Three!
#21
Posted 04 December 2004 - 11:00 PM
-1 something not yet been alive
0 alive
1 something that has been alive
Dead, then alive, then dead again. A set sequance, that applys to everything.
You're outside the box. The you get in the box and are alive. You then die and get out of the box
#22
Posted 04 December 2004 - 11:07 PM
Save the environment, use green text
Some Bullshit Somewhere
#23
Posted 04 December 2004 - 11:13 PM
It could be thought of as:
-1 something not yet been alive
0 alive
1 something that has been alive
Dead, then alive, then dead again. A set sequance, that applys to everything.
You're outside the box. The you get in the box and are alive. You then die and get out of the box
Then thered be still two states if viewn from a spatial point of view (In or Out). Viewn from a temporal PoV, it can be three, if posession of life is the vortex (Pre, During and Post)
Margret Thatcher - Fenring's the one for me
#24
Posted 04 December 2004 - 11:35 PM
This can be seen more easily if you think of the box as a switch. Outside of the box, the switch is off. Inside the box, the switch is on, but theres an small time period where it is neither on or off. The 3rd option.
Edited by AdmiralGT, 04 December 2004 - 11:36 PM.
#25
Posted 04 December 2004 - 11:46 PM
Margret Thatcher - Fenring's the one for me
#26
Posted 04 December 2004 - 11:59 PM
Try this yourself. Go stand in the doorway of your room. Stand inside it, then stand outside it. Now stand with one leg either side. Its impossible to go from one to the other without being partly in both.
If we ignore time in the first place then you can never be alive or dead, you'll just exist since being alive or dead is only a comparison against time moving. The Big Bang suggests that most of the universe was created in 1 picosecond (Not exactly sure of 1 picosecond), why cant our transition from life to death take any amount of time?
#27
Posted 05 December 2004 - 12:11 AM
Viewing things in threes...no. doesn't work.
There is no:
'Not yet born' state. You CANNOT exist in that state, as if you are not yet born, you do not exist at all.
You could use birth as one, but birth itself technically is the same as 'life'. As you are alive.
I understand the acid-through-neutral-to-base idea. Frankly though, it's getting more confusing the further it goes.
If there is no time, that means you never were, never have been, never will be. No time ever passed in order for you to be conceived, in order for you to be born, in order for you to have lived. You are not dead, because you were never alive. But then, neither was anyone else...
Just a minute, here. Where exactly did this topic come from, Mith? It's prolly the first topic that's actually utterly flummoxed me as to its purpose (let alone the content =/). Not surprising since it's coming from Mr. I <Cryptic Sentence> you.
#28
Posted 05 December 2004 - 12:11 AM
And every shade of grey inbtween. Unless your talking of God, than there is only 0,1
Alpha and Omega.
Save the environment, use green text
Some Bullshit Somewhere
#29
Posted 05 December 2004 - 12:16 AM
If God doesn't exist, then He doesn't have a third state. He doesn't have ANY state... =/
What everyone's forgotten here is that there are other numbers past 1 and -1. There are also numbers -1<?>0 and 0<?>1.
You talk about thinking outside of a box...yet the fact remains that you're the one putting the box there by defining the 'states' at all. Any two random things could be your 'states', and the third 'state' is whatever the heck's between.
Thats it! THAT'S why this topic's so confusing. It contradicts itself. Thinking outside the box is in name only. You're just moving the sides of the box inwards a bit.
#30
Posted 05 December 2004 - 12:22 AM
Not exist. Alive. Not exist.There is no:
'Not yet born' state. You CANNOT exist in that state, as if you are not yet born, you do not exist at all.
You could use birth as one, but birth itself technically is the same as 'life'. As you are alive.
There may be a dead body, but you don't exist. So, there may only be 1 state, alive.
#31
Posted 05 December 2004 - 12:25 AM
Save the environment, use green text
Some Bullshit Somewhere
#32
Posted 05 December 2004 - 12:33 AM
0. Empty body, you're soul has left you, you're half dead. (I've seen this, I watched my grandfather die, he wasn't there for the last few hours of his 'life'.)
1. Dead.
#33
Posted 05 December 2004 - 12:57 AM
My point is that 'the box', could be easier to think outside of if it were not there in the first place. IE, if things were not so rigidly categorised as -1, 0, 1. There are numbers beyond those, and numbers inbetween. 0.23 is not a multiple of 1 or -1.
The idea that something as simple as -1, 0, 1 is a definition of everything is rather...I dunno...absurd =/ I've tried to ask questions regarding the thread. I want to understand it. The answer I got earlier didn't fully answer my question. So I posted my own idea. Sorry if it doesn't mark up to par...
#34
Posted 05 December 2004 - 10:19 AM
Paul? Paul Dirac? If so, then that is interesting!Dirac Delta Function
You talk about thinking outside of a box...yet the fact remains that you're the one putting the box there by defining the 'states' at all. Any two random things could be your 'states', and the third 'state' is whatever the heck's between.
This does make some sense. Almost everyone (I would assume) knows about the observer effect nowadays. Non-scientific minds (doesn't mean they are 'stupid') often use it as a bridge between the ordinary and the supernatural.
In this discussion, it may indeed be worth thinking about the observer effect - in combination with a more fundamental state of thinking (i.e. describe the stated information without the use of limiting words).
'Not yet born' state. You CANNOT exist in that state, as if you are not yet born, you do not exist at all
How do you know? We cannot be sure. I'm not starting on ghosts or spirits or anything - I was rather thinking about an embryo - it has not been born yet, but there is proof that it exists. Whether it has consciousness yet or not is a topic of big discussion in the relevant area, I believe.
Edited by Mithril, 05 December 2004 - 10:20 AM.
#35
Posted 05 December 2004 - 12:04 PM
And not all math is multiples of 1. Complex numbers cannot be represented in real terms, but in a real and imaginary terms. For example 2 + 3i (or j whatever way you learnt it) where i/j is root -1 (-1 ^ 1/2). Instead of representing numbers as -1, 0 and -1 we can represent them as Real, Imaginary and Complex.
Although this does get me thinking about the matter/anitmatter pairing. Is there a third neither matter nor antimatter part?
#36
Posted 05 December 2004 - 05:00 PM
Save the environment, use green text
Some Bullshit Somewhere
#37
Posted 05 December 2004 - 05:24 PM
#38
Posted 06 December 2004 - 11:52 AM
How do you know? We cannot be sure. I'm not starting on ghosts or spirits or anything - I was rather thinking about an embryo - it has not been born yet, but there is proof that it exists. Whether it has consciousness yet or not is a topic of big discussion in the relevant area, I believe.
I meant 'not yet conceived'. Sorry For you don't exist, nor are you alive, before that. Now I think about it, you can't classify 'not yet born' as a 'state'. Since it's the same as alive. You're still alive, albeit inside someone's body.
Pre-conception, you certainly don't exist. And non-existence doesn't appear to me to constitute a state of being, but instead a state of non-being.
So either: The state of non-being is the third state of being, or we're still looking.
0 user(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users