Everything

[Tspoonami]

Originally Posted by laser

I think Existence is Everything's only common demoninator.

Becuse Everything exists! This does work, doesn't it?

:D

The problem lies in Perception, and like Mike said... there are probably things somewhere which don't percieve everything, or don't have a concept of all things... So they only percieve existence of themselves and maybe things around them. Interesting, actually... Existence applies where Everything may not [to the thing percieving existence]. But, that existence is described by Everything, because that thing is a thing.

=_=

[laser]

Originally Posted by Tspoonami

The problem lies in Perception

Exactly.

Existence may explain everything, but since it's only a state, it can't percieve anything.

So it may be possible that absolutely nothing can perceive everything. Only explain it.

[Tspoonami]

Originally Posted by laser

So it may be possible that absolutely nothing can perceive everything. Only explain it.

That is definitely a great point! Wow, that pretty much sums up eevrything so far, aye.

So, what can explain and percieve Everything without using 'everything?'

The answer is definitely not a physical thing... But what is it?! Grr...

[fob12]

Originally Posted by laser

You need to think way outside of the box when it comes to Everything.

It's a place where absolutely anything might exist. Even a region without Time.

I think Existence is Everything's only common demoninator.

I could think more outside of the box, but I'm being logical here.

[laser]

Originally Posted by Tspoonami

The answer is definitely not a physical thing... But what is it?! Grr...

Grr is right!

Originally Posted by fob12

I could think more outside of the box, but I'm being logical here.

There's nothing logical about this topic.

[fob12]

Originally Posted by laser

Grr is right!



There's nothing logical about this topic.

Which makes this topic completely useless with your illrashional(sp) theorys and such, unless you want to start something with it. If there's no logic here, I'm out because this is just coming out of your imaginations.

[MikeFez]

Couldnt everything be replaced with all?

[fob12]

Originally Posted by MikeFez

Couldnt everything be replaced with all?

N o .

[laser]

Originally Posted by fob12

Which makes this topic completely useless with your illrashional(sp) theorys and such, unless you want to start something with it. If there's no logic here, I'm out because this is just coming out of your imaginations.

There's plenty of logic here. You just don't seem to get it.

[00Svo]

hi. :) s

[Shoe]

damnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnn

[laser]

Originally Posted by Shoe

damnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnn

Quite... :|

[indapop]

But who was phone?

[ZuP]

Originally Posted by 00svo

hi. :) s

banned for life.

[laser]

Originally Posted by ZuP

banned for life.

A tad harsh, no?

[00Svo]

Originally Posted by laser

A tad harsh, no?

well i mean it was a 5 year bump. lol
i expected at least an infraction but so far nothing. >.>

[Mark Ceol]

Originally Posted by 00Svo

well i mean it was a 5 year bump. lol
i expected at least an infraction but so far nothing. >.>

Well, it is a very thought provoking thread. In this instance, it being that old is actually working in your favor. Now there are many people who have never read this and will find it interesting. Why start a whole new thread on the topic when there is already a thread with many pages of discussion? Now people can read what has already been discussed and then formulate their own ideas from there (if they wish). Not to mention it was somewhat relevant because the thread was mentioned somewhere else.

That's how I would rationalize you not getting an infraction if I was a mod, anyway.

[Nofirefrog]

Originally Posted by Mark Ceol

Well, it is a very thought provoking thread. In this instance, it being that old is actually working in your favor. Now there are many people who have never read this and will find it interesting. Why start a whole new thread on the topic when there is already a thread with many pages of discussion? Now people can read what has already been discussed and then formulate their own ideas from there (if they wish). Not to mention it was somewhat relevant because the thread was mentioned somewhere else.

That's how I would rationalize you not getting an infraction if I was a mod, anyway.

Meh. Good enough for me.



Nofirefrog

[laser]

Well, since this has been brought up, I'll bring everyone up to speed.

Everything is all that exists and all that cannot exist. It is the capsule that determines what is and what can never be.

What me and Mr. Tsp. were trying to figure out was:

What can explain everything, meaning every Unique Thing (that is NOT Everything) contained within Everything?

This would be a very useful thing to know. Since Everything contains things that we cannot percieve, we could use this *it* to act as an intermediary.

Perception is the key. Whatever this *it* is, it would have to be able to perceive both what we can and cannot.

Some candidates over the course of the thread have been Time, Infinity, and Existence. Time is not very likely as Time might be something that we can perceive, but it's possible that somewhere there exists a place where Time does not (it is possible that there are planes of Existence that are ENTIRELY different from our own), and/or that Time is something 100% linked to memory, and doesn't exist outside of it.

I proposed that Everything has existed and will exist infinitely, therefore Infinity could explain Everything, but not only couldn't we figure out a way of testing this hypothesis, Infinity is a concept linked to Time, which may not exist in and/or around every Unique Thing.

Existence was our best bet, because although Everything determines what exists and does not, what does not exist is meaningless. It is empty of any kind of form. Therefore, it is self-explanatory.

However, even though Existence can explain Everything, it can't percieve anything, because it is only a mere state of being. It has no form. And since we are physical beings that have form (and of which our perception [senses] is dependent on, it is useless for the purpose we wanted (the explanation of everything, meaning every Unique Thing).

I have just come up with another possibility - Uniqueness. It is very possible that the state of Uniqueness could very well be infinite, and that we, or something else that we can percieve, could now or eventually be able to perceive Infinity. The thing to go after now, is how can we find or become this single Unique Thing that can perceive Infinity.

Yup...

[Mark Ceol]

I'm sort of confused. It seems like you are switching back and forth between wanting to find a term, or property, to describe Everything, and wanting to find a being that can perceive/describe everything.

What exactly are we looking for here?