The True Origin of Reality

[Quadrivium]

I suppose you have a point there.

And if it came from me, you'd find a reason to disagree I'm sure. because I've made outlandish claims that must be shot down, for never can there be objectivity, and nothing is senseless....

think harder.

 

[Quadrivium]

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.

meaning is subjective

 

[Willamena]

meaning is subjective

Unless it's objective.

 

[Quadrivium]

I like how you say you can describe evidence that supports restricted absence... but then you don't actually do it. Maybe it will come later in the post. We'll see, I suppose.

Here's a good example of confusing the conversation. I did in fact describe this with clarity. But you choose to assert that absence doesn't define anything that's ever been present before and that an absence is now absolute. A term you previously said was illogical and rendered everything else said irrelevant.

pres·ence
ˈprezəns/Submit
noun
the state or fact of existing, occurring, or being present in a place or thing.

The definition of 'presence' is a state or fact of existence. Please explain then how I am present on Mars and not absent form Mars' surface. Or how I am present in France of 1901, because according yto you I certainly can't be absent in any way. Much less absolutely absent.

 

[Quadrivium]

Unless it's objective.

seriously?

okay whats the purpose of meaning, whats the meaning of purpose?

meaning does not equal reason

 

[Quadrivium]

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

Incorrect utterances sir, back up your claims...

In mathematics, an injective function or injection or one-to-one function is a function that preserves distinctness: it never maps distinct elements of its domain to the same element of its codomain.

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

 

[Quadrivium]

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.

Nice try.

I'm waiting for any reference at all.

 

[Thief]

As this is in the religious debate section....should we include God?

After all, He created reality.
There is but one Word (universe).
(I don't buy into multiverse....)

And would He not be the Source of the True Origin?

 

[Gehennaite]

I do feel that a sentient consciousness was the origin of all existence. If there was no sentient consciousness to begin with, then it does not make sense that reality is basically entirely catered to it.

 

[Sir Doom]

Here's a good example of confusing the conversation. I did in fact describe this with clarity. But you choose to assert that absence doesn't define anything that's ever been present before and that an absence is now absolute. A term you previously said was illogical and rendered everything else said irrelevant.

pres·ence
ˈprezəns/Submit
noun
the state or fact of existing, occurring, or being present in a place or thing.

The definition of 'presence' is a state or fact of existence. Please explain then how I am present on Mars and not absent form Mars' surface.

You aren't present on Mars. Not in any way. Hence, you are absent of it. Which, shall we say [quanta of you] exactly is present on Mars such that your absence is non-absolute? Additionally, how is it that this [quanta of you] does not constitute presence?

Or how I am present in France of 1901, because according yto you I certainly can't be absent in any way. Much less absolutely absent.

No, I am saying you are absent from France of 1901. You can't be present in any way and be absent at the same time. They cancel each other out. Again, which quanta of you exists in France of 1901 such that your absence from France of 1901 is non-absolute? Additionally, how is it that this quanta does not constitute presence instead of absence?

 

[Sir Doom]

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.

This is the religious debate forum. If you don't want to debate I suggest you request the thread to be moved to one of the non-debate sections of the forum.

 

[Quadrivium]

You aren't present on Mars. Not in any way. Hence, you are absent of it.

Which, shall we say [quanta of you] exactly is present on Mars such that your absence is non-absolute? Additionally, how is it that this [quanta of you] does not constitute presence?

That worked

The Truth: the quanta of my essence in these words that's now a part of you, as your utterances of me being or not being on mars, exist in your head and on the internet and elsewhere, which is of this earth, a planetary relative of mars within this local solar system which all of us are within and of. In that one of countless ways I am there, or absent of, which ever you prefer as it's all the same thing. Which you are agreeing with.

The intended meaning: Absoluteness is typically appearing as nonsensical, or illogical. Absolutely. While speaking of momentary presences and absences you agree. But the core topic is of absolute presences and absences, which are both of and because of, each other. In this uttered reoccurring theme of, self-reference.

No, I am saying you are absent from France of 1901. You can't be present in any way and be absent at the same time. They cancel each other out.

Again, which quanta of you exists in France of 1901 such that your absence from France of 1901 is non-absolute? Additionally, how is it that this quanta does not constitute presence instead of absence?

The Truth:Same as mentioned above, all space and time is the same total thing as explained by quantum mechanics and holography, and the wave structure of matter, and the theory of information, and so on... Relativity...It's a pretty obvious filament of reality that binds all into one.

This alone does not prove the theory. It's just a bunch of stuff. I'm asking you to consider all of this "stuff", and then think deeper.

 

[Sir Doom]

That worked

It sure did.

The Truth: the quanta of my essence in these words that's now a part of you, as your utterances of me being or not being on mars, exist in your head and on the internet and elsewhere, which is of this earth, a planetary relative of mars within this local solar system which all of us are within and of. In that one of countless ways I am there, or absent of, which ever you prefer as it's all the same thing. Which you are agreeing with.

Negative. I am not agreeing with you at all. There are three parts.

First, I state my position:
You are not present on Mars.

Second, I ask a question:
What quanta of you is present on Mars?
You have given me that quanta, which I will hypothetically accept for the purposes of this discussion.

Third, I ask another question:
How does this presence count as absence instead?
This you are ignoring and instead simply assuming that I am correct in my position.

By demonstrating that at least some quanta of you is present on Mars, you are proving my position wrong. You are, in fact, present on Mars instead of absent. Not along side absence. You are not absent from Mars. Either that, or your quanta is wrong. It isn't both. Either you are present because your quanta is right, or you are absent because your quanta is wrong. Not both.

The intended meaning: Absoluteness is typically appearing as nonsensical, or illogical. Absolutely. While speaking of momentary presences and absences you agree. But the core topic is of absolute presences and absences, which are both of and because of, each other. In this uttered reoccurring theme of, self-reference.

I didn't speak of momentary anything.

The Truth:Same as mentioned above, all space and time is the same total thing as explained by quantum mechanics and holography, and the wave structure of matter, and the theory of information, and so on... Relativity...It's a pretty obvious filament of reality that binds all into one.

Again, you are only establishing presence. Not confirming both absence and presence. If it is not correct to say you are present in 1901 then you are absent and vice versa. What exactly is indicating that its both? My insistence that you are absent? By your quanta I am wrong in that statement, not right. Its like you are proving me wrong and then just saying I'm right as well. Ridiculous. I'm either right or wrong, not both. Either your quanta is accurate and you are present, or it is inaccurate and you are absent. Not both.

This alone does not prove the theory. It's just a bunch of stuff. I'm asking you to consider all of this "stuff", and then think deeper.

Well, as much as I can appreciate condescension, I generally like it to be comical. :flirt:

 

[YmirGF]

This alone does not prove the theory. It's just a bunch of stuff. I'm asking you to consider all of this "stuff", and then think deeper.

One human animal's deep thinking is another human animals superficial pond-skimming.

 

[Desert Snake]

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

You were the one who brought up math, this 'theory' is a hodge-podge of nonsense.

 

[Sir Doom]

One human animal's deep thinking is another human animals superficial pond-skimming.

I think his reasoning for why he's present on Mars is pretty hilarious considering how he reacted to your description of truth earlier.

 

[nash8]

A=A huh? Probably should have remembered that when you were saying that everything is everything else and nothing all at once.

A/0 = A/0, according to traditional mathematics, and in a sense should be qualified as the same as a=a, but it is actually qualified as undefined = undefined. So can something undefined equal something undefined? Can you define something that is mathematically defined as undefined? So it could be argued from this standpoint that a=a could be defined as "everything" and "nothing" all at once, as the variable a could be substituted for any number, and thus any description of anything in the universe, as everything in the universe can be described by a specific number.

The OP has a valid point, and is going in the right direction in my opinion, but it an example of superficial depth from my viewpoint. He is going WAY to into things that we as humans aren't capable of understanding from a logical standpoint at this time. There are way too many things going on at the level that he is trying describe, to be able to describe in any logical way. Hence, why enlighten folks always speak in simple parables to describe the mysteries of reality/universe. It's not only easier for us simple folks to understand, but, in my opinion, it is the only way to describe the experience of this reality in anyway that is comprehendible.

One human animal's deep thinking is another human animals superficial pond-skimming.

And one human animal's superficial pond skimming is another human animal's deep thinking.

 

[Sir Doom]

A/0 = A/0, according to traditional mathematics, and in a sense should be qualified as the same as a=a, but it is actually qualified as undefined = undefined. So can something undefined equal something undefined? Can you define something that is mathematically defined as undefined? So it could be argued from this standpoint that a=a could be defined as "everything" and "nothing" all at once, as the variable a could be substituted for any number, and thus any description of anything in the universe, as everything in the universe can be described by a specific number.

It isn't undefined its just variable. It can't be literally any value it can only be values that equate to themselves. Typically that would include every value we could ever describe. Unfortunately, being that we are fallible, we can often perceive things equating to each other when they don't. The equation of nothing and everything is one such case.

The OP has a valid point, and is going in the right direction in my opinion, but it an example of superficial depth from my viewpoint. He is going WAY to into things that we as humans aren't capable of understanding from a logical standpoint at this time. There are way too many things going on at the level that he is trying describe, to be able to describe in any logical way. Hence, why enlighten folks always speak in simple parables to describe the mysteries of reality/universe. It's not only easier for us simple folks to understand, but, in my opinion, it is the only way to describe the experience of this reality in anyway that is comprehendible.

I think he needs to go back to the drawing board.

 

[Desert Snake]

So in the hypothetical case you are left with nothingness, have no fear because it's impossible. This paradox of nothingness actually manifests a trifold synthesis of information. Fractal inflation then occurs from the recursive inverse deduction of an absolute identity (specifically absolute nothingness). And we can prove that nothingness is real.

Slight contradiction.

 

[Desert Snake]

Yes man made math, but math also made man. Likewise the universe made man, and the universe made math, and man made the universe. This is all literal.

You do have circular logic down to an art form.