| |
 | |
 | |
I'm thinking thus I exist
Join Date: Jul 2005 Posts: 488
17  | |
09-22-2005, 06:06 PM
| | Hi, my genius friend...
No, there is no truth being absolute objective.
EVERYTHING IS WRONG!
No, dying is a significance. Stop existing FOR YOURSELF is absolute objective, because you stop giving significance; that means in that case every truth is wrong, because you stop giving significance.
So, to make myself clear: stop existing is absolute objective, dying is subjectief.
Last edited by dleviwing; 03-17-2007 at 06:57 PM.
| | | | The Thinker
Join Date: Mar 2005 Posts: 3,278
48  | |
09-23-2005, 01:35 PM
| Quote: |
Originally Posted by AntonioLao That the thing is quantized. It is discrete, it is full, it is complete, it is total, it cannot be divided. It is the one and only. It is unique. It is you. It is me. It is him, her, she, he, it. It is an isolated system. | But, NO!
Something cannot be "enhaced" another thing, if it's full, complete, total and discrete, true.
But something A and something B can be added both to become something C, even if they are full, because it's not about adding one to the other, but about putting them together, like the logical symbol called "union".
Last edited by dleviwing; 03-17-2007 at 06:56 PM.
| | | | The Thinker
Join Date: Mar 2005 Posts: 3,278
48 | |
09-23-2005, 01:46 PM
| Quote: |
Originally Posted by David Maes Why could difficult things not be right?
I cannot believe this idea.
(sorry)
People, we have to find this truth!
(Allow me to give you one hint!: everything is wrong!) | oh, I love thw way you wrote this!
I'm going to continue posting in this thread until I manage to conclude an idea about truth, although, I know, that the theory I arrive to will fall as everything that rises does. | | | | Raider of the lost time
Join Date: Nov 2003 Posts: 6,036
| |
09-23-2005, 02:58 PM
| Quote: |
Originally Posted by GUILLE But something A and something B can be added both to become something C, even if they are full, | I'm going to use an example in order to demonstrate whether we are on the same page. Let's use the U.S. monetary values. There are coins with the denominations of penny, nickel, dime, quarter, half-dollar, and dollar. The dollar coins can be divided into 100 pennies, the half-dollar coin into 50 pennies, the quarter into 25 pennies, the dime into 10 pennies, the nickel into 5 pennies, but the penny cannot be divided, it is full, it is the smallest money, it is the quantum of U.S. money. However, when the dollar is exchange into the international monetary market then the exchange rates are not quantized and the rates change from day to day.
__________________
Time independence: [∂E(g)]²=[∂F(a)×∂r(a)]·[∂F(b)×∂r(b)] and Mass independence: ¶a(t)·¶r(t)=c²
| | | | The Thinker
Join Date: Mar 2005 Posts: 3,278
48 | |
09-23-2005, 04:18 PM
| Quote: |
Originally Posted by AntonioLao I'm going to use an example in order to demonstrate whether we are on the same page. Let's use the U.S. monetary values. There are coins with the denominations of penny, nickel, dime, quarter, half-dollar, and dollar. The dollar coins can be divided into 100 pennies, the half-dollar coin into 50 pennies, the quarter into 25 pennies, the dime into 10 pennies, the nickel into 5 pennies, but the penny cannot be divided, it is full, it is the smallest money, it is the quantum of U.S. money. However, when the dollar is exchange into the international monetary market then the exchange rates are not quantized and the rates change from day to day. | This last sentence makes me get lost.
Anyway, although the 1 penny coin, although it's complete, fundamental, discrete, it can be added with something. From now own in my life, I will try to use this terminological difference:
1. "Add to something" is that A is being added into something B.
2. "Add from something" is that c, which is part of something B, is added to A.
3, "Add with something" is that A and B are unioned.
There might be any other additional form, if you can think of it, let me know.  | | | | Raider of the lost time
Join Date: Nov 2003 Posts: 6,036
| |
09-25-2005, 03:22 PM
| Quote: |
Originally Posted by GUILLE if you can think of it, let me know | Nothing come to mind. However, to apply 1,2, and 3 of your conjecture for the operation of addition, we still need to clarify the number system being used. Are they real numbers, complex numbers, or hypercomplex numbers? Are they Lie group, Abelian group, non-commutative group, Poincare group, Lorentz group, etc.
__________________
Time independence: [∂E(g)]²=[∂F(a)×∂r(a)]·[∂F(b)×∂r(b)] and Mass independence: ¶a(t)·¶r(t)=c²
| | | | Orange Belt
Join Date: Aug 2005 Posts: 40
13 | |
09-25-2005, 06:38 PM
| Quote: |
Originally Posted by David Maes .
I think there is purpose to the universe, because if it wouldn't have a purpose, then why is it there?
I believe the answer is, so that we could give significance to it.
I think we have to try and establish a purpose, because that's the way we can give significance to it (so our lifes get value).
Our lifes don't have value because we give significance to them, we create a value (and value is also a significance). The question "why do we die?" has a significance anyway. | David
What if the significance to the universe and our lives was established by the force when the universe was established? The only thing we had to do was live our lives in agreement with, or disagreement with the forces predetermined significance or purpose for the universe? What if the force had a predetermined purpose for everything and a definition of truth, and all we have to do is discover it.
That would be similar to finding out the printing press in my earlier example was made for us, and we were made to use it as a printing press to spread a predetermined truth. If we can just find some ancient source or some evidence as to what that baseline for truth is, or if the force would just visit us and tell us itself. Or, did it already visit us, and we are ignoring the message it left us. Is it there in some ancient hindu or buddhist writings, the koran, the bible, nature and science, or a combination of these and other sources. The only way to find out is to look at all these sources objectively. I think the ultimate truth, a significance and purpose for the universe and our lives, and the answer to how it is all put together in a way that can combine qm with relativity in a unified theory, is waiting in these sources for anyone who is willing to take the time and effort to objectively ask the questions from as many points of view as possible, and objectively look at all possible answers. Objectivity does not come naturally to a creature that is subjected to the physical and emotional, needs, wants, and desires, that define our physical and spiritual existence. That objectivity is even further hindered when we are confronted with the fact that our bodies might be subjected to eternal death. Especially, if that eternal death or maybe an eternal life might depend on some decisions we have to make to please some force that up until now, science can't, or I think refuses to, prove it exists. I think they do this, because they are afraid if it does exist, they will have to answer to it. It is much more fun for scientists to define how objective the questions and answers are that science is asking, than to think that possibly we are subjected to some objective force that has already done it for us.
Brian | | | | Moderator
Join Date: Aug 2005 Posts: 7,749
| |
09-25-2005, 07:04 PM
|  Truth is,you are,I am,that I am,am I?
Truths the ever present actualization of the eternal ever present now,and by
its very nature of[Being] cannot ever leave the ever present moment of which
it must by its very nature forever dwell.We can only ever talk [about]truth we
can never talk truth,without being caught up in a lie,for we ate using past tense
truth is and can only ever be present tense,.The only way would be to become truth itself,then you could sate someone who asked of it?I am the truth it is embodied within what I am,as a certain person said a few years,I am the way and the truth.So to answer the question can we ever know truth,the answer is most certainly yes,If we are prepared to become the embodiment of it.I dont think
that I am quite there yet? What about you!
kind regards michael. | | | | The Thinker
Join Date: Mar 2005 Posts: 3,278
48 | |
09-26-2005, 02:51 AM
| Quote: |
Originally Posted by AntonioLao Nothing come to mind. However, to apply 1,2, and 3 of your conjecture for the operation of addition, we still need to clarify the number system being used. Are they real numbers, complex numbers, or hypercomplex numbers? Are they Lie group, Abelian group, non-commutative group, Poincare group, Lorentz group, etc. | 1. I don't understand the nature of hypercomplex numbers, what are they?
2. I don't know what makes numbers to enter in a particular group of these, can you give me a short link or maybe just a post with what is needd for a number to aenter those groups?
3. Anyway, I think it doesn't matter so much what kind of numbers they are. Th eonly thing I think is that this division of different aditions can only be applied on set theory, not really on numbers, because you can't add a part of a number to another number, etz...
Last edited by dleviwing; 03-17-2007 at 06:55 PM.
| | | | Raider of the lost time
Join Date: Nov 2003 Posts: 6,036
| |
09-26-2005, 02:54 PM
| Quote: |
Originally Posted by GUILLE 1. I don't understand the nature of hypercomplex numbers, what are they? | Hypercomplex numbers are sets of numbers larger than the set of complex numbers. The following site shows a history of the development of hypercomplex number. http://history.hyperjeff.net/hypercomplex.html
The Lie groups are continuous differentiable groups applying the methods of differential calculus. The Abelian groups are commutative groups where a+b=b+a for the operation of addition. The non-commutative groups where  . The Poincare and Lorentz groups are the groups of linear transformations within the framework of special theory of relativity.
__________________
Time independence: [∂E(g)]²=[∂F(a)×∂r(a)]·[∂F(b)×∂r(b)] and Mass independence: ¶a(t)·¶r(t)=c²
| | | | | |
|
Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests) | | | | Thread Tools | | | | Display Modes |  Linear Mode |
Posting Rules
| You may not post new threads You may not post replies You may not post attachments You may not edit your posts
HTML code is Off | | |
All times are GMT -4. The time now is 09:31 PM.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.7.4 Copyright ©2000 - 2008, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO 3.2.0 
VBulletin Skin by ForumMonkeys.
| |
