The Sun Also Sets

[Gary Childress]

The word 'time' JUST REFERS TO the ' measuring of the duration between PERCEIVED 'events' '.

I say, 'perceived events' BECAUSE there IS NO ACTUAL 'separation' ANYWHERE, as there IS ONLY One 'event' HAPPENING and OCCURRING 'NOW', and 'HERE'. BUT, OF COURSE, older human beings HAVE MADE UP, and CONTINUE TO MAKE UP, DIFFERENT, PERCEIVED, 'events'. And, the ' measuring of the duration BETWEEN said 'events' ' is just what 'time' IS, EXACTLY, and what IS REFERRED TO as 'time'.

So, it could be SAID, and ARGUED, that 'time', itself, like absolutely EVERY 'thing' ELSE, (besides OF COURSE the Universe, Itself), exists WITHIN 'Eternity'. HOWEVER, 'this way' of LOOKING and SEEING 'things' is getting WAY TO FAR AHEAD for MOST people, in the days when this is being written.



To 'me' ANYWAY, ONLY 'thinking' OR 'perception' 'divides,' or 'separates', 'that' which IS NOT.

AND, 'motion', itself, is JUST IN 'perpetuity' or 'continuity', as 'this' IS the ONLY WAY the Universe COULD WORK, as 'It' DOES NOW.

That older human beings 'see' 'division' or 'separate increments' is just because this is 'the way' the brain, or 'them', have been TRAINED TO 'think' and 'see' the One 'Thing', as 'things'.


'Motion' is JUST the consequence of what the Universe IS MADE UP OF, EXACTLY. And, 'motion' is JUST the effect of the ONLY WAY the, eternal, Universe COULD WORK.

SEE, there are ONLY TWO FUNDAMENTAL 'things', namely, 'matter' AND 'space'. 'Space' just being the distance between and/or around 'matter'. Now, because 'space' is made up of, literally, NO 'thing', the One and ONLY 'thing/matter', is ABLE TO MOVE ABOUT, absolutely FREELY. Which IS, essentially, JUST 'motion', itself.

'Matter' IN CONTINUAL MOTION, causes or creates CHANGE, and it IS this CHANGE, itself, which IS 'measured', in what is called 'duration', between 'agreed upon' 'different events'. Which 'are' just agreed upon different 'appearances' 'of matter', itself, in different 'shapes', 'ways', or 'forms'.


WHERE is this LUDICROUS conception or perception of 'entropy' IN relation TO the Universe, Itself, coming FROM, EXACTLY?

OBVIOUSLY ALL of the OTHER named or labeled 'things', IN Life, do NOT last forever, in the EXACT SAME 'way', 'shape', NOR 'form', as there exists an APPEARANCE OF 'entropy'. BUT, because 'energy' can NEITHER be created, NOR destroyed, the Universe, Itself, does NOT 'end', NOR will 'begin'.

'Evolution', itself, just like 'creation', itself, can ALSO NOT 'begin', NOR 'end',



I KNOW that there is NO so-called 'final evolution of entropy' so the rest here is just MOOT.

I JUST LOOK AT what ACTUALLY HAPPENS and OCCURS, and so I do NOT BOTHER WITH what 'COULD BE's' or 'IF's' here.

I found that 'theories', 'presumptions', and 'guesses' can all to QUICKLY, EASILY, and SIMPLY LEAD TO TOTALLY False, Wrong, Inaccurate, and Incorrect MORE ASSUMPTIONS, and CONCLUSIONS.

Age, thank you for all the attention directed towards The Wonderment of The Setting Sun.

You have a healthy dislike for assumptive pronouns, so I’ll be mindful of that. Sure, the totality of forever and infinity cannot be more, and cannot be less, so the final evolution for entropy within the closed system of the infinite universe would be all the energy equally distributed amongst every atom in the universe, all vibrating at a low energy frequency theoretically detectable, much as the The Black Dwarf, Dark Matter and Dark Energy are theoretically detectable within the mirror. In a situation of perfectly equitable energy distribution throughout the universe, absolute zero could not exist anywhere because energy would be everywhere. And for that matter, what amount of space would separate motionless atoms, or atoms' parts?

Could there EVER be 'motionless atoms', or 'motionless sub-atomic matter'?

Especially considering that, supposedly, EVERY action CAUSES a reaction.

However, not to lose track of the setting sun, could absolute zero exist as The Black Dwarf of zero energy before all the energy is evenly distributed amongst all the matter? If so, and absolute coldness beyond compare is a characteristic of The Black Dwarf, which it may not be, then The Black Dwarf may indeed be the end-all of be-all, the destiny of everything, and the atoms in the current configuration of your form will be a part of that destiny.

The Universe, Itself, ALWAYS exists THE WAY 'It' IS HERE, NOW. That is; IN an ALWAYS, CHANGING, evolving-creation.

But of course, absolute zero for matter may be as elusive light speed for matter, which means that even the coldest sunset would still have a wee bit of warmth.

All of which relates to epistemology in the sense of, how do we know what we know?

But 'you', human beings, do NOT KNOW that the Universe WILL 'die'. 'you' ONLY GUESS 'It' does.

HOW 'we' KNOW, what we 'know', is BY JUST KNOWING HOW TO DIFFERENTIATE and DISTINGUISH BETWEEN KNOWING and 'thinking'.

We wonder, we reason, we get educated in causation which includes both intrinsic and cultural knowledge, then theorize, which is how we know what we know ...

LOL By definition 'theorizing' is NOT KNOWING, and JUST GUESSING or ASSUMING ONLY.

we being the totality of humanity that includes raising the hand and asking teacher.

Hey, asshole. Get your quoting right. You're quoting someone else on the bottom series. I didn't say those things. I don't appreciate you putting words in my mouth that I didn't say.

[Age]

Age, thank you for all the attention directed towards The Wonderment of The Setting Sun.

You have a healthy dislike for assumptive pronouns, so I’ll be mindful of that. Sure, the totality of forever and infinity cannot be more, and cannot be less, so the final evolution for entropy within the closed system of the infinite universe would be all the energy equally distributed amongst every atom in the universe, all vibrating at a low energy frequency theoretically detectable, much as the The Black Dwarf, Dark Matter and Dark Energy are theoretically detectable within the mirror. In a situation of perfectly equitable energy distribution throughout the universe, absolute zero could not exist anywhere because energy would be everywhere. And for that matter, what amount of space would separate motionless atoms, or atoms' parts?

Could there EVER be 'motionless atoms', or 'motionless sub-atomic matter'?

Especially considering that, supposedly, EVERY action CAUSES a reaction.

However, not to lose track of the setting sun, could absolute zero exist as The Black Dwarf of zero energy before all the energy is evenly distributed amongst all the matter? If so, and absolute coldness beyond compare is a characteristic of The Black Dwarf, which it may not be, then The Black Dwarf may indeed be the end-all of be-all, the destiny of everything, and the atoms in the current configuration of your form will be a part of that destiny.

The Universe, Itself, ALWAYS exists THE WAY 'It' IS HERE, NOW. That is; IN an ALWAYS, CHANGING, evolving-creation.

But of course, absolute zero for matter may be as elusive light speed for matter, which means that even the coldest sunset would still have a wee bit of warmth.

All of which relates to epistemology in the sense of, how do we know what we know?

But 'you', human beings, do NOT KNOW that the Universe WILL 'die'. 'you' ONLY GUESS 'It' does.

HOW 'we' KNOW, what we 'know', is BY JUST KNOWING HOW TO DIFFERENTIATE and DISTINGUISH BETWEEN KNOWING and 'thinking'.

We wonder, we reason, we get educated in causation which includes both intrinsic and cultural knowledge, then theorize, which is how we know what we know ...

LOL By definition 'theorizing' is NOT KNOWING, and JUST GUESSING or ASSUMING ONLY.

we being the totality of humanity that includes raising the hand and asking teacher.

Hey, asshole.

This was one way 'these people' used to get "another's" ATTENTION.

'These people', BACK THEN, REALLY DID speak to "each other" like 'this'.

AND, to make 'this type of behavior even WORSE', it would NOT matter one iota how much of A Honest MISTAKE one made, IF "the other" did NOT like 'you', then 'you' WOULD GET CALLED 'things' like "asshole".

Get your quoting right.

Okay. Am I ALSO ABLE TO TELL 'you' TO, 'Get your words AND facts right', ALSO "gary childress", and while CALLING 'you' AN ASSHOLE, AS WELL?

You're quoting someone else on the bottom series. I didn't say those things. I don't appreciate you putting words in my mouth that I didn't say.

Does ANY one?

And, did I do 'it' INTENTIONALLY?

Also, IF I SAID, 'I APOLOGIZE PROFUSELY "gary childress", then would 'this' make ANY 'thing' BETTER here, FOR 'you'?

[Gary Childress]

Okay. Am I ALSO ABLE TO TELL 'you' TO, 'Get your words AND facts right', ALSO "gary childress", and while CALLING 'you' AN ASSHOLE, AS WELL?

If you are frustrated enough and want to call me "asshole" then feel free to.

[Age]

Okay. Am I ALSO ABLE TO TELL 'you' TO, 'Get your words AND facts right', ALSO "gary childress", and while CALLING 'you' AN ASSHOLE, AS WELL?

If you are frustrated enough and want to call me "asshole" then feel free to.

LOL BUT I COULD NEVER GET 'frustrated' 'enough' to CALL ANY 'thing' A NAME or LABEL which 'it' IS NOT.

[Walker]

LOL By definition 'theorizing' is NOT KNOWING, and JUST GUESSING or ASSUMING ONLY.

Right on, right on. "All we know for sure is I Am, all else* is inference." -Sri Nisargadatta Maharaj


* knowledge and perception

[Gary Childress]

LOL By definition 'theorizing' is NOT KNOWING, and JUST GUESSING or ASSUMING ONLY.

Right on, right on. "All we know for sure is I Am, all else* is inference." -Sri Nisargadatta Maharaj


* knowledge and perception

Age the guru, who knew? Now certified by his first swami.

[commonsense]

the sun will go supernova soon enough

-Imp

It will never do that. It's not massive enough.

Never say never.

[Age]

LOL By definition 'theorizing' is NOT KNOWING, and JUST GUESSING or ASSUMING ONLY.

Right on, right on. "All we know for sure is I Am, all else* is inference." -Sri Nisargadatta Maharaj


* knowledge and perception

What is known, for sure, are the 'thoughts'*, which, could be said, 'rise and fall', 'appear/disappear'.

*knowledge and perception

But whether the 'thoughts', knowledge and perception, is true and right or not could always be up for discussion, questioned, and/or in doubt.

However, there is actually even more involved here, and which is 'deeper' still, but which can be risen up, and brought forth, to appear..

[Age]

the sun will go supernova soon enough

-Imp

It will never do that. It's not massive enough.

Never say never.

But while one believes that it could never do that, then, to them anyway, it could never do that.

[attofishpi]

the sun will go supernova soon enough

-Imp

It will never do that. It's not massive enough.

Never say never.

Absolutely, there is plenty of stuff out there that could make our Sun more massive.

[Advocate]

[quote=commonsense post_id=660115 time=1691349353 user_id=14610]
I believe the sun will descend in the west tonight. I believe this because that is what has always happened. But, of course, I cannot know what the sun will do tonight, no matter how many times it has done such until now. I can believe it, but cannot know it.

So knowledge is really belief rather than fact. It is JTB. It is even said by some to be opinion. What makes a belief justifiable other than its ability to be reproduced, along with its inability to fail to be reproduced? And how can I be certain that the belief can be reproduced [i]ad infinitum[/i]? Or that it will always be impossible to fail to be reproduced?
[/quote]

If knowledge was JTB it would be utterly useless as a concept because the eventual hypothetical ultimate truth of a proposition cannot be known. Knowledge is JB, and you can know that it's always and only sufficient for a specific purpose (to accept a particular fact or take a particular action) because when you have that much, there's no reason to want more. That applies in literally every case. It is always and only sufficient, not ultimate. Knowledge is justified belief at the moment with what's available, regardless of whether or if additional information later becomes available.

[commonsense]

I missed your post earlier. It is well said, and I commend you for that. I was just thinking that truth is justification.