TranceAddict Forums (www.tranceaddict.com/forums)
- Chill Out Room
-- Mormons on TA.?
Pages (10): « 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 [9] 10 »

quote:

Originally posted by venomX I came up with a better argument because i have nothing to do. In your safe example, statiscally anything is as likely then nothing. Why? If its sealed, and has no outside acces, you have no clues as to what is inside. It follows then that anything you can concieve of could be inside the safe, including nothing. Hence, nothing is bound to happen as often as anything

The scenario I provided is meant to be followed in spirit, not broken by loopholes...

I'll restate the scenario. You are standing in 5 feet in front of me. You check your pockets they are empty. The second you say they are empty I say "if you guess what is in your pockets correctly then I will give you a million dollars."

What's your guess?

quote:

Originally posted by Psy-T what suggests 'nothing' is the default?

That would return us to the point you didn't concede.

quote:

Originally posted by Subey That would return us to the point you didn't concede.

read the edit.

quote:

Originally posted by Subey Why would a 2 dimensional square require a 4 dimensional tesseract?

i don't think it would, which should lead me to what conclusion?

quote:

Originally posted by Psy-T i don't think it would, which should lead me to what conclusion?

The requirements of a square are: 2 dimensions

The requirements of a square is not: 2 dimensions and not a 4 dimensional tesseract



The requirement of nothingness is:
The requirements of nothing is not: and not something

quote:

Originally posted by Subey The requirements of a square are: 2 dimensions The requirements of a square is not: 2 dimensions and not a 4 dimensional tesseract The requirement of nothingness is: The requirements of nothing is not: and not something

nice - yet futile - attempt at a trick question.

you asked me why does a square require a tesseract, not why does a square require the lack of a tesseract.

you posted this:
A requirement of you being human is that you are not a rock?

I can spend forever listing things that you lack. The line of reasoning you wish to explore results in an infinite list, and as such you should abandon it.

to which i replied:

a requirement of being nothing is that it is not a rock...

......


in a seperate branch of this conversation you posted this:

Something has requirements. It requires itself. Nothing doesn't require itself. It has no characteristics that it has to fulfill.

to which i replied:

even if i conceeded that point (which i do not), what is infinity minus 1?

to which you bizarelly replied with this:

When I think about infinity its a vanishing point beyond my sight. I can't place a -1 beside a point I can't see.


are you following my points yet or do i need to be even more verbose?

quote:

Originally posted by Psy-T read the edit.

Your first question I tried to clarify that the use of infinity was not meant to place the weighting of the 'nothingness vs something' onto an actuarial table but merely into some form that can be manipulated by thought.

If I were to move the issue to numbers I would arrive at a different relationship.


nothing vs something
=
infinity vs -infinity + 1

quote:

Originally posted by Subey Your first question I tried to clarify that the use of infinity was not meant to place the weighting of the 'nothingness vs something' onto an actuarial table but merely into some form that can be manipulated by thought. If I were to move the issue to numbers I would arrive at a different relationship. nothing vs something = infinity vs -infinity + 1

refer to the post above you for the context of infinity.

quote:

Originally posted by Psy-T are you following my points yet or do i need to be even more verbose?

Completely lost with that sequence of quotes.

You stated

quote:

Originally posted by Psy-T there's no need for those special circumstances nothing alawys requires a lack of something,

You agree that a square doesn't require anything but its own characteristics, but nothing requires extra characteristics.

I can't see why you are making extra demands on nothing and not the square.

A square is something...
Nothing is not something...

Can't compare the two

quote:

Originally posted by Subey Completely lost with that sequence of quotes. You stated You agree that a square doesn't require anything but its own characteristics, but nothing requires extra characteristics. I can't see why you are making extra demands on nothing and not the square.

i'm not.
as i said before, i accuse you of asking me a trick question. i did not proclaim a square does not require anything, i proclaimed it does not require the existence of a tesseract.

understatement of this thread goes beyond the limits of my humble brain

quote:

Originally posted by Sunsnail A square is something... Nothing is not something... Can't compare the two

two things (or 'non-things' ) need not be the same to be comparable.

actually, sameness leads to them being incomparable

quote:

Originally posted by Psy-T refer to the post above you for the context of infinity.

This is how you have translated the problem into numbers

quote:

Originally posted by Psy-T nothing has a probability of 1/infinity to be the default. anything has a probability of infinity-1/infinity to be the default.

or
0 to 1

My interpretation of the situation is

quote:

Originally posted by Subey infinity vs -infinity + 1

or
1 to 0

Now placing them side by side

you: 0 to 1
Mee: 1 to 0

Complete disagreement in evaluating the situation.

quote:

Originally posted by Psy-T two things (or 'non-things' ) need not be the same to be comparable.

everything is something... except nothing. you cant define nothing without something..

what.

i havent even read half the posts in this thread. something about safes and squares?

quote:

Originally posted by Sunsnail everything is something... except nothing. you cant define nothing without something..

I think the hangup here is the desire to cast 'nothingness' in terms of 'something'. We live in a world of space time, that's what we know.

So how do we pull nothingness into our world so that we can manipulate it? I think in pulling it into our world psy-t needs to relate it to our world (hence 'nothingness is a lack of something') but I see that as a mistake.

I can pull it into our world and it doesn't gain the characterstic 'is a lack of something', I can still keep it in its virgin state of having no characteristics.

Since that perfectly sums up the superiority of my position I'm off to bed

quote:

Originally posted by Subey I can pull it into our world and it doesn't gain the characterstic 'is a lack of something', I can still keep it in its virgin state of having no characteristics.

well... do it...

crap

quote:

Originally posted by wienerschnitzel look dude (and this goes for everyone i guess) i don't know what you're beliefs are or if you have any but ffs i will completely accept them as being yours and support you with that instead of telling you that you are stupid etc. why is everyone so resentfull towards mormons? even if i did worship 20 gods and they all wear pink tutus and live on jupiter who the fuck cares? just relax, don't tax my gig so hard.

Dont lump me in the group...This whole thread is proof why I dont even get into it with others on this subject.

Like I said...whatever makes you happy.

quote:

Originally posted by Subey This is how you have translated the problem into numbers or 0 to 1 My interpretation of the situation is or 1 to 0 Now placing them side by side you: 0 to 1 Mee: 1 to 0 Complete disagreement in evaluating the situation.

anything including nothing requires a lack of everything aside from itself. why? because A can't exist in the same space/time/shape/mass/etc as a B. 'nothing' can not exist in the same space/time/shape/mass/etc as a B either.

do you agree with the above?

if so that should lead you to the same probabilities i wrote earlier
(nothing has a probability of 1/infinity to be the default.
anything has a probability of infinity-1/infinity to be the default.)

why does "anything has a probability of infinity-1/infinity to be the default"? because each 'thing' has a probability of 1/infinity to being the default, and there are infinite things - so why minus 1? to represent the probability of nothing being the default.

to represent this in an analogy: imagine a lottory that contains infinite numbers, only one number will be chosen as the 'winner'. which is more likely:
a. that the winning number is 1.
b. that the winning number is any number other than 1.



being as redundant as i just was disgusts me, please don't make me do that again.

quote:

Originally posted by Subey I think the hangup here is the desire to cast 'nothingness' in terms of 'something'. We live in a world of space time, that's what we know. So how do we pull nothingness into our world so that we can manipulate it? I think in pulling it into our world psy-t needs to relate it to our world (hence 'nothingness is a lack of something') but I see that as a mistake. I can pull it into our world and it doesn't gain the characterstic 'is a lack of something', I can still keep it in its virgin state of having no characteristics. Since that perfectly sums up the superiority of my position I'm off to bed

that doesn't sum up the superiority of your position unless to be superior means to be dellusional.

you're basically saying that 'nothing' surpasses what mankind acknowledge to be the rules of the universe.

a new object(or lack-there-of) to theistically adhere to? seems like it.


p.s. "virgin state of having no charataristics" is a charataristic.
p.p.s. probably about a decade from now.. hello dark matter, farewell nothing.

nicely played.

GOD told me to tell everyone in this thread to shut the fuck up.

quote:

Originally posted by igottaknow GOD told me to tell everyone in this thread to shut the fuck up.

either you or he/she/it really took your time with it.

quote:

Originally posted by Psy-T please provide an example of a fundamental (supposedly) universal law of physics being broken.

omg the atom is smallest unit of matter

omg break it up there are protons and neutrons and electrons

omg break them up, there are like quarks and shit. muons.

Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright © 2000-2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.