|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 Posted: Mon May 14, 2007 6:52 am
dfadsfasdferwer What is reality? Is it what we can see? Touch? Taste? According to the law of mathematics (which is also known as the Law of Reality), for something to be real it must follow 3 rules: 1) It must be complete. 2) It must be consistent 3) It must be finite. Reality isn't complete, and it's not consistent. For that matter, it infinite as well. So according to the laws of reality, reality isn't real. Anyone care to explain this for me? idea
As life progresses, reality is defined more and more..
Likewise, it becomes questionable more and more.
What you perceive as reality may not even be reality...
Numbers may not be numbers at all.
Time, may just be an illusion.
To understand what is anything, you must "break it down" into "parts",
in order to find its purpose and origin..
question
But, if everything has a beginning, where is the beginning.
Can you break down something, which is a whole in itself?
idea
Now, the question is not only, "What is reality?".
The question is now also, whether we exist ourselves whatsoever.
Thus, you must define existence itself.
arrow What's complicated, is what's most simple.
Like understanding a computer's function by its parts.
arrow What's simple, is what's most complicted.
Like understanding a proton's funtion by its parts.
It is infinite, and undefinable with our human limitations.
For one, there are more colors then our eyes can see.
For we can only basically see three colors.
ie Red Green Blue
A good example of our limitations.
Can you imaging if we can see four?
exclaim
The key to wisdom, is to aknowledge your limitations.
Not meaning, you should withold your questions.
For knowing your limits, is to know what your mind can grasp.
For the answers you seek cannot be found, without the questions.
question
So is infinity complete?
So is infinity incomplete?
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue May 15, 2007 2:49 am
Oh? "Everything must have a begginning"? So far, I have yet to hear that this is the case. I do believe it's been put fourth by plenty of people that it just might be the casethat not everything DOES need a beggining, some stuff just has always been there/here - perhaps not always in it's same form, it may not have a constant form, maybe it's always in a constant state of change even, but none the less, always has been there. But as long as "everything" needs a beggining you're going to go with, do be sure to really apply that to "everything" and not get into the "special pleading" logical fallacy. wink Also, this is something that's always bugged me -- why is it we are supposed to see red, blue, and GREEN? The primary colors that make up all the rest are red, blue, and YELLOW - so if we see red, blue, and green in varrying ammounts and combinations, any color made with yellow shouldn't be visable to us except green. Like we shouldn't be able to see orange correctly because it's made of red and yellow, we'd just see instead of orange the equivalent shade of red for how light/dark it is and it's saturation. This is a real question too, it's just never made sense to me though I know this is supposed to be established scientific fact.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed May 16, 2007 1:02 am
bluecherry Oh? "Everything must have a begginning"? So far, I have yet to hear that this is the case. I do believe it's been put fourth by plenty of people that it just might be the casethat not everything DOES need a beggining, some stuff just has always been there/here - perhaps not always in it's same form, it may not have a constant form, maybe it's always in a constant state of change even, but none the less, always has been there. But as long as "everything" needs a beggining you're going to go with, do be sure to really apply that to "everything" and not get into the "special pleading" logical fallacy. wink Also, this is something that's always bugged me -- why is it we are supposed to see red, blue, and GREEN? The primary colors that make up all the rest are red, blue, and YELLOW - so if we see red, blue, and green in varrying ammounts and combinations, any color made with yellow shouldn't be visable to us except green. Like we shouldn't be able to see orange correctly because it's made of red and yellow, we'd just see instead of orange the equivalent shade of red for how light/dark it is and it's saturation. This is a real question too, it's just never made sense to me though I know this is supposed to be established scientific fact. I was confused for a while.
Then I looked it up on wikipedia.
Equal Parts
Green + Blue = Yellow
question
What has always been there bluecherry?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu May 17, 2007 2:12 am
Green and blue makes yellow? O_o; That's just...what? Does not compute. gonk Mixing blue and green paint in equal ammounts just gives you blue-green, so how do your eyes interpret equal parts of blue and green light to make yellow? If that's the case, all colors are of course the eyes/brain interpreting different waive lengths of light, so if you were to mix the blue paint with it's blue light waive lengths in equal ammount with green paint and it's green light waive lengths, shouldn't it then become what our eyes would interpret as yellow? Bah! D:
And what is generally refered to as "the universe" (or perhaps, "the multiverse"?). So far I haven't really heard why the universe must have not existed at some point. Although, I haven't heard everything, so maybe I just missed something and there is now a vast majority of scientists who agree that for some reason it DID need to not exist (in any form) at some point? If you know this to be the case I'll hear what they have to say, if you could provide a link to an explanation or point me in the direction to where I can find it for myself.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu May 17, 2007 4:10 am
bluecherry Green and blue makes yellow? O_o; That's just...what? Does not compute. gonk Mixing blue and green paint in equal ammounts just gives you blue-green, so how do your eyes interpret equal parts of blue and green light to make yellow? If that's the case, all colors are of course the eyes/brain interpreting different waive lengths of light, so if you were to mix the blue paint with it's blue light waive lengths in equal ammount with green paint and it's green light waive lengths, shouldn't it then become what our eyes would interpret as yellow? Bah! D:
And what is generally refered to as "the universe" (or perhaps, "the multiverse"?). So far I haven't really heard why the universe must have not existed at some point. Although, I haven't heard everything, so maybe I just missed something and there is now a vast majority of scientists who agree that for some reason it DID need to not exist (in any form) at some point? If you know this to be the case I'll hear what they have to say, if you could provide a link to an explanation or point me in the direction to where I can find it for myself. Errrh..
I dont know, and I'm too lazy to look it up right now.
Then how about, "There are more sounds then we can hear."?
Sorreh, I'm tired from work..
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu May 17, 2007 7:19 pm
will the flood behind me? I'd like to say it's whatever we see it as,
But do we even know what we really see? put out the fire inside?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu May 17, 2007 7:49 pm
. Zodiac Shine . will the flood behind me? I'd like to say it's whatever we see it as,
But do we even know what we really see? put out the fire inside? So, what do you see when you read?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri May 18, 2007 6:30 am
Indeed, what do you see when you read? And whatever you see, you got the idea from some place. Unless you have some kind of really good evidence of the reality of the matrix being what is implanting ideas of sights directly into your brain that you'd like to share, I'd say you see the different light waive lengths coming at your eyes from the objects around you. Or unless you're blind and you don't really see much of anything and are just using some kind of special computer which reads of text to you in some strange round about manner. Or maybe you are suffering from hallucinations so not exactly everything you see is correct, in which case you must be on some kind of drugs or have an illness, both of which a trip to a doctor could tell you if you had them or not.Demiore Errrh.. I dont know, and I'm too lazy to look it up right now. Then how about, "There are more sounds then we can hear."? Sorreh, I'm tired from work..
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun May 20, 2007 1:16 am
bluecherry Actually, I do know somebody who claims they CAN hear into the ultrasonic range. lol I'll figure out a way to test that claim one of these days when I get around to it. Simple -- Buy a heavy steel dog whistle at a pet store, sneak up on the person, and pump a lungfull of wind thru that sucker just when he seems about to nod off. If he jerks upright and grabs the sides of his head, just nonchalantly comment, "Guess you were right..." twisted twisted
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon May 21, 2007 1:21 am
The only problem with that is where to get a dog whistle? I'd LOVE to do that if I knew where to get one. xd
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon May 21, 2007 8:43 am
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon May 21, 2007 11:04 am
Blah..
I'm better off just saying that,
then to waste my time spoon feeding the damn answers.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat May 26, 2007 1:23 am
Demiore
Blah..
I'm better off just saying that,
then to waste my time spoon feeding the damn answers.
Oooh. A note of condescension? And I thought we were all friends here... domokun domokun
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat May 26, 2007 2:17 pm
Curiosity, but why is it in any way worse for somebody to learn something if they have to be told directly rather then indirectly? Do they not still learn it both ways? If I told a person the Pythagorean theorem and showed them the proof of why it works why is it then less valid for them to have learned it that way, "spoon fed" to them, then to have made them possibly spend a life time figuring it out themselves re-inventing the wheel?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun May 27, 2007 8:12 am
I feel out classed in a group of Einsteins... >.>
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
