Quote:
|
Originally Posted by 2v
"Oh, and I hope you understand what universal relevance is. It's a theory that suggests that there are things in the world, that are completely relevant to everything else....and the idea of this possibility.....would have to mean that EVERYTHING is relevant to everything.
Studying universal relevance you're entire life will not get you anywhere closer to understanding this topic....."
Wrong.
I said there was Nothing, you said there could not possibly be nothing anywhere at all. Because everything is everywhere. Which makes you in complete agreement with your definition of "Universal Relevance".. Could you stop now ? You talk in not only circles but paradoxes and you repeat yourself in the process of doing these rounds in space.
|
That isn't my definition. That's what it is. Unless you've studied it yourself. Which Logic tells me you havn't, otherwise you wouldn't have needed to point out that your friend in the navy studied it. Or you would have atleast pointed out that you have studied it as well.
And no, i was correct. You could study that THEORY...not FACT your whole life. And that still won't bring you closer to understanding the concept. Because you can't understand nothing, you can only slightly understand the concept. And understanding the concept doesn't mean that you are to dispose of your need for concrete answers.
It's a matter of accepting something you don't understand, because even though It cannot be explained conciously, especially verbally, that doesn't deny what can't possibly be denied.
I never once said everything is everywhere. I said there are things everywhere. That is what seperates existence from non-existence. That is logic. The idea of nothing is abstrakt. My position on universal relevance is meaningless.
However, just to show how you once again, that you do not understand all of what I'm saying. I am not convinced of universal relevance. I personally don't believe that everything is completely connected, because some things that don't appear to be connected to eachother, share a slight similarity just because those things that don't appear to be connected, could be connected to something else of the same thing.
It's like the human race. There is 6 degrees of seperation between all of us. Maybe there is only 6 degrees of seperation between everything in the universe, but that still doesn't make it completely connected.
so you see, I'm not in complete agreement with the theory.
Does completely agreeing with it support that nothing doesn't exist. Yes it does.
I never said accepting universal relevance completely will not bring you any closer to understanding the concept.
I said the study of it.
Just like the study of christianity doesn't bring you closer to God.
and it certaintly doesn't bring you any closer to understand how he created everything.
both beliefs are decisions you make...they arn't things that inevitably happen just by studying. In fact, studying christianity can easily pull you farther from God.
all it does is provide information. Information is a source of questions. You ask questions, you won't get answers.
Perhaps i worded my statement wrong though. It probably would have been more appropriate to say that, the study of universal relevance will not necessarily get you anywhere closer to understand the concept of nothing not being able to possibly exist.
It can bring you closer, at the same time, it can bring you farther away than you originally were.
The only thing that determines ones understanding of the concept, is like I said, being able to accept it without needing to fully comprehend it.
It's those who settle for nothing but resolute answers, that are not capable of understanding the concept.
Had you understood me like you claimed you did, and explained your understanding of what I said to you accurately, your dude might have been like yeah, he is right.
Instead you explained what you THOUGHT i was saying, and he completely ignored the topic in general to point out that I was contradicting myself when in fact i wasn't.
Maybe he wouldn't have agreed, either way...it doesn't change what is and what isn't.
And i find it amusing that you like to say I am going in circles, and repeat myself in the process.
After it's been proven that you didn't understand what i was saying, not proven by me. But by your own self. How can you resent me for being repetitive? I knew you didn't get what I was saying everytime you responded. I tried to help you understand.
Whether or not I was completely successful doesn't matter....the point is....to be upset at someone who is vigilant in trying to help you understand, is absolutely rediculous.
It's waisting energy for no purpose. And it's only effect is stunting your growth as a person.