13
   

Is 'Everything' One Thing?

 
 
north
 
  1  
Reply Sun 19 Sep, 2010 05:48 pm
@fresco,
fresco wrote:

...and are you ... the definer of "energy" and "macro and micro forms"...also "energy in a macro or micro form" ?


correct me if I'm wrong

I'm not
mark noble
 
  1  
Reply Mon 20 Sep, 2010 03:12 am
@GoshisDead,
GoshisDead wrote:

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.


Hi Russ!

And also (refashioned)

'Swim, fish do'.
'Chicken, cats like'.
'Happy, I am'.

The comma is in place to allow the observer to take a breath between speech. The sentence remains the same, whether it is common usage or not. This is how the 'Yoda' character made sense in 'star wars'.

YODA ROCKS! OK.

Mark...

Ding an Sich
 
  1  
Reply Mon 20 Sep, 2010 06:20 am
@mark noble,
mark noble wrote:

Hi!

Is 'Everything' One thing?

If so 'one thing' must be everything.

Thank you!
Mark...


How is it that everything is one thing? What do you mean by this? Do you mean to say that every object, thing, entity, etc. have the same properties and thus we can consider everything to be one? Or is there something relational here?
GoshisDead
 
  1  
Reply Mon 20 Sep, 2010 10:32 am
@mark noble,
mark noble wrote:

GoshisDead wrote:

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.


Hi Russ!

And also (refashioned)

'Swim, fish do'.
'Chicken, cats like'.
'Happy, I am'.

The comma is in place to allow the observer to take a breath between speech. The sentence remains the same, whether it is common usage or not. This is how the 'Yoda' character made sense in 'star wars'.

YODA ROCKS! OK.

Mark...




Yoda made sense because he was/is an eccentric character. His dialogue was manufacured to be strage yet once accustomed to, easily understandable. His speech works in the realm of the third example, poetics. His speech however cannot be attributed or analyzed as normal speech, as no native speaker of the tongue would naturally speak this way, and thus cannot comply with its own construction unless that construction does not comply with its own language
Shapeless
 
  1  
Reply Mon 20 Sep, 2010 10:45 am
@GoshisDead,
That said, I'm willing to concede that the main thesis of this thread is a sound one... on Dagobah.
Fil Albuquerque
 
  1  
Reply Mon 20 Sep, 2010 09:17 pm
@Ding an Sich,
Is not everything in ONE set ?
Does n´t relation builds Identity ?
How else do property´s emerge ?
fresco
 
  1  
Reply Mon 20 Sep, 2010 10:48 pm
@north,
You originally wrote
Quote:
everthing is one thing energy


fresco wrote:
Quote:

...and are you ... the definer of "energy" and "macro and micro forms"...also "energy in a macro or micro form" ?


to which you replied
Quote:
correct me if I'm wrong

I'm not.


.....Then there at least TWO "things", YOU + THE ENERGY
0 Replies
 
Razzleg
 
  2  
Reply Mon 20 Sep, 2010 11:21 pm
@Shapeless,
Powerful you have become, the dark side I sense in you.
Ding an Sich
 
  1  
Reply Tue 21 Sep, 2010 06:28 am
@Fil Albuquerque,
Fil Albuquerque wrote:

Is not everything in ONE set ?
Does n´t relation builds Identity ?
How else do property´s emerge ?


No but everything can be in one set. Whats your point?

The question Mr. Noble brought up is vague. What things are we talking about?
Shapeless
 
  1  
Reply Tue 21 Sep, 2010 08:58 am
@Razzleg,
When 900 years old you become, look as good you will not!
0 Replies
 
GoshisDead
 
  1  
Reply Tue 21 Sep, 2010 09:59 am
You can tell a thread has run its course when yodaspeak is involved.
0 Replies
 
Fil Albuquerque
 
  1  
Reply Tue 21 Sep, 2010 10:37 am
@Ding an Sich,
Emergence of property´s, brings in the binding who renders them possible, and through concept, the Unity of what was below in the chain to become that same set...thus plural to singular, several things to one thing, or all that IS (exists potentially or not) as ONE ! (The Final Property in Reality )
TRUTH !!!
0 Replies
 
JLNobody
 
  1  
Reply Tue 21 Sep, 2010 05:30 pm
One or countless-what's the point. Rather than count the number of "THINGS" constituting the universe or Reality, I'd rather think of "it" as an infinitely or indefinitely extended (unitary?) set of RELATIONSHIPS--a notion reinforced for me by posts of Fresco.
Fil Albuquerque
 
  1  
Reply Tue 21 Sep, 2010 10:06 pm
@JLNobody,
Giving they are all linked actually it matters allot, one more one less changes the entire thing...
fresco
 
  1  
Reply Tue 21 Sep, 2010 11:38 pm
@Fil Albuquerque,
...."changes" for whom ?.....that issue constitutes the significance of a non-dualistic approach in which "observer" and "observed" are co-extensive.
Fil Albuquerque
 
  1  
Reply Wed 22 Sep, 2010 01:04 am
@fresco,
co-relative...for starters it changes the all gravity around at work, energy and so on...unless of course you believe that the components are transcendent to each other in which case the number would n´t matter much...now, and to use a more actual modern language on the subject I just believe that the full length of the "Information String" is needed to know how to make heads or tails of it.
fresco
 
  1  
Reply Wed 22 Sep, 2010 06:02 am
@Fil Albuquerque,
No. "Information" is defined relative to "need". Common language, common physiology, and common need all provide a negotiated basis for joint interaction. But without such shifting paradigmatic bases we can make no assumptions about the nature of "reality". Things and thingers are ontologically complementary.
Fil Albuquerque
 
  1  
Reply Wed 22 Sep, 2010 07:14 am
@fresco,
Nonsense, everything observes everything, meaning such is yet another, rotten dichotomy. There is a mechanic to the World remember ?...If not just how do you think it comes assembled ? Information is above all the result of relation, although we have the pretension of producing it instead of using it...
Information not only needs around information to work, as it needs all the information there is to have a valid making sense defined identity in each of its components...TRUTH, as a final stabilising cause able to transform a multi potential function into a concrete thing...take that out and the "SET" is incomplete...
Its like imagining maths without zero, everything else would be transformed...
Identity comes from the group.

fresco
 
  1  
Reply Wed 22 Sep, 2010 08:31 am
@Fil Albuquerque,
Sorry. That lot amounts to word salad.

If "everything observes everything" explain how what we call "a frog" will starve in a tank if only surrounded by "dead insects".

You seem to think "information" has some sort of objective status. Explain then, why it is defined in "information theory" as "that which resolves choices between alternatives".....alternatives for whom ?

Then we seem to have the the bizarre picture of TRUTH (mystical capitals ?) as an agency of "cause". As far as I am aware both "truth" and "cause" are up for philosophical grabs.

.......need I go on ?








Fil Albuquerque
 
  1  
Reply Wed 22 Sep, 2010 07:12 pm
@fresco,
I am sorry to tell you but I think you need to go on and in many ways...specially concerning on what "observing" might mean given your "limited" scope expressed above...your aiming at nothing there but thin air...anyway...
...as for Truth...Truth refers to what is actual, what other referent could you have in its place...that I would like to see...

Quote:
You seem to think "information" has some sort of objective status. Explain then, why it is defined in "information theory" as "that which resolves choices between alternatives".....alternatives for whom ?


What ???
not whom...lol ! but what...obviously the possible outcome of an event. What else did you had in mind ? And resolving those "choices" only shows the Truth mandatory value of Information interaction as a whole...
The tide of seas on Earth is moved by the Moon and the Sun...there is in fact a mechanic model that lets that same information in, or are you one of those spiritual "magichery" transcendental apologists ?
 

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 12:20:38