Originally posted by whobdamandog
You are clearly delusional if you believe that you can bend the RULES of REALITY based on YOUR OWN PERCEPTIONS.If one has FAITH in their own PERCEPTIONS..it ain't going to CHANGE a damn thing for them in this REALITY. So If you jump off a building..you will fall to the ground.
Now..if you believe in something that is greater than your PERCEPTION..perhaps..like GOD..for example..then I believe it is indeed POSSIBLE...to do the IMPOSSIBLE. Because all the laws that make up this Reality..are just RELATIVE to the PERCEPTIONS of the one who created it.
This is all my OPINION however..and I have no empirical proof to substantiate it.
Still...Empiricism does equate to TRUTH to us in this reality. We are subjected to it..and can't change it on our own.
Fin.
Reality is based on perception. When what you see is a man jumping out of a building, landing, and dying, he himself or someone else may see a man jump out of a building, fly up into the air, and suffocate.
Or perhaps he never died at all. You just think he did.
Reality is subjective by nature and therefore relative, not absolute. You assume that your reality is truth.
Originally posted by whobdamandog
You are delusional and misled..there is ABSOLUTE TRUTH..you just lack the ability to comprehend it all..
No need to insult. Maybe you're the one unable to grasp a concept here.
Originally posted by whobdamandog
You are Playing Semantics..again..Conservation Mass/Energy Law..been a while since I've studied it..but I had to look it up here goes..(wish I had paid attention more in chem/physics class)
Here goes:
1. In the Universe there is a finite amount of matter and energy. We cannot create any new matter or energy nor can we destroy any of the matter or energy we have for the Universe as a whole.
2. We can change matter to energy and energy to matter without gaining or losing any of either to the Universe. Examples:
3. Energy can be changed in form, from one to another, without any loss to the Universe.
4. Matter can be changed in form, or state, without any loss of matter to the Universe.
The missing mass is converted into ENERGY. Simple as that.
Stop playing the game of semantics.
Thus the statement A + B = C Remains TRUE. Because..
NOTHING IS LOST OR GAINED. END OF DISCUSSION.
Conservation of matter is for chemical reactions, and it is an APROXIMATION of what happens in reality, not something that actually happens. Formaly conservation of mass is false, it is just to make calculations easier, and it is not because they cannot compute everything that was lost... like I said, formaly, it is false.
Like you said "the missing mass is converted into energy", so it is not mass anymore. Note that it is not always that "mass is energy".
Never the sum of an atom components was equal the mass of the atom itself + mass of lost componets(if there was some). Thats a basic thing in nuclear physics.
matter can in fact be lost in the sense that the quantity of all matter remaining in the universe is less than what it was prior to the reaction taking place. There is a particle called Higg´s boson which is responsible to the CREATION of matter in the universe.
Again..this question can be easily turned back around on you...Doesn't matter if I PERCIEVE them. As I stated before my perception has Nothing to do with whether or NOT they EXIST..or whether or not they are indeed TRUE.
If you do not perceive them how do you know that they are true ??? You saying that something is TRUE beyond the need of testing/observation/proof !!!
EVERYTHING that is proved must be OBSERVED. You cannot say that something is ABSOLUTELY TRUE, if you never even had the perception/observation/proof of them.
It's not just your perspective its the TRUTH. Until you prove it to be otherwise. It will remain the TRUTH.
It will not remain truth because it was not truth before. You just assumed that was truth.
Exactly...and you haven't provided any way to PROVE THAT YOUR PERCEPTION can PROVE/CHANGE anything. Simple as that. So I guess the EMPIRICAL way..represents the TRUTH. At least within this REALITY that we exist in.
The reality in which we perceive that we exist in you mean ?
Now unless you can somehow prove that YOUR PERCEPTION can change REALITY...then you have failed with your argument.
There are many ways to prove that my friend, but you will only accept the proofs that corresponds to your own definition of proof.
This is a fascinating debate (on many levels). May I make one more attempt toward resolution.
All experience is subjective. No one can escape their own psychology.
That which comes to us through our senses is subject to mis-perception. Our minds (brains, for you materialists) take incoming sensory impressions and construct a meaningful, physical frame of reference. There Is an objective/independent reality out there (solpsists, please hold your objections for now, thank you), but what is "out there" is filtered through our subjectivity.
Since we all share an evolutionary heritage, we share a Consensual reality, a reality based on common subjectivities, a common frame of reference. This does not shield us from possible mis-perceptions; society as a whole can still "see" the material world "incorrectly."
Now, there is another level of reality which we may call the "mental-symbolic" level (I tend to believe there is a third level--the "contemplative-spiritual"--but to address this at this time, I feel, would bring more distraction than clarification).
The mental-symbolic level is obviously different from the physical-sensory level. It is comprised of different impressions but still subject to mis-perception, in some ways more than with the physical-sensory level. This is why we have to be especially careful when discussing mental-symbolic phenomena. We need to be as specific as we can in defining our terms (this is what an "operational definition" is), so that we can share a consensual mental-symbolic (and physical-sensory) reality.
In fact, we do this all the time; we are doing it At This Moment. We are communicating via a common Language, using words we expect to mean the same for each of us.
Not all words, though, mean exactly the same thing to every person (eg, "reality"😉. This can foster mis-perception both on the mental-symbolic level and on the physical-sensory level; and this is why this debate has "raged" for as long as it has. Thank God for operational definitions.
The constants in the physical-sensory world, "for all intents and purposes" (very important phrase: I trust we all know what it means), do not change. I invite any one of you to spend the rest of your life throwing bricks out a window, and I guarantee every single one will fall(to do this during a hurricane would be cheating). The "outside world," as we perceive it, is Reliable if not valid.
The mental-symbolic world, however, is more pliable. We can each have our own definitions of "absolute" or "relative," and we can each go along our merry way living a normal life. Again: thank God for operational definitions.
Mathematics derives from Logic (debate this with Isaac Newton, if you like), and Logic is based on operational definitions (ODs). The great thing about ODs (druggies, behave yourselves) is that--before any debate is entered--all terms are agreed upon. And because all terms are agreed upon--terms we define from the start--this removes any possibility of mis-perception. Please understand: to operationally define something means we are effectively saying: "Look, we know each of us can see things differently, see things wrong. As a pre-emptive strike against this, let's agree ahead of time what we mean when we say certain things. Even if our OD is wrong, we will all be wrong together. We will still have a common frame of reference.
That said, let's agree upon a single, simple operational definition. Let's take the term, "equals." "Equals" (symbol: "="😉 means "precisely the same in every way"; "to be the same in value"; "of the same quantity, size, number, degree, intensity, etc" (these are all dictionary definitions). I think it's safe to say that all of us, as a group, can Agree what "equals" means (since we can't have immediate feedback, as in a phone or IM conversation, I hope no one minds if I take the liberty of assuming we all Agree this is what "equals" means). For those who insist on dissent, kindly take this up as a separate topic, because the operational definition of "equals" is not the point here.
The point is: we are coming to an agreement, establishing a common frame of reference on what "equals" means. By establishing this consensus, we are removing the possibility of mis-perception. Even if we are all wrong in our common definition, in our agreement, we are all wrong together. Hence, within out happy little group, relative to ourselves, there can be no room for error.
Next: pick an entity, any entity. It can be a number, an idea, a person, place or thing; it doesn't matter. Just pick it and Let's Agree to stick with it. We will also Agree to call this entity, "n."
May I now present the following: anyone who has studied Logic will recognize it as the simplest of statements. Ladies and gentlemen, I present to you the absolute: n = n.
Is this stating the obvious? Of course it is. What better place to start.
That reality is relative/subjective is 1) also stating the obvious; 2) is something I agree with; and 3) is beside the point, especially since we are establishing n = n Within our common, relative/subjective frame of reference. To state at this point that our perceptions may still be at fault is to violate our initial Agreement. Did we not first agree what "equals" means? If not, then as I said above, take this up as a separate issue. Most of us (I think) have agreed what "equals" means, so again, no room for error.
There will always be those, I fear, who insist that "you will not win this argument, no matter what." IMO, they have issues to deal with which go deeper than the topic of this thread. I can only say: Well, it was fun, no hard feelings, many colors make a rainbow, and to all, happy holidays.
It's not just your perspective its the TRUTH. Until you prove it to be otherwise. It will remain the TRUTH.
I accuse you of murder. if I think you've done it, then until you can prove otherwise I can believe it's true. In fact, it is true.
Or, conversely, you are innocent until proven guilty. Just because you have not yet been proven guilty does not mean you aren't.
Heres proof that 2=1...dnt ask me to explain it!! but in this case 2+2 would = 2, or seeing as 2=1..itd be 1
a = x [true for some a's and x's]
a+a = a+x [add a to both sides]
2a = a+x [a+a = 2a]
2a-2x = a+x-2x [subtract 2x from both sides]
2(a-x) = a+x-2x [2a-2x = 2(a-x)]
2(a-x) = a-x [x-2x = -x]
2 = 1 [divide both sides by a-x]
So things that equal 0 don't mean anything right whob? If I created an equation with multiple anomalies ex. (square root -9/0) + pi/0 - (square root -9/0) + pi/0, by your logic, it would be insignificant.
Oh, and to get out of an object? Go through the spaces between atoms; there's plenty of room.
Hydrogen + oxygen = water, but in different amounts and ratios, can equal other substances.
I just jumped off of a building. I fell up by being South of the equator. Pretty cool eh?
Originally posted by Biscuit
Heres proof that 2=1...dnt ask me to explain it!! but in this case 2+2 would = 2, or seeing as 2=1..itd be 1
a = x [true for some a's and x's]
a+a = a+x [add a to both sides]
2a = a+x [a+a = 2a]
2a-2x = a+x-2x [subtract 2x from both sides]
2(a-x) = a+x-2x [2a-2x = 2(a-x)]
2(a-x) = a-x [x-2x = -x]
2 = 1 [divide both sides by a-x]
Interesting problem that one ! I have to show that at the college. 😄
It happens because a = x, so (a-x) = 0. You can´t divide by zero so you can´t divide both sides by (a-x). If you assume that division by 0 exists you can prove that anything equals anything. What you did up there was something like this :
2(a-x) = a-x
2*0 = 1*0 (divide both sides by zero, what can´t be done)
2 = 1
Originally posted by Mindship
There will always be those, I fear, who insist that "you will not win this argument, no matter what." IMO, they have issues to deal with which go deeper than the topic of this thread. I can only say: Well, it was fun, no hard feelings, many colors make a rainbow, and to all, happy holidays.
Excellent points. Being a Christian. My understanding of these levels is a bit different than yours. Everything I believe in can be represented by the Concentric Circle Diagram Below. I went ahead and quoted everything..to make things easier to read. Here goes.
Center Circle = "Mental symbolic level"..I would like to denote this as the "Subjective-Personal(Self) Reality."As you stated..this is subject to change..based on an individuals perceptions, perspectives, opinions etc. As ever changing as it is..this Subjective/Personal Reality..has no effect on the Realities that encompass it.
Second Circle = "Physical symobolic level" or I would denote it as the "Objective-Natural Reality"Objective meaning, not influenced/subjected to the perceptions or the Physicals that exist within it. To the contrary..all things that exist within this Reality, are subjected to the laws that make it up. This includes all thing that exist within the Mental-symbolic, as well as our physical bodies, senses....etc.
We may interpret these Natural laws differently based on our perceptions/senses/opinions from time to time, and we may discover new laws that exist within this Reality..however, regardless of our knowledge(or lack there of) and interpretations..these Natural laws still remain the same.
It is my personal Opinion..that Human beings have as of yet not discovered all that makes up this "Physical-symbolic level." Through the means of Modern "Science", however, we are very close to doing so.
Third Circle = "Contemplative Spiritual"..or we could denote this as being..the "Supernatural"We have very little knowledge of this Reality. It is not subjected to any of the laws of the "Objective Natural" or "Subjective Personal" levels. However, I believe it has rules all of it's own. One such rule..in my humble opinion..would be that those things that live within it..are limited in their amount of control and interaction with things that make up the other 2 levels.
Without assistance from something within the "Supernatural", human beings have no ability to reach this level or break the Laws of the Objective-Natural level.
Outside of the third Circle = The infinite?
Well that's what I believe is on the outside. Something without limit..that doesn't have any of the other levels restricting it. Simultaneously existing in all levels, because it makes up all of "Reality." Representing both the Beginning and the End...the Natural and the Supernatural..the Alpha and the Omega.. The Infinite..or more apropriately defined to us as "God", even though simplicity of such a word..really could not define it.
So what does God represent?
Love in my opinion.
What is Love?
Answer:
ABSOLUTE TRUTH
ABSOLUTE KINDNESS
ABSOLUTE PAIN
ABSOLUTE SUFFERING
ABSOLUTE COMPASSION
ABSOLUTE PATIENCE
ABSOLUTE RIGHTEOUSNESS
ABSOLUTE KNOWLEDGE
Love was there in the beginning..and it will be there in the end.
Fin.
Aldous Huxely collectively referred to all these "maps" as the Perennial Philosophy, but they are all just that: maps we finite beings have put together, throughout history, in many cultures, to help us understand what lies within and beyond the eye of flesh, the eye of reason, and even the eye of contemplation.
May I share with you one of my favorite definitions of God (from Voltaire): "God is a comedian playing to an audience too afraid to laugh."
Peace
Originally posted by whobdamandog
So what does God represent?Love in my opinion.
What is Love?
Answer:
ABSOLUTE TRUTH
ABSOLUTE KINDNESS
ABSOLUTE PAIN
ABSOLUTE SUFFERING
ABSOLUTE COMPASSION
ABSOLUTE PATIENCE
ABSOLUTE RIGHTEOUSNESS
ABSOLUTE KNOWLEDGELove was there in the beginning..and it will be there in the end.
Fin.
Quite an interesting view of God, considering how in the Bible he was constantly killing people on a whim, yet tells his followers that killing is wrong, among other things.....
Originally posted by debbiejo
Well now you're getting down to quantum physics stuff.. 😱
Quantum physics is interesting, but truth is not Quantum, Christian, Buddhist, General or Special Relativity, etc. Truth is simply what ever is true...whatever that may be for you. For me, truth is merely realising the mystic law of the universe.
Is God absolute ? Well, I think by definition he has to be something like that to make him different from ordinary things.... but if hes absolute he is beyond perception, like a unspeakable truth, Ein Sof for the kabalists, even unspeakable he cannot be, the act of making any kind of reference to this principle will be making a mistake as it is totally beyond us. "It" is beyond our knowledge... and remember that when I used "It" to refer to "It", I already committed a mistake, as we cannot make references to "It". Thats the philosophy behind idolatry... in someway.
I believe that in this level where God is undefinable, "it" can be absolute, although it is not something that can be experienced. Perceptions, I think they would be like another level of God, and in this level, God will be the union of all relative truths or something like that, in this level... truth is what is perceived by us, it is sensation.