Jump to content


Photo

Three!


  • Please log in to reply
37 replies to this topic

#21 Detail

Detail

    King Detail

  • Hosted
  • 7,767 posts
  • Location:Dayonic
  • Projects:Dayvi.com
  •  Blu Spy

Posted 04 December 2004 - 11:00 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 :cool:

#22 Hostile

Hostile

    Benefitting Humanity Simply by Showing Up!

  • Veterans
  • 9,551 posts
  • Location:Washington DC
  •  T3A Founder
  • Division:Revora
  • Job:Global Administrator
  • Donated
  • Association

Posted 04 December 2004 - 11:07 PM

Between Black and white is infinites shades of grey. And yes -1 yet to be born, 0 alive, 1 lived and died. One with the universe. Life=0 (meaningless) -1 have some catching up to do.

#23 Deathblow Luc

Deathblow Luc

    Unique

  • Undead
  • 3,768 posts
  • Location:Argentina
  • Division:Ex - Network Leader

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  :cool:

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>


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

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>


#24 AdmiralGT

AdmiralGT

    title available

  • Members
  • 1,702 posts
  • Location:Bristol, UK
  • Projects:Petrolution

Posted 04 December 2004 - 11:35 PM

From a spacial point of view there are still 3 options. Inside the box, outside of the box or Partly in and out of the box. You can be alive, dead, or in a transition of the two. Granted infinitely short, but it still happens (which can conviently described as a Dirac Delta Function).
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 Deathblow Luc

Deathblow Luc

    Unique

  • Undead
  • 3,768 posts
  • Location:Argentina
  • Division:Ex - Network Leader

Posted 04 December 2004 - 11:46 PM

Theres a temporal issue in every spatial event, thats right, but we cant time a transition from life to death, since we dont know if theres an inbetween process. As long as there is a portion of life, the state would still be alive. You cant in that case be, half alive and half dead. Short words, this is something that we can only suppose.

Margret Thatcher - Fenring's the one for me

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>


#26 AdmiralGT

AdmiralGT

    title available

  • Members
  • 1,702 posts
  • Location:Bristol, UK
  • Projects:Petrolution

Posted 04 December 2004 - 11:59 PM

We cant measure the time, but it does exist. To see what I mean, look at the Heavyside Step Function. For x <= a, y= 0 and for x >= a, y = 1. This is inside and outside the box. So imagine a particle travelling along this Function. At x = a it can be anywhere between 0 and 1. This represents being neither one nor the other.

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 Ash

Ash

    Foxtrot Oscar.

  • Undead
  • 15,526 posts
  • Location:England
  • Projects:Robot Storm
  •  Keep calm and carry on.

Posted 05 December 2004 - 12:11 AM

Technically, if you're dead, you're usually inside a box. Just a different kind of box.


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. :cool:

#28 Hostile

Hostile

    Benefitting Humanity Simply by Showing Up!

  • Veterans
  • 9,551 posts
  • Location:Washington DC
  •  T3A Founder
  • Division:Revora
  • Job:Global Administrator
  • Donated
  • Association

Posted 05 December 2004 - 12:11 AM

Actually x can be -1, 0, -1. That is all the transition states. All the rest just lie inbetween the three. There is only past, present, and future.

And every shade of grey inbtween. Unless your talking of God, than there is only 0,1

Alpha and Omega.

#29 Ash

Ash

    Foxtrot Oscar.

  • Undead
  • 15,526 posts
  • Location:England
  • Projects:Robot Storm
  •  Keep calm and carry on.

Posted 05 December 2004 - 12:16 AM

Unless you add the (unarguably possible) theory that God doesn't exist. But then herein lies my point again:

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 Detail

Detail

    King Detail

  • Hosted
  • 7,767 posts
  • Location:Dayonic
  • Projects:Dayvi.com
  •  Blu Spy

Posted 05 December 2004 - 12:22 AM

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.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Not exist. Alive. Not exist.
There may be a dead body, but you don't exist. So, there may only be 1 state, alive.

#31 Hostile

Hostile

    Benefitting Humanity Simply by Showing Up!

  • Veterans
  • 9,551 posts
  • Location:Washington DC
  •  T3A Founder
  • Division:Revora
  • Job:Global Administrator
  • Donated
  • Association

Posted 05 December 2004 - 12:25 AM

I understood Mithril on this one, and I find your last 2 posts shallow and limited by your idea that math cannnot define the cosmos. All math is multiples of 1. Basics of math...

#32 FK47

FK47

    o____0;

  • Members
  • 512 posts
  • Location:Northern Ireland

Posted 05 December 2004 - 12:33 AM

-1. Alive.
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 Ash

Ash

    Foxtrot Oscar.

  • Undead
  • 15,526 posts
  • Location:England
  • Projects:Robot Storm
  •  Keep calm and carry on.

Posted 05 December 2004 - 12:57 AM

Hostile...I'll assume you were referring to me. Sorry I caused offence because I was more than a little unclear as to how this thread was working. I don't know enough about maths to know if it can define the cosmos. Or what else can define it. or what the definition of it is.

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... :cool:

#34 Mithril

Mithril

    496

  • Hosted
  • 1,386 posts
  • Location:UK
  • Projects:Heh! You're not going to ask me that question.

Posted 05 December 2004 - 10:19 AM

Dirac Delta Function

Paul? Paul Dirac? If so, then that is interesting!

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.

Command & Conquer: Red Alert - ReGeneration

"Not the faintest clue =\"

-ComradeJ

#35 AdmiralGT

AdmiralGT

    title available

  • Members
  • 1,702 posts
  • Location:Bristol, UK
  • Projects:Petrolution

Posted 05 December 2004 - 12:04 PM

Yes, Paul Dirac Mithril. I dont know why knowing his first name makes it more interesting but whatever floats your boat :cool:

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 Hostile

Hostile

    Benefitting Humanity Simply by Showing Up!

  • Veterans
  • 9,551 posts
  • Location:Washington DC
  •  T3A Founder
  • Division:Revora
  • Job:Global Administrator
  • Donated
  • Association

Posted 05 December 2004 - 05:00 PM

how about the lack of matter at all (0)

#37 AdmiralGT

AdmiralGT

    title available

  • Members
  • 1,702 posts
  • Location:Bristol, UK
  • Projects:Petrolution

Posted 05 December 2004 - 05:24 PM

D'oh. I knew I was forgetting something.

#38 Ash

Ash

    Foxtrot Oscar.

  • Undead
  • 15,526 posts
  • Location:England
  • Projects:Robot Storm
  •  Keep calm and carry on.

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 :cool: 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