[bkadoctaj]

Originally Posted by Zylark

Not what I said. What I said was that discussing semantics is useless. Do you disagree?

My perception was that you were implying my thread was merely arguing semantics. If that be the case, I disagree. If not, perhaps I'd agree.

Yes.

Ofcourse it depends upon what one mean by universe. Most commonly defined as everything that physically exists. That may quite granted lead us down roads to M-Theory (hypothesis) or other multiverse speculations. But nonetheless, if it is not physically there, how can we learn about it? And on the opposite side of that coin, what is nothing, but the lack of existence? By definition really.

lol That's ridiculous... It's not the lack of existence... There is no possible attribute to be lacked in nothing. Attributes don't even apply here. Nothing isn't even a "state". It's not a non-state either. The concept of nothing in and of itself cannot truly represent what it attempts to. No need to play dumb here. Try explaining how the brain makes consciousness for me with your science. If you can't explain why you are conscious of the math system as fundamental to actually understanding REALITY and EXISTENCE... you can't even begin to claim you know this for sure, much less that any Christian doesn't know what he's talking about. I wish you'd admit for once that you have indeed been had by limits, and remain so, at least for the moment.

Please don't ask others to back off on their "outrageous", "bigoted", or "nonsensical" statements... The point of this thread is actually to be groundbreaking. Math is clearly no more objective in terms of understanding the true essence of Existence than any religion. This cannot be denied. We may approximate it within the dimensional box of our subjective limitations if we choose, or we may release our biases as attempt to intuitively grasp this essence. If one has experienced any sort of personal Enlightenment, one will have some essential idea of how BEING "is". However, this personalized mental picture will clearly be limited by the experiential limits one has placed upon oneself.

Ah yes. the "subjective reality" canard.

Yeah, teach me about the objective reality you know so much about then.

Granted, we could all live in a simulation that revolves around you or me personally, and we'd be none the wizer. Won't get us very far though will it? Raise your hands up in despair and shout, "I don't believe it, cannot be true!!!!" and you might find peace in yourself.

Now that you have digested and hopefully taken to your heart of hearts the essence of my reflection, hopefully you will recognize that the raising of the hands and shouting in despair is actually sort of like what you seem to do when referring to, for lack of better words to communicate with you, "Abrahamic death cults" and their ignorant, brain-washed, and lost practitioners... not to mention their sacraments. Not that you're really in despair for yourself, but perhaps a little for the future of humanity in your mind?

That do not have to correspond with actual reality however.

You sure you still feel that way?

That is why we got little things as science. To reach an objective understanding of reality as opposed to subjective personal guessing based upon bias. And believe it or not, science got proof regarding reality that will not change no matter how much or little one believe in them.

Yeah, and religion's got faith that it has proof of knowledge of reality as well. Now, to make the religious and scientists accept each other's proof... ah, what harmony.

[Zylark's] (my edit) Reality is that which do not disappear once you stop believing in it.

And as a last point. Math isn't flawed as such. Math is a language. Go look for paradoxes, and you will find it. Don't need much knowledge of math to do that. But know math intimatly, you will see its beauty, it's coherence.

Just like I see Taoism's coherence. Coherence doesn't imply Universally True. Yes, math is beautiful. And so is Buddhism.

Personally, I'm not that much into math as such. And I'd certainly never use it to abuse it. As you do with your 0:1 and 1:2 argument. Discussing the semantics of math, shees.

Semantics or something difficult to argue against? Oh, both? What? You meant to imply the same thing either way? Yeah, if we could just communicate telepathically now you wouldn't have to try to tell me how I should be wording something, because words would not be necessary to Enlighten you.

If you use math as a concept, yes you are right. One is infinite more than zero. And vice versa. Zero is infinite less than one. Yay. Concepts confuse, I know

And if you use this concept as the basis for your society, you get economy, science, and measured time and space intervals. If not, you don't.

If you use math as a practical tool, you'd know that 2 kilos of weed is the same increment from 1 kilo of weed, that 1 kilo of weed is from 0 kilo of weed. Pragmatics simplify, I know.

Simplify, or refract and distort unnecessarily (I apologize for that subjective term)?