User Controls
Did existence begin or is it eternal?
-
2019-10-16 at 9:58 PM UTC
Originally posted by Big League jedi You asked me to tell you what energy is. I told you what energy is in the most specific terms and all the ways in which it does exist, which all ties back into my original definition of existence. Energy is a measure all the ways in which something can make a difference. Now you are bitching I gave you a specific definition with specific examples that tie back to and illustrate my definition. I'm not trying to conflate shit retard, you don't even know what that word means. This could not be any simpler.
You didn't even have a definition to begin with.
You might have provided one at some.point later into the thread, but either way, nobody fucking cares.
Your "definition" is just that... A "definition".
I could sit here and define existence as "the ability to pee on the wall", and you would have absolutely zero recourse to refute that.
I don't even know what you're trying to achieve here. -
2019-10-16 at 10:04 PM UTC
Originally posted by gadzooks You didn't even have a definition to begin with.
You might have provided one at some.point later into the thread, but either way, nobody fucking cares.
Your "definition" is just that… A "definition".
I could sit here and define existence as "the ability to pee on the wall", and you would have absolutely zero recourse to refute that.
I don't even know what you're trying to achieve here.
No shit a definition is a definition. You don't "refute" a definition. The point is to say if given the definition the points follow. It's to ensure we are talking about the same thing, not that it's some metaphysical truth.
If you don't accept the definition, offer a better definition. You can define pissing on a wall as existence and argue it from it, give it a try and I'll molest you in that argument if you want to show you how it's done.
Or try to dispute mine... Oh wait, you did and I destroyed you. That's why you can't engage with the topic, because you're a stupid bitch :) -
2019-10-16 at 10:11 PM UTC
Originally posted by Big League jedi No shit a definition is a definition. You don't "refute" a definition. The point is to say if given the definition the points follow. It's to say we are talking about the same thing, not that a definition is some metaphysical truth.
If you don't accept the definition, offer a better definition. You can define pissing on a wall as existence and argue it from it, give it a try and I'll molest you in that argument if you want to show you how it's done.
Or try to dispute mine… Oh wait, you did and I destroyed you. That's why you can't engage with the topic, because you're a stupid bitch :)
You're not molesting shit (also, weird flex but okay)...
Why didn't you bring energy and matter deltas into the original post?
Obviously changes in matter are a measure of change.
But none of that has anything to do with "existence" per se.
Who even says that change is real?
You haven't even defined "change"...
Matter getting hotter or gases moving more quickly are only conceptual differences that we perceive because we assigned those definitions in the first place.
Get yourself a new definition of "existence', because "change" is entirely insufficient. -
2019-10-16 at 10:13 PM UTCThe following users say it would be alright if the author of this post didn't die in a fire!
-
2019-10-16 at 10:21 PM UTCIf something exists if it has some causal connection to something else, and what has a causal connection to something else, exists, then I guess the answer to your question depends on whether this casual connection began, or whether this casual connection is eternal.
Your definition of existence seems to be specific rather then all-encompassing since it requires the existence of something else to have a casual connection to and therefore could not be all-encompassing. -
2019-10-16 at 10:33 PM UTC
Originally posted by gadzooks You're not molesting shit (also, weird flex but okay)…
Why didn't you bring energy and matter deltas into the original post?
Because it's a purposely broad question hugely benefits from leaving these terms open for theses and antitheses to form and interact to try and help achieve some kind of synthesis. The difficulty of the fucking question is in nailing down a good and sufficiently broad definition. I don't give a shit about my definition. I want to hear an original thought to engage with.
Are you mentally defective? When your teacher gave you a composition prompt did you act like an assburger like you did in this thread? No wonder you didn't finish college. The fact that you are STILL on this Line of argument that the question is vague is emblematic of your mental subnormality.Obviously changes in matter are a measure of change.
What the fuck are you babbling about? I gave you descriptions of both concepts along with specific examples. Like I said, the lowest possible IQ sophistry holy shit end yourself.But none of that has anything to do with "existence" per se.
Yeah, it does as previous mentioned.Who even says that change is real?
There doesn't need to be, note I never used change in my description of time nor energy. The whole wavefunction could be totally static and our experience of time and the illusion of whatever "change" might weakly emerge from it. Who gives a shit.You haven't even defined "change"…
Where did I even mention change? Are you losing your mind? I don't need the concept.Matter getting hotter or gases moving more quickly are only conceptual differences that we perceive because we assigned those definitions in the first place.
So? Are they real relations in your perception?Get yourself a new definition of "existence', because "change" is entirely insufficient.
I didn't even mention "change" once before you fucking mong. -
2019-10-16 at 10:34 PM UTCA circle is eternal. Eternity is a word often used to indicate notions of "limitless" or "endless" time, and also other concepts relating to time, including ideas of realms of Reality which are beyond any or all of the dimensions of Time and Space. If you believe in the soul then you believe in eternity and yes, we are all eternal beings.
-
2019-10-16 at 10:36 PM UTC
Originally posted by Obbe If something exists if it has some causal connection to something else, and what has a causal connection to something else, exists, then I guess the answer to your question depends on whether this casual connection began, or whether this casual connection is eternal.
Your definition of existence seems to be specific rather then all-encompassing since it requires the existence of something else to have a casual connection to and therefore could not be all-encompassing.
Not necessarily. A pretty big part of non-Shannonian information theory is integration, something existing relative to itself. -
2019-10-16 at 10:38 PM UTC
Originally posted by Japan-Is-Eternal https://vocaroo.com/i/s0sKp4d2Ks7e
This is 10X more real, honest and better than anything OP has said. -
2019-10-16 at 10:43 PM UTCOk, CF, I'm drunk and just tryna pass out.
Ill maybe revisit this thread later.
You do kinda make this place a touch interesting, and I respect that.
But you're also a complete asshole much of the time.
Either way, I'm outta this thread for now. -
2019-10-16 at 11:14 PM UTCThis is a gay thread and OP is gayThe following users say it would be alright if the author of this post didn't die in a fire!
-
2019-10-16 at 11:16 PM UTC
Originally posted by Japan-Is-Eternal https://vocaroo.com/i/s0sKp4d2Ks7e
That presupposes there was a before, which is the discussion in the first place. "Was there a nonexistence" is a sentence that is grammatically valid but semantically meaningless. Nonexistence doesn't exist. It's just existence not-being. There are clearly things that do not exist. For example, an object that is not identical to itself. Perfectly valid expression (logically) to prove that something is nonexistent. Nonexistence is a complete concept. -
2019-10-16 at 11:22 PM UTC
-
2019-10-16 at 11:32 PM UTC
Originally posted by Big League jedi Not necessarily. A pretty big part of non-Shannonian information theory is integration, something existing relative to itself.
Huh? Does something need some causal connection to something else to exist, or can something exist "relative to itself"? Do you actually know? -
2019-10-16 at 11:33 PM UTC
-
2019-10-16 at 11:36 PM UTC
-
2019-10-16 at 11:36 PM UTCWe already talked about 5his. :)
-
2019-10-16 at 11:40 PM UTC
-
2019-10-16 at 11:42 PM UTC
-
2019-10-16 at 11:46 PM UTC
