Thread: Minervas philosophy is your worst nightmare and you can't beat it.

There can be no first cause of reality. If there was a first cause. It could only be every cause existing in an infinite chain of causes and effects. The effect would have to be the cause. And all those causes and effects would not be able to differ from the original cause. That is because nothing could be taken away or added to the original cause as it would be the only thing that could possibly exist. This means that you cannot define or conclude a cause or effect for anything as it will continually elude your intelligence.

Every source has a branch, and every branch is it's source.

So, the source and branch are just interdependent concepts of one another.

Never separate, only seemingly so in one's mind.

In other words, I agree...

Sounds interesting, but I don't fully understand =D

For cause and effect to exist, you need time. But.. there is no time, time is an illusion. There is no future, there is no past. There is only now. If you try to measure now you will end up with an infinite small amount of time... in which it is impossible to determine what is the cause and what is the effect. Is that what you are talking about?

ChaybaChayba you add insight. But your question, that is your mistake. Your question leads to an all and nothing answer. I no doubt have more insight for you should you choose to seek it.

When you're outside time and cause and effect. You can make awfully interesting connections impossible to others. Such as the recent movie coming out, and the name of your avatar, The cause and effect of this conversation is the result of that movie and your avatar together with this conversation.

Sometimes the truth is horrifying.




You can only choose your destiny by understanding Minerva's philosophy.

Originally Posted by Minervas Phoenix

You can only choose your destiny by understanding Minerva's philosophy.

Lol. Wanna go watch that movie together?

Sounds like what Solsky was talking about, synchronisticsm? Synchronicity? No idea how to write it.

How will this help me choose my destiny?

You're all wrong.

Originally Posted by Seismosaur

You're all wrong.

I tend to agree.

Originally Posted by Minervas Phoenix

There can be no first cause of reality. If there was a first cause. It could only be every cause existing in an infinite chain of causes and effects. The effect would have to be the cause. And all those causes and effects would not be able to differ from the original cause. That is because nothing could be taken away or added to the original cause as it would be the only thing that could possibly exist. This means that you cannot define or conclude a cause or effect for anything as it will continually elude your intelligence.

So a house is a giraffe?

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

So a house is a giraffe?

Originally Posted by Minervas Phoenix

That is a moon jump toy.



Not a giraffe.

Not a house.

If you lived in it. It would be a house Einstein. Imagination is more important than knowledge. I can make the impossible possible. But you are stuck.

Brilliant argumentation. "Troll." Now let's further examine this.

Originally Posted by Wiki

An Internet troll, or simply troll in Internet slang, is someone who posts controversial and usually irrelevant or off-topic messages in an online community[1], such as an online discussion forum or chat room, with the intention of baiting other users into an emotional response[2] or to generally disrupt normal on-topic discussion.[3]

The first qualification [1] is posting irrelevant or off-topic messages. This is Minervas Phoenix' topic about Minervas Philosophy. So therefore, it is impossible for Minervas Phoenix to go off-topic, or post off-topic messages.

The second qualification [2] would be having the intention of baiting other users into an emotional response. But how can you be tricked into an emotional response, if at the start of the topic, you already have been warned it's impossible to beat Minervas Philosophy. If you do insist on trying to beat it, and you end up being emotionally hurt, this is not her fault, because she has warned you, this is entirely your own decision. If you didn't want to get emotionally hurt, you shouldn't have entered an argument in the first place. You were warned. "Minvervas Philosophy is your worst nightmare and you can't beat."

The third qualification [3] is disrupting on-topic discussion. This is Minervas Philosophy topic, so it is impossible for Minervas Phoenix to say anything at all that would not belong to Minervas Philosophy.

Now, let's assume all my arguments are false.
Let's assume Minervas Phoenix is a troll. How exactly does that make Minervas Phoenix' arguments go away?
Does posting off-topic messages make an argument invalid?
Does trying to bait a user into an emotional responce make an argument invalid?
Does disrupting on-topc discussion make an argument invalid?


Furthermore, by claiming Minervas Phoenix is a troll, you meet qualification [1] posting irrelevant off-topic messages. You also meet qualification [2] trying to bait Minervas Phoenix into an emotional respone, and you also meet qualification [3] disrupting on-topic discussion. Therefore, according to the definition, you are being the troll.

Originally Posted by ChaybaChayba

Brilliant argumentation. "Troll." Now let's further examine this.


The first qualification [1] is posting irrelevant or off-topic messages. This is Minervas Phoenix' topic about Minervas Philosophy. So therefore, it is impossible for Minervas Phoenix to go off-topic, or post off-topic messages.

The second qualification [2] would be having the intention of baiting other users into an emotional response. But how can you be tricked into an emotional response, if at the start of the topic, you already have been warned it's impossible to beat Minervas Philosophy. If you do insist on trying to beat it, and you end up being emotionally hurt, this is not her fault, because she has warned you, this is entirely your own decision. If you didn't want to get emotionally hurt, you shouldn't have entered an argument in the first place. You were warned. "Minvervas Philosophy is your worst nightmare and you can't beat."

The third qualification [3] is disrupting on-topic discussion. This is Minervas Philosophy topic, so it is impossible for Minervas Phoenix to say anything at all that would not belong to Minervas Philosophy.

Now, let's assume all my arguments are false.
Let's assume Minervas Phoenix is a troll. How exactly does that make Minervas Phoenix' arguments go away?
Does posting off-topic messages make an argument invalid?
Does trying to bait a user into an emotional responce make an argument invalid?
Does disrupting on-topc discussion make an argument invalid?


Furthermore, by claiming Minervas Phoenix is a troll, you meet qualification [1] posting irrelevant off-topic messages. You also meet qualification [2] trying to bait Minervas Phoenix into an emotional respone, and you also meet qualification [3] disrupting on-topic discussion. Therefore, according to the definition, you are being the troll.

Bla bla bla. I just skimmed through that but it was all nonsense and wrong. It becomes pretty obvious that a person is a troll when they start making ridiculous arguments like

Spod is made up of the letters s p o d. It does exist.

Nobody, not even an insane person, could say something so phenomenally stupid. This person is clearly just posting to piss people off.

Constantly saying that people are idiots and come nowhere close to their intellect is another thing. Stuff like this,

This was very easy for me because I am a hardcore philosopher.

is not serious. Get with it.

"It's wrong" is not an argument, try again. Neither is "bla bla bla" btw.

Haha, so you're actually saying you wanted me to argue back with you when you accused me of being a troll, instead of ignoring you? Have you completely lost the plot?

Seriously, way to dig yourself into deep hole of hypocrisy, Chayba. No, I'm not going to get into an immature little bitch fight about trolling with you, no matter how much you want it, sorry.

Originally Posted by Xei

Haha, so you're actually saying you wanted me to argue back with you when you accused me of being a troll, instead of ignoring you? Have you completely lost the plot?

Seriously, way to dig yourself into deep hole of hypocrisy, Chayba. No, I'm not going to get into an immature little bitch fight about trolling with you, no matter how much you want it, sorry.

You just did. lol. =O And no, I was only saying you do never bring any arguments into the arguing.

Originally Posted by Minervas Phoenix

There can be no first cause of reality. If there was a first cause. It could only be every cause existing in an infinite chain of causes and effects. The effect would have to be the cause. And all those causes and effects would not be able to differ from the original cause. That is because nothing could be taken away or added to the original cause as it would be the only thing that could possibly exist. This means that you cannot define or conclude a cause or effect for anything as it will continually elude your intelligence.

Everything just is. Meaning that hte universe just is, infinite, and the cause is the effect. I think you have it right which surprises me cause most people cannot even begin to grasp the reality behind your philosophy, but I do I think much the same. Which also surprises me and scares me.

Everything we see and observe is the cause and the effect they are one and the same thing. wow you said that too. Ok I'm going to quit talking now cause my answer is just the same as your original statement.
I can't believe there is someone else who understands infinity. this is extremely rare. Why can't I find a woman like that? It pains me to now know they do exist and I haven't found one.

There are some things that prove the point of this philosophy.

like the:
Fibonacci spiral
the Mandelbrot's set
the Sierpinski's gasket
And I even have one of my own that i haven't published yet. so Its a secret for now.
these thins are there own cause and effect that can go to any size and dimension and still grow or shrink to an infinite scope.

Might I add that when considering Russell's Paradox, you all are correct!

Also quantum mechanics and entropy!
And the price of fish in China!

Originally Posted by adam has a dream

Also quantum mechanics and entropy!
And the price of fish in China!

I'm not sure how to respond to this.

Originally Posted by Dreamworld

EDIT

Oh I get what your talking about. Sorry about being an ass.

It was just a thought. I don't think you are an ass.

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

Yeah, I can sense that we are somewhere in the ballpark of a conversation about slices of pie that we cut but then didn't do anything so there are five slices and none aside from four.

Universal Mind, have you heard of Carl Jung? I think you might like him.

Originally Posted by InvisibleWoman

I'm not sure how to respond to this.

Fractals?

Originally Posted by InvisibleWoman

I'm not sure how to respond to this.

Hey, do you know where Minervas is? You must have chased her away or something.

Originally Posted by Minervas Phoenix

There can be no first cause of reality. If there was a first cause. It could only be every cause existing in an infinite chain of causes and effects. The effect would have to be the cause. And all those causes and effects would not be able to differ from the original cause. That is because nothing could be taken away or added to the original cause as it would be the only thing that could possibly exist. This means that you cannot define or conclude a cause or effect for anything as it will continually elude your intelligence.

Could you explain how this amounts to a personal philosophy?

Originally Posted by Grey Owl

Invisible Woman I think you make a very good point and I really like your modesty in making it too. You are quiet right to point out that if symmetric causation was ever shown to be a reality it would call into question the notion of free will.

P.S. Thanks for the cool link.

:} It's a nice compilation of things, isn't it?

And how do you (or anyone else) feel about the conecepts of free will, causation, and time?

Originally Posted by Grey Owl

Personaly I'm a little insulted that I just joined the forum and am imediately taken to be the split personality of another member; but I guess thats just life.

'Tis a cruel world, I know.