Recent content by steersman

Infinity and perfection is not the same as the idea of infinity and perfection.

Awareness? The higher dimensional architecture that supports and instantiates conscious thought -- beyond that possibly yet unseen complex and evolving forces, far more complex than fundamental forces we see in our everyday 3 dimensional view of the world.

They are not connected in regard to the question posed at the beginning of the thread - however, I believe it is necessary to question our own motivations because the question more or less shapes how we act. Who here is being completely honest with themselves? It's not that I don't think there...

It is my guess that those who believe we are not always selfish also believe that love is the highest form of emotion that is able to (ever) be experienced.

I don't think physics in it's present form (it's need for objective evidence and falsifiable theories) is capable of handling ontological questions. And I don't think physics is necessarily applying reason to reality. It's applying reason to epistemic names and concepts, which may or may not...

But by my reckoning, my "life as a human" is not to breath or digest food. My function is to perceive and react to thoughts and sensory information. But it does have meaning to me because I myself have found awe in that statement. It's this primacy thing I'm trying to understand. The...

Rade, I understand your position, but who was it that interpreted the unconscious thought "I Exist"? Thoughts are merely bits of brain activity. Without consciousness they are devoid of any meaning. You have made a distinction between subconscious and conscious, but you haven't explained...

It's funny how people hold on to the idea of an objective reality. I would support an actual reality of existence, but to me this reality is necessarily unexplainable, because it doesn't concord with any species of reasoning or logic. In my own theory of consciousness, objective reality takes...

I think you're right but I'm still confused with these brackets. It seems that the first bracket encompasses the whole formula, including (p & q) and the = (tribar). Argh! I was never good at algebra.

In my Intro to Logic textbook there is a truth-table with the formula: (~(p & q) = (~p v ~q)) The equal sign is meant to be a tribar What is the main operator in this formula? I think it is the first tilde but the textbook indicates that it is the tribar. Does anyone know the correct...

Noone said this was a math problem. It could easily be a philosophical problem. Indeed, many philosophers have pondered this very question in different words and symbols

Maths has limited utility in answering this problem because it's answer does not correspond with reality. That's why I call it a philosophical problem. I do concede though that in maths 0.9~=1. But if that's all you care about then you'll never learn anything.

No no. The point I was making was that every number that isn't whole is already (potentially) infinite in terms of the infinite regress involved when trying to quantize something.

Who said it was?

1 and 1/3 are different forms of representation. The example you gave is correct, 1/3 is predicated on there is a 1/3 that can be found and definitely measured. It is a potential representation. This is a predicate in mathematics not reality. The case is different with 0.9~=1. The number 1 is a...