|
Post by luigi on Jul 2, 2008 19:32:04 GMT -5
Then why do you keep shooting down the theory that with any correct mathetical equation and technique, that it's possible to negate a universal law? Explain yourself. Math didn't physically exist until man discovered the nature of math. These complex math problems may be correct, but we don't understand them. You can look at it and guess, but without knowing the nature of the problem, you can't solve it. Just as we can't solve existance without understanding everything about it... and we have much to learn.
With this logic, anything we can't comprehend or know could be correct. It is the way of things... until we understand everything, we shouldn't attempt to tackle the problem, because there is no way you and I can get an answer, despite the answer still being correct and it still being the same answer since the beginning. This is why it is entirely opssible we do not exist... we could just be here... For what is reality when all we have ever known is just this? Living on this planet? What is real? We could merely be data... or we could not be at all. Like I said, you can't tackle the problem without first knowing how to solve it, even if the problem has remained the same throughout history. And nobody has the answer because we can't comprehend how to solve the problem at hand.
I may have taken your statement too literally, but I feel it worked out better for my post.
|
|
|
Post by luigi on Jul 4, 2008 16:11:04 GMT -5
I see you've been taught the Art of Ending a Discussion... Let's see how Michael can argue against this logic. I'm laughing because Michael probably wanted an answer to argue back to... however now he must sit in this thread constantly hitting refresh and wait for an argument... all the while he feels as though he wasted his time because nobody considered his statement and loafs around doing nothing. Anyway... The only reason we really have the number two is to associate a group of objects, identical objects, it's just a number. The idea of the number two was thought up by man to label items in a sequence. It also helped develop early forms of currency. The principle was made up by man as well... because at one point there were men who did not grasp the concept... it helped spark trade because men had things other men wanted. Also... there has been several times where I fully had self control in a dream. Those are the dreams solely base around memory. If I remember it, did it not happen? Did I not have an awesome adventure in my dream? To tell me that it never actually happened would be impossible as well... Memory of an event that took place should be considered stuff I've went through. After all, did yesterday not happen? The Universe does have rules... but the only reason we have rules is so we can break them. Think for a second. How can you be certain with what you beleive when our race understands so little? Take gravity for example... it never truly existed. It developed over time. If at one point there when no objects in space, there couldn't have been gravity, because gravity is a pull from an object. Without an object, there is no gravity... today, with the correct mathematical equation, we could get around gravity under the correct circumstances, because as you've said... The idea for the number two existed the entire time, therefore the equation and solution to negating a universal law is almost impossible to say it doesn't exist... For example, it is possible to figure out to travel at light speed... It is possible to develop something to make lightspeed travel safe. It is possible to reach the end of the universe. It is possible to say we are nothing more than a figment of imagination, our perception of reality is as real as we make it. These laws do exist, but any law could exist with imagination of another human. It's impossible to that it doesn't... which is why you have to understand that proclaiming we do exist could very well be wrong... after all, if you focus on your dream with self realization, do you not make up the people you meet in your dream? Do you not make up the setting? Your location? Just because you have a free will doesn't mean that you exist... I've found that people in dreams are just as diverse and unpredictable as people in real life... I don't choose what they say... they think for themselves. You could very well have never existed. This energy you beleive in could very well have never exists as well... After all, when there was nothing in the universe, where did that come from? You can't get something from nothing. Hell, this message you're reading might have never existed, but you remember reading, don't you? Therefore it happened. It you have memory, you have did something. It doesn't have to be in your face reality, for after all, what is reality? I hope this makes sense to you... because the idea of sense was thought up as well... nothing has always really been. thank you. It's like you put all my thoughts into sentences. I couldn't do that. Because, weirdly, my thoughts don't come to me neatly displayed in paragraph form. I just couldn't think correctly anymore....my mind was overwhelmed with thoughts and I couldn't figure out how to type them out. It was really hurting my head. so thank you for writing what I couldn't. Because I really did want to tell Mi Kull he was wrong, but my mind was so washed up from thinking so much...lol I don't know if you ever get that way or not. I do, infact it caused physical fatigue as well as mental fatigue because of the depths of thinking I had gotten myself into. I slept 10 hours last night and i'm still tired. However, now Mi Kull has your response to debate back to..... that's not good....lol Well, if I was doing this in person, my mind would explode from all possiblities... It takes forever to get out something that makes sense when dealing with this stuff... It must not make much sense, because people aren't disagreeing with me...
|
|
|
Post by zeldamaster on Jul 4, 2008 17:09:10 GMT -5
Then why do you keep shooting down the theory that with any correct mathetical equation and technique, that it's possible to negate a universal law? Explain yourself. Math didn't physically exist until man discovered the nature of math. These complex math problems may be correct, but we don't understand them. You can look at it and guess, but without knowing the nature of the problem, you can't solve it. Just as we can't solve existance without understanding everything about it... and we have much to learn. With this logic, anything we can't comprehend or know could be correct. It is the way of things... until we understand everything, we shouldn't attempt to tackle the problem, because there is no way you and I can get an answer, despite the answer still being correct and it still being the same answer since the beginning. This is why it is entirely opssible we do not exist... we could just be here... For what is reality when all we have ever known is just this? Living on this planet? What is real? We could merely be data... or we could not be at all. Like I said, you can't tackle the problem without first knowing how to solve it, even if the problem has remained the same throughout history. And nobody has the answer because we can't comprehend how to solve the problem at hand. I may have taken your statement too literally, but I feel it worked out better for my post. because math itself is a universal law ur arguement against that makes no sense...laws exist regardless of our ability to comprehend them...math is DID physically exist before we could coprehend it...just as gravity did...math is a physical law that can explain everything it is at the root of everything and existed before we begin using it to simplify and understand things!!! we have a mathimatical equation explaining free fall and the effect of gravity...the equation was true before we discovered it...math is the rule at the center of the rule of gravity...saying math didn't exist 20 million years ago...is wrong cus guess what we weren't there but gravity was the thing that bugs me about ur arguement is at points its very abstract but at others u can't get ur head out of the f-in box! okay lets say for example ur right...we don't really exist we are a figment of elecrogenisia cause by a mass collection of green blobargs in the middle of semi-space....what is existence? its a word man created for being "here" where is "here"? well its the elecrogenisia were not real this reality is a fake one but by defanition (the one created in this fictional world) we still exist...because THIS is existance regardless of what THIS is...get it? if not then stop using abstract arguements...if so my point is provin...and i win
|
|
|
Post by kittycat72 on Jul 4, 2008 17:22:06 GMT -5
OMG, stupid question. Of course we exist, duh. The question is why. We have to exist to even be discussing this. I'll probably help Mi Kull argue in this topic because it's so obvious what the answer is. Now to wait for more posts...
|
|
|
Post by salapro on Jul 4, 2008 18:08:00 GMT -5
It's sad that you can't appreciate the possibility of "what if?" or that anything is possible. I guess I'm just a dreamer though...I hate hearing stuff like rules can't be broken or i'm 100% sure of something. Because it's not true, no one is 100% sure of anything, that wouldn't make since. We don't know everything and we probably will never know everything, and I think I like it better that way. If we knew everything then there would be no dreamers. No magical fantasy land that you hope could be true, no other dimension or a place to go and be happy after you've been tormented for a lifetime. There'd be nothing to have hope in because hope would be gone, there would be no pessimism or optimism because there wouldn't be a different way to look at things, things would just be, and that's not nearly creative or enjoyable enough for me.
|
|
|
Post by zeldamaster on Jul 4, 2008 18:13:38 GMT -5
but for arguing sake read the second paragraph of my post it adresses ur "what if" and still proves we exist because by definition...we have to
|
|
|
Post by luigi on Jul 4, 2008 19:02:42 GMT -5
Then why do you keep shooting down the theory that with any correct mathetical equation and technique, that it's possible to negate a universal law? Explain yourself. Math didn't physically exist until man discovered the nature of math. These complex math problems may be correct, but we don't understand them. You can look at it and guess, but without knowing the nature of the problem, you can't solve it. Just as we can't solve existance without understanding everything about it... and we have much to learn. With this logic, anything we can't comprehend or know could be correct. It is the way of things... until we understand everything, we shouldn't attempt to tackle the problem, because there is no way you and I can get an answer, despite the answer still being correct and it still being the same answer since the beginning. This is why it is entirely opssible we do not exist... we could just be here... For what is reality when all we have ever known is just this? Living on this planet? What is real? We could merely be data... or we could not be at all. Like I said, you can't tackle the problem without first knowing how to solve it, even if the problem has remained the same throughout history. And nobody has the answer because we can't comprehend how to solve the problem at hand. I may have taken your statement too literally, but I feel it worked out better for my post. because math itself is a universal law ur arguement against that makes no sense...laws exist regardless of our ability to comprehend them...math is DID physically exist before we could coprehend it...just as gravity did...math is a physical law that can explain everything it is at the root of everything and existed before we begin using it to simplify and understand things!!! we have a mathimatical equation explaining free fall and the effect of gravity...the equation was true before we discovered it...math is the rule at the center of the rule of gravity...saying math didn't exist 20 million years ago...is wrong cus guess what we weren't there but gravity was the thing that bugs me about ur arguement is at points its very abstract but at others u can't get ur head out of the f-in box! okay lets say for example ur right...we don't really exist we are a figment of elecrogenisia cause by a mass collection of green blobargs in the middle of semi-space....what is existence? its a word man created for being "here" where is "here"? well its the elecrogenisia were not real this reality is a fake one but by defanition (the one created in this fictional world) we still exist...because THIS is existance regardless of what THIS is...get it? if not then stop using abstract arguements...if so my point is provin...and i win But this existance... wouldn't really be here, and thus if we don't don't exist, nothing is happening. Since we do not really exist, we don't really fit the normal flow in time... The thing about math being physical... you misunderstand. Math is not physical. I cannot touch math... I can't feel math, and I can't eat math... math makes no sound, so I can't hear it... So it doesn't exist, it's just a concept. It's just something that was completed. Gravity is gravity. Math is math. Do not get the two confused. ...Oh? How would you want me to disagree with you? Religiously? Scientificly? There is no other way. Because we do not yet understand "existance". We can feel things... but I can do so in other states of mind. I hear things... but I also do in other states of mind. It's all just a feeling. Just because you can get shot, does it mean you can get shot? I can get shot in my dreams and real life... but I am still questioning whether or not I was shot... because, if it doesn't exist... if it's a state of mind... it isn't happening. Your example is also pretty interesting... I would like to know more about how you came about existance from these green things. Also, your definition is... we exist, yet we don't exist... it's really more of a paradox... You can't divide the universe by zero... You can't trust the definition of existance in a fictional world. What's wrong with you? You're going back to MEN'S definition. We understand nothing. Therefore your argument is completely inaccurate... and possibly non-existant. If everything doesn't exist... we are not here.
|
|
|
Post by zeldamaster on Jul 4, 2008 19:12:10 GMT -5
OMG!!! all u did was get more abstract! even if were part of some dream and this reality doesn't make any sense in an alternate reality...existence is only a part of this reality its our word it means this universe regardless of what this universe is.....even if were figments of green blobs or someones warped dream...if this reality is a tangent its reality regardless of if it means anything...this is our reality... our exisence...kinda like in donnie darko...this tangent exists weather or not its real
|
|
|
Post by luigi on Jul 4, 2008 21:54:16 GMT -5
Well, I'd like to congratulate you for not going back to math. It was getting annoying trying to explain that point seven different ways for you to understand.
Anyway...
Existance... what is it? Who are we to call this existance? Like you said, it's our word, so it's not an accurate definition. Existance through green blobs isn't existance... just like characters in video games. It'd be like we're imaginary. Imagination is not to be tied into reality. Because things of the imagination are purely made-up. Therefore, they do not "exist" (by our definition). They're just images and figments of our imagination.
Therefore, until we know more, there is no existance. But if it makes you feel better, it works for non-existance as well.
|
|
|
Post by zeldamaster on Jul 5, 2008 8:03:15 GMT -5
who are we to call this existence? well i guess we're the people who created the word and gave it that definition.... also the reason i dropoed math is because ur explinations were stupid and abstract...i figured whats the point ur so focused on thinking no one can KNOW anything...which is untrue...i KNOW jordan is f-in pretty
|
|
|
Post by luigi on Jul 6, 2008 21:44:09 GMT -5
Member left.
Topic is undebatable.
Therefore the poll stands as the majority's answer.
|
|