1. ## Existence

What is existence? Where does form come from?

Imagine everything, all possible things, all possible scenarios, world's that we can't even comprehend, world's that we can comprehend all at the same time..... pure infinity. Within that frame, every single person exists and has always existed.

Imagine a large infinite pie, and someone came along one day and cut a piece of the pie. You'd have a piece of pie and then you'd have the rest of the transfinite pie that's left. Because the pie is distinct and separate from the rest of the pie there is void around the piece of pie that gives it its apparent distinctness, it's separateness. Yet the piece of pie originated from whole pie so it will always be connected to the everything else(the way it's cut will always mirror the whole pie that it was cut from).

This is where duality is sort of created from. The everything v.s. nothing, white v.s. black. To exist, one has to be both alone and together. One has to feel separate, yet one has to have something to separate from.

Some people are larger pieces of pie, others are smaller pieces of pie. The smaller pieces of pie are less distinct, have less awareness. The world around them(the transfinite remaining pie), is larger and more vast. They have no identity and are trying to find a place to to settle and grow. The larger piece of pie feels too real(the remaining pie is smaller), there is a been there done that feeling. This doesn't actually reflect what really happens though, there are different shapes of the pie, all kinds of different shapes, sizes(and reality is always changing with how you look at it).

2. ∞ + n = ∞
∞ - n = ∞
∞ + ∞ = ∞
∞ / n = ∞
∞ * ∞ = ∞
∞ / ∞ = 1

u = IEI

3. Yes, Sage Hitta.

Oneness is the only thing that's really true. Art has this objectivity to it, a way of appearing distinct yet everybody is relating to it.

Yet still, the search for what we prefer the most is probably the greatest thing, greater than even oneness. Identity and independence is actually much stronger than oneness. One person who is very sure of himself, is always *trillions* more powerful than billions who are not.

Yet this makes us think that the world is a narcissistic and cruel and unfriendly place. It is frequently mean but that's not the whole picture. Preaching about oneness constantly makes one seem disconnected (Ironically) as opposed to finding what makes YOU tick, and aligning with the people and the resources that can help you the most.

Every thing has this 'on and off ness' to it. Like music, the dips and flows and it's the spaces in between that make the music just as much as it is the hits. We all dwell privately in our little bubbles, searching for all the little things that make us happy. Even though we relate to all the art, we find the art that best suits us and our individual nature. Because our perception, our narcissistic sense of self, is probably how the universe gave birth to itself in the first place. When we align who we are with the rest of the world, its as though electricity goes through us and makes us alive.

We connect with others, sometimes. We have heart to hearts. But the heart to heart don't last 24/7. Maybe we don't want them to. Maybe we all think that would make us weak or lame. So we abandon our friends and lovers, but here and there there's these sparks, like lighting a candle, where we feel connected in the presence of another. It's one of those things where you don't realize the importance of connection and friendship until you risk the pain and the loneliness. Death is sterile, it lasts forever- but there's nothing to it. It's like processed foods. Sure they last a long time in your cupboard but they're not as good for you as the food that gets old in a few days.

And here's where it gets interesting (cont. on a next post)

4. Everything is about timing. You didn't get what you want simply because your timing was off. You have to align yourself with the tempo and timing of life. Which can be a tricky thing to do because it's so intricate and complex, yet this is really the backbone of everything you want, all your desires.

It's not that you didn't try hard enough, or you didn't want it badly enough. It's simply all about timing.

In a flash, if you don't seize the right opportunity, you get swept under by death again. To ride the wave of life, you have to learn how to hook and snatch the timing of everything in the universe, because everything is important. It's like, your favorite song, one that exalts your soul the most- it's all about timing, if they played the notes in the wrong order it wouldn't be the same thing. And everything else in life, is like this.

Or think back to your favorite tv show. It meant more to you when it was just once a week than if you just watched 6 episodes a day on DVDs. This is because all the cliffhangers and wondering and wandering and searching and hoping and thinking about it, you allowed your brain to trick you into being a romantic. When what you want floods you all at once, you have a tendency to not notice it.

So we're always learning when/how to let go and when/how to hold on. And most of us are still rather clumsy and awkward with this, with only the most high powered hollywood narcissists and celebrities being able to do it with any kind of finesse, and even they slip up lots.

5. Originally Posted by Ashton
Technically, ∞ / ∞ = indeterminate.
I read (and mostly forgot) an article long ago describing a means of locating the fastest route to one's room should one ever lodge in a hotel with an infinite number of floors, each containing an infinite number of rooms, each floor accessible from the lobby via an infinite number of elevators. The general upshot of the article was to demonstrate that some infinities are more or less infinite than others.

6. Originally Posted by BulletsAndDoves
One person who is very sure of himself, is always *trillions* more powerful than billions who are not.
Yep, trillions. Look at me, I can fly!

7. Originally Posted by BulletsAndDoves

We all dwell privately in our little bubbles, searching for all the little things that make us happy.
Speak fo' yourself :

Originally Posted by BulletsAndDoves
I don't believe that it's possible to have a crush on somebody if it's not mutual. I think this also frequently crashes through sexual orientation barriers. Love is about gentle eroticism mixed in with satisfying, soaring, wonderful feelings... there's no barrier between that and who you think you are, what you ACTUALLY are, and how you identify yourself.

So if I like a straight guy I know that he likes me too. He just wishes I was a girl, and I wish he were gay and it drives us bonkers.

So I genuinely believe Wentworth Miller would be crazy about me if we met in real life, but he would be conflicted on my middle class ness vs. his hollywood ness. And many other things.

The raw personality exchange between two people, that's just too hard to stop. It's fiery, volatile, passionate and compassionate, and messy and just loads of fun!

If you are having a fantasy about somebody what makes you so sure that they're *not* thinking the same about you? I believe they always are even if they deny it for many reasons. hehehe.
No offense BnD but you make relations sound like some game where everything is just fanstasy and lighthearted interaction with no sense of responsiblity or consequences your actions have on others feelings and emotions.

Also you make it sound like self condfidence nets you everything. If that was the case I would have everything. But I dont. You may *imagine* yourself confident but thats not enough it takes an honest look at a situation in order to overcome it. You may have the self confidence to jump out a window, but no matter how full of hot air you are, you wont fly.

8. INTJ
I
STJ

ISFJ
INFJ

ENTP
ESTP
ESFP

ENFP

INTP
ISTP

ISFP

INFP
ENT
J
ESTJ
ES
FJ
E
NFJ

9. Originally Posted by Ekpyrosos
∞ + n = ∞
∞ - n = ∞
∞ + ∞ = ∞
∞ / n = ∞
∞ * ∞ = ∞
∞ / ∞ = 1

u = IEI
∞ isn't a number. It's employed to denote if a limit converges or not. Using mathematical operators on infinity has no implied mathematical meaning.

Theoretically it would seem you could say maybe ∞ = c/0, where c is a constant; but then ∞ would not only equal c/0, but any number or constant. ∞ = c/0 = d/0 for example, where c and d differ. It's tempting to say then that c/0 != d/0 and maybe perhaps that c/0 / d/0 = c/d, but then you assume 0/0 = 1 to do so; and I could then legitimately say that c/0 = ∞ = d/0, which creates a contradiction to what you'd say because we have two answers: 1 and c/d. Then it would seem that ∞/∞ depends on how 0/0 is defined and is indeterminate.

You can also apply the same inductive idea to the other operators and receive a contradiction. For instance, ∞ - n = ∞, we again run into the same problem, given c/0 - d/0 = n. If we assume c/0 = d/0 = ∞, then 0 = n does not make sense. If we assume c/0 != d/0, so that n = n, then we say ∞ != ∞, which does not make sense. A number must equal itself or it is not a number.

10. Originally Posted by ToeFungus
∞ isn't a number. It's employed to denote if a limit converges or not. Using mathematical operators on infinity has no implied mathematical meaning.
Converge on these nuts, Pollyana. What is illustrated is that adding to and taking from hitta's infinite pie will make it neither more nor less infinite. Also:

Hi, Divided.

11. Originally Posted by Ekpyrosos
Converge on these nuts, Pollyana. What is illustrated is that adding to and taking from hitta's infinite pie will make it neither more nor less infinite. Also:
Okay. And I'm telling you that's nonsensical, which I've proven. No need to get all butthurt that your intuition happened to be wrong.

12. Originally Posted by ToeFungus
Okay. And I'm telling you that's nonsensical, which I've proven. No need to get all butthurt that your intuition happened to be wrong.
If by proved you mean typed a paragraph or two that I didn't read then I agree, but otherwise that's the second false assumption you've made in this response.

13. I like this conversation

14. Originally Posted by ToeFungus
∞ isn't a number. It's employed to denote if a limit converges or not. Using mathematical operators on infinity has no implied mathematical meaning.

Theoretically it would seem you could say maybe ∞ = c/0, where c is a constant; but then ∞ would not only equal c/0, but any number or constant. ∞ = c/0 = d/0 for example, where c and d differ. It's tempting to say then that c/0 != d/0 and maybe perhaps that c/0 / d/0 = c/d, but then you assume 0/0 = 1 to do so; and I could then legitimately say that c/0 = ∞ = d/0, which creates a contradiction to what you'd say because we have two answers: 1 and c/d. Then it would seem that ∞/∞ depends on how 0/0 is defined and is indeterminate.

You can also apply the same inductive idea to the other operators and receive a contradiction. For instance, ∞ - n = ∞, we again run into the same problem, given c/0 - d/0 = n. If we assume c/0 = d/0 = ∞, then 0 = n does not make sense. If we assume c/0 != d/0, so that n = n, then we say ∞ != ∞, which does not make sense. A number must equal itself or it is not a number.
Ti-ILE. And because I'm awesome and I'm pretty sure about what you're down with and all, let's do a thing here:

0 isn't a number. It's employed to denote if a limit converges or not. Using mathematical operators on zero has no implied mathematical meaning.

Theoretically it would seem you could say maybe 0 = c-c, where c is a constant; but then 0 would not only equal c-c, but any number or constant. ∞ = c-c = d-d for example, where c and d differ. It's tempting to say then that c-c != d-d and maybe perhaps that (c-c) - (d-d) = c-d

I think there's at least one flaw in your diamond logic (other than you just not getting the point at all)...

15. Originally Posted by woofwoofl
Ti-ILE. And because I'm awesome and I'm pretty sure about what you're down with and all, let's do a thing here:

0 isn't a number. It's employed to denote if a limit converges or not. Using mathematical operators on zero has no implied mathematical meaning.

Theoretically it would seem you could say maybe 0 = c-c, where c is a constant; but then 0 would not only equal c-c, but any number or constant. ∞ = c-c = d-d for example, where c and d differ. It's tempting to say then that c-c != d-d and maybe perhaps that (c-c) - (d-d) = c-d

I think there's at least one flaw in your diamond logic (other than you just not getting the point at all)...
1. You mistype him based on what he wrote, ILEs are not that good at poetry.
2. He at least can follow his own premises, but your reasoning is totally fucked-up.

16. Oops, missed one of the infinity symbols. So who's the next EII you're gonna mistype as their SLE Conflictor? You're on quite a roll here...

17. Originally Posted by Ekpyrosos
u = IEI
ego:

18. Originally Posted by woofwoofl
Oops, missed one of the infinity symbols. So who's the next EII you're gonna mistype as their SLE Conflictor? You're on quite a roll here...
Whoops, the IEE who self-types SEE replaced infinity by zero and claimed that using operators on zero has no mathematical meaning.

19. Oops.

20. So, have any of you had basic philosophy? Existence is a state of being, but not being itself. It is from, or out of being. It is like the past being dragged behind the future.

It is like the surface tension in water...

God does not "exist" in a classical (Grecian) sense of the word, he is the supreme being (in philosophy.) Being itself is like the future perfect in Mahāyāna (pure land) Buddhism. Being is the Dharma - not the world.

In Platonic thought, existence is like the shadows on the cave wall, and being is the light.

Existence is not then, that important of a question. What is the nature of being itself, that is philosophically important.

21. Originally Posted by The Ineffable
Whoops, the IEE who self-types SEE replaced infinity by zero and claimed that using operators on zero has no mathematical meaning.
I implied that the original rationale was bunk by substituting zero with infinity while keeping the relevant parts of the structure; if it all ends up looking ridiculous, then great, that was the intent

You drag every Gamma Irrational into IEE except for k0rpsey, in which case it looks like you dumped the body at SEE because your arms finally gave out.

If I wore a tight gray and blue sweater and pair it with a necklace (which you claimed was Jinxi trying to look like a badass, which led to you typing him Se Ego), do I get to be SEE, or does your allergy to common sense demand I camp out at SLE with him and the EIIs you lumped into there?

22. Originally Posted by woofwoofl
Ti-ILE. And because I'm awesome and I'm pretty sure about what you're down with and all, let's do a thing here:

0 isn't a number. It's employed to denote if a limit converges or not. Using mathematical operators on zero has no implied mathematical meaning.

Theoretically it would seem you could say maybe 0 = c-c, where c is a constant; but then 0 would not only equal c-c, but any number or constant. ∞ = c-c = d-d for example, where c and d differ. It's tempting to say then that c-c != d-d and maybe perhaps that (c-c) - (d-d) = c-d

I think there's at least one flaw in your diamond logic (other than you just not getting the point at all)...
Perhaps it's better to put this into another perspective. Take human behavior, for example. Is human behavior static or dynamic? Jungian type attempts to cover both at the same time, which is paradoxical to reason or sense; it is nonsensical; and how you interpret the nonsensical is your own prerogative.

Now infinity is dynamic and numbers are static. To say that infinity is both dynamic and static is nonsensical. So how you interpret it is what it's going to be or mean. The nonsensical is the dualistic opposite from logic. The difference is one operates on axioms and has self-evident meaning and the other doesn't.

Do you understand now?

Edit: Editing out reason as being opposite from the nonsensical because reason is the capacity to understand something, which does not have to be logical. So perhaps it's better to say that reason can be both sensical and nonsensical and that: "The nonsensical is the dualistic opposite from logic (and not reason)".

23. 0 is a relativistic numerical root in which the number system is always relating to as a point of origin, it does not represent infinity... it more transfinite. Dividing by zero removes the numerical root classifications boundaries which causes the number system to not have any bounded terrain(meaning that it removes the context of the numbers). Dividing by zero represents infinity. When infinity is used in a limit context, it is only the idealization of approaching towards. Basically the infinity symbol when used in limit context basically represents a never ending number system(which isn't infinity, it's transfinite as the definition of numbers are always dependent on the persons relativistic context to zero).

If infinity is divided by infinity(both in the sense of both being unbounded) then there is no relativistic context created by dividing them by each other as there is no definition given to the values that are being divided. Infinity/Infinity still equals infinity or unbounded.

24. Originally Posted by hitta
If infinity is divided by infinity(both in the sense of both being unbounded) then there is no relativistic context created by dividing them by each other as there is no definition given to the values that are being divided. Infinity/Infinity still equals infinity or unbounded.
For what it's worth, your post makes sense to me. But FYI, the bolded contradicts the nonbolded, which is the same kind of mistake K0rpsey attempted. Considering the unbolded, it can't equal infinity or unbounded; it can't equal anything because it isn't static to begin with.

It's like if I were to make a sandwich and you were to play a computer game. Then if we were asked to divide my experience by yours, what would we get? Or if we divide your experience by mine, what would we get? I'd probably say "Fuck, I don't know/care. Whatever makes you happy or whatever you say that doesn't bother me on a personal level is fine with me." Point is, infinity represents a set of all processes that converge on infinity or unbounded. It's not statically defined. It is many things and perhaps an infinite number of things. A number is one distinct thing.

25. Originally Posted by woofwoofl
I implied that the original rationale was bunk by substituting zero with infinity while keeping the relevant parts of the structure; if it all ends up looking ridiculous, then great, that was the intent
I know, but that was the problem, mocking a self-consistent reasoning. I wanted to do that too, to say that infinity is equivalent with c/0 is like saying "throwing a stone in the water means waves, then waves means throwing a stone into water". However "=" is in some respect an equivalence, and because I'm not that good at math, and because I had no time to think about it, I prefer to shut up than say something stupid. You instead wrote some random nonsensical shit suggesting that he did the same thing.
Originally Posted by woofwoofl
You drag every Gamma Irrational into IEE except for k0rpsey, in which case it looks like you dumped the body at SEE because your arms finally gave out.
I type k0rpsey as IEI, polikujm as EII and Aiss as ILI, for example. polikujm doesn't even self-type as ILI anymore. Is there any Gamma Irrational I'm treating that cruelly other than you and the two Kageros?
Originally Posted by woofwoofl
If I wore a tight gray and blue sweater and pair it with a necklace (which you claimed was Jinxi trying to look like a badass, which led to you typing him Se Ego), do I get to be SEE, or does your allergy to common sense demand I camp out at SLE with him and the EIIs you lumped into there?
I would type you as SEE if you were to behave (reason and write) like one, even if you were not one, obviously. But you don't. It is futile to wear a necklace and be a badass when you talk like Jesus in allegories and analogies.

And for the record, Se-Base types are not necessarily badasses. That's not how Socionics typing works.

26. Originally Posted by DividedsGhost
For what it's worth, your post makes sense to me. But FYI, the bolded contradicts the nonbolded, which is the same kind of mistake K0rpsey attempted. Considering the unbolded, it can't equal infinity or unbounded; it can't equal anything because it isn't static to begin with.

It's like if I were to make a sandwich and you were to play a computer game. Then if we were asked to divide my experience by yours, what would we get? Or if we divide your experience by mine, what would we get? I'd probably say "Fuck, I don't know/care. Whatever makes you happy or whatever you say that doesn't bother me on a personal level is fine with me." Point is, infinity represents a set of all processes that converge on infinity or unbounded. It's not statically defined. It is many things and perhaps an infinite number of things. A number is one distinct thing.
Well yes I agree with you entirely which is sort of my point. the whole idea of using infinity as a constant is sort of paradoxical. I'm just trying to make the point that, infinity being divided by infinity doesn't really bind the number system in itself . The idealization of infinity is what binds the number system as to quantify infinity you have to construe it as a constant. So in a way, its kind of a which side of the fence argument. You can accept the idealization of infinity, which therefore would cause the equation of infinity/infinity to be 1. Or you can actually take the unbounded concept of infinity, which therefore would make the equation in itself impossible.

On the other hand, using that as a representative of transfinite summation may actually equal 1, the only problem transfinite identity would have to be parallel. For them to be parallel, they'd have to be the limit of the same equation, which tbh sort of trivializes that scenario.

27. Originally Posted by The Ineffable
I type k0rpsey as IEI, polikujm as EII and Aiss as ILI, for example. polikujm doesn't even self-type as ILI anymore. Is there any Gamma Irrational I'm treating that cruelly other than you and the two Kageros?
Another huge thank-you to aestrivex/niffweed:

See where it says "k0rpsey" in the leftmost column? See that row of s and n/as, marred by one lone errant typing of ? Either you were wrong then, you're wrong now, or both.

Scroll down a bit and stop when you find "nanashi". Look across there, see some permutation of and wall-to-wall along with the n/as, and the odd man out is that lonely .

Now go all the way up to "aixelsyd". Gamma Irrational across the board. One lone typing. From you. Again.

Go all the way down. "woofwoofl". across the board. Almost.

Symmetry time. Scroll up to "cpig". Yet another Gamma Irrational. Yet another lonely Delta typing.

Once final time, scroll down, this time stopping at "galen". LSI? Guess you had to make room for all those incoming "IEE"s... didn't expect you to fling him that far though...

Originally Posted by The Ineffable
And for the record, Se-Base types are not necessarily badasses. That's not how Socionics typing works.
I never said that

The both of us drifted a bit there; to get things on track, here's your original post:

Originally Posted by The Ineffable
Why can't I choose more than one? I'm in doubt between SLE, ILE and maybe SLI (SLI esp how you explain stuff). I think SLE is the most likely, and you seem more interested in your appearance - and you seem to "prepare" yourself with that macho chain on the outside . (and LOL @ at typing Jinxi IEI, sheep)

Nice move on calling his sister his girlfriend though

28. Originally Posted by woofwoofl
...
That list is slightly obsolete. My last typings on wooflwoofl, aixelsyd and nanashi are IEE, k0rpsey IEI and cpig ESI.

29. Being dumber than a bimbo doesn't make him an SEE.

30. Originally Posted by hitta
On the other hand, using that as a representative of transfinite summation may actually equal 1, the only problem transfinite identity would have to be parallel. For them to be parallel, they'd have to be the limit of the same equation, which tbh sort of trivializes that scenario.
You might know more about Transfinite numbers in set theory, but I thought the idea was to show that some infinite sets can be mapped one-to-one, meaning that each element in that set is distinct from every other element. And that some sets, such as the real numbers are uncountable because Cantor's Diagonal Argument shows that no matter how we try to order the real numbers, there is always a real number that will not be included in our ordering. I thought it has a different meaning here because the idea is to prove that some infinite sets can be enumerated and then can be compared against each other based on how they relate; so we are now using different operators that can only be applied to sets; implicitly meaning that +,-,*,/ makes no sense in set theory. Which would mean it doesn't make sense to use transfinite numbers to prove infinity/infinity = 1.

So I'm pretty sure that wouldn't make sense, unless as you say they were both the same infinite sets; but it would seem trivial as you say because we still wouldn't be able to use that 1 to compare a set against another, since they will all be 1. And then 1 is no longer a distinct representation of anything.

31. Originally Posted by DividedsGhost
You might know more about Transfinite numbers in set theory, but I thought the idea was to show that some infinite sets can be mapped one-to-one, meaning that each element in that set is distinct from every other element. And that some sets, such as the real numbers are uncountable because Cantor's Diagonal Argument shows that no matter how we try to order the real numbers, there is always a real number that will not be included in our ordering. I thought it has a different meaning here because the idea is to prove that some infinite sets can be enumerated and then can be compared against each other based on how they relate; so we are now using different operators that can only be applied to sets; implicitly meaning that +,-,*,/ makes no sense in set theory. Which would mean it doesn't make sense to use transfinite numbers to prove infinity/infinity = 1.

So I'm pretty sure that wouldn't make sense, unless as you say they were both the same infinite sets; but it would seem trivial as you say because we still wouldn't be able to use that 1 to compare a set against another, since they will all be 1. And then 1 is no longer a distinct representation of anything.
Yes thats what I meant about them being parallel sets, otherwise the idea makes no sense at all, and I'm still not quite sure that actually makes 100% sense with parallel sets.

32. Infinite is one step beyond any single moment. I think infinite isn't as vast as it seems at first glance, but right outside the bounds of our perception lies the infinite.

33. Originally Posted by Ekpyrosos
he has a cute little hand.

34. I mutate, therefore I am. lol

#### Posting Permissions

• You may not post new threads
• You may not post replies
• You may not post attachments
• You may not edit your posts
•