It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

The Prima Materia

page: 3
9
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 27 2016 @ 11:48 AM
link   
a reply to: Itisnowagain




What if 'everything' means everything, the whole, the all?


"Everything" does mean everything, but it does not mean a whole. To say everything is a whole, or one thing, would require knowledge of it being one: that it moves as one, it has a boundary, it is finite, that it has a beginning, an end, a shape, and a surface of its very own. Until any proof of those properties are discovered, we have no right to call everything one thing. "Everything", "the all", is many things, not one.




posted on May, 27 2016 @ 05:50 PM
link   
a reply to: Rapha

Not really, I have heard of some things regarding the future.. but nothing I would want to share, I simply don't trust it.



posted on May, 28 2016 @ 01:02 AM
link   

originally posted by: LesMisanthropeTo say everything is one thing, and nothing is another, is a contradiction in terms.


On the subject of semantics, I am certain many would agree that everything is one thing, and nothing is another. They are two different words. They have two different meanings. By definition they are opposites of each other.


originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
Everything defines a multitude of things, not one.


Everything does not define a multitude of things. A multitude is a finite number of things. Everything defines all things, which is an infinite number of things. On the subject of physics, a quantity which is infinite is refereed to as a singularity, which by definition is the state, fact, quality, or condition of being singular - one thing.


originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
Nothing describes no thing, not one.


Continuing with the previously mentioned subject, nothingness is also refereed to as a singularity.


originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
Worse, to say these "parts" form one object is to carry this error further into absurdity.


Being as though everything is a singularity, and nothingness is a singularity too, it would not be absurd to state they are both a singularity. It would be enlightening.


originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
In the end, we are not made from that which was just explained.


In the end, you are made of that which was just explained. Just as you were from the beginning.

edit on 28-5-2016 by More1ThanAny1 because: (no reason given)



 
9
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join