic" is mainly concerned with formal systems of logic. These are specially constructed systems for carrying out proofs, where the languages and rules of reasoning are precisely and carefully defined. Sentential logic (also known as "Propositional logic") and Predicate Logic are both examples of formal systems of logic.



There are many reasons for studying formal logic. One is that formal logic helps us identify patterns of good reasoning and patterns of bad reasoning, so we know which to follow and which to avoid. This is why studying basic formal logic can help improve critical thinking. Formal systems of logic are also used by linguists to study natural languages. Computer scientists also employ formal systems of logic in research relating to Aritificial Intelligence. Finally, many philosophers also like to use formal logic when dealing with complicated philosophical problems, in order to make their reasoning more explicit and precise.



http://philosophy.hku.hk/think/logic/whatislogic.php