|
Mormons on TA.? (pg. 19)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| Subey |
| 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 :p |
|
|
| Sunsnail |
| 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... |
|
|
| L.E.N. |
| 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 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. |
|
|
| Psy-T |
| 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 :clown:
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. |
|
|
| Psy-T |
| 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 :p |
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. :o |
|
|
| igottaknow |
| GOD told me to tell everyone in this thread to shut the up. :whip: |
|
|
| Psy-T |
| quote: | Originally posted by igottaknow
GOD told me to tell everyone in this thread to shut the up. :whip: |
either you or he/she/it really took your time with it. |
|
|
| Zenchowdah |
| 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 . muons. |
|
|
| Psy-T |
| quote: | Originally posted by Zenchowdah
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 . muons. |
that's a 'fundamental law' being wrong in general, what you posted is not an exception to the rule, nor an example of a rule being temporarily broken, it is the new rule.
also, (obviously) it's not currently regarded to be correct. you might as well have said "omg the world is flat. omg it isn't".
and btw, omg where are the leptons! |
|
|
| Halcyon+On+On |
| quote: | Originally posted by Psy-T
please provide an example of a fundamental (supposedly) universal law of physics being broken. |
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dark_matter
A lot of scientists theorize that Dark Matter is the culprit for galaxies appearing to move and swirl in directions that contradict what our current laws (Newton's?) say about gravity. Who knows what else is being defied seeing as how we know so little about the universe... |
|
|
| BTG |
got here a little late.
but as jonsun said...
mormans 'american jesus' guy thing is wacky.
you want reliable sources? download the SP episode about mormans.
dumbdumbdumbdumbdummmbbb |
|
|
|
|
