Thread: true love

Well, actually I agree with Series 4x for the most part. However, I believe math is an ultimate representation of the physical univers - if you know what ot base it on (theres the catch). It is a system that CAN, potentially represent the universe on any scale if you simple have the knowlage to apply it. Altough, here's somehting to cheer Series up - the laws of physics are not immutable. By measureing the light waves from distant parts of the universe, it's been found that atom behave slightly differently in different parts of the universe. This implies that the laws of physics are not quite immutable.

Getting back on the main topic though, true love does exist. It is a feeling so intense as to be almost painfull and does not fade even after years of seperation (although you can become 'used' to it). Think of every song and cliché, and they apply perfectly. It is possible to live without emotions and function properly (I do it myself most of the time), but to deny your feeling is to make you weaker - you deny a part of yourself. It's like pain - you can endure what you accept, resists and you are weak. This is not to say that emotions cannot be controlled - however controling love is not something I want to do (altough I have had to once or twice), mainly because I like feeling this way. I think that anyone who hasn't experienced this.. well they have my sympathies.

I think Shakespear put it best :
It's better to have loved and lost that never to have loved at all

apt...

I can't remember actually. I think it was either discovery channel or einstein.tv

The difference? Well with 'true' love.. you just know. It's the only way I can explain it. It hits you like a half-brick right between the eyes

>And if you don't have the necessary qualities to be loved,
>or to love, there's no choice for you.

And what qualities would that be ? Love goes strange ways, and I don't think anyone is beyond love.

"You can define the earth to be a "geometrical" shape, and that's true according to the geometrical system."

You don't need to "define" the earth to be a geometrical shape the Earth IS a geonmetrical shape, ALL shapes are geometrical shapes.

"Religon has created some descriptions which cannot be applied on reality"

Because they are false, not just innacurate, false.

"The mathematical system has also created some descriptions and shapes which cannot describe reality"

You can use maths to describe things to whatever accuracy you desire.

"Such an incomplete system is doomed to be removed because it's wrong."

Its not "wrong" or "incomplete" you can use maths to descrive things to whatever accuracy you desire. The limitation is NOT mathematics its how we use it.

"Reality does not consist of "perfect" mathematical shapes, those shapes don't exist other than in your head."

Reality dose not consist of simple shapes (in the most part) no, but it does consists of shapes and shapes no matter how complex can be described with maths.

"Now we can clearly see the limitation of emotion controlled life forms such as Clyde"

.....

"they have problems being corrected because their emotions prevents it. They are automatically against me."

I have no problem being corrected, but your conclusion are simply false, you make false statements, and seemingly lack the ability to draw logical conclusions (eg. "because we cannot describe the universe infinitely accurately therefore everyone must die", which is no different to "because my computer mouse is not a real rodent therefore there must be orangutangs that eat fruit on Mars" - completey logical disparity).

"An incomplete description is wrong. People cannot form a truthful mental picture of the earth nor anything else. "

No, an incomplete discription is incomplete. Your statement is clearly rediculous, if i say there is a horse outside (and there is) it is not a "wrong" description, it might not describe the scenario with infinite accuracy, but its not meant to.

You are correct however in saying that people cannot form a "truthfull" mental picture of the Earth, but...... so what? We can overcome the limitations of our perception with maths.

"This is like going to a church and listen to a priest. A priest is just as convinced as you are, but he can't tell why"

Priests do not have logic i on the other hand do, and i can tell you why.

"He's just using a religous system which consists of man-made laws to describe his beliefs."

His beliefs are illogical, founded on faith, my beliefs are logical and founded on evidence. People build cars, aeroplanes, ships, computers, on the basis of my "beliefs", and they work.

"And you, you and many others just swollow all the scientific nonsense that media feeds you with. That's your doomed belief-system. It will change until it's completely gone."

Media? I'm a science student i know how and why science works. I don't have a belief system whatever the hell that means. Science just means working out the properties of the universe in a logical manner thats ALL it is, nothing more, nothing less. To do that we have to throw away how we percieve the world in front of us, and so we do, we are not constrained by concepts impossible to concieve of, you see our inability to picture the world "as it is" does not stop us finding our how the world really is.

You have yet to show any reasoning what-so-ever for your perculiar beliefs, i find it very strange debating with you, occasionally you say something intelligent but then you totally fail to draw a valid conclusion from it and its almost like you don't understand why the bits that you say that are correct are right......

You haven't by any chance read a book that you've taken to heart as you're foudning philosophy?