The True Origin of Reality

[Desert Snake]

Not quite fair, Thiefy. For the most part, Sir Doom has handled this discussion quite well. I can't tell if the writer of the OP is just cutting their teeth on philosophical concepts or has simply read too much on the subject.

What is not kosher about it is that the OP presents a bunch of links as arguments, unrelated to his conclusions, then the rest of us have to sort through the noise in order to refute his claims, which have various errors. then, OP claims we have no understanding of the concepts.

 

[viole]

The second analogy which is more immediately related is injective function. It's a logical concept that describes a way to preserve identity. It requires 3 elements, (x) = x ≠ y. Or this can be described in words, we say a functions' domain can never be mapped to it's codomain. There's 3 elements required here (1. function, 2. functions' domain, 3. functions' codomain) To preserve identity of functioning or coherent information there must be something comparably unique to allow for any identification to be possible.

Injective functions are quite simple. They always map different elements of a set (domain) into different members of another set (codomain). I don't think there is a need to complicate things beyond necessity.

Alas, your "mathematical" statement contains two errors

1) it is not necessary that domain and codomain are different
2) it is not true that a (injective) function domain cannot be mapped to its codomain

I suggest to get the basics straight before trying to impress people with holography, quaternions and wave functions

Ciao

- viole

 

[Kilgore Trout]

I'd like to see some reference backing up your claim

If you aren't familiar with the subjects I presented then it certainly explains why you are pushing such obsolete methods and modalities such as trifold analysis. Do not let your inability to understand the subjects I presented cloud your judgment and cause you to react emotionally. I suggest starting with any books or papers on Negative Inverse Correlative Theories on Finite Subfractal Recursions, specifically in regard to Intra-Holographical Informational Theory in Infinite Positive-Negative Dimensional Inversions. Any theoretician worth his salt could certainly locate such important resources regarding the nature of reality, although I would expect any theoretician worth his salt to already be thoroughly familiar with such conceptual milestones.

 

[Sir Doom]

ok....so now we have to argue.....
I know.....no you don't......yes I do.....you can't know.....yes I can......

oh boy....

Haha, its definitely more like:

I know... no you made a mistake... no you don't understand... demonstrate it then... you don't understand... I do, just show me... you don't understand...

 

[Sir Doom]

I think this is part of the problem here, too:

Monad - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[outhouse]

I think this is part of the problem here, too:

Add it to a long list lol.


have him define reality

 

[Sir Doom]

Add it to a long list lol.


have him define reality

Haha, oh he tried...

Apparently, reality is a combination of everything, everything else, and nothing. THREE THINGS! Its so obvious...

 

[idav]

Haha, oh he tried...

Apparently, reality is a combination of everything, everything else, and nothing. THREE THINGS! Its so obvious...

I thought it was infinite, everything possible and paradoxal nothingness.

 

[Sir Doom]

I thought it was infinite, everything possible and paradoxal nothingness.

Hey, as long as its three things it proves both right, obviously. This is why we have to use four dimensional mathematics. Which requires... um four values... hmm...

 

[Quadrivium]

Is that an analogy? If you are claiming value to nothingness in your theory, it isn't an analogy, it's just really bad math.

its not math at all , again you miss the point.

 

[Quadrivium]

I think so-called "truth" can be objective, but tend to see it more as a variable that is based on understanding and the information at hand. What is true today may not necessarily be true tomorrow. In a manner of speaking, if one gets hung up on the truth that may serve to cut them off from expanding understanding.

your'e saying then that objectivity is subjective... as in totally, which renders anything you say meaningless.

 

[Sir Doom]

your'e saying then that objectivity is subjective... as in totally, which renders anything you say meaningless.

Why do you think 'subjective' equates to 'meaningless' ?

 

[Willamena]

Why do you think 'subjective' equates to 'meaningless' ?

'Objective is subjective' is meaningless.

 

[Sir Doom]

'Objective is subjective' is meaningless.

I suppose you have a point there.

 

[Quadrivium]

Not quite fair, Thiefy. For the most part, Sir Doom has handled this discussion quite well. I can't tell if the writer of the OP is just cutting their teeth on philosophical concepts or has simply read too much on the subject.

Actually Sir Doom has done a very good job of making everything more confusing than it actually is. Instead of giving thought to the content, adn asking qurestions where he sees problems, he chooses to change the focus into his personal domain of asserting political argument, rather than a sensible conversation.

Its hard for people to think clearly about this and easy to get hung up on specific human language issues. Even though that's not at all helpful at this point.

The goal isn't to debate. The goal is to provide information for people interested. There is no real debate. Just the problem of comprehending which requires a vast range of knowledge that allows for seeing the commonalities among them. I'm trying to help with seeing the commonalities, but Sir Doom has done a good job of destroying this thread with topics of misconception.

I can repeat over and over where the information is, and what I'm describing. And Sir doom can repeat over and over that it doesn't matter because he doesn't because he says so, he's more interested in debate for the sake of debate.

And then all of the people that are turned off by the possibility of an objective truth wish to support any overthrow of the actual logic and information presented.

Sir Doom hasn't actually made any points on the subject at all other than challenge the use of words. Which actually is irrelevant. As I've said before the information I'm providing speaks for its self for anyone interested to begin researching it. And if you're not interested in that fine, but there's nothing to actually debate. Anyone interested can debate with themselves over the understanding of the information.

Nonetheless I'll probably keep responding in hopes of any one person that is interested will be able to find their way through the wreckage and into sensibility.

 

[Quadrivium]

Why do you think 'subjective' equates to 'meaningless' ?

the definition is why...

sub·jec·tive
səbˈjektiv/Submit
adjective
1.
based on or influenced by personal feelings, tastes, or opinions.

 

[Willamena]

the definition is why...

sub·jec·tive
səbˈjektiv/Submit
adjective
1.
based on or influenced by personal feelings, tastes, or opinions.

Okay, but personal feelings, tastes and opinions in themselves are far from meaningless.

 

[Quadrivium]

What is not kosher about it is that the OP presents a bunch of links as arguments, unrelated to his conclusions, then the rest of us have to sort through the noise in order to refute his claims, which have various errors. then, OP claims we have no understanding of the concepts.

You claim the information I've provided links for is unrelated to the conclusions? What justification have you for that statement?

And what are these various errors?

 

[Quadrivium]

Okay, but personal feelings, tastes and opinions in themselves are far from meaningless.

right right and now were discussing peoples feelings instead of logical reasoning and universal pattern.

Objectivity describes things not influenced by interpretation of perspective.

 

[Willamena]

Objectivity describes things not influenced by interpretation of perspective.

It does, indeed (except for the perspective 'objective'). But discussing it other ways doesn't rob things of meaning, just gives it the meaning of discussing it other ways.