Wazua
»
Club SK
»
Life
»
The Revolution of Consciusness
Rank: Elder Joined: 3/19/2013 Posts: 2,552
|
tycho wrote:symbols, you can know what I overlooked if you say you've done something and I claim not to have seen it.
Let me repeat my argument: If x and y are mutually exclusive, such that x or y, then x and y are also independent.
But if x and y are not mutually exclusive, then they are co-dependent. That is x depends on y and vice versa.
Your question is, 'can there be x without y?' For which the above conditionals show that x without y is possible if they are mutually exclusive.
And the second conditional shows that x can't be without y if they are NOT mutually exclusive.
I say that the latter is the case. And I can give a simple proof for it.
x + y = y + x = z.
Now present your argument.
x ⊆ y
|
|
|
Rank: Elder Joined: 7/1/2011 Posts: 8,804 Location: Nairobi
|
symbols wrote:tycho wrote:symbols, you can know what I overlooked if you say you've done something and I claim not to have seen it.
Let me repeat my argument: If x and y are mutually exclusive, such that x or y, then x and y are also independent.
But if x and y are not mutually exclusive, then they are co-dependent. That is x depends on y and vice versa.
Your question is, 'can there be x without y?' For which the above conditionals show that x without y is possible if they are mutually exclusive.
And the second conditional shows that x can't be without y if they are NOT mutually exclusive.
I say that the latter is the case. And I can give a simple proof for it.
x + y = y + x = z.
Now present your argument.
x ⊆ y Then you agree with the second conditional because if x is a subset of y then x and y are not mutually exclusive. And both are each other's subsets.
|
|
|
Rank: Elder Joined: 3/19/2013 Posts: 2,552
|
tycho wrote:symbols wrote:tycho wrote:symbols, you can know what I overlooked if you say you've done something and I claim not to have seen it.
Let me repeat my argument: If x and y are mutually exclusive, such that x or y, then x and y are also independent.
But if x and y are not mutually exclusive, then they are co-dependent. That is x depends on y and vice versa.
Your question is, 'can there be x without y?' For which the above conditionals show that x without y is possible if they are mutually exclusive.
And the second conditional shows that x can't be without y if they are NOT mutually exclusive.
I say that the latter is the case. And I can give a simple proof for it.
x + y = y + x = z.
Now present your argument.
x ⊆ y Then you agree with the second conditional because if x is a subset of y then x and y are not mutually exclusive. And both are each other's subsets. I don't agree with it and I never said they were mutually exclusive. They are not subsets of each other.x≠y
|
|
|
Rank: Elder Joined: 7/1/2011 Posts: 8,804 Location: Nairobi
|
symbols wrote:tycho wrote:symbols wrote:tycho wrote:symbols, you can know what I overlooked if you say you've done something and I claim not to have seen it.
Let me repeat my argument: If x and y are mutually exclusive, such that x or y, then x and y are also independent.
But if x and y are not mutually exclusive, then they are co-dependent. That is x depends on y and vice versa.
Your question is, 'can there be x without y?' For which the above conditionals show that x without y is possible if they are mutually exclusive.
And the second conditional shows that x can't be without y if they are NOT mutually exclusive.
I say that the latter is the case. And I can give a simple proof for it.
x + y = y + x = z.
Now present your argument.
x ⊆ y Then you agree with the second conditional because if x is a subset of y then x and y are not mutually exclusive. And both are each other's subsets. I don't agree with it and I never said they were mutually exclusive. They are not subsets of each other.x≠y Lol! You don't have to say it explicitly! If they aren't mutually exclusive then they must be co-dependent. X doesn't have to be equal to y so that each can be the other's subset.
|
|
|
Rank: Elder Joined: 3/19/2013 Posts: 2,552
|
tycho wrote:symbols wrote:tycho wrote:symbols wrote:tycho wrote:symbols, you can know what I overlooked if you say you've done something and I claim not to have seen it.
Let me repeat my argument: If x and y are mutually exclusive, such that x or y, then x and y are also independent.
But if x and y are not mutually exclusive, then they are co-dependent. That is x depends on y and vice versa.
Your question is, 'can there be x without y?' For which the above conditionals show that x without y is possible if they are mutually exclusive.
And the second conditional shows that x can't be without y if they are NOT mutually exclusive.
I say that the latter is the case. And I can give a simple proof for it.
x + y = y + x = z.
Now present your argument.
x ⊆ y Then you agree with the second conditional because if x is a subset of y then x and y are not mutually exclusive. And both are each other's subsets. I don't agree with it and I never said they were mutually exclusive. They are not subsets of each other.x≠y Lol! You don't have to say it explicitly! If they aren't mutually exclusive then they must be co-dependent. X doesn't have to be equal to y so that each can be the other's subset. Is that your argument?
|
|
|
Rank: Elder Joined: 7/1/2011 Posts: 8,804 Location: Nairobi
|
symbols wrote:tycho wrote:symbols wrote:tycho wrote:symbols wrote:tycho wrote:symbols, you can know what I overlooked if you say you've done something and I claim not to have seen it.
Let me repeat my argument: If x and y are mutually exclusive, such that x or y, then x and y are also independent.
But if x and y are not mutually exclusive, then they are co-dependent. That is x depends on y and vice versa.
Your question is, 'can there be x without y?' For which the above conditionals show that x without y is possible if they are mutually exclusive.
And the second conditional shows that x can't be without y if they are NOT mutually exclusive.
I say that the latter is the case. And I can give a simple proof for it.
x + y = y + x = z.
Now present your argument.
x ⊆ y Then you agree with the second conditional because if x is a subset of y then x and y are not mutually exclusive. And both are each other's subsets. I don't agree with it and I never said they were mutually exclusive. They are not subsets of each other.x≠y Lol! You don't have to say it explicitly! If they aren't mutually exclusive then they must be co-dependent. X doesn't have to be equal to y so that each can be the other's subset. Is that your argument? This last post is an argument regarding any two sets where one is a subset of the other.
|
|
|
Rank: Veteran Joined: 7/3/2007 Posts: 1,635
|
tycho wrote:Wakanyugi, notice that you've described an ordered system determined by a given level of understanding.
But understanding is changing, and relations are being redefined. It should be smooth.
But problem is our psychological make up and growth in knowledge don't get along. There's a lag. So we need therapies of some kind. It's all about 'the Judgment' as therapy. Tycho, sorry I forgot to respond to this. The order I refer to is not limited to any portion of reality but describes everything. For instance, you are made up molecules, which are simply atoms organized in a certain order. Similarly these atoms and the matter they organise are energy vibrating at a certain pattern/order or frequency. We tend to get stuck on the explicate, the macro level of this order - the cows, trees, mountains etc and forget that beneath it is a more profound yet simpler implicate order from which everything originates. Again the explicate order is a projection, an illusion, created the way letters are organised to form words and sentences that have meaning. If you could control the way your atoms are organized you could change the way you look at will (by the way we do that though often not consciously). How we can get ourselves to move past the fixation with the superficial is a big question for me. The only thing I can bet on is that if such a perspective change occurs, everything else will change. Perhaps that what we are afraid of. "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: 7/1/2011 Posts: 8,804 Location: Nairobi
|
Wakanyugi, to name everything you must be God. That's why Man, being a namer of everything, is a reflection of God. But if we look at human history, we see an evolving Man. Does this point to an evolving God?
So the question of naming everything involves Man and God evolving at the same rate. Meaning? Human psychology transforming to God psychology. Then God psychology 'reigning'. Singularity. Silence.
Two things need to happen: A transforming event, and a properly crafted nurturing program for human children. The first is already going on. The current global disturbances and changes are part of it. The rate at which everything settles will depend on how humanity approaches 'the Judgement day'.
Everything follows thereafter. So if there's anything to focus on, it's your Judgment. The transformation of your psychology. Only that is needed.
|
|
|
Rank: Veteran Joined: 7/3/2007 Posts: 1,635
|
tycho wrote:Wakanyugi, to name everything you must be God. That's why Man, being a namer of everything, is a reflection of God. But if we look at human history, we see an evolving Man. Does this point to an evolving God?
So the question of naming everything involves Man and God evolving at the same rate. Meaning? Human psychology transforming to God psychology. Then God psychology 'reigning'. Singularity. Silence.
Tycho: the above two paragraphs, I think, capture the problem perfectly:
"...to name everything you must be God."But of course. How can you not be God (as well as all else that is). What else could you possibly be? "So the question of naming everything involves Man and God evolving at the same rate. "Hello! Are you implying that man and God are separate? Haven't we covered this ground already? There is no separation.So you, the God-being have taken a side trip to Earth, to practice human-being. What is wrong with that? I suspect the reason we default so often to separation, and to a demeaning perspective of ourselves, is not so much socialization as fear. Fear that if we claim our Godness, somehow, 'god' or the Priest or Sheikh or whoever, will strike us down. This is the oldest manipulation script in the book. How sad. "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: Member Joined: 11/19/2009 Posts: 3,142
|
I can only look on with longing from the sidelines.
How I wish I too had someone to agree with on topics of interest as thunderously as my brothers are doing above.
CLK disappeared ,,,,, Mtu Biz mteja ,,,, D32 football ,,,,, Coolio Somalia ,,,
Sigh ,,,,
|
|
|
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.
|