what is dontaskme doing in the forum?

For all things philosophical.

Moderators: AMod, iMod

Post Reply
User avatar
Eodnhoj7
Posts: 1574
Joined: Mon Mar 13, 2017 3:18 am

Re: what is dontaskme doing in the forum?

Post by Eodnhoj7 » Sat Dec 09, 2017 9:21 pm

Hypocrite

daramantus: "There is no unified nature anywhere. And if you use this number analogy, you're also wrong. It starts with ZERO..."

Last edited by daramantus on Fri Dec 08, 2017 5:57 pm, edited 1 time in total.

viewtopic.php?f=5&t=23164



The next point you will probably say is: "But I was arguing for multiplicity".

To which my response would be: "But it starts with zero, and physics argues everything is moving to point zero as nothing is infinite."

User avatar
Eodnhoj7
Posts: 1574
Joined: Mon Mar 13, 2017 3:18 am

Re: what is dontaskme doing in the forum?

Post by Eodnhoj7 » Sat Dec 09, 2017 10:28 pm

daramantus wrote:
Sat Dec 09, 2017 10:25 pm
Eodnhoj7 wrote:
Sat Dec 09, 2017 9:21 pm
Hypocrite

daramantus: "There is no unified nature anywhere. And if you use this number analogy, you're also wrong. It starts with ZERO..."

Last edited by daramantus on Fri Dec 08, 2017 5:57 pm, edited 1 time in total.

viewtopic.php?f=5&t=23164



The next point you will probably say is: "But I was arguing for multiplicity".


To which my response would be: "But it starts with zero, and physics argues everything is moving to point zero as nothing is infinite."
The argument of nothing is not mine, I was arguing that multiplicity is the truth, however space is empty, when there are objects and distance, there is space. that's all. that has nothing to do with what dontaskme is talking about

User avatar
Eodnhoj7
Posts: 1574
Joined: Mon Mar 13, 2017 3:18 am

Re: what is dontaskme doing in the forum?

Post by Eodnhoj7 » Sat Dec 09, 2017 10:34 pm

Eodnhoj7 wrote:
Sat Dec 09, 2017 10:28 pm
daramantus wrote:
Sat Dec 09, 2017 10:25 pm
Eodnhoj7 wrote:
Sat Dec 09, 2017 9:21 pm
Hypocrite

daramantus: "There is no unified nature anywhere. And if you use this number analogy, you're also wrong. It starts with ZERO..."

Last edited by daramantus on Fri Dec 08, 2017 5:57 pm, edited 1 time in total.

viewtopic.php?f=5&t=23164



The next point you will probably say is: "But I was arguing for multiplicity".


To which my response would be: "But it starts with zero, and physics argues everything is moving to point zero as nothing is infinite."
The argument of nothing is not mine, I was arguing that multiplicity is the truth, however space is empty, when there are objects and distance, there is space. that's all. that has nothing to do with what dontaskme is talking about

User avatar
Eodnhoj7
Posts: 1574
Joined: Mon Mar 13, 2017 3:18 am

Re: what is dontaskme doing in the forum?

Post by Eodnhoj7 » Sat Dec 09, 2017 10:40 pm

But that means something exists eternally. Otherwise if it does not exist eternally, there is eventually nothingness and substance does not really exist. How if it does continually exist, in different forms, then that means it is continual and never is reduced to nothingness; i.e. "eternal".
Last edited by Eodnhoj7 on Sat Dec 09, 2017 10:46 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Eodnhoj7
Posts: 1574
Joined: Mon Mar 13, 2017 3:18 am

Re: what is dontaskme doing in the forum?

Post by Eodnhoj7 » Sat Dec 09, 2017 10:41 pm

daramantus wrote:
Sat Dec 09, 2017 10:39 pm
Eodnhoj7 wrote:
Sat Dec 09, 2017 10:34 pm
Eodnhoj7 wrote:
Sat Dec 09, 2017 10:28 pm
So do you agree with dontaskme, where no one argue with no one about nothing and anything? If so, you're a lost case
I don't agree with you questioning why people are here when the arguments you make are equally faulty.

User avatar
Eodnhoj7
Posts: 1574
Joined: Mon Mar 13, 2017 3:18 am

Re: what is dontaskme doing in the forum?

Post by Eodnhoj7 » Sat Dec 09, 2017 10:49 pm

daramantus wrote:
Sat Dec 09, 2017 10:46 pm
Eodnhoj7 wrote:
Sat Dec 09, 2017 10:40 pm
But that means something exists eternally. Otherwise if it does not exist eternally, there is eventually nothingness and substance does not really exist. How if it does continually exist, in different forms, then that means it is continually and never is reduced to nothingness; i.e. "eternal".
Ok, I'll take your argument. If something produced something, then that something is not something, but a consciousness, some being behind, not "continually" but stable, it's there, it was there, can't be reduced to nothing, it may be eternal , ok.
But you said infinity cannot exist because it can't be proven.

However, objects, are not eternal, a body is not imortal, what could be is the soul, who knows??
What I don't agree is about the confusion about something and nothing, and the misuse of the words propagated by dontaskme, if you know what I mean, no one argues with no one, no one perceives the nothing and someone who thinks is someone arguing with someone who thinks it's no one, and nothing really happened..............
The observation of nothingness is the observation of acausal relations through multiple particulate (or your fields). Don't ask me is simple observe the relativistic side of metaphysics, physics, ethics, etc.

User avatar
Eodnhoj7
Posts: 1574
Joined: Mon Mar 13, 2017 3:18 am

Re: what is dontaskme doing in the forum?

Post by Eodnhoj7 » Sat Dec 09, 2017 10:51 pm

daramantus wrote:
Sat Dec 09, 2017 10:48 pm
Eodnhoj7 wrote:
Sat Dec 09, 2017 10:41 pm
daramantus wrote:
Sat Dec 09, 2017 10:39 pm


So do you agree with dontaskme, where no one argue with no one about nothing and anything? If so, you're a lost case
I don't agree with you questioning why people are here when the arguments you make are equally faulty.
Do you agree that you are the perceiver, or do you agree with dontaskme that you are a "no one" perceiving others?
Both at the same time in different respects. Perception is an empty vessel, the vessel exists as a thing in itself while simultaneously, in a different respect consists of "emptiness" or "nothingness".

User avatar
Eodnhoj7
Posts: 1574
Joined: Mon Mar 13, 2017 3:18 am

Re: what is dontaskme doing in the forum?

Post by Eodnhoj7 » Sat Dec 09, 2017 11:06 pm

daramantus wrote:
Sat Dec 09, 2017 10:52 pm
Eodnhoj7 wrote:
Sat Dec 09, 2017 10:51 pm
daramantus wrote:
Sat Dec 09, 2017 10:48 pm


Do you agree that you are the perceiver, or do you agree with dontaskme that you are a "no one" perceiving others?
Both at the same time in different respects. Perception is an empty vessel, the vessel exists as a thing in itself while simultaneously, in a different respect consists of "emptiness" or "nothingness".
Perception requires a perceiver, which is not something in a vessel, it's a perceiver looking from inside to ouside.
Perception is a vessel as our perceptions are formed when we percieve into others and vice verse.
nothingness, emptiness, these are new-agey neo advaita jargons, I'm not interested
Then you should take up that issue with physics being grounded in a zero dimensional point as its geometric foundations. If there is no infinity, then by default "nothingness" is the alternative.

User avatar
Eodnhoj7
Posts: 1574
Joined: Mon Mar 13, 2017 3:18 am

Re: what is dontaskme doing in the forum?

Post by Eodnhoj7 » Sat Dec 09, 2017 11:41 pm

daramantus wrote:
Sat Dec 09, 2017 11:30 pm
Eodnhoj7 wrote:
Sat Dec 09, 2017 11:06 pm
daramantus wrote:
Sat Dec 09, 2017 10:52 pm


Perception requires a perceiver, which is not something in a vessel, it's a perceiver looking from inside to ouside.
Perception is a vessel as our perceptions are formed when we percieve into others and vice verse.
nothingness, emptiness, these are new-agey neo advaita jargons, I'm not interested
Then you should take up that issue with physics being grounded in a zero dimensional point as its geometric foundations. If there is no infinity, then by default "nothingness" is the alternative.
you're babbling

who told you that the opposite of nothingness is infinity?

Because, according to your argument, substance opens up the possiblity of infinity. Substance is the opposition to infinity through a process of self movement as "being". Infinity is "being" and "nothingness" is merely deficiency of being. Structure, as limit, is formed through dimensions, with these dimensions acting as the limits of nothingness. Nothingness is observe relative to and through dimensions, and in these respects dimensions are eternal as they reflect nothingness by reflecting themselves.


try to find infinity here: http://www.synonyms.net/antonyms/Nothingness

EchoesOfTheHorizon
Posts: 375
Joined: Mon Oct 23, 2017 6:08 am

Re: what is dontaskme doing in the forum?

Post by EchoesOfTheHorizon » Sun Dec 10, 2017 1:43 am

I'm confused, thought this thread was questioning Dontaskme?

And of course no such thing as infinity, and nothing isn't something much to worry about. No point in arguing it over several threads. If he really wants to believe in it, just explain why it can't be in his every theory. I've started translating Burdan al Din's Nasafi's "Sharh 'Asas al-kiyasat' (gonna be a while, still mastering the Arabic keyboard, gonna scan a lot of it to get to the parts I need) and noted he wrote two works called "Treatise on Circular Argument and Endless Chain" as well as "Treatise on the Finitude of the Dimensions". I suspect every era had people drunk off of infinity, arguing the same damn mystical presumptions. Aristotle was wise to put strict limitations on it, but didn't go far enough, as infinity had been a endless bane to philosophy, with some idiots actually attempting to solve a apparent super task (it isn't a supertask) of what the "sum" of 1-1+1-1+1-1.... for infinity.

Obviously you can't come to a calculation because the number itself can't be determined at any point, so a sum isn't possible. Never stopped a moron mathematician who didn't grasp the question being posed to try it. You can't average it out, as it is a wavelength, and averaging it out destroys the very nature of it's expression, as a wavelength. Wavelengths do their own damn thing, have their own value, that shouldn't be summed for a nonexistent presumptive final interger solution. Dummies think it is 2, but that's only because of the imposition of IS vs IS NOT presumes two values. You start entering into paradoxes of perspective akin to Frank Herbert's old Fremen watching the Donkey pass between two posts, concluding how causality works. It is best to throw away such childish presumptions before an analysis of being.

I'm not aware that the concept of infinity comes out of advaita. Any sources? I'd be greatly indebted if you had a solid source, obviously translation difficulties won't hinder me if I think the work is worthwhile, just would take me a bit longer to get it. If it is already translated, all the better.

User avatar
Eodnhoj7
Posts: 1574
Joined: Mon Mar 13, 2017 3:18 am

Re: what is dontaskme doing in the forum?

Post by Eodnhoj7 » Sun Dec 10, 2017 2:41 am

EchoesOfTheHorizon wrote:
Sun Dec 10, 2017 1:43 am
I'm confused, thought this thread was questioning Dontaskme?

We are addressing Dontaskme's perspective philosophy, at least I am. With what's his name is appears to be personal also.

And of course no such thing as infinity, and nothing isn't something much to worry about. No point in arguing it over several threads. If he really wants to believe in it, just explain why it can't be in his every theory. I've started translating Burdan al Din's Nasafi's "Sharh 'Asas al-kiyasat' (gonna be a while, still mastering the Arabic keyboard, gonna scan a lot of it to get to the parts I need) and noted he wrote two works called "Treatise on Circular Argument and Endless Chain" as well as "Treatise on the Finitude of the Dimensions". I suspect every era had people drunk off of infinity, arguing the same damn mystical presumptions. Aristotle was wise to put strict limitations on it, but didn't go far enough, as infinity had been a endless bane to philosophy, with some idiots actually attempting to solve a apparent super task (it isn't a supertask) of what the "sum" of 1-1+1-1+1-1.... for infinity.

Aristotles physics depends on infinity perpetual movement. Infinity can be observed mathematically as "numberless number" and spatially as "limitless limit". We can observe both as one point forming a circle. To argue that infinity does not exist, and in its place is a strict "temporality" then by default the argument fails over time.


Obviously you can't come to a calculation because the number itself can't be determined at any point, so a sum isn't possible. Never stopped a moron mathematician who didn't grasp the question being posed to try it. You can't average it out, as it is a wavelength, and averaging it out destroys the very nature of it's expression, as a wavelength.
I brought this up on other threads, but if 1 is viewed as an intradimensional point as an Etherial Dimension that unifies our reality as a "glue", then by default it is permanent. It can exist as a wavelength if viewed as an individuator that manifest "units as dimensions". In these respects 1 maintains a dual nature of unity/multiplicity(units) which synthesizes a third neutral nature of "number as dimension".

Wavelengths do their own damn thing, have their own value, that shouldn't be summed for a nonexistent presumptive final interger solution. Dummies think it is 2, but that's only because of the imposition of IS vs IS NOT presumes two values. You start entering into paradoxes of perspective akin to Frank Herbert's old Fremen watching the Donkey pass between two posts, concluding how causality works. It is best to throw away such childish presumptions before an analysis of being.

I'm not aware that the concept of infinity comes out of advaita. Any sources? I'd be greatly indebted if you had a solid source, obviously translation difficulties won't hinder me if I think the work is worthwhile, just would take me a bit longer to get it. If it is already translated, all the better.

User avatar
Eodnhoj7
Posts: 1574
Joined: Mon Mar 13, 2017 3:18 am

Re: what is dontaskme doing in the forum?

Post by Eodnhoj7 » Tue Dec 12, 2017 8:22 pm

Eodnhoj7 wrote:
Sun Dec 10, 2017 2:41 am
EchoesOfTheHorizon wrote:
Sun Dec 10, 2017 1:43 am
I'm confused, thought this thread was questioning Dontaskme?

We are addressing Dontaskme's perspective philosophy, at least I am. With what's his name is appears to be personal also.

And of course no such thing as infinity, and nothing isn't something much to worry about. No point in arguing it over several threads. If he really wants to believe in it, just explain why it can't be in his every theory. I've started translating Burdan al Din's Nasafi's "Sharh 'Asas al-kiyasat' (gonna be a while, still mastering the Arabic keyboard, gonna scan a lot of it to get to the parts I need) and noted he wrote two works called "Treatise on Circular Argument and Endless Chain" as well as "Treatise on the Finitude of the Dimensions". I suspect every era had people drunk off of infinity, arguing the same damn mystical presumptions. Aristotle was wise to put strict limitations on it, but didn't go far enough, as infinity had been a endless bane to philosophy, with some idiots actually attempting to solve a apparent super task (it isn't a supertask) of what the "sum" of 1-1+1-1+1-1.... for infinity.

Aristotles physics depends on infinity perpetual movement. Infinity can be observed mathematically as "numberless number" and spatially as "limitless limit". We can observe both as one point forming a circle. To argue that infinity does not exist, and in its place is a strict "temporality" then by default the argument fails over time.


Obviously you can't come to a calculation because the number itself can't be determined at any point, so a sum isn't possible. Never stopped a moron mathematician who didn't grasp the question being posed to try it. You can't average it out, as it is a wavelength, and averaging it out destroys the very nature of it's expression, as a wavelength.
I brought this up on other threads, but if 1 is viewed as an intradimensional point as an Etherial Dimension that unifies our reality as a "glue", then by default it is permanent. It can exist as a wavelength if viewed as an individuator that manifest "units as dimensions". In these respects 1 maintains a dual nature of unity/multiplicity(units) which synthesizes a third neutral nature of "number as dimension".

Wavelengths do their own damn thing, have their own value, that shouldn't be summed for a nonexistent presumptive final interger solution. Dummies think it is 2, but that's only because of the imposition of IS vs IS NOT presumes two values. You start entering into paradoxes of perspective akin to Frank Herbert's old Fremen watching the Donkey pass between two posts, concluding how causality works. It is best to throw away such childish presumptions before an analysis of being.

I'm not aware that the concept of infinity comes out of advaita. Any sources? I'd be greatly indebted if you had a solid source, obviously translation difficulties won't hinder me if I think the work is worthwhile, just would take me a bit longer to get it. If it is already translated, all the better.
Actually it needs infinity, otherwise there are no constants the the laws cannot be observed.

lazyfordumbpeople444
Posts: 22
Joined: Fri Jul 13, 2018 1:40 am

Re: what is dontaskme doing in the forum?

Post by lazyfordumbpeople444 » Fri Jul 13, 2018 3:14 am

EchoesOfTheHorizon wrote:
Sun Dec 10, 2017 1:43 am
I'm confused, thought this thread was questioning Dontaskme?

And of course no such thing as infinity, and nothing isn't something much to worry about. No point in arguing it over several threads. If he really wants to believe in it, just explain why it can't be in his every theory. I've started translating Burdan al Din's Nasafi's "Sharh 'Asas al-kiyasat' (gonna be a while, still mastering the Arabic keyboard, gonna scan a lot of it to get to the parts I need) and noted he wrote two works called "Treatise on Circular Argument and Endless Chain" as well as "Treatise on the Finitude of the Dimensions". I suspect every era had people drunk off of infinity, arguing the same damn mystical presumptions. Aristotle was wise to put strict limitations on it, but didn't go far enough, as infinity had been a endless bane to philosophy, with some idiots actually attempting to solve a apparent super task (it isn't a supertask) of what the "sum" of 1-1+1-1+1-1.... for infinity.

Obviously you can't come to a calculation because the number itself can't be determined at any point, so a sum isn't possible. Never stopped a moron mathematician who didn't grasp the question being posed to try it. You can't average it out, as it is a wavelength, and averaging it out destroys the very nature of it's expression, as a wavelength. Wavelengths do their own damn thing, have their own value, that shouldn't be summed for a nonexistent presumptive final interger solution. Dummies think it is 2, but that's only because of the imposition of IS vs IS NOT presumes two values. You start entering into paradoxes of perspective akin to Frank Herbert's old Fremen watching the Donkey pass between two posts, concluding how causality works. It is best to throw away such childish presumptions before an analysis of being.

I'm not aware that the concept of infinity comes out of advaita. Any sources? I'd be greatly indebted if you had a solid source, obviously translation difficulties won't hinder me if I think the work is worthwhile, just would take me a bit longer to get it. If it is already translated, all the better.
Can you provide any solid proof of infinity, and where is it so we can verify?

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests