In my experience I have found the best place to experience miracles is on the path that leads to nature's truth. The closer you get to truth, the more you see.
As far as the other questions on this thread: Does nature have energy? Is there energy in truth? Is there energy in everything? Does energy equal mass? Is there energy in doing good? Is there energy in right? Is happiness a form of high energy or spirit? Is spirit and energy the same? If our energy is high is not our spirit high? Is nature everything? Is nature infinite? Is nature's energy or spirit infinite too? Does happiness come from doing and thinking what is right, what is good, what is true? Is God just another name for nature, or spirit, or energy or everything, or right, or good, or infinite, or immeasurable, or oneness, or truth or TOE? Is the truth of infinite everything united or one? Is the science of physics the measure of nature? Is infinite nature immeasurable? Is knowing the truth a miracle?
From my path of experience, the answers to the above questions is yes! What about you?
In most situations, too many QUESTIONS will hide those important and critical ones which give raise to other consequent minor questions.
Unless answer with over-simplied, over-generalized, goodwilled empty words, otherwise, no serious thinker can answer too many unrelated, non-screened questions within a short time.
Anyhow, it seems that MJA got the answers to the questions he listed. It would be a Miracle (the title of this thread). Please share with toequesters.
True, bottomlander:
A good question rivals the importance of a good answer.
As MJA may say of such a consideration: 'Equals'.
Best regards,
- RP
(George Berkeley, 1710) ... lay the beginning in a distinct explication of what is meant by thing, reality, existence: for in vain shall we dispute concerning the real existence of things, or pretend to any knowledge thereof, so long as we have not fixed the meaning of those words.
"All things come out of the one and the one out of all things." - Heraclitus "Reality is an illusion - albeit a persistent one." - Einstein "Particles give me a headache." - Ibid
True, bottomlander:
A good question rivals the importance of a good answer.
As MJA may say of such a consideration: 'Equals'.
Best regards,
- RP
It will be very helpful if MJA can define what is his way of "Equals", under what situations, with what essentials, same in what parameters then two different objects or happenings can be qualified as "equals".
Good answers provide good definitions, good methodologies, good evidences, good details, good steps, good reasonings and good prospects for further developments. Not just empty words to conclude everything, no more details, no more future developments.
Best Regards. Bottomlander
The Following User Says Thank You to bottomlander For This Useful Post:
It will be very helpful if MJA can define what is his way of "Equals", under what situations, with what essentials, same in what parameters then two different objects or happenings can be qualified as "equals".
Good answers provide good definitions, good methodologies, good evidences, good details, good steps, good reasonings and good prospects for further developments. Not just empty words to conclude everything, no more details, no more future developments.
Best Regards. Bottomlander
Thanks again for your interest, I will try to clarify equal for you.
You wish to understand how the "parameters ( of ) two different objects" can be equal. We will use the tools of the science of physics for this purpose, because it is in those tools that science has it's faith, and in fact, the absolute truth or TOE can be found.
Ready?
For different objects lets use you and me. Surely you see us as different and I would argue that we are equal or the same. For the equation B is Bottomlander or you, and M is me. I equate you and I, and the equation will read B=M. Obviously you disagree. Then I should ask you to prove the difference, and perhaps by doing so I will show you the truth. Tell me first the certainty of B, the absolute certainty of yourself, the truth. Can you? If you cannot define the certainty of B define the certainty of M or me. You would need to know the certainty of both, to know the truth or certainty of there difference, wouldn't you? How can you define any certain difference between us with out defining with certainty B or M? Not even I can measure myself with certainty, can you?
Should I wait or move on? The truth is that you cannot define or measure you and me or anything else with absolute certainty, can you? Nature is infinite and immeasurable. You will need the absolute measure or truth of yourself, before you can proceed. To know with certainty that B and M are different, please define yourself. If the measurer is uncertain, which in this example is B or you, then so is all that you measure including M or me. Don't feel bad, your not alone.
So lets find some certainty, what is absolute certain, lets find the truth of an equation. Lets get back to the equation B=M, you and me. By removing the uncertainty from any equation, or in our example, B and M, = is all that remains. The truth of everything was hiding behind our uncertain measurements, yet in front of us all along. = is an equation's single truth. Science hadn't reduced or simplified it's equations far enough. There is no certainty in measured difference, leaving simply =, or equal, nature's single truth, TOE.. Beyond Newton, beyond Relativity, beyond measured probability or dice, beyond uncertain measured difference, beyond the uncertain difference of B and M, is the truth of equality, or =. The advancement of science to equality is the evolution of nature's simple, unifying, truth that will set us free. Does that help? Equal is only a change of thought; the absolute certainty of truth is self-evident, and up to you! Do you still see us different?
An excellent definition of someone is but a tiny bit away from complete and would seem to be much closer to the two persons being separate than to their being "certainly" equal. Even an approximate definition of someone would serve as well.
The book writes on: The supposed problems with equality: Emptiness; Confusion; Gratuitousness; The multiplication of wrongs; Leveling down and waste; Privileging the status quo; Privileging sameness and devaluing difference What equality is; What equality is not; How equality operates Answering the supposed problems with equality
An excellent definition of someone is but a tiny bit away from complete and would seem to be much closer to the two persons being separate than to their being "certainly" equal. Even an approximate definition of someone would serve as well.
Dear Austintorn,
"A tiny bit away, ' or "approximate" might be satisfactory for you, your research, your work, your judgement, your theories, your faiths, grenades, horse shoes, or horse s___, but not for the work on the certainty and unity of nature's truth, equality, or TOE. It's gonna take a lot more than close, to know the truth.
Nature's truth is way beyond probability! The science of physics went the wrong way! Einstein was right!!!
Then I should ask you to prove the difference, ......Can you? If you cannot define ....... How can you define any certain difference ...... Not even I can measure myself with certainty, can you?
MJA
The quoted words of your reasoning is obviously a Double Standard (very strict to demand proofs which need to satisfy your unrealistic interpretation and reasoning, but very loose to your self interpretations, empty words.)
As a friend (all toequesters are friends, all try various approaches in this meeting place to search and formulate a TOE), I don't know have anyone before adviced you to think about the chance to have enough people to obey or follow your double standards.
Why people should give up one's own standard (mostly rational, at least different to yours) to follow your double standard? ......only because of your goodwilled empty words?
Quote:
Originally Posted by MJA
There is no certainty in measured difference, leaving simply =, or equal
MJA
Try to recognize that whenever ""no certainty", it has "uncertainty" and thus "= or equal" cannot be established or concluded, or just to say that "leaving simply uncertainty" rather than = or equal.
It is obviously wrong and exactly opposite to conclude "leaving simply =" upon uncertainties.
In mathematics and science, Equality has simple, fundamental, strict and easy applications:
Two mathematical objects are equal if and only if they are precisely the same in every way.
The equality relation is always defined such that things that are equal have all and only the same properties.
cited from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equality_%28mathematics%29
The book writes on: The supposed problems with equality: Emptiness; Confusion; Gratuitousness; The multiplication of wrongs; Leveling down and waste; Privileging the status quo; Privileging sameness and devaluing difference What equality is; What equality is not; How equality operates Answering the supposed problems with equality
MJA don't you believe that the universe is probalistic and not deterministic.
I thought with quantum mechanics you had to accept a cetain degree of uncertainity, and therefor we talk about probability patterns. We all have a certain degree of freedom ( from quarks, to you and I, to the universe ) and so we rely on probability theory.
This is true whether we are talking insurance rates, mortality tables, the gaming tables in LV, or projecting a pattern for an electron.
I know Einstein didn't like God playing dice, but its that game of chance which gives you and I our freedom and corresponding responsibities.
Linear Mode
