What is more important for the future well-being of humankind: Faith or Reason?

[PolyHedral]

In the beginning, there was a point of zero diameter and infinite volume

Uh... how, exactly?

This thread, perhaps?

Very likely.

 

[ellenjanuary]

Uh... how, exactly?

D'OH!

Zero volume and infinite density... that's what I wrote! Evil net gremlins trying to make me look bad... not like I need help.

 

[Revoltingest]

D'OH!

Zero volume and infinite density... that's what I wrote! Evil net gremlins trying to make me look bad... not like I need help.

Hey, in some weird advanced physics way, you could be correct.

 

[nrg]

Linguistically, adjectives and adverbs are useless without a way to say the opposite. However, this isn't an English debate, and it still wouldn't apply to all words.

 

[PolyHedral]

What is the opposite of energy? Void. Jeez, you people are wordy.

In the beginning, there was a point of zero diameter and infinite volume - lowest possible entropy. As everything that follows has been a matter of increasing entropy, it's a one-way street; and there is energy in the void. But we require background. There has tobe a you to define me. There has to be white for these black glyphs to differentiate meaning from void.
In the end, everything is information. What is the opposite of information?

This thread, perhaps?

But an energy-less void doesn't and can't exist as anything other than a hypothetical.

 

[Meow Mix]

But an energy-less void doesn't and can't exist as anything other than a hypothetical.

More than that -- the absence of energy isn't the "opposite" of energy.

Up is the opposite of down, left is the opposite of right, but something not existing isn't the opposite of the something.

 

[Willamena]

I thought you were all about the whole crazy use-words-however-we-want-even-if-it-contradicts-until-no-one-can-understand-us business? You were defending exactly what you just refuted like a day ago.

No, I'm more into arbitrariness myself.

(Occasionally contrariness, but that's another story.)

 

[Willamena]

Nor is it the "opposite of energy." Things in stasis still have energy.

That things in stasis have energy doesn't disclude stasis from being the opposite of energy. Two distinct contexts.

Also, several definitions of stasis indeed have it synonymous with "inactivity," so if you're using a different context you might clarify.

I'm addressing stasis in the context that makes the most sense.

 

[Willamena]

The hyper-dualistic statement "all things have an opposite" simply isn't true.

I'm curious: in what way is the statement "all things have an opposite" not true? Can you elaborate?

My position is that since all things are attributed, and we are the determinants of attribute as well as opposition in attribute (i.e. "opposite" is arbitrary), then all things decidedly have an opposite, many opposites in fact.

 

[ellenjanuary]

I'm curious: in what way is the statement "all things have an opposite" not true? Can you elaborate?

My position is that since all things are attributed, and we are the determinants of attribute as well as opposition in attribute (i.e. "opposite" is arbitrary), then all things decidedly have an opposite, many opposites in fact.

Truth, love and life (the three co-ordinate axes of MT ) don't really have opposites. There is no lie that does not express information, living things don't "die," they become recycled, and love is love. I see all these things having a greater or lesser degree of entropy, but, in essence; they are monopoles. As light is just a form of electromagnetic energy, as MM says, there really isno opposite. Scientists use the term "void," along with "absence of." But, like my ol' physics teacher used to say: Thereain't no "cold." There's lack of heat.

 

[ellenjanuary]

Hey, in some weird advanced physics way, you could be correct.

The first thing I wrote was just my fingers getting ahead of my brain. Don't take much.

The second, updated thing, is a poetical expression of the Big Bang... of course, it probably would take some form of weird, advanced physics for me to be correct.

 

[Willamena]

Truth, love and life (the three co-ordinate axes of MT ) don't really have opposites. There is no lie that does not express information, living things don't "die," they become recycled, and love is love. I see all these things having a greater or lesser degree of entropy, but, in essence; they are monopoles. As light is just a form of electromagnetic energy, as MM says, there really isno opposite. Scientists use the term "void," along with "absence of." But, like my ol' physics teacher used to say: Thereain't no "cold." There's lack of heat.

I see, in your words, you placing "lie" opposite "truth," "die" opposite "living," and nothing opposite "love," probably because you can't think of one offhand --and in placing them there to deny their status as opposite, you hold up an opposite as something to deny.

But I like the idea of the monopole. I have a few myself, including "information."

 

[ellenjanuary]

I see, in your words, you placing "lie" opposite "truth," "die" opposite "living," and nothing opposite "love," probably because you can't think of one offhand --and in placing them there to deny their status as opposite, you hold up an opposite as something to deny.

But I like the idea of the monopole. I have a few myself, including "information."

You're just picking on me 'cause I ain't as smart as MM.

But yeah, I see certain concepts as having "greater or less entropy." And yeah, I tried to explain to a Christian one time about the truth of the prince of lies. That went well.

 

[Orias]

Linguistically, adjectives and adverbs are useless without a way to say the opposite. However, this isn't an English debate, and it still wouldn't apply to all words.

Thank you

That was difficult to understand, but you essentially said by the end that the opposite of energy is non-energy or non-existence. That isn't very helpful. I think the reason you had to go through a huge monologue about "What is energy?" is because energy is a good counterexample to the dualism you see in the universe. The only thing you can find to "oppose" energy is nonexistence, which doesn't really answer the question any more than saying the opposite of "up" is nonexistence.

Simply stated, non-existence, non-energy is the Opposite of energy. It does answer the question more than you are assuming, it is because of the way you are chosing to see it, as we had previously gone over. You are not trying to see it from my point of view.

Energy is the capacity to perform work, or to move a mass over a distance. It's measured in joules. It's a property of matter. The only thing that could possibly be an "opposite" to energy is just the absence of energy in the same sense that "darkness" (a non-entity) is the "opposite" of light since it is the absence of light. Darkness-light isn't a real opposition though because "darkness" doesn't even exist as an entity. It's just a fancy way of saying that the opposite of light is the absence of light, which isn't a true opposition. Same with energy.

OK, I could also say that energy is the ability to perform nothing, to sleep, to with hold anger and to subdue mass.

To specify, light and darkness are Opposites, because they could not be without the other. They may be absences of each, but that doesn't exclude the fact that they combat each other, that they are Opposites. If darkness doesn't exist as an entity, then nor does light, the matter at hand is, these things exist within perception, and it is realized that if it were not for the other, the Opposite could not be. So, directly speaking, they are complete as one thing, yet Oppose each other as separate concepts.

Again, this is the basis of perception. So, now I don't know if you were referring to Opposite in the connotative or denotative defintions. Either way, its what it is.

You can be in Oppostion to something, but not directly Oppose it's existence.

So how do you view Opposition?

 

[PolyHedral]

If darkness doesn't exist as an entity, then nor does light,

But darkness is not an entity, but light is. I can measure light, but I cannot measure dark.

 

[Meow Mix]

Simply stated, non-existence, non-energy is the Opposite of energy. It does answer the question more than you are assuming, it is because of the way you are chosing to see it, as we had previously gone over. You are not trying to see it from my point of view.

I attempted to but disagreed with it.

OK, I could also say that energy is the ability to perform nothing, to sleep, to with hold anger and to subdue mass.

To specify, light and darkness are Opposites, because they could not be without the other. They may be absences of each, but that doesn't exclude the fact that they combat each other, that they are Opposites. If darkness doesn't exist as an entity, then nor does light, the matter at hand is, these things exist within perception, and it is realized that if it were not for the other, the Opposite could not be. So, directly speaking, they are complete as one thing, yet Oppose each other as separate concepts.

Again, this is the basis of perception. So, now I don't know if you were referring to Opposite in the connotative or denotative defintions. Either way, its what it is.

You can be in Oppostion to something, but not directly Oppose it's existence.

So how do you view Opposition?

But light and dark aren't opposites. It's logically possible for there to be only darkness and it's also logically possible for there to be only light. Furthermore, darkness is not an entity -- but light is. Light exists, darkness is by definition just an absence of light. They are not opposites.

However, something like "up" does have an opposite -- down. You can't have "up" without also having "down" because they're relational and opposite to one another. It's not logically possible to have "left" without also having "right."

"Opposition" has different connotations that I think are being equivocated here. There is opposition as in dichotomies and extreme opposites, and there is opposition as in disagreeing with something.

I don't think it's meaningful to attempt to say that everything has an opposite; nor do I think we're talking about the other context of opposition here (that would be equivocating) so I'll leave it at that.

 

[Orias]

] I attempted to but disagreed with it.

[/COLOR]

So how am I supposed to debate with someone that doesn't care to understand my points?

][/COLOR]But light and dark aren't opposites. It's logically possible for there to be only darkness and it's also logically possible for there to be only light. Furthermore, darkness is not an entity -- but light is. Light exists, darkness is by definition just an absence of light. They are not opposites.

So then it is also logically possible to fly through stars and see radioactive material?

To the contrar, light is because of darkness and vice versa. If there was no senses to voice our perceptions, then how could something possibly be?

So darkness does not exist? You realize, darkness has been labeled, therefore is an entity, along with light.

Again, I will restate, one can be in the absence of an undenying presence, yet still Oppose the perceptions of what we see. Simply put, it takes both light and dark to see. They combat each other. Is that so hard to understand? That is what Opposition is, the absence, the anti, the Opposite.

][/COLOR]However, something like "up" does have an opposite -- down. You can't have "up" without also having "down" because they're relational and opposite to one another. It's not logically possible to have "left" without also having "right."

Sure it is. All turns are left turrn. Because to the Opposite, its always a left turn. Now maybe you can see where I am going with this.

][/COLOR]"Opposition" has different connotations that I think are being equivocated here. There is opposition as in dichotomies and extreme opposites, and there is opposition as in disagreeing with something.

So perception is relevant to my point. You are no different.

][/COLOR]I don't think it's meaningful to attempt to say that everything has an opposite; nor do I think we're talking about the other context of opposition here (that would be equivocating) so I'll leave it at that.

Its not an attempt. And again...

Its how you chose to see things, which doesn't make you right, and it doesn't make me wrong.

We are the comprehension of life, and were born with the knowledge of life. Thats all thats to it.

 

[PolyHedral]

To the contrar, light is because of darkness and vice versa. If there was no senses to voice our perceptions, then how could something possibly be?

So darkness does not exist? You realize, darkness has been labeled, therefore is an entity, along with light.

There is no place in the universe that is truly dark. Everywhere in the universe emits some form of radiation.

And is "courage" an entity? It has a label.

 

[Willamena]

And is "courage" an entity? It has a label.

Yes.

What characterizes an entity is discrete existence. If "courage" has identity, then it's an entity.

 

[Meow Mix]

[/color]

So how am I supposed to debate with someone that doesn't care to understand my points?

But I do understand your points; disagreeing doesn't mean I don't understand them.

It's sort of like if I were arguing that murder is acceptable and someone said "I disagree" and then I complained that they're not understanding my point or seeing it from my point of view. No -- they understand, they looked at it from my point of view and rejected it because they disagree; and such is what I'm doing here. I do get what you're saying, I'm just of the opinion that it's incorrect.

To the contrar, light is because of darkness and vice versa. If there was no senses to voice our perceptions, then how could something possibly be?

So darkness does not exist? You realize, darkness has been labeled, therefore is an entity, along with light.

But darkness is a fancy word for relative absence of light. It's not an entity, it's a concept. Nor is "3 photons of light" the opposite of "999 trillion photons of light." That's essentially what you're saying here, and I disagree. Darkness is not an entity, light is.

Sure it is. All turns are left turrn. Because to the Opposite, its always a left turn. Now maybe you can see where I am going with this.

But you can't have a left turn unless a right direction exists, otherwise it wouldn't be a turn (it'd be a straight line in one direction). You can't have left without at least the capacity for right: they are true opposites. However it's logically possible to have only darkness (such as if photons never existed), and it's logically possible to have only light (such as is arguably the case right now, since all units of space have photons in them to the tune of ~3 K of cosmic microwave radiation, or shortly after the Big Bang during the quark-gluon plasma when the universe would have been completely opaque with light).