Drugs in the bibles

[HeartCore]

it's nice stuff but personally i like the elegance and complexity of JUST math, combining it with spirituality and other metaphysical things is something I don't really like.
Other than that I agree on the 1+1 = 3 part

But JUST math is not going to liberate your mind

 

[Pinealjerker]

GOD should read this: http://www.egodeath.com/EntheogenTheoryOfReligion.htm#_Toc146854041

 

[Soulcatcher]

so 1+1=1 in this case is true

But its the double amount of 1, wich we call 2.. Nothing you can change about that. My father always used to tell me when helping with maths about adding apples with pears there are rules for that.
I get the point you are trying to make, but not what we can conclude from it..

it's circular logic

i don't like that

1+1=3

about 2 persons having infinite possibilities.. but what about just one.. i can think of a lot by myself. So here you also violate the rules. You are saying persons and potential are the same. Its like this (all in potentials):
infinity + infinity = infinity
but
(infinity-1) + (infity-1) = bigger than infinity, wich is also infinite
so in fact it doesnt change.. (and by (infinity-1) i mean something smaller than infinity, be it 1, or 3000...)

But JUST math is not going to liberate your mind Wink

I don't like math, but it's applications can be enlightening!
But i think we agree on this

 

[silv]

it's nice stuff but personally i like the elegance and complexity of JUST math, combining it with spirituality and other metaphysical things is something I don't really like.
Other than that I agree on the 1+1 = 3 part

But JUST math is not going to liberate your mind

well not liberate but you can really expand it loads with math, just about every maths teacher i've had has been such an interesting person.

 

[Dantediv86]

wow so many replies....

it's circular logic

i don't like that

why? please give an explanation to why don't you like it

1+1=3

about 2 persons having infinite possibilities..but what about just one.. i can think of a lot by myself. So here you also violate the rules. You are saying persons and potential are the same. Its like this (all in potentials):
infinity + infinity = infinity
but
(infinity-1) + (infity-1) = bigger than infinity, wich is also infinite
so in fact it doesnt change.. (and by (infinity-1) i mean something smaller than infinity, be it 1, or 3000...)

Not quite .... did i say that? i thought i was talking about abstract entities...
1 because people cannot BE potential they HAVE potential
2 an entity can also contain so much potential that it can be considered potential

But JUST math is not going to liberate your mind Wink

I don't like math, but it's applications can be enlightening!
But i think we agree on this

to a certain extent

 

[Soulcatcher]

why? Smile please give an explanation to why don't you like it

Circular reasoning is the root of all evil, you start with a claim, out of nowhere and everything that comes out of it 'proves' the claim is true.
That is how creationism also works.. there is a god, -> blabla -> why? -> because there is a god..
It's only justified when you carefully build it up with axioms. Although usually you have to make an assumption sooner or later, it will not come out of the blue and has to be verifiable.

Not quite .... did i say that? i thought i was talking about abstract entities...
1 because people cannot BE potential they HAVE potential
2 an entity can also contain so much potential that it can be considered potential

I do not fully understand your comment on this one and how it relates to my reasoning.
but yes, you said in when you claimed:
1+1=i

 

[Dantediv86]

oh ok then...i didn't mean that sorry following the logic of what i wrote it leads to that what i'm trying to say is so hard to explain...............however i never said that 1+1=i ....i said that 1+1 = 1 or 3 it's different because you have limited information to group in a unit to call 1, as an individual (that doesn't have to be human) and within that 1 made up of the unity of 1+1 that you have again the result of itself which again is 1+1

by the way i expressed circular logic in the wrong way, the definition i'm looking for is not that soorry....

 

[Dantediv86]

oh ok then...i didn't mean that sorry following the logic of what i wrote it leads to that what i'm trying to say is so hard to explain...............however i never said that 1+1=i ....i said that 1+1 = 1 or 3 it's different because you have limited information to group in a unit to call 1, as an individual (that doesn't have to be human) and within that 1 made up of the unity of 1+1 that you have again the result of another 1 which again is 1+1


by the way i expressed circular logic in the wrong way, the definition i'm looking for is not that soorry....

 

[Soulcatcher]

I think your looking for deductive reasoning.
But that is still not what you are doing, you try to disprove math rules by grabbing them at the very basis and then changing it there. Ofcourse the rules then make no sense anymore.

and i think you said 1+1=i here:

the equation could be written 1+1= {1+1+[1+1+(1+1+i)]} now i wrote "i" otherwise it takes lots of parenthesis and invinite pages

I think the only room for philosophy in maths is with infinity. I have spent a long time thinking about it and it is full of paradoxes, but that is not what we are talking about now.

none the less i think you have very bright insights, but maybe you should express them in another way then maths.

BTW,the opposite also exists; there has been a research about the force that a number of people can produce.
The results were that with the more people you push something, the less effective it gets. Like when you push a car, you perform at max. When you are with 2, you push less hard. This is also something you need to bring into the equation when dealing with large numbers of people. The 'force' or 'possibilities' they can produce decreases dramatically in large numbers. But ofcourse they do have the potential you spoke about, but it is impossible to use it to the fullest. But also this is another subject.

 

[Soulcatcher]

But i have to apologize for cracking down your arguments, i know it is difficult to justify such a complex situation.
, and also for being an accesory in hijacking the topic 8)

 

[Dantediv86]

Don't !!
Apologize,
it's good to have an argument cracked down, it makes it stronger... like cutting branches from a tree...you remove the useless energy-taking ones to make the plant and the important branches stronger likewise an argument becomes stronger and deeper in it's meaning removing or clarifying claims don't you agree? of course this could also cause a total change in the message and meaning...but this is not faith we're talking about is Theory of Knowledge...everyone has to have his own point of view and has to contribute

Worry,
Cause maybe it's time to go back on topic :wink:
which is drugs in the Bibles if i remember well.....

 

[Soulcatcher]

I could not agree more..!
Unfortunately not everyone reacts as positive as you.. When a discussion heats up wrong information can start to leak in to prove the other wrong. Nevertheless i enjoy debating about these things, as long as interest, understanding and most of all acceptance comes from both sides to produce a better understanding

 

[Dantediv86]

:nod:

you said it 8)

 

[alice]

great, 10 posts later, my thanks for the explanation!!
i got it, too :wink:

i really couldn't imagine how 1+1=1 or 1+1=3

but i new it had to be true

alice

 

[GOD]

1 does not = 1 , every 1 is a different 1 . If 1 =s 1 we would not be here . The anomalies that happened at the start of our universe wouldnt have ocured if 1 had =ed 1 ? What about algebra....I and I = I . = us . = I am you as you are me as we are alltogether . Or eye and eye when 2 3rd "I"s see better than 1 ?

LGD OEVO

 

[HeartCore]

The anomalies that happened at the start of our universe wouldnt have ocured

That anomalies are not very interesting to me personally. What I find more interesting, is the split second JUST before the big bang where science fails with any explaination other than putting a small miracle in place. So everything that happened 'at the start' of our universe, was in fact preceeded by a miracle. That is, IF you give credit to tbe big bang theory at all

 

[Guest]

why do we have to picture a start and an end to everything ? why can't the universe be eternal, and never started ?
i don't listen to that science bs. i spent many years in a scientific career, and then i realized that it is all garbage: the theories are accepted pollitically (and i don't refer to GOOD politics), the theories are always replaced by new ones, then the new ones are replaced by the old ones, like in this big bang theory. science today is the greatest religion on earth. but just like other religions, it is very beautiful ON THE PAPER. and don't tell me that science is very advanced, please. we still don't know what energy, mass and time are. 8)

 

[Dantediv86]

i had written an awesome answer to daytripper and i lost it
this sucks
it was a whole page worth of writing




now i can't be bothered to write it again it's such a waste of time and effort
i'm so depressed

 

[Dantediv86]

OK i don't car i'm gonna rewrite it BUT consider that it's late and referred only to the previous posts! :twisted:

 

[Dantediv86]

you know what?
i just read the last post from HC on "two hours and counting..."
and i decided i'm not gonna say anything...people belive what they want...besides the title of this topic is Drugs in the Bibles and we are some aeons away from that. How about going back on topic?
Did you notice that the Pope has recently obliterated the limbo from the catholic tradition? I bet Dante Alighieri is rumbling in the tomb at the moment :lol:
ps Dante was an incredibly able mystic psychonaut, though he probably wasn't conscious of that and acheived enlightenment through other means other than drugs, though some authors believe that due to their narrow views.