It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Logic that will make your head spin
page: 5share:
reply to post by patternfinder
both actually, after a fashion
if limited to one or the other i'd say the latter,
in the occult and metaphysical one is often forced borrow words from sanskrit or tibetan to describe ideas/concepts that cannot be properly or simply described or are too cumbersome in english, for example.
i.e.
look up the following words :
tibetan Tulpa [english solid state thought-form]
german Spannungsbogen [ the pause between drawing and aiming an arrow and releasing it]
if you were to encounter a phenomena or object for which there are no words in any human language
would you be able to perceive it through the filters language imposes on perception?
i doubt it
unless you were a pre-linguistic human, that is, a baby, then there would be no overlays or limitations on your perceptions:
have you ever read Grant Morrison's "The Invisibles "?
both actually, after a fashion
if limited to one or the other i'd say the latter,
in the occult and metaphysical one is often forced borrow words from sanskrit or tibetan to describe ideas/concepts that cannot be properly or simply described or are too cumbersome in english, for example.
i.e.
look up the following words :
tibetan Tulpa [english solid state thought-form]
german Spannungsbogen [ the pause between drawing and aiming an arrow and releasing it]
if you were to encounter a phenomena or object for which there are no words in any human language
would you be able to perceive it through the filters language imposes on perception?
i doubt it
unless you were a pre-linguistic human, that is, a baby, then there would be no overlays or limitations on your perceptions:
have you ever read Grant Morrison's "The Invisibles "?
Taken from Frank Herberts "Heretics of Dune"
This is the awe-inspiring universe of magic: There are no atoms, only waves and
motions all around. Here, you discard all belief in barriers to understanding.
You put aside understanding itself. This universe cannot be seen, cannot be
heard, cannot be detected in any way by fixed perceptions. It is the ultimate
void where no preordained screens occur upon which forms may be projected. You
have only one awareness here -- the screen of the magi: Imagination! Here, you
learn what it is to be human. You are a creator of order, of beautiful shapes
and systems, an organizer of chaos.
-The Atreides Manifesto, Bene Gesserit Archives
reply to post by filosophia
LOL
he is a Cretan [from Crete, not saying he's a 'tard]
all Cretans are liars
therefore he is a liar
LOL
he is a Cretan [from Crete, not saying he's a 'tard]
all Cretans are liars
therefore he is a liar
Originally posted by peanutman27
Originally posted by filosophia
Originally posted by peanutman27
here is some logic, the theories you posted came from man, man is flawed, man is stupid, man MAKES answers from the information they have..........and because man is unable to understand things the same way, (because of their brain, and arguments, and oposing-view-points) then everything you posted was false, and yet true depending on the viewer, in which case you bring up the item of value, (what persons view has more value than others).........ya!
Ah, but don't you see, your argument works against you. You say that everything is false because it was posted by man, who is flawed, and so since you are also a man, what you say is also false.
correct but i also said it is true depending on the viewer, there is black and white, no one is better unless you ask someone, unless someone is made to make a choice, true+false=maybe, the point i was going for is its a grey viewpoint, but i am glad people read what i posted and payed enough attention to call me on it. thank you
this post has forced me to ascend closer to the shallows and i'm not comfortable there...i'm going back to the (or off the) deep end.....see you guys there.
reply to post by filosophia
1. this one is true, matter and energy can be changed but not created or destroyed.
2. it depends on which theory of the multiverse you are reffering to definition
3. i couldnt get my head around that one lol
4............. now my head hurts, ill try again later
1. this one is true, matter and energy can be changed but not created or destroyed.
2. it depends on which theory of the multiverse you are reffering to definition
3. i couldnt get my head around that one lol
4............. now my head hurts, ill try again later
Originally posted by patternfinder
Originally posted by peanutman27
Originally posted by filosophia
Originally posted by peanutman27
here is some logic, the theories you posted came from man, man is flawed, man is stupid, man MAKES answers from the information they have..........and because man is unable to understand things the same way, (because of their brain, and arguments, and oposing-view-points) then everything you posted was false, and yet true depending on the viewer, in which case you bring up the item of value, (what persons view has more value than others).........ya!
Ah, but don't you see, your argument works against you. You say that everything is false because it was posted by man, who is flawed, and so since you are also a man, what you say is also false.
correct but i also said it is true depending on the viewer, there is black and white, no one is better unless you ask someone, unless someone is made to make a choice, true+false=maybe, the point i was going for is its a grey viewpoint, but i am glad people read what i posted and payed enough attention to call me on it. thank you
this post has forced me to ascend closer to the shallows and i'm not comfortable there...i'm going back to the (or off the) deep end.....see you guys there.
i hear there is candy there?
Originally posted by peanutman27
Originally posted by patternfinder
Originally posted by peanutman27
Originally posted by filosophia
Originally posted by peanutman27
here is some logic, the theories you posted came from man, man is flawed, man is stupid, man MAKES answers from the information they have..........and because man is unable to understand things the same way, (because of their brain, and arguments, and oposing-view-points) then everything you posted was false, and yet true depending on the viewer, in which case you bring up the item of value, (what persons view has more value than others).........ya!
Ah, but don't you see, your argument works against you. You say that everything is false because it was posted by man, who is flawed, and so since you are also a man, what you say is also false.
correct but i also said it is true depending on the viewer, there is black and white, no one is better unless you ask someone, unless someone is made to make a choice, true+false=maybe, the point i was going for is its a grey viewpoint, but i am glad people read what i posted and payed enough attention to call me on it. thank you
this post has forced me to ascend closer to the shallows and i'm not comfortable there...i'm going back to the (or off the) deep end.....see you guys there.
i hear there is candy there?
oh, there is, there surely is
reply to post by filosophia
Doesn't #5 cancel out the first part of #1? Since there is an infinite amount of something by dividing it infinitely, then there cannot be nothing.
And wouldn't the second part of #1 cancels out #3 and #4 since something can't become nothing--time and movement cannot become impossible since it would mean nothing(impossible time/movement) coming from something(movement/time).
Doesn't #5 cancel out the first part of #1? Since there is an infinite amount of something by dividing it infinitely, then there cannot be nothing.
And wouldn't the second part of #1 cancels out #3 and #4 since something can't become nothing--time and movement cannot become impossible since it would mean nothing(impossible time/movement) coming from something(movement/time).
5. Space does not exist.
If two objects are separate from each other, it is said there is space between them. But since each of their atomic components rest alongside air particles (particles in the air, elements), which in turn rest alongside other air particles, and any other material in the air or in the way (atoms, electrons, quarks) until it reaches the second object, by which there is no space between the first object because of these microscopic particles in the way.
Furthermore, if you are at the top of the sky, and you look towards the ether/oblivion, since the oblivion is nothing, there is no space between you and something that doesn't exist, since nothing has no coordinates, there can't be space next to it.
(no reason given)
If two objects are separate from each other, it is said there is space between them. But since each of their atomic components rest alongside air particles (particles in the air, elements), which in turn rest alongside other air particles, and any other material in the air or in the way (atoms, electrons, quarks) until it reaches the second object, by which there is no space between the first object because of these microscopic particles in the way.
Furthermore, if you are at the top of the sky, and you look towards the ether/oblivion, since the oblivion is nothing, there is no space between you and something that doesn't exist, since nothing has no coordinates, there can't be space next to it.
(no reason given)
In space there is only about one hydrogen atom per square meter.
In space there is only about one hydrogen atom per square meter.#
edit on 18-9-2011 by googolplex because: (no reason
given)
reply to post by dudeawesome
That's a good one, divide a hydrogen atom a infinte number of times, you don't get a infinte nubmber of hydrogen you get nothing, you can't
divide it that many times. 0 times
edit on 18-9-2011 by googolplex because: (no reason given)
#2. The multiple universe is a self-standing contradiction, thus it can not exist.
If the universe is a thing, then the building blocks of the universe must have come from something prior. That thing must have come from something prior, and on, and on, infinitely, until the first thing came from nothing, which is impossible since nothing can come from nothing.
If something came from nothing (somehow), then this nothing must have given birth to particles which form together to create a thing (the universe). It is impossible for nothing to add together to create a thing, thus it is impossible for the universe to come from nothing.
If particles somehow come from nothing, they must be infinitesimally small, and combine together to form something cosmically large, since the universe must be both infinitesimally small and cosmically large, it is a standing contradiction as a single thing. The universe must be two things, infinitely small and infinitely large. Since something infinitely small can not be compared with something infinitely large, it is impossible to compare the part to the whole, and equally impossible to compare the whole to the part, and thus no standing thing is proof that the universe exists.
You can not see things from the perspective of the Creator, so all you are doing is guessing.
Like I said before, even the Nothing could not not exist, with out the perspective of the something.
By the fact that we are here , gives credence to" Has always been and will alway be", That is a infinity, but it is a loop turned back upon itself.
That last statement was something else, go get a mirror.
If the universe is a thing, then the building blocks of the universe must have come from something prior. That thing must have come from something prior, and on, and on, infinitely, until the first thing came from nothing, which is impossible since nothing can come from nothing.
If something came from nothing (somehow), then this nothing must have given birth to particles which form together to create a thing (the universe). It is impossible for nothing to add together to create a thing, thus it is impossible for the universe to come from nothing.
If particles somehow come from nothing, they must be infinitesimally small, and combine together to form something cosmically large, since the universe must be both infinitesimally small and cosmically large, it is a standing contradiction as a single thing. The universe must be two things, infinitely small and infinitely large. Since something infinitely small can not be compared with something infinitely large, it is impossible to compare the part to the whole, and equally impossible to compare the whole to the part, and thus no standing thing is proof that the universe exists.
edit on 18-9-2011 by filosophia because: (no reason given)
You are speaking of things from a Human perspective. You can not see things from the perspective of the Creator, so all you are doing is guessing.
Like I said before, even the Nothing could not not exist, with out the perspective of the something.
By the fact that we are here , gives credence to" Has always been and will alway be", That is a infinity, but it is a loop turned back upon itself.
That last statement was something else, go get a mirror.
reply to post by dudeawesome
#1 Is saying that things can't come from nothing, because nothing doesn't exist, it never says nothing exists in the affirmative.
Infinity never changes, so it does not go from a thing to nothing, whereas with movement and time, a thing tries to move from one point to another, or from one time to another, and it must travel an infinite number of points to go a finite point, which is impossible. This doesn't mean time goes into nothing, but rather time and movement are impossible. It is never a possible thing, so it doesn't change from possible to impossible, but rather is impossible and always remains as such.
#1 Is saying that things can't come from nothing, because nothing doesn't exist, it never says nothing exists in the affirmative.
Infinity never changes, so it does not go from a thing to nothing, whereas with movement and time, a thing tries to move from one point to another, or from one time to another, and it must travel an infinite number of points to go a finite point, which is impossible. This doesn't mean time goes into nothing, but rather time and movement are impossible. It is never a possible thing, so it doesn't change from possible to impossible, but rather is impossible and always remains as such.
reply to post by filosophia
So in the beginning there was nothing. Nothing can come from nothing. So in theory we are not something, but nothing. As nothing we can never have something. Something can only be had by something which we are not.
Now if this train of thought is correct, we are nothing, then there is a flaw in the physics because if we are nothing, then even our communication is impossible because it is something.
Or is nothing capable of only nothing which is in reality something. But because we are not capable of understanding nothing, we have to exist as something until we can comprehend the true value of nothingness.
I quit. I like it better now that I had this conversation. I will never answer the question; What are you thinking about? with the answer nothing, because that topic confuses me to the point of a headache.
So in the beginning there was nothing. Nothing can come from nothing. So in theory we are not something, but nothing. As nothing we can never have something. Something can only be had by something which we are not.
Now if this train of thought is correct, we are nothing, then there is a flaw in the physics because if we are nothing, then even our communication is impossible because it is something.
Or is nothing capable of only nothing which is in reality something. But because we are not capable of understanding nothing, we have to exist as something until we can comprehend the true value of nothingness.
I quit. I like it better now that I had this conversation. I will never answer the question; What are you thinking about? with the answer nothing, because that topic confuses me to the point of a headache.
Originally posted by DaveNorris
reply to post by filosophia
1. this one is true, matter and energy can be changed but not created or destroyed.
2. it depends on which theory of the multiverse you are reffering to definition
3. i couldnt get my head around that one lol
4............. now my head hurts, ill try again later
Precisely! If matter can not be destroyed, nor created, then ALL matter has ALWAYS existed.
Or, that theory is completely wrong.
Or, if it is correct, then the big bang is wrong. There couldn't have been a big bang, unless ALL known matter was within that first...something. So we are to believe that all infinitesimal matter was contained within that very first spark? All matter that was, is and ever will be? I think we have some very, very wrong scientific theories. Either way.
When you try to divide the universe into two parts, the observer and the observed, an illusion is created where the universe will be false to itself.
You are the universe and the universe is you and there is no separation of the two.All attempts to measure the immeasurable will result in a paradox.
Can a finger touch its own tip? Can an eye see itself?
Can a finger touch its own tip? Can an eye see itself?
Originally posted by filosophia
The ancient greeks had some crazy theories, like how movement is impossible, and how a multi-verse is a contradiction of both nothing and infinity. For thousands of years people have attempted to disprove these, not because they seem illogical, but because they appear so logical as to be nonsensical. See if you can comprehend the logic, or if you are a skeptic, to crack the code and show where the logic is faulty (they could be, these are my summaries of the theories in my own words, so I may have missed something).
#1. Nothing can come from nothing. Consequently, something can not become nothing.
#2. The multiple universe is a self-standing contradiction, thus it can not exist.
#3. Movement is impossible.
#4. Aging is impossible (similar to the theory of movement).
#5. Space does not exist.
#6. The universe must be either finite or infinite, and not both.
#7 "Particulars" are not "Universals"
This one makes you really think!! S&F!!!
Here is my opinion:
#1: That is why pregnant women eat. We steal the nutrients they consume and continue to grow. If she dies before we are born, we cease to grow.
#2: I am not even going to pretend to answer this one!
#3: All this is doing is making the measurements infinite. You will still end up at the destination.
#4: Again, see #3.
#5: "Space" is a generic term for the seemingly empty void between two or more objects.
#6: This is just pure speculation. No one knows what is out there.
#7: Until people start naming horses, or geese or fish, than we will continue to call them by their generic names instead of Ted the Horse, or Gertie the Goose.
Originally posted by filosophia
#3. Movement is impossible.
If you attempt to go from point A to point B, you must first travel from point A to point A(1)
A.......A(1).........B
In order to travel from A to A(1), you must travel from A to A(2),
A........A(2).........A(1)........B
and to travel from A to A(2), you must travel from A to A(3,4,5,6,7...infinity). Thus, you must travel an infinite distance to travel a finite distance. Since this is impossible, movement is impossible. (This is known as Zeno's tortoise paradox).
One is always at point A. A represents location, B represents movement. One is always at point A and B at the same time.
Originally posted by patternfinder
Originally posted by Julie Washington
...and it still doesn't answer what came first...
the chicken or the egg?
they both came at the same time, what is in the egg? a chicken......think about it real hard
the egg came first. since sexual vertebrate reproduction relies on an egg at somepoint. chicken ... as currently theorised, evolved AFTER the egg was used by dinosaurs. so....
egg.
Originally posted by okamitengu
Originally posted by patternfinder
Originally posted by Julie Washington
...and it still doesn't answer what came first...
the chicken or the egg?
they both came at the same time, what is in the egg? a chicken......think about it real hard
the egg came first. since sexual vertebrate reproduction relies on an egg at somepoint. chicken ... as currently theorised, evolved AFTER the egg was used by dinosaurs. so....
egg.
That would mean a chicken came from a dinosaur egg.
reply to post by filosophia
Science has yet to fully understand this logic,...hence a scientific perspective may and very well give you a migraine thinking about it.
However, theoretically speaking, it makes perfect sense.
Thus going by the same tone, here is some more logic to consider.
The four laws of Existence:
1. You exist. And in some form you always will.
2. The one is the all, the all are the one
3. What you put out is what you get back.
4. Change is the only constant except for the first three laws.
So basically, everywhere and every when is some configuration of that law and That's about it.
Source
Peace.
Science has yet to fully understand this logic,...hence a scientific perspective may and very well give you a migraine thinking about it.
However, theoretically speaking, it makes perfect sense.
Thus going by the same tone, here is some more logic to consider.
The four laws of Existence:
1. You exist. And in some form you always will.
2. The one is the all, the all are the one
3. What you put out is what you get back.
4. Change is the only constant except for the first three laws.
So basically, everywhere and every when is some configuration of that law and That's about it.
Source
Peace.