mustardness

You're not agreeing with me.

OMG somebodys ego { I } has gone haywire{ entangled mess }. 

1} I was first to introduce the idea 'dictionary  good begining place' for your in our disscussion, then you came back and agreed with me on that point in #287.

Neither 'something from nothing' ...... makes sense

Neither........ nor 'infinite regress' makes sense.

How about you stop hiding behind your dictionary like it's a Bible and just tell me what you believe.

Or are you scared to defend your position without a bunch of equivocated words to hide behind?

I don't despise dictionaries.  They're a good starting point.

Wow that is two places we agree{ Win/WIn }, since that is all I suggested as a good place for you to begin, with our disscussion then you went haywire  --entangled mess-- on me.

This presupposes that nothing existed at some point.

You have a lot of nerve to preach to me about ego.2 }  Please share when you actually have any rational, logical common sense that actually address my comments as stated, by adding to or detracting from them.  

I have 31 bilateral spinal nerves ergo 62 total.  The icosa{20}hedron has two versions { left and right-skew } of its primary set of 31 great circles.

I have 12 ---bilateral?--- cranial nerves.  24 if their truly  bilateral. I dunno for sure.

Truth = Truth, irrespective of where, when and how it is presented or it is recieved.

So your point is someone started a similar topic to this one before?

Whether that conclusion matches what happens in reality is something else to worry about.

What seemingly appears as equlibrium is never true equlibrium.

Is spin left \\\\\\\ or right ////// inherently existent in cosmic quantum wave?

That simplifies to 5=5, which needs the a=a rule to formally know is true.

Kieth, sorry I never stated that I agree with your assessment. Iover looked that key detail of acknowledgement --aka "giving credit where credit is due'---.

However, that said, how many times have I seen that 1 + 1 = 2 and that is true numerically speaking but not in at least synergetically geometric way.

1 2D triangle + 1 2D triangle may equal 4 2D triangles of the same size via synergy.

3 angles of triangle + 3 angles of triangle synergetically may equal 12 angles of 3D tetra{4}hedron.

This is, of course, old news, since Ive posted that info in many various threads at DDO and DArt .

A man claims that a god exists, without any evidence to support this claim but for whatever reason this claim pacifies your fears,

Kill all the poor people!

Some depressed or depressed and poor do that intentionally or un-intentionally with their actions. Ex trying to come to USA via a big desert.

Poor people have a whole differrent set of circumstances.  And within that set we have many differrent cultures of poor people and their circumstances have pull or push on what those people may choose to do.

Living poorly at in amazon, Borneo, Australian out back  is not the same set of circumstances of big city poverty.  The chances of dying younger is greater in both circumstances, for the general population.

Money only has value because we create such value—so it is a limited resource, albeit not an intangible one.

complete irrelevant blather, you talk to hear yourself talk

We can only hope that others can step outside their narrowed-mind existence on occasion.

..."The first principle is that you must not fool yourself and you are the easiest person to fool."... Ricard Feynman .."Surely Your Joking Mr. Feynman?"...."" ""

I can't think of anything that one can prove without relying on a=a -> true at some point.

If your computer is oriented { positioned } in specific way, the first "a" on left is not equal to the other one on right right, because, its lies on a differrent longitude.

If computer is turned 90 degrees, their equal, in that both are on same longitude, but no longer on same latitude.

By the way, if you havent yet figured this out, I'm presenting  a chewing-gum mind-game.  :---(

If consciousness is an illusion, what is it an an illusion of? 

3D { XYZ } plus Time { Observed Reality } ergo moderating angle and frequency over eternally reoccurring   time periods { second, month, day year etc  }

Many different religions claim to have a book of revealed truth directly from some god(s) which one do you mean and what makes it a better source of truth than any other?

Thank your for rational, logical common sense response.

The only thing worse than a religious fundamentalist, is a religious fundamentalist philosopher with ego based mental blockages to truth.

Here are brief examples for why belief in God is more rational. I'll be glad to discuss in more depth depending on your level of interest in the subject.- first cause 

- best explanation for cause of the Big Bang

- best explanation for fine-tunedness of the universe

- best explanation for the origin of the information in first life forms

A = A

1} I believe at least one, if not more in this thread, will argue that point with you.

2} I wouldnt cause some truths are too obvious deny, even tho one A is on a differrent longitude the other A as the computer exists in space on Earth at specific longitudes at various times if it is move.  More so for a laptop. However, there repective ratio to each other will remain the same even as the laptop flys around the Earth on jet plane at many differrent longitudes.

3} Is ^ = to v .....And  this is considering that that I had a keyborard that made them eactly same size { number of bits//pixels }?
...Duhh, no......

I believe there are philosophers here that would  try to argue other wise because some philosophers ---more so men in general-- ego will not allow them to find some way putting their mind into the obvious windows-of-truth, to see if the window-of-truth has a crack in it or if they can crack it with their mind.

( *  i  * )

.... Tell me what you believe .....

If i prophecied you would be struck by a semi truck 3 days from now, are you willing to accept that prophecy is not irrelevant?

Why would I start at a dictionary when I already have tautologies and they're already better.

  Please share when you actually have any rational, logical common sense that actually address my comments as stated, by adding to or detracting from, then,  

1} Obviously you despise, and do not understand, how or why. dictionaries have come to exist.

2} you carry that dispostion over onto others who even suggest you begin with a dictionary,

Until you can accept the hows and whys for the existence of dictionaries your ego is going to keep your playing the same repetitive  chewing gum mind-game with me, instead of;

But you're not excepting any fleshing of words at this point.  You're clinging to the definitions.  Answer me this.  What's more important.  The definition? or the fact that we can talk to each other coherently? 

A true philosopher does not carry a dictionary. 

A true philosopher fleshes out everything.

we don't really know what conciousness is.

Yes we do and Fuller laid it out clearly for us beginning with the most minimally least complex set for consciousness { awareness ergo otherness ergo twoness }.

Consciousness exists because it is manifest in me.

And complex consciousness exists with  the cow, dog, cat, turtle, cetaceans etc.  Its a minimal brainer.

Fallanese is religious philosopher type whose ego keeps them ignorant of speaking of truth and continually  chewing the same mind-game gum long after any flavor of truth has gone from whats being chewed.

Religious philosopher type may be further from truth than just religious, or some philosopher types.

My ego { * i  * } is in search of truth.

You think everything is just nonphysical empty space with no physical reality?

How true.  Even if some people cannot feel pain, the stove or ionizing radiation will still burn them to a crisp or liquid.

I understand that Jacob Bekenstieins black hole mathematics ---and later verified by S Hawking--  led him to make the following statements to Scientific American, ...."we appear to be 2D creatures have an illusion of 3D"....

Ive also give geometric examples of the same phenomena. Ex when a 3D tetrahedron turns iself inside-out, there is postion where the nodal point { vertex } is in same plane with its peripheral three nodal points ergo we have a seemingly subdivided 2D triangle.

So we may say that, a 3D tetrahedron is just warped 2D.  If the warped 2D subdivided triangles nuclear nodal point oscillates { motion } between inside-out and outside out, over time and distance, then we begin to arrive at a 3D di-pyramid pattern that infers a seemingly set of 5 nodal points of existence.

If this pattern of oscillation is extended will get the following seemingly criss-crossing, sine-wave pattern

><><><><><><><><><><><><><><

An assumption is not the same as a presupposition.  To assume is to act in the role of.  Presuppositions are assumptions without evidence.  I have evidence, so it's not a vacuous assumption.  It's a logical one.

Please share when you actually have any rational, logical common sense that actually invalidate any comments by me, as stated. You share none because you have none to share.

Like Fallenese you need to begin with a dictionary and actually look at at least some basics of word definitions ---ex consciousness, color, sound etc---   and then  perhaps you can begin to access some rational logical common sense as to how those definitions come about and how new words come to exist.

There exists various definitions for differrent kinds of consciousness and you cannot accept any of them.31.00627668029982017547631506710.006276680299820175476315067101

The be more accurate I should state there varying degrees of complexity involved  with consciousness and that equates to various kinds of consciousness.

Woman is most complex consciousness.  Twoness between two particles of  mass there one or more lines-of-relationship is the simplest consciousness existence.

My most recent explorations of four level/line as numerical torus, reveal that most minimal quanta of Universe/God, the graviton-darkion may have 78 lines-of-relationship between its total 9 surface nodal points and 4 inside-the-tube nodal points.

13^2 = 169

169 - 13 =  156

156 / 2 = 78 i.e. n^2 - n and then divided by 2 = total lines-of-relationship. See LINK

Fullers Operating System of Universe, is based on the cubo{6}-octa{8}hedron that has 12-around-1 nodal points and once the nuclear nodal point is removed the  the jitterbug has12 surface nodal points and the ability to transforms into many shapes including well known exotic shapes ex the double sine wave of EMRadiation.

However, 12 nodal points have 66 lines-of-relationship and also have the ability to stabilize as the icsosa{20}hedron --see shell of many viruses--.

Pi-time = 66.4 via Pi^4 - 31 { 31 bilateral spinal nerves ergo 62 }

If you can write me an equation that would accurately measure consciousness throughout the cosmos then you might make it analogous to gravity. Until then, I see no observable (independently verifiable perceivable) evidence of consciousness.

There exists various kinds of consciousness and you cannot accept any of them.

There exists various definitions for differrent kinds of consciousness and you cannot accept any of them.

A closed//narrow mind shuts iself off from truths it does not want hear, consider, explore etc.

Welcome to many religious and some philosopher types. It is about their ego, nothing more nothing less.

In my worldview, even "the physical" is a mental construct

There exists people who feel no pain, however, there skin still burns.  The burn is not a mental construct.

It is physical/energy of occupied space being transformed.

Why do so many philosophers and religious types like to play bubble gum-for-the-mind games?

Is it primarily ego based? 

You're basically just a theist who worships shapes. 

Yes.  Not sure I suggested otherwise. Not sure what is more correct way of stating my below.

I would ask you why you think sound exist.

Your kidding. Yes?

This is a repeat of the color disscussion ony were talking frequency of sound and not EMRadiaiton { photon }

That you believe color{ specific frequencies of EMRadiation } or sound { specific frequency vibraing air or water molecules } does not exist is false. 

That you cannot accept these well known and documented facts//truths make you appear as being similar to { likedn too }  a delusional, fundamental religious type.

Start with a dictionary and find the words color and sound.  Then check with the word Unicorn. Do you see the differrence between the two.

Unicorns are fictional rather than actual//real biologic's.

Sound and color are not fictional.

I agree I think saying things like shapes being real is strange.

There is only one possibility and that is gods don't exist men claim that gods exist.Religion is a tool box for everyday life-mechanics and has amoral integrity set.

As always { eternally } it depends on how we define God, " G "od, god etc.

To date I'm the only person here at DArt or DDO, that,  has given a clear, concise, accurate, rationally logical common sense definition of God or " G "od ergo Universe//Uni-V-erse in any of the availble forum topic threads and my definitions stem from what humans observe scientifically.

Often times the ego is threaten by rational, logical common sense truths, when those truths counter what one states or believes.

One way to avoid the most refined truth is to ignore it, talk past or around it, get stuck in loops there never go arrive at any conclusions i.e. theyh never resolve themselves. Some philosopher types and most relgious types have these issues.

We know so much about the universe that anything outside of it that anything that escaped it had to surpass the speed of light. 

Furthermore, things are so far away, they don't affect me directly.  .

Abstracts are not things.

Metaphysical-1, mind/intellect/concepts aka abstract thoughts are not occupied space things, do not have mass, do not have color, spin { yaw-pitch-roll } charge, toreue etc.

They are abstract thing so again we get back to basic Cosmic Trinity, of which none have ever invalidated or added too via any rational, logical common sense.

Cosmic Trinity

Metaphysical, in essence, means beyond physical or that which cannot be reached by the physical. 

Gravity (  ) and dark energy )(  are connected to our Observed Time reality { phyiscal/energy associated with sine-wave /\/\/\/ } we just have not quantised or quantified the connection yet and we may never be able to, contray to Lee Smolins predictions we will have quantified gravity geometrically by 2015 or so.

Math is an abstract.  It's not metaphysical nor is it any kind of physical.  

Are observers resultants? If so, you're saying something is objective irrespective of resultants/observers, yet you agreed with me.

I know you gave the color example, but colors themselves don't actually exist. 

  So this makes conceptualizing a relative truth difficult because I would like to see it applied to something physical as opposed to an abstraction of the physical.  I'm not saying that I can't use my senses, it's just color is one of those weird things that has different implications

Could I get some elaboration on what makes something a relative truth?  I'm a bit skeptical that such truths exist, but not enough to contend outright.  I was thinking you could help sway me one way or the other. 

Your kidding , right? 

Ive already given examples of relative truth.

Does sound exist?  Yes for some, no for others.

Is sky blue. Yes sometimes is true. Sky is red sometimes. Sometimes it is black?

From outside, Earths sky is multi-colored.

From outside Jupitors sky may be even more multi-colored.

Here is a relative true statement...

Such a thing could be a gift that can only be derived from the love of God, not something we deserve in our own right. 

Or as Fuller states, there is no gurrantees humanity will past the test --final exam--   to remain a viable entity set on Earth.