Quote:
Originally Posted by N0B0DY  Reverting to the ball, the absolute center of the "real" ball is as abstract as the exterior of the ball. The determining factor that renders the internal functioning and form of the ball as abstract, is that the central abstract point carries through neighboring abstract centers that of course meet with the abstract exterior - all points are central. So I simply conclude that there is only a single abstract non-dimensional point, a black hole of you wish, and the functioning and form are illusory - summed up as G=mc^2. |
Well, I am going to try to explain the intrinsic problem, created when using words in overall spots only, with an example from art. But let me first say that I have no problems with the contents of what you are saying (and what others are saying).
I can claim all paintings to be abstracts and be right about that. Yet if I want to discuss abstract paintings versus realistic paintings then the word 'abstract' needs to be clarified. To discuss the abstractness of all paintings only and throw out the abstractness of some specific paintings vs realistic painting, makes for a very short conversation. Equally, the other position can be mentioned, too, that paintings are always real. Despite their artful character, as soon as someone uses a pen, paint, or brush, a painting starts to exist.
I am caught in the middle, Nobody, for saying that both the person stating that all paintings are abstracts and the person stating that all paintings are real are both correct. In the mean time, what I really want is discuss the entire picture, which also includes the difference between abstract versus realistic paintings. Someone who sits on one position, and one position only, makes for short conversations.
To state that the universe exists only in a non-existent state makes it very difficult to discuss the existing and the non-existing parts of our universe. Others are present who state that the universe always exist — and they are as right as you are. The full picture, however, must include both positions, because that is the true full picture — allowing for people to take in different positions from which everything seems to fall in place.
I think I am finally understanding more and more what your position is and how you view the universe. If I were to compare your delivery to religion, you would be part of the agnostics, who state that we cannot know the entire picture. In a scientific sense, am I right? It would explain the difficulties I am having with your words — finding myself stating much the same things, but with the knowledge that one can know the final answer. Because, at the original Tower of Babel conflict, people who had the correct perspective were most likely present; they just couldn't get their points come across for others to see/accept.