Playing with thoughts

[doo]

Suppose for a moment that there is "the one" significant other for everyone, like people sometimes have a tendency to assume. I believe it is also reasonable to assume that in that case "oneness" is bound to be bidirectional. In terms of logic:

IF A is the one for B THEN B is the one for A.

Did anyone ever come to think of that in that case, when someone is tagging up with a significant other that is not "the one" for them, they are ultimately also ruining the chances of their "the one" counterpart ever finding his/her "the one". And since most people don't believe in this mambojambo about "the one" but instead pair up with anyone who in sufficient terms meet their standards, the logical conclusion would have to be that even if there was "the one" for everyone, for the majority it would not be possible to pair up with that person.

I guess logic and romance just don't mix, eh?

Besides, there are more females in the world than men. I rest my case.

[GEISHA]

I am all but romantic and so is my girlfriend, so in that department we do have a match: A equals B and B equals A
But I am more the logical, practical, rational type whereas my girlfriend is non of those ( haven't we heard that before) but tends to be more sensitive.
A and B unequal.
The best of both worlds or both of best worlds.
I also rest my chase eh I mean case.

[subie_rev]

If the female to male ratio is more than 2:1 maybe they should make it legal to have two wives

[snowy]

Logic and romance is a heady brew just look at Mr Spock during Pon Pha!

[GEISHA]

Originally Posted by subie_rev

If the female to male ratio is more than 2:1 maybe they should make it legal to have two wives

If a married/engaged man loves but one woman and no other, people say he is
faithful.

If a married/engaged man loves more than one woman, people say he is unfaithful.
But more woman doesn't that make him more faithful.

Never fully understood.

[redi]

I believe that with 6 billion people running around and a fairly limited number of character traits, there is more than just 1 "the one". Also, someone being "the one" usually means that that person meets the most important requirements, and you can live with the imperfections as long as they don't irritate too much. Since these imperfections can be different from one "the one" to the other "the one", there can be more than one "the one" that meets the important requirements and has random unimportant imperfections.


Anyway, your presumption

IF A is the one for B THEN B is the one for A

is of course a false one in the first place. A can have exactly the right character traits and physical attractiveness for B, but that surely doesn't need to be mutual. Think "beauty and the nerd" I'm sure lots of men think, for example, Carmen Electra is the perfect woman both physically and characterally (?), but it's pretty obvious Carmen will find all those men also "the perfect guy".

[redi]

Originally Posted by doo

...
Besides, there are more females in the world than men. I rest my case.

What a great world we live in, eh?

And in Russia, the country with the most beautiful women on the planet, the imbalance is even greater than average Too bad polygamy isn't allowed these days

[Wee Scot]

Is there "the one" for everyone? Yes, "the one" who's attention you can get...and keep!

I'm married, and the morality that was passed down to me through my genes has made me--despite the best efforts of the culture I grew up in--monogamous and faithful. I wish it were otherwise, because I rarely go through a day without encountering another woman I'd like to shag, but that's just who I am: I know I couldn't live with the guilt of being "unfaithful."

[Jack Stand]

..damn, I opened this thread never imagining there might be "math" involved

[doo]

Originally Posted by redi

Anyway, your presumption

IF A is the one for B THEN B is the one for A

is of course a false one in the first place. A can have exactly the right character traits and physical attractiveness for B, but that surely doesn't need to be mutual. Think "beauty and the nerd" I'm sure lots of men think, for example, Carmen Electra is the perfect woman both physically and characterally (?), but it's pretty obvious Carmen will find all those men also "the perfect guy".

No it is not false, because you are misunderstanding my definition of "the one". In my definition, a mandatory requirement for "the one" is that you are "the one" for them. I am not using the term to refer to people meeting certain standards, but I'm using it to refer to "the one" the way it is often referred to in romantic context as in the one that is destined to be your partner. The one you belong with. Not just a person that is good enough for you.

[doo]

Originally Posted by redi

What a great world we live in, eh?

And in Russia, the country with the most beautiful women on the planet,

Unfortunately I cannot agree with you. But I guess it's completely subjective.

[brabham67]

IMO I think a lot of people focus too much on the concept of "the one" or soulmates. Most often people associate this concept with the ideal relationship wherein everything is easy. The best relationships require the most work, patience, and understanding. If your not willing to do that, you'll never find the one, or even if you did, you'd never know it.

[Wee Scot]

Originally Posted by doo

I'm using it to refer to "the one" the way it is often referred to in romantic context as in the one that is destined to be your partner. The one you belong with.

You can't seriously believe there is "a" soulmate we're all destined to have as our partner!? That's just sentimental nonsense fed by the writers of romance novels and Hallmark cards! I'd be willing to bet that 1 out of ANY 10 women you meet could strike you as "the one" if you encountered her in just the right circumstances. Sure, we all have our own preferences for physical and personality traits, but there are only so many possible combinations. Just stop to think, for a moment, how many women we find attractive in any given day. Now think how attracted you would be to each of those women if you and she encountered each other in a social setting in which both of you were presented in "a favorable light." The possibilities are ENDLESS! After the initial mutual attraction, ALL relationships require a mutual willingness to work out the inevitable differences, as brabham67 just wrote. But RIGHT NOW there are millions of women (or men, if you prefer) on the planet who you could be happy with as your partner for life!

[Pizzaman]

Oh my God, sometimes I wonder if people leave their...
well...

Did somebody notice that the fact that there are more women in the world
happens to be for 75% caused by women getting older than men...

To those with polygamous thoughts:

[doo]

Originally Posted by Wee Scot

You can't seriously believe there is "a" soulmate we're all destined to have as our partner!? That's just sentimental nonsense fed by the writers of romance novels and Hallmark cards! I'd be willing to bet that 1 out of ANY 10 women you meet could strike you as "the one" if you encountered her in just the right circumstances. Sure, we all have our own preferences for physical and personality traits, but there are only so many possible combinations. Just stop to think, for a moment, how many women we find attractive in any given day. Now think how attracted you would be to each of those women if you and she encountered each other in a social setting in which both of you were presented in "a favorable light." The possibilities are ENDLESS! After the initial mutual attraction, ALL relationships require a mutual willingness to work out the inevitable differences, as brabham67 just wrote. But RIGHT NOW there are millions of women (or men, if you prefer) on the planet who you could be happy with as your partner for life!

You need to read my first post again, mister.

The idea of this thread was to point out that the idea of "the one destined partner" is a contradiction, almost a paradox, if you will, because even if a unique match existed for everyone, in most cases, the pair would be inevitably unmatchable because one side of that pair would already be matched with someone else (regardless of whether the environment is a monogomy or a polygomy).

In short, if we assume that there is a unique destined "the one" for everyone, just one mismatched pair would prove this scenario wrong, as the counterpart-"the ones" of those two individuals would be blocked off (all they could do is stay unpaired or form another mismatched pair together, supposing all other pairs would be successful matches).

To make it easier to understand, imagine there are millions of unique locks and one unique key for each lock. Now, if you force a wrong key to any of those locks, the result is that one key will fit no available lock (as its lock is already taken by the wrong key) and a correct key cannot be found for one lock (because that key is already in the wrong lock).

Of course, some of those relationships will not last forever, and one might argue that eventually the unique "the ones" will find eachother, even though they aren't available for matching all of the time. But the fact that a fragment of the population dies before they ever have the change to engage in a relationship proves that this argument is void. (Comparable to a situation in the previous comparison in which a lock or a key is destroyed leaving its counterpart to exist.)

I have to rectify my statement earlier. The uneven number of male and female population does not prove the theory wrong as a part of the population are homosexuals. The unique match can also be a single-gendered pair. (An odd number of humans in the world would in fact prove the assumption wrong, but as the population figure is dynamic and constantly changing, it cannot be accurately known at any given moment.)

The point of all this? No point. Just playing with thoughts, like the topic says.

[Wee Scot]

Originally Posted by doo

You need to read my first post again, mister.

OK, I did, and I quote:

"Suppose for a moment that there is "the one" significant other for everyone, like people sometimes have a tendency to assume. I believe it is also reasonable..."

You could read that to mean that you thought the first proposition "reasonable."

Originally Posted by doo

The point of all this? No point. Just playing with thoughts, like the topic says.

OK, but I thought some other readers WERE taking your proposition seriously, so I decided to throw in my 2 cents worth...

[doo]

Originally Posted by Wee Scot

I'd be willing to bet that 1 out of ANY 10 women you meet could strike you as "the one" if you encountered her in just the right circumstances.

Indeed, and acknowledging that, at least for me, causes no woman to strike as "the one". Which is kind of unfortunate. Ignorance would be a bliss, I guess.

[doo]

Originally Posted by Wee Scot

OK, I did, and I quote:

"Suppose for a moment that there is "the one" significant other for everyone, like people sometimes have a tendency to assume. I believe it is also reasonable..."

You could read that to mean that you thought the first proposition "reasonable."

You could... but you'd be wrong to do so.

I believe it is also reasonable to assume that in that case...

[Wee Scot]

Originally Posted by doo

Indeed, and acknowledging that, at least for me, causes no woman to strike as "the one". Which is kind of unfortunate. Ignorance would be a bliss, I guess.

Yes, you could even make the case that our ancestors, who's social exposure to potential life partners was MUCH less than ours, experienced a higher percentage of "happy" marriages (even in cases of "arranged" marriages) than we see today because they were not confused and conflicted--and tempted--by so much choice! Whether that was "better" than what we see today, or not, could be the subject of another good debate!

[Hansaplast]

I read about A and B only...

whats about C to Z ?

[swviper]

Originally Posted by Pizzaman

Oh my God, sometimes I wonder if people leave their...
well...

Did somebody notice that the fact that there are more women in the world
happens to be for 75% caused by women getting older than men...

To those with polygamous thoughts:

...and it cannot be 'unseen'

[doo]

Here's another intreaking way of looking at things:

Let's assume a scientific materialistic world for a moment in which all the matter that was formed was hydrogen and helium at first. Later on the nuclei started to combine forming more complex elements and compounds. So, basically, let's assume that the scientific explanation of the beginning of the universe is accurate.

Now, think about your computer, all your cool racing sims, NFL, the moon rockets, coffee mugs, washing machines, mathematical formulas, nuclear weapons etc.

All those things are something that hydrogen atoms do when they're given 13,7 billion years of time.

[redi]

Originally Posted by doo

No it is not false, because you are misunderstanding my definition of "the one". In my definition, a mandatory requirement for "the one" is that you are "the one" for them. I am not using the term to refer to people meeting certain standards, but I'm using it to refer to "the one" the way it is often referred to in romantic context as in the one that is destined to be your partner. The one you belong with. Not just a person that is good enough for you.

It was not clear to me that you were defining "the one" "I think" and "reasonable to believe" are a bit weakish terms when defining something But anyway, if you're defining "the one" like that, then I have no further comments

[redi]

Originally Posted by doo

Unfortunately I cannot agree with you. But I guess it's completely subjective.

I did not expect anyone to agree (especially not you ), but maybe I should define Russian women as the most beautiful on the planet

[redi]

Originally Posted by doo

Here's another intreaking way of looking at things:

Let's assume a scientific materialistic world for a moment in which all the matter that was formed was hydrogen and helium at first. Later on the nuclei started to combine forming more complex elements and compounds. So, basically, let's assume that the scientific explanation of the beginning of the universe is accurate.

Now, think about your computer, all your cool racing sims, NFL, the moon rockets, coffee mugs, washing machines, mathematical formulas, nuclear weapons etc.

All those things are something that hydrogen atoms do when they're given 13,7 billion years of time.

That is another angle at "where does reductionism end" When looking at one hydrogen atom, it's clear what its properties are. When adding them together, at a certain moment you get complexity and the properties of a large bunch of these atoms cannot be predicted from the properties of a single atom. Same with clusters of different atoms, clusters of molecules and ultimately, clusters of brain cells.

[Sidewinder16]

Seeing as this is debate about "the one" and "IF A is the one for B THEN B is the one for A" has been going for some time and descended into a bit of math, I will add my two cents.

While some argue that the logic is a bit weak in "If A is the one for B THEN B is the one for A", its a very good match to the romantic idea of the "the one", destiny, etc. Now for the math part .

To prove or disprove this theory there needs to be a precise unambiguous operator for determining if "the one" holds true for two people A and B. Because this operator is currently impossible to define (and I am sure many many people have tried.) the theory cannot be proved or disproved convincingly. All arguments here therefore are anecdotal in nature and merely suggest if the theory holds or not.

[doo]

Originally Posted by Sidewinder16

Seeing as this is debate about "the one" and "IF A is the one for B THEN B is the one for A" has been going for some time and descended into a bit of math, I will add my two cents.

While some argue that the logic is a bit weak in "If A is the one for B THEN B is the one for A", its a very good match to the romantic idea of the "the one", destiny, etc. Now for the math part .

To prove or disprove this theory there needs to be a precise unambiguous operator for determining if "the one" holds true for two people A and B. Because this operator is currently impossible to define (and I am sure many many people have tried.) the theory cannot be proved or disproved convincingly. All arguments here therefore are anecdotal in nature and merely suggest if the theory holds or not.

I agree completely. Still, some information can be gained from all this when looking at an individual's possibility of finding his/her unique "the one".

If the theory about "the one" is false, then the possibility of finding "the one" is zero. If the theory about the one is true, then the possibility of finding "the one" is still pretty close to zero, because there are over 3 billion entities some of which are already paired.

[doo]

Originally Posted by redi

That is another angle at "where does reductionism end" When looking at one hydrogen atom, it's clear what its properties are. When adding them together, at a certain moment you get complexity and the properties of a large bunch of these atoms cannot be predicted from the properties of a single atom. Same with clusters of different atoms, clusters of molecules and ultimately, clusters of brain cells.

That is most interesting.

But now I have to get back to work from my lunch break, so I'll post a more elaborate response later.


EDIT: Ok, I'm back now.

Well, actually, I believe that the properties of a large cluster of hydrogen atoms could be calculated from a single hydrogen atom, if we knew all the laws of physics and had enough computational power and assuming the Heisenberg uncertainty principle does not apply or that there's a way around it.

[subie_rev]

Originally Posted by GEISHA

If a married/engaged man loves but one woman and no other, people say he is
faithful.

If a married/engaged man loves more than one woman, people say he is unfaithful.
But more woman doesn't that make him more faithful.

Never fully understood.

Because if you're faithful to one you're unfaithful to the other and vise versa

mathematically they cancell out

[redi]

Originally Posted by doo

EDIT: Ok, I'm back now.

Well, actually, I believe that the properties of a large cluster of hydrogen atoms could be calculated from a single hydrogen atom, if we knew all the laws of physics and had enough computational power and assuming the Heisenberg uncertainty principle does not apply or that there's a way around it.

Then you haven't yet heard of Gödel's Theorem I guess It COULD be possible given enough knowledge and computational power, but it's more probable that we still wouldn't be able to predict every little detail. Then, the only way to simulate or calculate it would be just to have the actual cluster of atoms do it for us, i.e. no simulation can predict everything and we're stuck with reality That's Gödel for you...

[doo]

Originally Posted by redi

Then you haven't yet heard of Gödel's Theorem I guess It COULD be possible given enough knowledge and computational power, but it's more probable that we still wouldn't be able to predict every little detail. Then, the only way to simulate or calculate it would be just to have the actual cluster of atoms do it for us, i.e. no simulation can predict everything and we're stuck with reality That's Gödel for you...

Well, if we assume that we had the knowledge and computational power and that Heisenberg's uncertainty principle didn't apply, I don't see the problem with predicting every little detail.

But in terms of reality, I'd have to agree with Gödel there.

[redi]

Originally Posted by doo

Well, if we assume that we had the knowledge and computational power and that Heisenberg's uncertainty principle didn't apply, I don't see the problem with predicting every little detail.

Heisenberg is the least of your problems, because it will disappear in the statistics if you apply it properly and calculate long enough.

Originally Posted by doo

But in terms of reality, I'd have to agree with Gödel there.

That's too bad, because if you proved him wrong you'd be in for a Nobel prize immediately

[doo]

Originally Posted by redi

That's too bad, because if you proved him wrong you'd be in for a Nobel prize immediately

Oh, I already have like six of those.

[redi]

Originally Posted by doo

Oh, I already have like six of those.

I didn't know Nobel Prize was a beer brand

[doo]

Originally Posted by redi

I didn't know Nobel Prize was a beer brand

[Pizzaman]

Maybe it means he has six wives.
Disadvantage would be....

six mother-in-laws....

[subie_rev]

How on earth do you get around the uncertainty principle the act of getting around it would probably change the position and velocity of the atom lol.

[redi]

Originally Posted by subie_rev

How on earth do you get around the uncertainty principle the act of getting around it would probably change the position and velocity of the atom lol.

You don't get around it, you take it into account

[subie_rev]

Originally Posted by redi

You don't get around it, you take it into account

quantum hurts my head every time I start to speculate something I get burdened with multiple questions lol

besides, quantum won't help you tune a suspension or an engine... yet...

[doo]

I think theoretical physics is one of the most interesting topics I know.

I am fascinated by how simplified our every-day conception of the world actually is.

Like time and dimensions or spacetime. Time is affected by a lot of factors, like gravity and light, and entangled particles suggest that space is only a construct that creates the illusion that there are separate objects or dimensions. There is no timeline as we comprehend it and there are no dimensions as we comprehend them.

I guess I could say that understanding quantum physics makes me understand, how little I understand of the true nature of things.

[redi]

The most mind-boggling notion I have come to realize is that 'reality' as we experience it is basically a simulation in our brain. Given the specific way our senses pick up stimuli from our surroundings and the way our brain processes, filters and interprets those stimuli and comminucates the result to our consciousness (whatever THAT is ), we experience the world around us as it is. If our senses would be different (e.g. we could hear different sound frequency ranges or could see, for example, infrared) and/or our brain would process these signals differently, we would experience a completely different 'reality'.

[doo]

Originally Posted by redi

The most mind-boggling notion I have come to realize is that 'reality' as we experience it is basically a simulation in our brain. Given the specific way our senses pick up stimuli from our surroundings and the way our brain processes, filters and interprets those stimuli and comminucates the result to our consciousness (whatever THAT is ), we experience the world around us as it is. If our senses would be different (e.g. we could hear different sound frequency ranges or could see, for example, infrared) and/or our brain would process these signals differently, we would experience a completely different 'reality'.

Well, obviously, we can never know what the world is actually like, because it is always filtered through our senses. For example, we don't sense gamma radiation, radiowaves, the billions and billions of neutriinos traveling through our bodies each second.

Colors are another interesting thing. Why do we see colors the way we do? After all, colors are just photons, electromagnetic radiation with different wavelengths.

Even more interesting it gets when we ask, what would the world be like if stripped of the filtering through senses and also stripped of concepts? Looking at a chessboard during a game, it appears very different to a person who plays chess and to someone who has never even heard of the game. When we look at a room, we automatically make the distinction between concepts. We notice where the floor ends and the wall begins, where the wall ends and the roof begins... what parts are included in a sofa and which parts are pillows... Newly born babies, for example, don't have these concepts. They cannot make a distinction between a wall and a roof, or different colors. (Of course they cannot see very well either, but that's really not the point here )

There is a primitive tribe somewhere in the world (can't remember where) who think of colors very differently than us. For them, green and a part of blue are different tones of one color. The other part of blue and purple are another one color. Where as we have 7 main colors, if I remember correctly, they only had 5. Undoubtedly, they perceive the world very differently.

[redi]

Originally Posted by doo

...
Even more interesting it gets when we ask, what would the world be like if stripped of the filtering through senses and also stripped of concepts? ...

It would be incomprehensible chaos. Basically, filtering and applying concepts to patterns is what creates 'sense' out of chaos and allows survival.

[redi]

Originally Posted by doo

Well, obviously, we can never know what the world is actually like, because it is always filtered through our senses....

The phrase 'what the world is actually like' is meaningless without an observer and hence without filtering and interpretation. Observation creates 'reality', and therefore there is no 'absolute reality'.

[doo]

Originally Posted by redi

The phrase 'what the world is actually like' is meaningless without an observer and hence without filtering and interpretation. Observation creates 'reality', and therefore there is no 'absolute reality'.

Well, I disagree. Observation does not create reality, in my opinion, reality exists without observation. Therefore, the reality must be somekind when there is no observer. Of course, we come to the dilemma of if a tree falls in a forest and no one is there to hear it, will it make a sound. (which of course depends on how you define the concept of sound but the tree is still there and it creates air pressure fluctuations regardless of whether there is a person listening or not.)

Observer filters a subjective reality for that particular observer, but the reality is still there in its independent form. If a person goes blind, the exterior world does not change. The only thing that changes is his perception of the world.

[redi]

Originally Posted by doo

Well, I disagree. Observation does not create reality, in my opinion, reality exists without observation. Therefore, the reality must be somekind when there is no observer. Of course, we come to the dilemma of if a tree falls in a forest and no one is there to hear it, will it make a sound. (which of course depends on how you define the concept of sound but the tree is still there and it creates air pressure fluctuations regardless of whether there is a person listening or not.)

Observer filters a subjective reality for that particular observer, but the reality is still there in its independent form. If a person goes blind, the exterior world does not change. The only thing that changes is his perception of the world.

I'm not arguing that there is nothing if there's no observer, I tried to state that 'what the world is like' implies observation. Trying to imagine how the universe 'is like' without a means to perceive it, is meaningless and pointless

[doo]

Originally Posted by redi

I'm not arguing that there is nothing if there's no observer, I tried to state that 'what the world is like' implies observation. Trying to imagine how the universe 'is like' without a means to perceive it, is meaningless and pointless

Well, now you're talking semantics.

My linguistical skills lack the ability to communicate accurately what I mean in this case in English. However, I will attempt to elaborate.

We perceive time as something that runs as fast everywhere. We sometimes think of time as a fourth uniform dimension. But that's not what time is like. Time is relative to gravity, speed and light, to mention a few factors. It is an attribute of mass. But time has an absolute essence. That essence is what time is actually like. How time actually is.

Same thing with dimensions. We perceive the world as local. When I type on my keyboard, I think that it only affects this room, the proximal space. But the world is non-local. I am also with a certain probability affecting entangled particles, some of which are light-years away. And it's all happening instantly.

Super string theory suggests that the world is an 11-dimensioned hyperspace. Whether it's true or not, it is obvious that dimensions have a certain essence or absolute characteristics, if you will. There is an absolute way how dimensions are, or what dimensions are like.

But yeah, I see where you're going with all this. Although you are making the assumption that perception cannot be perfect and complete.

I guess I could reform the question: How does God perceive the world?

[mydumpstinks]

quack quack, my spelling is awefull!

[redi]

Originally Posted by doo

Well, now you're talking semantics.

My linguistical skills lack the ability to communicate accurately what I mean in this case in English. However, I will attempt to elaborate.

We perceive time as something that runs as fast everywhere. We sometimes think of time as a fourth uniform dimension. But that's not what time is like. Time is relative to gravity, speed and light, to mention a few factors. It is an attribute of mass. But time has an absolute essence. That essence is what time is actually like. How time actually is.

There are people who beg to differ They say that time is also a construct and that a description of the universe could be made without any notion of time. I recently bought and read a book about it, but I forgot the title (I can look it up if you like).
I don't think that time has an absolute essence. That would mean that if you take away everything that is not 'time', you're still left with something. I would argue that if you do that, you're left with nothing. How do we perceive time, or how do we say time passes? Because we relate it to other things: cause before effect, increase of entropy (particle distributions, radiation). If you take those things out, you're left with nothing.

Originally Posted by doo

Same thing with dimensions. We perceive the world as local. When I type on my keyboard, I think that it only affects this room, the proximal space. But the world is non-local. I am also with a certain probability affecting entangled particles, some of which are light-years away. And it's all happening instantly.

All happening instantly? So there is no time involved?

Originally Posted by doo

Super string theory suggests that the world is an 11-dimensioned hyperspace. Whether it's true or not, it is obvious that dimensions have a certain essence or absolute characteristics, if you will. There is an absolute way how dimensions are, or what dimensions are like.

I would say that dimensions are a mathematical construct in order to describe the world around us based on initial assumptions (e.g. vibrating strings). Super string theory is fascinating but highly controversial, not least because of the fact that the theory does not do any predictions, it only describes what we already know. And besides that, it assumes most of these 11 dimensions to be rolled up to a size smaller that an electron's nostril hair and therefore we will never be able to detect them. Hence, these dimensions being 'real' and having a fundamental essence for me is too much to state as being true.

Originally Posted by doo

But yeah, I see where you're going with all this. Although you are making the assumption that perception cannot be perfect and complete.

In my view (no pun intended), perception is fundamentally flawed because there HAS to be a translation from the physical entity (electromagnetic radiation, pressure wave) to awareness of that entity, through any kind of physical interaction and conversion that will 'kill' the original input. This ALWAYS leads to a subjective experience of such a physical entity/phenomenon.

Originally Posted by doo

I guess I could reform the question: How does God perceive the world?

That's a metaphysical twist to a (up til now) highly scientific discussion that IMO falls into the 'perception trap' as I described directly above this section

[redi]

Originally Posted by mydumpstinks

quack quack, my spelling is awefull!

How can spelling be full of awe


Brilliant sentence, it's self-referring