Off-Topic cannot logically apply to a multi-faceted Universe that contains multi-faceted creatures.

I apologize that this is so long. To anyone following this debate who is hesitant to read it, take some comfort in knowing that much of it is simply quoting the previous post paragraph by paragraph, which should hopefully make my own arguments clearer. I have put the 'quotes' in [quote][/quote] tags to hopefully make it clearer. [quote] "You're already breaking the rules by using political traits, instead of philosophical traits; looking for an answer that doesn't exist, in a Universe you think is big, when you just haven't accepted that you're too small, naive and young to understand that the Universe is all connected on a grand scale right now. Wise men have warned us to take everything as we would take a flash of lightning - you're not doing this. What you are doing is looking for an answer that doesn't exist because you're compensating for what you never could know, just understand or misunderstand - the things that I say are so far out there, that you don't even have a clue how far down from the heavens you are right now to see that I and other wise men have been able to take this brain of ours and reach places beyond this planet with our analysis." [/quote] I confess I'm not entirely sure how I'm "using political traits". Can you describe exactly what you mean by this? I in no way meant to violate the rules of the debate. Regardless of my personal beliefs, I have not rejected your claim that the Universe is "all connected", but have assumed it true for the sake of discussion. My argument blatantly accepts that I'm "too small, naive and young" to understand the Universe on such a "grand scale". I simply take this further and suggest that I will never be able to understand the Universe at a level high enough to make all facets of it connect in meaningful ways. Nobody is able to understand the universe to this degree. For instance, nobody could not use the half-life of a uranium isotope to shed light on the economics of Europe. Indeed, this is how I believe most useful discussions work: I accept your premises but reject your conclusion. I am arguing that, even accepting that everything in the Universe is interconnected (which, incidentally seems to reject causality and the speed of light's place in it), this is not reason enough to reject the phrase "off topic" as being inapplicable to conversation. Please understand that I remain skeptical that I am "far down from the heavens" compared to you and others. If you have anything that might convince me that your understanding is "beyond" what most of the population (or I) can comprehend, I'd be eager to see it. [quote] "For an example, I can tell you right now that the reason why Man says the Universe is so 'big and unable to be understood', is because they are projecting their inner dark matter; their ignorance towards what little they understand of this Universe - how not understanding anything makes everything look bigger than what it is in actuality. So think of Man like an object in space - when they reduce themselves to a small figure, everything around them appears bigger; when they ascend and expand, they no longer see other things big, except themselves. The entire idea of being wise is the same feeling of one day waking up and realizing you can reach over the counter instead of wondering what lies up there." [/quote] Please do not use the word "dark matter" in this context. It misuses the word and is detrimental to accurate communication between us. I do not claim the Universe cannot be understood, only that looking at it holistically is impossible and will always fall short of a more compartmentalized approach (naturally at a reasonable level). If you can offer an argument that your school of thought offers a better understanding of the universe, I'd be very eager to hear it. Please understand though that the criteria that I (and many scientists) judge "understanding" of reality is based on the ability to predict it. If you have an alternative measurement of "meaningfulness" or "understanding" I'd be eager to hear it. [quote] "Therefore you're just begging the question based on what little you know; which you do not have the capacity of analysis that I have, to deal with something that is on a grand scale; which is everything the wise have been warning us about since the first wise man. 'Non-sequitor' - as if you ever heard any wise man use this term. There is a reason why they can answer any of your questions whether it involves a tiny blade of grass to the cosmic wonder of the Universe - wisdom is everywhere, therefore everything can be connected to one ultimatum. Arguing sides of reality, just further proves that your brain is not omni-reverent like my own, or that of a wise man's, towards this Universe. The wise can see connections in these stars - the unwise cannot. The wise can break down the human mind and the Universe through and through - the unwise cannot. The wise can live their inner genius - the unwise merely have a stroke of genius. The wise have acknowledged that every thing we do, say and think can be explained in a simple manner by understanding that when you look at atoms alone, they look like they truly make our head explode, but when you look at them from a higher perspective, you'll then see that they are not as complicated as they appeared in numbers." [/quote] I place little stock in your claims of what "wise men do". I have little evidence that suggests you know wiser people than I do, nor that "wise men" (as you define "wise") necessarily have a better understanding of the universe. I don't claim to be wise or to have a thorough understanding of "wisdom", but can only point that the men and women who have contributed most the "conversation of the universe" are the scientists that practiced what I mentioned above: isolating variables, limiting possibilities, and generalizing relationships. They recognized that limiting their 'discussion' to closely related topics was of far greater worth than some hodgepodge of the academic fields. On a side note, your omni-reverent brain need not contradict what I believe is a more pragmatic way to understand the universe. Respect for everything does not necessitate that a substantial connection connects all facets of the universe. I would suggest that you not discount others as being lesser (my apologies if you are not) for having specific interests and hobbies rather than your less directed reverence towards all reality. [quote] "Just because this Universe operates in numbers beyond our imagination - it does not mean that it is complicated in what these numbers represent as a body. Everything that "is", has a simple form - just take off the Universe's masks, then all will be revealed to yours truly. I have already broken down this Universe to the point that I now can explain sex on a cosmic level - male genitalia is the star which explodes; female genitalia is the black hole which creates." [/quote] I think you are mistaking analogies with understanding and/or meaning. The ability to create an analogy is not sound evidence that two things are related. As I posted above, ultimately predictions are how we measure the soundness of a theory, and I have seen no evidence that any of your analogies can predict the universe with anywhere near the accuracy of the less holistic theories based on isolated models. More specifically, the analogy you have formed doesn't seem to offer any greater understanding of the universe. I am actually rather confused at its purpose at all (for my own curiosity, could you please be more explicit about the similarities between supernova, black holes, genders, and sex?). [quote] "You're going to have to argue with facts, friend. Right now, you're arguing with your feelings and limited perception towards the hidden wonders of this Universe that I spent my entire life analyzing; I breathe philosophy. I'm sure you cannot say the same, and with that, I highly suggest you to accept the possibility that I understand this Universe more than you do" [/quote] Claiming my perception is limited is not a counter argument. I have made (in opinion) convincing arguments that demonstrate why a reasonable restriction of topic is a good paradigm to have if your goal is anything other than omni-reverance of the universe. I believe you have yet to make any arguments for why omni-reverance is good, let alone that non-sequitars are a good way to achieve it. Rest assured I have not rejected your claim out of hand, but I need more substantial arguments than analogies, unattributed claims to "wise men", and your experience with philosophical thought for me to rationally make it compete with rationality and empiricism. Ultimately, I think my counter-arguments can be summarized as the following: - Similarities between phenomenon is not convincing evidence that they are connected. Additionally, I'd appreciate if whatever analogies you use in the future be more clearly explained for my relatively mediocre mind. Both the "bees and electrons" and the "cosmic sex" analogies seem flawed to me, to the extent where using them in this debate seems unreasonable. I may be merely interpreting them wrong. Regardless, please clarify these or offer an alternative. - No human I have ever met or heard of (with the exception of you) has been able to conceptualize the incredible complexity of our universe as a whole, let alone create anything meaningful from such a conceptualization. I do not regard analogies - even if they are correct - as meaningful creations in and of themselves; they have to reveal something about the universe we did not know before.