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

Originally Posted by Minervas Phoenix

Is the sky purple. Yes or no.

No.

Well then, checkmate. Good game.

that is not checkmate because the sky is blue. And so saying blue is the color of the sky is an answer to the question. Yes or no are not the only options. If you insist that yes or no are the only options. Then your refusing to see the full picture of reality.

When the question is asked is the sky purple. I could answer with. Is it orange.....then it would be your turn. This does not make my answer wrong. It makes you answer again. The question has become the cause and the answer. It is also the effect of your question.

And In other words. a tire is a car when you consider the more appropriate response that the tire is made up of rubber and the rubber is made up of other elements that you think are not cars. But in fact if the car is made up of those elements. You could technically say the car is those elements. A yes or no is a simple answer but a better answer is required for that.

"...the whole is different than the sum of it's parts..."

So says the Gestalt theory. Which means, based on this theory, that reality is not a single chain of events all connected by a first event. Nor it means it even had a beginning or even if it will have an end. It means events form a whole and that whole is far more dynamic that our mere awareness can compreend.

So Minerva, that means your right. There can be no first cause of reality, only a spiraling tangle of entwined events all connected by a common factor, they are part of reality. What ever happens, reality will be ever changing despite the laws of Entropy that Physics has devised. Most likely is that reality is a cicle that exausts and renews itself from time to time on the universal scale.

Originally Posted by Minervas Phoenix

that is not checkmate because the sky is blue. And so saying blue is the color of the sky is an answer to the question. Yes or no are not the only options. If you insist that yes or no are the only options. Then your refusing to see the full picture of reality.

When the question is asked is the sky purple. I could answer with. Is it orange.....then it would be your turn. This does not make my answer wrong. It makes you answer again. The question has become the cause and the answer. It is also the effect of your question.

And In other words. a tire is a car when you consider the more appropriate response that the tire is made up of rubber and the rubber is made up of other elements that you think are not cars. But in fact if the car is made up of those elements. You could technically say the car is those elements. A yes or no is a simple answer but a better answer is required for that.

You and a squirrel are made of the same elements. Are you a squirrel?

You could have given me a yes/no answer to my question about tires. Every yes/no question has a yes/no answer unless it is ambiguous.

Originally Posted by Ubinifex

"...the whole is different than the sum of it's parts..."

So says the Gestalt theory. Which means, based on this theory, that reality is not a single chain of events all connected by a first event. Nor it means it even had a beginning or even if it will have an end. It means events form a whole and that whole is far more dynamic that our mere awareness can compreend.

So Minerva, that means your right. There can be no first cause of reality, only a spiraling tangle of entwined events all connected by a common factor, they are part of reality. What ever happens, reality will be ever changing despite the laws of Entropy that Physics has devised. Most likely is that reality is a cicle that exausts and renews itself from time to time on the universal scale.

Nobody is disputing that all of the parts of reality can be considered part of the whole of reality. The dispute is over whether a part is inherently the whole.

A part cannot exist without the whole. So how can it be separate from it. how can it be different if it's existence ceases without the whole present.

without tires. A car is not a car. Without a car tires are not a car. But they havn't changed identities. They are just parts of the car. And the car itself. You can't say it's not something. Because without it, it wouldn't exist as it is.

your the one in check.

I am not a tree, a tree is different. But I am not my nose. A nose is different from my entire body. But without the elements of the tree that make up matter. and without my nose. Without these things we would not exist as a whole. IT doesn't matter what you say it is or isn't. That is still compatible to what I am saying.

Causality forms an infinite linear chain. Take one event. You can extrapolate forwards and backwards infinitely. Our universe is based upon one temporal dimension, and that's why we get paradoxes such as the OP's. In my opinion the overlying fabric of reality may be based upon multiple time dimensions or something similar in which there isn't a problem. Maybe it's something which can be emulated with mathematics, who knows.

Originally Posted by Minervas Phoenix

A part cannot exist without the whole. So how can it be separate from it. how can it be different if it's existence ceases without the whole present.

without tires. A car is not a car. Without a car tires are not a car. But they havn't changed identities. They are just parts of the car. And the car itself. You can't say it's not something. Because without it, it wouldn't exist as it is.

your the one in check.

I am not a tree, a tree is different. But I am not my nose. A nose is different from my entire body. But without the elements of the tree that make up matter. and without my nose. Without these things we would not exist as a whole. IT doesn't matter what you say it is or isn't. That is still compatible to what I am saying.

Your nose is part of you. You are not your nose. A tire is part of a car. A tire is not a car. Your original post has been disproven.

All arguments aside, I agree with Minervas on this...

It's what I said in the distance thread.

Everything are simply holons of one another, essentially a fractal. You can't ever divide up or take a part of the fractal because it contains the whole within it. You can't find where one particle is because it's always a reflection of all particles.

The atoms of matter are made out of 99.99999% empty space which the sub-atomic particles flit about and mingle seamlessly with one another without boundaries. Yet, our boundaries still seemingly hold together and exist. The truth of the matter is we are all an interconnected network of intertwining energy, the boundary definition we perceive between objects is the illusion.

Mind over Matter...

Originally Posted by Xei

Causality forms an infinite linear chain. Take one event. You can extrapolate forwards and backwards infinitely. Our universe is based upon one temporal dimension, and that's why we get paradoxes such as the OP's. In my opinion the overlying fabric of reality may be based upon multiple time dimensions or something similar in which there isn't a problem. Maybe it's something which can be emulated with mathematics, who knows.

I don't understand how this is a paradox? Anyone care to explain?

The only explanation for multiple dimensions I can come up with is that there indeed could be other dimensions, but we can't perceive them because they are made out of energy vibrating at a way higher rate. This material, physical world we experience is slow vibrating energy. So other dimensions would just be right here, but undetectable because they vibrate too fast. One of those possible dimensions could be the dreamworld. I wouldn't call them other dimensions, more like, undiscovered layers of reality.

The atoms of matter are made out of 99.99999% empty space which the sub-atomic particles flit about and mingle seamlessly with one another without boundaries. Yet, our boundaries still seemingly hold together and exist. The truth of the matter is we are all an interconnected network of intertwining energy, the boundary definition we perceive between objects is the illusion.

I believe this empty space you talk about is actually energy. And the matter you talk about are just the waves riding on the energy. Imo, science has got it completely wrong, and reality is just the other way around. There is nothing but energy. Particles are nothing but standing waves of energy. The universe is like a huge pool of water, everything you perceive is nothing but the ripples and the waves in the water. So yeah, I agree with your concept of the universe, "we are all an interconnected network of intertwining energy" is a nice way of putting it.

Claiming lightwaves can move through vacuum is like claiming you can have waterwaves without water. Which is absurd. And which is the proof that our current scientific model of the universe is bullshit. Well, it's quite obvious it's bullshit since we have different theories for the microcosm and the macrocosm, and we can't even explain gravity.

edit: I watched the vid, very interesting, there this scientific wave theory that explains the universe as a hologram working through resonance. This wave theory can easily explain all physical phenomena and all nonphysical phenomena. It's a simple theory, based on the concept of everything being energy vibrating at different modes. This wave theory also explain the interconnection of everything and how everything can affect everything.. through resonance.
http://www.glafreniere.com/sa_postulates.htm
This would also explain why the entire universe is reflected into us. Our memory also works through resonance, as some kind of hologram, meaning, taking away a part of the brain where you claim that memory is held, will not affect the memory. Because the memory is a hologram. Which is already scientifcly proven through experiments. The wave theory also supports the concept of holons and fractals, it flows forth out of the nature of the dynamics of waves.

Pretty much everybody who actually has physics qualifications is much more intelligent than yourself and knows a lot more about the subject, so I'd just leave it to the experts if I were you.

I don't understand how this is a paradox? Anyone care to explain?

It's a paradox because according to our causal logic there must be a causal factor for reality, but then again there cannot be a first causal factor because every cause is in turn an effect of a preceding cause.

The only explanation for multiple dimensions I can come up with is that there indeed could be other dimensions, but we can't perceive them because they are made out of energy vibrating at a way higher rate. This material, physical world we experience is slow vibrating energy. So other dimensions would just be right here, but undetectable because they vibrate too fast. One of those possible dimensions could be the dreamworld. I wouldn't call them other dimensions, more like, undiscovered layers of reality.

The material world includes waves with extremely high frequencies, actually? You seem to be talking about spacial dimensions, and indeed there are several theories which predict multiple dimensions (10 or 13) in our universe, but they're curled up too small to see. The analogy that's normally given is a straight rope. Close up it looks 3D, but if you shrink it it looks like a 2D rectangle and from very far away it just looks like a 1D line.

Originally Posted by Xei

Pretty much everybody who actually has physics qualifications is much more intelligent than yourself and knows a lot more about the subject, so I'd just leave it to the experts if I were you.

If they were so intelligent, howcome they can't explain gravity, smartass. Atleast I have an explanation. You have nothing.

We are spirals living in a huge spiral with endless other spirals that each make up the other spirals themselves. We are the universe.

If they were so intelligent, howcome they can't explain gravity, smartass. Atleast I have an explanation. You have nothing.

No you don't, it's just some guy on some website spouting nonsense which you don't even have the mathematics to realise is nonsense. Explain, in your own words, how gravity arises, if that's so.

And for goodness sakes, Einstein explained gravity a century ago. Just drop the whole 'omgsquid science is one big dumbass can't even explain gravity' because you are clearly clueless about the subject. You ramble on about me not doing the research; this is one of the most famous discoveries of all time made by one of the most famous people of all time and you have no idea about it. Talk about hypocrisy...

While trying to explain that light should deviate near the Sun because "gravity is bending space", Albert Einstein did not explain anything. The result is even worse because he did not explain how gravity could do that. We need a mechanical explanation, not sorcery.

Einstein's explanation was an insult to our intelligence. Look it up.

Every scientist will agree with me that gravity can not yet be fully explained with current theories.

Uhuh.

I'm still waiting for a mathematical explanation of gravity using waves.

http://www.glafreniere.com/sa_gravity.htm

Firstly, again, there is no mathematical explanation of gravity there using waves. So it's not in any way an answer to my question.

Secondly, again, he appears to have no idea what he's talking about. Forces do not act in a 'sinusoidal way'. What I think he means is that you can resolve a force into three mutually perpendicular vectors on a three dimensional grid using trigonometric functions, but that has absolutely no meaning in reality as he seems to think, it's just a mathematical abstraction which helps to answer questions. Another blatant error is that the illusion of gravity is caused by electrons. Not true, protons and neutrons are much more affected by gravity than electrons, that is readily observable due to the weight of a material being proportional to its relative atomic mass, not electronic configuration. He seems to think that gravity is slightly wrong due to the fact that other forces can sometimes act upon a body such as the torque of the spin of a planet. Completely wrong, the torque force is simply subtracted from the unchanged weight force as Newton made completely clear; it is the resultant force on an object which is observed. Einstein predicted perfectly the bending of light with his theory of general relativity, but all this guy has to offer as a completely vague explanation is that light is refracted by particles around the sun. He gives no mathematical explanation or prediction whatsoever. Yet Einstein's prediction about how much the light should bend turned out to be completely accurate. Bit of a coincidence, wasn't it; that the amount of refraction turns out to be mathematically equal to the amount of bending predicted by Einstein's equations.

I'm sick of this nonsense, the guy who wrote this has a completely amateurish grasp of physics and indeed science in general, and as result he is often completely and utterly wrong. It's a waste of my time having to repeatedly show why. I don't believe you're still clinging to this piece of New Agey rubbish.

And who are you again?

Xei. Hello.

Introductions aside, do you have any mature responses ready?

Nope.

The source can be all and nothing, without paradox.

In knowing the future you can change it. Yet knowledge is an illusion, and so is the future.

In the now, the current, there can be no time.

There is no motion in the present. No spirals, nor continuity.

In the present there is all, and nothing - when there is not something there is everything and nothing, They are one and the same.

In this non-motion, can motion be created?

The answer is obvious in it's very own rhetorical existence.

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

Your nose is part of you. You are not your nose. A tire is part of a car. A tire is not a car. Your original post has been disproven.

Wait a minute. Hold your horses. If my nose is part of me. Than I am my nose. How can I not be my nose if it's part of me.

How can a car be a car without tires. They must be part of the car so they must be the car.

You fail to demonstrate how things operate individually without the original cause as a whole in this way. My philosophical reign continues.....

You cannot choose your destiny in understanding this philosophy.
You cannot understand without time.

Only in the now do we exist in infinity.

Originally Posted by Xei

I'm sick of this nonsense

What beliefs are held have real effects in the real world. Superstition or not. It will effect your life whatever strange beliefs are present. You can't sedate what you hate. That's why you're so sick of it all. Sick of the effects of those beliefs and how you don't like the reality of their existence effecting your life. So righteous about what should exist in peoples minds as truth yet so oblivious to your helplessness against those very real effects in which you reject, all the while calling anything but your own beliefs nonsense. That's why you will never be a good philosopher.