Reality
Reality
Causality needs to be explained in terms of being "within reality" itself. Linear causal chains cannot be traced back to something outside of reality, because then one could say that reality is created by that which is "not real", a universal contradiction of monumental proportions!
Reality must then be explained in terms of ONLY reality. Therefore circular causality is required to explain the beginning and ending [Alpha-Omega] of a series of cause-event patterns via a self-configurative dynamics. Ergo, due to the axiomatic inevitability that an aspect of intentional action is causality, which is extrapolated to material objects in the world, causality is a property of mind, not matter.
Reality is a unity, more specifically, it is a unity of consciousness. That means when a perception takes place, the "essence" of the perception is a "conscious, real event". One may try to "atomize" the perception, attempting to break it down into a simple aggregate of localized component parts, for example, as required by a materialistic "classical reality" theory. But if Reality is not a unity of consciousness then it is an assemblage of discrete "mutually exclusive" non-conscious parts. But Reality cannot actually be separated from itself, because that creates a contradiction.
Objectification through the reification of the relative quality of Reality, entails that one must aperceptively regard themselves, if such a thing is possible, where the "how and what" we think we know of something in Reality as being distinctively separate, yet nevertheless, it is still inseparable from the greater whole. Relational logic provides a method, madness, and mechanics for uncertainty, where the statistical status quo is more or less rightly so. Qualia is beholden to logic but also, logic is also beholden to qualia. Reality is a "thing in itself".
-
David Quinn
- Posts: 5708
- Joined: Sun Sep 09, 2001 6:56 am
- Location: Australia
- Contact:
Re: Reality
Your reasoning is far too complicated. The truth is extremely simple. Everything that exists is causally created and a part of Reality. There's really nothing more to be said.
Re: Reality
Quote:Quote:<hr>Your reasoning is far too complicated. The truth is extremely simple. Everything that exists is causally created and a part of Reality. There's really nothing more to be said.<hr>
I believe you are correct. the reasoning could be overly complex and redundant.
Of course the question remains, "what created, or, creates reality?" Reality must be self creating. What else can create reality except that which is real?
Either reality can be defined it terms of itself or reality is defined in terms of something other than reality. Defining reality in terms of that which is "not-real" negates the argument completely, hence reality is defined in terms of itself. So there are two choices:
[1.] Reality is created by a larger reality.
Then ask: "Where does the larger reality come from?"
One could quickly find themselves faced with the scenario of an "infinite tower of tortoises". If the buck stops, then where does it stop?
[2.] Self creation appears to be the only viable answer to that most enigmatic "question of questions". A hypothesis is then required to explain the most logical choice for a self creating reality. The hypothesis, is, that the material brain is a type of tuning fork and the soul[or mind] is the music. The music is universal, with many different patterns of self organization. The "Prime Directive" is mandated by the spirit of free sentient expression within the universe itself.
If consciousness is universal as it must inevitably be, and as are the universal laws, it seems that localized instantiations of matter[brains] emerge as a consequence of resonance between material and non-material levels of reality. There is the dance of self creation, where the juxtaposition of a deterministic "Bohm pilot wave" and quantum uncertainty, generates the ubiquitous and interactive "field" of life itself. We then see that the life/death cycle is not the punishment that is portrayed by the three great monotheistic religions. Physical life is the material instantiation of the spiritual universe, resonating in universal harmony to the diverse creativity of the cosmic symphony. Consciousness is a form of music and the physical brain is but one instrument. Evolutionary parameters guide sentience and complexity towards an optimal freedom of expression.
Consequently, the evolutionary patterns of self organization provide the fine tuning of the "instruments" focusing the conscious resonances via a symbiotic orchestration called universal consciousness.
The phenomenon of synchronicity becomes the evidence that the deepest regions of the unconscious mind consist of indeterminate "psychoid" structures that transcend the distinction between psyche and matter altogether. Indeterminate gaps between the actual moments of time, provide the most fundamental degrees of perceptual freedom.
Perception is necessary to bring about the transition from possible to actual, where the fundamental nature of observation in the science of quantum theory still remains enigmatic. The quintessential measurement problem is derived from the fact that prior to a perception, or scientific "observation", the quantum state is described as being a nonlocal wave of probability distributed throughout space-time, then after an observation, only one of the possible values is transformed into a specific reality for the perceiver.
A qualia is basically an introspective mental condition relating to the accessible, phenomenal aspects of our mind. Sensory experiences that become impossible to describe, unless that description somehow entails the "experiencing" itself.
One example: how can one explain the experience of the color "red" to a person that was born without sight? What exactly are the subjective properties of redness? Different people experiencing a "qualia" identify it as one type even if their individual experiences are all different .
Two different conscious entities experiencing a "qualia" both identify it as one type. Thus there must be a statistical invariance among differing perceptions that allows for a general unified consistency OF perception.
Reality is perceptual, perceived by the mind
Most people imagine "God" as a grandfatherly figure with long white beard and flowing robes, presiding over the entire creation. Of course, this is an anthropocentric conceit that adds more conceptual baggage than it is worth.
Yet, to assume that reality was/is NOT created, is to blindly assume that time is a linear series that goes infinitely into the past and marches on forever into the future.
The evidence keeps accumulating more and pointing towards the fact, that reality, and hence time, is NOT linear...
The solution to the enigma of time points towards creation as a spatio temporal "mirror juxtapositioning" of the primary "alpha and omega" events, securing the very foundation of perceptual reality itself.
Yes, this is merely a philosophical musing and meandering.
Justifiable belief that is based on evidence, implies that a particular belief is true, but being justified in believing alone, does not necessarily mean that the belief is actually true.
Anything that is radically at odds with our tidy consensus view of the universe, is labeled as crankishly absurd by defenders of the intellectual status quo, that is to say: defenders of the "faith", or whatever belief -"ism" happens to be in fashion.
Justifiable belief, must be more than merely consensus alone.
I believe you are correct. the reasoning could be overly complex and redundant.
Of course the question remains, "what created, or, creates reality?" Reality must be self creating. What else can create reality except that which is real?
Either reality can be defined it terms of itself or reality is defined in terms of something other than reality. Defining reality in terms of that which is "not-real" negates the argument completely, hence reality is defined in terms of itself. So there are two choices:
[1.] Reality is created by a larger reality.
Then ask: "Where does the larger reality come from?"
One could quickly find themselves faced with the scenario of an "infinite tower of tortoises". If the buck stops, then where does it stop?
[2.] Self creation appears to be the only viable answer to that most enigmatic "question of questions". A hypothesis is then required to explain the most logical choice for a self creating reality. The hypothesis, is, that the material brain is a type of tuning fork and the soul[or mind] is the music. The music is universal, with many different patterns of self organization. The "Prime Directive" is mandated by the spirit of free sentient expression within the universe itself.
If consciousness is universal as it must inevitably be, and as are the universal laws, it seems that localized instantiations of matter[brains] emerge as a consequence of resonance between material and non-material levels of reality. There is the dance of self creation, where the juxtaposition of a deterministic "Bohm pilot wave" and quantum uncertainty, generates the ubiquitous and interactive "field" of life itself. We then see that the life/death cycle is not the punishment that is portrayed by the three great monotheistic religions. Physical life is the material instantiation of the spiritual universe, resonating in universal harmony to the diverse creativity of the cosmic symphony. Consciousness is a form of music and the physical brain is but one instrument. Evolutionary parameters guide sentience and complexity towards an optimal freedom of expression.
Consequently, the evolutionary patterns of self organization provide the fine tuning of the "instruments" focusing the conscious resonances via a symbiotic orchestration called universal consciousness.
The phenomenon of synchronicity becomes the evidence that the deepest regions of the unconscious mind consist of indeterminate "psychoid" structures that transcend the distinction between psyche and matter altogether. Indeterminate gaps between the actual moments of time, provide the most fundamental degrees of perceptual freedom.
Perception is necessary to bring about the transition from possible to actual, where the fundamental nature of observation in the science of quantum theory still remains enigmatic. The quintessential measurement problem is derived from the fact that prior to a perception, or scientific "observation", the quantum state is described as being a nonlocal wave of probability distributed throughout space-time, then after an observation, only one of the possible values is transformed into a specific reality for the perceiver.
A qualia is basically an introspective mental condition relating to the accessible, phenomenal aspects of our mind. Sensory experiences that become impossible to describe, unless that description somehow entails the "experiencing" itself.
One example: how can one explain the experience of the color "red" to a person that was born without sight? What exactly are the subjective properties of redness? Different people experiencing a "qualia" identify it as one type even if their individual experiences are all different .
Two different conscious entities experiencing a "qualia" both identify it as one type. Thus there must be a statistical invariance among differing perceptions that allows for a general unified consistency OF perception.
Reality is perceptual, perceived by the mind
Most people imagine "God" as a grandfatherly figure with long white beard and flowing robes, presiding over the entire creation. Of course, this is an anthropocentric conceit that adds more conceptual baggage than it is worth.
Yet, to assume that reality was/is NOT created, is to blindly assume that time is a linear series that goes infinitely into the past and marches on forever into the future.
The evidence keeps accumulating more and pointing towards the fact, that reality, and hence time, is NOT linear...
The solution to the enigma of time points towards creation as a spatio temporal "mirror juxtapositioning" of the primary "alpha and omega" events, securing the very foundation of perceptual reality itself.
Yes, this is merely a philosophical musing and meandering.
Justifiable belief that is based on evidence, implies that a particular belief is true, but being justified in believing alone, does not necessarily mean that the belief is actually true.
Anything that is radically at odds with our tidy consensus view of the universe, is labeled as crankishly absurd by defenders of the intellectual status quo, that is to say: defenders of the "faith", or whatever belief -"ism" happens to be in fashion.
Justifiable belief, must be more than merely consensus alone.
-
David Quinn
- Posts: 5708
- Joined: Sun Sep 09, 2001 6:56 am
- Location: Australia
- Contact:
Re: Reality
Analog wrote:
Quote:Quote:<hr>Of course the question remains, "what created, or, creates reality?" Reality must be self creating. What else can create reality except that which is real?<hr> Indeed. This implies that Reality has never been created. It has always been around. The issue thus vanishes.
Quote:Quote:<hr>Of course the question remains, "what created, or, creates reality?" Reality must be self creating. What else can create reality except that which is real?<hr> Indeed. This implies that Reality has never been created. It has always been around. The issue thus vanishes.
Re: Reality
Quote:Quote:<hr>Indeed. This implies that Reality has never been created. It has always been around. The issue thus vanishes.<hr>
That could be true if "time" does not exist and reality is actually changeless.
Interesting...
-
David Quinn
- Posts: 5708
- Joined: Sun Sep 09, 2001 6:56 am
- Location: Australia
- Contact:
Re: Reality
Reality is changeless in the sense that it never changes into un-Reality.
Also, the process of cause and effect, which underlies all change and makes up all Reality, never changes.
Also, the process of cause and effect, which underlies all change and makes up all Reality, never changes.
Re: Reality
Quote:Quote:<hr>That could be true if "time" does not exist and reality is actually changeless.<hr>
Like all things that exist, time does not have inherent existence.
Like all things that exist, time does not have inherent existence.
Re: Reality
I'm trying to write an article on how Reality doesn't change, in a sense, and about time not having an inherent existence. The message is titled, "The dual static and dynamic nature of all things." It's not perfect by any stretch and I was hoping you could help me work on it. That means raising counterpoints that I can then address and incorperate into future versions. Any help will be appreciated.
Here it is...
Everything has a dual static and dynamic nature. In essence, all things are simultaneously changing and staying the same. It all depends on your perspective. These words on the page appear to be static; they don’t change. But if you move your head around, in other words if you change your perspective, then the words appear to be changing, to be dynamic. You can similarly counteract the movement of something dynamic by keeping up your perspective with it so that it appears to not change. The background (context) is probably changing as you do this and so the context is dynamic while the content (the dynamic thing you’re observing) appears static when you alter your perspective to keep up with its movements. You can change your perspective at will so the context appears static and the content appears dynamic instead of the context appearing dynamic and the content appearing static. In short, whether something appears dynamic or static depends on one’s perspective.
The next step is to show how the whole universe, past present and future can be encapsulated by a set. Finally, it will be shown that a set can have a dual dynamic and static nature depending on how you view it; once again, perspective determines whether a set is dynamic or static.
Suppose the number of dimensions of the universe is n. (This may be infinite.) Further suppose that the universe at any given time is isomorphic to some n-dimensional manifold U. An embedding theorem states that U at any given time is then isomorphic to a subset U_E of a (flat) Euclidean hyperspace of dimension m where m is larger than n. As time progresses, U_E changes. It is dynamic (by inspection, the universe is dynamic). Now consider the set of all times experienced by the universe. It is commonly thought that this set is 1-dimensional, time having only a forwards and backwards direction, either with or without a beginning or end. It is uncommonly thought of as 2-dimensional, see also recent ideas in string theory. It doesn’t matter. Call the set of all times T. Then TxU_E is the Cartesian product of the present state of U_E with the set of all possible times T. TxU_E encapsulates the universe including all possible times. One could call this set space-time.
It is easy to see that a set has a static nature. A simple example is the set of coordinates of all points on a parabola: {…,(-1,1),(0,0),(1,1),(2,4),(3,9),…}. This set is static for its elements, what it is “made of,†is not permuted nor changed. Even if you rearrange the list used to describe the set, the set is unchanged.
A set also has a dynamic perspective created by how our consciousness views a set. Not all sets appear to be dynamic but some are called dynamic. There is, first of all, the orbit of a point under a function. This is an example of a dynamical system; it is considered to be a dynamic set, it is believed that something is changing. Second of all, the parabola above. Its height, or y-coordinate, changes as the x-coordinate changes. A set of the same type, a set of ordered pairs, is called a constant function (i.e. a static entity) if it is similar to this set: {…,(-1,7),(0,7),(1,7),(2,7),…}. One would say that this function is constantly 7. Any set not of that form, like the parabola above, is considered nonconstant, i.e., a dynamic entity.
Therefore, a set has both a dynamic and static nature.
And since the universe can be encapsulated by a set, the universe has a dual dynamic and static nature.
Here it is...
Everything has a dual static and dynamic nature. In essence, all things are simultaneously changing and staying the same. It all depends on your perspective. These words on the page appear to be static; they don’t change. But if you move your head around, in other words if you change your perspective, then the words appear to be changing, to be dynamic. You can similarly counteract the movement of something dynamic by keeping up your perspective with it so that it appears to not change. The background (context) is probably changing as you do this and so the context is dynamic while the content (the dynamic thing you’re observing) appears static when you alter your perspective to keep up with its movements. You can change your perspective at will so the context appears static and the content appears dynamic instead of the context appearing dynamic and the content appearing static. In short, whether something appears dynamic or static depends on one’s perspective.
The next step is to show how the whole universe, past present and future can be encapsulated by a set. Finally, it will be shown that a set can have a dual dynamic and static nature depending on how you view it; once again, perspective determines whether a set is dynamic or static.
Suppose the number of dimensions of the universe is n. (This may be infinite.) Further suppose that the universe at any given time is isomorphic to some n-dimensional manifold U. An embedding theorem states that U at any given time is then isomorphic to a subset U_E of a (flat) Euclidean hyperspace of dimension m where m is larger than n. As time progresses, U_E changes. It is dynamic (by inspection, the universe is dynamic). Now consider the set of all times experienced by the universe. It is commonly thought that this set is 1-dimensional, time having only a forwards and backwards direction, either with or without a beginning or end. It is uncommonly thought of as 2-dimensional, see also recent ideas in string theory. It doesn’t matter. Call the set of all times T. Then TxU_E is the Cartesian product of the present state of U_E with the set of all possible times T. TxU_E encapsulates the universe including all possible times. One could call this set space-time.
It is easy to see that a set has a static nature. A simple example is the set of coordinates of all points on a parabola: {…,(-1,1),(0,0),(1,1),(2,4),(3,9),…}. This set is static for its elements, what it is “made of,†is not permuted nor changed. Even if you rearrange the list used to describe the set, the set is unchanged.
A set also has a dynamic perspective created by how our consciousness views a set. Not all sets appear to be dynamic but some are called dynamic. There is, first of all, the orbit of a point under a function. This is an example of a dynamical system; it is considered to be a dynamic set, it is believed that something is changing. Second of all, the parabola above. Its height, or y-coordinate, changes as the x-coordinate changes. A set of the same type, a set of ordered pairs, is called a constant function (i.e. a static entity) if it is similar to this set: {…,(-1,7),(0,7),(1,7),(2,7),…}. One would say that this function is constantly 7. Any set not of that form, like the parabola above, is considered nonconstant, i.e., a dynamic entity.
Therefore, a set has both a dynamic and static nature.
And since the universe can be encapsulated by a set, the universe has a dual dynamic and static nature.
Re: Reality
Quote:Quote:<hr>Everything has a dual static and dynamic nature.<hr>
It seems that you are saying that "static" (or "dynamic") is not a property of a thing, but rather a property of how you look at it (perspective). In other words, nothing is inherently static (or dynamic).
Mathematically, what you are saying about sets, is actually a basic property of functions. A given function can be treated strictly on its mathematical properties. If it is a curve, it does not matter if it is the arc described by a thrown baseball or the arc of a river. The math is the same. This is a basic insight that allows for differential calculus.
Generally, mathematically, there is no reason to treat time differently than any other dimension. The rate of change of one variable is described in terms of another variable, whether that variable is spatial, temporal, or whatever.
The whole discussion about the number of dimensions in the universe may be an unnecessary digression from your main point, which is (simply put) that change is relative.
It seems that you are saying that "static" (or "dynamic") is not a property of a thing, but rather a property of how you look at it (perspective). In other words, nothing is inherently static (or dynamic).
Mathematically, what you are saying about sets, is actually a basic property of functions. A given function can be treated strictly on its mathematical properties. If it is a curve, it does not matter if it is the arc described by a thrown baseball or the arc of a river. The math is the same. This is a basic insight that allows for differential calculus.
Generally, mathematically, there is no reason to treat time differently than any other dimension. The rate of change of one variable is described in terms of another variable, whether that variable is spatial, temporal, or whatever.
The whole discussion about the number of dimensions in the universe may be an unnecessary digression from your main point, which is (simply put) that change is relative.
Re: Reality
Thanks for the feedback.
I see now that the number of dimensions is not necessary to speak of as long as I can basically say that there is a set whose points, or elements, are the universe at a given time. I did want to allow for the possibility that time is multidimensional. And then the whole set represents the universe in a static sense as essentially sets don't change.
Supposing all perceptions of a thing show it to be static (or dynamic) how could we know that the thing is actually dynamic (or static)? By "actually," I mean "inherently." (sp?)
Logic? Deduction? Inference?
I would venture to say that if all possible perceptions of a thing reveal it to be static (or dynamic), then it is inherently static (or dynamic). Two trains running parallel to each other, both having left the same place simultaneously, will appear static to observers on either train. And what's dynamic is the context, the rest of the universe. So by my definition of inherently static (or dynamic), which essentially states that when all possible perceptions reveal a thing to be static (or dynamic), then that thing is inherently static (or dynamic), there are two consequences. One is that from train A, train B is static (and vice versa) and two is that being static is relative to the observer.
As for time, some say that time could be defined by "moving forwards" or "progressing" as entropy increases. And entropy can be described as rate of information increase. Therefore, time could be defined as going along with the change in total ignorance in the universe; time progresses (or regresses in nonlinear framework) as ignorance regresses (or progresses in a nonlinear framework).
Time seems to be intimately connection with the concept of change and dynamism. If the universe has a dual static and dynamic nature, then time both does not exist and exists. This is not unlike, on a conceptual level, a wavicle which has a dual nature as well.
Assuming that we have free will, then the future is a matrix of potential universes. In one potential universe I will type the letter A and in another potential universe I will type the letter Z: A. Now we are living in potential universe A which has become realized universe A. This matrix viewed as a set is static. As an analogy, consider the set {A,Z}. This set is in 1-1 correspondance with a subset of that matrix where A corresponds to universe A and Z corresponds to universe Z. The matrix is, then, the set of labels of all potential universes.
{A,Z} is not at all an exhaustive list of all possible potential universes but you get the idea that this matrix can be encapsulated by a (large) set. For now, let's look at {A,Z}. This set is static. It can be rewritten as {Z,A} or {A,A,A,Z,Z,Z,Z,Z,Z} but it does not matter; it does not change.
Therefore, this matrix is static. While the future remains to be revealed, the totality of all possible outcomes in the future is fixed.
Let's enlarge the matrix example to this set:
{A,1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,0,Z}.
Remember that this set represents the potential universe that, when realized, will be a universe (I use universe to mean multiverse) in which I will type that character at the bottom of this reply.
How could the matrix be visualized?
Try the 7th and on pictures, so called bifurcation diagrams, located here:
<a href="http://hypertextbook.com/chaos/12.shtml ... 2.shtml</a>
You can see that the past (the tail) is fixed and then the matrix is a cloud of possible choices. The set {A,1,...,Z} would be vertical on the y-axis, each point on the y-axis represents a choice.
6
I see now that the number of dimensions is not necessary to speak of as long as I can basically say that there is a set whose points, or elements, are the universe at a given time. I did want to allow for the possibility that time is multidimensional. And then the whole set represents the universe in a static sense as essentially sets don't change.
Supposing all perceptions of a thing show it to be static (or dynamic) how could we know that the thing is actually dynamic (or static)? By "actually," I mean "inherently." (sp?)
Logic? Deduction? Inference?
I would venture to say that if all possible perceptions of a thing reveal it to be static (or dynamic), then it is inherently static (or dynamic). Two trains running parallel to each other, both having left the same place simultaneously, will appear static to observers on either train. And what's dynamic is the context, the rest of the universe. So by my definition of inherently static (or dynamic), which essentially states that when all possible perceptions reveal a thing to be static (or dynamic), then that thing is inherently static (or dynamic), there are two consequences. One is that from train A, train B is static (and vice versa) and two is that being static is relative to the observer.
As for time, some say that time could be defined by "moving forwards" or "progressing" as entropy increases. And entropy can be described as rate of information increase. Therefore, time could be defined as going along with the change in total ignorance in the universe; time progresses (or regresses in nonlinear framework) as ignorance regresses (or progresses in a nonlinear framework).
Time seems to be intimately connection with the concept of change and dynamism. If the universe has a dual static and dynamic nature, then time both does not exist and exists. This is not unlike, on a conceptual level, a wavicle which has a dual nature as well.
Assuming that we have free will, then the future is a matrix of potential universes. In one potential universe I will type the letter A and in another potential universe I will type the letter Z: A. Now we are living in potential universe A which has become realized universe A. This matrix viewed as a set is static. As an analogy, consider the set {A,Z}. This set is in 1-1 correspondance with a subset of that matrix where A corresponds to universe A and Z corresponds to universe Z. The matrix is, then, the set of labels of all potential universes.
{A,Z} is not at all an exhaustive list of all possible potential universes but you get the idea that this matrix can be encapsulated by a (large) set. For now, let's look at {A,Z}. This set is static. It can be rewritten as {Z,A} or {A,A,A,Z,Z,Z,Z,Z,Z} but it does not matter; it does not change.
Therefore, this matrix is static. While the future remains to be revealed, the totality of all possible outcomes in the future is fixed.
Let's enlarge the matrix example to this set:
{A,1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,0,Z}.
Remember that this set represents the potential universe that, when realized, will be a universe (I use universe to mean multiverse) in which I will type that character at the bottom of this reply.
How could the matrix be visualized?
Try the 7th and on pictures, so called bifurcation diagrams, located here:
<a href="http://hypertextbook.com/chaos/12.shtml ... 2.shtml</a>
You can see that the past (the tail) is fixed and then the matrix is a cloud of possible choices. The set {A,1,...,Z} would be vertical on the y-axis, each point on the y-axis represents a choice.
6
Re: Reality
The philosopher Immanuel Kant posited that Reality has a dual identity, which is the "nouminal and phenomenal".
The nouminal is taken to be the complete, external Reality, of which, we can perceive only a small subset of. That which is perceived is the "phenomenal", the internal world of each individual's conscious experience, being a mental reconstruction and replication of the external. Consequently, on all levels, Reality is a self-referential and "self-similar" replication, via supra-physical and spatio-temporal holographic representation. Mind and Reality share the same quintessential basis and in that respect, they are isomorphic.
Mystical experience is not beyond the grasp of logic, as many have argued in the past. Paradoxicality, using the vehicle of complementary logic, can be reduced to true, false, or "true contradiction", thus sparing ourselves from further torment and lost hair, via pulling.
The spiritual becomes the mystical, where the ontological status of Reality conditionally requires itself to have self binding constraints built into its own intrinsic structure via the initial implementation of simple rules, which evolve contingently. Reality must bind itself as it learns, through its own epiphenominal - distinctive separation, and, just as equally, it must maintain an all encompassing non-epiphenomial symmetry and reciprocity. Alas, this appears to be a contradiction of epic proportions, until the complementary logic realization, of our inadequate predication.
According to mathematics and logic, opposites are mutually exclusive, and even more generally, anything that is different is also separate.
According to a 2-valued logic system, X cannot co-exist simultaneously with its own negation, not-X. Consequently, as we follow the law of excluded middle, a thing must be one of the two mutually exclusive choices (X or not-X).
By definition, there can be no uncertainty, no ambiguity, no contradiction, and no emergence of one process from another. An assertion is proven true: X, or not-true: not-X. This creates problems of course, when considering universals.
Opposition fails at becoming universal, when every property coexists with its opposite. E.g. harmony and conflict, asymmetry and symmetry, unity and separation, positive and negative, X and not-X . Then again, it must be argued that the concept of opposition[and ultimately materialism] is not really universal, in that there are forms that have no opposite. For example, many manmade[intelligently designed] things are static and artificial objects, not really properties, and their form is adapted to some other congruent, or complementary form, like the human body. Thus, a more general logic is a complementary logic, which becomes a unity of duality.
We must ask ourselves: "what constitutes the comprehensive and completed reality as the finished whole unity that it MUST invariably and inevitably be?"
Say for example, one has a cetain three dimensional mindset, carelessly using the word "infinity", juxtaposing it with the word "finiteness" in an attempt to create some sort of uncomplimentary separation within the transcendental self evident truth of existence itself. Finite and infinite will and MUST form a complementary duality, and this prerequisite symmetry precludes the separation ideation altogether.
For some strange reason, science assumes separation, not unity.
The question: "why existence?" has been elaborated upon by many religions and spiritual disciplines throughout history. It boils down to an extremely succinct logical argument. The argument is rejected because the statement "X is X" is rejected for empirical reasoning purposes. But the statement "X is X" is also required to be true by perception. The X in this case is Reality itself! That which is real ...IS real, with no bones to be picked about it.
Can "new information" be gleaned from these apparently useless tautologies? Perhaps yes, because the many facets of existence, abstract and otherwise, lead us to a virtually unbounded variety of perspectives, as Goedel's incompleteness theorem demands.
Somehow the statistical multitude of conscious perceptions coheres into a unified consistency OF perception, with the probability distribution decohereing into a determinate state, whereby we appear[within reason] to all share the same Reality. Why does this unity exist in defiance of economy, where the most economical state would be to collapse back into the maelstrom of undifferentiated potential from which it came? How did the chicken soup[ maelstrom] organize itself into a complete chicken[unified perceptual Reality]?
The only answer is that Reality is self creating.
The nouminal is taken to be the complete, external Reality, of which, we can perceive only a small subset of. That which is perceived is the "phenomenal", the internal world of each individual's conscious experience, being a mental reconstruction and replication of the external. Consequently, on all levels, Reality is a self-referential and "self-similar" replication, via supra-physical and spatio-temporal holographic representation. Mind and Reality share the same quintessential basis and in that respect, they are isomorphic.
Mystical experience is not beyond the grasp of logic, as many have argued in the past. Paradoxicality, using the vehicle of complementary logic, can be reduced to true, false, or "true contradiction", thus sparing ourselves from further torment and lost hair, via pulling.
The spiritual becomes the mystical, where the ontological status of Reality conditionally requires itself to have self binding constraints built into its own intrinsic structure via the initial implementation of simple rules, which evolve contingently. Reality must bind itself as it learns, through its own epiphenominal - distinctive separation, and, just as equally, it must maintain an all encompassing non-epiphenomial symmetry and reciprocity. Alas, this appears to be a contradiction of epic proportions, until the complementary logic realization, of our inadequate predication.
According to mathematics and logic, opposites are mutually exclusive, and even more generally, anything that is different is also separate.
According to a 2-valued logic system, X cannot co-exist simultaneously with its own negation, not-X. Consequently, as we follow the law of excluded middle, a thing must be one of the two mutually exclusive choices (X or not-X).
By definition, there can be no uncertainty, no ambiguity, no contradiction, and no emergence of one process from another. An assertion is proven true: X, or not-true: not-X. This creates problems of course, when considering universals.
Opposition fails at becoming universal, when every property coexists with its opposite. E.g. harmony and conflict, asymmetry and symmetry, unity and separation, positive and negative, X and not-X . Then again, it must be argued that the concept of opposition[and ultimately materialism] is not really universal, in that there are forms that have no opposite. For example, many manmade[intelligently designed] things are static and artificial objects, not really properties, and their form is adapted to some other congruent, or complementary form, like the human body. Thus, a more general logic is a complementary logic, which becomes a unity of duality.
We must ask ourselves: "what constitutes the comprehensive and completed reality as the finished whole unity that it MUST invariably and inevitably be?"
Say for example, one has a cetain three dimensional mindset, carelessly using the word "infinity", juxtaposing it with the word "finiteness" in an attempt to create some sort of uncomplimentary separation within the transcendental self evident truth of existence itself. Finite and infinite will and MUST form a complementary duality, and this prerequisite symmetry precludes the separation ideation altogether.
For some strange reason, science assumes separation, not unity.
The question: "why existence?" has been elaborated upon by many religions and spiritual disciplines throughout history. It boils down to an extremely succinct logical argument. The argument is rejected because the statement "X is X" is rejected for empirical reasoning purposes. But the statement "X is X" is also required to be true by perception. The X in this case is Reality itself! That which is real ...IS real, with no bones to be picked about it.
Can "new information" be gleaned from these apparently useless tautologies? Perhaps yes, because the many facets of existence, abstract and otherwise, lead us to a virtually unbounded variety of perspectives, as Goedel's incompleteness theorem demands.
Somehow the statistical multitude of conscious perceptions coheres into a unified consistency OF perception, with the probability distribution decohereing into a determinate state, whereby we appear[within reason] to all share the same Reality. Why does this unity exist in defiance of economy, where the most economical state would be to collapse back into the maelstrom of undifferentiated potential from which it came? How did the chicken soup[ maelstrom] organize itself into a complete chicken[unified perceptual Reality]?
The only answer is that Reality is self creating.
Re: Reality
Language transfers information via symbolic representation, as the symbols themselves represent ideas, both abstract and concrete. The basic ideas carry with them an invariance among their respective categorical domains, which amounts to set theoretic "inclusion and exclusion" with the highest symmetry domain being the most inclusive of all. Therefore, a singular cognitive domain underlies situations and ideations across "all possible worlds", where everything within reality itself has evolved from a "common ancestor"- which itself has potentiated the unbounded complexity of information we perceive today. Systematic inclusion and exclusion is reflected by the geometric invariance of the laws of nature themselves, as events are manifested through intersection and union, whereby the complexification through continual bifurcation is instantiated via a relational substrata, actualizing reality on its own self interactive computational template.
Existential quantification also results from the informational invariance across all possible worlds, as all possible avenues are explored, generating and emancipating universal "free sentient expression" within reality itself. Even though all possible avenues are explored, if not realised, the beginning and ending states must also be the same across all possible worlds, thus maintaining an atemporal covariance, where reality is, of course, "a thing in itself".
Possibility, probability, and actuality form a unique and interactive "trinity", where the statistical "status quo" is more or less "rightly so". The unified consistency of perceptual reality, qualitatively mandates a universal consciousness coherence among all differing attributes OF perception. Consciousness is universal.
Solitons are robust nonlinear waves, that occur at the boundaries between the tendencies of high and low amplitude waves. Soliton waves are practically frictionless, due to the self cancelling tendencies of high and low amplitude wave forms. Solitons are found in many mediums. For example, when scientists balance the two properties of light - refraction and diffraction, solitons can be formed. So the hypothesis is this: "All possible worlds" is a probability function, where probability waves of high and low amplitude interfere with each other, along with all other possible amplitudes. The resultant "soliton wave" becomes perceptual reality! Reality rides the tsunami of creation, as an interactive self simulation. Edited by: analog57 at: 6/19/05 18:19
Existential quantification also results from the informational invariance across all possible worlds, as all possible avenues are explored, generating and emancipating universal "free sentient expression" within reality itself. Even though all possible avenues are explored, if not realised, the beginning and ending states must also be the same across all possible worlds, thus maintaining an atemporal covariance, where reality is, of course, "a thing in itself".
Possibility, probability, and actuality form a unique and interactive "trinity", where the statistical "status quo" is more or less "rightly so". The unified consistency of perceptual reality, qualitatively mandates a universal consciousness coherence among all differing attributes OF perception. Consciousness is universal.
Solitons are robust nonlinear waves, that occur at the boundaries between the tendencies of high and low amplitude waves. Soliton waves are practically frictionless, due to the self cancelling tendencies of high and low amplitude wave forms. Solitons are found in many mediums. For example, when scientists balance the two properties of light - refraction and diffraction, solitons can be formed. So the hypothesis is this: "All possible worlds" is a probability function, where probability waves of high and low amplitude interfere with each other, along with all other possible amplitudes. The resultant "soliton wave" becomes perceptual reality! Reality rides the tsunami of creation, as an interactive self simulation. Edited by: analog57 at: 6/19/05 18:19
Re: Reality
David,
This is word play on your part. Acceptance of casuality is necessary if you wish to live or to die. Unless you are suicidal, you do NOT ignore it.
So, here is the challenge, David. You either accept that evolution is a cruel task master and adapt to it, or you DIE.
Let me see if you are either man or coward and wish to try to side step it.
Quantum physics on a micro scale will talk about multiple probabilities of existance. Macro evolution either dictates you adhere to a survival ethos or croak.
I am waiting to see how long it takes for you to be man enough to face the truth. And not b.s. your way out of it.
This is word play on your part. Acceptance of casuality is necessary if you wish to live or to die. Unless you are suicidal, you do NOT ignore it.
So, here is the challenge, David. You either accept that evolution is a cruel task master and adapt to it, or you DIE.
Let me see if you are either man or coward and wish to try to side step it.
Quantum physics on a micro scale will talk about multiple probabilities of existance. Macro evolution either dictates you adhere to a survival ethos or croak.
I am waiting to see how long it takes for you to be man enough to face the truth. And not b.s. your way out of it.
Re: Reality
Russell,
Its me, Andy. David in one sense is right. You ARE making it too complicated. The fact is that he does not have enough neurons in that cranium to follow anything above what HE thinks is important.
So, relax, and do not over do it. Stick to the basics and see if he is honest.
Andy
Its me, Andy. David in one sense is right. You ARE making it too complicated. The fact is that he does not have enough neurons in that cranium to follow anything above what HE thinks is important.
So, relax, and do not over do it. Stick to the basics and see if he is honest.
Andy
Re: Reality
'Any fool can make things more complicated. It takes a lot of courage to move in the opposite direction.' - Albert Einstein. While the ideas that you're connecting seem plausible and highly interesting, your syntax is far too complicated. On a forum, save overly scientific jargon for brains that enjoy dictionaries. Let your imagination bleed into your writing.
Re: Reality
Quote:Quote:<hr>The philosopher Immanuel Kant posited that Reality has a dual identity, which is the "nouminal and phenomenal".<hr>
Yeah, he did say that, didn't he?
The noumenal - the thing-in-itself - is an idea that just leads in the wrong direction. It reifies the thing as having independant existence.
But nothing exists independantly. Everything exists in relation to everything else. That is the nature of existence.
Yeah, he did say that, didn't he?
The noumenal - the thing-in-itself - is an idea that just leads in the wrong direction. It reifies the thing as having independant existence.
But nothing exists independantly. Everything exists in relation to everything else. That is the nature of existence.
Re: Reality
Quote:Quote:<hr>
Andy wrote:
Russell,
Its me, Andy. David in one sense is right. You ARE making it too complicated. The fact is that he does not have enough neurons in that cranium to follow anything above what HE thinks is important.
So, relax, and do not over do it. Stick to the basics and see if he is honest.
Andy<hr>
Thank you for the very helpful advice Dr. Beckwith :D
The multiplicity of neural connections becomes more hardwired with advancing age. So in a sense it becomes difficult for "old dogs to learn new tricks". David may in fact have an abundance of neurons but if those neural connections are too set in their ways then alas, it could be too late.
Of course, there is ample evidence that new neural connections ARE still forged even into the golden years of life. There is still hope.
As you have so rightly pointed out Dr. Beckwith, a causal connection MUST be established before the hypothesis becomes scientifically interesting. Therefore, at this time I post to the various discussion boards, hoping for a few meagre jewels of information, as I try to discover the many subtle nuances of a "theory of everything". Consequently the language is complex. It will eventually be simplified into a coherent mathematical formalism.
Quote:Quote:<hr>
sevens wrote:
(And if you should feel the need to condescend, know that I'm also familiar with what you've posted at Cerebrals)
<hr>
Nothingness itself must be a state of complete indistinguishability[where symmetry is taken to be a measure of indistinguishability].
Here is an interesting idea that gets to the gist of what I am trying to say:
<a href="http://www.everythingforever.com/ywexis ... ist.htm</a>
Quote:Quote:<hr>
The absence of thingness is just no things. But no things is still a thing. Just like the overcooked stew. The mush stew is a combination of all that was in the refrigerator, yet cooked together it becomes a single thing. If we consider that thing alone, enter its world and make no reference to it relative to other things, then that one thing looks like nothing to us. And notice the mush stew is not so different than the seeming absence, the void of empty space, left over after taking everything out of the refrigerator. Both form a oneness, a oneness that seems like a nothing when solely focused upon, i.e., space.
With carrots and potatoes and onions and celery, you have asymmetry, the asymmetry necessary of things. Cooked all together into a oneness you loose your asymmetry, and you end up with uniformity and balance. You end up with perfect symmetry. And that we call nothing? Yes we do, even science does, and that is okay, because this seeming lack of form is the only correct and meaningful use of the word nothing.
<hr>
Andy wrote:
Russell,
Its me, Andy. David in one sense is right. You ARE making it too complicated. The fact is that he does not have enough neurons in that cranium to follow anything above what HE thinks is important.
So, relax, and do not over do it. Stick to the basics and see if he is honest.
Andy<hr>
Thank you for the very helpful advice Dr. Beckwith :D
The multiplicity of neural connections becomes more hardwired with advancing age. So in a sense it becomes difficult for "old dogs to learn new tricks". David may in fact have an abundance of neurons but if those neural connections are too set in their ways then alas, it could be too late.
Of course, there is ample evidence that new neural connections ARE still forged even into the golden years of life. There is still hope.
As you have so rightly pointed out Dr. Beckwith, a causal connection MUST be established before the hypothesis becomes scientifically interesting. Therefore, at this time I post to the various discussion boards, hoping for a few meagre jewels of information, as I try to discover the many subtle nuances of a "theory of everything". Consequently the language is complex. It will eventually be simplified into a coherent mathematical formalism.
Quote:Quote:<hr>
sevens wrote:
(And if you should feel the need to condescend, know that I'm also familiar with what you've posted at Cerebrals)
<hr>
Nothingness itself must be a state of complete indistinguishability[where symmetry is taken to be a measure of indistinguishability].
Here is an interesting idea that gets to the gist of what I am trying to say:
<a href="http://www.everythingforever.com/ywexis ... ist.htm</a>
Quote:Quote:<hr>
The absence of thingness is just no things. But no things is still a thing. Just like the overcooked stew. The mush stew is a combination of all that was in the refrigerator, yet cooked together it becomes a single thing. If we consider that thing alone, enter its world and make no reference to it relative to other things, then that one thing looks like nothing to us. And notice the mush stew is not so different than the seeming absence, the void of empty space, left over after taking everything out of the refrigerator. Both form a oneness, a oneness that seems like a nothing when solely focused upon, i.e., space.
With carrots and potatoes and onions and celery, you have asymmetry, the asymmetry necessary of things. Cooked all together into a oneness you loose your asymmetry, and you end up with uniformity and balance. You end up with perfect symmetry. And that we call nothing? Yes we do, even science does, and that is okay, because this seeming lack of form is the only correct and meaningful use of the word nothing.
<hr>
Re: Reality
Quote:Quote:<hr>But nothing exists independantly. Everything exists in relation to everything else. That is the nature of existence.<hr>
That is exactly why the philosophy of absolutism is inherently flawed.
That is exactly why the philosophy of absolutism is inherently flawed.
-
Dan Rowden
- Posts: 5739
- Joined: Sun Sep 09, 2001 8:03 pm
- Contact:
Re: Reality
So, where's the flaw, exactly? Any given thing is either demarcated by what it is not - which is what is meant by it existing in relation to other things - or it is the Totality.
I'd love to see you offer a logically sound alternative to that.
Dan Rowden
I'd love to see you offer a logically sound alternative to that.
Dan Rowden
-
David Quinn
- Posts: 5708
- Joined: Sun Sep 09, 2001 6:56 am
- Location: Australia
- Contact:
Re: Reality
rwill wrote:
Quote:Quote:<hr>David in one sense is right. You ARE making it too complicated. The fact is that he does not have enough neurons in that cranium to follow anything above what HE thinks is important.
So, relax, and do not over do it. Stick to the basics and see if he is honest.<hr> It's not a question of having enough neurons or not. We all have enough neurons to think deeply and rationally. But not many people actually have the desire and perseverence to do this.
For example, there are many people - autistic types - who confuse the resolving of trivial academic puzzles with the pursuit of knowledge and wisdom. It's hard to think of anything more foolish and yet it is a very common trend these days. I wrote an essay on this issue not too long ago ( <a href="http://home.primus.com.au/davidquinn/wo ... 00npu.html" target="top">The Limitations of Academic Intelligence</a>) after spending some time on a forum filled with this kind of idiocy. You should read it. You might find it of value.
Quote:Quote:<hr> Acceptance of casuality is necessary if you wish to live or to die. Unless you are suicidal, you do NOT ignore it. <hr> Funnily enough, causality underpins my entire thinking about reality. There is no question in my mind that everything is caused.
Quote:Quote:<hr> So, here is the challenge, David. You either accept that evolution is a cruel task master and adapt to it, or you DIE.
Let me see if you are either man or coward and wish to try to side step it.
Quantum physics on a micro scale will talk about multiple probabilities of existance. Macro evolution either dictates you adhere to a survival ethos or croak.
I am waiting to see how long it takes for you to be man enough to face the truth. And not b.s. your way out of it. <hr> I have no idea what you are talking about. There is nothing in evolutionary theory or quantum mechanics which contradicts my wisdom in any way.
Quote:Quote:<hr>David in one sense is right. You ARE making it too complicated. The fact is that he does not have enough neurons in that cranium to follow anything above what HE thinks is important.
So, relax, and do not over do it. Stick to the basics and see if he is honest.<hr> It's not a question of having enough neurons or not. We all have enough neurons to think deeply and rationally. But not many people actually have the desire and perseverence to do this.
For example, there are many people - autistic types - who confuse the resolving of trivial academic puzzles with the pursuit of knowledge and wisdom. It's hard to think of anything more foolish and yet it is a very common trend these days. I wrote an essay on this issue not too long ago ( <a href="http://home.primus.com.au/davidquinn/wo ... 00npu.html" target="top">The Limitations of Academic Intelligence</a>) after spending some time on a forum filled with this kind of idiocy. You should read it. You might find it of value.
Quote:Quote:<hr> Acceptance of casuality is necessary if you wish to live or to die. Unless you are suicidal, you do NOT ignore it. <hr> Funnily enough, causality underpins my entire thinking about reality. There is no question in my mind that everything is caused.
Quote:Quote:<hr> So, here is the challenge, David. You either accept that evolution is a cruel task master and adapt to it, or you DIE.
Let me see if you are either man or coward and wish to try to side step it.
Quantum physics on a micro scale will talk about multiple probabilities of existance. Macro evolution either dictates you adhere to a survival ethos or croak.
I am waiting to see how long it takes for you to be man enough to face the truth. And not b.s. your way out of it. <hr> I have no idea what you are talking about. There is nothing in evolutionary theory or quantum mechanics which contradicts my wisdom in any way.
-
David Quinn
- Posts: 5708
- Joined: Sun Sep 09, 2001 6:56 am
- Location: Australia
- Contact:
Re: Reality
analog wrote:
Quote:Quote:<hr>DHodges: But nothing exists independantly. Everything exists in relation to everything else. That is the nature of existence.
analog: That is exactly why the philosophy of absolutism is inherently flawed.<hr>On the contrary, the philosophy of absolutism is confirmed by this fact. For it is absolutely true that everything exists in relation to everything else, that nothing exists independently.
Quote:Quote:<hr>DHodges: But nothing exists independantly. Everything exists in relation to everything else. That is the nature of existence.
analog: That is exactly why the philosophy of absolutism is inherently flawed.<hr>On the contrary, the philosophy of absolutism is confirmed by this fact. For it is absolutely true that everything exists in relation to everything else, that nothing exists independently.
Re: Reality
Quote:Quote:<hr>
Dan Rowden wrote:
So, where's the flaw, exactly? Any given thing is either demarcated by what it is not - which is what is meant by it existing in relation to other things - or it is the Totality.
I'd love to see you offer a logically sound alternative to that.
<hr>
An absolute is something regarded as independent of, and unrelated to anything else. On the other hand, reality must be relational, not absolute. Invariance under change is a property of symmetry, not absolutism.
Dan Rowden wrote:
So, where's the flaw, exactly? Any given thing is either demarcated by what it is not - which is what is meant by it existing in relation to other things - or it is the Totality.
I'd love to see you offer a logically sound alternative to that.
<hr>
An absolute is something regarded as independent of, and unrelated to anything else. On the other hand, reality must be relational, not absolute. Invariance under change is a property of symmetry, not absolutism.
Re: Reality
Quote:Quote:<hr>On the contrary, the philosophy of absolutism is confirmed by this fact. For it is absolutely true that everything exists in relation to everything else, that nothing exists independently.<hr>
That seems to be a paradox. To state that there are no absolutes, is itself an absolute statement, showing certain limitations of language.
Then after a moments contemplation we see that, ultimately, if everything is relational and transforms into everything else, where there are ultimately no distinctions between all aspects OF the totality, then the totality is total nothingness. Since the totality is nothingness, it cannot be an absolute, because an absolute is something, not nothing.
Therefore absolutism is logically flawed.
That seems to be a paradox. To state that there are no absolutes, is itself an absolute statement, showing certain limitations of language.
Then after a moments contemplation we see that, ultimately, if everything is relational and transforms into everything else, where there are ultimately no distinctions between all aspects OF the totality, then the totality is total nothingness. Since the totality is nothingness, it cannot be an absolute, because an absolute is something, not nothing.
Therefore absolutism is logically flawed.
-
David Quinn
- Posts: 5708
- Joined: Sun Sep 09, 2001 6:56 am
- Location: Australia
- Contact:
Re: Reality
analog wrote:
Quote:Quote:<hr> DQ: On the contrary, the philosophy of absolutism is confirmed by this fact. For it is absolutely true that everything exists in relation to everything else, that nothing exists independently.
analog: That seems to be a paradox. To state that there are no absolutes, is itself an absolute statement, showing certain limitations of language. <hr> No, you are misunderstanding it. There is no paradox. The truth that "nothing exists independently" is a fact which is both absolutely true (i.e. it cannot be falsified under any circumstances) and yet lacking in independent existence. In other words, the truth of it is absolute, even though its existence as a concept in our minds lacks absoluteness. I trust you see the difference.
This business of resolving these issues by chanting the words "paradox" and "limitations of language" is superficial and lazy. It lazily reflects the current mythologies of our age. People with high IQs should be doing better than this.
Quote:Quote:<hr>Then after a moments contemplation we see that, ultimately, if everything is relational and transforms into everything else, where there are ultimately no distinctions between all aspects OF the totality, then the totality is total nothingness. Since the totality is nothingness, it cannot be an absolute, because an absolute is something, not nothing.<hr> If this fact is true in all possible words, then it is absolutely true. You need to face up to this and accept it.
--
Edited by: DavidQuinn000 at: 6/22/05 16:52
Quote:Quote:<hr> DQ: On the contrary, the philosophy of absolutism is confirmed by this fact. For it is absolutely true that everything exists in relation to everything else, that nothing exists independently.
analog: That seems to be a paradox. To state that there are no absolutes, is itself an absolute statement, showing certain limitations of language. <hr> No, you are misunderstanding it. There is no paradox. The truth that "nothing exists independently" is a fact which is both absolutely true (i.e. it cannot be falsified under any circumstances) and yet lacking in independent existence. In other words, the truth of it is absolute, even though its existence as a concept in our minds lacks absoluteness. I trust you see the difference.
This business of resolving these issues by chanting the words "paradox" and "limitations of language" is superficial and lazy. It lazily reflects the current mythologies of our age. People with high IQs should be doing better than this.
Quote:Quote:<hr>Then after a moments contemplation we see that, ultimately, if everything is relational and transforms into everything else, where there are ultimately no distinctions between all aspects OF the totality, then the totality is total nothingness. Since the totality is nothingness, it cannot be an absolute, because an absolute is something, not nothing.<hr> If this fact is true in all possible words, then it is absolutely true. You need to face up to this and accept it.
--
Edited by: DavidQuinn000 at: 6/22/05 16:52