Suck it.
Last edited:
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
**the Superidentity Called God**
- Thread starter Nicholas I. Hosein
- Start date
It's been proved that we are incapable of observing an object's speed and position both at the same time. Although we do know that any object has a particular speed and particular position, we cannot measure both. Hence, complete existence of a physical object by us, or any other physical object, is an impossilbility. While we could speculate that, like abstract objects, existence comes to being by observation, that objects are defined by their behavior, this seems to be more a theological question of God observing our existence, bringing us into existence. At the same time, to say that existence exists apart from observation is just a intellectual leap as the above question.If we take the sum total of every description in every human mind we would have only a set of descriptions of existence that are limited to human capacity. Without human capacity existence would have one less set of descriptions on it made by mind. If a total unlimited description exists, then existence and description converge. If one can prove mathematically that existence and description converge, then the universe is a mind.
This does not seem to be true, insofar as it concerns just the human mind. For many years the collective human mind did not know of the existence of the planet pluto. Hence, physical existence is not dependent upon our minds, even though what we call human existence is. It's interesting to note that this statement is based upon observation, that through the human existence that I know, I'm incapable of knowing everything.Mind = Existence or Mind = Reality
Well, we can say that an abstract object can be given a perfect description, in logic at least. But even our logical descriptions of an object are not the object itself, but the behavior of an object. We know that 1 by it's behavior under multiplication and addition. But we don't know what 1 really is, in fact it could have different in a different field. These are really abstractions, everything that we physically see, mentally exists only as an abstraction. Nevertheless, we have other modes and other ways of seeing.
Shut the fuck up.
Last edited:
You're all a bunch of liars.
Last edited:
You've made so many statements in this thread that I've not been able to hold on to a single theme... so I'll answer in the same way.
Descriptions exist because (a) things that can be described AND (b) things that can describe both exist. Therefore, a description can never become the descriptor, or the descriptee, as all 3 are independent.... perhaps at their basest levels, they are one, but not on superficial levels.
Mathematics is a language (or construct?) used to describe what we can, in some way, observe. Has there ever been anything that is not observable that has been properly explained by mathematics?
Zero is the absence of something, right? If you have no 1's, or 2's... then you have... zero. If you were to combine a number and it's complementary negative by simple addition..... that's called negation....
If 2=0+2... then you have 2 more than zero of something... if -2=0-2, you have 2 less than zero of something.... in physical reality, aren't all negatives simply perspective based? Meaning that, if you're on an x-axis, and you move -n degress down it, you're still +1 degree in the opposite direction from -n - 1.
So, when you take infinity... as applied to a number... since there simply is no number infinity, but it's a concept (as pointed out) for unlimited numerical value, then by adding +infinity to -infinity... you still simply have nothing... which is just the opposite of infinity which is literally everything.
Wouldn't it make more sense to say that everything is and isn't simultaneously?
I'm sure quantum physics is really what I would need to describe that, but I'm extremely unschooled in it.
Also... doesn't the fact that you can't observe an object's position and speed at the same time kind of imply that physical existence != mathematical existence? (*!= is "not equal to")
Descriptions exist because (a) things that can be described AND (b) things that can describe both exist. Therefore, a description can never become the descriptor, or the descriptee, as all 3 are independent.... perhaps at their basest levels, they are one, but not on superficial levels.
Mathematics is a language (or construct?) used to describe what we can, in some way, observe. Has there ever been anything that is not observable that has been properly explained by mathematics?
Zero is the absence of something, right? If you have no 1's, or 2's... then you have... zero. If you were to combine a number and it's complementary negative by simple addition..... that's called negation....
If 2=0+2... then you have 2 more than zero of something... if -2=0-2, you have 2 less than zero of something.... in physical reality, aren't all negatives simply perspective based? Meaning that, if you're on an x-axis, and you move -n degress down it, you're still +1 degree in the opposite direction from -n - 1.
So, when you take infinity... as applied to a number... since there simply is no number infinity, but it's a concept (as pointed out) for unlimited numerical value, then by adding +infinity to -infinity... you still simply have nothing... which is just the opposite of infinity which is literally everything.
Wouldn't it make more sense to say that everything is and isn't simultaneously?
I'm sure quantum physics is really what I would need to describe that, but I'm extremely unschooled in it.
Also... doesn't the fact that you can't observe an object's position and speed at the same time kind of imply that physical existence != mathematical existence? (*!= is "not equal to")
Last edited: