Wazua
»
Club SK
»
Life
»
The Revolution of Consciusness
Rank: Elder Joined: 3/19/2013 Posts: 2,552
|
Wakanyugi wrote:symbols wrote:Improbability is also a probability. Balance of paradox. Yes it is. In fact the parallel Universes theory posits that there is an infinite number of Universes and anything that could ever happen has already happened in at least one of them. Still no absolutes, my friend. Sorry. The truth is there is no truth.Is that statement true or false? Context.If parallel universes exist,they are just that parallel universes.Something happening in a parallel universe doesn't mean it has happened in this universe.
|
|
|
Rank: Veteran Joined: 7/3/2007 Posts: 1,635
|
symbols wrote:Wakanyugi wrote:symbols wrote:Wakanyugi wrote:symbols wrote:tycho wrote:Wakanyugi wrote:symbols wrote:Wakanyugi wrote:symbols wrote:Wakanyugi wrote:symbols wrote:Where is the science to prove morality? Moral relativism cuts both ways.Anything goes. Mhhhmmmm...interesting question. I have never thought of morality as a science question. More as a philosophical take on the implications of science, and other things, to human life. But I am sure Tycho and Muriel have a different take on this.  As for moral relativism, if you mean this as the opposite of moral absolutes, I fear you are on a very slippery slope here. There are no absolutes in our neck of the Universe. Are you absolutely sure? Tell me one absolute. Even the laws of physics are not absolute. They have simply not been disproven, yet. This always ends with,is relativism absolute? I think the rules that construct our Universe make it impossible for any absolute to exist. The basic premise is that, as long as the possibility exists that something can be falsified, it can not be an absolute. I am not aware of any belief system, theory or even perception that can not be falsified. Are you? Even relativism can possibly be falsified, as you are trying to do. An absolute can expand. That is, an absolute can 'relativize'. Like the boundary conditions of a ball from deflation to inflation. The ball and its capacity to inflate or deflate are considered to be the absolutes.The changed is based on the absolutes. Symbols, perhaps I can clarify this by referring to an authority way more qualified. Einstein. His theories of relativity essentially argued, and have been proven, that the reality you perceive depends on your position in space/time. From where you sit, all is normal. But sit on a beam of light (or an an equally fast spacecraft) and time slows down or maybe even stops, according to an observer. In other words everything is relative to where/when you are. There are no absolutes. Quantum theory is even crazier. If you observe particles they 'decide' to become waves or vise versa. Or, the cat is both dead and alive, until you make the observation and then it assumes one of these possibilities. There are no absolutes. If there is perception,then there is something to be perceived.The object being perceived is the absolute. You can look at an object from different angles and observe different things but there is still an object. Yes but not the same object. At least not according to science: Einstein: if you accelerate an object to the speed of light, its mass, and therefore the energy required to propel it, expand to infinity. Is it still the same object? Schrodinger: The cat is dead or the cat is alive, depends on the observer. Is a dead cat and a living cat the same object? Heisenberg: you can either determine the speed of a particle or its position, never both at the same time. How can they be the same object then? I could go on, and this is just from the science domain. The object changes but the object is still there.Just because water can change states doesn't mean it isn't water. Unless you're trying to tell me science believes there is no object and thus admitting that science also doesn't exist. As you know science is not a monolithic belief system but a series of arguments, some in contradiction to each other. And yes, there are some that believe there is no object: much of Quantum mechanics, for instance, even relativity (remember Einstein's Matter/Energy duality) and of course the Holographic Universe theory that I quoted earlier. In short we have no 'firm ground to stand on.' You and Muriel need to get comfortable with uncertainty. It is likely to be with us for very long. "The opposite of a correct statement is a false statement. But the opposite of a profound truth may well be another profound truth." (Niels Bohr)
|
|
|
Rank: Elder Joined: 3/19/2013 Posts: 2,552
|
Wakanyugi wrote:symbols wrote:Wakanyugi wrote:symbols wrote:Wakanyugi wrote:symbols wrote:tycho wrote:Wakanyugi wrote:symbols wrote:Wakanyugi wrote:symbols wrote:Wakanyugi wrote:symbols wrote:Where is the science to prove morality? Moral relativism cuts both ways.Anything goes. Mhhhmmmm...interesting question. I have never thought of morality as a science question. More as a philosophical take on the implications of science, and other things, to human life. But I am sure Tycho and Muriel have a different take on this. As for moral relativism, if you mean this as the opposite of moral absolutes, I fear you are on a very slippery slope here. There are no absolutes in our neck of the Universe. Are you absolutely sure? Tell me one absolute. Even the laws of physics are not absolute. They have simply not been disproven, yet. This always ends with,is relativism absolute? I think the rules that construct our Universe make it impossible for any absolute to exist. The basic premise is that, as long as the possibility exists that something can be falsified, it can not be an absolute. I am not aware of any belief system, theory or even perception that can not be falsified. Are you? Even relativism can possibly be falsified, as you are trying to do. An absolute can expand. That is, an absolute can 'relativize'. Like the boundary conditions of a ball from deflation to inflation. The ball and its capacity to inflate or deflate are considered to be the absolutes.The changed is based on the absolutes. Symbols, perhaps I can clarify this by referring to an authority way more qualified. Einstein. His theories of relativity essentially argued, and have been proven, that the reality you perceive depends on your position in space/time. From where you sit, all is normal. But sit on a beam of light (or an an equally fast spacecraft) and time slows down or maybe even stops, according to an observer. In other words everything is relative to where/when you are. There are no absolutes. Quantum theory is even crazier. If you observe particles they 'decide' to become waves or vise versa. Or, the cat is both dead and alive, until you make the observation and then it assumes one of these possibilities. There are no absolutes. If there is perception,then there is something to be perceived.The object being perceived is the absolute. You can look at an object from different angles and observe different things but there is still an object. Yes but not the same object. At least not according to science: Einstein: if you accelerate an object to the speed of light, its mass, and therefore the energy required to propel it, expand to infinity. Is it still the same object? Schrodinger: The cat is dead or the cat is alive, depends on the observer. Is a dead cat and a living cat the same object? Heisenberg: you can either determine the speed of a particle or its position, never both at the same time. How can they be the same object then? I could go on, and this is just from the science domain. The object changes but the object is still there.Just because water can change states doesn't mean it isn't water. Unless you're trying to tell me science believes there is no object and thus admitting that science also doesn't exist. As you know science is not a monolithic belief system but a series of arguments, some in contradiction to each other. And yes, there are some that believe there is no object: much of Quantum mechanics, for instance, even relativity (remember Einstein's Matter/Energy duality) and of course the Holographic Universe theory that I quoted earlier. In short we have no 'firm ground to stand on.' You and Muriel need to get comfortable with uncertainty. It is likely to be with us for very long. Uncertainty cuts both ways.You can be uncertain uncertainty exists.
|
|
|
Rank: Veteran Joined: 7/3/2007 Posts: 1,635
|
symbols wrote:Wakanyugi wrote:symbols wrote:Improbability is also a probability. Balance of paradox. Yes it is. In fact the parallel Universes theory posits that there is an infinite number of Universes and anything that could ever happen has already happened in at least one of them. Still no absolutes, my friend. Sorry. The truth is there is no truth.Is that statement true or false? For me it is true...until it can be proved false. Which you have not done, yet. wrote:
Context.If parallel universes exist,they are just that parallel universes.Something happening in a parallel universe doesn't mean it has happened in this universe.
I didn't say it has happened in this Universe, necessarily. Just that it has happened 'somewhere/when' meaning that an observer has probably perceived it (otherwise how would it have happened?) So if anything can happen has happened, where does that leave your absolute? "The opposite of a correct statement is a false statement. But the opposite of a profound truth may well be another profound truth." (Niels Bohr)
|
|
|
Rank: Veteran Joined: 7/3/2007 Posts: 1,635
|
symbols wrote:Wakanyugi wrote:symbols wrote:Wakanyugi wrote:symbols wrote:Wakanyugi wrote:symbols wrote:tycho wrote:Wakanyugi wrote:symbols wrote:Wakanyugi wrote:symbols wrote:Wakanyugi wrote:symbols wrote:Where is the science to prove morality? Moral relativism cuts both ways.Anything goes. Mhhhmmmm...interesting question. I have never thought of morality as a science question. More as a philosophical take on the implications of science, and other things, to human life. But I am sure Tycho and Muriel have a different take on this. As for moral relativism, if you mean this as the opposite of moral absolutes, I fear you are on a very slippery slope here. There are no absolutes in our neck of the Universe. Are you absolutely sure? Tell me one absolute. Even the laws of physics are not absolute. They have simply not been disproven, yet. This always ends with,is relativism absolute? I think the rules that construct our Universe make it impossible for any absolute to exist. The basic premise is that, as long as the possibility exists that something can be falsified, it can not be an absolute. I am not aware of any belief system, theory or even perception that can not be falsified. Are you? Even relativism can possibly be falsified, as you are trying to do. An absolute can expand. That is, an absolute can 'relativize'. Like the boundary conditions of a ball from deflation to inflation. The ball and its capacity to inflate or deflate are considered to be the absolutes.The changed is based on the absolutes. Symbols, perhaps I can clarify this by referring to an authority way more qualified. Einstein. His theories of relativity essentially argued, and have been proven, that the reality you perceive depends on your position in space/time. From where you sit, all is normal. But sit on a beam of light (or an an equally fast spacecraft) and time slows down or maybe even stops, according to an observer. In other words everything is relative to where/when you are. There are no absolutes. Quantum theory is even crazier. If you observe particles they 'decide' to become waves or vise versa. Or, the cat is both dead and alive, until you make the observation and then it assumes one of these possibilities. There are no absolutes. If there is perception,then there is something to be perceived.The object being perceived is the absolute. You can look at an object from different angles and observe different things but there is still an object. Yes but not the same object. At least not according to science: Einstein: if you accelerate an object to the speed of light, its mass, and therefore the energy required to propel it, expand to infinity. Is it still the same object? Schrodinger: The cat is dead or the cat is alive, depends on the observer. Is a dead cat and a living cat the same object? Heisenberg: you can either determine the speed of a particle or its position, never both at the same time. How can they be the same object then? I could go on, and this is just from the science domain. The object changes but the object is still there.Just because water can change states doesn't mean it isn't water. Unless you're trying to tell me science believes there is no object and thus admitting that science also doesn't exist. As you know science is not a monolithic belief system but a series of arguments, some in contradiction to each other. And yes, there are some that believe there is no object: much of Quantum mechanics, for instance, even relativity (remember Einstein's Matter/Energy duality) and of course the Holographic Universe theory that I quoted earlier. In short we have no 'firm ground to stand on.' You and Muriel need to get comfortable with uncertainty. It is likely to be with us for very long. Uncertainty cuts both ways.You can be uncertain uncertainty exists. I give up "The opposite of a correct statement is a false statement. But the opposite of a profound truth may well be another profound truth." (Niels Bohr)
|
|
|
Rank: Elder Joined: 3/19/2013 Posts: 2,552
|
Wakanyugi wrote:symbols wrote:Wakanyugi wrote:symbols wrote:Improbability is also a probability. Balance of paradox. Yes it is. In fact the parallel Universes theory posits that there is an infinite number of Universes and anything that could ever happen has already happened in at least one of them. Still no absolutes, my friend. Sorry. The truth is there is no truth.Is that statement true or false? For me it is true...until it can be proved false. Which you have not done, yet. wrote:
Context.If parallel universes exist,they are just that parallel universes.Something happening in a parallel universe doesn't mean it has happened in this universe.
I didn't say it has happened in this Universe, necessarily. Just that it has happened 'somewhere/when' meaning that an observer has probably perceived it (otherwise how would it have happened?) So if anything can happen has happened, where does that leave your absolute?  About the parallel universes,it hasn't happened here or it's happened there or it's happened a number of times in the parallel universes.
|
|
|
Rank: Veteran Joined: 7/3/2007 Posts: 1,635
|
symbols wrote:Wakanyugi wrote:symbols wrote:Wakanyugi wrote:symbols wrote:Improbability is also a probability. Balance of paradox. Yes it is. In fact the parallel Universes theory posits that there is an infinite number of Universes and anything that could ever happen has already happened in at least one of them. Still no absolutes, my friend. Sorry. The truth is there is no truth.Is that statement true or false? For me it is true...until it can be proved false. Which you have not done, yet. wrote:
Context.If parallel universes exist,they are just that parallel universes.Something happening in a parallel universe doesn't mean it has happened in this universe.
I didn't say it has happened in this Universe, necessarily. Just that it has happened 'somewhere/when' meaning that an observer has probably perceived it (otherwise how would it have happened?) So if anything can happen has happened, where does that leave your absolute? It hasn't happened here. That's the absolute. Maybe it has. You just haven't perceived it yet. In fact, if I was a Scientist, this is the the way I would push the parallel Universes theory: 'We all exist each in their own Universe, which is why no two realities are the same. However, every so often, we peak out of our particular Universe and, together with others, try to create a consensus Universe.' This partly explains why relationships are so hard. "The opposite of a correct statement is a false statement. But the opposite of a profound truth may well be another profound truth." (Niels Bohr)
|
|
|
Rank: Elder Joined: 3/19/2013 Posts: 2,552
|
Wakanyugi wrote:symbols wrote:Wakanyugi wrote:symbols wrote:Wakanyugi wrote:symbols wrote:Improbability is also a probability. Balance of paradox. Yes it is. In fact the parallel Universes theory posits that there is an infinite number of Universes and anything that could ever happen has already happened in at least one of them. Still no absolutes, my friend. Sorry. The truth is there is no truth.Is that statement true or false? For me it is true...until it can be proved false. Which you have not done, yet. wrote:
Context.If parallel universes exist,they are just that parallel universes.Something happening in a parallel universe doesn't mean it has happened in this universe.
I didn't say it has happened in this Universe, necessarily. Just that it has happened 'somewhere/when' meaning that an observer has probably perceived it (otherwise how would it have happened?) So if anything can happen has happened, where does that leave your absolute? It hasn't happened here. That's the absolute. Maybe it has. You just haven't perceived it yet. In fact, if I was a Scientist, this is the the way I would push the parallel Universes theory: 'We all exist each in their own Universe, which is why no two realities are the same. However, every so often, we peak out of our particular Universe and, together with others, try to create a consensus Universe.' This partly explains why relationships are so hard. Existence is interesting.At least that's how I see it
|
|
|
Rank: Member Joined: 11/19/2009 Posts: 3,142
|
tycho wrote:Muriel wrote:Control requires omnipresence. Hence the striving and desire of intelligence agencies to observe all things.
Wazua is not omnipresent. It depends on how the omnipresence is defined. For example, right now, looking at the threads under discussion you'll realize wazua is everywhere. Like this thread alone is in the past, present and future. Another is in Machakos county, and the like. It's more of a mathematical formula that covers all events at all times and an algorithm of engagement. Even in the cafe. Exactly. It depends upon another. Therefore it is not control. It is influence. If it were control it would not rely on something else to exert its attributes of control. The something else can easily negate its attributes of control hence it won't control.
|
|
|
Rank: Member Joined: 11/19/2009 Posts: 3,142
|
Wakanyugi wrote:Muriel wrote:Control requires omnipresence. Hence the striving and desire of intelligence agencies to observe all things.
Wazua is not omnipresent. On the other hand, true control requires the acquiescence of the controlled. Then the controller does not even have to be there as the controlled will do the job for him. Religious leaders figured this out a long time ago. Yes. Acquiescence of the controlled. Agreement to be controlled. Disagreement to be controlled beats the control. That is why renegades are not controlled and cannot be controlled.
|
|
|
Wazua
»
Club SK
»
Life
»
The Revolution of Consciusness
Forum Jump
You cannot post new topics in this forum.
You cannot reply to topics in this forum.
You cannot delete your posts in this forum.
You cannot edit your posts in this forum.
You cannot create polls in this forum.
You cannot vote in polls in this forum.
|