[quote="hyperqube"]infinity=0
anyone care to discuss this?[/quote]
I will not discuss but help you find some interpretation that makes sense to the given equation.
infinity=0
a word vs(versus) a number.In a way this gives more freedom,the interpretation is not bound to math..
First we need the will to find an answer.if one likes to disprove or is not interrested in the thing it will stimulate him less to find the answer.
infinity matchess to ENDLESSNESS;we know it is not bound and does not limit.
0 matches to NOTHINGNESS;it is not bound(their is nothing yet) and does not limit.
What does bound and is limited?
That should be 1.
1 can not be divided since it represents only itself.
0=nothing ,theirfore it IS ALL,because it CAN BE ALL.we don't know what it may mean or what it may become.ENDLESSNESS
1=chosen,it can not be divided,singularity.GIVEN REPRESENTATION AS TO BONDAGE
0=infinity ,because 0=infinity .A GIVEN EQUATION THAT REPRESENTS THINGS UNBOUNDED AND UNLIMITED.
example:see it as with thoughts.
If you try to think of nothing you get vacuum.If you try to think of everything it becomes a chaos falls apart and vacumises.
Vacuum and chaos are free of law;unbound and unlimited.
english is not my native speech,so show some slack on that,thanks.
Zero logic
-
David Quinn
- Posts: 5708
- Joined: Sun Sep 09, 2001 6:56 am
- Location: Australia
- Contact:
Your English is fine, but you might want to format your posts a little differently, expecially with regards to quoting. Try clicking on the "post reply" button when you want to reply to a message, instead of the "quote" button. You can then cut and paste the text you want to respond to and use the "quote" button inside this section to format it.
Also, there is a "preview" option available, which can help you get it right.
-
Also, there is a "preview" option available, which can help you get it right.
-
-
Leyla Shen
- Posts: 3851
- Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2005 4:12 pm
- Location: Flippen-well AUSTRALIA
-
Diebert van Rhijn
- Posts: 6469
- Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2005 4:43 pm
Re: Zero logic
Hello Bert,
Nothingness, zero, nill, lack might be just like any 'inherent' existence an illusion. A shadow concept. Not without use in every day transactions and calculations though.
My view is that the zero could be used very well to describe 'ego' (in the sense of conceit). It doesn't really exist though it's used by most, all day long. It means nothing though people keep assigning huge importance to it for some reason.
Also I don't think 'zero' is very suited to mean 'formlessness'. The reason I have for this is described by Hakuin very well:
(translated by Norman Waddell)
It was never math to begin with. In mathematics they are certainly never equal. But for clarity we could rephrase the statement into "infinity equals zero", "infinity equals nothingness", "infinity equals emptyness" or perhaps change the word "equal" in some other relational form. This might broaden the discussion somewhat.bert wrote:infinity=0
a word vs(versus) a number.In a way this gives more freedom,the interpretation is not bound to math.
Nothingness, like some ultimate vacuum might not even exist at all in any form or beyond form. It is certainly bound because any form of lack you define is only possible in relation to some other amount in the context. Having an amount of zero on your bankaccount only has meaning on some balance sheet. If you wouldn't have the bankaccount it wouldn't make a difference. To have a limitless amount on your bankaccount is really something else, even if one couldn't count it! Who would care? But you would see it as a great loss when that account would be blocked.bert wrote:0 matches to NOTHINGNESS;it is not bound(their is nothing yet) and does not limit.
Nothingness, zero, nill, lack might be just like any 'inherent' existence an illusion. A shadow concept. Not without use in every day transactions and calculations though.
My view is that the zero could be used very well to describe 'ego' (in the sense of conceit). It doesn't really exist though it's used by most, all day long. It means nothing though people keep assigning huge importance to it for some reason.
Also I don't think 'zero' is very suited to mean 'formlessness'. The reason I have for this is described by Hakuin very well:
The Zen priests of today are busily imparting a teaching to their students that sounds something like this:
"Don't misdirect your efforts. Don't chase around looking for something apart from your own selves. All you have to do is to concentrate on being thoughtless, on doing nothing whatever. No practice. No realization. Doing nothing, the state of no-mind, is the direct path of sudden realization. No practice, no realization - that is the true principle, things as they really are. The enlightened ones themselves, those who possess every attribute of Buddhahood, have called this supreme, unparalleled, right awakening."
People hear this teaching and try to follow it. Choking off their aspirations. Sweeping their minds clean of delusive thoughts. They dedicate themselves solely to doing nothing and to making their minds complete blanks, blissfully unaware that they are doing and thinking a great deal.
(translated by Norman Waddell)
Last edited by Diebert van Rhijn on Sun Aug 21, 2005 5:55 am, edited 1 time in total.
hallo Diebert,
"It was never math to begin with."
Indeed,I actually meant likewise ...Didn't I?Oh well...
"Nothingness, like some ultimate vacuum might not even exist at all in any form or beyond form. It is certainly bound because any form of lack you define is only possible in relation to some other amount in the context. Having an amount of zero on your bankaccount only has meaning on some balance sheet. If you wouldn't have the bankaccount it wouldn't make a difference."
I follow you,and I see your point,but our approach towards the REPRESENTATION of nothingness is different.
The concept of nothingness is meant (if we want to find a suitable interpretation) as indifference,it cannot be balanced because it does not balance.And thus it is useless to put a value on the concept like with your nice example of the bankaccount.
The thing you want to balance your value against is also moving.It is like unfixedness vs unfixedness.
As long as you see the '0' as a value that represents something that is bound it is impossible to put it against my concept of infinity.It is your very thought that makes boundaries.So we have to put on that other suit to become friends with mister 0.
mmm...for instance,your bankaccount is 0.so you have no money.but what is money worth?Money is but an exchange,you can buy things with money.The pieces of the money are quite worthless if you can't buy stuff.While you are broke when you still can get things from others is another approach towards getting the thing that has value for you.
This balancing of things towards other sides,relating it different,taking more interrest the one time in that and then flops again and an other again you like suddenly better;that is more or less the concept of indifference in real life.
And is very alive in people their attitudes,indifference.
So I show the abstract of indifference ,in the real life indifference.Though the word 'indifference' in the abstract means something else than in the attitude of people.
Don't mess this up.Cause you again will walk against the 0 bankaccount in your example.
another thing:
When you act indifferent (attitude),you don't act out of virtue.virtue presents the 1 (in the equation).It is the need toward unity.
unity is the rival of nothingness.
this is getting out of the painting a bit.
the abstract representation of nothingness or 0 = the abstract representation of endlessness or infinity - both unbound and unlimited.
What do you think?
The vacuum thing,you also can't mess up with the abstracts.That's another map.
I agree,that all these maps who lead us to understanding are a big mess up,yet we must accept them if we want to get that bit further towards the working of our reality.
Your last quote isn't mine.
"It was never math to begin with."
Indeed,I actually meant likewise ...Didn't I?Oh well...
"Nothingness, like some ultimate vacuum might not even exist at all in any form or beyond form. It is certainly bound because any form of lack you define is only possible in relation to some other amount in the context. Having an amount of zero on your bankaccount only has meaning on some balance sheet. If you wouldn't have the bankaccount it wouldn't make a difference."
I follow you,and I see your point,but our approach towards the REPRESENTATION of nothingness is different.
The concept of nothingness is meant (if we want to find a suitable interpretation) as indifference,it cannot be balanced because it does not balance.And thus it is useless to put a value on the concept like with your nice example of the bankaccount.
The thing you want to balance your value against is also moving.It is like unfixedness vs unfixedness.
As long as you see the '0' as a value that represents something that is bound it is impossible to put it against my concept of infinity.It is your very thought that makes boundaries.So we have to put on that other suit to become friends with mister 0.
mmm...for instance,your bankaccount is 0.so you have no money.but what is money worth?Money is but an exchange,you can buy things with money.The pieces of the money are quite worthless if you can't buy stuff.While you are broke when you still can get things from others is another approach towards getting the thing that has value for you.
This balancing of things towards other sides,relating it different,taking more interrest the one time in that and then flops again and an other again you like suddenly better;that is more or less the concept of indifference in real life.
And is very alive in people their attitudes,indifference.
So I show the abstract of indifference ,in the real life indifference.Though the word 'indifference' in the abstract means something else than in the attitude of people.
Don't mess this up.Cause you again will walk against the 0 bankaccount in your example.
another thing:
When you act indifferent (attitude),you don't act out of virtue.virtue presents the 1 (in the equation).It is the need toward unity.
unity is the rival of nothingness.
this is getting out of the painting a bit.
the abstract representation of nothingness or 0 = the abstract representation of endlessness or infinity - both unbound and unlimited.
What do you think?
The vacuum thing,you also can't mess up with the abstracts.That's another map.
I agree,that all these maps who lead us to understanding are a big mess up,yet we must accept them if we want to get that bit further towards the working of our reality.
Your last quote isn't mine.
-
Diebert van Rhijn
- Posts: 6469
- Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2005 4:43 pm
Dag Bert,
Or, by stripping '0' of bounds you force it into an infinite jacket. There are good reasons in my opinion to see '0' as essentialy bounded. A lack is always a lack of something. A concept of 'lackness' has no meaning here. Infinity does not have these boundaries since you can have infinity without a something.bert wrote:As long as you see the '0' as a value that represents something that is bound it is impossible to put it against my concept of infinity.It is your very thought that makes boundaries.
This is not relevant here. My comparision was only working because there was a huge difference between a balance of '0' or an infinite amount of money on the account. When you start talking about what to buy with that money, it's getting needlessy complex.mmm...for instance,your bankaccount is 0.so you have no money.but what is money worth?
Unity is the infinite and has no rivals. Only duality knows beginnings and endings.unity is the rival of nothingness.
Only when we let numbers represent forms where zero is formlessness. But '0' is still just one of the numbers by all means. Better to have some other representation.the abstract representation of nothingness or 0 = the abstract representation of endlessness or infinity - both unbound and unlimited.
What do you think?
Every moment we have to make our minds up which maps can do the job in a given time. This all is my opinion on what I find good or bad maps (fingers pointing to the moon or to a star).I agree,that all these maps who lead us to understanding are a big mess up,yet we must accept them if we want to get that bit further towards the working of our reality.
It's corrected now. What did you think of it? It describes my distrust of 'nothingness' and 'zeroes' in the philosophical sense very well.Your last quote isn't mine.
hallo Diebert,
"Or, by stripping '0' of bounds you force it into an infinite jacket. There are good reasons in my opinion to see '0' as essentialy bounded. A lack is always a lack of something. A concept of 'lackness' has no meaning here. Infinity does not have these boundaries since you can have infinity without a something"
I completely agree in the way you tell it,and are convinced of it.
But it doesn't help me.
"This is not relevant here. My comparision was only working because there was a huge difference between a balance of '0' or an infinite amount of money on the account. When you start talking about what to buy with that money, it's getting needlessy complex."
My example has nothing to do with yours.It was to let you see how things get very complex when you use the same words for other meanings,yet explaining where my thoughts were build of to make the equation work;it's about 'coding' your thoughts.And the result shows...
"Unity is the infinite and has no rivals. Only duality knows beginnings and endings."
again your unity has another meaning as mine.
Ever heard of communicationnoise?That's what's happening.
All this mindstuff ,this brain software,programs your world.
My unity is a result from fruits of actions.It means something like 'an expectation fulfilled'.While nothingness is of that other real worldly experience,the intense experience.
they are the results of the 2 main 'degrees of desire'.
Heaven and hell.
So as to see,my unity is of one of the degrees of duality which is accepted by (misunderstood)religion as the virtue in life.
"Every moment we have to make our minds up which maps can do the job in a given time. This all is my opinion on what I find good or bad maps (fingers pointing to the moon or to a star). "
Yes,I agree on that.Then it means that you cannot comprehend my meanings explained,because symbols are not real life things,they are mindstuff,representations.You can never compare these to real life things,that is where a lot of people go out of the turn and get lost in the bushes.
See christians and moslims completely interpreting the book wrong,because they don't have a clue that these expressings are codes,they think it is meant as something in real life.
bert:"Your last quote isn't mine."
diebert:"It's corrected now. What did you think of it? It describes my distrust of 'nothingness' and 'zeroes' in the philosophical sense very well."
yes it may look like it describe your distrust of 'nothingness' and 'zeroes' in the philosophical sense very well.
I can give you quotes to ,you know...though it being unnecessary.Sometimes people use these quotes to convince others to their thoughts.
"Nothing is anything unless fixed in the substantial;thus dreams and abstracts are as concrete as anything else."
"Or, by stripping '0' of bounds you force it into an infinite jacket. There are good reasons in my opinion to see '0' as essentialy bounded. A lack is always a lack of something. A concept of 'lackness' has no meaning here. Infinity does not have these boundaries since you can have infinity without a something"
I completely agree in the way you tell it,and are convinced of it.
But it doesn't help me.
"This is not relevant here. My comparision was only working because there was a huge difference between a balance of '0' or an infinite amount of money on the account. When you start talking about what to buy with that money, it's getting needlessy complex."
My example has nothing to do with yours.It was to let you see how things get very complex when you use the same words for other meanings,yet explaining where my thoughts were build of to make the equation work;it's about 'coding' your thoughts.And the result shows...
"Unity is the infinite and has no rivals. Only duality knows beginnings and endings."
again your unity has another meaning as mine.
Ever heard of communicationnoise?That's what's happening.
All this mindstuff ,this brain software,programs your world.
My unity is a result from fruits of actions.It means something like 'an expectation fulfilled'.While nothingness is of that other real worldly experience,the intense experience.
they are the results of the 2 main 'degrees of desire'.
Heaven and hell.
So as to see,my unity is of one of the degrees of duality which is accepted by (misunderstood)religion as the virtue in life.
"Every moment we have to make our minds up which maps can do the job in a given time. This all is my opinion on what I find good or bad maps (fingers pointing to the moon or to a star). "
Yes,I agree on that.Then it means that you cannot comprehend my meanings explained,because symbols are not real life things,they are mindstuff,representations.You can never compare these to real life things,that is where a lot of people go out of the turn and get lost in the bushes.
See christians and moslims completely interpreting the book wrong,because they don't have a clue that these expressings are codes,they think it is meant as something in real life.
bert:"Your last quote isn't mine."
diebert:"It's corrected now. What did you think of it? It describes my distrust of 'nothingness' and 'zeroes' in the philosophical sense very well."
yes it may look like it describe your distrust of 'nothingness' and 'zeroes' in the philosophical sense very well.
I can give you quotes to ,you know...though it being unnecessary.Sometimes people use these quotes to convince others to their thoughts.
"Nothing is anything unless fixed in the substantial;thus dreams and abstracts are as concrete as anything else."
-
Diebert van Rhijn
- Posts: 6469
- Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2005 4:43 pm
Bert,
Were you in need of help then? :)bert wrote:I completely agree in the way you tell it,and are convinced of it.
But it doesn't help me.
Indeed it doesn't and they do. We seem to be in agreement here!My example has nothing to do with yours.It was to let you see how things get very complex when you use the same words for other meanings.
Language and thought are symbolic too. If you don't want to engage in them seriously then why are you here? And actually every process of observing or perceiving has 'meaning' attached to it on some level to be processed according to it. Being unware of how "real life things" come to us via our mind-body complex, representing, explaining or merely confusing - shouldn't make them more real.bert wrote:Then it means that you cannot comprehend my meanings explained,because symbols are not real life things,they are mindstuff,representations.
What are these 'real life things'? The wind tickling your skin? Appetite for your next meal? The rush of some hormone? They are part of the same existence as that thought you're having now. Even if it doesn't excite you in the same manner perhaps.You can never compare these to real life things
Well, before it formed into the known books, it was originaly meant to describe, represent the only 'real life' that actually exists. But every bright light casts the darkest shadows.See christians and moslims completely interpreting the book wrong,because they don't have a clue that these expressings are codes,they think it is meant as something in real life.
Diebert:"Language and thought are symbolic too. If you don't want to engage in them seriously then why are you here?"
Of course they are symbolic,you are actually helping me here!Did I say they were not?
I said:...,because symbols are not real life things,they are mindstuff,representations.
Diebert:"What are these 'real life things'?"
An interpretation is caused by man and does not exists outside of him(except that they can come to appearance to other minds to via emotional content to recognition),though it may explain things to him that appear as outside.
Thus,the interpretation behind the equation that explains a thing is not the thing itself.Only the thing itself is the thing itself - only the univers implies the univers.
Diebert:"Well, before it formed into the known books, it was originaly meant to describe, represent the only 'real life' that actually exists. But every bright light casts the darkest shadows."
Maybe I agree with you.Only if the book says that :the deepest secret is always hidden.Or something comparable.
Of course they are symbolic,you are actually helping me here!Did I say they were not?
I said:...,because symbols are not real life things,they are mindstuff,representations.
Diebert:"What are these 'real life things'?"
An interpretation is caused by man and does not exists outside of him(except that they can come to appearance to other minds to via emotional content to recognition),though it may explain things to him that appear as outside.
Thus,the interpretation behind the equation that explains a thing is not the thing itself.Only the thing itself is the thing itself - only the univers implies the univers.
Diebert:"Well, before it formed into the known books, it was originaly meant to describe, represent the only 'real life' that actually exists. But every bright light casts the darkest shadows."
Maybe I agree with you.Only if the book says that :the deepest secret is always hidden.Or something comparable.
-
Diebert van Rhijn
- Posts: 6469
- Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2005 4:43 pm
Interpretations are caused by many factors inside and outside what you perceive to be 'man'. Why this demarkation?bert wrote: An interpretation is caused by man and does not exists outside of him(except that they can come to appearance to other minds to via emotional content to recognition),though it may explain things to him that appear as outside.
Does the thing 'in itself' really exist? Are you implying a Platonic 'real thing' with our interpretations as its shadows? How would you ever know about this 'thing as itself', its properties or reality and by which means?Thus,the interpretation behind the equation that explains a thing is not the thing itself.Only the thing itself is the thing itself - only the univers implies the univers.
Hi,
Diebert:"Interpretations are caused by many factors inside and outside what you perceive to be 'man'. Why this demarkation?"
I do not agree on the way you want to interpretate my expression,so I explain it.interpretations are the software of the mind and they are caused by man.The software being oftentimes dependent on the hardware;the sensing man.The hardware,for example :eyes,detects things from the 'outside'.
my earlier explanation:
"An interpretation is caused by man and does not exists outside of him(except that they can come to appearance to other minds to via emotional content to recognition),though it may explain things to him that appear as outside."
which is bound to the same principle
Indeed,we usualy perceive us as 'man'.
Quote bert:
Thus,the interpretation behind the equation that explains a thing is not the thing itself.Only the thing itself is the thing itself - only the univers implies the univers.
Diebert:"Does the thing 'in itself' really exist?"
It exists for you,isn't that enough?
"Are you implying a Platonic 'real thing' with our interpretations as its shadows?"
I'm not familiar with the works of plato,but I heard about the cave thing.I dare not answer this question.
"How would you ever know about this 'thing as itself', its properties or reality and by which means?"
Why are you asking?
'These' are things as itself,no?
Only few plains crash...So man knows how to build and does a fare job relating the 'things as itself properties' to make things work.These things of building are mainly through intelligence,desire and reason (As I think of it know quickly).
definition of intelligence is given in that other topic.
But there are other ways of gaining in other aspects as I presume you know.
We are running on a what seems me a dead end.I will fire it up again,I got the thought in me...
Diebert:"Interpretations are caused by many factors inside and outside what you perceive to be 'man'. Why this demarkation?"
I do not agree on the way you want to interpretate my expression,so I explain it.interpretations are the software of the mind and they are caused by man.The software being oftentimes dependent on the hardware;the sensing man.The hardware,for example :eyes,detects things from the 'outside'.
my earlier explanation:
"An interpretation is caused by man and does not exists outside of him(except that they can come to appearance to other minds to via emotional content to recognition),though it may explain things to him that appear as outside."
which is bound to the same principle
Indeed,we usualy perceive us as 'man'.
Quote bert:
Thus,the interpretation behind the equation that explains a thing is not the thing itself.Only the thing itself is the thing itself - only the univers implies the univers.
Diebert:"Does the thing 'in itself' really exist?"
It exists for you,isn't that enough?
"Are you implying a Platonic 'real thing' with our interpretations as its shadows?"
I'm not familiar with the works of plato,but I heard about the cave thing.I dare not answer this question.
"How would you ever know about this 'thing as itself', its properties or reality and by which means?"
Why are you asking?
'These' are things as itself,no?
Only few plains crash...So man knows how to build and does a fare job relating the 'things as itself properties' to make things work.These things of building are mainly through intelligence,desire and reason (As I think of it know quickly).
definition of intelligence is given in that other topic.
But there are other ways of gaining in other aspects as I presume you know.
We are running on a what seems me a dead end.I will fire it up again,I got the thought in me...
-
Diebert van Rhijn
- Posts: 6469
- Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2005 4:43 pm
Hi Bert,
Now lets talk again about 'real things' and 'real life'.
Just for clarity, I'm still commenting on
But what is 'man' for you then? Software plus hardware? What caused all those wares, what caused them to be programmed for some behavioral pattern? Surely you'd agree there are a lot of factors here involved causing us to see things in a certain way like education, upbringing, cultural setting, group mind, physical wellbeing, psychological quirks caused by external and genetic factors und so weiter.bert wrote:interpretations are the software of the mind and they are caused by man.The software being oftentimes dependent on the hardware;the sensing man.The hardware,for example :eyes,detects things from the 'outside'.Diebert van rhijn wrote:Interpretations are caused by many factors inside and outside what you perceive to be 'man'. Why this demarkation?
Now lets talk again about 'real things' and 'real life'.
I was asking what really exists for you and where you base that idea on.bert wrote: Thus,the interpretation behind the equation that explains a thing is not the thing itself.Only the thing itself is the thing itself - only the univers implies the univers.
It exists for you,isn't that enough?diebert van rhijn wrote:"Does the thing 'in itself' really exist?"
So you're saying that perceived 'utility' is evidence for inherent existence of an object? Then thoughts and ideas are very real objects since they made the aerospace industry possible, not the nuts and bolts.Why are you asking?diebert van rhijn wrote:How would you ever know about this 'thing as itself', its properties or reality and by which means?
'These' are things as itself,no?
Only few plains crash...So man knows how to build and does a fare job relating the 'things as itself properties' to make things work.
Just for clarity, I'm still commenting on
Maybe the field of semiotics is an interesting angle on this that could help gaining more perspective by fleshing out the idea that what you call "real life things" is a system of signs basicly.bert wrote:symbols are not real life things,they are mindstuff,representations.You can never compare these to real life things,that is where a lot of people go out of the turn and get lost in the bushes.
How are you Diebert?
"I was asking what really exists for you and where you base that idea on."
I am what I believe and what it implies by a proces of time in the conception.
that's it.
but you probably wan't to know about the absolute("what really exists")?Not what exists for me in my life?
Then I can't help you.It's illusions all the way and the deepest secret is always hidden.
"So you're saying that perceived 'utility' is evidence for inherent existence of an object? Then thoughts and ideas are very real objects since they made the aerospace industry possible, not the nuts and bolts."
Yes,I call these things the 'as if' , results of our conceptmaking.the concepts - thoughts and ideas - can only be perceived as real in that they make our realities,but are not real life things.
We make real life things work through our 'as ifs'.That's the gift from the mind(conceptbuilder) .
(Though 'as ifs' through imaginary can make ,with ability,real life things.But this a hole other thing)
Do you know the fragment in the first matrix movie where the kid says "there is no spoon"?
That's what I'm talking about.
This hole concept is what another guy on this forum(don't know his name) calls 'the fabric of reality'.
In fact that's what (especially the first) matrix movie is about.It teaches you how to grow out of your ignorance and come to realise that you are the centre of the universe.
"Maybe the field of semiotics is an interesting angle on this that could help gaining more perspective by fleshing out the idea that what you call "real life things" is a system of signs basicly."
no,real life things are:things that are only itself (only the universe implies the universe) - exists as outside (in contact with the hardware;the sensing, sensationaling,emotionaling man)- and one is really subject to with the hole of his body and identity in existence.
Do you understand?
The site you gave looks interresting,though I don't find time to explore it.
Do you see how difficult it is to explain reality with my only weapon here,words.The words are not the reality itself,it EXPLAINS reality.words are not real life things,they are 'arrows' that points to real life things.Like you said :"finger pointing to the moon"
finger=arrow=thought
moon=reallifething
There are still things to say about it anyway.
I want to go back to the topic now.
I vividly remember being 13 and asking my math teacher what the purpose was of math.He answered:Learning to think logically!
I thought the answer was genius.
You said this a few days ago:
Diebert:Bert"Or, by stripping '0' of bounds you force it into an infinite jacket. There are good reasons in my opinion to see '0' as essentialy bounded. A lack is always a lack of something. A concept of 'lackness' has no meaning here. Infinity does not have these boundaries since you can have infinity without a something"
I answered at the moment:
Bert:I completely agree in the way you tell it,and are convinced of it.
But it doesn't help me.
let's put your opinion to the test:
-"There are good reasons in my opinion to see '0' as essentialy bounded."
Opinions are mean bastards oftentimes,they are not my best friends.
-"A lack is always a lack of something."
lets see what lack is bounded to.
numbers were a nice invention to ,for instance, count sheep.
3 sheep=3sheep,lack of sheep =0 sheep
this conclusion of lack to 0 was only counting when he was counting sheep,or counting something else.
In the beginning there was no 0 ,the zero was once a revolution in thinking,the zero evolved from conception;"an imaginary counting".
So you always needed a something to count to make an absence of something,or else you have an abscence of anything.Correct?
so you need a
3 sheep =3x
0 sheep =0x
0x or sheep=an abscence of sheep
but the statement says
0=infinity ,so no x
0=an absence of anything
in the statement:
an abscence of anything = infinity
to me,this 'absence of anything' means 'NOTHINGNESS'(a cosmic nothingness,if I may say)
and is not bound(because it has yet to exist and thus hold all possibilities ) and does not limit,just like infinity.
Diebert:"A concept of 'lackness' has no meaning here. Infinity does not have these boundaries since you can have infinity without a something"
You suggest then that there can not be a SYMBOL (0)that represents lack without a something?
what do you think?
"I was asking what really exists for you and where you base that idea on."
I am what I believe and what it implies by a proces of time in the conception.
that's it.
but you probably wan't to know about the absolute("what really exists")?Not what exists for me in my life?
Then I can't help you.It's illusions all the way and the deepest secret is always hidden.
"So you're saying that perceived 'utility' is evidence for inherent existence of an object? Then thoughts and ideas are very real objects since they made the aerospace industry possible, not the nuts and bolts."
Yes,I call these things the 'as if' , results of our conceptmaking.the concepts - thoughts and ideas - can only be perceived as real in that they make our realities,but are not real life things.
We make real life things work through our 'as ifs'.That's the gift from the mind(conceptbuilder) .
(Though 'as ifs' through imaginary can make ,with ability,real life things.But this a hole other thing)
Do you know the fragment in the first matrix movie where the kid says "there is no spoon"?
That's what I'm talking about.
This hole concept is what another guy on this forum(don't know his name) calls 'the fabric of reality'.
In fact that's what (especially the first) matrix movie is about.It teaches you how to grow out of your ignorance and come to realise that you are the centre of the universe.
"Maybe the field of semiotics is an interesting angle on this that could help gaining more perspective by fleshing out the idea that what you call "real life things" is a system of signs basicly."
no,real life things are:things that are only itself (only the universe implies the universe) - exists as outside (in contact with the hardware;the sensing, sensationaling,emotionaling man)- and one is really subject to with the hole of his body and identity in existence.
Do you understand?
The site you gave looks interresting,though I don't find time to explore it.
Do you see how difficult it is to explain reality with my only weapon here,words.The words are not the reality itself,it EXPLAINS reality.words are not real life things,they are 'arrows' that points to real life things.Like you said :"finger pointing to the moon"
finger=arrow=thought
moon=reallifething
There are still things to say about it anyway.
I want to go back to the topic now.
I vividly remember being 13 and asking my math teacher what the purpose was of math.He answered:Learning to think logically!
I thought the answer was genius.
You said this a few days ago:
Diebert:Bert"Or, by stripping '0' of bounds you force it into an infinite jacket. There are good reasons in my opinion to see '0' as essentialy bounded. A lack is always a lack of something. A concept of 'lackness' has no meaning here. Infinity does not have these boundaries since you can have infinity without a something"
I answered at the moment:
Bert:I completely agree in the way you tell it,and are convinced of it.
But it doesn't help me.
let's put your opinion to the test:
-"There are good reasons in my opinion to see '0' as essentialy bounded."
Opinions are mean bastards oftentimes,they are not my best friends.
-"A lack is always a lack of something."
lets see what lack is bounded to.
numbers were a nice invention to ,for instance, count sheep.
3 sheep=3sheep,lack of sheep =0 sheep
this conclusion of lack to 0 was only counting when he was counting sheep,or counting something else.
In the beginning there was no 0 ,the zero was once a revolution in thinking,the zero evolved from conception;"an imaginary counting".
So you always needed a something to count to make an absence of something,or else you have an abscence of anything.Correct?
so you need a
3 sheep =3x
0 sheep =0x
0x or sheep=an abscence of sheep
but the statement says
0=infinity ,so no x
0=an absence of anything
in the statement:
an abscence of anything = infinity
to me,this 'absence of anything' means 'NOTHINGNESS'(a cosmic nothingness,if I may say)
and is not bound(because it has yet to exist and thus hold all possibilities ) and does not limit,just like infinity.
Diebert:"A concept of 'lackness' has no meaning here. Infinity does not have these boundaries since you can have infinity without a something"
You suggest then that there can not be a SYMBOL (0)that represents lack without a something?
what do you think?
-
Diebert van Rhijn
- Posts: 6469
- Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2005 4:43 pm
O, but you did gave here your description of 'what really exists' for you: illusions and a secret lurking somewhere out of sight. How certain are you? Can you be more descriptive in how you came to this conclusion, especially about the secret.bert wrote:It's illusions all the way and the deepest secret is always hidden.
Since the movie was about belief, doesn't this fragment talk about how our beliefs shape our reality all the way?Do you know the fragment in the first matrix movie where the kid says "there is no spoon"?
That's what I'm talking about.
Thinking one is the centre of the universe is the start of most of the ignorance. Discovering the real nature of 'me' as well as the limits of our 'private' universe that revolves around it, is the real growing.It teaches you how to grow out of your ignorance and come to realise that you are the centre of the universe.
So far I think I understand, but how would you make a difference between a 'real life thing' and some 'unreal imaginary thing'?no,real life things are:things that are only itself (only the universe implies the universe) - exists as outside (in contact with the hardware;the sensing, sensationaling,emotionaling man)- and one is really subject to with the hole of his body and identity in existence.
Do you understand?
How can the explaining exist outside reality? It must also be part of it?The words are not the reality itself,it EXPLAINS reality.words are not real life things,they are 'arrows' that points to real life things.
The moment you put zero in an 'infinity jacket' is the moment you go from zero-x to zero-everything. What you are doing is "infinity minus infinity = zero". Zero is still bounded to infinity, you define it that way!3 sheep=3sheep,lack of sheep =0 sheep
0x or sheep=an abscence of sheep
but the statement says
0=infinity ,so no x
0=an absence of anything
in the statement:
an abscence of anything = infinity
Outside duality the idea of 'lack' loses meaning. Of course our thoughts and concept are creating duality but 'infinity' points clearly to the moon, and 'zero' just waves in our own general direction.You suggest then that there can not be a SYMBOL (0)that represents lack without a something?
You understand me differently very quickly,so I'm gonna answer only this:
Words and thought and symbols and concepts ,REFER to something,they expres.That is our 'software'.
when I write:WORD then you read "word" because you are conditioned to do so.But actually these are only geometrical forms,4 in a row.these geometrical forms are the "real life things" it is what it is.When I say that these ARE geometrical forms,then I use an 'as if' because they exist to me as geometrical forms because I perceive it as such,it is my belief to do so right now,yet the 'real life thing' itself is not ONLY geometrical forms,it is only itself.My sociocultural conditioning(belief) recognizes words,letters,geometrical forms,and the meanings (arrows) these words,letters and geometrical forms may present to me.And thus the fabric of reality has come to exist.
answer to your question:The explaining does not EXIST as 'real life thing',but as 'as if' as part of your fabric of reality,and 'coded:centre of the universe'.And your explaining parttakes in the 'as if'.
Thus in order: real life thing(existence) -- perceiving it(hardware his recognition) -- automaticly interpretating it(inherent belief) -- EGO:{reality of words,thoughts,concepts -- conceiving it ('as if')}
of course this is a simple representation and not what I think of the universe in the whole.It is an 'as if'
you don't understand that I ain't doing anything to the equation,I'm just giving it meaning!A representation.
So you say that these things are fixed to distances?
So you are saying that the word 'infinity' exists outside of duality!
It is YOU who gives meanings ,just as I do.
to me it is an 'as if',just as '0' is.
That's what I meant with:"It's illusions all the way"
another question:"what should the symbol of abscence or nothingness look like?
"Nothing is anything unless fixed in the substantial;thus dreams and abstracts are as concrete as anything else"
for inspiration(and the pleasing of MrUnknown :) :
How can the explaining exist outside reality? It must also be part of it?The words are not the reality itself,it EXPLAINS reality.words are not real life things,they are 'arrows' that points to real life things.
Words and thought and symbols and concepts ,REFER to something,they expres.That is our 'software'.
when I write:WORD then you read "word" because you are conditioned to do so.But actually these are only geometrical forms,4 in a row.these geometrical forms are the "real life things" it is what it is.When I say that these ARE geometrical forms,then I use an 'as if' because they exist to me as geometrical forms because I perceive it as such,it is my belief to do so right now,yet the 'real life thing' itself is not ONLY geometrical forms,it is only itself.My sociocultural conditioning(belief) recognizes words,letters,geometrical forms,and the meanings (arrows) these words,letters and geometrical forms may present to me.And thus the fabric of reality has come to exist.
answer to your question:The explaining does not EXIST as 'real life thing',but as 'as if' as part of your fabric of reality,and 'coded:centre of the universe'.And your explaining parttakes in the 'as if'.
Thus in order: real life thing(existence) -- perceiving it(hardware his recognition) -- automaticly interpretating it(inherent belief) -- EGO:{reality of words,thoughts,concepts -- conceiving it ('as if')}
of course this is a simple representation and not what I think of the universe in the whole.It is an 'as if'
I don't go to zero-everything as you think of it,it IS zero everything;it represents zero everything,an abstract symbol as 'as if'.just like you are doing3 sheep=3sheep,lack of sheep =0 sheep
0x or sheep=an abscence of sheep
but the statement says
0=infinity ,so no x
0=an absenc
The moment you put zero in an 'infinity jacket' is the moment you go from zero-x to zero-everything. What you are doing is "infinity minus infinity = zero". Zero is still bounded to infinity, you define it that way!
you don't understand that I ain't doing anything to the equation,I'm just giving it meaning!A representation.
Outside duality the idea of 'lack' loses meaning. Of course our thoughts and concept are creating duality but 'infinity' points clearly to the moon, and 'zero' just waves in our own general direction.[/quote]You suggest then that there can not be a SYMBOL (0)that represents lack without a something?
So you say that these things are fixed to distances?
So you are saying that the word 'infinity' exists outside of duality!
It is YOU who gives meanings ,just as I do.
to me it is an 'as if',just as '0' is.
That's what I meant with:"It's illusions all the way"
another question:"what should the symbol of abscence or nothingness look like?
"Nothing is anything unless fixed in the substantial;thus dreams and abstracts are as concrete as anything else"
for inspiration(and the pleasing of MrUnknown :) :
I'm sorry.I was speaking in dutch which Diebert does understand.bert wrote:nog even voor de goede orde:
Diebert:"The moment you put zero in an 'infinity jacket' is the moment you go from zero-x to zero-everything."
Ik noemde niet zero-everything,maar wel absence of ANYTHING.
Belangrijk.
I was saying:
"For the correct order:
Diebert:"The moment you put zero in an 'infinity jacket' is the moment you go from zero-x to zero-everything."
I didn't mention zero-everything,but abscence of ANYTHING.
Important.
-
Diebert van Rhijn
- Posts: 6469
- Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2005 4:43 pm
Just another more primitive level of interpreting our sensory.bert wrote:these geometrical forms are the "real life things"
Bert, not sure how to be more clear at this moment and as LooF correctly observes, it's dragging out way too long to be of interest for either of us to continue here. Thanks for the effort anyway. As a sidenote, try to apply more often a space between your sentences (following points, brackets and comma's), it would be way easier to read for others.
ok,final post.
my conclusion:
Whereas I in relation to the absolute have 'washed my hands clean of truth',I conceive that Diebert has not.
That's why in my case it takes so long .There was nothing to proof but interpretation!
As long as the other keeps saying that there is an absolute in the interpretational reference of symbols vulnerable to interpretation(0 as necessarily bound in this case),then I have to go on forever to explain it is not.
But I will make this a one time thing.Don't worry.
my conclusion:
Whereas I in relation to the absolute have 'washed my hands clean of truth',I conceive that Diebert has not.
That's why in my case it takes so long .There was nothing to proof but interpretation!
As long as the other keeps saying that there is an absolute in the interpretational reference of symbols vulnerable to interpretation(0 as necessarily bound in this case),then I have to go on forever to explain it is not.
But I will make this a one time thing.Don't worry.
Godel's Theorem
what yall assume to be the truth or the absolute truth -
i would like to introduce you to godel's incompleteness theorem.
i would like to introduce you to godel's incompleteness theorem.
http://godel.4mg.com/In 1931, the Czech-born mathematician Kurt Gödel demonstrated that within any given branch of mathematics, there would always be some propositions that couldn't be proven either true or false using the rules and axioms ... of that mathematical branch itself. You might be able to prove every conceivable statement about numbers within a system by going outside the system in order to come up with new rules and axioms, but by doing so you'll only create a larger system with its own unprovable statements. The implication is that all logical system of any complexity are, by definition, incomplete; each of them contains, at any given time, more true statements than it can possibly prove according to its own defining set of rules.
Gödel's Theorem has been used to argue that a computer can never be as smart as a human being because the extent of its knowledge is limited by a fixed set of axioms, whereas people can discover unexpected truths ... It plays a part in modern linguistic theories, which emphasize the power of language to come up with new ways to express ideas. And it has been taken to imply that you'll never entirely understand yourself, since your mind, like any other closed system, can only be sure of what it knows about itself by relying on what it knows about itself.
-
David Quinn
- Posts: 5708
- Joined: Sun Sep 09, 2001 6:56 am
- Location: Australia
- Contact:
He demonstrates it David...
That's why I left this quote twice,but who'll listen,right...:
"Nothing is anything unless fixed in the substantial;thus dreams and abstracts are as concrete as anything else"
Godel was underappreciated,I think.
He also proved that we could not prove anything because we could not place ourselves outside the universe,and observe it.
Only the universe implies the universe!
That's why I left this quote twice,but who'll listen,right...:
"Nothing is anything unless fixed in the substantial;thus dreams and abstracts are as concrete as anything else"
Godel was underappreciated,I think.
He also proved that we could not prove anything because we could not place ourselves outside the universe,and observe it.
Only the universe implies the universe!