what equals what?! under what condition?

[bottomlander]

Equal is a word for correlation.
There are categories/words/symbols for correlations.
The broadest pack has elements equal, unequal and "not sure" or is, isn't and "not sure".

The valid use of every element to correlate the target is conditional or needs to be well defined.

Every correlation is under specific rules/condition, be it obvious, understood or hidden,
e.g. 5+6=11 is valid for base 10 but invalid for base 7.
In base 7, 5+6=1x7+4=14.

An apple equals an orange under the condition that both are fruits.

When someone wants to apply "equal" in the wildest way, be honest, add the remark that under what reference point that they are equal,
e.g. apple = anti-matter when emphasized that each is but a form of mass-energy.



Best Regards. Bottomlander

[austintorn@aol.com]

All electrons may be equal to each other, as for protons, too, but electrons are not equal to protons and even every snowflake, fruit, star, and human is probably unique in the history of the universe.

So, for '=', not much is.

[bottomlander]

Equal is a word for assessment.
Every assessment is based on some rules and conditions.

Some people see all things as One. Some people see all things as Illusionary/Nothing/virtual.
Are all things then really equal under such subjective premises!


Best Regards. Bottomlander

[labelwench]

Equal is a word for assessment.
Every assessment is based on some rules and conditions.

Some people see all things as One. Some people see all things as Illusionary/Nothing/virtual.
Are all things then really equal under such subjective premises!


Best Regards. Bottomlander

That all persons view things from their own perspective is perhaps the only way in which 'equal' may be applied.

Even in defining 'equal', which is yet another construct, we may not get beyond the subjective.

That each person appears to be inordinately attached to their own vision of 'TRUE' and 'EQUAL' seems unlikely to be resolved anytime soon.

The discussion certainly passes the time, and we have yet to ascertain what 'TIME' is.......lol.....

Mayhaps it all be a cosmic joke that we don't quite get....

Regards,

Labelwench

[MJA]

All electrons may be equal to each other, as for protons, too, but electrons are not equal to protons and even every snowflake, fruit, star, and human is probably unique in the history of the universe.

So, for '=', not much is.

Protons and electrons, snowflakes, fruit and stars are all parts of the universe, the parts that make up the whole.
The whole or the infinite all is the universe made up of all its parts.
Wholeness is Oneness, and Oneness is truly equal or the same. For when all is equal all is One. While most focus on the uncertain immeasurable different parts of the universe, for nature is truly infinite or immeasurable, the enlightened focus on the absolute true certainty of One.
TOE is the light of One,
Be the light, be One.

=
MJA

Nice picture Austin, it made me laugh!

[jag]

Love equals Enlightment

Vanity equals Blindness

Timeless Truth equals The Light of oneness

[MJA]

Love equals Enlightment

Vanity equals Blindness

Timeless Truth equals The Light of oneness

Nice to see you writing about truth, Oneness, or TOE Jag.

But if I may, vanity does not equal blindness Jag IMHO,
for many of the blind I have met can see better than those who have eyes and can see.

And as for your "timeless truth" sentence,
I would say it this Way: The measureless or infinite truth of the universe is equal, and equal is the loving light of God or One.

=
MJA

[jag]

Nice to see you writing about truth, Oneness, or TOE Jag.

But if I may, vanity does not equal blindness Jag IMHO,
for many of the blind I have met can see better than those who have eyes and can see.

And as for your "timeless truth" sentence,
I would say it this Way: The measureless or infinite truth of the universe is equal, and equal is the loving light of God or One.

=
MJA

Hi MJA

When I said Vanity = Blindness I didn't mean
physical blindness. Thank you for having me
add that condition. I agree with you 100%
when you say many (I would add, if not most)
physically blind people do not suffer from vanity.

Timeless Truth = The Measureless or Infinite Truth
of the Universe.

The Future = The Past + The Present

jag

[MJA]

Your all right Jag, and that's the Way to go!

=
MJA

[SteveA]

I enjoy the topic of the thread.

Even two electrons are ideally not equal to each other except (potentially) in the context of mass and electrical charge, but they're not equal in terms of positions in space or time.

In a very real sense, there can't exist two things that are in all respects identical because they would be perceived the same as one and this should even be true of thought - if there's a manner two perceive them as two separate things then there should be at least one property that separates them.

This X and this X are not identical in that they occur at different locations within this sentence.

Similar to observations in quantum mechanics, I think assumptions of equality arise from the replacement of some distinct property by an unknown which makes those objects appear superimposed as indistinguishable from each other.

But an interesting thought is that, similar to Plato's cave, there may exist physical quantities larger than 1 and if something could truly only be measured as some none 1 to 1 ratio but there was no way to separate the individual elements constructing this ratio, then it may be that there exist objects that are effectively equal to each other in a mathematical sense, yet not identical or distinguishable.

A physical number 2 would ideally be constructed from a pair of inseparable and indistinguishable things - they could not be separated into 1 + 1 except in some abstract manner. So if we had a ratio of 2 to 1 between some trees, for example 6 trees on one block and 3 trees on another block, these trees are not "equal" in the sense of an identity - each tree is unique and distinct and we could count them individually, but if there existed a physical property that was in a 2 to 1 ratio with some other property, then one of these properties could be composed of 2 (or more) things and if these were not constructed from selecting to group separate observations as a single property, then it should imply the existence of two inseparable things ... but I have a feeling that ultimately it may not be possible to measure things in this manner because we could always ask what measurements constructed the 2 to 1 ratio and it would appear that it would have to arise from measuring at least 3 separate things, even if it was somehow ultimately only a detection of a single event, it would have to had the potential to at least been detected by 3 previously observed (or even imagined) detectors and each of these should be unique and distinct in some fashion.

Likely the closest we can get to an equality is the relationship that exists between (imagined) unknowns, though as soon as any of them become known, they're no longer identical (I think that's where the infinite to finite conversion happens - infinities are made by recurring processes that don't need to change and could be interpreted as having remained identical over time, though within different input/output contexts and so each application of such a process creates a relationship between inputs/outputs that is qualitatively identical in every such grouping, even if it is not working with identical elements - in this case, it's still not a demonstrable identity at any moment as the information flowing through it remains unique over time, but after extracting the commonalities between these events, then we can deduce with some confidence that an identical process has recurred across these elements, even if it's reflected in unique manners at each moment)