|
On July 20 2010 12:27 SharkSpider wrote:Show nested quote +On July 20 2010 12:12 Maji wrote:
Heres a Question for you all how was the universe created. I know the answer but I want to see what rest you are thinkin.
Technically, saying that you know how the universe was created is a lie. You can't actually have 'knowledge' of how the universe was created if you accept the common philosophical definition of knowledge, because it is possible to conceive a case in which whatever explanation you may think you have is false, and it is likewise impossible to prove such a case to be false, based only on human perceptions. For example, I could say that the universe exists in a constant looping state, and has always existed that way or I could say that existence was created by some outside force that does not follow the rational laws of our universe. Since no one has ever been able to give a completely conclusive disproof of either of these statements, claiming you know that one (or some other conflicting one) is correct is false.
Technically you cant asume that it cant be known, who says eventually you wont know how it all came into being yourself, I stand by my statement.
Unless knowledge already exsists and your not really learning anything but more remembering something you already know, This statement is entirely true as follows; All knowledge is waves in which can be attuned into once the proper channels are met.
|
On July 20 2010 13:03 FreezerJumps wrote:Show nested quote +Can reality be even defined ? How ? With words ? The reality is multidimensional and infinite. Reality does not need to be finite for it to have boundaries. Reality is the set of all non-contradictions. If something doesn't exist, then it's not part of reality, because its existance would contradict its non-existance. Anything that does exist is a part of reality. The sum of those things that do exist make up reality. For example, the horizontal axis of a cartesian plane is infinite in length, but very easily defined as y=0. Show nested quote +You continue to rebuttal my argument by discussing how energy functions instead of telling me what energy is. And in this you have failed to answer the question to which I presented you with. First, stop trying to use fancy grammar if you don't know how to use it correctly. You just sound like you're faking intelligence. Second, explaining how something works is a perfectly acceptable definition. You're setting an impossible standard for definitions. People like you ruin real debates and arguments by purposely overcomplicating everything so that you can claim that the only reason you aren't smart enough to understand a concept is because no one is. Many of us understand these concepts. You don't. Get over it.
If you think that grammar is intelligence then your IQ isnt very high. when people over complicate they do so to make themself seem smarter than they are this is a common egocentric approach in this reality, hence a true wise person speaks in means in which are simple and explain alot one the best tools for this is metaphors/analogys because it is much easier for people to understand things by association than to understand it by it complex value.
|
Answer to the first question only
![[image loading]](http://lh4.ggpht.com/_57yKxcxP8nE/TDvGb0flRUI/AAAAAAAAAFk/DPfwCwaFQis/2010-03-29-Purpose-of-life.gif)
|
On July 20 2010 03:37 Gnosis wrote:Show nested quote +On July 20 2010 02:50 UFO wrote:
Notice the difference between understanding reality and understanding part of reality. What you understand with your mind is always part of reality and never the wholeness of reality.
I didn`t mean to express that we can`t know it. I merely say that we can`t know it with our minds. We can only know part of it. Here is what you said: Show nested quote +Can reality be even defined ? How ? With words ? The reality is multidimensional and infinite.
How can you bottle something that is infinite into a box of words and definitions ? You cannot ! This leaves no room for the new distinction you've attempted to create between knowing part of reality, and knowing the whole of reality. If reality as a whole cannot be defined with words and definitions, because reality is "multidimensional and infinite" then the same is true for knowing only a part of reality, because you're claiming that it's "multidimensional and infinite" (i.e. part of an infinite is itself infinite).Show nested quote +On July 20 2010 02:50 UFO wrote:
There is no statement which expresses knowledge of reality because there is no such thing as knowledge of reality. There is knowledge of part of reality, never the reality.
There is no statement that can express knowledge of reality. Statement can only express knowledge about part of reality or the nature of reality - ie impossibility of comparision of reality. You can perceive reality as disconnected parts and compare these parts and by that better understand these parts but this is not understanding of reality.
Also I don`t really think I`ve established what you think I did.
The contradictions you speak of are merely effects of how the words work. So there is "no statement which expresses knowledge of reality" because there is no such thing as "knowledge of reality". Even though you have knowledge of reality, in that you're telling me that we can only have knowledge of part of reality, but not the whole of reality. You realize that is a "statement which expresses knowledge of reality". Namely, that it is infinite, multidimensional and unknowable, except for a small part of it. The contradiction(s) I pointed out aren't mere word-play. Show nested quote +On July 20 2010 02:50 UFO wrote:
Well, I do disagree with you there. ' "there is no truth" is true ' refutes itself but "reality is indefineable and uncompareable" doesn`t. You mean something like :
Reality can`t be described = description of reality so this statement refutes itself. Thats merely word-play, behind these words, the meaning is not self-contradictory. Why are you disagreeing with me, you modified your original statement. The fact is that my example isn't word play. If you're going to describe reality with the words "infinite" and "multidimensional" and "unknowable" then "man up" and acknowledge that you've described reality. Otherwise, simply say, "The only thing we know about reality is..." And you won't have this problem. That is assuming you're willing to state that you know at least one thing about reality.
"The only thing we know about reality is..." - I guess such statement would better explain what I meant and I agree , I described reality with my words but this is like saying " I described X as undescribeable"
The parts of reality are defineable because they are not infinite nor are they multidimensional like the whole of reality. Parts of reality are perceived by the mind - which separates things into boxes of knowledge.
You can get better understanding of parts of reality but again , this is not understanding of the whole of reality. You can get understanding of almost infinite number of parts of reality but this is not understanding of the whole reality. Understanding the reality as the whole =/= understanding parts of reality.
I described reality by saying that it is infinite and multidimensional but this is not a definition of the whole of reality.
Definitions - by their nature - can only describe parts of reality and not the wholeness of reality. Wholeness of reality can`t be described, yet at the same time I just described it by saying it can`t be... but you see - I describe x by saying it can`t be described - thats self-contradictory but that because of how words work, the meaning remains understandable despite this contradiction.
|
I want 20 of the pills everyone of you are taking right now.
|
Haven't been following the whole thread, but the current discussion seems to be about the idea of reality.
There are two simple options that you just have to decide for yourself:
(Scientific) Realism: What we see, what we understand, represents reality. Maybe not 100% completely accurate, but it's close, and as our understanding of the universe gets better, it will get closer to 100%.
Empiricism: What we see, what we perceive, is possibly completely different from what reality actually is. For example, we might all be in a Matrix-like computer simulation. However, we use our current models of the universe as working models.
Regardless of which you believe, your behavior in real life probably won't change very much. Both are accepting our perceptions as valid data for making decisions.
There are some pretty good arguments on both sides, although personally empiricism is my favorite. Possibly because it's safer.
|
On July 20 2010 13:03 FreezerJumps wrote:First, stop trying to use fancy grammar if you don't know how to use it correctly. You just sound like you're faking intelligence. Second, explaining how something works is a perfectly acceptable definition. You're setting an impossible standard for definitions. People like you ruin real debates and arguments by purposely overcomplicating everything so that you can claim that the only reason you aren't smart enough to understand a concept is because no one is. Many of us understand these concepts. You don't. Get over it.
Wow dude. You jump into this thread without any previous posts or at least not enough for me to remember you and you start insulting me?
If this is your position than I don't think you have read all my posts that relate to this topic and if you have you have not really understood what I am trying to say.
It's not hard. It's not complicated. I'm not using fancy grammar to seem like my 'IQ' is higher than yours. I'm using English like everyone else is here and if you have not read enough in order to be comfortable with my level of grammar then perhaps you are in the wrong place.
Let me make it clear: I understand what you are trying to say about what I am saying. But no I do not believe that. And that is what debate is for.
If you really do understand what I am saying than please relate it back to me and make me understand why I am wrong instead of insulting me. Insulting people to replace a logical argument is not a valid argument.
Look at UFO's posts. His general idea is the same one I am trying to explain. Maybe that will help you to understand.
|
On July 20 2010 17:09 UFO wrote:Show nested quote +On July 20 2010 03:37 Gnosis wrote:On July 20 2010 02:50 UFO wrote:
Notice the difference between understanding reality and understanding part of reality. What you understand with your mind is always part of reality and never the wholeness of reality.
I didn`t mean to express that we can`t know it. I merely say that we can`t know it with our minds. We can only know part of it. Here is what you said: Can reality be even defined ? How ? With words ? The reality is multidimensional and infinite.
How can you bottle something that is infinite into a box of words and definitions ? You cannot ! This leaves no room for the new distinction you've attempted to create between knowing part of reality, and knowing the whole of reality. If reality as a whole cannot be defined with words and definitions, because reality is "multidimensional and infinite" then the same is true for knowing only a part of reality, because you're claiming that it's "multidimensional and infinite" (i.e. part of an infinite is itself infinite).On July 20 2010 02:50 UFO wrote:
There is no statement which expresses knowledge of reality because there is no such thing as knowledge of reality. There is knowledge of part of reality, never the reality.
There is no statement that can express knowledge of reality. Statement can only express knowledge about part of reality or the nature of reality - ie impossibility of comparision of reality. You can perceive reality as disconnected parts and compare these parts and by that better understand these parts but this is not understanding of reality.
Also I don`t really think I`ve established what you think I did.
The contradictions you speak of are merely effects of how the words work. So there is "no statement which expresses knowledge of reality" because there is no such thing as "knowledge of reality". Even though you have knowledge of reality, in that you're telling me that we can only have knowledge of part of reality, but not the whole of reality. You realize that is a "statement which expresses knowledge of reality". Namely, that it is infinite, multidimensional and unknowable, except for a small part of it. The contradiction(s) I pointed out aren't mere word-play. On July 20 2010 02:50 UFO wrote:
Well, I do disagree with you there. ' "there is no truth" is true ' refutes itself but "reality is indefineable and uncompareable" doesn`t. You mean something like :
Reality can`t be described = description of reality so this statement refutes itself. Thats merely word-play, behind these words, the meaning is not self-contradictory. Why are you disagreeing with me, you modified your original statement. The fact is that my example isn't word play. If you're going to describe reality with the words "infinite" and "multidimensional" and "unknowable" then "man up" and acknowledge that you've described reality. Otherwise, simply say, "The only thing we know about reality is..." And you won't have this problem. That is assuming you're willing to state that you know at least one thing about reality. "The only thing we know about reality is..." - I guess such statement would better explain what I meant and I agree , I described reality with my words but this is like saying " I described X as undescribeable" The parts of reality are defineable because they are not infinite nor are they multidimensional like the whole of reality. Parts of reality are perceived by the mind - which separates things into boxes of knowledge. You can get better understanding of parts of reality but again , this is not understanding of the whole of reality. You can get understanding of almost infinite number of parts of reality but this is not understanding of the whole reality. Understanding the reality as the whole =/= understanding parts of reality. I described reality by saying that it is infinite and multidimensional but this is not a definition of the whole of reality. Definitions - by their nature - can only describe parts of reality and not the wholeness of reality. Wholeness of reality can`t be described, yet at the same time I just described it by saying it can`t be... but you see - I describe x by saying it can`t be described - thats self-contradictory but that because of how words work, the meaning remains understandable despite this contradiction.
I've been trying to put that into words for a while, very nice job man, you described this pretty well imo. Could you clarifiy the 'how the world works' part for me tho? This would be a fun paper. (i cite of course <3)
|
On July 20 2010 08:03 Epsilon8 wrote:
I never said energy was non-existent, nor that it science cannot establish its existence. What I did say is that science cannot define what it is.
Science is a tool to observe the cause & effect of such phenomena, by the very act of observing the nature of the thing we call energy, the more we understand it the more we define it. By the very doing of science we are defining, the question here is not whether science is defining, it is whether it can ever define fully.
Can reality be even defined ? How ? With words ? The reality is multidimensional and infinite.
How can you bottle something that is infinite into a box of words and definitions ? You cannot !
You are making an assumption about the nature of reality without coherent evidence. Here you have created an imaginary concept of whose primary aim is to become undefinable, whether or not this has any relevance to reality has been lost along the way. The definition of reality, which has to exist (for reasons i will come to shortly) will be in the form of the mathematic principles that govern reality. Now why a definition of reality must exist, the possible beggining, middles and conclusions of this thing called reality are contained themselves within the limits of reality, If you take the view that reality is limited, then this definition stems from reality in that it may take the whole of reality or a subset of part of it to paint the picture of how reality works, If reality is indeed itself limitless, then it defines itself as all possible outcomes are self contained by the definition that creates & governs reality (reality itself) the fact that a reasonable and practical understanding of this is unattainable by humanity is irrelevant.
Imagine the universe as a computer, all that contained within the universe is, by definition, a product of this 'computer' thus, all possibilities in this 'reality' must be attainable from either the full power of this computer or a subset of that power. If you take the veiwpoint that reality itself is limitless you are also assuming the processing power to create this reality is equally limitless.
|
Look up the definitions of "definition" and "define."
Next, look up the definitions of "energy" and "reality."
Now you know what energy and reality are.
To refute these definitions is to be intentionally ignorant. If you choose to do so, then you are, as I described above, purposely overcomplicating subjects to try to sound smarter.
If you get bored of this argument, you may want to try debating what cats are next.
|
The view of a certain definition from a lexicographers point of view is misguided. I think we should rather follow Wittgenstein:
“The meaning of a word is what is explained by the
explanation of the meaning.” i.e., if you want to
understand the use of the word “meaning”, look for what
are called “explanations of meaning”. (PI 560)
Explanations of meaning are rather a question of showing the rules of use, not a definition written anywhere.
|
What if humanity has the potentional to manifest by willpower alone anything that they require would this not then remove the need for the system of life humanity is conditioned to follow, now ask yourself why would such knowledge be kept form humanity if all solution lay in such realisations...
|
|
|
What is the point of life ?
Work and love
Some people argue that life is pointless because all you do is work until you die. I find work enjoyable, and no matter what you do, you should feel good about yourself because you're helping society. Always love your friends and family. Everyone needs some love!
What can bring you lasting happiness ?
Finding your true love.
What are your most important values ?
Friendship and loyalty
|
On July 20 2010 13:12 Maji wrote:
Technically you cant asume that it cant be known, who says eventually you wont know how it all came into being yourself, I stand by my statement.
You can prove that it can't be known by perception.
|
On July 21 2010 10:23 kzn wrote:Show nested quote +On July 20 2010 13:12 Maji wrote:
Technically you cant asume that it cant be known, who says eventually you wont know how it all came into being yourself, I stand by my statement. You can prove that it can't be known by perception.
Everything you know now before you where born you knew it is simply that once the correct choice is made the correct amount of effort the knowledge is given, We have said before all knowledge is waves this is correct your brain has a deep connection to the universe you occupy you dont realize it yet as a species.
|
Read 1st post only so on that note...
1)What is the point of life ?
Why does there have to be a point? Life can just be.(Just like some religions may say God just is)
2)What can bring you lasting happiness ?
Knowing I can support my family and even more if I could include my friends.
3)What are your most important values ?
1) Being humble, I really dislike it when someone looks down on someone because of where they work or what they drive.
2) Trust, Knowing you have someone that you can speak to about anything can help keep your mind at ease.
4)What is good and what is evil ?
Funny because depending from where you look at it good and evil can be debatable from both sides. Is it evil for another animal to kill another animal to live? Is it evil for that same animal to kill another animal to keep their family alive?
So I tie it back in to real world... Is it wrong for the drug dealer to sell to keep his family full? Is he evil? Very hard there is no black and white line in some cases
5)What is Wisdom ?
Wisdom is the ability to learn from others mistakes.
|
What is the point of life ?
none, go do whatever you feel like.
What can bring you lasting happiness ?
nothing can bring anyone such a thing, save except for drugs or something
What are your most important values ?
beauty and revenge, revenge is beautiful
What is good and what is evil ?
they are words made up to make people feel better about their own thoughts/actions. When something suits what they feel like, it is called "good", when something goes against what they want, it is "evil".
What is Wisdom ?
a word made up by sophists (usually attributing widsom to themselves or their 'master' etc) to make it seem like they have something useful to say when they really don't.
|
Some of these questions have non-trivial answers, actually.
In particular, there are 3 competing answers for the question "What is good and what is evil?"
First, we have the deontologists: good is defined as fulfilling one's duty. Evil is defined as "not good." Duty is an innate aspect of your existence, and cannot change. Therefore, good and evil are absolute, regardless of circumstances.
Then, we have the naturalists: good comes from our physical existence and environment. There are many flavors of naturalism, but they're all based on the same concept: good comes from some physical thing, such as pleasure or love. Thus, good and evil can change as circumstances change.
The newest one is that the terms "good" and "evil" have no innate meaning, and are merely labels that we place on things that we choose. This idea covers both naturalism and deontology, if you look at it right.
I'm sure you'll get better answers by looking at a few basic ethics books. Hume is pretty readable for a beginner, as long as you're paying attention.
|
On July 21 2010 11:41 Maji wrote:Show nested quote +On July 21 2010 10:23 kzn wrote:On July 20 2010 13:12 Maji wrote:
Technically you cant asume that it cant be known, who says eventually you wont know how it all came into being yourself, I stand by my statement. You can prove that it can't be known by perception. Everything you know now before you where born you knew it is simply that once the correct choice is made the correct amount of effort the knowledge is given, We have said before all knowledge is waves this is correct your brain has a deep connection to the universe you occupy you dont realize it yet as a species.
You can say that but you have literally no evidence whatsoever.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
