| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
mudbuck
Dirty Dollar
|
 Posted: Sun Oct 23, 2005 5:27 am Post subject: 1 |
 |
|
Post sudden concepts and "struck-by-lightning" thoughts here.
I've realized if some thing or being was everything, then for everything it is, there is an opposite. Thus, something that is everything must be nothing. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Samadhi
+1
|
| Posted: Sun Oct 23, 2005 6:24 am Post subject: 2 |
|
|
Q: How many daoists does it take to screw in a light bulb?
A: 2, one to screw it in and one to *not* screw it in.
_________________
And he lived happily ever after. Except for the dieing at the end and the heartbreak in between. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Leptonn
Guest
|
| Posted: Sun Oct 23, 2005 6:59 am Post subject: 3 |
|
|
| The world is going to end at midnight, tonight. I'll explain my reasoning tomorrow. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Mackay
Saviour of Spiders
|
| Posted: Sun Oct 23, 2005 7:11 am Post subject: 4 |
|
|
A fallacy of composition, perhaps? "the opposite of everything is nothing, therefore the opposite of every thing which makes up "everything" is nothing"?
If we speak in a purely physical sense for the time being, the opposite of matter is not "absence of matter", it is "anti-matter". The opposite of the word 'everything' is the word 'nothing'; however, it does not follow that the individual things which make up "everything" will have "nothing" as their opposite. The opposite of an electron is a positron, not "nothing".
Your idea fails on the basis that you have taken "everything" as an object in itself, rather than its being every thing, as the definition implies. The opposite of everything is not "nothing", but "the opposite of everything". If that makes any sense whatsoever. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Tahnan
Daedalian Member
|
| Posted: Sun Oct 23, 2005 8:02 am Post subject: 5 |
|
|
| mudbuck wrote: |
| I've realized if some thing or being was everything, then for everything it is, there is an opposite. Thus, something that is everything must be nothing. |
This isn't related to your fallacious logical system of beliefs, is it? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
alphatango
Daedalian Member
|
| Posted: Sun Oct 23, 2005 9:14 am Post subject: 6 |
|
|
| Mackay wrote: |
| Your idea fails on the basis that you have taken "everything" as an object in itself, rather than its being every thing, as the definition implies. The opposite of everything is not "nothing", but "the opposite of everything". If that makes any sense whatsoever. |
I'm not sure if this is what you mean, but this is the thought that immediately jumps to mind. Mathematically:
E = Union {x | x is a "thing"}
A = complement of E (= empty set)
O = Union {x^(-1) | x an element of E}
E is everything, the set which includes every thing, A is the "opposite of 'everything'" (namely, nothing), O is the "opposite of every thing". Here the word "opposite" has been used in the set-theoretic sense of complement (that is, A is the set of all things that aren't in E), as well as the group-theoretic inverse sense (x^(-1) being the inverse of the element x).
Perhaps someone can clean up/trash/clarify my argument a bit -- I saw this and just had to post before disappearing off to orchestra. 
Given the above definitions, we can then pose the question: Does every thing have an opposite? That is, is O a proper subset of E, or does O = E?
_________________
"Hanging is too good for a man who makes puns; he should be drawn and quoted." -- Fred Allen
Keeper of the Eternal Flame of the Inner Geek. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
MatthewV
Daedalian Member :_
|
| Posted: Sun Oct 23, 2005 9:54 am Post subject: 7 |
|
|
| World problems are solved by not caring. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Jedo the Jedi
Paragon in Training
|
| Posted: Sun Oct 23, 2005 5:47 pm Post subject: 8 |
|
|
| I just realized that MattV is a genius. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
extro…
Guest
|
| Posted: Sun Oct 23, 2005 6:17 pm Post subject: 9 |
|
|
| mudbuck wrote: |
| I've realized if some thing or being was everything, then for everything it is, there is an opposite. Thus, something that is everything must be nothing. |
What's the opposite of grape?
Anyway, your argument makes absolutely no sense.
If some thing (or being) is everything, we can refer to it as "everything". You conclude then that everything must be nothing, which is the opposite of everything. If they are one and the same, how can they be opposites? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Jedo the Jedi
Paragon in Training
|
| Posted: Sun Oct 23, 2005 6:23 pm Post subject: 10 |
|
|
| So, when my mom asks me what I'm doing and I say 'Nothing,' does that mean that I am actually doing everything? Boy would she be upset if that was true. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Leptonn
Guest
|
| Posted: Sun Oct 23, 2005 6:26 pm Post subject: 11 |
|
|
| mudbuck's logic applies to neutrinoes (maybe). |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
old grey mare
Guest
|
| Posted: Sun Oct 23, 2005 11:48 pm Post subject: 12 |
|
|
| extro… wrote: |
| If they are one and the same, how can they be opposites? |
The opposite of zero is negative zero, which is also zero, which is nothing. Maybe that's what mudbuck meant. I don't know. I haven't metaphysically masturbated in a while so I'm out of practice. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Jedo the Jedi
Paragon in Training
|
| Posted: Mon Oct 24, 2005 2:12 am Post subject: 13 |
|
|
| So, if the opposite of metaphysically is physically, have you masturbated that way recently? That's what I thought. You are so predictable. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
worm
unregistered
|
| Posted: Mon Oct 24, 2005 2:38 am Post subject: 14 |
|
|
| extro… wrote: |
| What's the opposite of grape? |
lemon
| extro… wrote: |
Anyway, your argument makes absolutely no sense.
If some thing (or being) is everything, we can refer to it as "everything". You conclude then that everything must be nothing, which is the opposite of everything. If they are one and the same, how can they be opposites? |
for a fleeting moment, i thought i knew what mudbuck was talking about. basically, that if you combine everything that it will all cancel out (like when a positron and an electron collide). but let's get to what you're really trying to say, mudbuck. seems to me you're just trying to prove that God doesn't exist. if God is everything (which i don't agree with), then He must be nothing as well.
this reminds me of the argument that because God created humans who do evil things or lucifer/satan, that God must be evil. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
old grey mare
Guest
|
| Posted: Mon Oct 24, 2005 2:57 am Post subject: 15 |
|
|
| Jedo, what can I say? Some of us old fillies just can't attract the stallions like we used to. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Guest
|
| Posted: Mon Oct 24, 2005 3:00 am Post subject: 16 |
|
|
| worm wrote: |
| extro… wrote: |
| What's the opposite of grape? |
lemon |
But they're both fruits. Wouldn't the opposite of something that is a fruit have to be something that is the opposite of a fruit? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
old grey mare
Guest
|
| Posted: Mon Oct 24, 2005 3:07 am Post subject: 17 |
|
|
This all reminds me - what did the Zen Buddhist say to the New York street hot dog vendor?
A: "Make me one with everything." |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
worm
unregistered
|
| Posted: Mon Oct 24, 2005 3:09 am Post subject: 18 |
|
|
| Quote: |
| But they're both fruits. Wouldn't the opposite of something that is a fruit have to be something that is the opposite of a fruit? |
well, the positron and the electron are both leptons. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mudbuck
Dirty Dollar
|
| Posted: Mon Oct 24, 2005 3:15 am Post subject: 19 |
|
|
| worm wrote: |
| but let's get to what you're really trying to say, mudbuck. seems to me you're just trying to prove that God doesn't exist. |
Actually, no. I was just talking around with my friend on a bus. It was just random.
...but you can infer the whole Gawd thing if you want, just don't go around saying I implied it, liar. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
MatthewV
Daedalian Member :_
|
| Posted: Mon Oct 24, 2005 3:18 am Post subject: 20 |
|
|
| worm wrote: |
| well, the positron and the electron are both Leptons. |
 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ogm
Guest
|
| Posted: Mon Oct 24, 2005 3:34 am Post subject: 21 |
|
|
| I wonder, what's the opposite of a "struck-by-lightning" thought? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mudbuck
Dirty Dollar
|
| Posted: Mon Oct 24, 2005 3:39 am Post subject: 22 |
|
|
| Communism |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
worm
unregistered
|
| Posted: Mon Oct 24, 2005 3:49 am Post subject: 23 |
|
|
| mudbuck wrote: |
Actually, no. I was just talking around with my friend on a bus. It was just random.
...but you can infer the whole Gawd thing if you want, just don't go around saying I implied it, liar. |
if you're trying to imply that i inferred something, well, yes. yes, i did. it's not like it was a big leap either:
| mudbuck wrote: |
| I've realized if some thing or being was everything, |
how could i not infer something from that? the idea that there is no implication in your statement is silly, especially considering that you've pretty well spelled out your beliefs (i think in the catholicism thread, but it was the whole discussion about you becoming an eagle scout...yawn).
now, i'm not a religious fanatic...i'm still trying to figure out exactly what i believe. i just wanted you to get to the point. now that everyone's basically come out with the opinon that your "realization" doesn't make sense, i'm sure you'd rather just keep that to yourself.
oh, and if you call me a liar again, i'll have to call jared.sorry i had to throw it in...i promise not to abuse it |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
zorT Kitty
Oboe! Another bassoonist!
|
| Posted: Mon Oct 24, 2005 4:08 am Post subject: 24 |
|
|
| Chunky peanut butter is the best kind. But its impossible to spread on bread! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
worm
unregistered
|
| Posted: Mon Oct 24, 2005 4:10 am Post subject: 25 |
|
|
| truer words never spoken. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Jedo the Jedi
Paragon in Training
|
| Posted: Mon Oct 24, 2005 4:15 am Post subject: 26 |
|
|
| Who spreads chunky peanut butter on bread? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Victoria Silverwolf
Daedalian Member
|
| Posted: Mon Oct 24, 2005 5:27 am Post subject: 27 |
|
|
I do. 
But you have to use REAL bread, not that soft white stuff. Use nice, firm, whole grain bread, toasted to perfection, and you can spread chunky peanut butter on it.
Best peanut butter in the world: Arrowhead Mills Chunky. 100% Valencia peanuts, no other ingredients. Yum, yum.
_________________
Reality is a crutch for people who can't face up to science fiction |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mudbuck
Dirty Dollar
|
| Posted: Mon Oct 24, 2005 5:37 am Post subject: 28 |
|
|
| I just remembered what I ate for breakfast. answer: food |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mudbuck
Dirty Dollar
|
| Posted: Mon Oct 24, 2005 5:41 am Post subject: 29 |
|
|
| Okay, I confess. The first statement was purely to prove that 42=0. There! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ogm
Guest
|
| Posted: Mon Oct 24, 2005 12:29 pm Post subject: 30 |
|
|
Sudden realization...
 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
extro…
Guest
|
| Posted: Mon Oct 24, 2005 1:04 pm Post subject: 31 |
|
|
 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Nsof
Daedalian Member
|
| Posted: Mon Oct 24, 2005 4:29 pm Post subject: 32 |
|
|
I just realized i have nothing to write
_________________
Will sell this place for beer |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
GH
Daedalian Member
|
| Posted: Mon Oct 24, 2005 7:41 pm Post subject: 33 |
|
|
| zorT Kitty wrote: |
| Chunky peanut butter is the best kind. But its impossible to spread on bread! |
That's because you're not supposed to put it on bread. You're supposed to put it on French toast, with syrup. Add a second layer of Toast, PB, and syrup, and it's the perfect food (judging by yumminess, anyway). |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Leptonn
Guest
|
| Posted: Tue Oct 25, 2005 3:59 am Post subject: 34 |
|
|
My  boxers are reversible. I just realized that I've had them on backwards all day. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Omega Centauri
Daedalian Member
|
| Posted: Tue Oct 25, 2005 2:15 pm Post subject: 35 |
|
|
| Bread comes sliced now??? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Guest
|
| Posted: Fri Oct 28, 2005 12:54 pm Post subject: 36 |
|
|
| There is no absolute opposite. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
One Skunk Todd
Smelly Member
|
| Posted: Fri Oct 28, 2005 6:13 pm Post subject: 37 |
|
|
| Let's see, grapes are green, sweet, fruits. So the opposite would be red, salty, vegetable. Tomato? Of course some grapes are purple I think so the oppostie would be orange, salty, vegetable. Carrot? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
One Skunk Todd
Smelly Member
|
| Posted: Fri Oct 28, 2005 6:14 pm Post subject: 38 |
|
|
| Unless you think of a grape as a plant, in which case the opposite would be a red, salty, animal. Mmmmm steak. Or maybe crab or lobster if you needed orange, salty animal. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
wordcross
|
| Posted: Fri Oct 28, 2005 8:29 pm Post subject: 39 |
|
|
of course, since grapes are living things, you might need some sandstone, or perhaps some nice sedimentary clay.
_________________
Has anyone really been far even as decided to use even go want to do look more like? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
austinap
Daedalian Member
|
| Posted: Sat Oct 29, 2005 2:59 pm Post subject: 40 |
|
|
| Who says red is the opposite of green? I'd say it would have to emit gamma radiation or something like that. Hell, maybe it doesn't even give off radiation? Maybe its something that absorbs all radiation? And I don't think it should be round... I think the opposite shape of a grape would be a taurus or something unusual. Maybe it doesn't even have a shape. Actually, I think the opposite of a green, sweet, round grape is a black hole. A black hole doesn't have any properties that a green grape has. Thats so perfect I think I'm going to start referring to black holes as anti-grapes. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
