1.) of course x=x
2.) but also x=y
3.) wich can be seen as (x=y)=z
4.) so than simply put; z
5.) and if z=god than the questions is
6.) Z?
neh?
x is a simble in math used to represent eny #. #'s represent a measure of some sort. 2 apples, 2 inches, or 2 min. so #=noun, as z=god, but the key similarity is (the same as) or (=)
1.) so enything is the same thing as enything
or to complicate things
2.) enything is the same thing as enything else.
wich is like saying carma or balence or ying yang.
3.) so if enything is the same thing as enything you could just say everything
4.) or you could just say god
5.) and if you represent god as a simbol than the question is
6.) Z?
this idea came to me with the argument that i had with a leader who seems like a wize individual, but is not respected as one. so what he says he is not nessisarily able to apply. enywho. he stated that god has universal standards that go down to the core and 'chaos' has no standard so it cannot exist. well this argument has to do with destroying what he considerd standard. first of all. if you lay your wallet out in some villages, it will remain untuched for a week becouse it dose not belong to the people of that villege. but in some plases you will be skaleped becouse of your diffrent skin color before you get a chance to lay your wallet out. were is the similar standard there? not the point. point is, standard is a tool created by man to better comunicate. just becouse some of our modern 'standards' seem so concreet, dose not mean that they are solid. a man who is 6 feet tall, may also be 72 inches tall. and 72 dose not equil 6. or he could be 493872 boo boo's tall. i just compleatly made that up. so in order for my 493872 boo boo's to be the same thing as your 6 feet, than we must assume we are talking about the same diffrence in points. but that is just an assumption. that is a perspective, wich cannot be used to conferm or deny enything. such as time. becouse you say 10 min, and i assume to know what you mean, dose not mean that the 10 min actually exist. it is an assumption of patterns. but patterns may or may not be perfect. the only way to know is to comprehend the entire pattern all at once. wich is to say comprehend infananty. wich is impossible. (well unless you die, but thats just a belife)
so than if you say something rediculous like x, you are implying eny set of so called 'standerds' to the table. x could be enything. and when you say 'the same as' you are simply using logic to figure out the world around you. so, as a member of the swich army knife (SAK) said long ago, math is essentually mans attempt at being god.
NOTE: the applications of this theory have yet to be aplied and tested, so this remains a shaky theory at best till i put a little more experamentation into it. your welcome to try applying it and post your results here. i would think thats cool, but than again its not about me, its about you. well if your reading this it is. becouse writing it is about me, but not the point. i like comments is what im trying to say.
