1. You feel threatened because you have to negate...but there is nothing wrong with feeling threatened, it is natural.Age wrote: ↑Sun Mar 20, 2022 1:09 amWHY 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?Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Fri Mar 18, 2022 12:05 amIf 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.Age wrote: ↑Tue Mar 15, 2022 1:26 am
'Contrast' is relative.
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.
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'.
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.
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.
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'.
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?
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.
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.
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'.
Can 'you' write down or list a word that is NOT a 'relative term'?
If yes, then WILL you?
If no, then WHY NOT?
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?
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.
That all depends on 'which' 'thing' 'what is called' 'a bird' or 'a tree' are you talking about and referring to, EXACTLY.
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.
So what?
'you', human beings, have been doing 'this' VERY THING for countless of centuries, hitherto to when this was being written.
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.
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.
Okay.
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.
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'.
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)?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'.
2. The singularity has nothing to compare itself to and comparison is necessary for definition. We observe through definition.