How do we prove an answer

Scott Armstrong 50+

+1

Mar 1 2013: oh, yes. got it. watchmen. great film (I didn't know the novel until after the movie). who will watch the watchers?

Mar 1 2013: can not reply any further so new thread.

this question is good hence my response in question form. The answer is a lot harder. I have a sneaky feeling we are entering all sorts of new phases and our brains are playing catch-up. not with technology, you understand, but with the evolution of reason and the rational.

the classic view of the universe has been questioned by science for some time and there is a slow trickle-down effect in effect.

it seems to me that we now live in an age of "which version" as opposed to "the truth" - something that, I realise, is not really new but has become more obvious with the improving of communication technologies.

i think that as long as people ask this question of themselves, the answer will (eventually) be forth-coming. for them, not all of people-kind, which is the same thing, when you really boil it down.

peace.

Arkady Grudzinsky 50+
- +2
Mar 1 2013: It also seems to me that today's age is quite interesting. Recently, I tried to answer a similar question, how do we "know" things and why do we "believe" things, what's the difference, etc. This little manual about logic http://logictutorial.com/ and the idea that "meaning is exclusion" made me realize that we make sense of things by drawing boundaries between "A" and "not A" - existence and non-existence, "self" and "not self".

Many people try to understand their "self", their identity, what makes us human, etc. Keeping in mind that "meaning is exclusion", by doing so, we draw more and more boundaries dividing what "I am" from what "I am not" which leaves less and less space for what "I am" and separates us from the world, all connected together. This contradicts the globalization process which seems to tell us that we are one with the world. The process goes on and on forever, just like everything else keeps spinning in the universe. Fascinating to watch.
- Scott Armstrong 50+
  - +2
  Mar 3 2013: I remember a similar concept we went through while training to become a teacher - it was to do with the decline of the masculine for the simple reason that masculinity has often been defined (in the past) by what femininity is not.
  
  Considering the changing roles of women in modern society (well, some of the more enlightened societies) and the changing definition of what femininity is, it leaves the man alone in a bit of a quandary as to how to "be a man".
  
  Clunking a mastodon over the head and providing meat doesn't seem to cut it as much these days.

Carter Shank

0

Mar 1 2013: And that is why I am a Biology Major. :D

Gregory Nadjarian

0

Feb 26 2013: I think the question is to broad to answer, for each question may have a better way of proving just like in mathematics. For example, some problems you might want to prove by contradiction, and some you might want to prove using the Inductive logic - it all depends on the question/problem.

Casey Christofaris 10+
- 0
Feb 28 2013: So the only way I have been able to say "prove" an answers is that it has to be common sense to other. It doesn't matter if their common sense even makes sense it can be backwards from your personal logic or reasoning. But if you can make your "truth" common sense to them then they will know it as truth
- Gregory Nadjarian
  - 0
  Mar 1 2013: I'm beginning to think that you're seeking more of a philosophical answer... specifically on the topic, "What is right and what is wrong?". If that is the case, perhaps the best answer I can give is what Immanuel Kant suggested in regards to the "right and wrong" question. In short, he talks about asking the question, and whether it is right or wrong from a universal point of view. For example, "What if everyone did that?" or "What if everyone said that?". If the answer brings harmony, then perhaps it is right, but if the answer brings destruction, then perhaps it is wrong. You can find plenty on this and similar topics if you read about him even on Wikipedia. Again, I might be completely off the topic, and for that I apologize in advance. :)

Sam Austin

+2

Feb 25 2013: I'd say we can't. We can't prove anything, and we can only disprove with a certain probulity that allows us to make theories about the world around us. Our world is one of theories, just some theories are more likely than others, and one day a new theory might come along that is even more likely that the one we hold true now.

Casey Christofaris 10+
- 0
Feb 28 2013: So the only way I have been able to say "prove" an answers is that it has to be common sense to other. It doesn't matter if their common sense even makes sense it can be backwards from your personal logic or reasoning. But if you can make your "truth" common sense to them then they will know it as truth

Letitia Falk 10+

+1

Feb 25 2013: I guess that depends on the question being answered...but since you said "prove"...

A reductionist and scientific perspective on this:

Statistically speaking, you come up with a hypothesis (what you guess the answer is), and then you forget that, and try and prove the opposite: you try and prove the null hypothesis (that nothing happens, or that there is no effect). If you fail to prove the null hypothesis, only then do you conclude that the alternate hypothesis (what you guessed) was right Keeping in mind that some uncertainty is inevitable: 95% certainty is usually considered good enough.

The nice thing about science as a method for generating answers is that the field is so concerned with being unbiased, that statistical tests are designed so that you can prove yourself wrong if it all possible - before considering that you are right. Then add into this the need for replication of results and peer review and you have a pretty elegant system for answering questions (at least ones that are testable - and "provable").

Arkady Grudzinsky 50+
- +2
Feb 26 2013: In short, we prove something to be true by doing everything we can to prove that it's false. What survives these attempts is considered to be true (with a confidence level proportional to our effort). "Survival of the fittest" - evolution applied to ideas.

Another paradox of life. To prove ourselves right, we need to do our best to prove ourselves wrong.
- Casey Christofaris 10+
  - 0
  Feb 28 2013: But even is you have created that confidence level up on proof of an answer given time it will always be proven wrong?
  - Arkady Grudzinsky 50+
    
    0
    Mar 1 2013: Not always. It *may* be proven wrong with probability equal to one minus confidence level.
  - Scott Armstrong 50+
    
    +1
    Mar 1 2013: all things must pass - a wise Beatle said that..
    
    it's like you can't gauge happiness without sorrow, light without darkness, male without female. the duality behind the singularity. full circle back to where we started. life is very neat and tidy in that way.
Casey Christofaris 10+
- 0
Feb 28 2013: Why would you start with answer to prove an answer? Seems self-fulfilling to me

see ted convo
http://www.ted.com/conversations/14605/is_evolution_religion_everythi.html
- Arkady Grudzinsky 50+
  - 0
  Mar 1 2013: What Letitia said is correct. You don't start with an answer to prove an answer. Just the opposite, you start by trying to contradict the answer - thinking of any possible alternative explanations.
  
  "Meaning is exclusion." http://logictutorial.com/
  
  When you say something, the more your statement excludes, the more you say. E.g. saying that "the sky is blue" excludes all other colors from consideration. To say this is more meaningful than to say that "the sky is not green". To prove that "the sky is blue", essentially, you need to prove that it does not have any other color. The more colors you exclude, the more confident you are in your answer.
  
  If you deal with known and limited amount of possibilities, you can get your confidence level up to 100%. But this is rarely the case. Confidence level is 1 - estimated probability of being wrong. This is uncertain world. Probability is all we've got.
  
  So, it's not "self-fulfilling", but self-refuting.
  - Casey Christofaris 10+
    
    0
    Mar 1 2013: "So, it's not "self-fulfilling", but self-refuting."
    
    So could that be seen as equals but opposite?
- Arkady Grudzinsky 50+
  - +1
  Mar 1 2013: Re: "So could that be seen as equals but opposite?"
  Yes. Coincidentia oppositorum. The concept is not new.
  - Casey Christofaris 10+
    
    0
    Mar 1 2013: Right so why does it matter how you come up with the answer if the answer is always the same
- Arkady Grudzinsky 50+
  - 0
  Mar 1 2013: Which answer are you talking about?
Arkady Grudzinsky 50+
- 0
Mar 1 2013: Selecting the null-hypothesis is somewhat tricky. The scientist must make sure that the null-hypothesis and the hypothesis are mutually-exclusive and, in combination encompass all possibilities. Typically, if hypothesis is "A", the null-hypothesis should be "not A".

Scott Armstrong 50+

0

Feb 25 2013: for what reason?

Casey Christofaris 10+
- 0
Feb 28 2013: Which?
- Scott Armstrong 50+
  - 0
  Mar 1 2013: watch..
  - Casey Christofaris 10+
    
    0
    Mar 1 2013: men

Carter Shank

0

Feb 25 2013: The question that you propose is in itself a philisophical question with several different views and answers. In the skeptic's view, you cannot prove any answer and, thus, no answer is correct. No if you look back at this, I stated that no answer can be correct with the thought that that statement is correct, thus, skeptecism does not exist.
Moving on to a rationalist view, aptly named because these thinkers believe that all things can be proven rationally, or using logic. To think rationally would require you to find a logical answer to every question. That is how you would prove an answer. But then how do we prove less logical questions or phenomena? That is the "job" of the relativist.
Most relativists believe that we know what we know based on the fact that that is how we learned it. Is a dog really a dog, or is that what we named that creature? If we look at a relativist's point of view, then we must look at all answers that we give in a way that requires us to back up and look at it again.
All-in-all, how do we prove an answer? That depends on how you look at it. Still a great question to ask and I hope you get more help than I have been able to provide. I do think this is a great question though! :D

Casey Christofaris 10+
- 0
Feb 28 2013: So the only way I have been able to say "prove" an answers is that it has to be common sense to other. It doesn't matter if their common sense even makes sense it can be backwards from your personal logic or reasoning. But if you can make your "truth" common sense to them then they will know it as truth
- Carter Shank
  - 0
  Feb 28 2013: Then could not everything that you, I, or anyone has ever learned be considered a "truth" that has been taught to us as common sense by another? Be it true or not?
  - Casey Christofaris 10+
    
    0
    Mar 1 2013: Yep its a circle
  - Casey Christofaris 10+
    
    0
    Mar 1 2013: That why all truths are truth, and all truths are false. This is called science

Michael James Dunn

0

Feb 24 2013: Hi Casey, I think the term "self" is the kicker here, evidence is all around us in many forms yet it is the perspective of the viewer that determines its relevance, thus the self is from singular perspective and therefore when applying right and wrong one must always consider it a selfish act.

This selfish act in the mind of the doer is totally justified based on the "perspective" THEY have.

Self evident assumes that we all share the same perspective and our universal opinion has a common base.

On the other side of the coin, do we have the right to wrong?

Casey Christofaris 10+
- 0
Feb 28 2013: If you want to take it biblical we do not have right and wrong, Jesus came and got rid of sin. So is a priest doing something wrong when he sexually assaults a child? Truth is, no he most certainly believes in Jesus and so he get to go to heaven and not hell. If the gods do not judge men why do men?

vics ellison

+2

Feb 23 2013: ask my mum she knows everything

Hemin Faraidun

0

Feb 22 2013: a logical answer should contains its proof inside

Paul Redling

+1

Feb 22 2013: "I think therefore I am." Anything else can always be assumed an illusion.

If your want to take that out of the equation, probably by showing that any change will disprove it, and showing that it holds its own without relying on assuming anything else to be true other than the fact that it is as it appears for all intents and purposes. Like, you can prove 1+2=3 by saying that 1+3≠3 as long as 1 is actually 1, 2 is actually 2, 3 is actually 3, + is actually +, = is actually =, and ≠ is actually ≠.

Casey Christofaris 10+
- 0
Feb 22 2013: Check out this conversation I think you will like it

http://www.ted.com/conversations/16464/after_learning_a_language_why.html
Allan Hotti
- 0
Feb 24 2013: Illusions fool the brain in to believing that, what is not there, is there.
- Paul Redling
  - 0
  Feb 24 2013: Ummm... Yeah. That's assumed common knowledge... So... Thanks? I don't really see what u mean to accomplish by posting that. I mean, I could find that out on Dictionary.com...
  - Allan Hotti
    
    +1
    Feb 24 2013: I was just questioning your inference that "I think therefore I am" is not an illusion as well.
    I agree with you that our perceptions (beliefs) are at risk of being illusions (erroneous beliefs) even though our brain believes them to be real. Skepticism is healthy.
    Random thoughts: There is hope.Technology has increased our sensory capacity to "see" the world/universe, with microscopes, spectroscopes, telescopes, microwave discs and arrays, so that some illusions have been dispelled, but I'm sure many remain. Similarly Neuroscience is better understanding our brains and dispelling our erroneous beliefs in how it works.
    Proof exists in mathematics, I'm not sure it exists elsewhere with same rigor. Scientific method & Mathematics perhaps remain our best tools to provide answers to questions with a "proof" that many only be "good enough" for now.
    
    No offense meant.
    Allan
  - Casey Christofaris 10+
    
    0
    Feb 28 2013: Allan sorry proof is not in numbers because I can show proof that numbers are theory/assumptions/and more like philosophy. Now binary that's a different animal
    
    Check out this ted convo
    http://www.ted.com/conversations/13925/is_our_math_wrong_is_it_our_a.html
- Richard Krooman 50+
  - +1
  Feb 24 2013: "I think therefore I am" is the only thing that remains when you strip all possibly illusions.
  
  Because the fact that you "think" means that somewhere a 'you' must "exist"... notice that it doesn't tell you anything about how you think or where you are or in what form 'you' are. Just that somewhere there must be a 'you' because how else could you think?
  - Paul Redling
    
    0
    Feb 24 2013: Thank you for saving me time.
  - natasha nikulina 50+
    
    +2
    TED Translator
    
    Feb 26 2013: The producer of the Illusion, this one who is experiencing the Illusion and and the Illusion itself ARE ONE.
    Famous "I think therefore I am" tells you , that the virtual reality created in a code is enduring as long as the code maker endures.
- natasha nikulina 50+
  - 0
  TED Translator
  
  Feb 26 2013: Hi, Allan !
  Is there ANY possibility to get out of the illusion ?
  - Allan Hotti
    
    +1
    Feb 26 2013: Possibly not ... but if the "illusions" lead to to "fitness" enhancing behaviors, it may not matter????
    
    Illusions might well "accurately" represent a brains (mechanistic) response to sensory inputs and perceptions and become memories represented by neurons/neural circuits/proteins, but do they accurately represent the world out side the body? If these illusions/beliefs lead to fitness enhancing behaviors, perhaps that is all we need.
    
    "Self" is an illusion ... cognitive neuroscientist Bruce Hood explore(s) the building blocks of what we experience as the “self” in The Self Illusion: How the Social Brain Creates Identity.
    
    "I think therefore I believe I am" This has proved useful.
- natasha nikulina 50+
  - 0
  TED Translator
  
  Feb 26 2013: Re:" If these illusions/beliefs lead to fitness enhancing behaviors, perhaps that is all we need."
  Agreed ! :)
  Meaning is in the confrontation of contradiction - the coincidencia apositorum.
  Two opposites should not contradict to each other but resonate.
  Illusion- yes; but your illusion is real and matters.
  Something like this :)
  But i would distinguish 'self' from ' ego-self'. We can't avoid language ambiguity here, but how ego-self-illusion is possible without Self ? Self is something not existing but real, it embraces ego-self, not the other way round.
  Maybe there are ways to be aware of Self, but it's impossible to language it for language is a code and is the property of 'ego-self'.
  Thanks for the name (Bruce Hood ) i'll google it .
  Thank you !
Arkady Grudzinsky 50+
- 0
Feb 26 2013: Why do you think that thinking is not an illusion?

It seems to me that "I think" needs to be stripped also. What remains is "I AM".
- Casey Christofaris 10+
  - 0
  Feb 28 2013: Which correlates to one
- Richard Krooman 50+
  - 0
  Mar 1 2013: Ow boy,
  
  Then what are you if not a collection of your thoughts?
  The logic is... that whatever you think is being thought by you, and because of that "you" must somehow "exist".
  
  Everything can be an illusion... but your thoughts put them to "your reality".
  We could be all controled by some computer which presents our "thoughts" with an image of a natural world where you have a body and can break bones etc.
  But the one thing that makes sure that a "you" exists is that what you think is somehow related to a "you".
  
  In yet another form... There MUST be someTHING (which is strongly related to 'someone' which is strongly related to 'you') to trick even if we are being tricked.
  
  Haven't you guys ever read up on "I think therefor I am"?
  It is a really fascanating idea...
  - Arkady Grudzinsky 50+
    
    0
    Mar 1 2013: Yes, I've read what Descartes said and I've read what Hume wrote about what Descartes said.
- Richard Krooman 50+
  - 0
  Mar 1 2013: You mean the Hume that sais: "You can't really say that one leads to the other as cause and effect are not clear"?
  Aka you cannot say that "I think 'therefor' I am" you can only say "I think and I am" in which case "I am" would be already the conclusion that Descartes was after?
  
  Descartes sais that "because you think. You can infer that you are" rather than "whatever thinks has to exist".
  There is no cause and effect needed there... Hume just imagined there to be because he was too busy with taking mathematical logic too literal.
  - Arkady Grudzinsky 50+
    
    0
    Mar 1 2013: Read "Criticisms" section in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cogito_ergo_sum
    
    Hume wasn't the only one to point out issues with this phrase. My point is that reason is quite useless when it comes to "self". All reasoning regarding "self" is circular. It's easier just to accept "I am" (our existence) as an unconditional self-evident truth, without reasoning, evidence, or proof.
- edward long 100+
  - +1
  Mar 2 2013: According to Christian doctrine only God can rightfully be called "I Am." It is one of his names. (Exodus 3:14 KJV).

Michael James Dunn

0

Feb 22 2013: By simply believing it to be so... Ask any fanatic

Casey Christofaris 10+
- 0
Feb 22 2013: Because truth is self evident?

abigail monger

0

Feb 21 2013: We can't. The universe is so unpredictable, anything can be proven wrong in an instant.

Casey Christofaris 10+
- 0
Feb 22 2013: And if I can prove something to be truth to you even if it is wrong. Would you be interested in how?

Charan Singh

0

Feb 20 2013: Natasha - what you have mentioned as a vague image has profound meaning - could you share by focusing more on these movements , path travelled by 1, through 0 and to numerousity and back into oneness !! Great fascinating sharing - how/ why 1 comes into existence - one likely answer seems - to experience !! Please connects some dots on the path (what might seem vague image ) how 1 travels .That will be very insightful . Thanks

natasha nikulina 50+
- 0
TED Translator

Feb 20 2013: Infinity is a zero with a twist :)
The twist moment/place is 1 and it is not a moment/place, it's Eternity, which is not IS.
Zero.
"1 comes into existence - one likely answer seems - to experience !!"
It makes sense :)
So IT ( God, Spirit.. 2 D field of information, Eternity... what have you ) wants to know ITself.
edited
Infinity is a zero with a twist
two bubbles on the right/left are 1 in ' many ' version .
You see the motion of constant departure on infinite arrival
many = one/zero/one = many =one/zero/one = many...ad infinitum.
Asgar Fakhrudin
- 0
Feb 21 2013: why one comes into existence. Plotinus had this to say: 'Bonum diffusm sui' - good diffuses itself. His theory of emanation will hopefully provide with the answer.

Asgar Fakhrudin

0

Feb 19 2013: By putting it into practice or to scientific test. The other option is to have a firm belief in your answer, but not to tom tom it about and get negative and hostile reactions, but to be patient and firm, and give time for your answer to evolve, and hopefully if it right, the magic will start working.

Casey Christofaris 10+
- 0
Feb 22 2013: See if this truth can be put into practice.

The interesting things is, is if I had to answer my own question. This is how I would answer it:

What would Jesus do?
He would try to relate to the person, whether from his personal experiences or from someone else’s experiences/knowledge (parable). And respond with knowledge/wisdom that he would want to hear if it was he who came to them for help.
That’s what Jesus would do.
Do on to others as you would have them do on to you.
If you imply this concept to the most fundamental parts of life you would have intuition.

The hardest part about this is how do you relate to a person so it comes off as if the knowledge is from them selves. This is why is hard to do the "do unto others as you would have then do unto you" The answer has to be common sense. Not to the person (in this case Jesus) but to the other. It has to be their common sense not his.

"Believe nothing, no matter where you read it, who said it, no matter if I said it, unless it agrees with your own reason and your own common sense." ~ Siddhartha Gautama, founder of Buddhism

But the best thing is, is that I had to start this conversation to know that. That it has to be common sense to other, to be seen as truth from their perspective
Casey Christofaris 10+
- 0
Feb 22 2013: So let me see if I can use logic and reason to show you how you need to use their logic and reason. To not prove them wrong but to show them that there is other truth. So you can pick any topic you want and any side of the said topic and I will debate the other side. See to get someone to believe what you say is truth you first have to understand their side as truth as well. Not that it wrong and it clearly might be(like anyone who would say oil is not toxic).

It is said that if you know your enemies and know yourself, you will not be imperiled in a hundred battles; if you do not know your enemies but do know yourself, you will win one and lose one; if you do not know your enemies nor yourself, you will be imperiled in every single battle. ~ Sun Tzu Art of War

Now it doesn't matter how the argument is going once I figure out how you came to your knowledge of truth I can figure out your thought "pattern" or common sense. Once I understand that I can use your common sense thats right your common sense to prove my information as truth. Not as I am right your wrong but just that there is other truth. Edited: I dont even need to believe that what I am trying to debate is truth or not, I just need to except that it can be

And as far as Sub, object question go. I like to say that it's not that I think inside the box or outside of the box. I realize that its all box's and I try to think in all of them.

Charan Singh

+1

Feb 18 2013: As long as, when One ( start / original position ) becomes Two remains aware of the One - as one that made into / connection with One doesn't break / became the Two- there is no problem - Two , can do anything it likes , since being aware, it can easily converge into One- there is no problem. Problem may likely arise when forgetfulness factor gets introduced in One becoming Two equation. Humbly submitted.

natasha nikulina 50+
- +1
TED Translator

Feb 18 2013: So, we are creatures with amnesia : )
It makes sense
Thank you !
- Ed Schulte 50+
  - +1
  Feb 19 2013: Hi nn
  
  So Charan has caught you in his bright flow :-)
  
  OK
  
  Yes! and as Daskalos puts it "We are Gods with Amnesia" ( temporary amnesia )
  
  Yes Indeed!!!
  - Charan Singh
    
    +1
    Feb 19 2013: @CaseyChristofaris,@ED Schulte, @ Natashanikulina - Thanks a lot. Please help further explore this Amnesia as Natasha rightly termed it. Being new to TED, at following link posted first question. What factors cause this Amnesia ?
    
    http://www.ted.com/conversations/16464/after_learning_a_language_why.html
    
    Much appreciated.
  - natasha nikulina 50+
    
    0
    TED Translator
    
    Feb 19 2013: ( temporary amnesia ) ?
    Looks like hope for recovery :)
    Hi, Ed !

Débora Correia

0

Feb 18 2013: The best way to prove an answer is proving that it cann't be wrong, what i mean it's that to prove something we can do it in several ways but maybe the faster is prove that we are not wrong, that there are not the chance of being wrong what we are saying, e.g: someone asks if one object is a apple, and we say yes. We can prove our answer showing to her that cann´t be another way because for example (not a very good one) a monkey wouldn't eat it or because a horse would eat it!

Casey Christofaris 10+
- 0
Feb 18 2013: Ok so what if I can prove I am always right even when I am wrong?
- Débora Correia
  - 0
  Feb 20 2013: If you are wrong, there is at least one time that you are not right because if there wasn't one time that you are wrong, you would be right. So you can't prove that you are always right even when you are wrong. It' s like in maths, you just need one exemple to prove that something is not like the other is saying but you need to be right in all times to prove that you are right...
  - Casey Christofaris 10+
    
    0
    Feb 22 2013: And if I am using your personal math, or thought pattern, or common sense to express my truth. I can always be proven right by you. Even if what I am saying is wrong, because its your self evident proof that will prove me right not myself not my thought pattern it will be mirroring your thought pattern
- Débora Correia
  - 0
  Feb 24 2013: In this case what you will say, will be right for me but not for you, and that can happen, but if it is not right for everybody it is not a universal true just like in math where to be a universal true has to be true for every cases, and was that what i thought you wanted to prove. If it is not a universal true you just need ( one more time, like in math) to show one case where what you want to prove that it is right.
  - Casey Christofaris 10+
    
    0
    Feb 28 2013: Everything has a pattern. Or mathematical laws that govern things.
    
    http://www.ted.com/talks/geoffrey_west_the_surprising_math_of_cities_and_corporations.html
    
    I admit before I started this conversation, I had no clue that this is what or how I thought. My father always said that I thought differently then most people. My best friends said that I can always convince them of things to be true even when they fully did not agree. Its because I know people think in circles. Or use circle logic there is an underlining pattern to all peoples thought pattern mostly because people use the same assumptions to come to there conclusion. If I was able to convince you of truth, you would never know that I was lying.

Charan Singh

+1

Feb 18 2013: @Natashanikulina- These are not numbers but relative positions only with respect to each other - question with respect to answer or answer with respect to question may interchange positions from 1 to 2 or 2 to 1 . So it seems from Positional -relative perspective , non of these - 1, 2, 3 , 4 , anything or zero has a stability or no duration. On the other hand , these are dynamically interchangeable , equally powerful positional entities. When one repositions into another as 2 or 0 or 3 until complete convergence occurs into Oneness - repositioning may continue.;)

natasha nikulina 50+
- 0
TED Translator

Feb 18 2013: Re : anything or zero has a stability or no duration.
I am slightly synesthetic, numbers for me are not only " relative positions with respect to each other ". They have colour, texture, transparency. So 'stability' and 'no duration' for me is quite real illusion :)
Thanks for your time !
- Charan Singh
  - 0
  Feb 19 2013: Understanding these as likely Illusion fades away when the connecting cord/ thread/path is known between these dynamically changing positional entities. Urright these could be colors, texture, sounds, shapes, any thing. Stability - longevity in duration / real knowledge is in knowing the path of connections/joining cords/threads.
  - natasha nikulina 50+
    
    0
    TED Translator
    
    Feb 19 2013: Charan ,
    I can't say , i understand you, but i agree with you :)
    Knowledge is a tricky thing.
    How true image( colour, texture...sound ) is ? I don't know, but i think, it's more true, if not explained.
    One more question, if i may.
    May i ? :)
    
    Maybe i have a kind of 'standing under' of how 1 is becoming many.
    But Why ? And How can the perfect equilibrium be broken without a push from outside? If there is any 'outside', 1 is not 1, but less/more.
    And how/why 1 comes into existence ?
    For me it's a Mystery and it's OK, but if you have something to tell , please, tell :)
    Thank you !
    
    edited
    
    Actually, i have a vague image :
    1 doesn't appear from 0, but goes through it when 1 becomes soooo many that it is condensed into 1 again and slips into 0 ...turning into 1...
    So the Whole is always in the state of departure while always arriving.
  - Casey Christofaris 10+
    
    0
    Feb 20 2013: That sounds like a torus?

Charan Singh

0

Feb 18 2013: @natashanikulina - by zero - what do you mean ? a) the point of origin of question/ beginning b) a third factor other than the two - 1) question and 2) answer or c) something else

natasha nikulina 50+
- 0
TED Translator

Feb 18 2013: I don't know :) 1 is stable but finite, so it can't lasts forever and can't becme 2 again. ' 0 ' has no duration at all.
What do you think it is ?
Maybe C , something else
natasha nikulina 50+
- 0
TED Translator

Feb 18 2013: When there is no space between the observer and the observed
( questions and answers are reconciled ), observer becomes the observed -one and unconscious of itself, in terms mentally ' 1' doesn't know that it exists, so it becomes zero for mental self.
As clear as mud :)
But actually i know what i mean.
- Charan Singh
  - 0
  Feb 18 2013: That " actually I know what I mean" is the inseparable awareness, the all knowledgeable, the sum total, call it 1, 2, 0 or anything u like ;) It seems - Observer and observed are thus the dynamic positional entities from this Core- of Oneness.
  - natasha nikulina 50+
    
    0
    TED Translator
    
    Feb 18 2013: When i don't know how to tell, i have the feeling that i have something to tell :)
    Can you help me with this :
    " On the day when you were one, you became two. But when you become two, what will you do?"
    Gospel of Thomas
    
    How would you interpret this ?
    
    Thank you very much !
  - Casey Christofaris 10+
    
    0
    Feb 18 2013: become one

Charan Singh

0

Feb 18 2013: This seems reverse. It is expansion from one rather than what was earlier asked !!! Lets explore... 1) it is - you 2) Need a Space- to create , 3) 3a-creation (in that space) an idea, / that 3b-evolves into a thought / further expands 4) a movement - in Time, from point 1) onwards to 3a-3b and above all 5) you/ as origin / as zero/ as source - where Space and Time have coordinates (0,0). It seems earlier Suggested complete convergence still remains the answer since one knows / aware/ knowledable about -all steps taken. The need /possibility of convergence / question gets raised only. when one is unaware / searches as second/ other. One may see the back of eye lid when one is unaware, to the one aware - complete convergence has taken place in that Oneness @ Ed Schulte - Thanks a lot, much appreciated. Brgrd.

Casey Christofaris 10+
- 0
Feb 18 2013: So what your looking for is how to ascend? Or for ascension? Is this what you are trying to say?
- Charan Singh
  - 0
  Feb 18 2013: Neither - it is fully-filled awareness, always complete -not in separate parts
  - Casey Christofaris 10+
    
    0
    Feb 18 2013: That is reached in consciousness, and consciousness is always complete

Charan Singh

0

Feb 18 2013: This seems not about God/ Truth/ Science or any thing. the statement / query has everything in it. Part 1 of the statement / query assumes - Something is there to find, to prove,to explore , to what an answer is needed , Part 2 is what is needed, an answer. Thus when two -of these options/ re/searchable alternatives- converge into One !!

Casey Christofaris 10+
- 0
Feb 18 2013: right but then that one becomes 2 again. Here on earth we start with the answer
- Charan Singh
  - 0
  Feb 18 2013: It become 2 again, only when it is not converged into 1 Completely ;) ( if one considers 1 as answer ( on earth) and 2 as question - it is equally valid )
  - Casey Christofaris 10+
    
    0
    Feb 18 2013: Zero as defined as nothing or no thing can not exist, it only exist of the mind which is where everything exit. How ever in this reality that we like to call real, while everything around us is fake we find the need to reach zero or source or origin. But you are the source you are the origin and you are one. See how you have converged into one completely? You were once light or spirit chasing your own shadow(matter), that created earth or the material world which is just as fake as the spiritual world. The shadow is earth your conscientiousness is light and you are one being. And the best part is is that you know you are one, but for some reason you are not able to grasp something. I am not sure what that is, maybe you can help me figure it out
  - Casey Christofaris 10+
    
    0
    Feb 18 2013: Did you get a chance to join in on the ted conversation about zero or nothing or no thing.
    http://www.ted.com/conversations/13925/is_our_math_wrong_is_it_our_a.html
    
    It's binary code for nature. We got rid of the concept of zero or nothing or no thing as the starting axiom for nature (its more of a place holder (which can also be arbitrary)), because it can not be reached we can get infinity close but never reach it. Oddly enough if we ever did that reach zero it would make our physics equation for work be invalid. W=fd, if no distance traveled no work would be done. But all light can do is travel or move or do work. We also got rid of 2 since no 2 things can occupy the same space and the same time. And then ultimately we got rid of one, because it could be any axioms
  - Casey Christofaris 10+
    
    0
    Feb 18 2013: Lets look at birth since it is both created and evolved. So you and your significant other get together to have sex your sperm (separate) and her egg(separate) come together and become one fully by producing a child. However some people want to still deny evolution as a created factor but if the sperm and the egg did not evolve but instead "created" we would either grow into a larger version of the sperm or of the egg. We be giant sperm if we are created instead the sperm and egg become one and evolve in to what is human or a child one being. Because creation and evolution are one and the same
  - Ed Schulte 50+
    
    0
    Feb 18 2013: Well said Charan
    
    and nothing more to add but this Sufi quote...
    
    "Everything you will ever need to know is right there on the back of you eyelids."
  - Casey Christofaris 10+
    
    0
    Feb 18 2013: You can create an Idea, you have to evolve a thought
  - Casey Christofaris 10+
    
    0
    Feb 18 2013: @Ed and what if the back of your eyelid is the universe? Would you ask to see it? have you asked to see it? The pattern of the Universe
  - natasha nikulina 50+
    
    0
    TED Translator
    
    Feb 18 2013: If 2 is converged into 1 Completely wouldn't it be ' 0 ' ?
  - Casey Christofaris 10+
    
    0
    Feb 20 2013: Sure you can see it that way, but it would just become one again. See zero as described as no thing can not exist, because that thing that would be no thing would just be us or (oneness or zeroness). It can exist in the mind where all things exist. But in this realty us viewing 0 or becoming 0. Would simple be us doing work. Light moves that's what it does dark does not move it only moves to counter light. Which is just lights shadow, or its equal but opposite reaction to self. So if we became zero we would just become another one of our infinite changes because that's all energy can do its change.
    
    edited: this is why when you see a paradox you find that truth is near
    Paradox's are the opposite reaction's to themselves

Charan Singh

+1

Feb 18 2013: By converging two into one ;)

Casey Christofaris 10+
- 0
Feb 18 2013: But then you have to realize that those first 2 existed as truth which created the one that exist as truth which will create an equal but opposite truth bring it back out as 2 then it will converge into one again ad infinitum. See it reciprocal and as far as truth goes that's a lot to keep track of and try to predict its equal but opposite reaction to self/whole/one. This can be seen as your shadow, which is your equal but opposite of self. Light needs something to reflect off of. You would need an all seeing eye to keep track of all those truth and false to realize that they created each other this can be seen as magnetism in nature or +/- . Also when any axiom can be your begin and end how would you know the first one because it would be arbitrarily labeled as one. So it shouldn't matter were home or source or origin is because we are all one. Every home is home every source is source. Just like the reason why people feel so alone when they are surrounded by billions of people is because we are alone, for we are one. If humans ever got off this rock or found an alien race it would just be another infinite chance for potential or a manifestation of energy or simply us, we, it, I. For God alone works miracles. Because he/we/us/them/I/it whatever arbitrary label you would like to use is alone , for we are one. For every end there is a beginning. Its a circle but we can end the circle we have been discovering circles for far way to long. Just because we can end the circle doesn't mean this reality is going to stop existing because it is the equal but opposite of what it is to be "god". We have to create heaven on earth, for we create our reality. Because we are co-creator

Ed Schulte 50+

+1

Feb 17 2013: @ Danielle Swain

Re your " I would have been bounced out of the class and sent to the dean of students for being a wiseacre."

Well I would trust that the Dean is educated enough to understand Einstein's point that any ray of light ( a straight line ) send out will eventually return to its origin and therefore he would understand that there are no "straight lines"

(Kind of like Casey's attempt at arguing right/wrong, come to think of it :-0 )

Casey Christofaris 10+
- 0
Feb 17 2013: Question for you Ed,

If we sent out that light as we are observing space like we study the stars, and the light comes back to origin to the back of our own head, how would you know it was your head?
- Ed Schulte 50+
  - 0
  Feb 17 2013: Casey
  
  since that principle is a 6th dimension principle .....were consciousness and light are one and the same ....how could it not know what it was??? ( ..or ...as you put it in your question... "comes back to origin"..)
  - Casey Christofaris 10+
    
    0
    Feb 18 2013: Never heard of 6th dimension principle, had to look it up. The funny thing is you want to talk about separate dimensions , and then I can only assume that you want to talk about how we are one. And that we need to find source or origin. These labels as arbitrary just like the term "one" is if every axiom can be both beginning and end.
    
    Did you get a chance to join in on the ted conversation about zero or nothing or no thing.
    http://www.ted.com/conversations/13925/is_our_math_wrong_is_it_our_a.html
    
    It's binary code for nature. We got rid of the concept of zero or nothing or no thing as the starting axiom for nature (its more of a place holder (which can also be arbitrary)), because it can not be reached we can get infinity close but never reach it. Oddly enough if we ever did that reach zero it would make our physics equation for work be invalid. W=fd, if no distance traveled no work would be done. But all light can do is travel or move or do work. We also got rid of 2 since no 2 things can occupy the same space and the same time. And then ultimately we got rid of one, because it could be any axioms
    
    see also Charan Singh conversation above

Joshua Kloppers

+1

Feb 17 2013: in my experience answers are usually proven through the use of basic logic. Specifically axioms (which are things we assume to be true), we bring forward a number of axioms and these provide a person the basis from which to prove something in accordance to the fore mentioned axioms. If this is true then everything is based on basic assumptions and so knowledge can only be proven in relation to other knowledge or in most cases assumptions.

In other words we can only prove something on assumptions that we can all agree are correct.

Casey Christofaris 10+
- 0
Feb 17 2013: What if I use your personal logic to prove my answer

(Joshua Kloppers personal logic)
Or Joshua Kloppers basic logic or common sense

Would you recognize it as truth

Comment deleted

Casey Christofaris 10+
- 0
Feb 17 2013: What if I use your personal logic to prove my answer

(Myf E's personal logic)
Or Myf E's basic logic or common sense

Would you recognize it as truth

Andrew Presnell

0

Feb 17 2013: Michael Chidester, for some reason, I'm not able to reply to your statement.

It is a contradiction for the cat to be alive and not alive at the same time and same respect. To say that logic can prove contradictions are true is self referentially absurd.

With Schrodinger's cat, we do not know whether the cat is alive or isn't alive. To say that it is both is not only a contradiction, but unjustified. Consider the quote below:

"The observer cannot know whether or not an atom of the substance has decayed, and consequently, cannot know whether the vial has been broken, the hydrocyanic acid released, and the cat killed. Since we cannot know, according to quantum law, the cat is both dead and alive." http://whatis.techtarget.com/definition/Schrodingers-cat

The author's statement "Since we cannot know, according to quantum law, the cat is both dead and alive". This doesn't make sense. Indeed, we know that either the cat is either alive or not alive, but it isn't both. What justification is there to say it is either a or b, therefore a and b?

Casey Christofaris 10+
- 0
Feb 17 2013: What if I can show you that a person can be both alive and dead, only by definitions. And that the definitions of everything are arbitrary, because they can simply be labeled anything we want. And that you can not gain further knowledge without gaining further perspective, or observation to add to your already assumed reality
Casey Christofaris 10+
- 0
Feb 17 2013: So you have two guys on opposite sides of a balcony equal distance apart from the subject. One looks down on his friend who has just fallen to the ground and sees blood running out of his ear and assumes he has had a brain contusion and has died from the fall. The other looks down and notices that there is movement in his chest suggesting that he is still breathing and is alive and has survived the fall. How can we prove both these guys right by definition without gaining further perspective or observation?

Comment deleted

Sign In

Live Conversations

Search Conversations

Recent Commenters

Popular Topics