|
Mormons on TA.? (pg. 18)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| Subey |
| 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 |
|
|
| Psy-T |
| 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. |
|
|
| Psy-T |
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? |
|
|
| Subey |
| 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 |
|
|
| Psy-T |
| 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. |
|
|
| Subey |
| 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 :p
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. |
|
|
| Sunsnail |
A square is something...
Nothing is not something...
Can't compare the two |
|
|
| Psy-T |
| 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. |
|
|
| Ivand |
| understatement of this thread goes beyond the limits of my humble brain |
|
|
| Psy-T |
| quote: | Originally posted by Sunsnail
A square is something...
Nothing is not something...
Can't compare the two |
two things (or 'non-things' :p) need not be the same to be comparable.
actually, sameness leads to them being incomparable :p |
|
|
| Subey |
| 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 :clown:
you: 0 to 1
Mee: 1 to 0
Complete disagreement in evaluating the situation. |
|
|
| Sunsnail |
| quote: | Originally posted by Psy-T
two things (or 'non-things' :p) 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? |
|
|
|
|
