Page 210 of 210 FirstFirst ... 110160200208209210
Results 8,361 to 8,384 of 8384

Thread: Future Important Thread (Maybe)

  1. #8361
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Posts
    6,105
    Quote Originally Posted by ShowtekGER View Post
    Well, can a black hole exist without a universe or space that surrounds it? Can the 1 point in a N-dimensional space/set exist without the N-dimensional space/set? If not, then I'd say that any one thing that is requires something other for its existence.
    Excellent point with regards to those examples. I like it!

    Quote Originally Posted by ShowtekGER View Post
    In the case of good and evil, I'd argue that the concept of good requires reference to the concept of evil. In order to know what something is we need to know what it is not. How do you define the saint without knowing who the deplorable is? How can you speak of good mood without reference to bad mood? What is heaven without hell, bliss without despair? The same goes for anything else in the cosmos, even the concept of singularity. Would we be able to to conceive of a singularity without simultaneously conceiving of multiplicity or dualism? I would say no.
    Fair argument/point. However, infinity itself is a singularity w/o a balancing partner on the other end of the conceptual "seesaw". That is what I'm trying to illustrate.

    Infinity has regions of existence completely unknowable to finity. So it is a logical modeling error to attempt to fully model/describe infinity from a finite reference. For finity, yes, we may require to have a plurality of finite references to "know/comprehend" something. However, that is not necessarily true for infinity. Infinity is not subject to the same laws as finity, & existentially so, not merely arbitrarily so. Infinity is distinct existentially from finity. In fact, I would say similar to the the vein of NP-completeness, this plurality/frame-of-reference requirement MUST NOT be true for infinity. Infinity must be distinct. Otherwise, residually, infinity == finity.

    There are physical examples of this idea: the speed of light. It is a unique singularity speed-wise with respect to all sorts of physical attributes (time, space, mass) & has no equivalent. It is it's own frame-of-reference & singularly so. Absolute Zero Kelvin might be another example (although I'm less familiar with the details here). Anyhow, that's my $0.02.

    Yes, I've made up a word, in a clumsy attempt to make it easier to communicate.

    best regards...
    Last edited by Pedal2Metal; 02-08-2017 at 03:17 PM.

  2. #8362
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Århus, Denmark
    Posts
    2,716
    Quote Originally Posted by Pedal2Metal View Post
    But it does mean said principles are meaningless in a residual/universal sense & merely arbitrary instruments of yet another meaningless agent (man). How this is any analytically distinguishable from any theistic system beats me with the exception that at least in a theistic system, it IS reasonable to presume that if God exists, He DOES get to set the system parameters for the universe contrary to man.
    One difference, I would say, is that my principles are based on reason while theistic principles are based on faith. I.e., I try to argue towards a set of rules that governs how we live together and that I hope to be successful in that regard. I try to find the best rules based on inquiry, debate, etc. Theistic principles on the other hand are to a greater degree derived from dogma. Of course, this is dependent on the degree of fundamentalism but, generally speaking, theists will base their views on sources that are external to their own reason.

    Of course, that doesn't mean that my way of doing it is better than the theists'. That we have to determine together as society as we've always done and will always do.

    There is no meritorious or logical basis under the flag of relativism by which you can protest the assertion of Nazi values as morally equivalent to said altruistic values.
    We've discussed this many times before. I'll happily do it again but I fear that it will end in disaster again

    I don't care if ideas are essentially relative. I don't need to critique nazism under the flag of relevatism. I'm not sure if that would be effective. I'd much rather do it under the flags of humanism, reason, science, marxism, etc. I find arguments from these faculties to be much more convincing and comfortable than those of nazism.

    Again, relativism does not mean that you hold no values, opinions, and truths. It just means, at least to me, to acknowledge that no truths are inscribed into the universe. I mean, just look at the history of mankind! We change opinions all the time! We always did and we always will! Do you really think that you've somehow arrived at the stage in the development of ideas at which your ideas suddenly are the actual true ones? The fact that all ideas change proves that all truths are perspective.

    You will undoubtedly try but ultimately, you are like most who espouse such relativistic ideology: Not wanting the shackles of absolute principles (consequence), but wanting to enjoy the fruits of the same (order).
    I'm not sure if it is truly easier and more comfortable to be a relativist than to hold truths to be absolute. It must be very comforting to have faith in pre-given truths. These must afford great order, stability, and free one of the heavy burdens of self-determination and the freedom/coercion to create life and values oneself.

    Ultimately, either you accept & embrace that all is chaos & there is no absolute order nor any consequence & therefore all is equivalent or you do not & accept there is some absolute order with ensuing consequence.
    I disagree. It doesn't follow from relativism that there cannot be consequence. In fact, even though ideas have continually undergone change throughout human history they've always caused great consequences. Just like the ones who came before me I commit to values and truths and these bear their marks on my life and on others' lives.

  3. #8363
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Århus, Denmark
    Posts
    2,716
    Quote Originally Posted by Pedal2Metal View Post
    Excellent point with regards to those examples. I like it!
    Are you giving me a compliment? I like it! I get all confused by the switching between my being a feeble, dishonest, and myopic hypocrite and then suddenly being able to contribute with an excellent point.

    Fair argument/point. However, infinity itself is a singularity w/o a balancing partner on the other end of the conceptual "seesaw". That is what I'm trying to illustrate.

    Infinity has regions of existence completely unknowable to finity. So it is a logical modeling error to attempt to fully model/describe infinity from a finite reference. For finity, yes, we may require to have a plurality of finite references to "know/comprehend" something. However, that is not necessarily true for infinity. Infinity is not subject to the same laws as finity, & existentially so, not merely arbitrarily so. Infinity is distinct existentially from finity. In fact, I would say similar to the the vein of NP-completeness, this plurality/frame-of-reference requirement MUST NOT be true for infinity. Infinity must be distinct. Otherwise, residually, infinity == finity.

    There are physical examples of this idea: the speed of light. It is a unique singularity speed-wise with respect to all sorts of physical attributes (time, space, mass) & has no equivalent. It is it's own frame-of-reference & singularly so. Absolute Zero Kelvin might be another example (although I'm less familiar with the details here). Anyhow, that's my $0.02.
    I tend to agree with your characterization of infinite and finite and their relationship. Also, I've always held this notion that existence, the infinite, was essentially one, a singularity, which contained and summed up all different changing, finite things.

    However, lately I've changed my mind. The very idea that infinite and finite are related seems to show that the finite as a concept is totally meaningless without the infinite but this is also true the other way around! How does the infinite, the singularity, stand alone when there's the finite and multiplicity? The infinite is not unless there is other. Every time we seek to describe monism we end up with dualism. When we, then, conclude that reality is actually dualistic, we end up discovering that we have just proven monism to exist since dualism cannot be without monism.

    Similarly, what is the the speed of light that knows no equal, only other, without the other? The speed of light can only exist as an outstanding quality within a realm that offers no objects or processes with equal speed. I.e., the singularity of the speed of light and the inferior rest of reality condition each other.

    My conclusion is that words and rational inquiry fall short of explaining the unexplainable.

  4. #8364
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Austin, TX
    Posts
    5,240
    Quote Originally Posted by Pedal2Metal View Post
    By what basis do you make this assertion, other than the same presumptive belief(s) as ShowTek? It's fair to say that echo-chambers are rarely suited for objective analysis/discernment & new discoveries, of any kind except maybe to study the nature of echoes/standing waves. You're typically more analytically objective & self-aware than this. Frankly, a more exemplary expression of awareness & objective analysis is a reasonable expectation given you are a man of letters & this process of analysis & self-awareness & teaching these skills to others IS your business!

    The actual analytical fact is simple:
    You have no actual analytical basis/data for what happens after death.

    Therefore, you can't "know" or make any assertions with any shred of intellectual honesty.
    Anything beyond this is an expression of belief, not the intellect. I have no issue with belief, obviously. I just don't like belief masquerading as "intellect" or "logic" or "fact". You should know better.

    best regards...
    Oh my!!! Ha!

    Well, in my arguments, I try to follow the trajectory of my opponent's thesis. For me, that's what "intellectual honesty" is about: listening to the concerns of another person, taking them seriously, but nonetheless trying to show where those concerns and assumptions lead---regardless of whether I myself believe them. That's called the Socratic Method, as any person of intellect, letters or not, probably gets---such as yourself!!!

    Okay, onto the argument: you say it's about proof and data. Well, why wouldn't the loss of the ego be equivalent to the absence of pain and pleasure??? By definition pain and pleasure arise for those entities that are not one with everything. If you are ONE with everything, then by definition you lack the physiological means to feel anything at all. The Buddhists are right: pain and pleasure go together for creatures like us. Hell, even Christians tend to agree with this: it's only in Heaven that real JOY is experienced, something beyond the pride of the self. Where I disagree with both the Buddhists and Christians is on the basis of whether or not humans truly want anything of the sort, Nirvana or Heaven. Due to the Freudian death drive, as mentioned above, I would argue to the contrary that all that we desire and want is always necessarily bound up with the absence of complete peace and harmony....

  5. #8365
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Posts
    2,964
    Quote Originally Posted by ShowtekGER View Post
    What a prediction you made there 5 years ago, Itz! Perhaps you disagree with me but I think Trump fits your formula reasonably well. I'm not implying Trump is a nazi but I certainly consider him some sort of proto-fascist.
    I really want to know how you found this quote of mine!

  6. #8366
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Auckland, NZ
    Posts
    5,471
    Quote Originally Posted by ShowtekGER View Post
    I don't feel that afterlife, spirituality, and the nature of the universe are matters of data, empiricism, and knowledge.
    seems to me there is a lot that can be done by thinking logically about such things. I can at least say something about what a coherent concept of theology or morality might look like. You or I don't know the end result - but the whole point of talking about it is to get ever so slightly closer to something by comparing various pieces of information about reality we might have.

  7. #8367
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Auckland, NZ
    Posts
    5,471
    Quote Originally Posted by Zefelius View Post
    Okay, onto the argument: you say it's about proof and data. Well, why wouldn't the loss of the ego be equivalent to the absence of pain and pleasure???
    Very interesting to imagine what it would be like to really be in the state many imagine heaven as being - without anything you want or need, to be instantly in contact with all your passed friends, to be purged of your evil aspect, purged of your various imperfections - and some many other apparently good things that when you put them all together will inherently dissolve what makes you human (for better or worse).

    And what it would be like to live for eternity like that...

  8. #8368
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Austin, TX
    Posts
    5,240
    Quote Originally Posted by Pedal2Metal View Post

    There are physical examples of this idea: the speed of light. It is a unique singularity speed-wise with respect to all sorts of physical attributes (time, space, mass) & has no equivalent. It is it's own frame-of-reference & singularly so. Absolute Zero Kelvin might be another example (although I'm less familiar with the details here). Anyhow, that's my $0.02.

    Yes, I've made up a word, in a clumsy attempt to make it easier to communicate.

    best regards...
    How about a black hole? I find it interesting that within its singularity space and time bow down to infinite mass. I know nothing of astrophysics, but I do like the metaphorical connotations associated with this infinity....

  9. #8369
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Posts
    2,964
    I'm curious how many times religion has come up in this thread. Pretty sure it's under 5 but who knows

  10. #8370
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Austin, TX
    Posts
    5,240
    Quote Originally Posted by ITZ DENI3D View Post
    I'm curious how many times religion has come up in this thread. Pretty sure it's under 5 but who knows
    Ha! Great point/question. Even though I'm secular, I do believe there's something powerful about religion. It's easy to say it's just a hoax. But in some cases it speaks to the deepest longings, aspirations, and possibilities that life has to offer us.

  11. #8371
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Auckland, NZ
    Posts
    5,471
    Quote Originally Posted by Zefelius View Post
    How about a black hole? I find it interesting that within its singularity space and time bow down to infinite mass. I know nothing of astrophysics, but I do like the metaphorical connotations associated with this infinity....
    I am inclined to think there are no 'actual' infinities. E.g. a black hole applies a force but it is, when correctly understood, still a finite one. One problem with infinity is infinity maths is messy - infinity * 2 = infinity etc. That makes it a bit like proposing time travel and the prohibitive contradictions that tends to cause.

    Another is that infinity maths would potentially take an infinite 'time' to "calculate" and I envisage the universe as potentially going through a process of calculating.

  12. #8372
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Auckland, NZ
    Posts
    5,471
    Quote Originally Posted by ShowtekGER View Post
    Again, relativism does not mean that you hold no values, opinions, and truths. It just means, at least to me, to acknowledge that no truths are inscribed into the universe.
    Doesn't being a truth = being inscribed into the universe?
    We change opinions largely because we are simple minds with only a small part of the picture. (So we can obviously guess that an eternal god should in theory never change his mind).

    Our current ideas might not be true in an absolute sense but they are more 'true' than the ones of the past (as long as the way they are developed meets certain standards) to deny that would be to deny the point of the dialogue we have and to surrender the ground anyway.

    I'm not sure if it is truly easier and more comfortable to be a relativist than to hold truths to be absolute. It must be very comforting to have faith in pre-given truths.
    Inclined to agree with you here. absolute unchanging truths seem more comforting. Which I suppose is in itself an argument in favor of that.

  13. #8373
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Posts
    6,105
    Quote Originally Posted by Zefelius View Post
    Oh my!!! Ha!

    Well, in my arguments, I try to follow the trajectory of my opponent's thesis. For me, that's what "intellectual honesty" is about: listening to the concerns of another person, taking them seriously, but nonetheless trying to show where those concerns and assumptions lead---regardless of whether I myself believe them. That's called the Socratic Method, as any person of intellect, letters or not, probably gets---such as yourself!!!

    Okay, onto the argument: you say it's about proof and data. Well, why wouldn't the loss of the ego be equivalent to the absence of pain and pleasure??? By definition pain and pleasure arise for those entities that are not one with everything. If you are ONE with everything, then by definition you lack the physiological means to feel anything at all. The Buddhists are right: pain and pleasure go together for creatures like us. Hell, even Christians tend to agree with this: it's only in Heaven that real JOY is experienced, something beyond the pride of the self. Where I disagree with both the Buddhists and Christians is on the basis of whether or not humans truly want anything of the sort, Nirvana or Heaven. Due to the Freudian death drive, as mentioned above, I would argue to the contrary that all that we desire and want is always necessarily bound up with the absence of complete peace and harmony....
    I do appreciate the response but you have confirmed my point: We all have opinions & beliefs that form the irreducible core of our personal definition of existence & purpose. Any presentation of it as "knowledge" is mostly facade. I'm fine with your confirmation.

    best regards...

  14. #8374
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Posts
    6,105
    Quote Originally Posted by Zefelius View Post
    How about a black hole? I find it interesting that within its singularity space and time bow down to infinite mass. I know nothing of astrophysics, but I do like the metaphorical connotations associated with this infinity....
    I mentioned it earlier & Showtek responded. I had a mathematical point but my site access was lost. Ultimately, finite creatures can't truly comprehend infinity & any explanation will fall short of the actuality. You see this in everyone's postings & even in formal textbooks. So it's a true mystery ever-unreachable no matter how far we progress. I love that! Absolutely impenetrable! Therefore, access of any kind must be granted, it is impossible to earn. Simply & uniquely beautiful!

    best regards...

  15. #8375
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Århus, Denmark
    Posts
    2,716
    Quote Originally Posted by ITZ DENI3D View Post
    I really want to know how you found this quote of mine!
    Let's just say that I really need a job!

  16. #8376
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Århus, Denmark
    Posts
    2,716
    Quote Originally Posted by ScottieX View Post
    seems to me there is a lot that can be done by thinking logically about such things. I can at least say something about what a coherent concept of theology or morality might look like. You or I don't know the end result - but the whole point of talking about it is to get ever so slightly closer to something by comparing various pieces of information about reality we might have.
    Sure, thinking logically about those things can be rewarding exercises. However, I don't think we can understand spiritual questions or questions concerning subjectivity like scientific ones. The objects of spirituality and subjectivity, I think, are inherently dependent on viewpoint, historical and cultural perspective, and so on. E.g., unlike gravity the meaning of life is determined by subjective currents. The meaning of life is culturally, historically, and socially determined and changes accordingly.

    In that sense, I don't believe that we can continuously approximate some truth like the meaning of life. I don't think there is such a "true truth", an end-truth.

  17. #8377
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Århus, Denmark
    Posts
    2,716
    Quote Originally Posted by ScottieX View Post
    Doesn't being a truth = being inscribed into the universe?
    We change opinions largely because we are simple minds with only a small part of the picture. (So we can obviously guess that an eternal god should in theory never change his mind).

    Our current ideas might not be true in an absolute sense but they are more 'true' than the ones of the past (as long as the way they are developed meets certain standards) to deny that would be to deny the point of the dialogue we have and to surrender the ground anyway.
    Well, in the service of scientific progress this is a pragmatic position to hold, and therefore in the context of science I also hold it.

    However, in reality truths are only truths because they meet the standards you talk about which are made by humans. I.e., they are entirely subjective as we're subjective creatures. Therefore, our truth construction is a matter of consensus about how to make truth rather than some kind of accurate measurement of a reality that is independent of our minds. Perhaps you agree with me since you argue that our "ideas might not true in an absolute sense".

    Again, pragmatically, I agree that our current ideas are more true than past ones. I agree with this in order to be able to participate in scientific progress which I find to be a positive and reasonable force. In other words, I agree with it in order to not "surrender the ground" of our debates. However, in an absolute sense I disagree with it. Ideas/truths change constantly, and will change constantly, and I don't know of any convincing argument for the idea that we are constantly drawing nearer to the final absolute truth.

  18. #8378
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Århus, Denmark
    Posts
    2,716
    Quote Originally Posted by Zefelius View Post
    By definition pain and pleasure arise for those entities that are not one with everything. If you are ONE with everything, then by definition you lack the physiological means to feel anything at all.
    But are you ever truly separated from the all? You breath in and out, eat and sh*t, take in education and propaganda, spew out your own thoughts and feelings, etc. Can there ever be internal without external or vice-vera? Is it possible to conceive of an organism without environment? Or, on the other hand, of an environment without organisms or other things in it? Would the more appropriate term not then be organism-environment rather than organism and environment? If so, then we have all along been one with everything despite the differences between things that are apparent to us.

  19. #8379
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Auckland, NZ
    Posts
    5,471
    Quote Originally Posted by ShowtekGER View Post
    The objects of spirituality and subjectivity, I think, are inherently dependent on viewpoint, historical and cultural perspective, and so on. E.g., unlike gravity the meaning of life is determined by subjective currents.
    I think we are looking at these two things in different ways and it is that perspective that creates the position they are different in nature.
    For example - your experience of gravity is inherently dependent on the position of masses and the degree to which you have mass or do not have mass. I suggest in a sense it doesn't exist because the universe just like us is inherently subjective (think time dilation, Schrodinger cat, wave particle duality). But obviously in a relevant (in the context of us talking to each other) sense, it does exist.

    Or to look at it the other way around - morality and gravity can be tested for using experiments and rules and we can agree on various relationships dependent on the facts around us and inside us, that historically and probably into the future, will narrow in on certain principles.

    Quote Originally Posted by ShowtekGER View Post
    Well, in the service of scientific progress this is a pragmatic position to hold, and therefore in the context of science I also hold it.
    And so I suggest this is the pragmatic definition to use and the one that inherently exists in our external dialogue (and to an exent in our internal dialogue too as that conversation is somewhat analogous).

  20. #8380
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Posts
    6,105
    Quote Originally Posted by ShowtekGER View Post
    One difference, I would say, is that my principles are based on reason while theistic principles are based on faith. I.e., I try to argue towards a set of rules that governs how we live together and that I hope to be successful in that regard. I try to find the best rules based on inquiry, debate, etc. Theistic principles on the other hand are to a greater degree derived from dogma. Of course, this is dependent on the degree of fundamentalism but, generally speaking, theists will base their views on sources that are external to their own reason.
    That's because you ignore the implicit faith you hold in "reason" as well as ignoring the fact that reason itself must be defined & one must accept that definition w/o absolute proof, which by definition, is an expression of faith. You will undoubtedly talk more but that's the residual inescapable nature of actual truth as Winston Churchill declared. Faith is inescapable in life but you will endlessly attempt to deny that fact/truth which is ironic. One could say it's an extreme expression of a rigid belief, like anyone who refuses to accept the undeniable truth. Completely irrational, dogmatic even!

    In mathematics, the error in your reasoning is obvious: Rational & Irrational must both be embraced in order to have the Real. Embracing only either one leaves us with a lopsided view of reality, just like the one you're a disciple of (reason/rationality alone). Those that refuse to accept them both & the fact they are not intersecting sets will always be endlessly searching for Reality & never finding it.

    This does indeed sound more difficult, but highly irrational given the mathematical facts. I'm not sure why an authentically rational person would choose this path, other than something highly irrational, perhaps unconsciously, is actually at the helm of their will. Hmmm..., perhaps some solitude & self-reflection is in order? No, of course not, how silly of me to suggest it. We are modern men, the pinnacle of evolutionary achievement in a universe billions of years old! Indeed.

    Quote Originally Posted by ShowtekGER View Post
    We've discussed this many times before. I'll happily do it again but I fear that it will end in disaster again

    I don't care if ideas are essentially relative. I don't need to critique nazism under the flag of relevatism. I'm not sure if that would be effective. I'd much rather do it under the flags of humanism, reason, science, marxism, etc. I find arguments from these faculties to be much more convincing and comfortable than those of nazism.
    A rose of Relativism by any other name is still... Relativism. Enjoy your Comfort, I find Truth more comforting.

    Quote Originally Posted by ShowtekGER View Post
    Again, relativism does not mean that you hold no values, opinions, and truths. It just means, at least to me, to acknowledge that no truths are inscribed into the universe. I mean, just look at the history of mankind! We change opinions all the time! We always did and we always will! Do you really think that you've somehow arrived at the stage in the development of ideas at which your ideas suddenly are the actual true ones? The fact that all ideas change proves that all truths are perspective.
    If no truths are inscribed on the universe (other than THIS one ironically), then exchange of anything in the universe is impossible & order is impossible. Yet there is order & exchange of all kinds in the universe. Therefore, we KNOW this assertion is false, which leads to the proper universal assertion: There ARE truths inscribed upon the universe.

    Quote Originally Posted by ShowtekGER View Post
    I'm not sure if it is truly easier and more comfortable to be a relativist than to hold truths to be absolute. It must be very comforting to have faith in pre-given truths. These must afford great order, stability, and free one of the heavy burdens of self-determination and the freedom/coercion to create life and values oneself.
    I wasn't making an argument about the supremacy of comfort but rather motivations. If you need to feel the "win" more than Truth, that's fine by me as it's not me. Finding Truth (which is a WHO [Jesus Christ, John 14:6], not merely a WHAT, contrary to common thought/conceptions) IS a win for me, even if it requires I "lose" something (pride mostly) to find it.

    You need to listen to yourself but you can't because your ears are waxed with pride. If your assertion is true, then it clearly follows that being an absolutist is superior, especially given your premise that everything is relative. In a world where nothing matters intrinsically, it follows that minimizing cost/energy is the ultimate guiding principle for decision-making. But you always miss that (unlike ScottieX, one of the most analytically objective/intellectually honest internet individuals I've encountered to-date) because you are less analytically objective nor do you aspire to be greater in this respect, if your behavior is any indication. You aspire to justify your own thoughts above those of objective truth, which is nothing more than defensiveness & mental masturbation disguised behind an intellectual facade. So be it. As you indicate below, there are still consequences, even for the self-avowed unrepentant relativist.

    Quote Originally Posted by ShowtekGER View Post
    I disagree. It doesn't follow from relativism that there cannot be consequence. In fact, even though ideas have continually undergone change throughout human history they've always caused great consequences. Just like the ones who came before me I commit to values and truths and these bear their marks on my life and on others' lives.
    I'm talking about the residue, not incidence. The truth is there is no residual consequences in a relativist's worldview, only temporal/incidental consequences. However, the differences are essential & indestructible. The fact you don't realize this IS your issue & it IS residual with you. I wish you luck but history has shown you can't fix.... If you want to try to learn something about these essence of these topics, I recommend adding a course in "Complex Variables" (advanced mathematics). You will not be able to comprehend or pass that class without coming to a concrete understanding of the difference between incidental & residual, finite & infinite, etc.... Words are easily manipulated, mathematics is not.

  21. #8381
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Posts
    6,105
    Quote Originally Posted by ScottieX View Post
    Doesn't being a truth = being inscribed into the universe?
    Absolutely correct.

    Quote Originally Posted by ScottieX View Post
    We change opinions largely because we are simple minds with only a small part of the picture. (So we can obviously guess that an eternal god should in theory never change his mind).
    Maybe, maybe not. A finite frame of reference/definition/interpretation may or may not apply directly to infinity. As described in an earlier post, this is why God must be approached by faith & access must be granted. Finite beings have no means to "force" themselves upon infinity, whether it be by thought or deed.

    Quote Originally Posted by ScottieX View Post
    Our current ideas might not be true in an absolute sense but they are more 'true' than the ones of the past (as long as the way they are developed meets certain standards) to deny that would be to deny the point of the dialogue we have and to surrender the ground anyway.
    Absolutely correct.

    Quote Originally Posted by ScottieX View Post
    Which I suppose is in itself an argument in favor of that.
    Absolutely correct.

    Thanks for setting a good example of analytical objectivity Scottie. I encourage people everywhere to follow this example when examining Jesus Christ. I recommend the Bible itself (especially the 4 Gospels), solitude, prayer, & a decent book is "The Case for Christ" by Lee Strobel. However there is no "certain path" to enlightenment, it requires faith. Just like true love. Life is like that, rational & irrational simultaneously. Either we accept that & embrace it & make a decision, or we don't & still make a decision. Either way, there is no escaping that all decisions are made with a mixture of certainty which requires faith in some measure in order for a decision to be made. Otherwise, we end up paralyzed which itself is a decision with its own associated consequences. Faith is still present even in this instance but the word we use is "fear" which is nothing other than faith with a negative outcome assertion, as opposed to the word "faith" which is faith with a positive outcome assertion. Thanks again.

    best regards...

  22. #8382
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Posts
    6,105
    Quote Originally Posted by Zefelius View Post
    It's easy to say it's just a hoax. But in some cases it speaks to the deepest longings, aspirations, and possibilities that life has to offer us.
    Well-said. The same can be said for love. Maybe there's a meta-lesson lurking?

    best regards...

  23. #8383
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Posts
    6,105
    Quote Originally Posted by ShowtekGER View Post
    Are you giving me a compliment? I like it! I get all confused by the switching between my being a feeble, dishonest, and myopic hypocrite and then suddenly being able to contribute with an excellent point.
    You know as well as I that it's a good sign when your opponent can easily give kudos as it means good-faith is flowing. I've no hesitancy in doing so when I feel you've made one as, ultimately, I'm not merely seeking a "win", I'm seeking truth.

    Quote Originally Posted by ShowtekGER View Post
    I tend to agree with your characterization of infinite and finite and their relationship. Also, I've always held this notion that existence, the infinite, was essentially one, a singularity, which contained and summed up all different changing, finite things.
    A reasonable summary.

    Quote Originally Posted by ShowtekGER View Post
    However, lately I've changed my mind. The very idea that infinite and finite are related seems to show that the finite as a concept is totally meaningless without the infinite but this is also true the other way around! How does the infinite, the singularity, stand alone when there's the finite and multiplicity? The infinite is not unless there is other. Every time we seek to describe monism we end up with dualism. When we, then, conclude that reality is actually dualistic, we end up discovering that we have just proven monism to exist since dualism cannot be without monism.

    Similarly, what is the the speed of light that knows no equal, only other, without the other? The speed of light can only exist as an outstanding quality within a realm that offers no objects or processes with equal speed. I.e., the singularity of the speed of light and the inferior rest of reality condition each other.

    My conclusion is that words and rational inquiry fall short of explaining the unexplainable.
    I don't share your change of mind in the conceptualization of infinity. However, I do agree with your conclusion & mathematics supports this directly. I hope you'll sincerely investigate Jesus Christ. Faith is required though, but this is consistent with your conclusion too.

    best regards...

  24. #8384
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Posts
    2,964
    Quote Originally Posted by Zefelius View Post
    Ha! Great point/question. Even though I'm secular, I do believe there's something powerful about religion. It's easy to say it's just a hoax. But in some cases it speaks to the deepest longings, aspirations, and possibilities that life has to offer us.
    It's powerful because of the human need to be included. We need to feel important, we need to feel we have a purpose. Religion fills that need. It's a great representation of part of the human psyche tbh. It's desperately trying to grapple with the realities of life while connecting us with others of similar beliefs. Religion in and of itself isn't bad, it's the few bad people that know how to exploit the idiots that make it bad. It's easy to get spirituality confused with religion, but they're quite different imo. From what I've observed very few religious people are actually spiritual.

Page 210 of 210 FirstFirst ... 110160200208209210

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •