Saw an interesting video. Is this "3" the number three? No it's not, it's a representation of the number three as is III etc, so what and where is the number 3? Which of our senses can we identify the number three with?
3+3=God?
Posts
Total:
85
-->
@TheDredPriateRoberts
Saw an interesting video. Is this "3" the number three? No it's not, it's a representation of the number three as is III etc, so what and where is the number 3? Which of our senses can we identify the number three with?
3 is a description of a quantity. The number of eyes and noses you have.
-->
@Ramshutu
but you believe in the concept of the number 3 as real, as it does exist even though it has no physical properties.
you'd agree that 3+3=6 and can't equal anything else
-->
@TheDredPriateRoberts
3 is our way of describing an observation we make about reality.
But let’s just set all that aside. So we don’t know “where” the number 3 is. Now what?
-->
@Double_R
it's a concept in the mind, 3+3=6 and can't equal anything else, right?
-->
@TheDredPriateRoberts
but you believe in the concept of the number 3 as real, as it does exist even though it has no physical properties.you'd agree that 3+3=6 and can't equal anything else
The number 3 is real in the same way the word table is real; they are both an abstract language that describes something. But they are describing different thing - one is a physical object (the table), the other is a quantity - the value a physical property of a collection of things may have.
In that respect; yes, I would consider what 3 represents exists; but 3 itself is an abstract description.
For 3+3=6. Yes. As 3 represents a physically real quantity, and 6 represents a physically real quantity; 3+3 = 6 remains true as almost a tautology; but as the description is arbitrary, 4+4= 6 is possible if we changed definitions - the same way if we all started calling cats dogs, people would have dog flaps and allow their dogs to wander the street.
-->
@Ramshutu
calling a cat a dog, doesn't change what it is. changing the verbiage doesn't change the thing or concept.
-->
@TheDredPriateRoberts
Exactly - that was my point.
-->
@Ramshutu
ok, but 4+4 can not equal 6, math a law, regardless of how the numbers are represented, 3+3=6 and it always will until the end of time and afaik no one has proven anything different, do we agree on this?
-->
@TheDredPriateRoberts
Sure
-->
@TheDredPriateRoberts
3+3 will = 6, until the end of time.
Time is only a potential relative to duration.
So based upon your own criteria, the potential for time will never end.
Interestingly though, and based simply upon quantity rather than observable quantity.
Anything between 2 and 3 could potentially be 3.
So based upon these criteria 2.9 + 2.9 or 2.1 + 2.1 could also = 6.
And GOD is representative of observable potential.
-->
@TheDredPriateRoberts
it's a concept in the mind, 3+3=6 and can't equal anything else, right?
Math is a way of shorthanding reality. 3 + 3 will always equal 6 because "3" is rigorously defined. If you redefine it to mean something else, then we're not talking about the same thing anymore
-->
@TheDredPriateRoberts
it's a concept in the mind, 3+3=6 and can't equal anything else, right?
Right.
So… now what? What does this have to do with God?
-->
@TheDredPriateRoberts
@Ramshutu
@Double_R
you'd agree that 3+3=6 and can't equal anything else
Ive presented the synergetic alternative, ---and just as valid-- answer many itmes here DArt and the former Dart
1 triangle + 1 triangle = 4 triangles, synergetically LINK
This above can be done with pencils, pens, coat hangers etc by a child.
When 1 + 1 = 4, via synergy, then 3 angles + 3 angles = 12 angles.
4 triangles = 12 angles
So the question then becomes, what is ' real '. With the synergetic example given above, we have three lines plus 3 lines = 6 lines, and that part does not change.
What also changes ---besides angular orientation--- is that synergetically we have gone from 2D { area only }, to 3D volume, and the integral connecting { touching } of two seperate triangles. Fuller liked to give the example of synergy in ' real ' world of iron with some value of PSI { pounds per square inch } and some other element { I forge which one } with another PSI, and the sum of two PSI values would add to some value ---say 15---, but in ' reality ' their sum value PSI was 20, 25 or whatever, i.e. whole PSI was greater than the sum of their two PSI parts.
So are lines more real than angles? 3 lines + 3 lines = 6 doesnt change
Yes lines are more real than angles { Meta-space } aka Metaphysical-1 angles. However, angular orientation does appear to effect the physical flow of air, water etc. However, Meta-space angle alone --without occupied space medium--- is irrelevant. " U "niverse is inclusive of two fundamental aspects,
Spirit-1, Meta-space angle and,
---conceptual line-of-demarcation-----
Spirit-2 occupied space.
-->
@ebuc
Please don’t
-->
@Double_R
if 3+3=6 and always will, it would stand to reason that 3+3=6 before humans, since the beginning of time, as a theory of course.
-->
@Sum1hugme
@Double_R
See above.
-->
@TheDredPriateRoberts
Yes, 3+3 has always equaled 6.
What does this have to do with God?
-->
@Double_R
this concept is eternal and never changing, the laws of math apply to most everything if in fact possibly everything, it has always existed and always will, there nothing new either, just yet to be discovered. Math wasn't created, it just is and applies everywhere. It would seem the level of organization makes random luck rather improbable. Since we believe in this eternal, never changing concept it doesn't seem much of a leap that a creator is all that implausible. I'm not saying this is definitive proof or anything because we don't have that yet one way or the other. But with such fine tuning, laws of physics and math that seems to be created.
another rabbit hole for you, where did the moon come from?
-->
@TheDredPriateRoberts
@Ramshutu
But with such fine tuning, laws of physics and math that seems to be created.
Universe is the way it is because that is what works for structural and systemic integrity.
Fine tuning is what is mind-accessing humans discovered, not what was created. Finite, occupied space is eternally existent.
All else is irrational, illogical lack of common sense. See 1st law of thermodynamics a conclusion arrived at in 1800's.
It is 2021 and there is no new evidence that invalidates the 1st law of conservation.
God/Universe are synonyms. All else is religious fundamentalism that is a false narrative non-sense.
That type of thinking only hastens and/or reinforces the end-date-for-humanity 2232 { approx. }
Soul/biologic are synonyms.
3 + 3 = 12 syneregetically
1 + 1 = 4 synergetically
2D + 2D = 3D syneregetically
Motion potion { lotion } + frequency = finite sets of observed time , and, is associated with sine-wave pattern /\/\/\/ frequencies
Conceptual time is the quantitative values ---1 inch per minute etc--- we humans apply to observed time.
Spirit-1} Absolute cosmic Pi-time is 66.4
------conceptual line-of-demarcation-------------
Spirit-2} Observed time comes in many differrent values.
Spirit-3 is ultra-micro Gravity ( )
Spirit-4 is ultra-micro Dark Energy )(
The truth never ever set us free from Universal cosmic inviolate truths and, only sets us free from relative truths for shorter, or longer, finite periods of times.
The truth exists for those who seek it, and,
...........for those who those who want to deny it, because their not interested in truth, for whatever reasons.
-->
@Sum1hugme
With regard to timber for example.
2x2m+1x1m could be regarded variously as 2.5, 3 or even 5. Depending upon how quantity is determined.
Essentially one has 3 pieces of timber....But that relies upon a sensory determination, and not necessarily a specific mathematical principle.
-->
@zedvictor4
If you have one piece of timber, and one piece of timber, and one piece of timber, you will always have three pieces of timber. If you cut one of those pieces in half, you will now have four pieces of timber. At no point do the rigorous definitions of numbers stop applying. If you redefine the numbers to mean something they don't mean then you haven't actually proven that 3+3 can equal not 6, you just redefined the terms to mean that, Even though nobody on earth means the same thing as you when they say the number "3"
1+1+1=3 is true because of the principles of math, and math is a way of shorthanding reality. We don't want to say one timber, one timber, and one timber; We want to say three timbers.
-->
@ebuc
Stop tagging me in this stuff
-->
@Sum1hugme
As I demonstrated and as you described, numbers are only necessarily rigorous when they can be individually appreciated as units of 1.
So we cut a piece of timber in half and discard one piece.
Are we left with 3 pieces of timber or 2.5 pieces of timber?
And if we double that quantity of timber do we have 5 or 6.
-->
@TheDredPriateRoberts
Since we believe in this eternal, never changing concept it doesn't seem much of a leap that a creator is all that implausible.
Fallacy of composition - These two things are categorically different.
Math is an extension of logic, and the laws of logic apply to everything that exist. I would go as far as calling logic the laws of existence. And since they are a prerequisite to existence itself, they must also apply to a creator since the argument you are trying to make is that this creator… exists.
Our also a mistake to call these concepts eternal. Something that is eternal exists eternally. These concepts don’t exist, they apply to things that exist. If there is no existence these concepts have no meaning.
But even if I accept everything you said, it’s all still irrelevant because plausibility is irrelevant. We don’t pray to a being merely because we find its existence plausible. We don’t go to church merely because we find it plausible. The time to adjust how we live our lives is when we have reason to believe it’s actually true.
-->
@Ramshutu
Stop tagging me in this stuff
Sure thing Ramshutu, I wish you would have stated that in your previous post aka clarity.
Sorry to hear the truth leaves you bent out of shape { Meta-space } so much. Hope you get better soon.
Saw an interesting video. Is this "3" the number three? No it's not, it's a representation of the number three as is III etc, so what and where is the number 3? Which of our senses can we identify the number three with?
3 isn’t just a representation, it’s also III just as III is also III. Or are they? They aren’t the same pixels. LOL
Bottom line is animals give value to information, and for humans it’s done linguistically (Including mathematics).
And as for how we identify information and the value we give it, it comes down to multiple factors. Starting with sensory perception such as physical, radiational, chemical stimuli which then trigger internal electrical and chemical signals, ending with how we perceive the information consciously in the mind. Memory plays a role too obviously.
If you add One pile of sand to another one pile of sand = . What do you get.?
-->
@Double_R
I should have added, this shows how something, even a concept can be real, eternal and never changing, something some can't grasp, since God is also described that way.
I'm not sure I understand what you are saying. The things exist and therefore the concept exists even if it's just in our minds because thoughts exist, not materially as far as we know but still....
also I'm not making any direct claims to existence of creator but rather a possible "symptom" for a lack of a better word.
-->
@TheDredPriateRoberts
The reason some can’t grasp it is because it’sa logical absurdity. An unchanging being contradicts logic because under any recognizable definition of the word “being” it must function in some way in order to qualify. But function by definition requires change.
Your argument, or observation, or whatever you are calling it doesn’t work because you are conflating entirely different things, and you seem to be doing it because they use the same word but in each case those words have very different meanings. Existence doesn’t apply the same when we are talking about a tangible part of reality vs a concept. Concepts exist as the manifestation of a physical brain, they don’t exist in the same way a creator of everything would.
Your argument, or observation, or whatever you are calling it doesn’t work because you are conflating entirely different things, and you seem to be doing it because they use the same word but in each case those words have very different meanings. Existence doesn’t apply the same when we are talking about a tangible part of reality vs a concept. Concepts exist as the manifestation of a physical brain, they don’t exist in the same way a creator of everything would.
And if you are not trying to establish existence then what’s the point?