I got this one from "Harry Potter," and I have been beating my brains out trying to justify this in the realms of logic and philosophy, etc. Ultimately, I am not convinced. My title of this essay gives away my final verdict on this mush.
So, I managed to come up with a good explanation as to how "when an object vanishes, where does it go, into nothingness, that is to say, into everything."
water dewdrops in teh morning when the temperature drops, thereby decreasing the absorbing abilities (property) of the air in atmospthere. the water comes out of the air (like a hole, or a tiny riptear in the atmosphere gases, allowing water to come out of this other tiny "universe" to settle + take residence in big glob droplets in this universe.) __so it has to come out of it(air), to be in it(air).
(analogous congruent to sugar dissolving in water. has to come "out of" water to be observed IN water.)
if every single person reserves a best-selling book such as harry potter, but the bookstore has only a finite number of copies, well then the books become like regular again, and are no longer really reserved status.
if every single medical specimen with tests is a STAT, then one can only do them process them in order, or one specimen at a time, so they essentially relinquish STAT status.
everything + nothing. like if someone says ,"oh, my home is everywhere. my home is weherever I stay over, crash for the night. so in short my home is everywhere around the worl.d." bs. if their home is everywehre, that means thier hone ois nowerher,. they don't tryly have thier own home, they don't truly have a place that is a base, a rock, a solid foudnatin, a touch-base place they go to recharge, a place thye can truly call thier own and say they belong and are the leader kingqueen of the castle.
like, to broadcast the whole entire pbs special absu fams , would have to be braodcast on ALL channels at allt the exact same time. othersiwed, if it is only baodcast on this changel at tihs time, and at this channel at other time, then all a erson would have to do to ignore avoid it is switch to antoher channel that istnt playing it at a time that one channle in question IS cplaying it. bc by definition, if it is staggered braodacast playing on different channgels, then there are some times when it is one the air, that another channel chooses for it NOT to be on the air. soetheir attack them from all angles every poss angle, or none at all.
more absrract , ie, less definite. when entering another dimension universe, an object could go all over the other universe.
but all universes are essentially, truly, existing within the fabric and particles very next to each other. so truly, in order for an object to dispappear into another universe, it owuld have to disspiate and be spread out evenly thorugout that uiverse, broken down into elementary particels, to be able to survive in that other universe and still be an intact object able to be retrieved and reassembled upon return into this universe (the univ of its origins). preserve the integrity of the object.
so by implication, bc it owuld disintegrate temporaily [for the time being] in that other uinverse, and all its particles would be touching all the parts of that other universe, and all parts of that universe are touching all congruous/counterpart parts of this universe, therefore in essence, the object is existing everywhere in this universe.
object goes into other universe -->
object disintegrates, touching all parts of other universe -->
other universe all parts are touching this universe all parts -->
object is touching all parts of this universe.
But the object isn't really existing in this universe, is it? it is actually existing in the other universe. This is only a philosophical explanation of "nothingness, therefore everything-ness."
or you could say, the intact whole object is not existing => this is the "nothingness." but considering the most sub-sub-subatomic parts of matter -strings- they can travel unharmed through/between universes, therefore the object can creep back in to this universe in this "prime-factorization" form.
Sigh. Look, I am trying my gosh-darned damnedest to make this make sense, but I'm just not buying it. Or as the idiotic trying-to-emulate-the-lowest-socioeconomic-class-of-blacks suburban kids say, I'm just not feeling it.
It just sounds too contrived and far too reaching. This is trying to grasp desperately at straws, trying to force this idiotic theory to make sense in spite of the fact that it simply does not make sense. I wonder if J. K. Rowling just pulled this one out of her butt. No doubt, she has many philosophical declarations in her books that strike em out of the ballpark. But she didn't have a winner with this one.
This is trying to squeeze out some deep-sounding philosophical pondering out of a silly amateurish bumper sticker "it is nowhere, therefore it is everywhere." It has all the profoundness of a melted ice cube.
So, I managed to come up with a good explanation as to how "when an object vanishes, where does it go, into nothingness, that is to say, into everything."
water dewdrops in teh morning when the temperature drops, thereby decreasing the absorbing abilities (property) of the air in atmospthere. the water comes out of the air (like a hole, or a tiny riptear in the atmosphere gases, allowing water to come out of this other tiny "universe" to settle + take residence in big glob droplets in this universe.) __so it has to come out of it(air), to be in it(air).
(analogous congruent to sugar dissolving in water. has to come "out of" water to be observed IN water.)
if every single person reserves a best-selling book such as harry potter, but the bookstore has only a finite number of copies, well then the books become like regular again, and are no longer really reserved status.
if every single medical specimen with tests is a STAT, then one can only do them process them in order, or one specimen at a time, so they essentially relinquish STAT status.
everything + nothing. like if someone says ,"oh, my home is everywhere. my home is weherever I stay over, crash for the night. so in short my home is everywhere around the worl.d." bs. if their home is everywehre, that means thier hone ois nowerher,. they don't tryly have thier own home, they don't truly have a place that is a base, a rock, a solid foudnatin, a touch-base place they go to recharge, a place thye can truly call thier own and say they belong and are the leader kingqueen of the castle.
like, to broadcast the whole entire pbs special absu fams , would have to be braodcast on ALL channels at allt the exact same time. othersiwed, if it is only baodcast on this changel at tihs time, and at this channel at other time, then all a erson would have to do to ignore avoid it is switch to antoher channel that istnt playing it at a time that one channle in question IS cplaying it. bc by definition, if it is staggered braodacast playing on different channgels, then there are some times when it is one the air, that another channel chooses for it NOT to be on the air. soetheir attack them from all angles every poss angle, or none at all.
more absrract , ie, less definite. when entering another dimension universe, an object could go all over the other universe.
but all universes are essentially, truly, existing within the fabric and particles very next to each other. so truly, in order for an object to dispappear into another universe, it owuld have to disspiate and be spread out evenly thorugout that uiverse, broken down into elementary particels, to be able to survive in that other universe and still be an intact object able to be retrieved and reassembled upon return into this universe (the univ of its origins). preserve the integrity of the object.
so by implication, bc it owuld disintegrate temporaily [for the time being] in that other uinverse, and all its particles would be touching all the parts of that other universe, and all parts of that universe are touching all congruous/counterpart parts of this universe, therefore in essence, the object is existing everywhere in this universe.
object goes into other universe -->
object disintegrates, touching all parts of other universe -->
other universe all parts are touching this universe all parts -->
object is touching all parts of this universe.
But the object isn't really existing in this universe, is it? it is actually existing in the other universe. This is only a philosophical explanation of "nothingness, therefore everything-ness."
or you could say, the intact whole object is not existing => this is the "nothingness." but considering the most sub-sub-subatomic parts of matter -strings- they can travel unharmed through/between universes, therefore the object can creep back in to this universe in this "prime-factorization" form.
Sigh. Look, I am trying my gosh-darned damnedest to make this make sense, but I'm just not buying it. Or as the idiotic trying-to-emulate-the-lowest-socioeconomic-class-of-blacks suburban kids say, I'm just not feeling it.
It just sounds too contrived and far too reaching. This is trying to grasp desperately at straws, trying to force this idiotic theory to make sense in spite of the fact that it simply does not make sense. I wonder if J. K. Rowling just pulled this one out of her butt. No doubt, she has many philosophical declarations in her books that strike em out of the ballpark. But she didn't have a winner with this one.
This is trying to squeeze out some deep-sounding philosophical pondering out of a silly amateurish bumper sticker "it is nowhere, therefore it is everywhere." It has all the profoundness of a melted ice cube.
0 Comments:
Post a Comment