Like maths equation we have to consider X and Y and by this we have to make further approaches.
So, suppose their is X.
From X we generated Y
So, Y is consider under X
So, we can write
X(Y) and also we can write X>Y or X=Y.
Because X made Y so X will be greater than Y or equal to Y
What is meant by greater or equal?
Means as we are considering statement x made Y. So, I am considering some cases like if X made Y, then X should be greater than Y
Or X and Y are equal. Of it is made from X like that.
I am not claiming this.
Just I am suggesting like proving the statement by considering the condition
This holds true in some cases and doesn’t in the rest!
Both X and Y can be anything from a person, an object, any substance, right?
Consider a machine, a cycle for example. You could have one person building an entire bicycle.
Now consider an assembly line. Each person - or machine - doing a specific job making a specific part. Often not having the faintest clue about the end use of that part.
In the case of one person building a bicycle, that person depends on several hundred innovations and discoveries and inventions in metallurgy and machines, each of which did not have the faintest clue about a bicycle. Remove those previous layers and you wont have a bicycle.
By your logic the original Cu smelter - or should it be the fire creator, if we choose to wind back even further - should be >= cycle maker.
Yes that’s why I am saying we have start from 0 and consider the first condition and then search for various case.
Means when we discuss on barefoot chat we have to start as a blank. Because we have come across many generation we have some past memories as we study explore we will involve the point on that experience.
So, we have to differentiate it and we have to consider different scenarios.
By that we can get RAW thoughts and on chat we can generate equation or assumption of different case study.
Means I am considering it as a math equation here. But when we talk on barefoot chat we don’t have to think we just have to proceed with RAW thoughts without considering any cases.
Because if we consider like that we will reach to that state of beginning.
Just I want to make notation means if we are considering any situation we doesn’t understand language also, so we have to build that also just I am giving cases 8n the form equation
I want develop from beginning.
Just for straight forward reply I will say I want to build the language means by which we can get closer to counter the our thought process and we can talk in terms of patterns or shape by just responding not by thinking.
Recording uploaded here.
But what if the reality is a fractal structure. If I make this assumption, it does not matter where I start, and I never have to start from the beginning or worry about the end. We assume that there must be a beginning, but we drop that assumption, then we are able to work and understand what we have in front of us. If the world pattern is a fractal, which implies that there is self-similarity at every layer of reality, then the pattern reveals itself everywhere.
What I am exploring is what if we ignore the beginning and end, and deal with the patterns and not the matter in what is in front of us.
Session-10 recording uploaded.
f(x) = x ^ x = y
x = -1
f(x) = 1
y = 1
x < y
Yes I am also thinking like that
Because if we consider beginning and end it will create paradox
right and have not think like this way 
This is what happens when we start assuming things, materials, equations in philosophy!
We come across different dimensions of the same object and everytime we put forward an answer, explanation, it works (appears to fit-in)!
@punkish’s approach is objective while earlier we were talking in terms of subjectivity.
I read the posts of others and the topic seems to be interesting. In question it is clearly written without invoking any prior idea. Also @GN pointed out the same,
So the question itself is abstract. Now the statement is “X made Y”.
So I can say X can create or can construct something that is Y.
About the argument who is greater: The creator (X) or the creation (Y)?
The answer is it depends and cannot be answered without having any prior knowledge about the entities. Even we can consider the case that, it is mother who brought up the son but it is the son who used to take care of the mother in her old age. So who is grater among X and Y is completely situation dependent.
So I can see a cyclic argument in the question, “Does everything require making or maker”?
If I say, X made Y; Y made Z and continues then someone will ask definitely, “Who made X?”
So, here I can invoke the concept of Mass and Energy transformation. If X is an object which was there at the first place and created all the things, then it was made by Energy. (Note: In this case I assumed some prior knowledge though)
Now, who made energy? So according to energy conservation law, energy cannot be created or destroyed; it can only be transformed from one form to the other. Hence yeah here energy is that entity which exists without maker.
Its my understanding of the answers of questions asked by @karnamdpdurga. Every comment and suggestion regarding the same are always welcome to enrich the discussion.
By bringing in the principle of conservation of energy, @Smitra2021 could help us resolve one of the issues of infinite series of questions “who made this, and who made that earlier one?” wrt to the Creation (the world we are in). Let us call this stance, the energy-as-source- proposition.
@Smitra2021, in our discussion around this issue, we were are also trying to pinpoint the beginning of time, in a way. One stance, emerging from a complex systems perspective, is that everything is just a change in the state of matter, and there is no beginning and end, but a continuous change.
I see, what you provide – the energy-as-source proposition-- as a possible alternative to think and resolve this infinite series issue. Let us continue your line of reasoning. How do you account for say time in this? Is there a beginning of time? Or do you say there is no absolute time and time is always fixed to or wrt the observer?
Do you see what I ask? Else, please ask me to clarify further! Also, I request you to listen to the recordings of the sessions, I will try and pinpoint exactly the relevant sections. But you can quickly browse through from session-8 onwards.
-DP
@karnamdpdurga according to me, time is like a stream, which flows infinitely and once it is passed there is no going back. So we can think time as a real number axis. The choice of zero is in our hand, but where we choose to have the zero, the rest of the numbers are fixed. So yeah there is no absolute time and it is always depends where you choose the zero or starting point. Even before the creation of earth there is galaxy and other things. So it is very difficult to account for the oldest event to start a zero of time from there as it may be our limitation of knowledge. Even let us assume we know the oldest event or the starting point of time, then what was before that? Did nothing exists then? We don’t know the answer. Again limitation of our knowledge.
So, yeah if I need to define time, I will define is as a real number axis where we can choose the zero independently and the rest will follow from it.
