Scott Mayers wrote: ↑Mon Jan 31, 2022 7:20 am
Age wrote: ↑Thu Jan 27, 2022 1:33 pm
Scott Mayers wrote: ↑Thu Jan 27, 2022 2:28 am
You would be best to stop at a pivoting question or you waste a lot of effort on something that the one pivotal question could resolve.
For example?
Scott Mayers wrote: ↑Thu Jan 27, 2022 2:28 am
It appears that you have a pivoting such point of view with respect to the concept of "infinity".
What do 'you' mean by "a pivoting such point of view", EXACTLY?
'infinity' means, or refers to, what 'it' does, to me. So, where EXACTLY is this, perceived, "pivoting point of view"?
Scott Mayers wrote: ↑Thu Jan 27, 2022 2:28 am
You appear to assume that there is only ONE infinity that covers everything, correct?
Firstly, I do NOT 'assume' this. So, you are Incorrect here.
Secondly, how MANY 'infinities' could there be, to you?
Scott Mayers wrote: ↑Thu Jan 27, 2022 2:28 am
This is important to first understand given you think that this Universes' state of existence is completely exhaustive of all possibilities for being 'infinite'.
If that is what has 'come across', then that is NOT what was MEANT.
I do recall when writing some 'thing' that at the moment of writing it I 'thought', (something similar to);
"this may be interpreted as meaning absolutely EVERY and ALL POSSIBILITIES. But I will this go for now".
Will you PROVIDE my ACTUAL WORDS that 'you' have ascertained 'this' from, EXACTLY?
Scott Mayers wrote: ↑Thu Jan 27, 2022 2:28 am
Let me know and I'll try to get this point understood or we'd be wasting a lot more time here.
Thanks.
How MUCH 'time' do you think or BELIEVE 'we' have ALREADY wasted?
It's exhausting to be expected to teach you from scratch something you don't know about what you don't know.
LOL And IF I found it exhausting teaching 'you', human beings, from scratch, what you do NOT YET KNOW, then I could say the EXACT SAME to 'you', "scott mayers". But because I FULLY UNDERSTAND WHY 'you' STILL do NOT YET KNOW what thee ACTUAL Truth is here, then I will NOT say such a CONDESCENDING thing as you what you have HERE.
Also, 'where' is the 'expectation' you have coming from, EXACTLY?
Scott Mayers wrote: ↑Mon Jan 31, 2022 7:20 am
The very first question you asked was, "But 'infinites' and 'continuities' are deFINable. Just LOOK IN a dictionary for PROOF of this." when I was explaining what "undefined terms" refer to in logic. They are terms that are just assigned like a variable at the beginning of the system that have an intuited meaning DUE to dictionary definitions or common use BUT are EXPLICITLY defined within the axioms and any theorems of the system.
When we meet someone, the first thing we do is trade each others' NAMES which act as
unknown by meaning until you have time to get to know them. Knowing them 'defines' who we are.
So, considering thee IRREFUTABLE Fact that 'you', human beings, do NOT YET KNOW who 'we' are EXACTLY, in the days when this was being written, MEANS that 'you' can NOT 'define' 'who 'we' are'.
Which gets PROVED over and over again when I ask for CLARITY about who and/or what is the 'we' (when that word gets mentioned).
'you', "scott mayers", are doing here what ALL of 'you', adult human beings, do, in the days when this is being written, that is; just LOOK FROM a very superficial and/or narrowed perspective of 'things'.
Scott Mayers wrote: ↑Mon Jan 31, 2022 7:20 am
And this is a process that requires investing time in getting to know someone before understanding what that person
means to you.
But EVERY 'person' comes to 'be' in ESSENTIALLY thee EXACT SAME.
This is partly explains what the word 'person'
means, to me.
What does the word 'person'
mean, to you?
WHY does it require 'you', adult human beings, to so-call "invest time" to just get to KNOW someone?
'you' are ALL ESSENTIALLY thee EXACT SAME 'thing'. That is; just the thoughts and emotions within a human body.
Scott Mayers wrote: ↑Mon Jan 31, 2022 7:20 am
When you meet someone, their names are just arbitrary referents but CAN be something that reminds you of other people of the same name that you've known before. Do you find it disappointing if someone named, "Charity", wasn't in need nor worthy of giving to when you get to know them better?
Here is ANOTHER GREAT EXAMPLE of DETRACTION and DISTRACTION.
Scott Mayers wrote: ↑Mon Jan 31, 2022 7:20 am
"Undefines" in logic are any initial terms that are going to be used in the system that are necessary. "Class" and the concept of "belongs to" are undefined terms of most set theories. It doesn't matter what some dictionary may say because the system is MORE SPECIFIC than a dictionary could provide.
Okay. But considering the Fact that 'theories' are NOTHING MORE than just ASSUMPTIONS or GUESSES about what COULD BE true, and I do NOT do "theories", NOR "set theories", LOOKING INTO this is just a waste of time, from my perspective anyway.
Thee Universe is infinite AND eternal, and this is just an IRREFUTABLE Fact.
What more needs to be said here?
Scott Mayers wrote: ↑Mon Jan 31, 2022 7:20 am
I use "Totality" (or "totality") for WHATEVER the absolute whole of everything is that includes all that is true and false.
SO DO I, and I have gone through this with you ALREADY.
Scott Mayers wrote: ↑Mon Jan 31, 2022 7:20 am
Nothingness (any form) is included in this meaning.
I KNOW. And, I AGREE with you here OKAY?
Scott Mayers wrote: ↑Mon Jan 31, 2022 7:20 am
Then I reserve "universe" for a unit whole among many.
WHY would you do such a thing?
And, what can be CLEARLY SEEN here is you use a small 'u'. So, if you wrote the word 'Universe' with a capitalized 'U' does this change anything from your perspective?
Scott Mayers wrote: ↑Mon Jan 31, 2022 7:20 am
If you simply deny this as possible,
LOL How could I simply deny you doing this as possible when it is ME who continually STATES:
'you' are absolutely FREE to do absolutely ANY 'thing'.
That 'you' reserve the word 'universe' to have some particular definition or to mean or refer to some 'thing' in particular could NEVER be denied.
So, WHY would you say such a thing as you just did here?
Scott Mayers wrote: ↑Mon Jan 31, 2022 7:20 am
you are implying it is impossible and thus suffices to close off the discussion.
BUT LOL "simply denying this as possible", as NEVER even crept into ANY thought WHATSOEVER in this body. So, what you say here is just moot.
Scott Mayers wrote: ↑Mon Jan 31, 2022 7:20 am
If I capitalize "Universe" it means THIS "universe"; "Totality" can be capitalized to reference MY definition but "totality" can reference the dictionary's normal use.
LOL Now, what is " THIS "universe" '.
How can I SEPARATE "this universe" from ALL of the "other universes" that you IMAGINE or think about?
How can 'I' PERCEIVE what 'you' DO, if you do NOT explain the DIFFERENCE?
What is the 'THIS' word even in reference to, EXACTLY?
Scott Mayers wrote: ↑Mon Jan 31, 2022 7:20 am
If you INSIST on absurdly questioning of each and every word, then I'd have to ask you to BE prepared by first studying the minimal logic systems of reasoning.
WHY 'try' and CONDESCEND here?
If you want to say that, TO YOU, the word 'universe' refers to a "whole unit among many", but the 'Universe' word refers to THIS "universe", then SURELY you have the ABILITY to just EXPLAIN to "others" WHERE EXACTLY and WHAT EXACTLY are the FEATURES that could POSSIBLY SEPARATE these IMAGINED and TALKED ABOUT MANY DIFFERENT "universes" here, correct?
But if no, then WHY NOT?
Scott Mayers wrote: ↑Mon Jan 31, 2022 7:20 am
I am not able to participate fully where I don't know you personally and have no power to control your learning environment intimately.
LOL ANOTHER ATTEMPT at CONDESCENSION.
I suggest if you want to TEACH some 'thing', then you AT LEAST KNOW what you are TALKING ABOUT. Which, OBVIOUSLY, involves being ABLE to EXPLAIN EXACTLY what the words that YOU USE mean or refer to, EXACTLY.
Otherwise, you end up just being ANOTHER 'religious' fanatic, or BELIEVER, who just REPEATS what they have heard, but ACTUALLY have absolutely NO IDEA NOR CLUE what they are actually TALKING ABOUT.
Scott Mayers wrote: ↑Mon Jan 31, 2022 7:20 am
I waste too much time online not seemingly able to affect anyone regardless of what I might know and so have to stop investing in the time.
ANOTHER EXAMPLE of SUPERIORITY COMPLEX.
What do you THINK 'you know', which would have some REAL IMPORTANCE to "others" here?
One of the MAIN REASONS you are ACTUALLY STILL LOST and CONFUSED is because of these TOTALLY ILL-FITTING and Wrong definitions you have placed on some words, like for example; 'universe' AND 'Universe'.
But if they work for you, and thus can UNIFY EVERY thing TOGETHER in One PERFECT Picture, then so be it. But SHOW us HOW this could, or actually does, work.