I want to ask a question, here it is; Do all questions, except this one, have more than one answer? This seems like an innocuous little thing, but if you try to answer it you will be rewarded.

Even the Question you asked has more than one answer.

Then I guess your answer would be no? in a way. Because if there is no exception to the question, then there are no answers in a final way to anything Plus, you are also saying this question has a yes and a no answer. I think if you follow that out you will conclude that your answer makes no sense

[This message has been edited by bkc (edited 10-23-2002).]

I am still looking at your answer though to see if there is someway the question could have more than one answer. Could you explain or give examples? For other questions I can see how there are more answers than one, but my contention is that this question is special

Every question has an infinite number of answers?

"Have you found Jesus?"

-Fuck you.
-No.
-Yeah Pal, right here *grabs crotch*
- I have sir.
-"I didnt know I was supposed to be looking for him..."

It can go on. Plenty of questions have only one right answer though, if thats what you meant.


"Are you thirsty?"
Yeah.

"you cold too dude?"
fuckin freezing man.

"So were all gonna die someday, right?"
Hell yeah.

"You see that special on Hitler on The History Channel?"
Which one?

What a dumb question.

There is always more than one way to phrase an answer or a question. So the answer to the intital question is maybe, it depends on if you are trying to aay that there is always more than one answer to any question being the quetison in and of itself, but what if the answer to the question can be said a different way, is that the same answer in a different form and does that make it the same answer at all? That is the question (or maybe its just the answer)

[QUOTE]

<<<"Are you thirsty?"
Yeah.

"So were all gonna die someday, right?"
Hell yeah.>>>
Take these two for examples. Say I haven't had a drink of water for 6 hours and I've been on a long walk. Am I thirsty. Yes. Say I am in a bad prison and the only water comes from a pond with green scum on it and pigs wallow there. Am I thirsty? Maybe Are we all going to die some day? It seems like it. We know we die in a certain sense. Is there a way in which we keep living? There is a lot of speculation about this. A lot of theories. Say you believe in reincarnation or resurrection. Then you might say you didn't really die. You might say no.

[This message has been edited by bkc (edited 10-23-2002).]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by likuidsmoke:
......, it depends on if you are trying to aay that there is always more than one answer to any question......, but what if the answer to the question can be said a different way,.......
No, just ignore if it can be said a different way. I mean really different answers to the same question even though it looks at first like there would only be one answer.

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Spirit of '22:
[B]
"you cold too dude?"
fuckin freezing man.....................................
I'm cold compared to yesterday when it was 90 out, but it feels pretty good compared to that time I was caught in the blizzard with no coat.

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Spirit of '22:
[B] Every question has an infinite number of answers?..................................
I didn't say an infinite number, just more than one. But this might be true. Probably should stick to more than one for now.

Yah .. this question seems pretty lame. What exactly are you expecting to hear ?

Just see if you can find questions that I, or you or anybody, can't find more than one answer to. It seems lame to you because it is a long way from your usual way of thinking. You'll have to open your mind some.( Will check back 10-28-o2 )

wat sexual organ u have? there is 2 answer, either cunt or dick, got it?

Hermaphrodites have both and some people have none.

Are you online right now?


I win.

quote:

---

Originally posted by bkc:
Just see if you can find questions that I, or you or anybody, can't find more than one answer to.

---

How many presidents of the US are there, counting our current one?

Who was the 16th president?

How many countries are south of the United States but still in this hemisphere?

Is this challenge easy and initiated by a fool with no creativity or imagination?

Cant just about any yes or no answer qualify here?

What is the population of the Earth?
(Dont be a fag on me here and say sources disagree, there is still one right answer, the actual population)

Texas was admitted as a state when?

The Bill of Rights? Whats that?

Who's this Napoleon Bonaparte character? What'd he do that was so special?
(again, there is only one correct answer here. Every jackoff attempt to be different will just come back to the fact that he was the first and last French Emperor of his age who took France out of the turmoil of the Revolution and conquered a lot. Focusing on different aspects of his character would just be circumventing the question and really not answering it at all.)

*Points up highway* "Red lights mean what?" *Devastated in crash*

"How much oil do we use in this sauce, ma?"

"How long does it say to cook this Hot Pocket?"


Ok I'm done for now.

Thank you. I'll go to work on these.

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Spirit of '22:
[B]
How many presidents of the US are there, counting our current one?
-------------------------------------------- I'll assume you mean how many have there been. This is tough but it has to work. You probably won't like this answer but it will be true anyway. However it is extreme and kind of way out there. But your question is designed to break my question down so extreme measures are needed. There are a lot of questions that fall into this category. The answer could also be improved, as all answers are, with more discussion and consideration. Another similar question is "Is one really one?". For example, is an orange an orange? Well of course it is. That's one answer. But what if I cut a little piece off of it? Is it still a whole orange?. Maybe. Or what if it is partially degraded by mold?. Still whole?. What if it is a little green clump of mold?. Is it still one orange?. There is a point where you would say it is dirt now. Your point might be different than mine. The president question gets into what the definition of a president is, or maybe what the definition of a country is. Usually this is not an issue but it might become an issue if people had motivations to arrive at different answers to the question. For instance, I imagine, there were people in the Confederacy that had the opinion that the US, as a country, ended after the Civil War was lost by them. They would say that there were no more presidents of the US after that time. They would say that the original purpose of the country was so altered and distorted after that, that it could no longer be considered the same country. And it's really not such a far out argument! I am pleased with the answer. The idea here is to be able to appreciate more than one answer. Why?

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Spirit of '22:
[B] Texas was admitted as a state when?
------------------------------------------ #1:When the President signed the legislation. #2:When the document was recorded. #3:When Texas was notified. #4:When Texas accepted

quote:

---

Originally posted by Spirit of '22:


"How long does it say to cook this Hot Pocket?"


Ok I'm done for now.

---

I've heard that the universe is expanding. Is the orbit of the earth around the sun constant? Is it changing as the universe changes? Is time constant? Is size constant? How long is 10 minutes? The same as it was when the instructions were written? Small questions get big answers; big ones get small answers.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Spirit of '22:


Is this challenge...initiated by a fool with no creativity or imagination?
.

---

I would always be able to find someone with much more of those attributes than I have and I would fall short in comparison. But I have found the creativity of all people to be genius even though it is hidden or repressed sometimes.

quote:

---

Originally posted by SixmanGenghisKa:
wat sexual organ u have? there is 2 answer, either cunt or dick, got it?

---

If you look at the embryology of sex organs you see that male and female genitalia are closely related and have analagous parts. One view would be that they are not very different and could be called the same. Another would be that they are opposites and not the same at all. Both are reasonable.

Nope, you would indeed have to pick what kind of genitals you have. And there is only one right answer to how many presidents we've had, or how long the Hot Pocket box says to cook it. Theres no way around that, stop trying loser.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Spirit of '22:
Nope, you would indeed have to pick what kind of genitals you have. And there is only one right answer to how many presidents we've had, or how long the Hot Pocket box says to cook it. Theres no way around that, stop trying loser.

---

I agree with your above statements. You do have to make choices and you can only make one choice at any certain time. But the choice you make is going to be dependant on your viewpoint at that time. Your viewpoint will eventually change and your answer changes. Your number of presidents answer is reasonable and correct as far as it goes. If you asked me that question during a conversation I would give the same answer as you (if I knew it). If I see a red light I stop. If it says cook the stuff 10 minutes, I do that. I'll give one answer. But the value is to know your answer is based upon the conditions and viewpoints of the question and that no question is without them. So no question has only one answer even though one answer is given for expediency. Otherwise we would never get anything done except think of more answers. The time for doing that is when you are trying to figure things out.

Your viewpoint does not influence what the Hot Pockets box says, or how many people have been president of the USA.

What the box says is a bunch of words. The meaning of the words is subject to how the situation is viewed. We think we are only asking one question but it is a different question, or can be, to everyone who reads it. It is different because the definitions of the words used are not cast in stone and can't be pinned down to one exact meaning. To some, this is not the USA anymore, in the way that it was before the war.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Spirit of '22:
Your viewpoint does not influence what the Hot Pockets box says, or how many people have been president of the USA.

---

Again, I'm not saying a viewpoint is changing the thing being talked about or viewed (that's another topic) but just that every answer comes from a different angle and has a certain amount of validity to it. Or again, no one answer is completely right. Or nothing can be exactly described. You will find some truth in every answer. You will find something wrong in every answer, except the truth that all questions have more than one answer. If I look at a cylinder from one side its a circle; from another, its a rectangle. If I try to look at all its attributes at once I can't do it. They are infinite. I can't completely describe it. There are always more answers.

This is quite a depressing thread. The pure semantic bullshit of your question smacks of boredom. You want to be able to hide behind a certain "logic" that is indisputably correct.

To really get into your assumption of infinite answers I would have you turn to the field of mathematics.
What is 2 plus 2?
What is 2 minus 2?
How much does a can of soda weigh?

If you are going to try and tell me these questions have infinite answers, I will literally shit myself.

>>>>What the box says is a bunch of words.<<<<

Words that say one specific amount of time. One.

>>>> The meaning of the words is subject to how the situation is viewed.<<<<

One minute=one minute and nothing else.

>>>> It is different because the definitions of the words used are not cast in stone and can't be pinned down to one exact meaning.<<<<

60 seconds means something other than 60 seconds?

>>>> To some, this is not the USA anymore, in the way that it was before the war.<<<<

Shut up.

To the people that dont think this is the USA anymore- their definition of what the US was has only one amount of presidents. The USA they define cant have 32 presidents one day and 36 the next. Their USA has one amount of presidents. Ours has one amount. There is one answer to a lot of things, fuckin drop it.

quote:

---

Originally posted by syndicalist:

To really get into your assumption of infinite answers I would have you turn to the field of mathematics.
What is 2 plus 2?
What is 2 minus 2?
How much does a can of soda weigh?

If you are going to try and tell me these questions have infinite answers, I will literally shit myself.

---

Your reaction is dramatic! What is 2+2? Or make it simpler. Does 1 = 1? This will answer the above. Would you say 1 apple = 1 apple? One answer would be that in concept they are equal. But another answer is that they are different, which is just as obvious, since all apples are apples and since no two apples are the same. I'm not saying the yes answer is wrong or that you are wrong, just that there is another way to look at it. The infinite part of your question does not seem too big a step to take.


[This message has been edited by bkc (edited 10-30-2002).]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Spirit of '22:
There is one answer to a lot of things, fuckin drop it.

---

You can only give one answer at at a time and it is right only in itself. I could also ask you to drop your inability to see this.

What's the name of this thread again?

My username?

Are you gay?

See, one answer to a lot of things.

You've got me for the moment on the user name thing. I know if you just said your name I could say the last or the first name or whatever and then you would specify the name on your birth certificate. So now I've gotta go some other places to get another answer. I'll go out of our physical experience (small question, big answer). You have unique DNA that defines you. This information theoretically existed before your birth, with God if you like, or with the universe or whatever. Your name was given to you at birth but I could argue that you had another, longer name, before that time, that I would say is your "real" name. Still thinking about the user name thing.

No, my real name is Girard. Only one answer to that too.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Spirit of '22:
To the people that dont think this is the USA anymore- their definition of what the US was has only one amount of presidents.

---

That question would be posed to them and so it would have been a different question about "their" country. That question would have different ways of looking at it too, different viewpoints that can come from many different directions. Of course they would likely give only one answer if they were also thinking with the rule that questions have one ultimately correct answer. As you say though, their question is the same, in some respects

>>>That question would be posed to them and so it would have been a different question about "their" country.<<<<

Yeah. Different questions. Of course there are a lot of questions. How many presidents their country has is one number though. One. Wait a minute, what am I saying. Back it up, does 1=1? LoL dude, you need a girlfriend.

Answer this question. If a person disagrees with you does it mean they are stupid? If you say "yes", does it mean they are stupid in all ares of their life or just the particular area that is being discussed. What is the one correct answer to this question?

What is LoL? Have a girl.

>>>>Answer this question. If a person disagrees with you does it mean they are stupid? If you say "yes", does it mean they are stupid in all ares of their life or just the particular area that is being discussed. What is the one correct answer to this question? <<<<

And if you say No? I didnt say every question has only one answer, dumbass.

Just thought, the "more than answer idea" is able to comprehend the "only one answer idea" but not vice versa.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Spirit of '22:
I didnt say every question has only one answer, dumbass.

---

Okay then, why do some have more than answer?

Because some questions are trying to determine a fact, which is one answer, and others a mood or opinion, many.

bkc, I asked you if 2 plus 2 equals 4. This statement should be taken at face value. You then replied does 1=1. It most certainly does. You started talking about apples to get a different answers. I am not talking about fruit or nature, I am talking about mathematics. Do you have a mouse for your computer? Do you have a keyboard? These are simple answers and only one counts.

I was taking it at face value. That's what we were taught in school; 2+2 apples = 4. Math is always reflecting real life. But if you just want to say it is abstract and say 2+2 I can say 2+2 what? Nothing? If it is nothing then I can say you are really adding nothing and that would be another answer. We can add all these qualifiers to our questions such as; it is abstract; it takes place at a certain time; etc., but there will always be some condition left unstated and that is what allows there to be different ways of looking at the questions. More than one reasonable answer.

Did you take math after the third grade? I am being serious. Math is not always a reflection of nature. Math is basically an abstract language. what is one number plus one number? Two numbers. Quit, while you are way behind.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Spirit of '22:
Because some questions are trying to determine a fact, which is one answer, and others a mood or opinion, many.

---

You have a circular argument here. What is the definition of a fact? A question that has only one indisputable answer. It turns out that the indisputability of "facts" is only relative rather than absolute. Rephrased; "Because some questions are trying to determine { A question that has only one indisputable answer }". In other words , just because you believe so.

[This message has been edited by bkc (edited 10-30-2002).]

To syndicalist:

Yes that is one correct answer. But it is also true, if you are only being abstract, that you are doing nothing, if your definition of doing something is that it has to have some measurable physical consequence,which is a pretty standard way of defining "doing something", although it too would be argued.

quote:

---

Originally posted by syndicalist:
Do you have a mouse for your computer?

---

What is the definition of "your computer". I am not being facetious but trying to demonstrate something.

answer this out loud: are you alive?
(well if ur mute this doesnt apply)


only answer...yes

Here's one way to start to look at this question. We can't say when our life begins Is it when we first breathe; when our heart starts; when we are 16 cells; 8 cells; 2cells? Was it before this? How long before? Where or what were we before this time? Tell me when my life started. If I am unable to say when it started how can I absolutely say I am alive since there is no place or time I can point to and say "There I wasn't alive and there I was alive?". So there is something missing in our def of life. We don't absolutely understand it. Same thing for dying.

quote:

---

Originally posted by bkc:
I want to ask a question, here it is; Do all questions, except this one, have more than one answer? This seems like an innocuous little thing, but if you try to answer it you will be rewarded.

---

"What is your full, legal, birth-name?"

You can only TRUTHFULLY respond to that question with one answer- your name.

However, anyone can LIE and then there can be many answers to one question.

The search for one absolute answer to any question except about God is futile. God is the only posessor of any final answer, which is appropriate. All questions eventually lead back to him before they are answered. But then the answer he gives us is that all other questions have more than one right answer. This, at first, doesn't even seem like an answer and sounds like nonsense. But when this answer is then put in use it starts clearing up all the confusion we had. The one answer we are given is turned into unlimited answers for all the questions we had. We find that we were suffering from a burden in thinking that all or most q's were going to lead us to a destination other than God. When really all q's will lead us to God if we follow the instruction. However it is something that can only be discovered by trying it out on all your questions. Someone probably can't be convinced of it thru argument just as someone can't be truly healed by another.

quote:

---

Originally posted by heather_marie16:
"What is your full, legal, birth-name?"
.

---

Thank you for helping me out here. That was a tough question until you put the word "legal" in there. It is easy to argue against the legality of the government. One example would be that it was founded upon illegalities because of the oppression of certain peoples such as the American natives. So now an alternate answer can be seen. Every question will have will have a weakness in it. I could argue my name is illegal and that I don't have a full, legal name.

[This message has been edited by bkc (edited 10-30-2002).]

This post is getting a tad frivilous. Now you start talking about god. Just because you can see two or three answers to every question in no way proves that god exists.

Is there hydrogen in the universe?

How many letters are in the American alphabet as of 2002?

Who is the president of the united states of america as of 2002?

Do some lightbulbs have tungsten?

This thread is a joke.

quote:

---

Originally posted by syndicalist:
Just because you can see two or three answers to every question in no way proves that god exists.

---

Actually that is the proof. The theory proves itself which would be invalid proof for any other question. Just as you said, if you can see two answers to every question, that will confirm the theory. Then after that there are no other ultimate answers and you you have found evidence that God exists. Why else would I be doing this?

Is there hydrogen in the universe? You have still failed to answer the question.

Also, thank you proving the existence of god. I guess everyone on the site can go somewhere else and think about other things.

The question, "Does god(s) exist?" probably has more answers than most other questions.

quote:

---

Originally posted by syndicalist:

Is there hydrogen in the universe?

How many letters are in the American alphabet as of 2002?

Who is the president of the united states of america as of 2002? Do some lightbulbs have tungsten?

This thread is a joke.

---

These q's have more than one answer also. The process is to find where assumptions have been made in the formulation of the q's . For instance that all hydrogen is the same. In one way it is all the same and we can separate it from other elements and in other ways we will find some hydrogen is in a different state and will become another element. The elemental table could have been originated differently and there would be no hydrogen. Our names and words are arbitrary, admittedly some more than others, but none of them will stand up to close investigation. All apples are the same in being apples but none of them are the same. You have to see it both ways but you have to let yourself do it. You have to try because all your training has been against this. Your strong reactions are evidence of it. The one way type of thinking is the source of unhappiness in the world. Your right, it is a joke, because the irony of it is funny. Try it and see the joke and laugh instead of being angry.

The question asks if theres hydrogen. Theres nothing to assume. Heres you work it.

Hydrogen=X

Universe = Y

If Y contains X, the answer is yes. You cant say no.

You bother everyone and if you believe this dumb bullshit you should leave now.

hold up hold hold up....let's go back to the 2+2 thing right quick......2+2=4. not talking about apples, or oranges, or anything in the physical world. Mathematics is based,founded, and relys upon LOGIC. if you have two NUMBERS, and you add two NUMBERS, than you end up with four NUMBERS. there is absolutely NO way to get around that.

also, on a side note.....I understand what you're trying to prove, and I gotta give you props, no matter what deez other guys say it's not a bad argument to make.....however, you're basically just trying to bullshit your answers.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Spirit of '22:


If Y contains X, the answer is yes. You cant say no.

You bother everyone and if you believe this dumb bullshit you should leave now.

---

I say yes and no. Why do you allow some q's to have different viewpoint's but not other's. Oh yeah, they are "facts". You can write the textbooks.

quote:

---

Originally posted by cseRoniN:
Mathematics is based,founded, and relys upon LOGIC. if you have two NUMBERS, and you add two NUMBERS, than you end up with four NUMBERS. there is absolutely NO way to get around that. .

---

Mathematics is invisible then according to you. It is thought and has no substance. You are adding nothing, from another point of view. Depends how you are defining "something". Your "NUMBERS" are nothing. I can see it both ways. Plus I am not making your idea invalid and I can still use and appreciate your idea.

You are such an idiot.

Here's an example. The question is are two people separate from each other? There are a lot of ways to look at this question. One is with our eyes and we see two separate people even if they are touching. Now only look with an electron microscope at their point of contact. Probably a border will not be distinguishable. There would be no reason to conclude they are separate people. You might object that you would just go back to using your eyes. The point is that we are always limited in our selection of points of view even though we don't often think so. So we think we know the right answers because we don't think about other points of view or our limitations. There are numerous or infinite ways to look at bodies to see them as separate or unseparate. There is actually no way to say that certain answers are better than other ones. We have to appreciate all of them. It doesn't make us stupid or gullible. We are ignorant if we think that people are only separate.

People that are touching each other are still seperate people. Even Siamese twins are seperate people, you jackoff. Shut the fuck up already.

Spirit, thanks for the logic on this post.

bkc, you basically are someone who has no balls. I mean no offense to women. You are somebody that cannot take a stand on any issue other than god. You are the type that is always sitting on the fence and never taking a side. The only side you are taking is that there are no sides to take.

Take a chance, you may be wrong, but you may be right. I will espouse my opinions, even if someone disagrees with them. Am I wrong? Yes, sometimes, maybe even a lot of times.

If X equals Y, and Y equals Z, does X equal Z?

If you try and twist this one, I will assume you have no understanding of rudimentary logic.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Spirit of '22:
Even Siamese twins are seperate people, you jackoff. .

---

That is a great example of two people that you could say are separate people but you could also easily see them as unseparate people. What makes them separate . Would you say it is their mind? What if they shared only a brain? What if part of one person's genome was inserted into another's?

quote:

---

Originally posted by syndicalist:
You are somebody that cannot take a stand on any issue other than god. You are the type that is always sitting on the fence and never taking a side. The only side you are taking is that there are no sides to take.

If X equals Y, and Y equals Z, does X equal Z?

.

---

I do take a side on every issue I encounter that asks for a decision. The decision might be to decide what action is to be taken in a situation. Or if I think the best action, of someone else, was taken, in my opinion. If my belief did not lead to actions, there would be no value to it. This idea is to help in making choices. But then you also realize that the decisions you make are not right or wrong, or good or bad, in any sort of permanent or ultimate way but just to do the best thing at that time. If your choices are based on preconceptions/judices, then you will end up making choices that do not benefit you in the long run. So if I have this belief, it will not keep me sitting on the fence wringing my hands but instead will lead me progressively to better decisions. The path you guys are headed down is that your opinions will become more and more fixed until you become like the churches. Each church has a list of beliefs they adhere to and perform injustices on the basis of. They can't change because they fear they will lose the things they have accumulated as a result of their fixed beliefs. All churches have different lists and they can't get along even if they want to.

quote:

---

Originally posted by syndicalist:
If X equals Y, and Y equals Z, does X equal Z?

If you try and twist this one, I will assume you have no understanding of rudimentary logic.

---

.
The basis of your question is that this is a theoretical situation in which you can state conditions as being absolutely all one way without any defect or weakness. And the answer is that X always equals Z as far as I can see right now. In a sense this is like saying, "Say I am God and here is the situation...". It seems like this is a valid thing to do. And I admit that, under these conditions, your question only has one answer. And under these conditions my assertion is not true. This question has only one answer.

Good. Shut up now.

I was thinking tonite in the shower, if a refrigerator is empty of visible food, is there visible food in it?

Good q

THIS TOPIC IS LAME!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

quote:

---

Originally posted by Spirit of '22:
if a refrigerator is empty of visible food, is there visible food in it?

---

Was thinking about this some more. This is really the same question as the XYZ stuff because you are asking a theoretical question again. Like, "If I say ham is ham, is ham ham?". Again, you can say ham is only ham, or hydrogen only hydrogen, or an apple only an apple, if you stipulate that this is the only way it can be even though that is not actually true in the world we live in and can only be true if you say, "Pretend I am God and this is the thing I say". The premise of these questions is basically that you are God and you are setting up situations that have only one answer. This is not taking real world scenarios and it doesn't help you live in the real world. You are then forced to live in an imaginary world that only exists in your head and you are suffering from a delusion. A ham can be appreciated as a ham or as something else. It can be seen that 1 is 1, or less or more than one.

Are you saying a refrigerator devoid of everything but shelves and microscopic organisms does contain visible food?

I think that he's saying that it all depends on what yu precieve to be true. Just like reality, everybody has a different perception. I hope I didn't misinterpert you too bad.

quote:

---

Originally posted by masters:

If you realty have to ask this, you really have no intelect towards philosophy.
And my response is , yes all questions have more than one answer, any idiot knows that!!!

---

I agree with you, but don't see that anyone else here does. Would someone please comment? Plus the topic also states that ONE question does NOT have more than one answer.

quote:

---

Originally posted by FoxLeonard:

Still, if you measure light as waves, it behaves as waves, and if you measure it as particles, it behaves as particles...
In other words, they have seemingly communicated faster than light, at infinite speed. Wich they can�t...

---

Both of these examples, to me, illustrate the concept. Can something go faster than light? There are two separate correct answers. Is light a particle or a light? Two separate correct answers. You get the different answers when the phenomena are looked at in different circumstances i.e. experimental conditions. This will always happen with all questions until the question is worked back the final question.

quote:

---

Originally posted by FoxLeonard:
A "trivial truth" is:
Black is black (wich ever way you define it). To claim that black is white (wich ever way you define it) is plainly false.
FoxLeonard

---

This trivial truth that black is black is taken for granted. How do you define black? I am just saying there is another answer as in the eg. of light. If you want go back to the pure concept of blackness, however it was defined, like math, you could get one answer,but it would only be a thought, it would have no existence. Just like you could, if you wanted, say that light is only a wave, and that is the only way you are going to think of it. You could do that and talk with people about it, as WAS done in the case light, but it turns out that it wasn't true after all. So stay in the real world and show that black is black. It is and it isn't.

bkc, the final answer is death. After that there are no more questions or answers. Your question in no way proves god exists or ever did. It is a stupid premise considering I already asked you a math question that has only one answer.

quote:

---

Originally posted by bkc:
I agree with you, but don't see that anyone else here does. Would someone please comment? Plus the topic also states that ONE question does NOT have more than one answer.

---

bkc!

If you belive that masters is the only one who agrees with you, or with your thesis. Go back and re-read my posts.

But, when you do that. Do me, and yourself, one favour: Try to read the examples and metaphors as they stand.

Don�t get this wrong now, but you�re causing a communication break-down when you, for example, start to question my attempt to describe Bohr�s "trivial" and "great" truths. In that example black is black (wich ever way you define it). If you don�t aknowledge that (for the sake of argument, so to speak) you risk to miss the point I�m trying to make. A point that actually support your thesis (as I understand it).

In one sense it can be said that language is not built for this purpose. Wich is probably also why a lot of philosophy is so entangled in itself; using self-invented words, or giving very specific meanings to common words, and so on. The definitions are in some cases complete books in themselves.

Language is built, primarily, for consensus reality, while this topic - your thesis - is trying to grasp something beyond consensus reality. But if we are going to discuss it, and get somewhere, we must allow ourselves to use language as it is, and refer to consensus reality.

Language structures demark our reality-tunnels.

FoxLeonard

quote:

---

Originally posted by bkc:
Both of these examples, to me, illustrate the concept. Can something go faster than light? There are two separate correct answers. Is light a particle or a light? Two separate correct answers. You get the different answers when the phenomena are looked at in different circumstances i.e. experimental conditions.

---

You�re right.

quote:

---

This will always happen with all questions until the question is worked back the final question.

---

You�re partly right, partly simplifying your own thesis.

FoxLeonard

Language structures merely confuse interpersonal communication and offer a medium for wit.

quote:

---

Originally posted by VeneFrigus:
Language structures merely confuse interpersonal communication

---

Wich is one reason they demark our reality-tunnels. The confusion restrains us.

quote:

---

and offer a medium for wit.

---

As Witgeinstein pointed out...

FoxLeonard

quote:

---

Originally posted by FoxLeonard:
bkc!
.
.

Don�t get this wrong now, but you�re causing a communication break-down when you, for example, start to question my attempt to describe Bohr�s "trivial" and "great" truths. In that example black is black (wich ever way you define it).
FoxLeonard

---

I am not trying to be difficult on this. It is just the way I am seeing it. I understand from these discussions with you and Spirit and Syndicalist that we all have pure definitions in our minds about all the words that we use. Each one of us undoubtably has a slightly different definition for each word, but we tend to see these definitions, each one of them, as pure or only one way. This is a result of our tendency, very strong, to think that all questions have only one answer. So when Bohr says "black" he has only one concept in his mind. When some one says "one", they have only one pure idea in their mind of oneness. In the case of "one", peoples ideas on this word might be pretty close to each other. Other words, like "animal" might have more variation. I know when someone says "one" what they mean and there meaning is valid and useful. And it does have only one meaning to them. But this reflects reality to them and they think it is always true. It is always true in their thoughts and mind, but does that make it generally true? If I take their pure definitions and try to use them physically,(I guess I would say), I believe I will find a place, time or circumstance, where their definition or understanding, no longer reflects what is really going on. Such as happened with the concept of light. This could have been predicted that light would not always behave as a wave, because then you would only have one answer to the question "Is light a wave?". So how do I accept the statement that "Black is black"? When someone makes a statement such as this they are in essence saying that they are declaring this to be a truth, only one way. If I accept this, agree with it, then I am saying I have faith in their doctrine, and that I no longer believe that all questions have more than one answer. I can't find any middle ground here. I either believe it or I don't. So you take these pure ideas, such as oneness, and test them and find that they only work part of the time, but never all the time. They are still usefull but they are also traps if we believe in them as unflawed. So I would like to comply with your request to not do this to your words, but I am not sure I see a way to do it.

bkc!

You�re closer than ever to a useful and comprehendable defintion of your thesis. It might, to some extent, be that you�re adressing me now, but I haven�t seen all this in your earlier posts, not even if I put them together.

It might be that it was clear and "ready" in your head all the time, but the idea to make it a topic, must have been to bring the thesis to others, and/or to test it in consensus reality.

To do that, you must use examples that are eye-openers in themselves, and also undisputable in consensus reality. That�s why I tried to introduce you to Quatum Physics, and to Niels Bohr�s and other�s, more or less, philosophical interpretations of it.

Have you, by the way, visited the site in the link?

What I�m trying to avoid, is to give you too much of my own views, or views from philosophy that I know to be similar to your thesis. Instead I�m trying to provoke you to build your own thesis, and make it "ready". Without making it a copy of a thesis that already exists, so to speak.

I aknowledge that you can only to a point read my words as I have defined them (at the moment of writing). I aknowledge that you can�t turn off your own thinker and still read. I aknowledge that my interpretation of consensus language is slightly different from your interpretation of it.

All that is also part of your thesis...

With that in mind, I want to ask if you have re-read my posts, and if you then still find that masters is the only one who supports you (if only seemingly so).

-------

No two objects or situations are identical, but, for convenience, we may classify them. Treating them as if they were the same - ignoring their differences - can lead to misunderstandings, conflicts, and even tragedies.

We often confuse our symbols and maps with what they represent. We benefit by remembering that the map is not the territory, the word is not the thing. We have created these symbols.

FoxLeonard

quote:

---

Originally posted by syndicalist:
bkc, the final answer is death. After that there are no more questions or answers. Your question in no way proves god exists or ever did. It is a stupid premise considering I already asked you a math question that has only one answer.

---

Death is not a final answer. There is no one correct answer to when a person is alive or dead, for example. Death, as a word that describes a phenomena, does not have the power of the concept of the question posed in this topic. Your math question, as words that describe real happenings, does not have one answer. Only when you define your questions to be pure concepts with only one answer, do they produce one answer. That is what you are doing, although not explicitly saying so. But that is like saying "If I say this question has only one answer, then does it follow that it has only one answer?". This is an identity. A nonaccomplishment. I could argue that a question is not even being asked. This does not help us deal with reality and we could sit and think of these questions all day. This is a valid thing to do only if you are creating a world of your making in your mind and not trying to deal with this one.

quote:

---

Originally posted by FoxLeonard:
"There are trivial truths and there are great truths. The opposite of a trivial truth is plainly false. The opposite of a great truth often proves to also be true."

FoxLeonard

---

Yes, I can appreciate what you are saying. The great truths have opposite answers that are very surprising and enlightening. The trivial ones have a quick 'yes or no' and are dispensed with quickly. Seemingly.

quote:

---

Originally posted by FoxLeonard:

Have you, by the way, visited the site in the link?
With that in mind, I want to ask if you have re-read my posts, and if you then still find that masters is the only one who supports you (if only seemingly so).

FoxLeonard

---

The link is very neat! The conclusions the physicists reach are examples of finding opposite answers to the big questions. Wonder what philosophical conclusions they draw?........... Still re-reading.

bkc!

You�re still adding to it, both in your reply to syndicalist and in your reply to me.

And on the way you managed to make your own defenition of "great" and "trivial" truths.

Another way of saying it, is that it is the circumstances, or the context, that determine if and when a trivial truth becomes a great truth. Or, when it is useful to aknowledge the "greatness" of the trivial truth.

We should actually aknowledge the "greatness" more often in our use of language in consensus reality. This is commented upon in the last two paragraphs in my post above (dated 11-19 19:40).

The percieved universe is a mixture of the "real universe" and our own Thinker - proving its pet beliefs.

FoxLeonard

I've reread and appreciate more of what you are saying. Now I'm wondering are you holding back on me to try to lead me somewhere? That's okay but it might not work, considering past experience. I can be pretty dense and resistant to suggestion. (posted before your last post)

[This message has been edited by bkc (edited 11-20-2002).]

quote:

---

Originally posted by bkc:
The link is very neat! The conclusions the physicists reach are examples of finding opposite answers to the big questions. Wonder what philosophical conclusions they draw?........... Still re-reading.

---

Glad you like it! And thanks, I didn�t dare to ask again.

Did you find and read the Menu of Quantum "aphorisms" in italics (or faked handwriting) on Higgo�s site? Some of them say a lot, both about Quantum Physics and about its implications on philosophy and cosmology.

As I was trying to give you a basic link, I�m not sure how much he actually describes the philosophical part of it, or quotes sayings about it. If not, I probably have another link, somewhere.

Step out of a triangle, into striped light, turn around, and step BACK into striped light...

FoxLeonard

quote:

---

Originally posted by bkc:
I've reread and appreciate more of what you are saying. Now I'm wondering are you holding back on me to try to lead me somewhere?

---

In a sense I�m holding back, but not becuase I�m trying to lead you somewhere. I�m more trying the very opposite. I don�t want you to end up with my "beliefs" on the topic, nor with anybody else�s; philosophers and philosophists alike. As I said in a post above, I�m trying to provoke you to make your own - personal - theory ready and comprehendable.

Apart from Quantum Physics, I have added most "hints" AFTER you have made some comment in that direction yourself. I have also said things that are useless, unless you do most of the thinking yourself.

quote:

---

That's okay but it might not work, considering past experience. I can be pretty dense and resistant to suggestion.

---

I have so noticed! And that�s OK with me. I seem to have worked myself around it this far, anyway. And as long as you find it usefull, I find it interesting to continue.

FoxLeonard

It might be useful to you (so you are fully informed) to know I have been playing with this idea, (it's not mine as I have stated before) for 10 years, which could be seen as a brag, or admission of incompetence, either one. And I did bring it here for practice, among other things.

quote:

---

Originally posted by bkc:
Wonder what philosophical conclusions they draw?

---

www.fortunecity.com/emachines/e11/86/qphil.html

The universe is a giant Rorschach ink-blot.

FoxLeonard

quote:

---

Originally posted by FoxLeonard:


Another way of saying it, is that it is the circumstances, or the context, that determine if and when a trivial truth becomes a great truth. Or, when it is useful to aknowledge the "greatness" of the trivial truth. FoxLeonard

---

We are speaking the same "language" here. Very nice!

quote:

---

Originally posted by FoxLeonard:
www.fortunecity.com

---

Here they ask a "great" question, "Is there an elemental randomness in the universe or are events predetermined?" (paraphrased). I would say "yes".

bkc!

Call it bragging, if you want, but commitment is something to be proud of.

Most philosophers, theologists and mystics, work on their basic theories all through their careers. In that perspective ten years is nothing, and certainly not an indication of incompetence!

In that sense you will be far from ready with your theory after this test, but with a little luck you have developed it, and its definitions, enough to be able to communicate (about) it.

Done the right way, it will make practical use of your theory; practical use for others, as it opens their eyes to a more complex world (that they are already living in). From that moment, you�re achieving something "real", even if you�re still working on your theory as a whole.

It has probably to do with the topic that we constantly post out of sync...

FoxLeonard

quote:

---

Originally posted by bkc:
Here they ask a "great" question, "Is there an elemental randomness in the universe or are events predetermined?" (paraphrased). I would say "yes".

---

If you mean yes there is a randomness and yes everything is predetermined, you�re are right.

To quote the theoretical physicist Stephen Hawking:

Everything is predetermined. But it could as well not be, because we can never know what is predetermined.

It seems that the universe is paraphrasing the Firesign theatre:

I don�t have to show you no stinkin� "reality".

FoxLeonard

I would ask you how you would state your belief, even though you are reluctant to give it, since I think the search here is for ultimate truth and it doesn't belong to me or anyone. I have no worry of ending up with anyone's way of looking at it, because the simplicity of it should be such that it can only be adulterated if someone intentionally wants to do that, because they don't believe it in the first place. But your point of provoking me to improvement is appreciated.

quote:

---

Originally posted by bkc:
I would ask you how you would state your belief,

---

If you go back to the post in wich I adressed this issue, you will find that I wrote "beliefs", and not beliefs. I wrote "beliefs" to make myself understood, (as beliefs is the common term for it) and to point out that I didn�t mean beliefs.

Belief is an obsolete, Aristotelian cathegory.

quote:

---

even though you are reluctant to give it, since I think the search here is for ultimate truth and it doesn't belong to me or anyone.

---

There can be no truths in a universe of relativities, where change is the only constant phenomenon.

quote:

---

I have no worry of ending up with anyone's way of looking at it, because the simplicity of it should be such that it can only be adulterated if someone intentionally wants to do that, because they don't believe it in the first place.

---

You will perhaps end up with, partly, "someone else�s" way of looking at it. As I said, there is a lot that is connected to your theory. All the way from Shamanism to Quantum Physics.

Quantum Physics is in many ways a "step backwards", from pure science and back into the fuzzy realities (plural) of Magic (or Metaphysics, if you prefer).

You will find more and more connections, to fit into your model.

But the idea is that it shall come from you initially. Becuase it�s then, and only then, that you can achieve something with your thesis.

The already existing theories, or schools (in some cases religions), can only "open the eyes" of a limitied number of people, because that version could only be understood by a limited number of people. If you end up mirroring, or parroting, an existing theory/definition, you can only reach the same people. If you come up with your own definition/theory, you can reach new people.

But, as important is, that you will, personally, learn and achieve much more, if you make it your own journey. And that can, from time to time, include for you to letting a Trickster lead you, while you still do most of the thinking.

quote:

---

But your point of provoking me to improvement is appreciated.

---

Thanks! *blushing behind red fur*

I can assure you that I�m improving too, by doing this. I have to rethink as often as you do it, I guess. Not least because I usually do this in my own language, and eye to eye. This is the first time I try this kind of communication with someone I have never met, and know (almost) nothing about.

Did I state my "beliefs" in this post?

In a sense, yes. In another sense it can be elaborated on, for a couple of 23 topics/threads...

"Reality" is always plural and mutable.

God is not a noun. God is a verb.

As above, so below.

FoxLeonard