A theroy by Georg Cantor might have ruined my life.

#180

Postby Richard@DecisionSkills » Sat Sep 13, 2014 11:37 pm

Tailspin,

Regardless if we are discussing 9/11, landing on the moon, eating meat, a theory by George Cantor or your father, the position of the earth in the universe, global warming, the big bang theory, first cause, etc. etc. the underlying takeaway here is how do you know, how do any of us know what is or is not true?

First cause, the origin of matter are philosophical discussions. The bing bang is theoretical, it is a "best guess". There are only really two possibilities, either all matter has always existed for all eternity or at some point in time it was created. If it was created once, then what is to say it could not be created an infinite number of times? Given you don't know, no one knows, even Stephen Hawking and the best physicists in the world cannot explain first cause, in my opinion you are choosing to allow the unknown to provide you an excuse to avoid other things in your life.
Richard@DecisionSkills
MVP
MVP
 
Posts: 10934
Joined: Sat Dec 08, 2012 2:25 am
Likes Received: 1136


#181

Postby Beloved » Sun Sep 14, 2014 6:04 pm

Marilyn Vos Savant answered a question similar to this about how many songs could be written.
Beloved
Preferred Member
 
Posts: 954
Joined: Tue Apr 19, 2011 2:28 am
Location: USA
Likes Received: 30

#182

Postby Richard@DecisionSkills » Sun Sep 14, 2014 6:37 pm

Beloved wrote: Marilyn Vos Savant answered a question similar to this about how many songs could be written.


Even without words, the number of songs would be infinite. You can always add another note. In other words, the problem space can expand infinitely.
Richard@DecisionSkills
MVP
MVP
 
Posts: 10934
Joined: Sat Dec 08, 2012 2:25 am
Likes Received: 1136

#183

Postby laureat » Mon Sep 15, 2014 1:02 am

Beloved wrote:Marilyn Vos Savant answered a question similar to this about how many songs could be written.


In music: i know this C major scale is used most of the times: C major, d minor, f minor, g major, a minor

If you think of this logically you cannot compose a song, music producers only focus on the feeling, the rythem, making you excited to dance to play, or to relax

If you think of gangam style, same chords could have been used before, but gangam style has that playful state of mind, excitement , energy of the song,

Is the energy behind, feelings what makes the song so wanted to listen, nobody cares about chords calculation,
laureat
Senior Member
 
Posts: 1458
Joined: Fri Aug 24, 2012 10:45 pm
Location: Kosovo
Likes Received: 110

#184

Postby Richard@DecisionSkills » Thu Sep 18, 2014 6:41 pm

Richard@DecisionSkills
MVP
MVP
 
Posts: 10934
Joined: Sat Dec 08, 2012 2:25 am
Likes Received: 1136

#185

Postby Beloved » Thu Sep 18, 2014 10:07 pm

Tailspin wrote:What I need to get over this is to know that certain that this theory is not true.

It sounds like the defense mechanism of displacement. Your feelings about your father have been (safely) transferred to Mr. Cantor's theory, one step removed from Mr. Cantor and two steps removed from your father.
Beloved
Preferred Member
 
Posts: 954
Joined: Tue Apr 19, 2011 2:28 am
Location: USA
Likes Received: 30

#186

Postby Tailspin » Mon Sep 29, 2014 8:56 pm

Why is it that no one thinks that i am depressed for the reasons I put at the start of this thread? Why don't you believe me? Is it impossible that someone could be upset? Is that what you all think?

True I have issues with my father, I never denied that, but this theory would have upset me no matter who said it. I thought this web site was a place where people could discuss their problems no matter how unusual they were or how alien to others. And if you don't believe me then I'm not going to continue posting.

To be clear, i started this thread because I wanted to hear about what people thought about the theory itself, not to look for some subconscious reason why it bothers me, a reason that may not exist.

I want you to read this block of text i wrote a while ago. I wrote this statement as a way to get past it...

This theory does make logical sense but logic is not proof. And the logic in question is based on what we currently know and observe through our current technology.
There have been countless examples in the past where erroneous beliefs were widely accepted, sometimes for centuries, until they were blown out of the water by some new discovery or development.
Yes there are plenty of people who vehemently believe in this and won't even consider an alternative. But that does not necessarily make it true.
No theory is carved in stone and all are open to modification in the future.
This situation in particular is based on the science of quantum mechanics which is itself highly theoretical and open to conjecture. Scientific theories are changed, modified and thrown out all the time particularly ones regarding the universe and the nature of reality.
It is entirely possible if not probable that someday, some new discovery or new technology will throw out this theory.
New information is constantly modifying and expanding upon what we know to be true, sometimes radically. And given that we had admittedly know very little about the universe and reality, it may be considered foolish to say that any theory we have now is 100% true.
Even now there are things like the uncertainty principle and the recently discovered “Cheshire cat effect” that greatly affect our understanding of the matter and quantum mechanics. And there is little doubt that there are more variables at work. And then there are the variables brought up by human evolution. We can only make an educated guess at what abilities and senses human beings will have in the future.
Quite simply, no one has been able to offer actual evidence that this theory is true. All they have been able to offer is the logic which may well be flawed. Scientific theories come and go almost like fashion changes, why should this one be any different? Those who believe in this theory don't even tackle the issue of potentially unknown variables.
Since quantum mechanics is still in its infancy it is actually very possible that this theory will one day sound ridiculous.
True I cannot think of a way to disprove it but I shall leave that up to the future generations.
Tailspin
Full Member
 
Posts: 136
Joined: Sat Jul 11, 2009 11:38 pm
Likes Received: 0

#187

Postby bert_ernie » Mon Sep 29, 2014 9:28 pm

this website is basically a psychology website. not a philosophy or physics website. so of course people are going to approach things from that angle.

i can't believe you're still stuck here. you're unbelievably stubborn. like clinging onto something that's burning you for dear life as if it holds your salvation.
bert_ernie
Senior Member
 
Posts: 1299
Joined: Sun Dec 31, 2006 4:41 am
Likes Received: 91

#188

Postby Richard@DecisionSkills » Tue Sep 30, 2014 11:44 am

Tailspin wrote: To be clear, i started this thread because I wanted to hear about what people thought about the theory itself, not to look for some subconscious reason why it bothers me, a reason that may not exist.


And that is what you received. Initially people discussed the theory and provided reason after reason that poked holes in the theory and each time you either ignored or quickly dismissed what they were saying. It became evident that you were not really here to discuss the theory. That is when what is going on behind the scenes, the underlying, possibly subconscious reasons started becoming part of the discussion.

Once again, you have never resolved how time or first cause impacts the theory. When asked, all you did was sluff off these factors. This brings about a reasonable question. Why if someone is so concerned over a theory and according to that person it is ruining their life, why would that person sluff off factors that could possibly disprove the theory? One possibility...and I'm not saying it is the reason, but as bert_ernie noted this is a psychology forum, one possibility is you are avoiding other things in your life.
Richard@DecisionSkills
MVP
MVP
 
Posts: 10934
Joined: Sat Dec 08, 2012 2:25 am
Likes Received: 1136

#189

Postby Beloved » Tue Sep 30, 2014 5:02 pm

Tailspin wrote:I warn you right now that this particular post might sound completely bizarre.


You seem to have decided ahead of time what the answer should be.

Do a survey.
Ask many (to eliminate biases) people what they think of this idea that a theory from someone dead now for quite a while can affect you in the way you describe in the present day.

Rather than having others justify their feelings about your belief, try to account for the results you get. Post the results and your idea of why; in effect, I am shifting the Burden of Proof onto you.

In surveys of this type, 19 out of 20 people is "unanimous" and in some cases 3 out of 4 is unanimous.

If by some small chance you are using one or more defense mechanisms, which one(s) is/are likely?
Beloved
Preferred Member
 
Posts: 954
Joined: Tue Apr 19, 2011 2:28 am
Location: USA
Likes Received: 30

#190

Postby Beloved » Tue Sep 30, 2014 8:21 pm

Tailspin wrote: I thought this web site was a place where people could discuss their problems no matter how unusual they were or how alien to others. And if you don't believe me then I'm not going to continue posting.


I read this as a move intended to manipulate forum members into writing something other than what you have been reading (see Game Theory for threats vs. promises and compellent vs. deterrent warnings).
Beloved
Preferred Member
 
Posts: 954
Joined: Tue Apr 19, 2011 2:28 am
Location: USA
Likes Received: 30

#191

Postby Beloved » Tue Sep 30, 2014 9:08 pm

And,

"Delusions are a firmly held "false" belief that is inconsistent
with the cultural beliefs of the subject's group. Even though
implausibility and idiosyncrasy are both indices of a
delusion, it is the incorrigibility —by logic or evidence —with
which a conviction is held that serves as the hallmark of a
delusion. "

from
http://www.med.upenn.edu/csa/user_docum ... gleben.pdf
Beloved
Preferred Member
 
Posts: 954
Joined: Tue Apr 19, 2011 2:28 am
Location: USA
Likes Received: 30

#192

Postby Tailspin » Wed Oct 01, 2014 6:10 pm

My therapist and I have come to the conclusion that it is possible that I'm unconsciously making myself unhappy for some reason.

I'm not going to discuss it here because I will do that in my therapy session. I believe I truly am upset for the reasons I've stated but it's possible that, because of this unconscious problem, I'm having trouble dismissing the theory.

When my father first told me about it, he did so with incredible certainty and conviction. To him it's not a theory at all, even when it sent me into a deep depression it never occurred to him to tell me it might not be true. The same is said for the people I talked to an a science discussion website.They and my father said it was ridiculous for me to be upset by this simple fact.

You say that people here have poke holes in it. i don't remember that, can you show me the ones who have?
Tailspin
Full Member
 
Posts: 136
Joined: Sat Jul 11, 2009 11:38 pm
Likes Received: 0

#193

Postby Tailspin » Sat Oct 04, 2014 4:36 pm

Hello, anyone there? Have you all had enough of me?
Tailspin
Full Member
 
Posts: 136
Joined: Sat Jul 11, 2009 11:38 pm
Likes Received: 0

#194

Postby n01 » Sat Oct 04, 2014 11:31 pm

Can you answer this question for me Tailspin? If someone independently* comes up with an idea or piece of art or music that in actual fact is identical (an exact copy.... as this is what you are afraid of right, exact replications?) to one that someone else already came up with a while ago, is the second (but independent*) production any less creative, amazing, or valid, or original than the first one? and if so how so?

* ie. independent to the first one
n01
Full Member
 
Posts: 115
Joined: Wed Mar 13, 2013 10:48 am
Likes Received: 0


PreviousNext

  • Similar Topics
    Replies
    Views
    Last post

Return to Depression