# Thread: What is the most sublime philosophical / spiritual idea or concept?

1. Yeah I'm secretly really smart.
For something seemingly not totally self centered i could consider sayin' "great minds think alike young one"
But then there's the "must.. fight... the.. need.. to ... tease people!".
Well any way then, Good for me, bad for you

2. the only fundamental difference between anything: is that it occupies a different arrangement of energy in the space-time geometry.

Is this pencil meaningful? Yes! in the sense that its energy is arranged in space-time geometry differently than this spoon. The difference between them is simply geometry. The difference between = the meaning.

so if anything can be said to be fundementally different from another based on its space-time geometry, then anything with a geometry must have a meaning! (in that its meaningful that it was arranged one way rather than another).

Thus:

HasGeometry = HasMeaning.

3. Originally Posted by Babylon Candle
the only fundamental difference between anything: is that it occupies a different arrangement of energy in the space-time geometry.

Is this pencil meaningful? Yes! in the sense that its energy is arranged in space-time geometry differently than this spoon. The difference between them is simply geometry. The difference between = the meaning.

so if anything can be said to be fundementally different from another based on its space-time geometry, then anything with a geometry must have a meaning! (in that its meaningful that it was arranged one way rather than another).

Thus:

HasGeometry = HasMeaning.
You confuse a deterministic action->consequence - structure->properties relationship with the idea of meaning.
A correct assertion would be 'has geometry, has property'
But then again you'd have an issue. How to ultimately define the geometry, where the property begin. To what point something can be divided into equal parts until it's not the sum of its part anymore.

So, the final version of the formula would therefor have to be:
Geometry, leads to structure, structure leads to emergence. Emergence is more than the sum of its parts.

4. Originally Posted by EcK
You confuse a deterministic action->consequence - structure->properties relationship with the idea of meaning.
A correct assertion would be 'has geometry, has property'
But then again you'd have an issue. How to ultimately define the geometry, where the property begin. To what point something can be divided into equal parts until it's not the sum of its part anymore.

So, the final version of the formula would therefor have to be:
Geometry, leads to structure, structure leads to emergence. Emergence is more than the sum of its parts.
im not sure i like the wording "more than the sum of its parts"... i prefer more of a "they're all just legos...its only the arrangement that matters"

also, when viewed 'from the outside', this space-time object's geometry would be the same thing as its action->consequence. No? time is just another geometric dimension...

5. Originally Posted by Babylon Candle
im not sure i like the wording "more than the sum of its parts"... i prefer more of a "they're all just legos...its only the arrangement that matters"

also, when viewed 'from the outside', this space-time object's geometry would be the same thing as its action->consequence. No? time is just another geometric dimension...
I still don't see how meaning has anything to do with structure, the most we can say is that physical properties in the universe have a correlation with the meaning we give and the things we define, at least when it comes to interact with the environment.

about the space time thingie, yes of course, I never said or thought the opposite but it's good that you point that out.

Ok let's play with some concepts, something we see everyday: conscience.

Can you cut conscience into pieces ?
Can you say that a fly has some percentage of conscience or that conscience emerges at a threshold point. While it is obviously dependant on the physical structure of the brain, how do you define it?
If you define it as an approximate structure then you should observe a proportional change in the values coupled with the size of the structure.
But we don't seem to observe a very strong link between, for example, intelligence and the size of the brain within the species.
And intelligence is generally seen as the conscious ability to understand and organize the world.

In practice a good example would be the AI research. Trying to attain a level of complexity after which the program would be able to understand itself conceptualy and grow by itself.

6. Simply freedom.

7. Originally Posted by Babylon Candle
.Is this pencil meaningful? Yes! in the sense that its energy is arranged in space-time geometry differently than this spoon. The difference between them is simply geometry. The difference between = the meaning.

...

Thus:

HasGeometry = HasMeaning.
Has no geometry?

Nothing has geometry. Absolutely nothing.

Meaning is utterly irrelevant to your assertion.

8. Originally Posted by EcK
I still don't see how meaning has anything to do with structure, the most we can say is that physical properties in the universe have a correlation with the meaning we give and the things we define, at least when it comes to interact with the environment.

Ok let's play with some concepts, something we see everyday: conscience.

Can you cut conscience into pieces ?
Can you say that a fly has some percentage of conscience or that conscience emerges at a threshold point. While it is obviously dependant on the physical structure of the brain, how do you define it?
If you define it as an approximate structure then you should observe a proportional change in the values coupled with the size of the structure.
But we don't seem to observe a very strong link between, for example, intelligence and the size of the brain within the species.
And intelligence is generally seen as the conscious ability to understand and organize the world.

In practice a good example would be the AI research. Trying to attain a level of complexity after which the program would be able to understand itself conceptual and grow by itself.
consciousness is not nearly as magical as you make it sound. the average computer right now has the power of a bee. the best ones we have, have the brain power of a mouse. computing power is the only thing holding us back. I do believe one day we will be able to reduce a "conscious" computer down the way we built it, no magic required.

i have a lot more to say...but i have to go to the gym now (so please understand that im not purposely pulling a "because i said so"...i just cant type everything out right now)

9. Originally Posted by bananatrombones
Has no geometry?

Nothing has geometry. Absolutely nothing.

Meaning is utterly irrelevant to your assertion.
yes, an atom doesn't 'have geometry', and atom isn't even an atom. Saying a spoon is different from its' environnement doesn't make sense in itself since they all are in the same universe ant therefore connected and in a constant interaction.

BUT
No, I don't ultimately agree because
the term geometry can be applied as a tool without being too biased for it to be unscientific just as mathematics can be used as a tool to interpret physical realities as close as possible to a 1:1 relationship.

10. Originally Posted by EcK
yes, an atom doesn't 'have geometry', and atom isn't even an atom. Saying a spoon is different from its' environnement doesn't make sense in itself since they all are in the same universe ant therefore connected and in a constant interaction.

BUT
No, I don't ultimately agree because
the term geometry can be applied as a tool without being too biased for it to be unscientific just as mathematics can be used as a tool to interpret physical realities as close as possible to a 1:1 relationship.
Precisely. Like cutting off your toes so your shoes fit, and exclaiming - they fit!

#### Posting Permissions

• You may not post new threads
• You may not post replies
• You may not post attachments
• You may not edit your posts
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO