Rethinking Things.

[throng]

The difference between things determines the qualities and properties of them, hence if a thing were isolated it would have have no definition at all and couldn't be said to exist.

 

To have any definition things have to be compared. It seems we do not actually observe things; we observe the difference between and quantify the relationship.

 

To exist is to differentiate ourselves from all other things, yet all things only exist by being different to all others.

 

In that it seems there are only different things the primary discernment consists of one difference between two things, but this one difference defines the exact properties of both, so they have the exact same definition (eachother) yet they are not the same... considering the above...

 

This leads to rethinking things.

Edited August 13, 2010 by throng

[throng]

I make this statement that the properties of forms are actually a distinction between them.

 

We could just use a point and know there is nothing that fits inside it, and as it has no relationship with anything else, it is just a distinction from nothing, but there is no way to justify it. It is a rash assumption.

 

To create something is to define it by that which it is not, but there is no validity in saying something is not nothing as this assumes nothing is a quality one could use in a relationship, and of course it isn't.

 

What we create is a between. A distinction between. A difference.

 

Our minimal distinction is a duality, which is a particular and exact value consistant of one distinct difference, so the forms have one quality which isn't a justified property, nor is the distinction between them quantifiable, but we do have an exaction, albeit it completely subjective.

[jedaisoul]

To exist is to differentiate ourselves from all other things, yet all things only exist by being different to all others.

No. Every electron is identical to every other electron. Does that mean that there is only one electron in the universe? I think not.

[throng]

You mean an electron which is surrounded by uncertainty?

 

Of course a scientist would love to make certain some particle, but I think we've moved beyond that. I'm sure if you consider it based upon science you'll find your own argument has no merit, considering the uncertainty principle alone.

 

Besides, wouldn't that be an electron positron pair?

Edited August 16, 2010 by throng