Perfection

[Kevin Solway]

Identity is the concept that refers to this aspect of existence; the aspect of existing as something in particular, with specific characteristics. An entity without an identity cannot exist because it would be nothing. To exist is to exist as something, and that means to exist with a particular identity.

Yet the infinity so near and dear to DQ's heart, appears to be incompatible with absolutist thinking, in that it is not subject to the finite quantification beholden to the law of identity.

Anything that occurs to the mind exists, since it can be contrasted with something else that occurs to the mind. For example, "Infinite" and "finite" can be contrasted with each other, so both exist. Each has an identity, which is the means by which we can recognize them.

[Leyla Shen]

A circle is symmetric about an axis of rotation, where it appears to be invariant anywhere throughout an entire 360 degree rotation.
But transform the circle into a square via some process and the previous symmetry is broken. The lower degree of symmetry means that the square only remains invariant under multiples of 90 degree rotations.

circle--->square = change in symmetry

change is not an absolute


Time is a sequence of symmetry breaking

Now, I reckon that's good.

I plan to meddle with it some more over the weekend.

[sevens]

Meddling, eh?

[analog57]

Interesting Axioms:

http://www.candleinthedark.com/axioms.html

But what about those who still insist that the law of non contradiction might not be universally true?

If we deny the validity of the law of non contradiction, the law still stands! If something can in fact contradict itself, then the law of non contradiction can still be true even as it is false.

[David Quinn]

Analog wrote:

Yes, absolutes DO exist as starting points in a logical chain of reasoning. In that respect they are impossible to challenge without invalidating the chain of reasoning itself.

I believe you're describing assumptions here, not absolutes. An absolute is really a conclusion to a piece of reasoning, one that cannot be overturned by the perfect use of reason. An assumption, on the other hand, may or may not be an absolute.

It is very very easy to form an airtight[tautological] argument that says reality is the absolute. But the REAL challenge is to learn something NEW about reality.

Well, any acquistion of knowledge, whether it be scientific or philosophical in nature, is a process of learning something new. So I'm not sure what you trying to say here.

Philosophically speaking, the real challenge is using reason to open up one's mind to the nature of the Infinite. That is a very lofty and rare accomplishment. Hardly anyone in history has managed it. But you have to abandon your habitual ways of thinking, including the habit of exclusively treating scientific knowledge as the supreme form of knowledge, in order to be able to do it.

This goes far beyond the creation of tautological arguments and the like. It is a transformative process, in which the very fabric of perception is changed.

Article: Identity is the concept that refers to this aspect of existence; the aspect of existing as something in particular, with specific characteristics. An entity without an identity cannot exist because it would be nothing. To exist is to exist as something, and that means to exist with a particular identity.

Analog: Yet the infinity so near and dear to DQ's heart, appears to be incompatible with absolutist thinking, in that it is not subject to the finite quantification beholden to the law of identity.

Translation: Infinity is not finite. Why? Because infinity = infinity. That is to say, A=A.

You can't see this?

-

[LooF]

infinity = infinity is false

could nothing equal nothing?

to be equal, there first must be something.

[analog57]

Infinity is not finite. Why? Because infinity = infinity. That is to say, A=A.

You can't see this?

A+A = 2A

but infinite set + infinite set is still equal to a single infinite set

The natural numbers form the basis for countable infinities.


There are an EQUAL NUMBER of elements in an infinite set and twice the infinite set.

1*[infinite set elements] = 2*[infinite set elements]

1<--->2

2<--->4

3<--->6

4<--->8

...
...
etc.


in fact, an infinite set infinity times another infinite set is still just equal to a single infinite set.

1<--->1

2<--->4

3<--->9

4<--->16

...
...
etc.

Of course infinite is not finite.

[Beingof1]

Leyla Shen

Yes -- for this reason, and some others -- your belief is what I criticise precisely.

The reason I say belief is I have not yet consciously experienced 'all possibilities'. I do know without doubt that there is more then the law of physics at work in shaping your reality. It would require a paradigm to be aware of that experience.

As far as you criticising my beliefs

Satan, obviously.

Who is this satan you speak of?

You never know, unless you keep your mind open, you will never know if I am someone you could learn from.

Rubbish. Merging and blending is for pureeing fruits and vegetables. It is nothing like merging and blending.

By all means, let us hear you describe union with the Absolute.



Diebert van Rhijn

Any relevant scholar knows the gospel of Marc and the 'Q document'

Yes the gospel that predates the standard text. I left Bible College well over twenty years ago, so yes I have done all my homework. I could fill an entire page of this thread with textual proofs.

I did not come here to discuss theology either, it is boring and mostly posturing for doctrinal position. I find it incredible that those who claim to be logical have such extreem emotional bias. Blind faith in only dubious thought.

Knowledge of the heart and mind of the human kind will lead the way here and reason will keep you on track.

Really? Then by all means lets discuss the heart and mind.
What is your heart and mind capable of and what is its purpose?

The whole message of Jesus (and Buddha) was about how billions of people are totally blinded from birth to death. Your reference to authority by sheer numbers is really a false argument, defeating even the message of the miracle workers you claim have existed.

That is exactly the purpose of a intense light, to open the eyes of the blind. That is why the message is sound.

It doesn't matter. Those thousands of people were the figments, when seen from a larger perspective that was taught.

I know that Diebert.
How bizarre, someone mentions Jesus and they are pigeon holed as clueless. This is the attitude I am talking about, open your mind and heart and let some light in.


DHodges

So, it's okay for there to be contradictions, as long as you think they are unimportant?

There were hundreds of texts, different books and Gospels and acts or deeds, that never made it into the New Testament.
(This fact is never talked about by the so called 'experts').
They did not have the same priorities as we do today ie. textual geneology. The Jesus story is re-told countless times from early days (around AD50 first written) to the fourth century.


There is basically one Jesus story and it's always the same in the hundreds of accounts.


1) Jesus lived on earth as a man from the beginning of the first century to AD 33.

2) That his mother was supposed to be a Virgin named "Mary"

3) Same principle players, Peter, Andrew, Philip, John, Mary Magdeline.

4) That Jesus was known as a miracle worker.

5) He claimed to be the son of God and Messiah.

6) He was crucified under Pilate.

7) Around the time of the Passover.

8) At noon.

9) Rose from the dead leaving an empty tomb.

10) Several women discovered the empty tomb.

11) That this was in Jerusalem.

Now how can literally hundreds of accounts get that wrong?

Are these important, or trivialities?

It would require to much of my time to go through each and every one of those and you know that.
To give you one example there is no Hebrew word for forever or eternal. It is the word 'olam' - this word means obscure or beyond thought. The word is akin to noumena in the writings of Kant. There is no English word that interchanges.



DavidQuinn000

What has this to do with symmetry? As far as I know, symmetry simply refers to mirror imaging. A face has "symmetry" when its left side resembles its right side.

Can you see your experience as A = A in everything that is?
Do you not see a mirror image of what you are in all things?

Is your existence a part of the flux of experience or seperate from it?

My existence is the flux of experience, always constant in a never ending state of expansion in awareness.


MKFaizi

I hope you can see the contradictions.

[Kevin Solway]

Infinity is not finite. Why? Because infinity = infinity. That is to say, A=A.

You can't see this?

A+A = 2A

This formula is invalid, since you can't add a thing to itself.

[Leyla Shen]

Analog:

I have reviewed the subject and the various propositions. A summation appears below. If you don't mind, please review, amend and/or confirm as appropriate, for further consideration.

1. Symmetry is an invariance
2. An absolute is necessarily a symmetry invariant
3. An absolute truth must be invariant.
4. All absolutes must be invariants, therefore symmetries.
5. Transformation is a change in symmetry (invariance)

Conclusion: a symmetry under transformation is still a symmetry, but not an absolute since transformation represents a change in symmetry.

You stated it thusly:

1. Change is not an absolute.
2. All symmetries need not be absolute.
3. Symmetry (invariance) breaking (disruption of invariance under transformation e.g. circke--->square) is not absolute (invariant/non-dependent?)

You also posit:

1. Physical objects are in a state of flux in that they change over time
2. In a four-dimensional universe (thing plus flux), physical objects are changeless. That is, invariant.

Thus:

1. If time is a dimension, physical objects become changeless
2. In a 3-dimensional universe, time is a sequence of symmetry breaking.
3. In a 3-dimensional universe, physical objects are symmetries -- but not absolutes -- under transformation over time, which is not yet defined?
4. In a 4-dimensional universe, physical objects are both symmetries and absolute.

[Diebert van Rhijn]

How bizarre, someone mentions Jesus and they are pigeon holed as clueless. This is the attitude I am talking about, open your mind and heart and let some light in.

Be clear in your expressions. Mentioning Jesus is fine but giving such importance to a literal historical dimension makes no sense in philosophy. What the story and teaching of the Christ represents is clearly timeless and to be found elsewhere too in history in even clearer wordings or events. Please don't dumb it down to a materialistic contemporary account.

Your wrote to DHodges:

There were hundreds of texts, different books and Gospels and acts or deeds, that never made it into the New Testament.

Often because most of them were proven to be unhistorical or forgeries. The Church was not that crazy, they really had this desire for truth deep down. They might also have selected on doctrine (of an historical Jesus) and politics, in the end the Church was all too human.

There is basically one Jesus story and it's always the same in the hundreds of accounts.

The differences are actually staggering and often fundamental. For example excluding birth and death accounts and other miracles or including different teachings or characters.

2) That his mother was supposed to be a Virgin

4) That Jesus was known as a miracle worker.

5) He claimed to be the son of God and Messiah.

6) He was crucified under Pilate.

9) Rose from the dead leaving an empty tomb.

Ever studied Egyptian and Greek mythology and also the Mithras legends? There are very common elements in many 'son of god' and savior stories, including the ones you listed. Even the great Christian apologist C.S. Lewis couldn't solve this and talked about some mysterious 'foreshadowing' of the Christ story in earlier cultures. Not unlike the early churchfather Justin Martyr (100-165AD) suggested the devil created these earlier similar pagan stories to seduce men into a wrong kind of thinking!

Pathetic don't you think? But what would you do when confronted with all the similarities?

[Leyla Shen]

By all means, let us hear you describe union with the Absolute.

Open your ears. It's all around you.

If you think it is something you will hear only in one sentence, or even a whole book, I think you are wrong.

I think it was Diebert who posted a quote from somewhere that describes the method by which a Buddha communicates. Perhaps he might be able to dig it up again. I found it to be incredibly insightful.

Apart from that, you should know I have a god-given speech impediment.

Besides, it's even alluded to in your Holy Book -- metaphorically, of course.

Do not be mistaken. I learn from you and others all the time. But I am very, very far from becoming a Christian if I am not one already.

[Leyla Shen]

Oh, Diebert. That's because the universe has only been around for some 2000ish years. There was nothing, really, before Christ. That's why it's all in the negative, so to speak.

The truth began in the year zero.

All else prior is fairy tale.

[Diebert van Rhijn]

Infinity is not finite. Why? Because infinity = infinity. That is to say, A=A.

You can't see this?

A+A = 2A

This formula is invalid, since you can't add a thing to itself.

To which I'll add (again!)

A is here not a mathematical variable which can be multiplied or cloned. So only A + A' is possible. The idea of 2A implies that something that is not A can be equaled to it. In mathematics we work with sets technicaly: size of {A} + size of {A'} = size of {A, A'}, which is then written for short like 1 + 1 = 2. These are not identities but refer to quantities only ( 2 being defined as 1 + 1 ).

A=A is not mathematics!

[Diebert van Rhijn]

Oh, Diebert. That's because the universe has only been around for some 2000ish years. There was nothing, really, before Christ. That's why it's all in the negative, so to speak.

The truth began in the year zero.

All else prior is fairy tale.

Oh I don't know. I've no problem with the Universe starting and ending with Christ.

[Kevin Solway]

infinity = infinity is false

could nothing equal nothing?

to be equal, there first must be something.

If you think infinity is nothing then you won't mind me not replying to your post, since you obviously believe your own post is nothing.

[Kevin Solway]

A=A is not mathematics!

A=A is philosophy.

So why are you talking about mathematics, and infinite sets, etc?

[David Quinn]

Loof wrote:

infinity = infinity is false

No, it's true. Infinity can only equal itself. It is what it is - infinity. It is not finite.

could nothing equal nothing?

to be equal, there first must be something.

By stating this you have already affirmed that nothing has indeed the identity of nothing and not the identity of something else. That is, you have affirmed that nothing = nothing.

Or to put it another way, the absence of something = the absence of something.


-

Analog wrote:

DQ: Infinity is not finite. Why? Because infinity = infinity. That is to say, A=A.

You can't see this?

Analog: A+A = 2A

That's right. 2A=2A. A=A.

but infinite set + infinite set is still equal to a single infinite set

You've tried to fool us with this sleight-of-hand trickery before. You can't add an infinite set to its own self, by definition. If you could, it wouldn't be infinite.

A=A applies everywhere, without exception. Accept it.

Of course infinite is not finite.

Indeed, and the reason why is because it can only equal itself.

You're very boring. Where's Dr Beckworth?

-

[analog57]

Infinity is not finite. Why? Because infinity = infinity. That is to say, A=A.

You can't see this?

A+A = 2A

This formula is invalid, since you can't add a thing to itself.

According to your above reasoning, the second A on the right of the equals sign is not really the first A on the left. Those are actually two separate things. Only separate things can be added.

[Kevin Solway]

According to your above reasoning, the second A on the right of the equals sign is not really the first A on the left. Those are actually two separate things. Only separate things can be added.

Whoever wrote "A+A = 2A" thinks so, yes.

In "A=A" (the law of identity) the two "A"s cannot be added, because there is only the one "A".

[analog57]

A=A applies everywhere, without exception. Accept it.

Of course infinite is not finite.

Indeed, and the reason why is because it can only equal itself.

-

Infinity is an undefined concept. Accept it [insert smiley]

UHOH

DQ will now miraculously provide us with

undefined = undefined

Not that easy DQ

[analog57]

According to your above reasoning, the second A on the right of the equals sign is not really the first A on the left. Those are actually two separate things. Only separate things can be added.

Whoever wrote "A+A = 2A" thinks so, yes.

In "A=A" (the law of identity) the two "A"s cannot be added, because there is only the one "A".

1=1

1+1 = 2

[analog57]

You're very boring. Where's Dr Beckworth?

-

Do you respect other human beings enough to spell their name correctly?

[Diebert van Rhijn]

analog57, I'll try it for the last time, very slow this time and using other words.

1=1

1+1 = 2

1=1 (here the equal sign denotes a logical and reflexive relation on a set containing the number '1')

1+1 = 2 (here the equal signs denotes a relation between the function '1+1' and the counting number '2')

Apples and oranges. In mathematics not all equal signs mean the same thing or does a symbol or number have an independent identity.

That's why A=A is foremost a logical operation in the realm of philosophy and not mathematics.

[sevens]

1=1 represents 'pure being' - 'unhindered awareness.'

A diamond refining a diamond.

The universe refining the soul.

Or, satori.

Samadhi + No Ego = Liquid Oxygen Flow