"How do you define...?"...Definition

For all things philosophical.

Moderators: AMod, iMod

MonacoMonkey
Posts: 3
Joined: Mon Nov 04, 2019 1:28 pm

Re: "How do you define...?"...Definition

Post by MonacoMonkey » Mon Nov 04, 2019 1:46 pm

Short of the ability to telepathically convey meaning between minds across vast distances, we have no choice but to resort to "languages" and "explanations" to express "meaning".

The compromise is to assume the entity on the receiving end is an "unaffected being". In lay terms, to view them as an alien who recently descended on Earth.

Ask yourself, how would you explain a situation/state of being with absolutely zero preconceived assumptions, full stop? (hint: it's not easy)

nothing
Posts: 157
Joined: Mon Oct 14, 2019 9:32 pm

Re: "How do you define...?"...Definition

Post by nothing » Mon Nov 04, 2019 8:43 pm

Eodnhoj7 wrote:
Mon Nov 04, 2019 3:03 am

As undefined it acts as a pivotal term subject to the observer's specific meaning. As such definition, as a process of seperation, fundamentally breaks down to an art form as an expression of the individual. As an art, it has no real methodology behind it an acts as a mean of assuming reality.

Considering definition cannot be broken down to a specific methodology you can have "A" defined as:

A
(A)
A-->B
A-->A1
A-->X
((A)B)
((A)A1)
((A)X)
...... and an infinite number of further definitions.

It is the nature of definition, as having a subjective nature, that definition takes on an element of randomness where "truths" or "proofs", as subject to definition, spontaneously appear in time.

It is the random nature, fundamentally grounded in an inescapable subjectivity, that necessitates "fact" and "proof" can be said to "come out of thin air".

This nature of spontaneousness, correlates dually with an antithetical definition following the same nature of spontaneity. In these respects "facts/proofs" as subject to validity if and only if they continue in time require an element of belief.
Could any of this have application(s) to gravity?

Could gravity be an inverse of/to, the latent potential spontaneity
with which outstanding gradation(s) of good (ie. evil) might spontaneously flip/return?

Could such a potential collapse of gradation(s) be tied to consciousness? To choice?

Can this be tested to confirm?

User avatar
Eodnhoj7
Posts: 4982
Joined: Mon Mar 13, 2017 3:18 am

Re: "How do you define...?"...Definition

Post by Eodnhoj7 » Tue Nov 05, 2019 11:20 pm

nothing wrote:
Mon Nov 04, 2019 8:43 pm
Eodnhoj7 wrote:
Mon Nov 04, 2019 3:03 am

As undefined it acts as a pivotal term subject to the observer's specific meaning. As such definition, as a process of seperation, fundamentally breaks down to an art form as an expression of the individual. As an art, it has no real methodology behind it an acts as a mean of assuming reality.

Considering definition cannot be broken down to a specific methodology you can have "A" defined as:

A
(A)
A-->B
A-->A1
A-->X
((A)B)
((A)A1)
((A)X)
...... and an infinite number of further definitions.

It is the nature of definition, as having a subjective nature, that definition takes on an element of randomness where "truths" or "proofs", as subject to definition, spontaneously appear in time.

It is the random nature, fundamentally grounded in an inescapable subjectivity, that necessitates "fact" and "proof" can be said to "come out of thin air".

This nature of spontaneousness, correlates dually with an antithetical definition following the same nature of spontaneity. In these respects "facts/proofs" as subject to validity if and only if they continue in time require an element of belief.
Could any of this have application(s) to gravity?

Could gravity be an inverse of/to, the latent potential spontaneity
with which outstanding gradation(s) of good (ie. evil) might spontaneously flip/return?

Could such a potential collapse of gradation(s) be tied to consciousness? To choice?

Can this be tested to confirm?
Yes, gravity is a pulling motion, thus all tautologies observe a direction away from (pulled) it origins to a progressive increase in defintion that results within the original assumption being fragmented as well as an increase in weight of new definitions.

nothing
Posts: 157
Joined: Mon Oct 14, 2019 9:32 pm

Re: "How do you define...?"...Definition

Post by nothing » Wed Nov 06, 2019 2:39 pm

Yes, gravity is a pulling motion,
NOW we are getting somewhere.

With this in mind: imagine a perfect circle with a dot in the middle.
Call the circle's circumference: every tree (possible) (ckiit equiv: KNOW + any/all)
GENESIS 2:16
And the LORD God commanded the man, saying, Of every tree of the garden thou mayest freely eat:
Call the dot: tree of the knowledge of good and evil (ckiit equiv: BELIEVE - not to)
GENESIS 2:17
But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die.
Let gravity "pull" *P towards the dot, regardless of where P is within the circle, such that the closer to the dot *P is, the greater the "pull".

This is why:

P =/= P
P must be allowed to move freely either towards or away from the dot - suffering/death.
P = (+/-)P
P = *P
_________
*relative variable (+) or (-)

and wherein belief-based (lacking knowledge not to) ignorance tends towards (proximity to) the dot,
and whereas its (knowledge any/all) inverse tends towards the any/all circular circumference, allowing infinite variability to the degree any/all ignorance(s) might willingly permit, therefor resulting in a being-specific body of ignorance (according to their own eating/choices) with a corresponding body of knowledge counterpart (attained to, or not, according to will).

Recall the singularity: one shared definite, infinite variability therefrom.

Now read:
thus all tautologies observe a direction away from (pulled) it origins to a progressive increase in defintion that results within the original assumption being fragmented as well as an increase in weight of new definitions.
: )

User avatar
Eodnhoj7
Posts: 4982
Joined: Mon Mar 13, 2017 3:18 am

Re: "How do you define...?"...Definition

Post by Eodnhoj7 » Wed Nov 06, 2019 10:36 pm

nothing wrote:
Wed Nov 06, 2019 2:39 pm
Yes, gravity is a pulling motion,
NOW we are getting somewhere.

With this in mind: imagine a perfect circle with a dot in the middle.
Call the circle's circumference: every tree (possible) (ckiit equiv: KNOW + any/all)
[co

GENESIS 2:16
And the LORD God commanded the man, saying, Of every tree of the garden thou mayest freely eat:
Call the dot: tree of the knowledge of good and evil (ckiit equiv: BELIEVE - not to)
GENESIS 2:17
But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die.
Let gravity "pull" *P towards the dot, regardless of where P is within the circle, such that the closer to the dot *P is, the greater the "pull".

The dot being pulled to a circumference is a dot being pulled to another dot this we are left with the dot mirroring itself in such a manner where it is a dynamic property that results in all forms.

This is why:

P =/= P
P must be allowed to move freely either towards or away from the dot - suffering/death.
P = (+/-)P
P = *P
_________
*relative variable (+) or (-)

and wherein belief-based (lacking knowledge not to) ignorance tends towards (proximity to) the dot,
and whereas its (knowledge any/all) inverse tends towards the any/all circular circumference, allowing infinite variability to the degree any/all ignorance(s) might willingly permit, therefor resulting in a being-specific body of ignorance (according to their own eating/choices) with a corresponding body of knowledge counterpart (attained to, or not, according to will).

Recall the singularity: one shared definite, infinite variability therefrom.

Now read:
thus all tautologies observe a direction away from (pulled) it origins to a progressive increase in defintion that results within the original assumption being fragmented as well as an increase in weight of new definitions.
: )

You can assume the dot to have any value, as all assumptions as a point of view can be relegated to a dot. You cannot assign one phenomena as inherently being point slace without necessitating it in another.

nothing
Posts: 157
Joined: Mon Oct 14, 2019 9:32 pm

Re: "How do you define...?"...Definition

Post by nothing » Fri Nov 08, 2019 2:19 am

The dot being pulled to a circumference is a dot being pulled to another dot this we are left with the dot mirroring itself in such a manner where it is a dynamic property that results in all forms.
There's no dot being pulled to a circumference.

If it results in/as all forms, it is not a dynamic property, it is a fixed one.
You can assume the dot to have any value, as all assumptions as a point of view can be relegated to a dot. You cannot assign one phenomena as inherently being point slace without necessitating it in another.
Incoherent to me - unknown what word / meaning you intend.

User avatar
Eodnhoj7
Posts: 4982
Joined: Mon Mar 13, 2017 3:18 am

Re: "How do you define...?"...Definition

Post by Eodnhoj7 » Fri Nov 08, 2019 3:36 am

nothing wrote:
Fri Nov 08, 2019 2:19 am
The dot being pulled to a circumference is a dot being pulled to another dot this we are left with the dot mirroring itself in such a manner where it is a dynamic property that results in all forms.
There's no dot being pulled to a circumference.

A dot being pulled anywhere is being pulled to a dot.

If it results in/as all forms, it is not a dynamic property, it is a fixed one.

Forms contain forms, dynamic property is the inversion of one form to another.

You can assume the dot to have any value, as all assumptions as a point of view can be relegated to a dot. You cannot assign one phenomena as inherently being point slace without necessitating it in another.


Incoherent to me - unknown what word / meaning you intend.

Any words, as a point of the observer, can be applied to your dot schematic.
Each word is a point of awareness progressing to another point of awareness.


nothing
Posts: 157
Joined: Mon Oct 14, 2019 9:32 pm

Re: "How do you define...?"...Definition

Post by nothing » Fri Nov 08, 2019 2:56 pm

A dot being pulled anywhere is being pulled to a dot.
The dot is not being pulled, P is being pulled by both dot and circumference, thus negates at P allowing capacity for choice (ie. movement; emotion).
If +P, then by body of ignorance towards/into the dot (which has an event horizon(s) collapsing into lower dimensions).
If -P, then by body of knowledge towards circumference (which has an event horizon(s) folding into higher dimensions).

Any singularity potentially can define an infinite number/variety of collapsed contexts which all share it as a commonality. For example: particular belief-based ignorance (ie. condition; state) x defines a definite boundary condition(s) acting on believer +P in/of condition: x. As time goes on, if unresolved, +P moves towards the dot with a velocity equivalent to the gravity of the ignorance. Ignorance (ie. suffering) thus can be seen as a form of gravity acting on a being +P whereupon there exists by necessity a reconciling -P which, if/when attained to, alleviates the same gravity of +P by necessity neutralizing it.

The circle-dot is simply a volume of ether surrounding P whose qualities (known/unknown) thus act on P, thus can be known of (if even not directly known) in any dimension P is in insofar as P can be subtracted from the equation. This of course relies on LORI:

It is impossible to infer an unknown by way of an unknown.

wherein P can only ever infer/derive 'knowledge' (ie. taken to be equivalent to any/all matters surrounding (the existence of any) god) insofar as P knows of its own properties. This is obscured by belief-based ignorance: to believe ones self to be something they are not, thus the first candidate for a body of ignorance +P. Therefor, as knowledge of P is attained to, P can further and further be removed from any equation to solve for what is on the "other side" of P (if anything at all).

Therefor if P has no conscious knowledge of it being (if so) in a state of +P (ie. ignorance/suffering), this defines a singularity that can define the tautology of any infinite number of contexts: as many contexts as there are ignorant(-in-and-of-themselves) beings, which is a certainly possible existential reality we may all be living in. It could certainly be true that having no conscious knowledge of ignorance is, at the very least, a significant causal factor of any/all suffering.

Therefor my hysteria surrounding the proposition:
All knowing is belief (?)
as being absolutely absurd stands: belief in/of self is absolutely ignorant. Knowledge: to know not to believe ones self to be something they are not is certainly a knowledge(-in-and-of-itself) absent belief.

I may request it on my gravestone:
I came,
I saw,
I went...

...but not without knowing
all knowing is belief (?)
is ABSOLUTELY ABSURD (!)
Forms contain forms, dynamic property is the inversion of one form to another.
Thus if all forms contain a single form, it is fixed as a singularity while being able to define an infinite number of contexts.

The 22 Hebrew letters are 22 different perspectives of the same single 'form', for example, but according to sequence (ie. where/when each letter arises), the form rotates/modulates from one-to-the-next thus creating unique patterns that can serve as foundation(s) for further elaboration(s) and/or collapse existing ones. This creation/destruction "dance" is just what creation is, hence the two elements adopted by ckiit as derived from Genesis itself so as to stand infallible to Judaism/Christianity/Islam should CKIIT ever seek to challenge/undermine them in their entirety.

User avatar
Eodnhoj7
Posts: 4982
Joined: Mon Mar 13, 2017 3:18 am

Re: "How do you define...?"...Definition

Post by Eodnhoj7 » Sat Nov 09, 2019 4:30 am

nothing wrote:
Fri Nov 08, 2019 2:56 pm
A dot being pulled anywhere is being pulled to a dot.
The dot is not being pulled, P is being pulled by both dot and circumference, thus negates at P allowing capacity for choice (ie. movement; emotion).

The application of a dot, as the grounding of all forms is choice. Choice gravitates towards symmetry, as in whatever is congruent with the observer the choice of A or B or Both is naturally pulled towards the options.

If +P, then by body of ignorance towards/into the dot (which has an event horizon(s) collapsing into lower dimensions).
If -P, then by body of knowledge towards circumference (which has an event horizon(s) folding into higher dimensions).

Any singularity potentially can define an infinite number/variety of collapsed contexts which all share it as a commonality.
And you get a dot at the end of it all.


For example: particular belief-based ignorance (ie. condition; state) x defines a definite boundary condition(s) acting on believer +P in/of condition: x. As time goes on, if unresolved, +P moves towards the dot with a velocity equivalent to the gravity of the ignorance. Ignorance (ie. suffering) thus can be seen as a form of gravity acting on a being +P whereupon there exists by necessity a reconciling -P which, if/when attained to, alleviates the same gravity of +P by necessity neutralizing it.

The circle-dot is simply a volume of ether surrounding P whose qualities (known/unknown) thus act on P, thus can be known of (if even not directly known) in any dimension P is in insofar as P can be subtracted from the equation. This of course relies on LORI:

It is impossible to infer an unknown by way of an unknown.

You just infer the negative limits of knowledge, hence knowledge, through an unknown.

wherein P can only ever infer/derive 'knowledge' (ie. taken to be equivalent to any/all matters surrounding (the existence of any) god) insofar as P knows of its own properties. This is obscured by belief-based ignorance: to believe ones self to be something they are not, thus the first candidate for a body of ignorance +P. Therefor, as knowledge of P is attained to, P can further and further be removed from any equation to solve for what is on the "other side" of P (if anything at all).

Therefor if P has no conscious knowledge of it being (if so) in a state of +P (ie. ignorance/suffering), this defines a singularity that can define the tautology of any infinite number of contexts: as many contexts as there are ignorant(-in-and-of-themselves) beings, which is a certainly possible existential reality we may all be living in. It could certainly be true that having no conscious knowledge of ignorance is, at the very least, a significant causal factor of any/all suffering.

Therefor my hysteria surrounding the proposition:
All knowing is belief (?)
as being absolutely absurd stands: belief in/of self is absolutely ignorant. Knowledge: to know not to believe ones self to be something they are not is certainly a knowledge(-in-and-of-itself) absent belief.

I may request it on my gravestone:
I came,
I saw,
I went...

...but not without knowing
all knowing is belief (?)
is ABSOLUTELY ABSURD (!)
It is all absurd....now what? Keep saying things are absurd is beating a dead horss.

Forms contain forms, dynamic property is the inversion of one form to another.
Thus if all forms contain a single form, it is fixed as a singularity while being able to define an infinite number of contexts.

And those contexts are loops, again math/logic section. At the end of the day it is just studying shapes.

The 22 Hebrew letters are 22 different perspectives of the same single 'form', for example, but according to sequence (ie. where/when each letter arises), the form rotates/modulates from one-to-the-next thus creating unique patterns that can serve as foundation(s) for further elaboration(s) and/or collapse existing ones. This creation/destruction "dance" is just what creation is, hence the two elements adopted by ckiit as derived from Genesis itself so as to stand infallible to Judaism/Christianity/Islam should CKIIT ever seek to challenge/undermine them in their entirety.

nothing
Posts: 157
Joined: Mon Oct 14, 2019 9:32 pm

Re: "How do you define...?"...Definition

Post by nothing » Sun Nov 10, 2019 2:29 pm

The application of a dot, as the grounding of all forms is choice. Choice gravitates towards symmetry, as in whatever is congruent with the observer the choice of A or B or Both is naturally pulled towards the options.
If you take the grounding of all forms as choice, this is *P, not the dot. The eye of a torus draws *P towards it if P itself chooses belief-based ignorance over knowledge (of what not to believe) hence knowledge-negates-belief.

Then what does the choice of neither result in?
And you get a dot at the end of it all.
You get a P tending away from belief-based ignorance while towards knowledge, thus an infinite number of contexts less the suffering/death associated with belief-based ignorance(s).

I think you have the dot confused with P.
You just infer the negative limits of knowledge, hence knowledge, through an unknown.
Take *P as unknown less what is definitely known of *P. The limit is always *P - if *P is all-knowing of itself, there is no more suffering/death thus outside the scope of CKIIT anyways.
It is all absurd....now what? Keep saying things are absurd is beating a dead horss.
It's not my choice.
And those contexts are loops, again math/logic section. At the end of the day it is just studying shapes.
And a known looping context is a perfect context for an unknown *P.

It's not only studying shapes: it's using their fixed properties to find further unknowns.

User avatar
Eodnhoj7
Posts: 4982
Joined: Mon Mar 13, 2017 3:18 am

Re: "How do you define...?"...Definition

Post by Eodnhoj7 » Sun Nov 10, 2019 2:42 pm

nothing wrote:
Sun Nov 10, 2019 2:29 pm
The application of a dot, as the grounding of all forms is choice. Choice gravitates towards symmetry, as in whatever is congruent with the observer the choice of A or B or Both is naturally pulled towards the options.
If you take the grounding of all forms as choice, this is *P, not the dot. The eye of a torus draws *P towards it if P itself chooses belief-based ignorance over knowledge (of what not to believe) hence knowledge-negates-belief.

Then what does the choice of neither result in?
And you get a dot at the end of it all.
You get a P tending away from belief-based ignorance while towards knowledge, thus an infinite number of contexts less the suffering/death associated with belief-based ignorance(s).

I think you have the dot confused with P.
You just infer the negative limits of knowledge, hence knowledge, through an unknown.
Take *P as unknown less what is definitely known of *P. The limit is always *P - if *P is all-knowing of itself, there is no more suffering/death thus outside the scope of CKIIT anyways.
It is all absurd....now what? Keep saying things are absurd is beating a dead horss.
It's not my choice.

:).....I know, things are absurd whether you want it that way or not...and creating a power point to graph it all doesn't change a thing.
And those contexts are loops, again math/logic section. At the end of the day it is just studying shapes.
And a known looping context is a perfect context for an unknown *P.

It's not only studying shapes: it's using their fixed properties to find further unknowns.
You don't understand....you are using geometry to justify your argument and because space can be infinitely axiomized the dot eventually becomes P. P is a variable that equates to anything.

A dot? It is an origin of a point of view and can be applied to any and all things as it fundamentally is any and all things.

nothing
Posts: 157
Joined: Mon Oct 14, 2019 9:32 pm

Re: "How do you define...?"...Definition

Post by nothing » Sun Nov 10, 2019 3:14 pm

You don't understand....you are using geometry to justify your argument and because space can be infinitely axiomized the dot eventually becomes P. P is a variable that equates to anything.

A dot? It is an origin of a point of view and can be applied to any and all things as it fundamentally is any and all things.
I have no idea what you intend to mean by "space is infinitely axiomized" - I do not recognize 'space' as anything meaningful: certainly not as any grounds for truth (better would be: ether).

The eye does not eventually "become" P: they eye is a threshold 'belief' that P succumbs to if not with enough knowledge-negating-belief.

Again: you are mistaking P for a/the dot (better: event horizon of belief-based ignorance). P is not a dot and neither does P become one unless it satisfies the same 'state' captured by the Hebrew root S-T-N satan: expression of being bound in an ongoing state. It is the same as P going around in circles, which can only happen if P has no conscious knowledge that it is going around in circles thus suffering. It can also choose to do this, but it would then involve other factors other than ignorance. Hence: CKIIT addressing religious ideologies that turn people into circular P's having no conscious knowledge of their own ignorance.

User avatar
Eodnhoj7
Posts: 4982
Joined: Mon Mar 13, 2017 3:18 am

Re: "How do you define...?"...Definition

Post by Eodnhoj7 » Mon Nov 11, 2019 5:25 am

nothing wrote:
Sun Nov 10, 2019 3:14 pm
You don't understand....you are using geometry to justify your argument and because space can be infinitely axiomized the dot eventually becomes P. P is a variable that equates to anything.

A dot? It is an origin of a point of view and can be applied to any and all things as it fundamentally is any and all things.
I have no idea what you intend to mean by "space is infinitely axiomized" - I do not recognize 'space' as anything meaningful: certainly not as any grounds for truth (better would be: ether).

Good, then don't produce a linear argument and stop talking about circles.

The eye does not eventually "become" P: they eye is a threshold 'belief' that P succumbs to if not with enough knowledge-negating-belief.

All is belief, if you want to negate the Abrahamic Faith's, because of faith, then negate the vedic as well.

Again: you are mistaking P for a/the dot (better: event horizon of belief-based ignorance). P is not a dot and neither does P become one unless it satisfies the same 'state' captured by the Hebrew root S-T-N satan: expression of being bound in an ongoing state. It is the same as P going around in circles, which can only happen if P has no conscious knowledge that it is going around in circles thus suffering. It can also choose to do this, but it would then involve other factors other than ignorance. Hence: CKIIT addressing religious ideologies that turn people into circular P's having no conscious knowledge of their own ignorance.

All is a point of view. All points of view are the manner in which we assume reality. All assumption is intrinsically empty. All emptiness is point space. A point is no different than a boundless field and is intrinsically formless until it is quantified.

nothing
Posts: 157
Joined: Mon Oct 14, 2019 9:32 pm

Re: "How do you define...?"...Definition

Post by nothing » Mon Nov 11, 2019 4:20 pm

Good, then don't produce a linear argument and stop talking about circles.
The ether is comprised of the interaction of lines (of force) and circles (of the same).
It is not in how they are different: it is in how they are the same.
All is belief, if you want to negate the Abrahamic Faith's, because of faith, then negate the vedic as well.
All belief-based ignorance(s) exist in, and/or by way of: belief-in-and-of-itself.
All belief is ignorance, but not all ignorance is belief.
All knowing is by way of indefinitely trying all belief, but
not all belief is by way of indefinitely trying to know all.

Faith is not belief, and the Vedas are not a principle causal factor "from whence any/all human suffering" and/or "believer vs. unbeliever" as it relates to the scope of CKIIT and the M/E (and now: geopolitical) conflict(s).
All is a point of view. All points of view are the manner in which we assume reality. All assumption is intrinsically empty. All emptiness is point space. A point is no different than a boundless field and is intrinsically formless until it is quantified.
All is many points of view according to many manners of assumption/interprtation. Not all assumption is intrinsically "empty": this assumes a priori any/all possible condition(s) related to any/all manners of assuming necessarily yield a net "empty" result(s) which is waffle.

The 'all assumption is intrinsically empty' assumption is a local catastrophe (!)

User avatar
Eodnhoj7
Posts: 4982
Joined: Mon Mar 13, 2017 3:18 am

Re: "How do you define...?"...Definition

Post by Eodnhoj7 » Tue Nov 12, 2019 3:51 am

nothing wrote:
Mon Nov 11, 2019 4:20 pm
Good, then don't produce a linear argument and stop talking about circles.
The ether is comprised of the interaction of lines (of force) and circles (of the same).
It is not in how they are different: it is in how they are the same.
All is belief, if you want to negate the Abrahamic Faith's, because of faith, then negate the vedic as well.
All belief-based ignorance(s) exist in, and/or by way of: belief-in-and-of-itself.
All belief is ignorance, but not all ignorance is belief.
All knowing is by way of indefinitely trying all belief, but
not all belief is by way of indefinitely trying to know all.

Faith is not belief, and the Vedas are not a principle causal factor "from whence any/all human suffering" and/or "believer vs. unbeliever" as it relates to the scope of CKIIT and the M/E (and now: geopolitical) conflict(s).
All is a point of view. All points of view are the manner in which we assume reality. All assumption is intrinsically empty. All emptiness is point space. A point is no different than a boundless field and is intrinsically formless until it is quantified.
All is many points of view according to many manners of assumption/interprtation. Not all assumption is intrinsically "empty": this assumes a priori any/all possible condition(s) related to any/all manners of assuming necessarily yield a net "empty" result(s) which is waffle.

The 'all assumption is intrinsically empty' assumption is a local catastrophe (!)
The ether is form then, and what I propose as everything composed of points, lines, circles is by default ethereal. Form is the glue of reality and is information itself as the "ether".

All points are fundamentally the same point as a point is a point, it is the quantification of points (finiteness as multiple infinities) that approximates one form through many.

Catastrophe is an assumption and relative to a point of view.

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: RCSaunders and 4 guests