|
Post by samsara15 on May 12, 2014 15:56:26 GMT -6
God can not be understood with your mind, can't be done. You understand God with your heart. Feelings fool people all the time. Being ephoric doesn't mean it is god. Very true, but... Feelings and intellect can both mislead us. Our intellect is driven by our feelings more often than many of us would care to admit. Most humans, including myself, see the world through filters of their own making. Our task is to see the world clearly in spite of those filters.
|
|
|
Post by samsara15 on May 12, 2014 18:35:31 GMT -6
However, what I really want to hear or discuss is someone else's opinion about whether abstract ideas have a reality of their own, or are a purely human construct, and the reason(s) why they feel that way. Just looking for some assistance on a personal quest of my own. I could, of course (and I may), go to a philosophy forum, but I often find the opinions rendered there a bit hard for a layman like me to understand, let alone to decide whether I agree with them or not.
|
|
|
Post by tindalus on May 13, 2014 8:00:24 GMT -6
According to physicists, the only constant is the speed of light. Everything else only has to do with being a commonly accepted measuring tool. A foot for example, could be 12 inches, 8 inches, a million miles. So does it have a reality? only in our minds.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 13, 2014 8:09:39 GMT -6
That's kinda like the measurement time. There is no such thing as time.
|
|
|
Post by tindalus on May 13, 2014 10:11:58 GMT -6
Pretty much. Time is just a commonly accepted tool to measure distance between events.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 13, 2014 12:26:56 GMT -6
According to physicists, the only constant is the speed of light. Everything else only has to do with being a commonly accepted measuring tool. A foot for example, could be 12 inches, 8 inches, a million miles. So does it have a reality? only in our minds. If constants are questionable, then I may have done better in math.. Maybe my answers were just as acceptable as any other. Who knew ?
|
|
|
Post by tindalus on May 13, 2014 15:13:19 GMT -6
Heh, sort of makes sense except it all depends in what science that one speaks. Quantum mechanics is definitely very abstract, but if you are talking about math.....welll, 2 plus 2 will always equal 4
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 13, 2014 15:42:18 GMT -6
Heh, sort of makes sense except it all depends in what science that one speaks. Quantum mechanics is definitely very abstract, but if you are talking about math.....welll, 2 plus 2 will always equal 4 Why ? Who decided that 2+2 always equals 4 ? I like the other theory better, I could have been a math whiz instead of a C+ math student under that school of thought. I will readily admit that math was my absolute worst subject. Now English, journalism.. an entirely different matter. Something to do with that 'right brain' / 'left brain' thing.
|
|
|
Post by samsara15 on May 13, 2014 17:33:59 GMT -6
Four is the successor to three. Three is the successor to two. Two plus its next two successors is defined as four. Four is a name we (arbitrarily) assign to that number of objects. Every whole real number has what we commonly call a successor.
Google something called Peano's Axioms. Peano's Axioms define, in addition to the real number system, two operations, one called 'addition', and one called 'multiplication. There are other ways to define the real number system.
It's not that straightforward.
Mathematicians are still struggling to understand the real number system.
|
|