Is 'Everything' One Thing?

@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

@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...

1 Reply

@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?

1 Reply

@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

1 Reply

@GoshisDead,

That said, I'm willing to concede that the main thesis of this thread is a sound one... on Dagobah.

1 Reply

@Ding an Sich,

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

1 Reply

@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

@Shapeless,

Powerful you have become, the dark side I sense in you.

1 Reply

@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?

1 Reply

@Razzleg,

When 900 years old you become, look as good you will not!

0 Replies

You can tell a thread has run its course when yodaspeak is involved.

0 Replies

@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

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.

1 Reply

@JLNobody,

Giving they are all linked actually it matters allot, one more one less changes the entire thing...

1 Reply

@Fil Albuquerque,

...."changes" for whom ?.....that issue constitutes the significance of a non-dualistic approach in which "observer" and "observed" are co-extensive.

1 Reply

@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.

1 Reply

@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.

1 Reply

@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.

1 Reply

@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 ?

1 Reply

@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 ?

1 Reply

Is 'Everything' One Thing?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know