Singularity is Non-Sense (Unable to be Sensed)

[Age]

Context is contigent on context thus context self-references leading to a singularity. This singularity is obscure and unable to be sensed given there is nothing to compare it too.

Are you able to define what the word 'singularity' means, or refers to, to you?

If yes, then will you?

Singularity is distinctness.

To me anyway, the word 'singularity' implies Oneness.

So, how, EXACTLY, is there 'distinctness' in Oneness, or in one solitary, singular 'thing' like 'singularity'?

What could 'singularity' be 'distinct' from, EXACTLY?

Distinctness is the standing apart of one phenomenon from another.

How could there even be "another", to "stand apart", from one phenomenon when in 'singularity' there is ONLY One phenomenon?

"Standing apart" is contrast.

What could 'singularity' be in 'contrast' to, EXACTLY?

Contrast is a relationship.

What could 'singularity' have a 'relationship' to, EXACTLY?

Relationship is a bond.

The word 'relation' in 'relationship' implies there is a 'relation' between or to some 'thing' ELSE.

And, there is a 'bond' in 'relation' to two 'things'.

There is a 'relationship' between friends, or 'relatives', for example. And, these 'relationships' are 'relative', to the "other".

The 'between' word also indicates two 'things', which is what 'singularity' could NOT be.

A bond is one.

The word 'bond' can refer to the 'attachment' or 'relationship' 'between' 'two'.

But also one 'thing' can be more 'bound' then "another thing". But the 'bond' within one 'thing' is also always in 'relation' to the different and separate 'things' that 'one thing' is made up of.

Singularity is one.

I AGREE.

[Belinda]

If there were no spatial or temporal difference between event A , event &yhj,and event osodjdn8 then we would have a single event A+&yhj+osodjdn8.

Fortunately each of us views these elements subjectively, and we can communicate with each other, so we can compare and evaluate similarities and differences and thereby progress our understanding.

[trokanmariel]

Context is contigent on context thus context self-references leading to a singularity. This singularity is obscure and unable to be sensed given there is nothing to compare it too.

The idea comes across as a domino effect. That's the identity of my own imagination. When you wrote the sentence, about self-references leading to singularity, what was your internal perception of the idea?

Self referencing is a contrast to self where the same thing stands in multiple positions (I talking about myself is one self reflecting upon another self with both "selves" being the self) but is the same thing regardless of positions.

I used the word contrast, as a type of pivot, when reading the comment. Can it just be a coincidence, that pivot and reflection are part of the same structure?

[Belinda]

The idea comes across as a domino effect. That's the identity of my own imagination. When you wrote the sentence, about self-references leading to singularity, what was your internal perception of the idea?

Self referencing is a contrast to self where the same thing stands in multiple positions (I talking about myself is one self reflecting upon another self with both "selves" being the self) but is the same thing regardless of positions.

I used the word contrast, as a type of pivot, when reading the comment. Can it just be a coincidence, that pivot and reflection are part of the same structure?

'Pivot' is a good metaphor. However the usual word in philosophy is 'criterion'.

[trokanmariel]

Self referencing is a contrast to self where the same thing stands in multiple positions (I talking about myself is one self reflecting upon another self with both "selves" being the self) but is the same thing regardless of positions.

I used the word contrast, as a type of pivot, when reading the comment. Can it just be a coincidence, that pivot and reflection are part of the same structure?

'Pivot' is a good metaphor. However the usual word in philosophy is 'criterion'.

Thanks for the response.
I didn't necessarily mean pivot as a principle, but just as a physics means of acceptance

[Belinda]

Trokenmariel, you had written:

I used the word contrast, as a type of pivot, when reading the comment. Can it just be a coincidence, that pivot and reflection are part of the same structure?

I think you might develop the metaphor of the pivot( or fulcrum )by looking at the principle of physical leverage. Pivot and reflection are indeed part of the same structure.

[trokanmariel]

Trokenmariel, you had written:

I used the word contrast, as a type of pivot, when reading the comment. Can it just be a coincidence, that pivot and reflection are part of the same structure?

I think you might develop the metaphor of the pivot( or fulcrum )by looking at the principle of physical leverage. Pivot and reflection are indeed part of the same structure.

The paradigm, of your initial sentence is that the pointlessness of no metaphor is balanced out by the error of metaphor's presence - a literary response, which begs the question of what's left for philosophy

[Belinda]

Trokenmariel, you had written:

I used the word contrast, as a type of pivot, when reading the comment. Can it just be a coincidence, that pivot and reflection are part of the same structure?

I think you might develop the metaphor of the pivot( or fulcrum )by looking at the principle of physical leverage. Pivot and reflection are indeed part of the same structure.

The paradigm, of your initial sentence is that the pointlessness of no metaphor is balanced out by the error of metaphor's presence - a literary response, which begs the question of what's left for philosophy

All lexicons everywhere are built from metaphors. My opinion remains that pivot -and reflection(or leverage) is a useful metaphor.

[Eodnhoj7]

Are you able to define what the word 'singularity' means, or refers to, to you?

If yes, then will you?

Singularity is distinctness.

To me anyway, the word 'singularity' implies Oneness.

So, how, EXACTLY, is there 'distinctness' in Oneness, or in one solitary, singular 'thing' like 'singularity'?

What could 'singularity' be 'distinct' from, EXACTLY?

Distinctness is the standing apart of one phenomenon from another.

How could there even be "another", to "stand apart", from one phenomenon when in 'singularity' there is ONLY One phenomenon?

"Standing apart" is contrast.

What could 'singularity' be in 'contrast' to, EXACTLY?

Contrast is a relationship.

What could 'singularity' have a 'relationship' to, EXACTLY?

Relationship is a bond.

The word 'relation' in 'relationship' implies there is a 'relation' between or to some 'thing' ELSE.

And, there is a 'bond' in 'relation' to two 'things'.

There is a 'relationship' between friends, or 'relatives', for example. And, these 'relationships' are 'relative', to the "other".

The 'between' word also indicates two 'things', which is what 'singularity' could NOT be.

A bond is one.

The word 'bond' can refer to the 'attachment' or 'relationship' 'between' 'two'.

But also one 'thing' can be more 'bound' then "another thing". But the 'bond' within one 'thing' is also always in 'relation' to the different and separate 'things' that 'one thing' is made up of.

Singularity is one.

I AGREE.

1. Singularity stands in contrast to nothingness. Nothingness in contrast to nothingness is being as nothingness negates (A point relative to a point is a line, it is the negation of a single point (which is nothing)). Singularity is contrast.

2. A singularity relative to another singularity is one singularity connected to another singularity through nothingness (multiple singularities share the same bond of existence thus are one, nothingness between singularities connects them).

3. A singularity would have a relationship to itself, it would be relative to itself. Self relation necessitates only the self-referencing being as existing given there is nothing to reference other than itself.

4. Relationship necessitates connection, connection necessitates oneness. Oneness is connection.

5. A bond necessitates a contrast, a contrast necessitates a void between beings. This void between beings necessitates not only that only that which is exists but the void between beings is shared between beings. Nothing between beings necessitates only being exists.

6. Being A has qualities being B is void of. Being B has qualities being A is void of. Being A and being B both share voidness thus are connected by it. Being is connected by nothingness as only being exists.

[Age]

Singularity is distinctness.

To me anyway, the word 'singularity' implies Oneness.

So, how, EXACTLY, is there 'distinctness' in Oneness, or in one solitary, singular 'thing' like 'singularity'?

What could 'singularity' be 'distinct' from, EXACTLY?

Distinctness is the standing apart of one phenomenon from another.

How could there even be "another", to "stand apart", from one phenomenon when in 'singularity' there is ONLY One phenomenon?

"Standing apart" is contrast.

What could 'singularity' be in 'contrast' to, EXACTLY?

Contrast is a relationship.

What could 'singularity' have a 'relationship' to, EXACTLY?

Relationship is a bond.

The word 'relation' in 'relationship' implies there is a 'relation' between or to some 'thing' ELSE.

And, there is a 'bond' in 'relation' to two 'things'.

There is a 'relationship' between friends, or 'relatives', for example. And, these 'relationships' are 'relative', to the "other".

The 'between' word also indicates two 'things', which is what 'singularity' could NOT be.

A bond is one.

The word 'bond' can refer to the 'attachment' or 'relationship' 'between' 'two'.

But also one 'thing' can be more 'bound' then "another thing". But the 'bond' within one 'thing' is also always in 'relation' to the different and separate 'things' that 'one thing' is made up of.

Singularity is one.

I AGREE.

1. Singularity stands in contrast to nothingness. Nothingness in contrast to nothingness is being as nothingness negates (A point relative to a point is a line, it is the negation of a single point (which is nothing)). Singularity is contrast.

So what?

2. A singularity relative to another singularity is one singularity connected to another singularity through nothingness (multiple singularities share the same bond of existence thus are one, nothingness between singularities connects them).

Is it possible to have two one singularities?

3. A singularity would have a relationship to itself, it would be relative to itself. Self relation necessitates only the self-referencing being as existing given there is nothing to reference other than itself.

How many of these so-called "singularities" are there, to you, EXACTLY?

4. Relationship necessitates connection, connection necessitates oneness. Oneness is connection.

If you say so.

But, just so you are AWARE what you are 'trying to' talk about, and allude to, can be explained and expressed in much SIMPLER and EASIER terms.

5. A bond necessitates a contrast, a contrast necessitates a void between beings. This void between beings necessitates not only that only that which is exists but the void between beings is shared between beings. Nothing between beings necessitates only being exists.

But you just said there was a void, or voids, between beings, AND, if there are voids, then NOT only beings exist but ALSO void (or nothing) exist AS WELL.

So, which 'one' of 'these' is it?

And, the CHOICE is YOURS ALONE here.

6. Being A has qualities being B is void of. Being B has qualities being A is void of.

How do you KNOW?

And, what are you even referring to EXACTLY?

'Examples' HELP in UNDERSTANDING what 'it' IS, which you are, so desperately, 'trying to' EXPLAIN here.

Being A and being B both share voidness thus are connected by it. Being is connected by nothingness as only being exists.

But, AGAIN, if there IS a 'void' or an area or space of 'nothingness', THEN 'void/s' or 'space/s' EXIST, AS WELL, OBVIOUSLY.

[Eodnhoj7]

To me anyway, the word 'singularity' implies Oneness.

So, how, EXACTLY, is there 'distinctness' in Oneness, or in one solitary, singular 'thing' like 'singularity'?

What could 'singularity' be 'distinct' from, EXACTLY?



How could there even be "another", to "stand apart", from one phenomenon when in 'singularity' there is ONLY One phenomenon?


What could 'singularity' be in 'contrast' to, EXACTLY?


What could 'singularity' have a 'relationship' to, EXACTLY?


The word 'relation' in 'relationship' implies there is a 'relation' between or to some 'thing' ELSE.

And, there is a 'bond' in 'relation' to two 'things'.

There is a 'relationship' between friends, or 'relatives', for example. And, these 'relationships' are 'relative', to the "other".

The 'between' word also indicates two 'things', which is what 'singularity' could NOT be.



The word 'bond' can refer to the 'attachment' or 'relationship' 'between' 'two'.

But also one 'thing' can be more 'bound' then "another thing". But the 'bond' within one 'thing' is also always in 'relation' to the different and separate 'things' that 'one thing' is made up of.



I AGREE.

1. Singularity stands in contrast to nothingness. Nothingness in contrast to nothingness is being as nothingness negates (A point relative to a point is a line, it is the negation of a single point (which is nothing)). Singularity is contrast.

So what?

2. A singularity relative to another singularity is one singularity connected to another singularity through nothingness (multiple singularities share the same bond of existence thus are one, nothingness between singularities connects them).

Is it possible to have two one singularities?

3. A singularity would have a relationship to itself, it would be relative to itself. Self relation necessitates only the self-referencing being as existing given there is nothing to reference other than itself.

How many of these so-called "singularities" are there, to you, EXACTLY?

4. Relationship necessitates connection, connection necessitates oneness. Oneness is connection.

If you say so.

But, just so you are AWARE what you are 'trying to' talk about, and allude to, can be explained and expressed in much SIMPLER and EASIER terms.

5. A bond necessitates a contrast, a contrast necessitates a void between beings. This void between beings necessitates not only that only that which is exists but the void between beings is shared between beings. Nothing between beings necessitates only being exists.

But you just said there was a void, or voids, between beings, AND, if there are voids, then NOT only beings exist but ALSO void (or nothing) exist AS WELL.

So, which 'one' of 'these' is it?

And, the CHOICE is YOURS ALONE here.

6. Being A has qualities being B is void of. Being B has qualities being A is void of.

How do you KNOW?

And, what are you even referring to EXACTLY?

'Examples' HELP in UNDERSTANDING what 'it' IS, which you are, so desperately, 'trying to' EXPLAIN here.

Being A and being B both share voidness thus are connected by it. Being is connected by nothingness as only being exists.

But, AGAIN, if there IS a 'void' or an area or space of 'nothingness', THEN 'void/s' or 'space/s' EXIST, AS WELL, OBVIOUSLY.

1. Contrast is being. Contrast is also a singular event as the comparison between thing A and thing B is one thing. This comparison is derived from void. Thing A is void of certain qualities found in thing B, thing B is void of certain qualities found in thing A. Both thing A and thing B share a void. This void unites them as the void is the nothingness between things.

2. Thing A in contrast to thing B is one thing and as one thing is a singularity considering it is a totality of parts relative to thing B. This occurs vice-versa as well. Thing A/B, in contrast to each other, are respective singularities. This comparison, which is relative thus a relation, is a singular event. Therefore we have the singularity of A, the singularity of B, and the comparison (which is a singularity) of A and B. A singularity exists within a singularity and this is a singularity.

3. The number of singularities is irrelevant as the comparison of said singularities is a singularity. All singularities share the quality of being singular thus multiple singularities exist as one.

4. "Simple" and "easy" are relative terms.

5. Void is an observation of relation, relation between multiple things underlie said multiple things and connect them as one.

6. A tree is absent of feathers, a bird is absent of leaves. The tree is void of feathers, the bird is void of leaves. The tree thus has a void relative to a bird, the bird thus has a void relative to the tree.

7. To speak of void is to speak of a relationship where one thing is absent of qualities found in another thus a comparison occurs. Given the totality of being is indefinite, given there is nothing to compare it to for definition as the totality is everything, the totality of being is void. Being and void thus equate and if void is observed through a relationship then being is observed through relationship. This relationship is indefinite given the relationships are in relation to themselves thus self-referential; where there is self-referentiality there is obscurity as being through being is in comparison to nothing and comparison is necessary for definition.

The comparison of comparisons is self-referential thus the phenomenon of comparison is compared to nothing. A comparison to nothingness is nothingness as that which is compared to nothingness is a totality which is indefinite, due to self-referentiality, and nothingness is indefinite. The indefiniteness of being and void necessitates being and void as the same.

[Age]

1. Singularity stands in contrast to nothingness. Nothingness in contrast to nothingness is being as nothingness negates (A point relative to a point is a line, it is the negation of a single point (which is nothing)). Singularity is contrast.

So what?

2. A singularity relative to another singularity is one singularity connected to another singularity through nothingness (multiple singularities share the same bond of existence thus are one, nothingness between singularities connects them).

Is it possible to have two one singularities?

3. A singularity would have a relationship to itself, it would be relative to itself. Self relation necessitates only the self-referencing being as existing given there is nothing to reference other than itself.

How many of these so-called "singularities" are there, to you, EXACTLY?

4. Relationship necessitates connection, connection necessitates oneness. Oneness is connection.

If you say so.

But, just so you are AWARE what you are 'trying to' talk about, and allude to, can be explained and expressed in much SIMPLER and EASIER terms.

5. A bond necessitates a contrast, a contrast necessitates a void between beings. This void between beings necessitates not only that only that which is exists but the void between beings is shared between beings. Nothing between beings necessitates only being exists.

But you just said there was a void, or voids, between beings, AND, if there are voids, then NOT only beings exist but ALSO void (or nothing) exist AS WELL.

So, which 'one' of 'these' is it?

And, the CHOICE is YOURS ALONE here.

6. Being A has qualities being B is void of. Being B has qualities being A is void of.

How do you KNOW?

And, what are you even referring to EXACTLY?

'Examples' HELP in UNDERSTANDING what 'it' IS, which you are, so desperately, 'trying to' EXPLAIN here.

Being A and being B both share voidness thus are connected by it. Being is connected by nothingness as only being exists.

But, AGAIN, if there IS a 'void' or an area or space of 'nothingness', THEN 'void/s' or 'space/s' EXIST, AS WELL, OBVIOUSLY.

1. Contrast is being.

'Contrast' is relative.

Contrast is also a singular event as the comparison between thing A and thing B is one thing.

If there is a 'thing A' AND a 'thing B' then there is NO 'singularity'.

If, however, there is 'what is called' 'thing A' AND 'thing B', then 'singularity' can STILL EXIST.

This comparison is derived from void.

And, as I CLEARLY STATED, if there is an 'area', which is called, or known as a, 'void', which there would OBVIOUSLY HAVE TO BE if a PERCEIVED 'comparison' can EXIST or is DERIVED from 'what is called' 'void'.

Thing A is void of certain qualities found in thing B, thing B is void of certain qualities found in thing A.

But, AGAIN, if there EXISTS a 'thing A', which is ACTUALLY DIFFERENT from 'thing B', then there is NO 'singularity'.

And, OBVIOUSLY, 'singularity' makes PERFECT SENSE, as 'it' is VERY EASILY and VERY SIMPLY ABLE to be SENSED, well by 'Me' ANYWAY.

Both thing A and thing B share a void.

But this is NOT EXACTLY True.

What IS EXACTLY True is what is called or labeled 'thing A' is "separate" to what is called and labeled 'thing B' by a 'space' or, in other words, a 'void'. But this is just NATURAL, as this is EXACTLY 'what' the Universe, Itself, ACTUALLY IS, and 'how' 'It' ACTUALLY WORKS.

This void unites them as the void is the nothingness between things.

OBVIOUSLY. I have been SAYING and STATING this for a WHILE now.

That is 'what is called' 'a void' EXISTS just as much as 'what is called' 'matter' does.

In Fact the "two" HAVE TO EXIST, as One, otherwise the KNOWN Universe, Itself, could NOT exist. And, because the Universe, Itself, IS ALWAYS, infinite AND eternal. What is called and known as 'space/void' AND 'matter/material' has ALSO ALWAYS EXISTED, as One - 'singularity'.

2. Thing A in contrast to thing B is one thing and as one thing is a singularity considering it is a totality of parts relative to thing B.

WHY does it take you SO LONG to just SAY and EXPLAIN what IS, essentially, the MOST SIMPLEST and EASIEST 'thing' to SAY and EXPLAIN?

This occurs vice-versa as well. Thing A/B, in contrast to each other, are respective singularities.

How can there be ACTUAL 'singularities', WITHIN One 'singularity'?

Are you ABLE to CLARIFY 'this'?

If no, then 'this' can be CLARIFIED, IRREFUTABLY, just so that you are AWARE.

This comparison, which is relative thus a relation, is a singular event. Therefore we have the singularity of A, the singularity of B, and the comparison (which is a singularity) of A and B. A singularity exists within a singularity and this is a singularity.

But this is NOT what ACTUALLY occurs NOR happens.

See, what 'you' are doing here is HOW 'you', human beings, have been TRICKING and FOOLING "yourselves" for centuries now, hitherto the age when this was being written.

SEE, literally, what is PERCEIVED by 'you', human beings, is NOT necessarily what IS ACTUALLY True, Right, NOR Correct. 'you', literally, just 'think' some 'things' are true, but 'they' ARE ACTUALLY NOT.

But 'you' are absolutely FREE to 'think' AND 'do' WHATEVER 'you' WANT or CHOOSE to do.

'you' CAN and WILL ONLY begin to SEE 'things' for EXACTLY how they ARE, when 'you' CHOOSE to do this.

3. The number of singularities is irrelevant as the comparison of said singularities is a singularity. All singularities share the quality of being singular thus multiple singularities exist as one.

CONTRADICTION, and thus SELF-REFUTING.

The SAME 'word' can NOT be USING two DIFFERENT nor OPPOSING definitions, or meanings, at the EXACT SAME time and that 'word', in the same sentence, be making ANY REAL 'sense'.

Thus, this is WHY 'singularity', to 'you', is NON-SENSE, and so UNABLE to be SENSED, by 'you'.

4. "Simple" and "easy" are relative terms.

Can 'you' write down or list a word that is NOT a 'relative term'?

If yes, then WILL you?

If no, then WHY NOT?

5. Void is an observation of relation, relation between multiple things underlie said multiple things and connect them as one.

Besides 'observing' from Everything's point-of-view, are you able to LOOK AT ANY 'thing', which is NOT 'an observation of relation'?

If yes, then will you DESCRIBE or EXPLAIN HOW?

If no, then WHY NOT?

6. A tree is absent of feathers, a bird is absent of leaves.

This is depended upon if 'what is called' 'a tree' has feathers on 'it' or not, and vice-versa, this is depended upon if 'what is called 'a bird' has leaves on 'it' or not.

The tree is void of feathers, the bird is void of leaves.

That all depends on 'which' 'thing' 'what is called' 'a bird' or 'a tree' are you talking about and referring to, EXACTLY.

The tree thus has a void relative to a bird, the bird thus has a void relative to the tree.

Did you KNOW you could just say, " What is referred to and called 'a tree' is DEFINED DIFFERENTLY from 'that' 'what is referred to and called 'a bird' ", and there would be absolutely NO one who could REFUTE this? Which would mean that absolutely EVERY one could be IN AGREEMENT WITH 'you' and IN ACCEPTANCE OF 'this', IRREFUTABLE Fact.

And, if you DID SAY 'this', then 'this' would be the END, and WHERE NOTHING MORE 'needs' to be SAID regarding 'this' issue.

7. To speak of void is to speak of a relationship where one thing is absent of qualities found in another thus a comparison occurs.

So what?

'you', human beings, have been doing 'this' VERY THING for countless of centuries, hitherto to when this was being written.

Given the totality of being is indefinite,

What does the word 'being' MEAN, or REFER TO, EXACTLY, AGAIN, to 'you?

See, 'I' define 'being' as 'you', the person, WITHIN a 'human body'. And,

'I' define 'Being', as thee one and ONLY One, WITHIN EVERY 'thing'.

So, the 'totality' of Being, to Me, is DEFINITELY just One. While, the 'totality' of 'what is called' 'you', human beings, if fluctuating ALL of the time.

given there is nothing to compare it to for definition as the totality is everything, the totality of being is void.

If you say so, but I FORGOT how 'you' define the word 'being', and I could NOT be bothered searching through this whole forum where you had CLARIFIED previously.

Being and void thus equate and if void is observed through a relationship then being is observed through relationship. This relationship is indefinite given the relationships are in relation to themselves thus self-referential; where there is self-referentiality there is obscurity as being through being is in comparison to nothing and comparison is necessary for definition.

Okay.

The comparison of comparisons is self-referential thus the phenomenon of comparison is compared to nothing.

But, since in Reality there is REALLY ONLY One 'Thing', there is, literally, NOTHING to 'compare' this 'Thing' TO, nor WITH, correct?

But, because of the way the human brain works, BY 'comparing' 'things', this is WHY 'you', human beings, 'conceptually' make SEPARATION, or COMPARTMENTALIZE, and then add made up 'names' or 'labels' for those PERCEIVED DIFFERENT 'things', which the 'one' 'that is called' "dontaskme" here calls and labels 'this' as AN ILLUSION.

But, the human brain can ONLY make SENSE of the 'world' or Universe that 'it' has FOUND 'itself' WITHIN by this PERCEIVING MANY DIFFERENT 'things', when REALLY there is ONLY just One 'Thing' ALONE.

A comparison to nothingness is nothingness as that which is compared to nothingness is a totality which is indefinite, due to self-referentiality, and nothingness is indefinite. The indefiniteness of being and void necessitates being and void as the same.

To IMAGINARY "break" the Universe "down" to Its SECOND most fundamental level is to "separate" It, through ILLUSION, into TWO instead of thee One that It ACTUALLY is.

Now, the 'two' here are 'space', which can also be known as and called "nothing", which is, literally, NO (physical) 'thing' AND 'matter', which would obviously just refer to the 'physical'.

Now, between ALL 'matter' of, or or, 'physicality' is a 'void', of NO 'matter', nor 'physicality', This 'area' can be known as and called 'absolutely nothing' or a 'void', which is, literally, made up 'what is called' (a) 'space' or 'a distance' between 'what is called' 'matter' or 'physical things'.

[Eodnhoj7]

So what?


Is it possible to have two one singularities?


How many of these so-called "singularities" are there, to you, EXACTLY?


If you say so.

But, just so you are AWARE what you are 'trying to' talk about, and allude to, can be explained and expressed in much SIMPLER and EASIER terms.


But you just said there was a void, or voids, between beings, AND, if there are voids, then NOT only beings exist but ALSO void (or nothing) exist AS WELL.

So, which 'one' of 'these' is it?

And, the CHOICE is YOURS ALONE here.


How do you KNOW?

And, what are you even referring to EXACTLY?

'Examples' HELP in UNDERSTANDING what 'it' IS, which you are, so desperately, 'trying to' EXPLAIN here.



But, AGAIN, if there IS a 'void' or an area or space of 'nothingness', THEN 'void/s' or 'space/s' EXIST, AS WELL, OBVIOUSLY.

1. Contrast is being.

'Contrast' is relative.

Contrast is also a singular event as the comparison between thing A and thing B is one thing.

If there is a 'thing A' AND a 'thing B' then there is NO 'singularity'.

If, however, there is 'what is called' 'thing A' AND 'thing B', then 'singularity' can STILL EXIST.

This comparison is derived from void.

And, as I CLEARLY STATED, if there is an 'area', which is called, or known as a, 'void', which there would OBVIOUSLY HAVE TO BE if a PERCEIVED 'comparison' can EXIST or is DERIVED from 'what is called' 'void'.

Thing A is void of certain qualities found in thing B, thing B is void of certain qualities found in thing A.

But, AGAIN, if there EXISTS a 'thing A', which is ACTUALLY DIFFERENT from 'thing B', then there is NO 'singularity'.

And, OBVIOUSLY, 'singularity' makes PERFECT SENSE, as 'it' is VERY EASILY and VERY SIMPLY ABLE to be SENSED, well by 'Me' ANYWAY.

Both thing A and thing B share a void.

But this is NOT EXACTLY True.

What IS EXACTLY True is what is called or labeled 'thing A' is "separate" to what is called and labeled 'thing B' by a 'space' or, in other words, a 'void'. But this is just NATURAL, as this is EXACTLY 'what' the Universe, Itself, ACTUALLY IS, and 'how' 'It' ACTUALLY WORKS.

This void unites them as the void is the nothingness between things.

OBVIOUSLY. I have been SAYING and STATING this for a WHILE now.

That is 'what is called' 'a void' EXISTS just as much as 'what is called' 'matter' does.

In Fact the "two" HAVE TO EXIST, as One, otherwise the KNOWN Universe, Itself, could NOT exist. And, because the Universe, Itself, IS ALWAYS, infinite AND eternal. What is called and known as 'space/void' AND 'matter/material' has ALSO ALWAYS EXISTED, as One - 'singularity'.

2. Thing A in contrast to thing B is one thing and as one thing is a singularity considering it is a totality of parts relative to thing B.

WHY does it take you SO LONG to just SAY and EXPLAIN what IS, essentially, the MOST SIMPLEST and EASIEST 'thing' to SAY and EXPLAIN?

This occurs vice-versa as well. Thing A/B, in contrast to each other, are respective singularities.

How can there be ACTUAL 'singularities', WITHIN One 'singularity'?

Are you ABLE to CLARIFY 'this'?

If no, then 'this' can be CLARIFIED, IRREFUTABLY, just so that you are AWARE.

This comparison, which is relative thus a relation, is a singular event. Therefore we have the singularity of A, the singularity of B, and the comparison (which is a singularity) of A and B. A singularity exists within a singularity and this is a singularity.

But this is NOT what ACTUALLY occurs NOR happens.

See, what 'you' are doing here is HOW 'you', human beings, have been TRICKING and FOOLING "yourselves" for centuries now, hitherto the age when this was being written.

SEE, literally, what is PERCEIVED by 'you', human beings, is NOT necessarily what IS ACTUALLY True, Right, NOR Correct. 'you', literally, just 'think' some 'things' are true, but 'they' ARE ACTUALLY NOT.

But 'you' are absolutely FREE to 'think' AND 'do' WHATEVER 'you' WANT or CHOOSE to do.

'you' CAN and WILL ONLY begin to SEE 'things' for EXACTLY how they ARE, when 'you' CHOOSE to do this.

3. The number of singularities is irrelevant as the comparison of said singularities is a singularity. All singularities share the quality of being singular thus multiple singularities exist as one.

CONTRADICTION, and thus SELF-REFUTING.

The SAME 'word' can NOT be USING two DIFFERENT nor OPPOSING definitions, or meanings, at the EXACT SAME time and that 'word', in the same sentence, be making ANY REAL 'sense'.

Thus, this is WHY 'singularity', to 'you', is NON-SENSE, and so UNABLE to be SENSED, by 'you'.

4. "Simple" and "easy" are relative terms.

Can 'you' write down or list a word that is NOT a 'relative term'?

If yes, then WILL you?

If no, then WHY NOT?

5. Void is an observation of relation, relation between multiple things underlie said multiple things and connect them as one.

Besides 'observing' from Everything's point-of-view, are you able to LOOK AT ANY 'thing', which is NOT 'an observation of relation'?

If yes, then will you DESCRIBE or EXPLAIN HOW?

If no, then WHY NOT?

6. A tree is absent of feathers, a bird is absent of leaves.

This is depended upon if 'what is called' 'a tree' has feathers on 'it' or not, and vice-versa, this is depended upon if 'what is called 'a bird' has leaves on 'it' or not.

The tree is void of feathers, the bird is void of leaves.

That all depends on 'which' 'thing' 'what is called' 'a bird' or 'a tree' are you talking about and referring to, EXACTLY.

The tree thus has a void relative to a bird, the bird thus has a void relative to the tree.

Did you KNOW you could just say, " What is referred to and called 'a tree' is DEFINED DIFFERENTLY from 'that' 'what is referred to and called 'a bird' ", and there would be absolutely NO one who could REFUTE this? Which would mean that absolutely EVERY one could be IN AGREEMENT WITH 'you' and IN ACCEPTANCE OF 'this', IRREFUTABLE Fact.

And, if you DID SAY 'this', then 'this' would be the END, and WHERE NOTHING MORE 'needs' to be SAID regarding 'this' issue.

7. To speak of void is to speak of a relationship where one thing is absent of qualities found in another thus a comparison occurs.

So what?

'you', human beings, have been doing 'this' VERY THING for countless of centuries, hitherto to when this was being written.

Given the totality of being is indefinite,

What does the word 'being' MEAN, or REFER TO, EXACTLY, AGAIN, to 'you?

See, 'I' define 'being' as 'you', the person, WITHIN a 'human body'. And,

'I' define 'Being', as thee one and ONLY One, WITHIN EVERY 'thing'.

So, the 'totality' of Being, to Me, is DEFINITELY just One. While, the 'totality' of 'what is called' 'you', human beings, if fluctuating ALL of the time.

given there is nothing to compare it to for definition as the totality is everything, the totality of being is void.

If you say so, but I FORGOT how 'you' define the word 'being', and I could NOT be bothered searching through this whole forum where you had CLARIFIED previously.

Being and void thus equate and if void is observed through a relationship then being is observed through relationship. This relationship is indefinite given the relationships are in relation to themselves thus self-referential; where there is self-referentiality there is obscurity as being through being is in comparison to nothing and comparison is necessary for definition.

Okay.

The comparison of comparisons is self-referential thus the phenomenon of comparison is compared to nothing.

But, since in Reality there is REALLY ONLY One 'Thing', there is, literally, NOTHING to 'compare' this 'Thing' TO, nor WITH, correct?

But, because of the way the human brain works, BY 'comparing' 'things', this is WHY 'you', human beings, 'conceptually' make SEPARATION, or COMPARTMENTALIZE, and then add made up 'names' or 'labels' for those PERCEIVED DIFFERENT 'things', which the 'one' 'that is called' "dontaskme" here calls and labels 'this' as AN ILLUSION.

But, the human brain can ONLY make SENSE of the 'world' or Universe that 'it' has FOUND 'itself' WITHIN by this PERCEIVING MANY DIFFERENT 'things', when REALLY there is ONLY just One 'Thing' ALONE.

A comparison to nothingness is nothingness as that which is compared to nothingness is a totality which is indefinite, due to self-referentiality, and nothingness is indefinite. The indefiniteness of being and void necessitates being and void as the same.

To IMAGINARY "break" the Universe "down" to Its SECOND most fundamental level is to "separate" It, through ILLUSION, into TWO instead of thee One that It ACTUALLY is.

Now, the 'two' here are 'space', which can also be known as and called "nothing", which is, literally, NO (physical) 'thing' AND 'matter', which would obviously just refer to the 'physical'.

Now, between ALL 'matter' of, or or, 'physicality' is a 'void', of NO 'matter', nor 'physicality', This 'area' can be known as and called 'absolutely nothing' or a 'void', which is, literally, made up 'what is called' (a) 'space' or 'a distance' between 'what is called' 'matter' or 'physical things'.

If you really disagreed deep down with what I said you wouldn't have responded to every little piece of wording as if threatened by it.

The proof is on you to argue the singularity is sensical.

[Age]

1. Contrast is being.

'Contrast' is relative.

Contrast is also a singular event as the comparison between thing A and thing B is one thing.

If there is a 'thing A' AND a 'thing B' then there is NO 'singularity'.

If, however, there is 'what is called' 'thing A' AND 'thing B', then 'singularity' can STILL EXIST.

This comparison is derived from void.

And, as I CLEARLY STATED, if there is an 'area', which is called, or known as a, 'void', which there would OBVIOUSLY HAVE TO BE if a PERCEIVED 'comparison' can EXIST or is DERIVED from 'what is called' 'void'.

Thing A is void of certain qualities found in thing B, thing B is void of certain qualities found in thing A.

But, AGAIN, if there EXISTS a 'thing A', which is ACTUALLY DIFFERENT from 'thing B', then there is NO 'singularity'.

And, OBVIOUSLY, 'singularity' makes PERFECT SENSE, as 'it' is VERY EASILY and VERY SIMPLY ABLE to be SENSED, well by 'Me' ANYWAY.

Both thing A and thing B share a void.

But this is NOT EXACTLY True.

What IS EXACTLY True is what is called or labeled 'thing A' is "separate" to what is called and labeled 'thing B' by a 'space' or, in other words, a 'void'. But this is just NATURAL, as this is EXACTLY 'what' the Universe, Itself, ACTUALLY IS, and 'how' 'It' ACTUALLY WORKS.

This void unites them as the void is the nothingness between things.

OBVIOUSLY. I have been SAYING and STATING this for a WHILE now.

That is 'what is called' 'a void' EXISTS just as much as 'what is called' 'matter' does.

In Fact the "two" HAVE TO EXIST, as One, otherwise the KNOWN Universe, Itself, could NOT exist. And, because the Universe, Itself, IS ALWAYS, infinite AND eternal. What is called and known as 'space/void' AND 'matter/material' has ALSO ALWAYS EXISTED, as One - 'singularity'.

2. Thing A in contrast to thing B is one thing and as one thing is a singularity considering it is a totality of parts relative to thing B.

WHY does it take you SO LONG to just SAY and EXPLAIN what IS, essentially, the MOST SIMPLEST and EASIEST 'thing' to SAY and EXPLAIN?

This occurs vice-versa as well. Thing A/B, in contrast to each other, are respective singularities.

How can there be ACTUAL 'singularities', WITHIN One 'singularity'?

Are you ABLE to CLARIFY 'this'?

If no, then 'this' can be CLARIFIED, IRREFUTABLY, just so that you are AWARE.

This comparison, which is relative thus a relation, is a singular event. Therefore we have the singularity of A, the singularity of B, and the comparison (which is a singularity) of A and B. A singularity exists within a singularity and this is a singularity.

But this is NOT what ACTUALLY occurs NOR happens.

See, what 'you' are doing here is HOW 'you', human beings, have been TRICKING and FOOLING "yourselves" for centuries now, hitherto the age when this was being written.

SEE, literally, what is PERCEIVED by 'you', human beings, is NOT necessarily what IS ACTUALLY True, Right, NOR Correct. 'you', literally, just 'think' some 'things' are true, but 'they' ARE ACTUALLY NOT.

But 'you' are absolutely FREE to 'think' AND 'do' WHATEVER 'you' WANT or CHOOSE to do.

'you' CAN and WILL ONLY begin to SEE 'things' for EXACTLY how they ARE, when 'you' CHOOSE to do this.

3. The number of singularities is irrelevant as the comparison of said singularities is a singularity. All singularities share the quality of being singular thus multiple singularities exist as one.

CONTRADICTION, and thus SELF-REFUTING.

The SAME 'word' can NOT be USING two DIFFERENT nor OPPOSING definitions, or meanings, at the EXACT SAME time and that 'word', in the same sentence, be making ANY REAL 'sense'.

Thus, this is WHY 'singularity', to 'you', is NON-SENSE, and so UNABLE to be SENSED, by 'you'.

4. "Simple" and "easy" are relative terms.

Can 'you' write down or list a word that is NOT a 'relative term'?

If yes, then WILL you?

If no, then WHY NOT?

5. Void is an observation of relation, relation between multiple things underlie said multiple things and connect them as one.

Besides 'observing' from Everything's point-of-view, are you able to LOOK AT ANY 'thing', which is NOT 'an observation of relation'?

If yes, then will you DESCRIBE or EXPLAIN HOW?

If no, then WHY NOT?

6. A tree is absent of feathers, a bird is absent of leaves.

This is depended upon if 'what is called' 'a tree' has feathers on 'it' or not, and vice-versa, this is depended upon if 'what is called 'a bird' has leaves on 'it' or not.

The tree is void of feathers, the bird is void of leaves.

That all depends on 'which' 'thing' 'what is called' 'a bird' or 'a tree' are you talking about and referring to, EXACTLY.

The tree thus has a void relative to a bird, the bird thus has a void relative to the tree.

Did you KNOW you could just say, " What is referred to and called 'a tree' is DEFINED DIFFERENTLY from 'that' 'what is referred to and called 'a bird' ", and there would be absolutely NO one who could REFUTE this? Which would mean that absolutely EVERY one could be IN AGREEMENT WITH 'you' and IN ACCEPTANCE OF 'this', IRREFUTABLE Fact.

And, if you DID SAY 'this', then 'this' would be the END, and WHERE NOTHING MORE 'needs' to be SAID regarding 'this' issue.

7. To speak of void is to speak of a relationship where one thing is absent of qualities found in another thus a comparison occurs.

So what?

'you', human beings, have been doing 'this' VERY THING for countless of centuries, hitherto to when this was being written.

Given the totality of being is indefinite,

What does the word 'being' MEAN, or REFER TO, EXACTLY, AGAIN, to 'you?

See, 'I' define 'being' as 'you', the person, WITHIN a 'human body'. And,

'I' define 'Being', as thee one and ONLY One, WITHIN EVERY 'thing'.

So, the 'totality' of Being, to Me, is DEFINITELY just One. While, the 'totality' of 'what is called' 'you', human beings, if fluctuating ALL of the time.

given there is nothing to compare it to for definition as the totality is everything, the totality of being is void.

If you say so, but I FORGOT how 'you' define the word 'being', and I could NOT be bothered searching through this whole forum where you had CLARIFIED previously.

Being and void thus equate and if void is observed through a relationship then being is observed through relationship. This relationship is indefinite given the relationships are in relation to themselves thus self-referential; where there is self-referentiality there is obscurity as being through being is in comparison to nothing and comparison is necessary for definition.

Okay.

The comparison of comparisons is self-referential thus the phenomenon of comparison is compared to nothing.

But, since in Reality there is REALLY ONLY One 'Thing', there is, literally, NOTHING to 'compare' this 'Thing' TO, nor WITH, correct?

But, because of the way the human brain works, BY 'comparing' 'things', this is WHY 'you', human beings, 'conceptually' make SEPARATION, or COMPARTMENTALIZE, and then add made up 'names' or 'labels' for those PERCEIVED DIFFERENT 'things', which the 'one' 'that is called' "dontaskme" here calls and labels 'this' as AN ILLUSION.

But, the human brain can ONLY make SENSE of the 'world' or Universe that 'it' has FOUND 'itself' WITHIN by this PERCEIVING MANY DIFFERENT 'things', when REALLY there is ONLY just One 'Thing' ALONE.

A comparison to nothingness is nothingness as that which is compared to nothingness is a totality which is indefinite, due to self-referentiality, and nothingness is indefinite. The indefiniteness of being and void necessitates being and void as the same.

To IMAGINARY "break" the Universe "down" to Its SECOND most fundamental level is to "separate" It, through ILLUSION, into TWO instead of thee One that It ACTUALLY is.

Now, the 'two' here are 'space', which can also be known as and called "nothing", which is, literally, NO (physical) 'thing' AND 'matter', which would obviously just refer to the 'physical'.

Now, between ALL 'matter' of, or or, 'physicality' is a 'void', of NO 'matter', nor 'physicality', This 'area' can be known as and called 'absolutely nothing' or a 'void', which is, literally, made up 'what is called' (a) 'space' or 'a distance' between 'what is called' 'matter' or 'physical things'.

If you really disagreed deep down with what I said you wouldn't have responded to every little piece of wording as if threatened by it.

WHY does "responding to EVERY little piece of wording you say or write", then, "instantly" or "automatically", somehow mean that I would be "threatened" by what 'you' have just said or written here?

And, if I REALLY DISAGREED, 'deep down', with what you have said here and I, supposedly, would NOT have responded to EVER little piece of wording, then what, EXACTLY, would I have, supposedly, done INSTEAD, (from YOUR perspective)?

The proof is on you to argue the singularity is sensical.

But 'singularity', itself, from ANOTHER perspective, is ABSOLUTELY and TOTALLY ABLE to be 'sensed', and as such can make PERFECT SENSE.

It just all depends on HOW 'you' want to LOOK AT and SEE 'things'.

By the way, 'YOU' started 'this thread' called; Singularity is Non-Sense (Unable to be Sensed) I am just QUESTIONING and CHALLENGING 'you' on 'your' CLAIMS and BELIEFS here.

It is NOT up to 'me' to 'argue' absolutely ANY 'thing' here.

Also, as can be CLEARLY SEEN the WAY 'I' 'argue' 'things' is VERY DIFFERENTLY from the WAY 'you', adult human beings, so-call 'argue' 'things'. That is; 'I' may actually USE 'you', and 'your OWN words', to 'argue', and/or PROVE, 'things'.

[Belinda]

Age wrote:

But 'singularity', itself, from ANOTHER perspective, is ABSOLUTELY and TOTALLY ABLE to be 'sensed', and as such can make PERFECT SENSE.

I agree that if the concept of singularity could not be 'sensed' we could not even talk about it or refer to it in any way. This is because language implies or explains both what is and what is not. Age's objection is epistemic, i.e. how we can know stuff.

However if singularity were ontic (loosely : a state of being ) then there would exist no individual consciousnesses as consciousness too would be singular.