Total Posts:25|Showing Posts:1-25
Jump to topic:

Identical and unique

Cometflash
Posts: 126
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/13/2012 2:53:06 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
Numbers seems to be identical, everything in the world seems to be unique.

When I mean identical, I mean like in 1 and 1.

If what I say is true;
Could numbers really work in the real world?
Can you measure uniquiness?
Do you transform numbers into unique properties, or make identical quantification to unique things?
Can identical an unique coexist?

P.S I'm pretty much confused, as I just thought about it, so I don't really in reality know what I'm asking...

I hope someone scramble my thoughts and show me the light.
___
tBoonePickens
Posts: 3,266
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/13/2012 4:01:26 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/13/2012 2:53:06 PM, Cometflash wrote:
Numbers seems to be identical, everything in the world seems to be unique.

When I mean identical, I mean like in 1 and 1.
OK, but you have yet to show how everything in the world "seems" unique.

If what I say is true;
Could numbers really work in the real world?
Numbers are an abstraction of the real world.

Can you measure uniquiness?
Uniqueness is predominantly a subjective term and thus there is no objective measure.

Do you transform numbers into unique properties, or make identical quantification to unique things?
This does not convey any coherent meaning to me.

Can identical an unique coexist?
If by that you mean can something be 2 opposing and mutually exclusive things at once, then the answer is no: that's a contradiction.

P.S I'm pretty much confused, as I just thought about it, so I don't really in reality know what I'm asking...
That seems to have been conveyed by your post.

I hope someone scramble my thoughts and show me the light.
Don't you mean unscramble?
WOS
: At 10/3/2012 4:28:52 AM, Wallstreetatheist wrote:
: Without nothing existing, you couldn't have something.
Cometflash
Posts: 126
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/13/2012 4:43:03 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/13/2012 4:01:26 PM, tBoonePickens wrote:
At 12/13/2012 2:53:06 PM, Cometflash wrote:
Numbers seems to be identical, everything in the world seems to be unique.

When I mean identical, I mean like in 1 and 1.
OK, but you have yet to show how everything in the world "seems" unique.

Because nothing seems the same, everything seems to be different.
If what I say is true;
Could numbers really work in the real world?
Numbers are an abstraction of the real world.

My point was, could you translate something using a contradictory tool?
Can you measure uniqueness?
Uniqueness is predominantly a subjective term and thus there is no objective measure.

Thinking about if something is unique it must be as you put it, since if it were to be objective it wouldn't be unique.
Do you transform numbers into unique properties, or make identical quantification to unique things?
This does not convey any coherent meaning to me.

I mean more to the terms of; doing something to the number to make it represent something unique, and getting two unique "numbers" as a result or take two unique things and translate into numbers that could be measured identically, by the same method.
Can identical an unique coexist?
If by that you mean can something be 2 opposing and mutually exclusive things at once, then the answer is no: that's a contradiction.

Wouldn't this prove that everything is unique? Unless for everything there is there is an exact copy of everything, which I feel is very unlikely.
P.S I'm pretty much confused, as I just thought about it, so I don't really in reality know what I'm asking...
That seems to have been conveyed by your post.

Like I said, I'm confused, so is hard to explain when in such of stage.
I hope someone scramble my thoughts and show me the light.
Don't you mean unscramble?
Yes, I thought maybe I should have said unscramble after I reply. However scramble could work after a few attempts, and maybe even be better to see what exactly I was trying to reach, since a sudden leap from one point to the next could make me as confused as I started.
Yes, I'm sounding crazy even to myself. :|

I'll try to to reorganize my thoughts, and see if I can make more sense, and explain better.

____
tBoonePickens
Posts: 3,266
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/13/2012 4:59:21 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/13/2012 4:43:03 PM, Cometflash wrote:
At 12/13/2012 4:01:26 PM, tBoonePickens wrote:
At 12/13/2012 2:53:06 PM, Cometflash wrote:
Numbers seems to be identical, everything in the world seems to be unique.
When I mean identical, I mean like in 1 and 1.
OK, but you have yet to show how everything in the world "seems" unique.
Because nothing seems the same, everything seems to be different.
You realize that that's just an opinion, right? One can just as easily say that everything seems to be the same. So we are back to square one. Perhaps you can elaborate as to HOW and WHY it seems to you that everything is unique.

If what I say is true;
Could numbers really work in the real world?
Numbers are an abstraction of the real world.
My point was, could you translate something using a contradictory tool?
(A) What's a contradictory tool?

(B) I have no idea what you mean by translate but perhaps one you explain A above...

Can you measure uniqueness?
Uniqueness is predominantly a subjective term and thus there is no objective measure.
Thinking about if something is unique it must be as you put it, since if it were to be objective it wouldn't be unique.
So then perhaps the entire concept of uniqueness is flawed, no? Seems to me that you have brought to light that uniqueness might be paradoxical concept.

Do you transform numbers into unique properties, or make identical quantification to unique things?
This does not convey any coherent meaning to me.
I mean more to the terms of; doing something to the number to make it represent something unique, and getting two unique "numbers" as a result or take two unique things and translate into numbers that could be measured identically, by the same method.
Still don't understand, so perhaps you can supply a real world example? However, I think this might not be possible as it seems that you've concluded uniqueness to be a paradox and as we all know paradoxes cannot exist in the real world.

Can identical an unique coexist?
If by that you mean can something be 2 opposing and mutually exclusive things at once, then the answer is no: that's a contradiction.
Wouldn't this prove that everything is unique?
No, not at all. Everything is most certainly NOT a paradox.

Unless for everything there is there is an exact copy of everything, which I feel is very unlikely.
Non sequitur; there's no necessity for there to be an exact copy of everything. On the other hand, there is no reason why it is not possible for there to be copies of anything.

P.S I'm pretty much confused, as I just thought about it, so I don't really in reality know what I'm asking...
That seems to have been conveyed by your post.
Like I said, I'm confused, so is hard to explain when in such of stage.
Perhaps you are less confused now, no?

I hope someone scramble my thoughts and show me the light.
Don't you mean unscramble?
Yes, I thought maybe I should have said unscramble after I reply. However scramble could work after a few attempts, and maybe even be better to see what exactly I was trying to reach, since a sudden leap from one point to the next could make me as confused as I started.
I fully understood, so let's not go down that boring path of semantics.
WOS
: At 10/3/2012 4:28:52 AM, Wallstreetatheist wrote:
: Without nothing existing, you couldn't have something.
Cometflash
Posts: 126
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/13/2012 5:54:51 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/13/2012 4:59:21 PM, tBoonePickens wrote:
At 12/13/2012 4:43:03 PM, Cometflash wrote:
At 12/13/2012 4:01:26 PM, tBoonePickens wrote:
At 12/13/2012 2:53:06 PM, Cometflash wrote:
Numbers seems to be identical, everything in the world seems to be unique.
When I mean identical, I mean like in 1 and 1.
OK, but you have yet to show how everything in the world "seems" unique.
Because nothing seems the same, everything seems to be different.
You realize that that's just an opinion, right? One can just as easily say that everything seems to be the same. So we are back to square one. Perhaps you can elaborate as to HOW and WHY it seems to you that everything is unique.

Is what I see. Saying everything is the same sounds absurd. I cannot see myself to be the same as a rock, or the same as lava or the same as you, as we can see over here, we are very much not alike. There is differences between everything I observe, therefore my conclusion is that everything is unique. I could very much be wrong, but that is somehow true to pretty much everything.
If what I say is true;
Could numbers really work in the real world?
Numbers are an abstraction of the real world.
My point was, could you translate something using a contradictory tool?
(A) What's a contradictory tool?
Mathematics is a/the tool.

(B) I have no idea what you mean by translate but perhaps one you explain A above...

Can you measure uniqueness?
Uniqueness is predominantly a subjective term and thus there is no objective measure.
Thinking about if something is unique it must be as you put it, since if it were to be objective it wouldn't be unique.
So then perhaps the entire concept of uniqueness is flawed, no? Seems to me that you have brought to light that uniqueness might be paradoxical concept.

I was thinking about contradictions after this, and thought, what if contradictions are possible, but sometimes just not possible to be understandable?
Anyways, it would end in contradictions if you were to compare the uniqueness, but since something is unique it cannot be comparable (if you take the account uniqueness exists).
Do you transform numbers into unique properties, or make identical quantification to unique things?
This does not convey any coherent meaning to me.
I mean more to the terms of; doing something to the number to make it represent something unique, and getting two unique "numbers" as a result or take two unique things and translate into numbers that could be measured identically, by the same method.
Still don't understand, so perhaps you can supply a real world example? However, I think this might not be possible as it seems that you've concluded uniqueness to be a paradox and as we all know paradoxes cannot exist in the real world.

We actually don't know that, we just cannot see how it could be feasible. Therefore we say is not possible. It is more towards of not being possible for us to see (at least at this point in time).
Can identical an unique coexist?
If by that you mean can something be 2 opposing and mutually exclusive things at once, then the answer is no: that's a contradiction.
Wouldn't this prove that everything is unique?
No, not at all. Everything is most certainly NOT a paradox.

Maybe it is if you dig deep enough. :)
Unless for everything there is there is an exact copy of everything, which I feel is very unlikely.
Non sequitur; there's no necessity for there to be an exact copy of everything. On the other hand, there is no reason why it is not possible for there to be copies of anything.

Can you think of anything that is an exact copy, in everyway possible? I think even if you were to create something that was precisely exact, by the moment it were to exist, they would be different.
I'll elaborate if you feel necessary. I don't have much time now...
P.S I'm pretty much confused, as I just thought about it, so I don't really in reality know what I'm asking...
That seems to have been conveyed by your post.
Like I said, I'm confused, so is hard to explain when in such of stage.
Perhaps you are less confused now, no?

I guess, you are helping, even know I don't see how... :D
I hope someone scramble my thoughts and show me the light.
Don't you mean unscramble?
Yes, I thought maybe I should have said unscramble after I reply. However scramble could work after a few attempts, and maybe even be better to see what exactly I was trying to reach, since a sudden leap from one point to the next could make me as confused as I started.
I fully understood, so let's not go down that boring path of semantics.
Consider it dropped. :)
tBoonePickens
Posts: 3,266
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/13/2012 6:23:31 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/13/2012 5:54:51 PM, Cometflash wrote:
At 12/13/2012 4:59:21 PM, tBoonePickens wrote:
At 12/13/2012 4:43:03 PM, Cometflash wrote:
At 12/13/2012 4:01:26 PM, tBoonePickens wrote:
At 12/13/2012 2:53:06 PM, Cometflash wrote:
Numbers seems to be identical, everything in the world seems to be unique.
When I mean identical, I mean like in 1 and 1.
OK, but you have yet to show how everything in the world "seems" unique.
Because nothing seems the same, everything seems to be different.
You realize that that's just an opinion, right? One can just as easily say that everything seems to be the same. So we are back to square one. Perhaps you can elaborate as to HOW and WHY it seems to you that everything is unique.
Is what I see. Saying everything is the same sounds absurd.
It's not absurd when you realize that everything (ie matter) is made up of atoms and those atoms (of the same kind) are indistinguishable from each other!

I cannot see myself to be the same as a rock, or the same as lava or the same as you, as we can see over here, we are very much not alike.
The atoms that make you and I up are indistinguishable from the ones that make up a rock or lava. And you and I are very much alike if you look for the likeness.

There is differences between everything I observe, therefore my conclusion is that everything is unique. I could very much be wrong, but that is somehow true to pretty much everything.
That's because you are ignoring how they are the same. You are turning a blind eye to the other facet of reality. No matter how similar 2 things are, one can always find a difference; no matter how different 2 things are, one can always find similarities.

If what I say is true;
Could numbers really work in the real world?
Numbers are an abstraction of the real world.
My point was, could you translate something using a contradictory tool?
(A) What's a contradictory tool?
Mathematics is a/the tool.
OK, so what would you wish for me to translate for you using mathematics as a tool?

Can you measure uniqueness?
Uniqueness is predominantly a subjective term and thus there is no objective measure.
Thinking about if something is unique it must be as you put it, since if it were to be objective it wouldn't be unique.
So then perhaps the entire concept of uniqueness is flawed, no? Seems to me that you have brought to light that uniqueness might be paradoxical concept.
I was thinking about contradictions after this, and thought, what if contradictions are possible, but sometimes just not possible to be understandable?
Contradictions are NEVER possible REGARDLESS of whether they are understood. I hope that this is clear to you.

Anyways, it would end in contradictions if you were to compare the uniqueness, but since something is unique it cannot be comparable (if you take the account uniqueness exists).
Well, if uniqueness is indeed a paradox, then it ends there. However, I do not see uniqueness as an inherently paradoxical concept. BUT the context is very important. For example, if I were to show you 2 atoms of hydrogen (same isotope of course) you can say "well there's hydrogen atom A on the right and hydrogen atom B on the left" so indeed to have found uniqueness among them. However, if I should you ONLY atom A and then only atom b, you could not tell them apart; and in fact, if I should you atom A twice you wouldn't know it either. Now we see that the uniqueness was lost. Details, details...

Still don't understand, so perhaps you can supply a real world example? However, I think this might not be possible as it seems that you've concluded uniqueness to be a paradox and as we all know paradoxes cannot exist in the real world.
We actually don't know that, we just cannot see how it could be feasible. Therefore we say is not possible. It is more towards of not being possible for us to see (at least at this point in time).
Again, I still do not know what you are taking about: I still do not understand what it is exactly that you are calling impossible? Perhaps you could explain it differently.

Can identical an unique coexist?
If by that you mean can something be 2 opposing and mutually exclusive things at once, then the answer is no: that's a contradiction.
Wouldn't this prove that everything is unique?
No, not at all. Everything is most certainly NOT a paradox.
Maybe it is if you dig deep enough. :)
No, it's not because if it were then we wouldn't know that there is a difference between paradox and coherence. If everything was a paradox we wouldn't know it because there would be nothing to compare it to. BTW, you need only dig down to the bottom to see this is so.

Unless for everything there is there is an exact copy of everything, which I feel is very unlikely.
Non sequitur; there's no necessity for there to be an exact copy of everything. On the other hand, there is no reason why it is not possible for there to be copies of anything.
Can you think of anything that is an exact copy, in everyway possible?
Yes, in every way POSSIBLE. I believe I gave you an example above.

I think even if you were to create something that was precisely exact, by the moment it were to exist, they would be different.
Well, the mere fact that it is a separate thing gives it a difference, BUT the point is whether or not it is ALWAYS DISTINGUISHABLE. And the answer is of course it is not.
WOS
: At 10/3/2012 4:28:52 AM, Wallstreetatheist wrote:
: Without nothing existing, you couldn't have something.
Cometflash
Posts: 126
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/13/2012 10:44:08 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
Argggg, I was just about to complete my reply to you, and then my browser crashed.

I had to cut some of the quotation since it was way above the 8000 character. I'll have to try again another time.

When I got cut off, I was writing about the "impossible" triangle paradox, have you heard of?
tBoonePickens
Posts: 3,266
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/14/2012 11:25:25 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/13/2012 10:44:08 PM, Cometflash wrote:
Argggg, I was just about to complete my reply to you, and then my browser crashed.

I had to cut some of the quotation since it was way above the 8000 character. I'll have to try again another time.

When I got cut off, I was writing about the "impossible" triangle paradox, have you heard of?
Nope...looking it up...Ah the Penrose Triangle! It's an optical illusion. What about it?
WOS
: At 10/3/2012 4:28:52 AM, Wallstreetatheist wrote:
: Without nothing existing, you couldn't have something.
Cometflash
Posts: 126
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/14/2012 1:15:46 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/14/2012 11:25:25 AM, tBoonePickens wrote:
At 12/13/2012 10:44:08 PM, Cometflash wrote:
Argggg, I was just about to complete my reply to you, and then my browser crashed.

I had to cut some of the quotation since it was way above the 8000 character. I'll have to try again another time.

When I got cut off, I was writing about the "impossible" triangle paradox, have you heard of?
Nope...looking it up...Ah the Penrose Triangle! It's an optical illusion. What about it?

It can be build as an optical elusion, but it can be build other ways as well, and even drawn, without any optical illusion, since a drawing is 2D. So is the impossible really impossible? And how can it be impossible, and yet possible to see? It shows that we can't really trust our senses, and things are not bound by the laws of our senses. How can we be sure that, that is an illusion and everything else is not?
I was just talking to someone just now, and the person said "hope is all well, and that you have a great Christmas". I responded that I'll be going to Orlando for Christmas, at Universal Studios, which I like more than Disney. Thing is, I cannot ride any of the rides, so going that gives me a feeling of good and bad at the same time. I then ended by bringing up Aristotle LNC, which states what I just said is impossible. However, the "impossible" did not prevent such of thing to become possible. Maybe my feelings is eluding me to believe in what is not, or maybe our way to see things is a contradiction itself to what really is, and therefore what it is feels contradictory.

Another thing about the triangle, what makes a triangle a triangle? If you draw a triangle, you call a triangle, you don't imagine if such of triangle could possibly exist. Does a triangle to be a triangle has to look the same in both sides? And which sides would that be, front and back? Can any drawing triangle possibly exist? Think about it... Does the ink becomes part of the paper? How thin would the triangle be if you remove from the paper? Is that even possible?
The questions could go on...

Illusions proves that we cannot trust perception, and yet we use perception to explain everything.
tBoonePickens
Posts: 3,266
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/14/2012 2:00:51 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/14/2012 1:15:46 PM, Cometflash wrote:
At 12/14/2012 11:25:25 AM, tBoonePickens wrote:
When I got cut off, I was writing about the "impossible" triangle paradox, have you heard of?
Nope...looking it up...Ah the Penrose Triangle! It's an optical illusion. What about it?

It can be build as an optical elusion, but it can be build other ways as well, and even drawn, without any optical illusion, since a drawing is 2D.
No. It can only be drawn as an optical illusion: it is a 2D drawing of a 3D illusion.

So is the impossible really impossible?
Yes.

And how can it be impossible, and yet possible to see?
That's why it's called an optical illusion.

It shows that we can't really trust our senses, and things are not bound by the laws of our senses.
That our senses are imperfect is a well known fact; regardless, this does not make the impossible possible. Also, I did not claim that things bound by our senses.

How can we be sure that, that is an illusion and everything else is not?
Empiricism and reason.

I was just talking to someone just now, and the person said "hope is all well, and that you have a great Christmas". I responded that I'll be going to Orlando for Christmas, at Universal Studios, which I like more than Disney. Thing is, I cannot ride any of the rides, so going that gives me a feeling of good and bad at the same time. I then ended by bringing up Aristotle LNC, which states what I just said is impossible.
That's a figure of speech: one does not actually feel good and bad at the same time, hence you are equivocating. Nonetheless, your feelings are subjective.

However, the "impossible" did not prevent such of thing to become possible. Maybe my feelings is eluding me to believe in what is not, or maybe our way to see things is a contradiction itself to what really is, and therefore what it is feels contradictory.
Again, you are equivocating.

Another thing about the triangle, what makes a triangle a triangle?
A triangle is a 3-sided polygon who's angles add up to 180 degrees (2D.)

If you draw a triangle, you call a triangle, you don't imagine if such of triangle could possibly exist.
Triangles exist; what's your point?

Does a triangle to be a triangle has to look the same in both sides?
A triangle has 3 sides, so you'll need to be more specific as to which 2 of the 3 you are referring to when you say "both".

And which sides would that be, front and back?
A triangle has 3 sides, so you'll need to be more specific as to which 2 of the 3 you are referring to when you say "front and back".

Can any drawing triangle possibly exist?
Obviously, they are drawn.

Think about it... Does the ink becomes part of the paper?
The ink is distinguishable from the paper otherwise it wouldn't be very good ink.

How thin would the triangle be if you remove from the paper? Is that even possible?
Ah, you're asking if the concept of a 2D triangle exists in 3D, and the answer is of course not, because it is a concept or idea. All things physical have 4D attributes (Time + 3D.)

The questions could go on...
As do the answers apparently!

Illusions proves that we cannot trust perception, and yet we use perception to explain everything.
No, that would be a terrible conclusion to draw. The fact that we can experience illusions means that we cannot SOLELY rely on ONE sense, but should instead use the full gamut of our faculties and always VERIFY our findings with others.
WOS
: At 10/3/2012 4:28:52 AM, Wallstreetatheist wrote:
: Without nothing existing, you couldn't have something.
Cometflash
Posts: 126
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/14/2012 2:34:57 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
If a drawing of a triangle exists, simply because it has been drawn, then the impossible triangle also exists, since the drawing is very much possible.

"The ink is distinguishable from the paper otherwise it wouldn't be very good ink."
Did you left a possibility here?

Ok, just did a quick search for curiosity sake, and even know this person say yes, he uses "yes" in quotation, since is believe possible, but not really proven possible.
http://www.educatedguesswork.org...

I could only find an answer in theory, maybe you could do a better job in finding a better study of such subject, if it exists.
Also, by what this person said, a bad ink would actually be a good thing in this matter, and easier to distinguish, contrary to what you present.

"No, that would be a terrible conclusion to draw. The fact that we can experience illusions means that we cannot SOLELY rely on ONE sense, but should instead use the full gamut of our faculties and always VERIFY our findings with others."
Unfortunately that is what we do. We rely on what we see specially in this case. You could be drawing something else than a triangle, but because of your flawed sense you are sure that is a triangle. Plus, how can we possible know that our sight is the only sense wich is flawed? If each of our senses are flawed at any way, whatever we gather from it must also be flawed. To me this would make much of a sense of why things are so complicated to be understandable.
If we had perfect senses, we wouldn't need to distort things in order to understand, we would not need learning, since everything would be right there for us to see, feel and so on.
Why do we have the need to learn, why don't we already know?
Cometflash
Posts: 126
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/14/2012 2:57:05 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
Just thinking...
If I had the following situation.

There is something to be done, and there is consequences that follows. I would love to do that something, but hate the consequences of which would follow.
Now I'm on the indecision of doing, or not doing.
I both want to do it, and do not want to do it, each feeling comes from different reasons and it collapse to indecision.
If I don't do it, it does not necessary mean I decided and felt, not to do was the right choice, it could just mean that the indecision would block me from choosing, and not choosing would lead me not to do.
Now the other way, I don't see how it could also work without taking a decision...
Cometflash
Posts: 126
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/14/2012 2:59:53 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
I guess the topic is now extended to as; the confusions that my mind give me to deal with...lol
tBoonePickens
Posts: 3,266
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/14/2012 3:56:50 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/14/2012 2:34:57 PM, Cometflash wrote:
If a drawing of a triangle exists, simply because it has been drawn, then the impossible triangle also exists, since the drawing is very much possible.
You are equivocating. Indeed the impossible triangle does exist AS AN ILLUSION whereas the actual triangle exists as a triangle.

"The ink is distinguishable from the paper otherwise it wouldn't be very good ink."
Did you left a possibility here?
Yes, and?

Ok, just did a quick search for curiosity sake, and even know this person say yes, he uses "yes" in quotation, since is believe possible, but not really proven possible.
http://www.educatedguesswork.org...

(1) A quick search for what?
(2) What in Sam Hill does that link have to do with what we're talking about?
(3) Indeed he did prove that it was possible. Perhaps you meant to say that it hasn't been actually done?

I could only find an answer in theory, maybe you could do a better job in finding a better study of such subject, if it exists.
A better answer to what? You need to explain yourself a little better otherwise I will not be able to understand what you are talking about. Why have you discontinued your use of DDO's reply & quote features?

Also, by what this person said, a bad ink would actually be a good thing in this matter, and easier to distinguish, contrary to what you present.
What person? What are you talking about? The purpose of an ink is for it to be able to easily contrast from the media it's applied to; otherwise, it would be like using red ink on a red page.

"No, that would be a terrible conclusion to draw. The fact that we can experience illusions means that we cannot SOLELY rely on ONE sense, but should instead use the full gamut of our faculties and always VERIFY our findings with others."
Unfortunately that is what we do.
Speak for yourself. That is not what I do nor is it what any educated person would do.

We rely on what we see specially in this case. You could be drawing something else than a triangle, but because of your flawed sense you are sure that is a triangle.
Even a 4 year old can draw a triangle. Even a blind person can. You'll have to come up with better analogies.

Plus, how can we possible know that our sight is the only sense wich is flawed?
It isn't, all of our senses have limitations. There's no such thing as a flawless or unlimited sense. This is another reason why your objections are moot.

If each of our senses are flawed at any way, whatever we gather from it must also be flawed. To me this would make much of a sense of why things are so complicated to be understandable.
The fact that things might be "so complicated to be understandable" is irrespective of flawed senses. One can just as easily have extremely less flawed senses and have as hard a time understanding things.

If we had perfect senses, we wouldn't need to distort things in order to understand, we would not need learning, since everything would be right there for us to see, feel and so on.
(1) As I said above, there's no such thing as "perfect senses".

(2) Your conclusion is a complete non sequitur. See above.

Why do we have the need to learn, why don't we already know?
(1) Unfortunately, we don't all have that need to learn. It would be nice if more of us did.

(2) We learn things through experience; how can we know things if we have not had the experiences that lead to such knowledge?

Just thinking...
If I had the following situation.

There is something to be done, and there is consequences that follows. I would love to do that something, but hate the consequences of which would follow.
Now I'm on the indecision of doing, or not doing.
I both want to do it, and do not want to do it, each feeling comes from different reasons and it collapse to indecision.
And?

If I don't do it, it does not necessary mean I decided and felt, not to do was the right choice, it could just mean that the indecision would block me from choosing, and not choosing would lead me not to do.
And?

Now the other way, I don't see how it could also work without taking a decision...
Obviously. And?

I guess the topic is now extended to as; the confusions that my mind give me to deal with...lol
Ramblings.
WOS
: At 10/3/2012 4:28:52 AM, Wallstreetatheist wrote:
: Without nothing existing, you couldn't have something.
The_Fool_on_the_hill
Posts: 6,071
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/14/2012 4:08:14 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/14/2012 2:57:05 PM, Cometflash wrote:
Just thinking...
If I had the following situation.

There is something to be done, and there is consequences that follows. I would love to do that something, but hate the consequences of which would follow.

Now I'm on the indecision of doing, or not doing.
I both want to do it, and do not want to do it, each feeling comes from different reasons and it collapse to indecision.

The Fool: You mean you are Undecided. For somebody with etymology, education which is a necessary condition of grasping any philosophy, more then 150 yrs. You have to know you etymology, or you are never really communicating with them. Yes most people do it wrong. They use modern conception or dictionaries but meanings very slowly on over time, this give you the ability to SEE THE IDEAS.

Un stems from UNDER the diction. In- is within the decision.

As an IN-FORM- ATION

IN- from the form THE FORMS. Like Mark or indent in a Form.

ation <_ from ACTION.

So you have in infold, in the form in action.

aka A demarcation.

Which is the Necessary condition OF KNOWLEDGE. That is the ability To tell the difference. between FORMS <- in side

For example im.- <- is Form IMPRINT

Un
IN-
im

Most people would would think these all mean NOT. Which is False.

The Fool: But The Fool KNOWS! But communicating it is another thing.

You would be amazed if you know how much precious knowledge has been Lost in translation. The Ability to progress would be triple fold.
But we have to Tech now to keep it on Record. So this shall be interesting times.
If we can only drop the Ideologies.

All these parts are LOSSES of information, from a generation to the next.

The Fool: On the Hill we call that a Mottled conception.
Did you mean this?
You want to do A but you don't want B which follows from A

Right.!!

ON??

Mind you know body has authority of what you are thinking in the MOMENT.
You could never be wrong, in what you are Really mean, But you can Fail to put it into coherent language for others to know what you are talking about.

And that's God, Proof.
Straight from the Hill!

If I don't do it, it does not necessary mean I decided and felt, not to do was the right choice, it could just mean that the indecision would block me from choosing, and not choosing would lead me not to do.

To many "is nots" --> Reform it in to what is.

Or you got nothing going on here.

CRASH COURSE ON NOTNESS!!

I will tell you once, and that is it.

For that is IS, and what is NOT does not exist.
Nor can you speak about it, nor can you claim it nor think it.
Because ITS NOT THERE.

Its in capitals to refers to ABSOLUTELY NOT> another form is NOTHING @ ALL!

These are always FALSE statement because I haven't stated anything.

1. NOT.

2. not. As IN it is not A its B. if you don't have a relative complement to refer to what is not in Reference to another EXISTING THING. You got nothing going on.

like this. {a,b}

Don't do this. {a,?}

its not A, and leave it just like that.

For you don't have anything to DEMARCATE the difference. {THIS IS the necessary condition for knowledge and or perception}

you need something an another to DEMARCATE the difference.

that is I can only see A color IF AND ONLY IF it is in CONTRAST TO ANOTHER Colour. IF you perceive something In particular.

If follow That there I AT LEAST TWO THINGS.

For if there was only ONE color you could never distinguish the difference between colour ame with the set of colours to set of Sound and so forth.

1. NOT. Does not exist. AKA FALSE

2. not. In relation to something else or more. (aka Relative to something else) you need a relative compliment.

3. -not, AS IN OPPOSITE, . Operates Like -1

4. 0 more tricky, hmm its is Nothing IN particular. which is a universal

Mind you I personally would KICK OUT THE ZERO and put a 1 in my mathematical system. as such. -3, -2, -2, 1, 2, 3

The DIFFERENCE is the same
but you actual have an existing starting point. and you don't end up having to say non-existing value. I do this so keep continuous with other formal systems.

I Seem to have lost my self, What AM I DOING! here. Good night.

And I just translate it back. it to classical mathematical format. it does't effect calculation an it not, non-existing value.

Oh yeah Unique is to recognize a different attribute on something which has never been recognized on OTHERS.

The Fool.. On The HIll.
"The bud disappears when the blossom breaks through, and we might say that the former is refuted by the latter; in the same way when the fruit comes, the blossom may be explained to be a false form of the plant's existence, for the fruit appears as its true nature in place of the blossom. These stages are not merely differentiated; they supplant one another as being incompatible with one another." G. W. F. HEGEL
tBoonePickens
Posts: 3,266
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/14/2012 4:23:08 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/14/2012 4:08:14 PM, The_Fool_on_the_hill wrote:
At 12/14/2012 2:57:05 PM, Cometflash wrote:
Just thinking...
If I had the following situation.

There is something to be done, and there is consequences that follows. I would love to do that something, but hate the consequences of which would follow.



Now I'm on the indecision of doing, or not doing.
I both want to do it, and do not want to do it, each feeling comes from different reasons and it collapse to indecision.

The Fool: You mean you are Undecided. For somebody with etymology, education which is a necessary condition of grasping any philosophy, more then 150 yrs. You have to know you etymology, or you are never really communicating with them. Yes most people do it wrong. They use modern conception or dictionaries but meanings very slowly on over time, this give you the ability to SEE THE IDEAS.

Un stems from UNDER the diction. In- is within the decision.

As an IN-FORM- ATION

IN- from the form THE FORMS. Like Mark or indent in a Form.

ation <_ from ACTION.

So you have in infold, in the form in action.

aka A demarcation.

Which is the Necessary condition OF KNOWLEDGE. That is the ability To tell the difference. between FORMS <- in side

For example im.- <- is Form IMPRINT

Un
IN-
im

Most people would would think these all mean NOT. Which is False.

The Fool: But The Fool KNOWS! But communicating it is another thing.

You would be amazed if you know how much precious knowledge has been Lost in translation. The Ability to progress would be triple fold.
But we have to Tech now to keep it on Record. So this shall be interesting times.
If we can only drop the Ideologies.

All these parts are LOSSES of information, from a generation to the next.











The Fool: On the Hill we call that a Mottled conception.
Did you mean this?
You want to do A but you don't want B which follows from A

Right.!!

ON??

Mind you know body has authority of what you are thinking in the MOMENT.
You could never be wrong, in what you are Really mean, But you can Fail to put it into coherent language for others to know what you are talking about.

And that's God, Proof.
Straight from the Hill!


If I don't do it, it does not necessary mean I decided and felt, not to do was the right choice, it could just mean that the indecision would block me from choosing, and not choosing would lead me not to do.

To many "is nots" --> Reform it in to what is.

Or you got nothing going on here.

CRASH COURSE ON NOTNESS!!

I will tell you once, and that is it.

For that is IS, and what is NOT does not exist.
Nor can you speak about it, nor can you claim it nor think it.
Because ITS NOT THERE.

Its in capitals to refers to ABSOLUTELY NOT> another form is NOTHING @ ALL!

These are always FALSE statement because I haven't stated anything.

1. NOT.

2. not. As IN it is not A its B. if you don't have a relative complement to refer to what is not in Reference to another EXISTING THING. You got nothing going on.

like this. {a,b}

Don't do this. {a,?}

its not A, and leave it just like that.


For you don't have anything to DEMARCATE the difference. {THIS IS the necessary condition for knowledge and or perception}

you need something an another to DEMARCATE the difference.

that is I can only see A color IF AND ONLY IF it is in CONTRAST TO ANOTHER Colour. IF you perceive something In particular.

If follow That there I AT LEAST TWO THINGS.

For if there was only ONE color you could never distinguish the difference between colour ame with the set of colours to set of Sound and so forth.


1. NOT. Does not exist. AKA FALSE

2. not. In relation to something else or more. (aka Relative to something else) you need a relative compliment.

3. -not, AS IN OPPOSITE, . Operates Like -1

4. 0 more tricky, hmm its is Nothing IN particular. which is a universal

Mind you I personally would KICK OUT THE ZERO and put a 1 in my mathematical system. as such. -3, -2, -2, 1, 2, 3


The DIFFERENCE is the same
but you actual have an existing starting point. and you don't end up having to say non-existing value. I do this so keep continuous with other formal systems.

I Seem to have lost my self, What AM I DOING! here. Good night.

And I just translate it back. it to classical mathematical format. it does't effect calculation an it not, non-existing value.


Oh yeah Unique is to recognize a different attribute on something which has never been recognized on OTHERS.

The Fool.. On The HIll.
Wow! A new record for rambling off non sequiturs!
WOS
: At 10/3/2012 4:28:52 AM, Wallstreetatheist wrote:
: Without nothing existing, you couldn't have something.
The_Fool_on_the_hill
Posts: 6,071
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/14/2012 7:07:51 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/14/2012 4:23:08 PM, tBoonePickens wrote:
At 12/14/2012 4:08:14 PM, The_Fool_on_the_hill wrote:
At 12/14/2012 2:57:05 PM, Cometflash wrote:
Just thinking...
If I had the following situation.

There is something to be done, and there is consequences that follows. I would love to do that something, but hate the consequences of which would follow.



Now I'm on the indecision of doing, or not doing.
I both want to do it, and do not want to do it, each feeling comes from different reasons and it collapse to indecision.

The Fool: You mean you are Undecided. For somebody with etymology, education which is a necessary condition of grasping any philosophy, more then 150 yrs. You have to know you etymology, or you are never really communicating with them. Yes most people do it wrong. They use modern conception or dictionaries but meanings very slowly on over time, this give you the ability to SEE THE IDEAS.

Un stems from UNDER the diction. In- is within the decision.

As an IN-FORM- ATION

IN- from the form THE FORMS. Like Mark or indent in a Form.

ation <_ from ACTION.

So you have in infold, in the form in action.

aka A demarcation.

Which is the Necessary condition OF KNOWLEDGE. That is the ability To tell the difference. between FORMS <- in side

For example im.- <- is Form IMPRINT

Un
IN-
im

Most people would would think these all mean NOT. Which is False.

The Fool: But The Fool KNOWS! But communicating it is another thing.

You would be amazed if you know how much precious knowledge has been Lost in translation. The Ability to progress would be triple fold.
But we have to Tech now to keep it on Record. So this shall be interesting times.
If we can only drop the Ideologies.

All these parts are LOSSES of information, from a generation to the next.











The Fool: On the Hill we call that a Mottled conception.
Did you mean this?
You want to do A but you don't want B which follows from A

Right.!!

ON??

Mind you know body has authority of what you are thinking in the MOMENT.
You could never be wrong, in what you are Really mean, But you can Fail to put it into coherent language for others to know what you are talking about.

And that's God, Proof.
Straight from the Hill!


If I don't do it, it does not necessary mean I decided and felt, not to do was the right choice, it could just mean that the indecision would block me from choosing, and not choosing would lead me not to do.

To many "is nots" --> Reform it in to what is.

Or you got nothing going on here.

CRASH COURSE ON NOTNESS!!

I will tell you once, and that is it.

For that is IS, and what is NOT does not exist.
Nor can you speak about it, nor can you claim it nor think it.
Because ITS NOT THERE.

Its in capitals to refers to ABSOLUTELY NOT> another form is NOTHING @ ALL!

These are always FALSE statement because I haven't stated anything.

1. NOT.

2. not. As IN it is not A its B. if you don't have a relative complement to refer to what is not in Reference to another EXISTING THING. You got nothing going on.

like this. {a,b}

Don't do this. {a,?}

its not A, and leave it just like that.


For you don't have anything to DEMARCATE the difference. {THIS IS the necessary condition for knowledge and or perception}

you need something an another to DEMARCATE the difference.

that is I can only see A color IF AND ONLY IF it is in CONTRAST TO ANOTHER Colour. IF you perceive something In particular.

If follow That there I AT LEAST TWO THINGS.

For if there was only ONE color you could never distinguish the difference between colour ame with the set of colours to set of Sound and so forth.


1. NOT. Does not exist. AKA FALSE

2. not. In relation to something else or more. (aka Relative to something else) you need a relative compliment.

3. -not, AS IN OPPOSITE, . Operates Like -1

4. 0 more tricky, hmm its is Nothing IN particular. which is a universal

Mind you I personally would KICK OUT THE ZERO and put a 1 in my mathematical system. as such. -3, -2, -2, 1, 2, 3


The DIFFERENCE is the same
but you actual have an existing starting point. and you don't end up having to say non-existing value. I do this so keep continuous with other formal systems.

I Seem to have lost my self, What AM I DOING! here. Good night.

And I just translate it back. it to classical mathematical format. it does't effect calculation an it not, non-existing value.


Oh yeah Unique is to recognize a different attribute on something which has never been recognized on OTHERS.

The Fool.. On The HIll.
Wow! A new record for rambling off non sequiturs!

The Fool: Next year, Bring you helmet.
"The bud disappears when the blossom breaks through, and we might say that the former is refuted by the latter; in the same way when the fruit comes, the blossom may be explained to be a false form of the plant's existence, for the fruit appears as its true nature in place of the blossom. These stages are not merely differentiated; they supplant one another as being incompatible with one another." G. W. F. HEGEL
tBoonePickens
Posts: 3,266
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/18/2012 12:42:58 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/14/2012 7:07:51 PM, The_Fool_on_the_hill wrote:
Wow! A new record for rambling off non sequiturs!

The Fool: Next year, Bring you helmet.
No need for one: you present no contest!
WOS
: At 10/3/2012 4:28:52 AM, Wallstreetatheist wrote:
: Without nothing existing, you couldn't have something.
Cometflash
Posts: 126
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/18/2012 3:26:03 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
tBoonePickens wrote:

Why have you discontinued your use of DDO's reply & quote features?

I usually use an ipad, and the browser do not like the ammount of characters on the screen and kept on crashing, so I had to do what I did.

I'll try to go over this thread on a later time. Christmas is coming, and I'm getting busier, and I have a trip to go next week, for Christmas celebration.

Here is something I was thinking about, while thinking of contradictions/paradoxes.

If there was a mathematical problem, and the problem ended up having no solution, that could become the solution. The solution to the math problem could be "no solution".

It would make sense even know it would be a contradiction.
tBoonePickens
Posts: 3,266
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/18/2012 4:00:32 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/18/2012 3:26:03 PM, Cometflash wrote:
tBoonePickens wrote:

Why have you discontinued your use of DDO's reply & quote features?

I usually use an ipad, and the browser do not like the ammount of characters on the screen and kept on crashing, so I had to do what I did.
I see. I really dislike Apple.

I'll try to go over this thread on a later time. Christmas is coming, and I'm getting busier, and I have a trip to go next week, for Christmas celebration.
Merry Christmas & Happy New Year!

Here is something I was thinking about, while thinking of contradictions/paradoxes.

If there was a mathematical problem, and the problem ended up having no solution, that could become the solution.
No, that's incorrect. If a problem has no solution, that is NOT a solution.

The solution to the math problem could be "no solution".
No, it cannot.
"No solution" NOT= "solution", just like "3" NOT= to "not 3", or not answering a question is NOT an answer to a question.

It would make sense even know it would be a contradiction.
Actually, it doesn't make sense at all. It just sounds "cool".
WOS
: At 10/3/2012 4:28:52 AM, Wallstreetatheist wrote:
: Without nothing existing, you couldn't have something.
Cometflash
Posts: 126
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/19/2012 7:02:24 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/18/2012 4:00:32 PM, tBoonePickens wrote:
At 12/18/2012 3:26:03 PM, Cometflash wrote:
tBoonePickens wrote:

Why have you discontinued your use of DDO's reply & quote features?

I usually use an ipad, and the browser do not like the ammount of characters on the screen and kept on crashing, so I had to do what I did.
I see. I really dislike Apple.

I'll try to go over this thread on a later time. Christmas is coming, and I'm getting busier, and I have a trip to go next week, for Christmas celebration.
Merry Christmas & Happy New Year!

Thank You, kind sr! Same wishes to you. :)
Here is something I was thinking about, while thinking of contradictions/paradoxes.

If there was a mathematical problem, and the problem ended up having no solution, that could become the solution.
No, that's incorrect. If a problem has no solution, that is NOT a solution.

The solution to the math problem could be "no solution".
No, it cannot.
"No solution" NOT= "solution", just like "3" NOT= to "not 3", or not answering a question is NOT an answer to a question.

It would make sense even know it would be a contradiction.
Actually, it doesn't make sense at all. It just sounds "cool".

What if I was asked to give the solutions to problems, and one of them had no solution? How is it writing "no solution" wrong, if the problem has no solution? What should one put in as the solution? You can't just leave it blank.
tBoonePickens
Posts: 3,266
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/20/2012 11:53:28 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/19/2012 7:02:24 PM, Cometflash wrote:
At 12/18/2012 4:00:32 PM, tBoonePickens wrote:
Here is something I was thinking about, while thinking of contradictions/paradoxes.

If there was a mathematical problem, and the problem ended up having no solution, that could become the solution.
No, that's incorrect. If a problem has no solution, that is NOT a solution.

The solution to the math problem could be "no solution".
No, it cannot.
"No solution" NOT= "solution", just like "3" NOT= to "not 3", or not answering a question is NOT an answer to a question.

It would make sense even know it would be a contradiction.
Actually, it doesn't make sense at all. It just sounds "cool".

What if I was asked to give the solutions to problems, and one of them had no solution? How is it writing "no solution" wrong, if the problem has no solution?
It is only wrong to suggest that writing "no solution" is a solution. "No solution" may be the answer that the teacher is looking for but it is not a solution to the problem.

What should one put in as the solution? You can't just leave it blank.
It depends on what the teacher is expecting as a response. I would assume that a good teacher would give instructions like "Write solutions to problems; for problems with no solutions, write "no solution" or something like that. Regardless, it is not a solution to the problem; it is an answer to a test question.

Curious, can you present a mathematical problem with no solution?
WOS
: At 10/3/2012 4:28:52 AM, Wallstreetatheist wrote:
: Without nothing existing, you couldn't have something.
Cometflash
Posts: 126
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/20/2012 12:42:46 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/20/2012 11:53:28 AM, tBoonePickens wrote:
At 12/19/2012 7:02:24 PM, Cometflash wrote:
At 12/18/2012 4:00:32 PM, tBoonePickens wrote:
Here is something I was thinking about, while thinking of contradictions/paradoxes.

If there was a mathematical problem, and the problem ended up having no solution, that could become the solution.
No, that's incorrect. If a problem has no solution, that is NOT a solution.

The solution to the math problem could be "no solution".
No, it cannot.
"No solution" NOT= "solution", just like "3" NOT= to "not 3", or not answering a question is NOT an answer to a question.

It would make sense even know it would be a contradiction.
Actually, it doesn't make sense at all. It just sounds "cool".

What if I was asked to give the solutions to problems, and one of them had no solution? How is it writing "no solution" wrong, if the problem has no solution?
It is only wrong to suggest that writing "no solution" is a solution. "No solution" may be the answer that the teacher is looking for but it is not a solution to the problem.

Solution can be defined as; the correct answer to a problem. That would be the correct answer, and therefore, the solution, even know it ends in a contradiction.
What should one put in as the solution? You can't just leave it blank.
It depends on what the teacher is expecting as a response. I would assume that a good teacher would give instructions like "Write solutions to problems; for problems with no solutions, write "no solution" or something like that. Regardless, it is not a solution to the problem; it is an answer to a test question.

Curious, can you present a mathematical problem with no solution?
I was speaking in a hypothetical scenario, but I search, and I guess there is problems with "no solutions" after all.

http://mathforum.org...
iamnotwhoiam
Posts: 171
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/20/2012 12:54:58 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/13/2012 2:53:06 PM, Cometflash wrote:
Numbers seems to be identical, everything in the world seems to be unique.

It is argued that quantum objects (e.g electrons) are not individuals.
tBoonePickens
Posts: 3,266
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/20/2012 3:11:13 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/20/2012 12:42:46 PM, Cometflash wrote:
At 12/20/2012 11:53:28 AM, tBoonePickens wrote:
At 12/19/2012 7:02:24 PM, Cometflash wrote:
At 12/18/2012 4:00:32 PM, tBoonePickens wrote:
Here is something I was thinking about, while thinking of contradictions/paradoxes.

If there was a mathematical problem, and the problem ended up having no solution, that could become the solution.
No, that's incorrect. If a problem has no solution, that is NOT a solution.

The solution to the math problem could be "no solution".
No, it cannot.
"No solution" NOT= "solution", just like "3" NOT= to "not 3", or not answering a question is NOT an answer to a question.

It would make sense even know it would be a contradiction.
Actually, it doesn't make sense at all. It just sounds "cool".

What if I was asked to give the solutions to problems, and one of them had no solution? How is it writing "no solution" wrong, if the problem has no solution?
It is only wrong to suggest that writing "no solution" is a solution. "No solution" may be the answer that the teacher is looking for but it is not a solution to the problem.
Solution can be defined as; the correct answer to a problem. That would be the correct answer, and therefore, the solution, even know it ends in a contradiction.
You keep running around in circles equivocating left & right. If you have a mathematical problem that has no mathematical solution then there is NO mathematical solution to the problem. On a test, however, a teacher should expect you acknowledge that there is no mathematical solution to the problem by answering "No solution"; regardless, "no solution" is not a mathematical solution to the problem.

Curious, can you present a mathematical problem with no solution?
I was speaking in a hypothetical scenario, but I search, and I guess there is problems with "no solutions" after all.

http://mathforum.org...
I know. I just wanted to see if you knew!
WOS
: At 10/3/2012 4:28:52 AM, Wallstreetatheist wrote:
: Without nothing existing, you couldn't have something.