|
|
| Pages (3): « previous 1 [2] 3 next » |
|
 The existence of all things explained at last. |
« Previous Thread | Next Thread » |
|
|
 |
 |
 |
 |
| User Profil |
Message:
 | composed: 30-12-2021 04:53 |
 |
|
Gordon 
|
|
|
|
| | Favourite Ultima: Ultima 7 Black Gate |
|
|
|
Break Man had a good point there. Though there was always 5 pieces of fruit there, our perspective decides what we actually percieve.
I have been reading about the mentality of the Ancient Egyptians and the doctrine of the Antropocosmos and this stuff comes up. To them, the beginning was 1, then the first step of creation was 1 turning into 2, and then 2 to 3 and so on. And all evolution is expansion of consciousness. There is a kind of consciousness at the lowest level, which is choice by affinities. Certain chemicals will join with others because of their affinities. And they believe our evolution will be to go back to the beginning, go from many into 1 again, and then it all begins again...
|
|
|
|
 |
 |
 |
 |
|
|
|
|
| User Profil |
| Message:
| composed: 10-02-2022 20:02 |
|
|
Break Man
|
|
|
|
| Favourite Ultima: Ultima 7 Serpent Isle |
|
|
|
| quote: |
Originally posted by aubergine
[quote]
jesus dude, five pieces of fruit are five pieces of fruit, regardless of whether they are being looked at by some kind of perspectively challenged person or not. I'm not looking at the pieces of fruit right now, I'm just telling you that there's five pieces of f*cking fruit. |
I think you've proven exactly what I have been saying as to your presumptuous behaviour, buddy. 
Just saying "there are 5 pieces of fruit" proves absolutely nothing on your regard. Because you're tossing the theory of relativity and the limited scope of this debate completely out the window, and assuming a position of pure omniscience. And unless you're the almight "Q", then you have absolutely no validity in that regard, and your point is meaningless.
I would suggest doing some research into astronomy. You would be surprised exactly how much star maps have changed over the years merely due to the perspective caused in respect to the movement of our planet to the rest of the universe. I would not be surprised if our constellations eventually lost shape completely, though I'm sure that won't happen in any of our lifetimes. Bottom line: You are not going to be able to tell how many stars there are, nor how far away they are, unless you fly out there to see. The best we can do is observe their movements compared to the movement of our planet (and solar system, if you want to get more complex. Since the entire solar system is also moving in of itself, quite constantly.) and thusly theorize the location. It wasn't until methods were developed regarding the light sources of stars, that we were eventually able to "guess" how far away the closest stars are. (I emphasize "guess" because, just like a lot of things, we still aren't 100% sure that the closest star to use is 60 light years away.)
| quote: |
| The point was and still remains that any philosophy or argument based on the idea that something had to come from nothing is fallacious, if you prefer that to "preposterous." |
Yes, that's a much better word. Since it's no longer making you sound like you percieve yourself as an all-knowing creature of the universe, capable of trumping decades of scientific study into relativity by getting high about twelve years ago.
EDIT: Elaborated better in regards to astronomy. Tried to make it more readable in lamen's terms. >_<
This post has been edited 2 time(s), it was last edited by Break Man: 10-02-2022 20:21.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User Profil |
| Message:
| composed: 12-02-2022 14:37 |
|
|
aubergine
|
|
|
|
| Location: Brisbane, Australia |
|
Thread Starter 
|
|
| quote: |
Originally posted by Break Man
| quote: |
Originally posted by aubergine
[quote]
jesus dude, five pieces of fruit are five pieces of fruit, regardless of whether they are being looked at by some kind of perspectively challenged person or not. I'm not looking at the pieces of fruit right now, I'm just telling you that there's five pieces of f*cking fruit. |
I think you've proven exactly what I have been saying as to your presumptuous behaviour, buddy.
Just saying "there are 5 pieces of fruit" proves absolutely nothing on your regard. Because you're tossing the theory of relativity and the limited scope of this debate completely out the window, and assuming a position of pure omniscience. And unless you're the almight "Q", then you have absolutely no validity in that regard, and your point is meaningless.
I would suggest doing some research into astronomy. You would be surprised exactly how much star maps have changed over the years merely due to the perspective caused in respect to the movement of our planet to the rest of the universe. I would not be surprised if our constellations eventually lost shape completely, though I'm sure that won't happen in any of our lifetimes. Bottom line: You are not going to be able to tell how many stars there are, nor how far away they are, unless you fly out there to see. The best we can do is observe their movements compared to the movement of our planet (and solar system, if you want to get more complex. Since the entire solar system is also moving in of itself, quite constantly.) and thusly theorize the location. It wasn't until methods were developed regarding the light sources of stars, that we were eventually able to "guess" how far away the closest stars are. (I emphasize "guess" because, just like a lot of things, we still aren't 100% sure that the closest star to use is 60 light years away.)
| quote: |
| The point was and still remains that any philosophy or argument based on the idea that something had to come from nothing is fallacious, if you prefer that to "preposterous." |
Yes, that's a much better word. Since it's no longer making you sound like you percieve yourself as an all-knowing creature of the universe, capable of trumping decades of scientific study into relativity by getting high about twelve years ago.
EDIT: Elaborated better in regards to astronomy. Tried to make it more readable in lamen's terms. >_< |
I'm glad that you think my swapping one word for a synonymous one somehow alters the nature of what I'm saying. Your mode of argument isn't to argue but simply to change the subject into some other thing. I think you were suggesting circumstances wherin an altered reality could transform five fruits into some other number of fruits, or that human perspective is what creates fruitive numerity, and I was saying that maths is an absolute and that five pieces of fruit are five pieces of damn fruit.
You haven't explained in your latest post how these interesting points on astronomy actually relate to anything. You are also discarding the very physics that you claim to know anything about : " Bottom line: You are not going to be able to tell how many stars there are, nor how far away they are, unless you fly out there to see." Um, what? So you think that all these calculations about the mass of the earth or it's distance from the sun (to which no one has ever flown) are incorrect?
I'm glad you downgraded your post into "Layman's terms" because it must have made even less sense than it does now. I know it may seem like I am omniscient, but that it just an illusion created by your perspective. I am only very intelligent.
Also, I have some free time..
I deserve money, I reckon.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User Profil |
| Message:
| composed: 12-02-2022 19:16 |
|
|
Break Man
|
|
|
|
| Favourite Ultima: Ultima 7 Serpent Isle |
|
|
|
| quote: |
| I'm glad that you think my swapping one word for a synonymous one somehow alters the nature of what I'm saying. Your mode of argument isn't to argue but simply to change the subject into some other thing. |
The meanings of both words are similar, but not synonymous. I would suggest looking them up.
| quote: |
| I think you were suggesting circumstances wherin an altered reality could transform five fruits into some other number of fruits, or that human perspective is what creates fruitive numerity, and I was saying that maths is an absolute and that five pieces of fruit are five pieces of damn fruit. |
I suggested nothing of the sort. Merely explaining the theory of relativity to you, because you've managed to neglect it's existance at every single turn throughout this entire debate. And for something at this scale, relativity is all we have.
Unfortunately, "absolutes" cannot apply in a realm of science that is wholly unknown. Which I think is where you're being thrown off.
| quote: |
| You haven't explained in your latest post how these interesting points on astronomy actually relate to anything. |
It is merely helping to explain how relativity works. That's it. I merely picked an interesting medium of which to convey the message, since we were on the topic of celestial discussion. If you do not understand it, I am sure there are plenty of essays and articles online that can explain it better than I.
| quote: |
| So you think that all these calculations about the mass of the earth or it's distance from the sun (to which no one has ever flown) are incorrect? |
Yeah, that is the funny thing to me. Evidently the mass of the Earth is still something that is questioned by more recent studies, despite the fact it was something "confirmed" and for some reason dropped. But that is another topic.
*Shrug* That's relativity for you though. We can judge the distance between the Earth and sun, but merely because of it's "relativity" to us. Can you pinpoint it's location in the galaxy with that information? No, you'd have to triangulate it from several points in the galaxy to find it's relative position. There are several theories in that regard as well.
| quote: |
| I know it may seem like I am omniscient, but that it just an illusion created by your perspective. |
You are acting "omniscient" because you say: "There are 5 pieces of fruit." And I am saying: "How do you know?" And so far throughout this entire debate (Which you are turning into a childish game of taunting, which if you persist, I will not continue.) you've neglected to really explain it as anything factual. So far you're just saying "Nothing can come from nothing", and called it "preposterous" to believe otherwise.
| quote: |
| I am only very intelligent. |
Cute.
Of course you can say: "There are 5 pieces of fruit." I could easily just say you're wrong and matter did in-fact, pop out of absolutely nothing. But without reasoning it logically, it means nothing. But then again, I've already explained this quite thoroughly, and I do not feel like trying to explain the intricacies of perspective to you another time.
Point being, this debate is about something you're incapable of proving, merely speculating, discussing, and pondering. So the way you're defending this is just irrational and no longer amusing.
I mean, do you even want this to be discussed? Or did you make this topic in hopes everyone would agree with you?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User Profil |
| Message:
| composed: 17-02-2022 11:05 |
|
|
aubergine
|
|
|
|
| Location: Brisbane, Australia |
|
Thread Starter
|
|
Given that I made the first post well over a year ago, I am not really following it any more. The fact that you can't grasp a simple example renders "argument" impossible. You keep bringing up science that applies to this universe as some kind of means of backing up your position, except that your position is that "spontaneous generation" (a long disproved concept that was vital in all knowledge of biology and medicine) is possible with your fruity fumbling, which also interferes with some other thing - what was it? - about how energy can't be created or destroyed?
| quote: |
| Of course you can say: "There are 5 pieces of fruit." I could easily just say you're wrong and matter did in-fact, pop out of absolutely nothing. |
Whatever dude. Go back to your intelligent design classes.
I deserve money, I reckon.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User Profil |
| Message:
| composed: 17-02-2022 15:46 |
|
|
Thanatloc
|
|
|
|
| | Favourite Ultima: Ultima 7 Black Gate |
|
|
|
Those are my propositions!
I think that Aubergine tried to use - even if it is not clear for everyone - a rather logical consideration procedure:
1) Putting a postulate: “nothingness” is non-“existence” and “ non-existence” is non-“existence” (-> start with a duality principle)
2) Elaborating deductions from postulate. With mathematical notation, the results are put as:
“nothingness”=0, “existence”=1 with not(1)=0 and see that 1+0=1.
IMHO, the problem we see here is when Aubergine expresses with difficulty that the “non-existence” is ‘exiting’ within the “existence”: 1+0=1. He also says: all that is possible exists; thus, if “non-existence” is possible, it should exist.
There is some forthcoming circle-thinking that pains us because the contrary of “existence” is “nothingness” here, and we realize that “non-existence” does exist and doesn’t at the same time.
For me, the “non-existence” of Aubergine does not correspond to what he sometimes thinks it should be (sounds like Inigo, isn’t it?) because, here, “non-existence” must be what is not possible! In fact, the starting duality principle reduces to a ubiquity principle: 1=1 and that’s all. 0 is apart and, moreover, it doesn’t have to be taken into account!
With those rectifications, the considerations of Aubergine become acceptable.
(@Aubergine: Nonetheless its a nice try: How old were you when you wrote this ?)
But that does not mean that the general thinking of contradictor is false. Actually, another logical refection way is:
1) Putting the postulate: “nothingness” isn’t “non-existence” and non-‘’existence” is “non-existence” (-> start with trinity principle)
2) Elaborating deductions from postulate. With mathematical notation one puts the results as
“nothingness”=0, “existence”=1 and “non-existence”=-1 seeing that 1-1=0, 1+0=1, -1+0=-1 and -0=0 (not(0)=0.)
I’m not a specialist but the two way of thinking might be equivalent in describing our reality (or what we call reality.) For what we know, both may also be false.
Remember you all, this is the strength of the Reason (and thus Science) to make us doubt rationally. That is to give us a good explanation of things until a better one is found.
As for the existence of a God (or more?), it is not a matter or Reason but Faith. And often, one can feel it is not possible to prove nor to deny its existence.
This post has been edited 6 time(s), it was last edited by Thanatloc: 17-02-2022 16:25.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User Profil |
| Message:
| composed: 18-02-2022 10:33 |
|
|
Break Man
|
|
|
|
| Favourite Ultima: Ultima 7 Serpent Isle |
|
|
|
| quote: |
Originally posted by aubergine
Given that I made the first post well over a year ago, I am not really following it any more. The fact that you can't grasp a simple example renders "argument" impossible. |
I know exactly what you were trying to say with that example. I was countering it.
Your "5 pieces of fruit" was merely pointing out that "5=5". I was pointing out to you, that the realm of thinking you were delving into, of course "5=5". You do not have the perspective to judge that, however. It's just flat out incalculable. In such a case, your "5=5" example falls straight through the floor crashing. Instead you're left with "x = x". An algebraic equation, since you do not know what that number is. That's what I was saying about your little "5 pieces of fruit". With such a limited perspective, you can only theorize that there are 5 pieces.
That is what the theory of relativity is about. A number is a number, but whether that number is right or not requires more than a few relative perspectives before it can be established as fact. That's why so many scientific laws took time before they were upgraded from 'theories'.
I would suggest looking up some historical sciences. You'd be surprised how equally confident educated scientists were of about some things, in the past, that a modern day elementary student considers obvious.
| quote: |
| except that your position is that "spontaneous generation" (a long disproved concept that was vital in all knowledge of biology and medicine) is possible with your fruity fumbling |
Wanna know a secret?
I think I agree with your theroy a lot more than I agree with spontaneous generation. (A theory that is not disproven at all, merely dropped into obscurity due to lack of evidence beyond mere imaginative speculation and lack of anything concrete.) I've been challenging you on this because I find your reasoning to be rather poor and a bit pompous, as if by virtue of what you think of your own intelligence, you 'must' be correct. From post number 1, and you continue to display this, you're taking a hardcore absolute extreme that is often frowned upon in science as we know it. So far you really haven't managed to say anything beyond "Something can't come from nothing." and making pretty lousey examples to this. Especially since you haven't been able to say anything to any of my examples of the theory of relativity.
To make one thing clear, a negative of that nature is impossible to be disproven. Merely dictated as improbable. So I challenged to see if you could actually try to point out why you have so much faith in this theory. And all you can really provide is simple math, that (Which you've failed to really defend...) doesn't apply to what we were discussing.
@ Thanatloc:
Man, I love you! Would you be very offended if I took some of that data to discuss with a professor of Georgetown Uni? I have discussions of this nature with a lot of people there (Despite not attending the place myself. XD ) and I think this is worth at least a few hours of debate.
This post has been edited 1 time(s), it was last edited by Break Man: 18-02-2022 10:35.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User Profil |
| Message:
| composed: 18-02-2022 11:21 |
|
|
aubergine
|
|
|
|
| Location: Brisbane, Australia |
|
Thread Starter
|
|
| quote: |
Originally posted by Thanatloc
Those are my propositions!
I think that Aubergine tried to use - even if it is not clear for everyone - a rather logical consideration procedure:
1) Putting a postulate: “nothingness” is non-“existence” and “ non-existence” is non-“existence” (-> start with a duality principle)
2) Elaborating deductions from postulate. With mathematical notation, the results are put as:
“nothingness”=0, “existence”=1 with not(1)=0 and see that 1+0=1.
IMHO, the problem we see here is when Aubergine expresses with difficulty that the “non-existence” is ‘exiting’ within the “existence”: 1+0=1. He also says: all that is possible exists; thus, if “non-existence” is possible, it should exist.
There is some forthcoming circle-thinking that pains us because the contrary of “existence” is “nothingness” here, and we realize that “non-existence” does exist and doesn’t at the same time.
For me, the “non-existence” of Aubergine does not correspond to what he sometimes thinks it should be (sounds like Inigo, isn’t it?) because, here, “non-existence” must be what is not possible! In fact, the starting duality principle reduces to a ubiquity principle: 1=1 and that’s all. 0 is apart and, moreover, it doesn’t have to be taken into account!
With those rectifications, the considerations of Aubergine become acceptable.
(@Aubergine: Nonetheless its a nice try: How old were you when you wrote this ?)
But that does not mean that the general thinking of contradictor is false. Actually, another logical refection way is:
1) Putting the postulate: “nothingness” isn’t “non-existence” and non-‘’existence” is “non-existence” (-> start with trinity principle)
2) Elaborating deductions from postulate. With mathematical notation one puts the results as
“nothingness”=0, “existence”=1 and “non-existence”=-1 seeing that 1-1=0, 1+0=1, -1+0=-1 and -0=0 (not(0)=0.)
I’m not a specialist but the two way of thinking might be equivalent in describing our reality (or what we call reality.) For what we know, both may also be false.
Remember you all, this is the strength of the Reason (and thus Science) to make us doubt rationally. That is to give us a good explanation of things until a better one is found.
As for the existence of a God (or more?), it is not a matter or Reason but Faith. And often, one can feel it is not possible to prove nor to deny its existence. |
Thank God for you.
I thought about all this stuff all the time (I did Logic in school BTW) at the expense of life, mainly because I was profoundly disturbed by the question. I was 19 when I figured something out, then spent many more years attempting to communicate it on paper. Eventually I just agreed to be satisfied that I'm satisfied. Every now and then though I'd have another go at it, trying to whittle it down to the easiest nuts and bolts. Many attempts at writing it went on for a hundred pages!
Essenitally though I no longer care. I used to think that if a mainstream of people could understand why we exist and some of the greater implications of that, then many of the world's problems will basically dry up. What I ultimately found though is that I'd thought of something that is basically impossible to communicate. The "something can't come from nothing" bit is just to try and set people in the right direction.
Since Break Man won't even take the first idea seriously, there's really not much point taking it further with him. It would be great for some other person to look at the 5 fruit debacle and tell me if I'm fucking mad or not. There is no discussion when even a basic hypothetical example meant to illustrate some point is disrupted by questioning the nature of the example itself in a way which is completly arbitrary.
What I would add to what you've posted Thanatloc is that (I think) the important part of the whole deal is thinkinig on what "Existance" is based on it being the polar oppossite of "non-existance". I believe that the "1" is really equal to infinity and that our universe is a fraction of that, one over infinity.
I deserve money, I reckon.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User Profil |
| Message:
| composed: 18-02-2022 11:45 |
|
|
Thanatloc
|
|
|
|
| | Favourite Ultima: Ultima 7 Black Gate |
|
|
|
| quote: |
Originally posted by Break Man
Would you be very offended if I took some of that data to discuss with a professor of Georgetown Uni? I have discussions of this nature with a lot of people there (Despite not attending the place myself. XD ) and I think this is worth at least a few hours of debate. |
You're welcome.
As you will see, the postulate's formulation is very important. After that, one must take care to keep the meanings of the first definitions before trying to make analogies.
For scientists, the stories of the Euclidian geometry and non-Euclidian one (that Einstein used for relativity) are very interesting and illustrate the way of using first a kind of what seems obvious postulate then a far less obvious one.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
