If

[.Lucy.]

If Anything were to challenge Everything
would Anything vs. Everything
mean Something would surface as a result?


LT
9-21-10

[eugeneherman]

Ahem, strictly speaking... Since anything<everything... then anything+something=everything So following logic (ie. mathematics) your basic assumption can be valid!

[joel]

Or would it simply follow, assuming anything uses up everything it's got in the challenge, that (Everything - Anything) = (Everything - an "N"y thing), where (Everything - N) is simply Anything that's Something approaching an asymptote of N(o)thing?

[.Lucy.]

That is quite the observation, Joel.

However:

If Anything simultaneously (+/-) Everything then it = Something

It would be safe to say:

Something - Anything= A thing
yet
Something - Everything = No thing

Therefore:

Anything (+/-) Everything = No thing (+/-) Something (+/-) A thing

[stilltrucking]

I was thinking of it more as a theological question than logical— maybe the same thing—I done know

And wondering what would a Presbyterian answer.

[stilltrucking]

Please pardon my strange sense of humor I was reading something about Flannery O'Connor and it just kind of juxtaposed with what you wrote

yet, they stand apart from others well-written in a very distinct
manner. They tend to raise questions of human nature and existence,
through whatever method, fashion, or tone, for which there are no timehonored,
concrete answers. Their importance lies, thus, not in their
ability to answer these questions, but rather in their ability to raise
the reader's consciousness to the basic human need for these questions
to be answered and resolved. These works spark thought, conversation,
and contemplation. They are, in essence, an important tool of human
discovery, both for the collective mass, as well as for the single
individual. Often times, the work accomplishes this

http://trace.tennessee.edu/cgi/viewcont ... anhonoproj

[joel]

The Calvinist stopped when the logic began,
the Presbyter turned from its reason and ran
since both were informed
by a thought quite reformed
that thoughts ought be formed by a predestined plan.


(As a believing inheritor and partaker in that grand Reformed tradition, I'm quite confident that sufficient grace was predestined for me to use my mind and offer thoughts -- humor included -- without fear of thinking myself into the possibility of the abyss.)


And Lucy, I love your math!

[still.trucking]

.Lucy. I love your laser like focus.

Joel I love your poetry, I can find no fault in you, except youth. You are forty years ahead of me bro. I admire that.

[Doreen Peri]

I donno but even if something were anything important, it wouldn't be everything.

[stilltrucking]

Does it mean something>
does anything mean something?

[hester_prynne]

Anything is part of everything!
I am anything, involuntarily being pulled into everything.
Which I may have been in the first place.

Skip a rope. Enjoy the osmosis!
thanks Lucy!
H

[saw]

will no one stand up for Nothing ?...ha ha...........nice work.....& good comments

[.Lucy.]

Encarta Online defines Nothing as:
1. not anything: an indefinite pronoun indicating that there is not anything, not a single thing, or not a single part of a thing.

2. something of no importance: a thing or matter of no importance or significance.

n (plural noth·ings)
somebody or something unimportant: somebody or something regarded as totally unimportant.

-SO-

Nothing = Not Anything + Something

Yet it may not = Everything

Perhaps the void of Nothingness actually encompasses Everything, therefore both are synonymous; a simultaneous phenomena.

[jim turner]

Interesting. I think "no-thing" is the answer. When I go that deep and come back up I get the bends. jim

[weepingwillow]

Anything and Everything always = Something.

No matter how you look at the equation you will always receive Something out of Anything and Everything no matter how you try to devise it, but is that Something the result of Anything and Everything you were looking for?