The True Origin of Reality

[Willamena]

seriously?

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

meaning does not equal reason

The purpose of meaning is its use. Words have meaning, something they signify (point to) in the world. Some of them point at subjective things, some of them point at objective things.

Meaning does not equal reason: reason is the 'sense' that meanings (can) make. Things have to make sense to be useful, both subjective things and objective things.

Truth is objective only because that's how we use it.

 

[Willamena]

You do have circular logic down to an art form.

"God creates dinosaurs. God destroys dinosaurs. God creates man. Man destroys God. Man creates dinosaurs."

 

[outhouse]

Relativity...It's a pretty obvious filament of reality that binds all into one.



.

Your POE is getting weak.


so obvious the brightest genius ever! could not finish the job describing it in total. YA that's obvious.

 

[Nakosis]

Alright, I don't know if this is what your getting at. -the problem is with language I think. Key words get interpreted sometimes differently by the "reader" the was not the intent of the "writer".

Man creates the universe along with everything else which exists. We are a cause that act to create the universe each moment but we are also acted on buy the universe. Where we draw separations are a matter of convenience to provide identity.

IOW we each contribute to the next moment of the universe. That resulting moment also has an effect on man which affects have we affect the next upcoming moment.

Like an equation which constantly feeds back into itself however with each iteration the complexity of the equation increases thereby increasing the complexity of the results which again is fed back into the equation, actually altering the equation again.

Math however is a language. It is a very precise language. We use it to describe the universe when we feel precision is necessary. We create math and use it to "create" the universe. Our use of it alters our actions, our actions alter the universe.

There is never nothing, there is all ways something. Even nothing is something. So to say the universe came from nothing is really saying the universe came from something.

Now assuming this is somewhat close to the meaning you are trying to convey, what benefit do you see in this understanding?

 

[Nakosis]

Your POE is getting weak.


so obvious the brightest genius ever! could not finish the job describing it in total. YA that's obvious.

You ever have that perfect thought in your head that explains everything? That is until you decide to explain that perfect thought to someone else...:thud:

 

[Nakosis]

You do have circular logic down to an art form.

Recursive logic, I think.:jam:

 

[outhouse]

You ever have that perfect thought in your head that explains everything? That is until you decide to explain that perfect thought to someone else...:thud:

Einstein worked on relativity until he died. Never did finish it. Was my point.

Which means the unknown is a filiment of reality [in other words]

Im not sure all that word salad was not POE. I refuse to engage fully until then.

 

[Sir Doom]

You ever have that perfect thought in your head that explains everything? That is until you decide to explain that perfect thought to someone else...:thud:

I don't think I've ever considered any of my thoughts 'perfect'. I know what you mean, of course. Plenty of times I think I have a handle on things until I actually present it to the group. How one handles criticism in these situations is going to determine whether the idea remains little more than imagination, or whether you are actually on to something. If the idea holds water, then criticism can be met with reasoned counter-points. If instead of dealing with it you pass the buck to authority and blame the critic... you are failing to do anything but pat yourself on the back.

 

[outhouse]

I don't think I've ever considered any of my thoughts 'perfect'. I know what you mean, of course. Plenty of times I think I have a handle on things until I actually present it to the group. How one handles criticism in these situations is going to determine whether the idea remains little more than imagination, or whether you are actually on to something. If the idea holds water, then criticism can be met with reasoned counter-points. If instead of dealing with it you pass the buck to authority and blame the critic... you are failing to do anything but pat yourself on the back.

I think if one has an idea

And has to use a whole page to load the minds of readers, maybe one might shorten his proposition up a wee bit.

Keep it simple.

Again I am not sure there ever was anything here to debate or not. Word salad was way to deep to see the bowl.

 

[Sir Doom]

I think if one has an idea

And has to use a whole page to load the minds of readers, maybe one might shorten his proposition up a wee bit.

Keep it simple.

Again I am not sure there ever was anything here to debate or not. Word salad was way to deep to see the bowl.

I agree. I see it like the emperor's new clothes. Present nonsense with a load of pseudo-intellectual babble and people will imagine the reason it doesn't make sense is their own limitation as opposed to it actually being nonsense. An attempt to shame people into agreeing by default.

To his credit, I think our dialogue about Mars and France in 1901 are steps towards an actual debate. We'll see how that turns out I suppose (if we haven't already, that is).

 

[methylatedghosts]

I think you'd be better off looking inward to see where your reality originates

 

[nash8]

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.

As far as I know, anything divided by zero is considered undefined, and is not variable. Therefore any value divided by zero would be, according to most mathematical systems, equal, in that they are both "undefined". Now you could argue that two undefined "values" are not equal, due to the fact that they are actually not defined values at all, and I would probably agree with you.

But if you considered that the value "undefined" as equal to any other "undefined" then you could substitute any "value" in for the variable and they would essentially equal each other. So the values you place as the numerator would not have to equate to themselves at all. Any variable you place as the numerator when divided by zero, would be equal to any other value placed as the numerator when divided by zero.

However, this would be considered a mathematical fallacy by most arithmetic calculations for proofs, but it can be used to demonstrate the (false) equation that infinity(everything) is equal to 0(nothing).

((0/0) x infinity) = ((0/0) x 0)

If you simplify this equation then you would get that 0 = infinity. But as I said above this is considered a mathematical fallacy under most mathematical systems.

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

I would agree, I like your statement better. That mathematics describes everything in the universe, but in a way I also agree that mathematics drives the universe as well. But I don't think the OP even understands the words he was using to promote this driving of the universe, but I'd love to here an explanation of how it actually works.

I think if one has an idea

And has to use a whole page to load the minds of readers, maybe one might shorten his proposition up a wee bit.

Keep it simple.

Again I am not sure there ever was anything here to debate or not. Word salad was way to deep to see the bowl.

Hey now, my average response length is probably a little over a page... are you trying to imply that I am long winded.

 

[outhouse]

Hey now, my average response length is probably a little over a page... are you trying to imply that I am long winded.

You want details, I have no issue there, you also ask questions.

Your not as long as Legion

 

[Quadrivium]

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?

not worth a response, but I'm giving it this one anyways..

 

[Quadrivium]

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.

You're absolutely right. I didn't even realize this was a debate forum to be honest. But as infuriating as it can hit one emotionally to struggle with communication and lexical madness, this is at least for me, a good deal of information. So I apologize for that ignorant remark and thank you for your inputs.

 

[Sir Doom]

You're absolutely right. I didn't even realize this was a debate forum to be honest. But as infuriating as it can hit one emotionally to struggle with communication and lexical madness, this is at least for me, a good deal of information. So I apologize for that ignorant remark and thank you for your inputs.

:namaste

 

[Quadrivium]

It sure did.

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.

So you deny the idea that I am absent on Mars because that involves absence. Nor am I present on Mars, because the obvious. For the sake of argument you allow total unification of relativity, but also expect definite position denying it?

But if I am not on mars, and also on mars, then I am both and neither to some degree. I argue yes I proved your position wrong as you've agreed, but no I didn't because it is actually both. Though we've never defined me or mars or any of these things because this topics gone retarded.

Originally I was highlighting that you changed your stance on absence and absloutes, and I used this questioning of me being on Mars and Earth across different times for an example of things being absent and not absent, as in one moment they are the other they are not.

Then you changed the subject to twist my words against me by using the very logic I proposed in the first place claiming that if you are wrong then I am wrong. Or something... You won at confusing me and I have no clue what we were actually talking about. So Im moving on to the next reply, we can come back to this later or something and start over with clearer communication, as I don't want to keep going back to various posts trying to find out what I even said that you were replying to etc...

 

[Quadrivium]

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

dude... they asked for an explanation of trifold synthesis, I was giving an analogy using numbers...

forget the numbers, I replaced it with colors. I apologize for assuming people understood the difference of analogous and literal meanings.

 

[nash8]

He actually brought up some interesting subjects if your into quantum physics.

Seeing an electron @ Quantum Universe

User:Haselhurst - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

But anything divided by zero does not equal infinity, so I would like to ask the OP what it means?

 

[Thief]

not worth a response, but I'm giving it this one anyways..

Ignoring God won't work....especially in the religious debate section.

After all, He was the First to say...I AM!...

If that can't be a reference point, then I look this thread to digress to no point.