Thread: Distance

I think your beliefs on logic really epitomize your "arguments." Logic is a defined term explaining "legitimate" arguments. For example: If A=B and B=C, then A=C. That is logic.

PS: One of the problems with what you are saying is that it is very readily falsifiable. Such as ingenius comments like "A point is everything!"

I herd sum ppl claim the universe is actually a flat area that is perceived as 3dimensional only from within. Crazyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyy

Originally Posted by SolSkye

Quick... someone show me proof of 5 minutes ago...

You can't "prove" 5 minutes ago. 5 minutes ago is a universally agreed upon concept that helps us navigate the world. It's reasonable to assume the approximate linearity of time for everyday life. It's reasonable to assume that the past did exist.

Originally Posted by wasup

I think your beliefs on logic really epitomize your "arguments." Logic is a defined term explaining "legitimate" arguments. For example: If A=B and B=C, then A=C. That is logic.

PS: One of the problems with what you are saying is that it is very readily falsifiable. Such as ingenius comments like "A point is everything!"

That's one idea of logic, using the systematic use of symbolic and mathematical techniques to determine the forms of valid deductive argument. (Note the word, argument)

As you seem to like to argue, I'm sure you know there are many types of "logic", as being the study of the principles and criteria of valid inference and demonstration.

In this case, however, it's not an argument I'm making... it's a statement of fact. The only fact to ever exist.

I infer and have directly experienced on countless occasions that everything is only ever this inter-connected web, and never entirely separate as we like to rashly assume from the finite constructs of the ego.

Science has demonstrated this interconnectivity at a sub-atomic and quantum level via the double slit experiment and many others showing how intention and observation directly affect the results...

What more "logic" do you need? It is you who are deluded and illogical by believing in anything outside you as more than a game you play with your mind...

Any point does equal everything. What you do from that point is only ever illusions of delusions.

Originally Posted by Korittke

You can't "prove" 5 minutes ago. 5 minutes ago is a universally agreed upon concept that helps us navigate the world. It's reasonable to assume the approximate linearity of time for everyday life. It's reasonable to assume that the past did exist.

Hmm... I don't remember posting that... Are you sure I said that? I don't see it anywhere... weird... I guess it never existed... no proof...

Anyway, what I've been saying is, it's no more unreasonable to assume all perceived "objects" are constructs of our mind than it is to arbitrarily define and force these increments of "time" or the boundaries perceived around "objects" as these separate ideas or forms...

Originally Posted by Minervas Phoenix

I'm not logical. What are you going to do about it?

Believe me, in order to say that sentence, yo uused logic to understand my post, you used logic to think, you used logic to form that sentence, and you used logic to post it.

Now, replying to your question: if you're not logical, then anything you say can be disregarded without notice. If fact, you even used logic to say you're not logical. Contradictory, much.

Originally Posted by SolSkye

Yes, and my logic is actually backed up by the previous information supplied. I don't just pull rabbits out of my hat. Logic is an interpretation of "reality" as our understanding of "real" unfolds...

No, logic is not that. Logic is what tells if your thesis is true based on your hypothesis. Logic is: a=b, b=c, therefore a=c. Illogic is: a=b, b=c, therefore a+b=c.

And, up until recently our societal precept from the western world was to think that "matter" or "material" was the end-all-be-all. Now, however, we are starting to see through the veil of "reality", and begin to see our implicit connection to it. We can also see those wrongly assumed lines drawn between the perceived "objects" of the essence of matter blur, as they reveal themselves as the one interweaving web which we are all a part and a whole...

Woot? Don't come with illogical phylosophic stuff. be cohesive. Just because humans can't determine where a proton is, it doesn't mean it isn't there.

Our definitions of logic change depending on what we are talking about and what proof we have, don't they?

No they don't. There's a difference betweern logic and common sense. Common sense changes. Logic will always be the same. 1+1=2 no matter if you're here or in soviet Russia.

The essence of reality is this inter-connected web of energy... Why draw lines between things that don't exist except as illusory concepts in our minds? Where's the logic in that?

Don't mess with concepts. What yoiu're doing is style without substance. Logic is logic, don't try to give it other meanings.
And what's with the "inter-connected web of energy" stuff? You sound like an ignorant trying to explain quantum physics.

Those are old modalities of thought...

Logic is not thought. Logic is reasoning. Logic is the way you tell if a reasoning is true or not necessarily true.

Some Plads are Blogs, all Blogs are Sheevs, so are all Plads Sheevs? Not necessarily (though they could be).

Originally Posted by SolSkye

That's one idea of logic, using the systematic use of symbolic and mathematical techniques to determine the forms of valid deductive argument. (Note the word, argument)

I did note the word "argument". What next?

As you seem to like to argue, I'm sure you know there are many types of "logic", as being the study of the principles and criteria of valid inference and demonstration.

Nop, there are not many types of "logic". Logic is a single, cohesive thing. Mathematic is pure logic. there are not different types of mathematics, just one. 1+1=2 whether if you're australian or mexican.

In this case, however, it's not an argument I'm making... it's a statement of fact. The only fact to ever exist.

That is a logical fallacy called irrefutability. Man, you should really learn about logical fallacies.

I infer and have directly experienced on countless occasions that everything is only ever this inter-connected web, and never entirely separate as we like to rashly assume from the finite constructs of the ego.

The ego itself is a human concept, as you seems to fail noticing. I'll agree it's not "entirely sepparate", as we think of it, but you should study some particle physics in order to really understand why that is so.

Science has demonstrated this interconnectivity at a sub-atomic and quantum level via the double slit experiment and many others showing how intention and observation directly affect the results...

Observation doesn't affect the results. It affects your understanding of the results. It's not like thing are interconnected. They do, in fact, never touch each other. They may even occupy the same space at a same given time, but they don't touch. Not even force-carrier particles like photons or gluons.

What more "logic" do you need? It is you who are deluded and illogical by believing in anything outside you as more than a game you play with your mind...

Logic is not quantitative. Logic is not qualitative. Logic is absolute. Either somehtign is logical or it isn't. And your argument there is pure phylosophy, if you ask me.

Any point does equal everything. What you do from that point is only ever illusions of delusions.

That is appeal to a pre-existing concept. If you say any point does equal everything, prove it first. If you don't prove it, all it'll ever be is mere phylosophy.

Hmm... I don't remember posting that... Are you sure I said that? I don't see it anywhere... weird... I guess it never existed... no proof...

You go and make all the fuss about the very first implication of phylosophy: nothign is a certain. One can't be sure about anything. In fact, we cannot even be sure about not beign sure. We are not sure about if it's possible to be sure. If you'll keep mongering on that argument, we'll never have a real discussion. And if you don't "believe" said discussion, why are you still here?

Anyway, what I've been saying is, it's no more unreasonable to assume all perceived "objects" are constructs of our mind than it is to arbitrarily define and force these increments of "time" or the boundaries perceived around "objects" as these separate ideas or forms...

Again the incertainty principle. If I'm only inside your head, then why do you still bother to try and prove me wrong? And don't say it's for fun or whatever, since fun itself is only a product of your mind, isn't it?

How would you explain any phenomena without the concept of distance? I really don't see how distance is only a concept of the mind and does not exist in the real world.

If there was no distance, everything would be compressed into one single infinite small point, how would we be able to perceive anything at all?

Distance exists, it only is not exact. It's not an exact number. It may vary. It may change. In fact, the concepts "beggining" and "end" are only human concepts. Sub-atomic particles never touch. It's impossible to determine where they "start" and where they "end". Ther have no borders. Get a 3d graphic designer, make two dots. Now matter how much you approximate the view, they'll still be dots. It's impossible to determine where they begin and where they end. They have zero diameter, but they exist. Same is with atoms. Distance is only an implication of time and the speed of light. The speed of light may vary, so distance may vary.

You can say the distance between two points is 3cm, but that is a rough approximation. What we know is that the difference is somewhere between 3cm and 3.0000...01cm. There is no limiar. No matter how many zeros you put in between, you'll never get to the real number. It's the infinitely-small principle.

Originally Posted by Sandform

It is like saying the universe is "orderly." No the universe isn't orderly, we just happen to have evolved to see it as orderly to function.

o_O since when is it a fact that we only see the universe as orderly? if there was no order than there is no science because science would have to say "theres nothing to study because everyday the rules of reality change"

as far as we know it, our UNDERSTANDING of the rules of reality change, but the rules of reality - even the ones we have yet to understand - aren't randomly changing, our I would float to the sky because gravity failed. there is order.

Originally Posted by juroara

o_O since when is it a fact that we only see the universe as orderly? if there was no order than there is no science because science would have to say "theres nothing to study because everyday the rules of reality change"

as far as we know it, our UNDERSTANDING of the rules of reality change, but the rules of reality - even the ones we have yet to understand - aren't randomly changing, our I would float to the sky because gravity failed. there is order.

I'm not using the word orderly like "doesn't prescribe to distinct guidelines."

I'm using it in the since that via our minds perception we view the human arm (just as an example) to be something that is calm and orderly...but in reality it is a massively large number of atoms with their swirling electrons running around in crazy little pathways...

Its acts can be determined...but it isn't as orderly as we would think.

Massively quick action is being taken every second...

Originally Posted by juroara

o_O since when is it a fact that we only see the universe as orderly? if there was no order than there is no science because science would have to say "theres nothing to study because everyday the rules of reality change"

as far as we know it, our UNDERSTANDING of the rules of reality change, but the rules of reality - even the ones we have yet to understand - aren't randomly changing, our I would float to the sky because gravity failed. there is order.

There is order, but it isn't strict order. Sometimes, when a quantum particle decays, it becomes a temporary product which actually contains more energy than the previous form. It then quickly swaps into another, stabilised form, which neutralises the amount ofenergy. It's as if reality "turned a blind eye" to it.

And if you think of it, atoms never touch each other: they only get so close that the electromagnetic force is strong enough to push them away fro meach other. Where, exactly, that happens, is practically impossible to determine, and it's as if the universe itself had now law ruling it.

Originally Posted by Kromoh

There is order, but it isn't strict order. Sometimes, when a quantum particle decays, it becomes a temporary product which actually contains more energy than the previous form. It then quickly swaps into another, stabilised form, which neutralises the amount ofenergy. It's as if reality "turned a blind eye" to it.

And if you think of it, atoms never touch each other: they only get so close that the electromagnetic force is strong enough to push them away fro meach other. Where, exactly, that happens, is practically impossible to determine, and it's as if the universe itself had now law ruling it.

its really a human thing to think that order means strict I by no means mean strict order. even a crazy abstract painting has its own order.

for example: it is order that atoms actually never touch each other. would you not call that a "law"?

the problem isn't that the universe has no order. its just that the order that is in the universe is mind blowing, and defies our logic as a human being. as a human being we are basically born believing that there are solid objects. we touch our skin, compare it to water and we say. "were solid and water isn't"

then we take a deeper look at things and suddenly its like everything we knew is tossed out the window. I think science is on the verge of realizing, our entire understanding of the universe might be wrong.

It's all about one's magnification... How far you pull back or focus your perspective.

Let's not fool ourselves, though... all points of perception are delusion.

Translation: It is extremely difficult for us, who are possessed of blind passions, to free ourselves from the delusion of birth and death.

Man, you just call everything an illusion and delusion, implying they are not real. But they are real as they can be, everything you perceive to be an illusion is actually a concept of your imagination to understand this world, they are purely based on reality and nothing else. This world is real. Your illusions are not false illusions but imagination which serves the function of understanding. Even imagination based on imagination is eventually based on reality.

Well, if you think of it, the whole concept of "self" is an illusion. Humans beings are not "beings". Nothing is. it's all just a complex action-reaction chain. We only think we are a being, capable of will and reason, since that is an evolutionary advantage. Everything is deterministic in the sense of what will be *will* be and you can't change it because you're part of it. But it's also not deterministic in it is random.

"Reality" is an illusion. There's no "real" as we think of it. Nor truth. Nor anything else. Nothing distinguishes you very-loved reality from a dream. Yes, this world is "real". It doesn't mean it is true. It's like a Matrix, but one you can never get out of. Everything you do, from walking to the kitchen and getting a glass of water, to discussing in this forum, is all the outcome of chemico-physical reactions. You're not "in control". Basically because "you" as you think of it, doesn't exist.

Now you're getting it...

A snake biting it's own tail at every turn...

Originally Posted by SolSkye

Now you're getting it...

In fact I always got it. I just don't like the way you put it

That's fine. Different strokes for different folks...