Features

Vibecrewangel · #76

Well you're no fun......

kahljorn · #77

i know, I'm serious. All the time.

Vibecrewangel · #78

Quote:

Take one item from the equation, and you have nothing left

Actually you would still have everything left.

kahljorn · #79

I almost wish I knew what that was a response to

ziggytrix · #80

well they're both wrong.

everything, being the set of ALL things, minus one thing is not equivalent to the set of all things but one, nor is it equivalent to the empty set.

Vibecrewangel · #81

Ziggy - All depends on how you look at it. Even if you take it away it still exists, so you still technically have everything.

Even if you destroy it the energy still exists, so.......

Like I said. Buddhist thought is more like physics.

ziggytrix · #82

if you take it away, I certainly no longer have it!

Vibecrewangel · #83

But you as an individual do not truly exist. You are part of the whole. Energy yourself and all.

ziggytrix · #84

part of is not the same as all of. else set theory would be meaningless. also, cash registers couldn't operate.

Vibecrewangel · #85

And this is why I think language has destroyed the world.

ziggytrix · #86

You'd prefer the instrumental version?

Vibecrewangel · #87

YES.......and a quantum cash register while you are at it.

Something tells me you understand the concept Ziggy. If so, have you ever tried putting it into words? No wonder Buddha cried.....language is inadaquate.

Energy is all that exists. ("All" not having a numeric value)

Energy is both singular and infinite. (Buddhist/quantum physics - singular has no numeric value)

Whatever form or forms energy takes, it is still energy. It still exists. It is not part of the whole as Ziggy pointed out. It is the whole in a form or forms.

Therefore, even if you take away a destroy the form, the energy still exists.

I shouldn't take diet pills......I get all ramble-y......even in type.

kahljorn · #88

INFINITY MINUS ONE. OH YEA? INFINITY TIMES TWWOOO.

kahljorn · #89

Talked to some really stupid buddhists tonight, and realized they aren't what they are chalked up to be.

I would ask them a question about the universe or the nature of the mind or spirit, and they would be like, "I DONT KNOW BECAUSE IM NOT ENLIGHTENED". All of them. Only one person shared his thoughts, out of about 20.
If you ask them what they think enlightenment is, they say they don't know because they aren't enlightened. So they sit around spouting shit about enlightenment and karma all day, how do they know it's true they aren't enlightened. They are incapable of thinking for themselves. It's sad. They are whipped by Nirvana, lol.

FS · #90

They apparently don't understand the point of their own beliefs. More people who choose an answer because they don't want to ask questions.

Vibecrewangel · #91

Kahl - That is some funny shit......

Helm · #92

Quote:

everything, being the set of ALL things, minus one thing is not equivalent to the set of all things but one, nor is it equivalent to the empty set.

I know! I know! If you have a set of ALL things, and you take out one thing, you're left with a set of SOME things! Will I pass first grade after all?

kahljorn · #93

Infinity minus one

kellychaos · #94

Quote:

Originally Posted by Helm

I know! I know! If you have a set of ALL things, and you take out one thing, you're left with a set of SOME things! Will I pass first grade after all?

But it's still an infinite set. What makes that better defined?

Helm · #95

A complete set != infinity.

kahljorn · #96

What the fuck does it matter. If you are discussing an infinite set and you take one away, it is still an infinite set. Why? because it's fucking infinite you jack asses. If you took it away, it would have never been a part of the infinite set, it would have never been born, never even existed. The thought of it's oneness being subtracted from it would be simply impossible, because it is now zero, nothing, nil, squat, non-existant, empty, not anything, non being, nihility, nonentity, naught.. it's not even something to put words to, it's simply oblivious. Maybe that's too complicated to follow? Damn words.
If you're talking about ownership, you're a dumbass, go color somewhere else.

Helm · #97

Actually, has any dumbass mathematician tried to 'define' infinity up to now, or are they still content with using it without going all philosophical about it?

kellychaos · #98

Quote:

Originally Posted by Helm

Actually, has any dumbass mathematician tried to 'define' infinity up to now, or are they still content with using it without going all philosophical about it?

Re: Godel

Helm · #99

OMG DID YOU JUST SEND ME AN EMAIL :P :P

I'm sorry I won't have sex with you

Besides that, there's nothing that has been more abused than Godel's theorem in modern mathematics. Axiomatic logic does not dictate that a set of all things equals infinity, and thusly there is no fallacy in my ALL/SOME assumption above. It's a matter of context.

Also, Godel did not define infinity to the best of my knowledge.

kellychaos · #**100**

I meant using Godel's thereom in our way of thinking about infinity. I don't think he did specifically address the topic, although it may be implied. Here is a link that can explain it better than I can:

LINK