13
   

Is 'Everything' One Thing?

 
 
kennethamy
 
  1  
Reply Wed 15 Sep, 2010 07:15 am
@mark noble,
mark noble wrote:

Hi Ken!

I am not proposing that apples aren't fruit - You know this. I am answering your prior statement regarding apples.

The converse of something is made up of the words of the same sentence.

Thus - All apples are fruit = fruit, are all apples. Thus - Everything is one thing = One thing, is everything.

Stop being pedantic just for the sake of it. If you can't comprehend the obvious, try not to comprehend at all.

Now, back to the question, and the question alone. Is everything one thing?

Know this also: Every thing is comprised of a multitude of other things that in turn equal the sum of the said thing.
1) Everything equates to the sum total of all things.
2) Every thing is uniquely itself, as one thing.
3) Every means 'ALL' No matter how you apply it.

Is 'Nature' One thing?
Is 'God' One thing?
Is 'Ken' One thing?
Is 'the sum total of all things (EVERYTHING)' One thing?

Think! And Be.
Mark...




But it is false that fruit are all apple (or in plain English, all fruit are apples). For instance, there are pears, there are oranges, there are mangoes, there are grapes, and ever so many other kinds of fruit besides apples. Therefore, although it is true that all apples are fruit, it is false that all fruits are apples. Now the converse of any sentence of the form, All X are Y, is All Y are X. (You can look that up. Simply google it). Therefore, it is false that the converse of All apples are fruit, which is, all fruit are apples, is true.

I hope that isn't too pedantic for you. It seems to me just obvious commonsense, maybe with a little bit of logic thrown in. Maybe it is that last bit that confuses you.
0 Replies
 
Shapeless
 
  1  
Reply Wed 15 Sep, 2010 08:50 am
@mark noble,
Quote:
Or 'Y are all X'.


Nope. That's something you're trying to foist on conventional logical in order to make your thread meaningful.
fresco
 
  1  
Reply Wed 15 Sep, 2010 11:10 am
@mark noble,

Quote:
'Nature' For instance... Is it or is it not 'one thing'?


You are not going to give up are you !

DIFFERENT "THINGS"
1. The forces of nature should not be underestimated.
2. Aggression is part of the nature of man.
3. The next lesson is nature study

SAME "THING"
Nature consists of all that is not man-made, but since man is a product of nature so too are his products.

CONCLUSION
The meaning of words is a function of their socially negotiated contextual usage, NOT, ontologically independent "things". Such a view of "things" belongs in the realm of "naive realism" with the emphasis on "naive" !






kennethamy
 
  1  
Reply Thu 16 Sep, 2010 08:51 am
@Shapeless,
Shapeless wrote:

Quote:
Or 'Y are all X'.


Nope. That's something you're trying to foist on conventional logical in order to make your thread meaningful.


Ys are all X is just another way of saying that all Ys are Xs. For example, "dogs are all mammals" means, "all dogs are mammals". "Suns are all stars" means, "All suns are stars". "Republicans are all conservatives" means, "All republicans are conservatives".
0 Replies
 
Shapeless
 
  1  
Reply Thu 16 Sep, 2010 01:53 pm
Quote:
Ys are all X is just another way of saying that all Ys are Xs.


Right--they're equivalent. I'm just saying they're not converses of each other, which I thought was being suggested above.
mark noble
 
  1  
Reply Fri 17 Sep, 2010 01:36 pm
@fresco,
What a load of complete and utter bollocks!

'Nature is made up of all that is not man-made'?
So man and the productions of man are seperate to nature, are they?

You fool!

Kind regards!
mark...
mark noble
 
  1  
Reply Fri 17 Sep, 2010 01:37 pm
@Shapeless,
You thought wrong.
Shapeless
 
  1  
Reply Fri 17 Sep, 2010 01:54 pm
@mark noble,
mark noble wrote:
The converse of something is made up of the words of the same sentence.

Thus - All apples are fruit = fruit, are all apples. Thus - Everything is one thing = One thing, is everything.
fresco
 
  1  
Reply Fri 17 Sep, 2010 01:57 pm
@mark noble,
See an optician !

Kind regards, fresco.
0 Replies
 
Shapeless
 
  1  
Reply Fri 17 Sep, 2010 02:01 pm
@mark noble,
mark noble wrote:
'Nature is made up of all that is not man-made'?
So man and the productions of man are seperate to nature, are they?


You might want to read the rest of the sentence of Fresco's that you're quoting.
0 Replies
 
Fil Albuquerque
 
  1  
Reply Fri 17 Sep, 2010 02:10 pm
@Shapeless,
Shapeless wrote:

mark noble wrote:
The converse of something is made up of the words of the same sentence.

Thus - All apples are fruit = fruit, are all apples. Thus - Everything is one thing = One thing, is everything.



Actually I wrote about this a long time ago...

Given for instance, a Universe with 10 variables, and another one with 5, they are unrelated...is 1 out of 5 in A equal to 1 out of 10 in B ? No ! they are different...
The nature of each variable its intrinsically dependent of its pairs to which is bounded in the set...the very own nature of any given variable is therefore defined by its position (order) on the axis of the group...that position imply´s the extension or length of the entire set to be part of any given variable thus defining its potential of relation with all the others that are present.

So, I guess Mark its right...
(the expression of the form determines Nature)
Taoism explains it in a more accessible way.
Fil Albuquerque
 
  1  
Reply Fri 17 Sep, 2010 02:35 pm
@Fil Albuquerque,
I´ll bet Arjuna will like this one... Cool
0 Replies
 
Shapeless
 
  1  
Reply Fri 17 Sep, 2010 02:42 pm
@Fil Albuquerque,
That doesn't have a whole lot to do with my straightforwardly uncontroversial point, which was about the way converses are formulated in logic. The post of Mark's that I quoted comes very close to implying that the converse of "All X are Y" is "Y are all X." (The post does not expressly state this; it merely implies it through careless juxtaposition of statements.) I'm pointing out that that is not how converses are rendered in logic. That's all.
Fil Albuquerque
 
  1  
Reply Fri 17 Sep, 2010 02:51 pm
@Shapeless,
Hey Shape...I know what you meant of course !
Just adding a different perspective on the issue at hand.
0 Replies
 
north
 
  1  
Reply Fri 17 Sep, 2010 11:21 pm
everthing is one thing energy

and the forms are created by the energy level

the higher the energy the more divided the form becomes , micro , quantum , the smaller the form becomes

the lower the energy , the galaxies , stars , planets , moons , less energy , the more macro the form becomes

fresco
 
  1  
Reply Sat 18 Sep, 2010 12:19 am
@north,
...and are you ... the definer of "energy" and "macro and micro forms"...also "energy in a macro or micro form" ?
mark noble
 
  1  
Reply Sun 19 Sep, 2010 03:18 am
@Shapeless,
My point (off the thread point) is that a sentence must comply with its own construct.

Ergo 'Fish do swim' = 'swim, do fish', 'Cats like chicken' = 'Chicken, like cats', 'I am happy' = 'Happy, am I'.

Is this not comprehensible? Is this not fundamentally precise?

Mark...
Shapeless
 
  1  
Reply Sun 19 Sep, 2010 09:02 am
Yes, that is clearer, because now you've removed the gaffe about converses. See? Life is full of second chances.
0 Replies
 
GoshisDead
 
  1  
Reply Sun 19 Sep, 2010 01:36 pm
@mark noble,
mark noble wrote:

My point (off the thread point) is that a sentence must comply with its own construct.

Ergo 'Fish do swim' = 'swim, do fish', 'Cats like chicken' = 'Chicken, like cats', 'I am happy' = 'Happy, am I'.

Is this not comprehensible? Is this not fundamentally precise?

Mark...


The second set of sentences are fundamentally unsound. No native speaker would say them. Hate to break it to you, but commas are not grammatical features and do not in any way play into the structure of a sentence or how it 'complies with itself'.

Swim, do fish = is a nonsensical phrase
Chickens like cats = means that chicken like cats
Happy am I = is poetic (in its functional sense) and cannot be analyzed with normal speech.
fresco
 
  1  
Reply Sun 19 Sep, 2010 02:17 pm
At this point I suggest this thread converges with the "primal scream" thread.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

How can we be sure? - Discussion by Raishu-tensho
Proof of nonexistence of free will - Discussion by litewave
morals and ethics, how are they different? - Question by existential potential
Destroy My Belief System, Please! - Discussion by Thomas
Star Wars in Philosophy. - Discussion by Logicus
Existence of Everything. - Discussion by Logicus
Is it better to be feared or loved? - Discussion by Black King
 
Copyright © 2021 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 04/18/2021 at 11:36:20