Philosophical QsNO KFIRAH

Home Coffeeroom Yeshiva / School / College / Education Issues Philosophical QsNO KFIRAH

Viewing 173 reply threads
  • Author
    Posts
  • #605222

    Wisey
    Member

    If a tree falls with noone around does it make a noise?

  • #944028

    zvei dinim
    Member

    That’s not a philosophical Q, it’s asking “what is the definition of noise?”.

    Zvei Dinim

  • #944029

    Can you have philosophical questions without kefirah?

  • #944030

    BaalHabooze
    Participant

    maybe if it’s an tree an Asheira tree…

  • #944031

    Sam2
    Member

    No questions are Kfira-dik. We are not Catholicism. We believe that all questions have an answer and therefore all philosophical questions are okay. It’s the wrong answers that can be Kfira. (Yes, the Mishnah in Chagigah says not to ask 4 questions because those are beyond human comprehension and therefore could lead to people giving wrong answers.)

  • #944032

    popa_bar_abba
    Participant

    I agree with Sam.

  • #944033

    OneOfMany
    Member

    Sound is only defined as sound vis a vis the resonance of sound waves on your inner aural workings. So technically, the oscillations without the ear are not sound.

    ^_^

  • #944034

    HaLeiVi
    Member

    Aha. So you don’t really ‘hear’ a sound, since that would be a redundancy.

  • #944035

    BigGolem
    Participant

    The Kfira is not in the question. It’s in the answer.

  • #944036

    OneOfMany
    Member

    Depends how you define “hear.” 😛

  • #944037

    yitayningwut
    Member

    Oy

  • #944038

    OneOfMany
    Member

    Hey, I didn’t start this. 😛

  • #944039

    HaLeiVi
    Member

    I think we disagree on what it means to define.

  • #944040

    HaLeiVi
    Member

    By the way, a question might not be Kfira but it can still be the Rasha’s question.

  • #944041

    OneOfMany
    Member

    snort

  • #944042

    ED IT OR
    Member

    Takkah a good question, Now how we gonna prove an answer hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm

  • #944043

    Curiosity
    Participant

    Well,you don’t refer to vacancy of animals as “no one around,” so there might be a moose, hawk, or squirrel there who heard the tree fall. Then the answer would be yes.

  • #944044

    frumnotyeshivish
    Participant

    Da mah Lehashiv L’apikores means that (even though you shouldn’t say k’fira) you should be able to disprove it. That means you may listen to it to legitimately disprove it. Therefore, censoring statements isn’t the solution. Truth is. Saying “No Kfira” isn’t productive.

  • #944045

    Wisey
    Member

    As oppose to “light” which was created on the first day, “sound” was never created. Therefore, I would say that sound is only how one’s brain interprets vibrations in the air.

    Too bad those who spent years figuring out if light is made of particles or only waves didn’t just LEARN the first few psukim of Chumash.

  • #944046

    WIY
    Member

    Difference between sound and hearing:(From wiki)

    Sound is a mechanical wave that is an oscillation of pressure transmitted through a solid, liquid, or gas, composed of frequencies within the range of hearing. [1] Sound also travels through plasma.

    Hearing, auditory perception, or audition [1] is the ability to perceive sound by detecting vibrations through an organ such as the ear. [2] It is one of the traditional five senses.

    It would seem that the sound produced by a falling tree is not predicated upon one with hearing abilities being within earshot.

    So I think the answer is yes it would make a sound or noise, however nobody would hear it.

  • #944047

    OneOfMany
    Member

    WIY: The point is that the sound that you hear is not just registered by your ear – it is synthesized by it. So calling sound waves sound (which is not a very solid delineation, Wikipedia or not – what about the ultrasonic vibrations that are sound to dogs? Note the label ultrasonic) is rather imprecise – because you do not hear sound waves. You hear sound, created by the resonance of the waves on your ear stuffs.

  • #944048

    yekke2
    Participant

    A) What is philosophical about the question?

    B) Can somebody explain the ????? here? I fail to understand why it shouldn’t be a noise?

    C)

    Da mah Lehashiv L’apikores means that (even though you shouldn’t say k’fira) you should be able to disprove it. That means you may listen to it to legitimately disprove it. Therefore, censoring statements isn’t the solution. Truth is. Saying “No Kfira” isn’t productive.

    I used to argue with missionaries a lot, and one of my Rebbes said: “Da mah lehashiv lapikores” is FOR YOU that you should know what to answer – it never says ‘ANSWER THE APIKORES’. If an Apikores comes to YOU and asks you something, you should have the answer in your heart so that you are not influenced.

    D) ???? we can bring a ???? from ??? ???? ?”? – the Gemara is differentiating between when half a ????? is before the ??? ????, and when half the ????? took place in a cave [where those outside are not ????] – the ???? says ??? ??? ???? ????? ????? ??????? ???? — It is a place of ???? for those inside the cave .

    Why does the ???? have to say ‘for those inside the cave’? That isn’t the point we are coming to answer; the point is that it is a ????? ?? ????, whereas before the Time of the ???? it isn’t a ????? ?? ????? (I think one of the ??????? asks the question)

    According to this question, maybe we can answer: It is only a ???? ???? if somebody is there; if nobody is there, then it isn’t ‘HEARING THE SHOFAR’!!!

  • #944049

    OneOfMany
    Member

    yekke2: There are philosophical implications to the question – that are validated, in fact, by technical explanations of the phenomenon. Technically, sound waves needs to be processed by aural receptors before you can call it sound (because the waves that are in the air are actually changed by your ear, creating what you hear.) This ties into an issue that a large body of philosophy is concerned about – human perception and reality.

    But really, unless you like them from the purely analytical perspective, such conundrums are best summed up as “the finding of bad reasons for what we believe upon instinct.”

  • #944050

    yekke2
    Participant

    And when were the vibrations in the air (SOUND) created?

  • #944051

    OneOfMany
    Member

    The SOUND WAVES were created when the tree fell.

  • #944052

    WolfishMusings
    Participant

    “sound” was never created

    What? You think it created itself?

    Just because the Torah didn’t explicitly state it, doesn’t mean that it wasn’t created. The Torah is silent on the formation of tornadoes, but certainly you believe that God created them.

    The Wolf

  • #944053

    Wisey
    Member

    The creation of sound was included in the creation of eardrums. Tornadoes were included in shomayim,earth etc.

    I’m just surprised that no one responded to my statement about light by saying that the pasuk is referring to the or haganuz. It seems that everyone agrees that physical light was also created on day one.

  • #944054

    Wisey
    Member

    The “No Kfirah” was referring to the answers that might be posted as a response to the questions.

  • #944055

    ready now
    Participant

    When any tree anywhere falls it makes noise, and Hashem hears.

  • #944056

    OneOfMany
    Member

    Hashem hears.

    Now THAT might be kefira.

  • #944057

    If a tree falls on a mime, does he make a noise?

  • #944058

    ready now
    Participant

    To even suggest that Hashem having created the entire universe and being fully in charge of it, is not all- hearing all- seeing, omniscient and a witness to everthing that has ever happened or will ever happen is entirely against the fundamentals of Yiddishkeit.

  • #944059

    OneOfMany
    Member

    Hashem does not hear.

  • #944060

    WIY
    Member

    Oneofmany

    What do you mean? Obviously Hashem hears everything. He may not have “ears” but he can hear although hearing would obviously be different by Hashem than by us because we need ears and He doesnt.

  • #944061

    yitayningwut
    Member

    But if you can say he hears then you are saying that he is subject to your perceptions. The Rambam would probably call you a kofer for saying Hashem hears.

  • #944062

    OneOfMany
    Member

    WIY: According to my definition of hearing, it would be kefira to say Hashem is subject to such a phenomenon. Hashem’s powers of observation and knowledge (if we can even use such words do describe them) are not derived from physical processes.

  • #944063

    HaLeiVi
    Member

    But what about Dovid Hamelech’s Kal Vachomer?

  • #944064

    ready now
    Participant

  • #944065

    yitayningwut
    Member

    If you are proving from pesukim that Hashem hears, I have much better stuff. The pesukim say that Hashem has an arm, a back, eyes, and so on. It’s mefurash, Hashem has a body…

    I quote from the Rambam:

    “You, however, know that, strictly speaking, the condition of all the sensations is the same, that the same argument which is employed against the existence of touch and taste in God, may be used against sight, hearing, and smell; for they all are material perceptions and impressions which are subject to change… In truth, however, no real attribute, implying an addition to His essence, can be applied to Him, as will be proved.” – Guide 2:47

    The Rambam is clear about his opinion in numerous places: Hashem’s existence cannot be described in any way whatsoever, and ascribing any of the senses to him is tantamount to saying he has a body. Accordingly, every pasuk which seems to contradict this is to be taken figuratively.

    Whether you like it or not, to assert that Hashem hears is by definition a denial of the Rambam’s third Principle of Faith.

  • #944066

    ready now
    Participant

    No, Hashem does not have a body, although He has spoken of Himself in terms which may give some ignorant people the idea to ascribe actual physical corporeality to Him, and that would be a big mistake because He has no physical existence at all.

  • #944067

    HaLeiVi
    Member

    Yitay, you probably meant 1:47.

    The Rambam did indeed invest energy in explaining that when it says that Hashem saw it wasn’t through eyes and when it says that Hashem hears it is not through ears. Nobody here suggested otherwise.

    Moreover, today we actually use these terms without connecting them to specific limbs. Don’t we call sonar detection, vision? A computer sees and hears, without being aware of it.

    The main idea is that Hashem does not have to come on to light or sound to be aware of what is happening. This too is a well understood concept in an age of infrared, sonar, magnetic, radio, and electron detection.

    http://hebrewbooks.org/pdfpager.aspx?req=44322&st=&pgnum=315

    or

    http://www.daat.ac.il/daat/mahshevt/more/c6-2.htm#2

    The Rambam discusses the Kal Vachomer.

  • #944068

    ready now
    Participant
  • #944069

    OneOfMany
    Member

    I’m confused – who are you arguing with?

  • #944070

    Wisey
    Member

    Sound is the “format” that our auditory organs use in order to transmit to our brains the knowledge that they have just recieved vibrations from the air, thereby informing us of an event that has just taken place. However, as the Rambam says in several places Hashem and his knowledge are one. Even though this concept is particularly difficult to understand and may not even be intended to be understood by anyone, one can deduce that since Hashem is above any form his “knowledge” is also not dependent upon any method requiring finite science. Also Hashem’s knowledge of an act before it has taken place and “heard” by anyone is a great proof to the aforementioned. Therefore, that that Hashem hears all doesn’t affect the question that we started with.

    P.S. Advils are available at any drugstore

  • #944071

    ready now
    Participant
  • #944073

    Wisey
    Member

    ready now-The fact that Hashem is always around doesn’t affect the answer. If you will accept that a tree falling with no one around doesn’t make a sound only vibrations in the air, then Hashem’s presence won’t change this since “hearing” is only figurative when referring to Hashem. All it means is that Hashem knows everything including those things which we perceive as sound.

    Does anyone have a different question to post here this is sort of getting redundant?

  • #944074

    ready now
    Participant

  • #944075

    HaLeiVi
    Member

    Can form really exist without matter?

  • #944076

    Wisey
    Member

    Ready now- Hashem knows all without having to “perceive” it. Meaning that Hashem doesn’t need to come on to anything in order to know about it.

    Haleivi-If that is supposed to be connected to the above discussion I fail to understand the question.

  • #944077

    ready now
    Participant

    Wisey- Haleivi said “come on to anything”.

    I was explaining that Hashem does not do that – He is everywhere. I quoted, then corrected his words – notice the quotation marks?

  • #944078

    HaLeiVi
    Member

    Wisey, are you not the one who asked for another philosophical question?

  • #944079

    Wisey
    Member

    Haleivi-I just had to finish the previous discussion with a sort of clear answer and sorry for not realizing your intentions. Regarding your question about form and matter I think that if you consider form to be defined by physical borders than obviously something noncorporeal can’t have a form. However if having form only means something that exists in one place and not another than malochim which are spiritual beings and still finite can prove that form is independant to matter.

  • #944080

    ready now
    Participant
  • #944081

    ready now – nope, perceive does not mean “to know”:

    1. To become aware of directly through any of the senses, especially sight or hearing.

    2. To achieve understanding of; apprehend. [Middle English perceiven, from Old French perceivre, from Latin percipere : per-, per- + capere, to seize; see kap- in Indo-European roots.]

    Note that even in the 2nd definition, it means to acquire understanding that was not previously there (“achieve”). HKB’H does neither of those, He just knows without perceiving.

  • #944082

    ready now
    Participant

    From Merriam Webster Dictionary:

    “Definition of KNOW.

    a (1): to perceive directly : have direct cognition of.”

  • #944084

    shnitzy
    Member

    why not??

  • #944085

    ready now
    Participant

    Hashem said to Moshe Rabbenu “You cannot see My face, for no man can see Me and live.” Shemos 33.20

  • #944086

    Wisey
    Member

    The definition the Webster gives for know to be percieve is only because for us finite beings the only way to know is to percieve. However Hashem knows all before, during and after. Hashem is perfect and his knowledge is also complete and unrelated to time. His awareness of an event is in no way increased at the time the event happens. The completeness of his understanding does not fluctuate based on anything. Hearing involves a section of the mind focusing TEMPORARILY on a sound. Besides for the aforementioned reasons this makes it impossible for Hashem to “hear”.

  • #944087

    shnitzy
    Member

    That doesn’t mean that we can’t try to understand…

  • #944088

    ready now
    Participant

    We really cannot speculate on how Hashem hears. Hashem has no physical body at all and that is what we know for certain. And Hashem hears, for He has said He does.

    The prophets also heard Hashem

    Then at Sinai we all Heard Hashem.

  • #944089

    HaLeiVi
    Member

    If it’s OK for the Tanach and Chazal to speak of Hashem that way, it is OK for us. If you feel that it is being misunderstood, explain it. There is no disagreement here at all about the ifs and hows. The whole argument is so small, that you can forget what the point was.

  • #944090

    HaLeiVi
    Member

    Wisey, I don’t think form has to mean physical boundaries, necessarily. In fact, any boundary, that defines the limit of an ‘object’ would be its form. The question is what’s the object? The Rambam describes Malachim as form without matter. But, a form is not really the object, it is about the object. So, how could a form exist on its own?

  • #944091

    Wisey
    Member

    A nishama isn’t matter but it does exist only within the physical boundaries of a person’s body. It exists within exact borders. This is the form.

  • #944092

    Wisey
    Member

    The Chovos Halivavos in Shaar Hayichud proves the existence of a creator using philosophy. In the midst of the discussion he mentions that a portion (???) can’t be removed from anything infinite. This is because the leftover by default will now be less than the original amount and one infinite can’t be less than another. Does anyone here understand this? What about the numbers 1- 10 which are a portion of the entire number line which goes from negative infinity to infinity?

  • #944093

    ready now
    Participant

    Numbers can only be divided until the end of time when counting and dividing would stop.

  • #944094

    OneOfMany
    Member

    Wisey: The infinite properties of sets in mathematics are applications of the concept of infinity, while the infinity discussed in Chovos Halevavos is the absolute concept. The absolute concept cannot be quantified.

  • #944095

    HaLeiVi
    Member

    Maybe we don’t Pasken like that Chovos halevavos.

  • #944096

    ready now
    Participant
  • #944097

    Wisey
    Member

    Ready now- Subtraction just means taking away from the original. If the amount taken away is placed somewhere else is irrelevant. It could just disintigrate.

    One of Many- this rule the chovos halivavos quotes from a greek philosophical book is just referring to regular infinity

    Haleivi- are you suggesting that infinity-X has an answer? Everyone agrees that infinity is beyond the rules of arithmetic. I still have my kashya.

  • #944098

    Wisey
    Member

    And if anyone thinks that infinity-ten = infinity , that can be easily disproven.

  • #944099

    OneOfMany
    Member

    Wisey: Exactly. And infinity in mathematics is not that infinity.

  • #944100

    ready now
    Participant

    Repeating what I wrote above-

    That means NO subtraction.

  • #944101

    Wisey
    Member

    If I understand correctly you two are saying that the infinity in the Chovos Halivavos is a form of infinity that encompasses the entire realm of existence and nonexistence. Therefore even if subtracting is just making a part become nonexistant it is still part of the whole. However, besides that this is hard to understand, if I explain the context of the CH I think it will become clear that this doesn’t answer the q.

    When disproving the theory that the world has always existed and every person was born from parents going back forever without ever having someone who was the first person, the CH examines the ten generations between Noach and Avraham. This he says proves that the total generations ever is a finite number because there is no such thing as a part of infinity. To me this just seems like abstract math. Why can’t we give everyone a number and say that those aforementioned generations are 1- 10?

  • #944102

    HaLeiVi
    Member

    Ready, that’s only in the realm of something that takes up space.

    Wisey, I meant nothing more than to sound ridiculous. That’s how it sounds to me when people say that when they personally don’t like a Shita.

    One to ten is a name and method to count. The ability to count doesn’t end. Counting is the medium. Your question can only apply after you actually counted to infinity and you want to take off ten. That can’t happen, for the same reason you won’t get there.

  • #944103

    HaLeiVi
    Member

    Numbers are very finite, and there’s very few of them.

    One, two, three… hundred, thousand, million, bi-tri-quad-quin and other Greek numbers, which are limited as well.

    The concept of counting doesn’t come with a limit, and is therefore infinite.

  • #944104

    ready now
    Participant

    Wisey, you said above:

  • #944105

    OneOfMany
    Member

    HaLeivi: You realize that what you are saying does not make sense. For one to be able to count infinitely, he needs an infinite number of things to count. There are perhaps a finite number of specifically named numbers, but the cardinality of what we call “numbers” is indeed infinite.

  • #944106

    OneOfMany
    Member

    The problem all of you are having is that you are treating infinity as a number. It is not a number – it is a concept that can be translated into a numerical property. It can be used to describe what happens at either end of the number line, not name what is there. The numbers 1-10 are not part of infinity – they can be described as part of any number of named sets that are infinite.

  • #944107

    ready now
    Participant

    EIN-SOF (Heb. ???? ????; “The Infinite,” lit. that which is boundless),is the name given in Kabbalah to Hashem.

  • #944108

    Wisey
    Member

    Shkoyach nymphadora

  • #944109

    Wisey
    Member

    Isn’t the torah infinite and still it can be divided into parts as we say ??? ????? ??????.

  • #944110

    Wisey
    Member

    Maybe the answer is that every part in torah includes the whole torah so you can’t take off a part of it.

  • #944111

    R.T.
    Member

    The Torah is indeed infinite. The answer lies in the fact that each of the Otiot in the Aleph Bet can be spelled out; e.g., Aleph is Aleph-Lamed-Peh. So every letter of every word can be expanded and expanded and expanded ad infintum.

  • #944112

    OneOfMany
    Member

    Interesting terutz.

  • #944113

    benignuman
    Participant

    Wisey,

    I believe that the answer to your question is that the mathematical “infinity” doesn’t actually exist. The number line is a human construct, it isn’t a real thing. Actual infinity is impossible for the human mind to comprehend.

    Example: Imagine an infinite number of marbles. Now remove one marble. How many marbles are left? The answer has to be less than infinity, which will therefore be a number. Now put the marble back. You won’t have infinity, you will have the previous number +1.

    In other words when dealing with actual infinity, if you break it down in component parts then you will quickly run into the above paradox.

  • #944114

    benignuman
    Participant

    Wisey,

    Where did you get the idea that the Torah was literally infinite? The Torah is described as an ocean. Oceans are very very big, and very, very deep, but they aren’t infinite.

  • #944115

    frumnotyeshivish
    Participant

    Now that that is settled, may I pose line of questions?

    If a person born to devout Taliban parents in Afghanistan is brought up to believe that jihad is the way to go, and he blows himself up believing that he’s doing the world a favor, is he a bad person? Or just stupid for not questioning the religion he was born in? Do any of you think you would be a terrorist if born there? How do you know?

  • #944116

    From my PIT:

    What gives Rashi the right to comment on the Torah? (I’d like to see what you guys have to say)

  • #944117

    shnitzy
    Member

    yes. I think every being is influenced by it’s background. the question is if people are born with morals or in their growth and because of their surroundings they develop morals. unless you say that a person is born with an innate sense of right and wrong, you cannot blame them for developing and acting on improper morals because of their flawed growth.

    I think most people, aside from those who’s personalities lead them to questions, would become a terrorist given these circumstances.

    you can’t blame them unless they made a conscious decision, which in my opinion they are not capable of.

  • #944118

    ready now
    Participant

    and Rabbi Shimon the son of Gamliel said, Pirke Avos 1:18

  • #944119

    WIY
    Member

    Frumnotyeshivish

    I heard an interesting thought from Rabbi Shafier of the shmuz. He asked why is it that we should hold someone who grew up in a bad environment where drugs and murder is common place responsible for crimes he commits. His answer was that Hashem created every person with an inner knowledge of right and wrong and everyone therefore knows right from wrong (not talking about someone mentally deficient) with regard to things like murder and theft. Therefore if one does it he has made a bechira choice and done such a crime he must be held accountable.

  • #944120

    HaLeiVi
    Member

    Benign, exactly. I wrote that earlier. We don’t actually relate to infinity, although we have no philosophical rebuttal of the existance of this concept. The finite has no relationship with in the infinite by definition. A circle can not be made of small lines, because it would take an infinite amount of small lines, hence the irrational number for that relationship.

    There are a lot of mathematical gimicks, riddles and paradoxes based on the misunderstanding, or the non-existant relationship, of infinity. You can’t get there and you can’t come from there.

    Now, being infinite doesn’t mean there are no parts, it means there are an infinite number of parts. Our perception of space is that it is infinite, yet no one suggested that we don’t exist in it.

    When discussing infinity you have to keep in mind that the lingering problem is that we don’t relate to it. Realize when the argument hit that problem, and stop there. Very often people think up different arguments about this, which really amount to the same problem.

    You can’t separate or subtract a part of something infinite, but you can find a part of it and discuss that finite part.

    Think about this before saying it’s wrong and repeating my words back to me.

  • #944121

    HaLeiVi
    Member

    About the Taliban question, it’s none of our business. I read a book from the nazi hunter, Simon Wiesenthal, about his activities. It is full of intriguiging musings. At one point he writes that he won’t analyze the German mindset because, although possible, he doesn’t want to. This is a very true point.

    People aren’t born bad, and almost anyone has a rationalization for what they do. Very few people do things because they are bad. Even when they want to do evil it is with the intent of showing who’s boss, or something like that.

    However, internally bad or not, they are wrong. Dead wrong — in the sense that we kill them. Their soul gets judged by the One that knows the heart. We judge and act upon actions.

  • #944122

    frumnotyeshivish
    Participant

    WIY – Rav Dessler writes otherwise. Everyone has a subjective level of bechira.

    I think the answers to my question inevitably lead to this: is it one’s responsibility to be frum by choice, or should one blind his/herself, with the possible consequence (in their own logical sub-conscious mind) of being good, but wrong? The advantage of the second path is to avoid temptations and confusion. The advantage of the first path is that would differentiate our choices from those of the Taliban. I’m not implying c”v not to be frum, I’m just questioning: which is the best underlying motive?

  • #944123

    frumnotyeshivish
    Participant

    Are all the philosophers stumped? Wow…

  • #944124

    OneOfMany
    Member

    It didn’t pay well, so I got a job flipping burgers instead.

  • #944125

    yitayningwut
    Member

    hehe

  • #944126

    WIY
    Member

    frumnotyeshivish

    Yes Im aware of that Rav Dessler. He may not have Bechira at this point but I believe the reason he is responsible for what he does now is for allowing his bechira to be taken away by making bad choices up to this point even though technically at this point he couldn’t control himself. Meaning, just like Paraohs bechira was taken away at some point I think after makah 5 so the meforshim ask how can he be punished, and they answer because the first 5 times he still had Bechira and chose not to do the right thing and not to accept what Moshe was saying bsheim Hashem.

    I think what Rabbi Shafier means is that even if they were preached to from youth that you must kill “the infidel” internally we all know murder is bad. So if he chooses to kill and ruin his natural good conscience that Hashem gave him then he is responsible for that.

  • #944127

    frumnotyeshivish
    Participant

    Rav Dessler writes about one who was brought up between thieves may not be responsible for theft.

  • #944128

    frumnotyeshivish
    Participant

    But again, no one has answered my question. It is as basic and as fundamental as it gets. Anyone?

  • #944129

    OneOfMany
    Member

    …all I have to say is this: what does “PIT” mean?

  • #944130

    Wisey
    Member

    Yisrael v’oraysah v’kudshah brich hu chad hu

    The existence of the torah as well as (the nishamos of) klall yisrael are infinite and eternal just like Hashem. They are not dependant upon anything. The world was created for torah and yisrael. Saying that the torah will cease to exist at the end of time is seriously degrading kavod hatorah. Also, the Chovos Halivavos explains philosophically that anything that will always exist, has always existed. The torah is hashem and never was created. It may have been written in some form 2000 years before creation.

  • #944131

    Wisey
    Member

    Haleivi- as I quoted before infinity cannot be divided into parts, even an infinite amount. (Shaar Hayichud) also space is finite that is why we are told not to delve into “mah l’maaleh, mah l’matah”

  • #944132

    Wisey
    Member

    Frumnotyeshivish- the sforim are filled with convincing people to delve into proving to themselves the truth of torah and not to go through life as a blind person following another blind person …..until you finally reach one person at the front who is leading the whole line.If one person in the line stumbles the whole line behind him will follow.

  • #944133

    Wisey
    Member

    Oh I forgot to mention that everyone should now there limitations in this matter.

  • #944134

    frumnotyeshivish
    Participant

    Wisey – so am I correct in understanding that you are saying that it is better not to ask? Then how does one know they are right?

  • #944135

    ready now
    Participant

    Your question genuinely should NEVER have been asked – asking people to begin a process of justifying evil behavior.

    Wisey- You have gone tooooooo far by your outrageous comment equating Hashem as being Torah- has v sholom. The Torah was created by Hashem. It is not incorrect to say it (the Torah) will cease to exist- after all, after Mashiah, it will not be followed in the same way for a start.

  • #944136

    frumnotyeshivish
    Participant

    ready now – “Your question genuinely should NEVER have been asked.”

    That is my question, should I? Thanks for answering.

    Behavior can be absolutely evil, but can people? Personally, I think that a perfectly bad person is exactly as common as a perfectly good one; I’ve never met either.

  • #944137

    HaLeiVi
    Member

    Frum,

    You think those guys don’t think? Listen to them. They are completely convinced that they are right, after arguing about it. Bottom line, you usually think what you want to think. We do it and they do it. You look for arguments that support you, and toss or ignore those that don’t.

    We aren’t Amish and don’t advocate Rumspringa. We are Mechanech our children (we try to, at least) with a very strong foundation in Emuna. It’s not up to you to choose.

    Rabbeinu Saadya Gaon writes that although it is important to understand the arguments, it is equally important to accept what you agreed to. Otherwise, you will have a different faith every day, and you’d be coming back, and switching between, religions twice a day.

    From our comfortable pirch we do mull over some arguments and perhaps proofs. We feel moral and sensible. On the other hand I don’t think a person who cares about morality can justly make his life’s goal killing men women and children.

  • #944138

    Ben Levi
    Participant

    ReadyNow,

    Yisroel V’Oraisa V’Kudsha Brich Hu Chad Hu.

  • #944139

    WIY
    Member

    Frumnotyeshivish

    Rav Dessler was saying that from the perspective of bechira which is something that is between Hashem and man and no human knows or can know where any other persons bechira is holding so he may not be held responsible in Hashems eyes. However in a court of law both Beis Din or a non Jewish court there is an obligation to try him and punish him accordingly. Nobody can walk into beis din and say sorry, this was below my nekudas habechira.

  • #944140

    WIY
    Member

    One of many

    PIT is PARTNER IN TORAH google it.

  • #944141

    OneOfMany
    Member

    Ahaaaa…

    I did google it – I got “Programmable Interval Timer,” “Process Improvement Team,” “Passive Immune Thrombocytopenia”…

  • #944142

    ready now
    Participant

    Our bodies are NOT Hashem – it is our neshamas that are part of Hashem.

    However someone who says that bodies are Hashem would not be at all correct to say that. Anything created cannot be eternal.

    The Torah was a recent creation by Hashem. The Torah is not Hashem.

    Not one and the same!

  • #944143

    frumnotyeshivish
    Participant

    WIY – Who is talking about bes din (shel mata/court)?

    Haleivi – “They are completely convinced that they are right, after arguing about it.” Agreed. Always. Me too. Everyone’s wrong sometimes. Now what?

    Advocating Rumspringa = questions? One is action, the other thought. One says that finding the truth lies elsewhere, questions don’t.

    “Rabbeinu Saadya Gaon writes that although it is important to understand the arguments, it is equally important to accept what you agreed to. Otherwise, you will have a different faith every day, and you’d be coming back, and switching between, religions twice a day.”

    I believe a questioner today would first ask, did I agree to it (don’t answer that question, it’s not the point)? Should they?

    Having a different faith daily is implying that one won’t reach the right answer. How do you know? Additionally, If that is the case are you advocating doing something which if you think about it you wouldn’t do it?

  • #944144

    Kozov
    Member

    frum,

    In general it says:

    ?? ??… ?? ??? ???? ?? ??? ????? ????? ??? ?? ???? ????? ????? ??? ???? ?? ??? ???? ???? ???? ?? ????? ??? ???

    -Rambam Hilchos Milochim Umilchamosehem 10,1

  • #944145

    frumnotyeshivish
    Participant

    Kozov –

    A) They know it is wrong generally, but think that their deity commanded it.

    B) We must have laws that punish actions. This does not define culpability.

  • #944146

    WIY
    Member

    Frum

    ” A) They know it is wrong generally, but think that their deity commanded it.”

    They are guilty because they should have investigated more and had more education. Rav Dessler clearly says that one is responsible for anything that he could or should have learned. So basically if one changed their bechira point by making conscious bad choices or if he follows a bad path because he neglected to study and look into it more he is responsible. So basically Rav Desslers case of one not being responsible will be nearly impossible to find except by someone who is a prisoner or such where they have zero access to any other info.

  • #944147

    frumnotyeshivish
    Participant

    WIY – I agree that it is exceptionally rare to have an innocent murderer, and that no human can judge this.

    My questions, however, don’t go away because of the extreme example I used.

  • #944148

    HaLeiVi
    Member

    Wisey says: Haleivi- as I quoted before infinity cannot be divided into parts, even an infinite amount. (Shaar Hayichud) also space is finite that is why we are told not to delve into “mah l’maaleh, mah l’matah”

    Which is why I wrote, “Our perception of space.” I’m talking about the concept of how any person relates to it.

    Now, The Chovos Halevavos is not a Halacha Sefer, he is explaining and reasoning with you. He explains the logic of that statement that if you subtract a part then you’d have the infinite n-1 which obviouslt can’t be infinite. Then, if you put it back you’d have the new number+1 which can’t equal infinity, because they are two finite numbers.

    That statement has nothing at all to do with relating to an area of an infinite object with finite rules. The problem he raises is about separating a part, or considering that it is made up of actual parts. As long as the finite divisions are not divisions of the whole object but are relating to the area that is in focus, these problems aren’t at play

  • #944149

    WIY
    Member

    Frumnotyeshivish

    I’m not sure where we are holding. What is your question at this point?

  • #944150

    Wisey
    Member

    Haleivi- actully according to “our perception of space” we couldn’t live in part of it.

  • #944151

    Wisey
    Member

    Regarding the discussion about every letter including the whole torah, what about the letter mem which even spelled out only spells mem mem

  • #944152

    HaLeiVi
    Member

    Haleivi- actully according to “our perception of space” we couldn’t live in part of it.

    What you are essentially saying now is that there is no such concept as infinity. If you can’t point to any single area of the infinite object then there’s nothing of which to discuss.When the Sefarim try to prove that time is finite they do not use your argument to say that since there is a day time can’t be infinite. There is a fundamental mistake here.

    When you read an argument in a Sefer it has to make sense to you to the degree that you can argue the theory itself without saying, well such and such Sefer says so. I don’t think you can do that in this case.

  • #944153

    OneOfMany
    Member

    Haleivi- actully according to “our perception of space” we couldn’t live in part of it.

    “It is known that there is an infinite number of worlds, simply because there is an infinite amount of space for them to be in. However, not every one of them is inhabited. Therefore, there must be a finite number of inhabited worlds. Any finite number divided by infinity is as near to nothing as makes no odds, so the average population of all the planets in the Universe can be said to be zero. From this it follows that the population of the whole Universe is also zero, and that any people you meet from time to time are merely the products of a deranged imagination.”

    ^_^

  • #944154

    yitayningwut
    Member

    frumnotyeshivish –

    I think that someone raised in a Taliban environment who goes and kills people for the sake of his religion is not a bad person. It is not his fault. At the same time, I wouldn’t really call him a person at all. He is simply a robot; a product of the system. There are people like that in every culture, perhaps far more than not. They’re not bad, but they’re not good either. They’re nothing.

  • #944155

    ready now
    Participant

    “One Of Many”- What you have quoted is absolute rubbish. Hashem made a FINITE world with FINITE space. The quote you gave exemplifies kefira-heresy.

    The quote you shamelessly gave is from a secular book – I have warned everyone that most secular books are forbidden:

  • #944156

    frumnotyeshivish
    Participant

    yitayningwut – so then my question is, is it better to be nothing or to be something?

    ready now – slow down… “I have warned everyone that most secular books are forbidden.” You have? Wow. And they didn’t listen? Who do THEY think THEY are?

    I suppose everything turns on how all-encompassing the term “heresy” is. Is it infinite? Being that in your world it encompasses everything you don’t agree with, maybe it is…

  • #944157

    yitayningwut
    Member

    frumnotyeshivish –

    You have to decide that for yourself.

  • #944158

    HaLeiVi
    Member

    Ready, I don’t know what was quoted but it was obvious to me that it was a joke. Besides, whether true or not, believing something is infinite is not Kefira.

  • #944159

    OneOfMany
    Member

    Well, duh it was a joke…

    …unless you think everyone you know is a hallucination…?

  • #944160

    ready now
    Participant

    In any case OneOfMany looks like he/she is sorry for the lapse of sanity.

  • #944161

    frumnotyeshivish
    Participant

    RN – my orifice is pathetically anti-jewish? Please explain.

    All I did was to focus on YOUR reaction to another post. Someone posted a secular quote. Your response was that they didn’t listen to YOUR warning, and that kfira is assur to read. Being that this was self-centered, illogical, and not focused on the only possible argument you have – WHY the quote is kfira – I called you on it.

    If you wish to attack what I say, please feel free. Just focus on what I say, and why you are attacking me.

  • #944162

    OneOfMany
    Member

    Oh, I’m never sorry for that… ^_^

  • #944163

    OneOfMany
    Member

    yitayningwut: I don’t think there’s such a thing as “nothing,” because I don’t think bechirah and conditioning are mutually exclusive. Like, as FFBs we live as Torah Jews because we are conditioned to, but we also constantly seek to renew our faith and make conscious decisions. Also, I don’t think there’s such a thing as a decision that’s entirely devoid of bechirah.

  • #944164

    ready now – You googled it. Course you did. Do you google all posts you don’t like to see if they’re word-for-word quotes from random secular books?

  • #944165

    ready now
    Participant

    Is it compulsory to stop arguing for Torah just because you said so? No. ( That is just one of the reasons your comments are SO un -Jewish).

  • #944166

    yitayningwut
    Member

    OneOfMany – What you are saying is of course the ideal. We should be constantly seeking to renew our faith and make conscious decisions. But my (perhaps overly skeptical) observation is that most people are pretty complacent and don’t care to do so on a really conscious level. Furthermore, even among people who do constantly seek to renew their faith and make conscious decisions, it seems to me that a large portion of them only do so within the confines of the Matrix, so to speak, i.e. they allow their entire train of conscious thought to be controlled by preconceived notions which they never developed consciously at all. So even if there is conscious growth, it isn’t really the individual’s, but the system’s.

    As for your second point: I’m not sure R’ Dessler would agree, and the questioner seems to be interested in his position. But leaving that aside, how does it really change things? Even if there isn’t no bechirah at all, wouldn’t you concede that the bechira of a conditioned person is negligible?

  • #944168

    OneOfMany
    Member

  • #944169

    yitayningwut
    Member

    OneOfMany – True, no one really starts with a blank slate, as you explained. And you anticipated my response by saying, “even if you actively verify with conscious thought what you already believe all the way back to its foundation, you will eventually find that your reasoning must be predicated on some truth that you cannot validate.” However, I don’t accept your conclusion. For even if you find, as you say, that your reasoning must be predicated on some truth that you cannot validate; it is still your choice whether or not to accept that assumption which you cannot validate.

    Here’s how I see things. Let’s divide up people’s actions into two categories; Day to Day Affairs and General Way of Life. Day to Day Affairs presents choices such as deciding between Walmart and Target. General Way of Life has choices such as deciding between Judaism and Zoroastrianism. In Day to Day Affairs I find it easy to accept that there is a realm of free choice which most people tap into. But in General Way of Life I find it difficult, mainly because I don’t think many people consider changing their way of life that you could say they ever made the conscious decision to stay. I do think that everyone has a “nekudas habechira,” but I think most people’s is limited to their Day to Day Affairs. But what is the significance of bechira in Day to Day Affairs when one’s General Way of Life is determined by the establishment and not by one’s own choice? What is the significance in the free choice one utilizes to wake up for davening when it is done only because of a premise one did not choose? Frumnotyehsivish is right; the Taliban fellow is no more a “bad” person than a frum Jew who never thought about his or her General Way of Life. Neither are bad; they’re both robots; utilizing free choice only when it comes to questions of apples and oranges.

    I guess I am a bit confused about the concept in that the more I agree with it the more I fail to see its relevance.

  • #944170

    OneOfMany
    Member

    it is still your choice whether or not to accept that assumption which you cannot validate.

    Hmm, that’s true.

    I dunno. Essentially I agree with you – a person who doesn’t think about why they are doing what they are doing isn’t using bechirah. I just don’t see bechirah as something that you have or don’t have – in terms of the robot, I see it as just in an inert state.

  • #944171

    frumnotyeshivish
    Participant

    yitay and OoM thanks for responding. I will focus on what you wrote later. I can’t help but address another point at this juncture. Please forgive me for getting sidetracked away from an interesting conversation.

    My orifice disagrees with you.

    It was my understanding from the sources you quoted above that the secular book is not assur per se but only because of what’s within it. That makes one count.

    As to that one count, once again, please define kfira. Is it defined by writing something that violates the Rambam’s 13 ikrim?

    OoM’s quote didn’t do that as far as I was able to see.

    Is a silly novel, written by a kofer, kfira? I am not saying it isn’t. Nor am I saying it is.

    You are saying it is. From where do you get this knowledge?

    Now the question is, is a short neutral quote, of a joke, from a silly novel, written by a kofer, kfira?

    You said it exemplifies kfira. Based on your warning.

    The problem is that your warning isn’t halacha. Halacha is halacha. Focusing on what you said is self-centered (because it’s really about what God said) and arrogant (because it assuming that we are supposed to care about what you warned).

  • #944172

    OneOfMany
    Member

    Douglas Adams would shep so much nachas from this conversation…

  • #944173

    HaLeiVi
    Member

    frum, it’s hard to tell when you are quoting and when it is you talking. Perhaps you can do what others do and use the format quoting using:

    HaLeiVi:…

    or

    Wisey- …

    or surround the quote in quotes, put it in <em></em> tags or <blockquote></blockquote>.

  • #944174

    ready now
    Participant

    Frumnot,Yeshivishnot.

    For that we use our brain. However as a first line of defence, not reading any garbage in the Coffee Room is the best use of the brain.

    Be warned, the Coffee Room is forbidden by Halacha because the Gadolim said so.

    FNYN, your very unfortunate orifice is shamelessly spewing forth yet again.

  • #944175

    HaLeiVi
    Member

    Our bodies are NOT Hashem – it is our neshamas that are part of Hashem.

    Are you telling me now that your Neshama is holier than the Torah!?

  • #944176

    HaLeiVi
    Member

    Yitayningwut says, “[T]he Taliban fellow is no more a “bad” person than a frum Jew who never thought about his or her General Way of Life.

    This is where I disagree. Being brought up bad makes you bad, although it may not really be your fault. Beis Din Shel Matta has a Chiyuv to punish such a person, and is Mekayem ????? ??? ??????. Once he goes up, Hashem judges the heart.

    Some people are lucky to be good, but they are good. Perhaps Zechus Avos assists in giving someone natural good Middos. Having good Middos, which makes Yiras Shamayim much more probable, no doubt brings him Zechusim. Hashem also sends Mitzvos your way. Not everyone is Zoche to give Tzedaka, to die Al Kiddush Hashem, to Duchen, to learn, or even to have proper Kavana. ?? ??? ??????.

  • #944177

    ready now
    Participant

    Halevi- You wrote “Are you telling me now that your Neshama is holier than the Torah!?”

    Halevi- what do we mourn most, a person who has passed on, or a Torah scroll? I told you above: the Holy Torah is not Hashem, but that our Jewish neshamas are a part of Hashem.

    This is yet more proof of how the CR is interfering in normal thought processes-get out of the CR and the internet.

    The internet and Cr are an addiction, which is a form of idolatry.

    I am formally asking for a rav to specifically ban the YWN and CR as being included in the ban against the internet.

    People who have the wisdom of getting a filter for the internet which would allow YWN to come onto their computer are given NO protection against the UTTER filth and twisted anti-Torah garbage posted in the CR.

    This is an incorrect idea, as the people who go to the CR do not have time to even look at any advertisments. Further, the whole CR is an abomination, you would not want it whether you got money out of it or not.

    The Coffee Room (CR) is actually interfering with advertisers potential for parnassah!

  • #944178

    Kozov
    Member

    “Where did you get the idea that the Torah was literally infinite? The Torah is described as an ocean. Oceans are very very big, and very, very deep, but they aren’t infinite.”

    benignuman, actually it is described as wider than the ocean, and this is what that means:

    ???? (????? ???): ??? ???? ????? ?? ???? ????? ???, ??? ?? ???????

    ???? ???? ?? ??? ???????, ??? ???? ??? ???? ?? ???????

    ??? ??? ?? ?????, ?????: (???? ??): ????? ???? ??? ????? ??? ??

    – ?????? ??? ? ?

    It is infinite because it is supernal wisdom. Consequently new insights will always be uncovered. -?? ????

    And by your own admission readynow, it is not dependent on any other existence.

  • #944179

    HaLeiVi
    Member

    Realize, you are comparing a Sefer Torah to the Neshama. The Sefer is the Guf. The Torah itself is what I am talking about, not a specific Sefer Torah. The Torah doesn’t get lost and we don’t mourn it. And, indeed, Torah as a whole supersedes life.

    Now that you took this to another dimension, and decided to revert to name calling for fear of losing an argument, Rachmana Litzlan, this discussion will terminate. I feel I am conversing with someone whose thoughts went through a nuclear accelerator. They are getting stranger as they go further from the core.

  • #944180

    ready now
    Participant

  • #944181

    Wisey
    Member

    The torah was never created!!!!!!!! It has always existed. Period.

    The torah is the knowledge of Hashem, just as Hashem has always existed so has his torah. Arguing on this is a great lack of kavod hatorah and a complete misunderstanding of the greatness that the torah and those who learn it have.

  • #944182

    Wisey
    Member

    The gemara discusses whether the torah is for klal yisroel or the reverse. The conclusion is that the purpose of the torah is for Yisroel. (I don’t claim to understand this but maybe it means that the reason for it being given to us is for our own benefit not that torah needs people to follow it)

  • #944183

    frumnotyeshivish
    Participant

    I come to y’all with an urgent question: What is infinity?

    So many here seem to have intimate knowledge of its details, yet I never was able to grasp its definition. Am I just an idiot who doesn’t understand anything?

  • #944184

    HaLeiVi
    Member

    In other words, you are saying that yes, your Neshama is holier than the Torah. Wow! Are you aware that Neshamos are also created?

    Ready, take a look in the Maharal’s Tiferes Yisroel, Prakim 49-53.

    Hashkafa, especially in basic and fundamental topics, should be learned and ‘Horevved’ over. These are deep topics that need Yishuv Hadaas and understanding. Don’t twist all Mamarei Chazal around your understanding of one particular Maamar.

  • #944185

    OneOfMany
    Member

    ^_^

  • #944186

    HaLeiVi
    Member

    Uh oh. Are quoting from “that” book again!!?

  • #944188

    OneOfMany
    Member

    ^_^

  • #944189

    frumnotyeshivish
    Participant

    One ofMany: See, that’s the problem. Bigness is a relative term. Infinity is an objective term, which [likely] can’t fit into something finite [like myself]. Either that or I’m dumb. I guess you guys are just more in touch with your infinite neshamas, or learn much more infinite torah, or are infinitely familiar with Vogons, respectively.

  • #944190

    Wisey
    Member

    In case my post got lost here it is again

    Rambam (Tshuvah 9,2) -The pleasure of Olam Habah NEVER ends

    Nefesh Hachaim(4,10)The torah is the word of Hashem and it originates in the highest of worlds called ‘Ein Sof’ -without end

    Nefesh Hachaim-The joint neshamos of Klal Yisroel originate and are more kadosh then the Kisei Hakavod. The neshama of every jew is bound and joined with a letter of the torah

    Rambam- Hashem and his wisdom(torah) are one

    Zoyhar- Yisroel, the Torah and Hashem are one (this isn’t literall)

    So obviously ????? ??? ???? ????? ???? includes Yisroel and the Torah. If anyone wants to debate the eternal and infinite existence of the Torah and Yisroel I can bring all the proofs needed to prove this point which I believe is a fundamental aspect of our emunah.

    (Haleivi-Actually I do horvve on aggadah for quite a bit of time every day)

  • #944191

    OneOfMany
    Member

    frumnotyeshivish: Hmmmm…not really. Infinite can also be a relative term. And it can fit into finite spaces. How many numbers are there between zero and one?

    But I don’t know who said anything about infinite neshamos and don’t really know what it means anyway, so I’m not necessarily trying to support that…

  • #944192

    HaLeiVi
    Member

    Infinite can also be a relative term. And it can fit into finite spaces.

    And that is part of the paradox.

  • #944193

    OneOfMany
    Member

    Indeed. So?

  • #944194

    frumnotyeshivish
    Participant

    A paradox is something that can’t rationally be explained (by mortals).

    You can debate whether the thing you don’t understand includes xyz or not, but you can’t really be authoritative on it (without immortal sources).

    Additionally, in what way can infinite be relative? Please give an example.

  • #944195

    OneOfMany
    Member

    A paradox is something that can’t rationally be explained (by mortals).

    You can debate whether the thing you don’t understand includes xyz or not, but you can’t really be authoritative on it (without immortal sources).

    What exactly are you trying to be authoritative about? I don’t really get what you or HaLeiVi are trying to address.

    Also, your definition of the term paradox is not accurate (or at least irrelevant as it applies to this particular case).

    Additionally, in what way can infinite be relative? Please give an example.

    In its different applications. You are right the the absolute concept is absolute, but so is the absolute concept of bigness. Relativity can only exist in specific applications, of which there are plenty relating to infinity – that is what set theory is pretty much all about. One example – the cardinality of the set of integers (…-2, -1, 0, 1…) is infinite. However, the cardinality of the counting numbers (1, 2, 3…) is also infinite, although the set of counting numbers ostensibly contains fewer elements. (Yes, this is a paradox, but I don’t see how this makes a difference to any of the arguments that are being made here.)

  • #944196

    frumnotyeshivish
    Participant

    OneOfMany: So the amount of numbers possible between 0 and 2 is infiter than the amount between 0 and 1? The paradox itself is why your argument makes no sense. Additionally, I wasn’t defining paradox, I was stating a fact about this one.

    My issue generally (nothing to do with the bechira issue before), is that there was so much debate over what is infinite here, and how, and if, and what couldn’t possibly be, and it seems almost silly to me, because my human brain is incapable of getting past stage 1 of the conversation.

  • #944197

    HaLeiVi
    Member

    Counting numbers is not infinite because no one can get to infinity through counting numbers. In fact, no one can get to infinity from any finite point. That is what the Chovos Halevavos was getting at.

    Using infinity in math is a toy, since there is no relationship between it and the finite, while there is no mathematical reason for such a concept not to exist. This is why we will find paradoxes in many levels.

    This doesn’t mean we can’t understand what is meant by infinity. It simply means that there is no bridge to get there, and any attempt to define the infinite by applying finite terms will have paradoxes.

  • #944198

    OneOfMany
    Member

    So the amount of numbers possible between 0 and 2 is infiter than the amount between 0 and 1?

    Exactly so.

    The paradox itself is why your argument makes no sense.

    It’s not my argument. And I don’t see how you can say it makes no sense when you don’t even know that. Why don’t you do a search for “set theory,” and see for yourself.

    Additionally, I wasn’t defining paradox, I was stating a fact about this one.

    Your associations with the concept show that you misunderstand its full meaning, which is affecting your perception of this particular case.

    My issue generally (nothing to do with the bechira issue before), is that there was so much debate over what is infinite here, and how, and if, and what couldn’t possibly be, and it seems almost silly to me, because my human brain is incapable of getting past stage 1 of the conversation.

    lol I really think you should read Notes from Underground.

  • #944200

    OneOfMany
    Member

    So you know that question about unstoppable forces and immovable objects?

    “Immovable Object vs. Unstoppable Force – Which Wins?” on YouTube. Epic win. ^_^

  • #944201

    HaLeiVi
    Member

    Settled.


    Next Question:


    If I have a time machine and go a different time, then I come back to a minute before I left, putting me in an endless loop, and someone asks me how many times this happened already, will I be able to answer? If yes, then you didn’t really travel time, since you have time in the form of how many times you looped.

  • #944202

    I don’t believe in time travel…

  • #944203

    yekke2
    Participant

    Haleivi – That is gonna be a big problem with time travel – If you ever go BACK in time, there is no way you will be able to proceed past that point, because you will reach the time you want back and travel back.

    Oh, hold on, that’s not a problem. If you have a time machine, then just move to a minute after you go back in time, and you should miss it.

  • #944204

    yekke2
    Participant

    If you would go back in time and kill your grandfather (before your parent was born), would you cease to exist? If you would, then there would be no way for you to kill your grandfather, because you don’t exist. If you don’t exist, then your granfather is still alive, and so you will exist. So if you do exist, then you can kill your grandfather.

    A ???? ?????. I believe ? ????? ???? speaks about this in numerous places, about “A ???? which if it will be ?? will be ???? itself” – For example, by an ??? ????? who gets money from somebody ?? ??? ???? ??? ???? ??, the ??? can keep the money, even though generally we say ?? ??? ??? ???. R Shimon explains how this works: The money was given with a ???? that the ???? shouldn’t get it. So if the ???? gets it, then ????? the ??? never got it in the first place; therefore the ???? can’t get it either. So if the ???? recieves the money, a direct cause of that will be that the ???? loses the money. So it is a ???? which if it would be ?? would cancel itself out, rather than it being ?? and then being ???? itself, we say it isn’t ?? in the first place.

    Same sort of ????

  • #944205

    yitayningwut
    Member

    Just count how many of you are lined up at the time machine and subtract one.

Viewing 173 reply threads
  • You must be logged in to reply to this topic.

Comments are closed.

Subscribe to RSS Feed For This Article