Singularity is Non-Sense (Unable to be Sensed)

[Eodnhoj7]

'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'.

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'.

1. You feel threatened because you have to negate...but there is nothing wrong with feeling threatened, it is natural.

2. The singularity has nothing to compare itself to and comparison is necessary for definition. We observe through definition.

[Age]

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'.

1. You feel threatened because you have to negate...but there is nothing wrong with feeling threatened, it is natural.

Well this is ONE ASSUMPTION, which, by the way, is ABSOLUTELY Wrong AND Incorrect.

2. The singularity has nothing to compare itself to and comparison is necessary for definition. We observe through definition.

When 'you' say, "The singularity", what EXACTLY is "The singularity".

When, and IF, you can EXPLAIN, then we can and WILL SEE and KNOW if 'you' KNOW what 'you' are TALKING ABOUT or NOT.

[Eodnhoj7]

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)?


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'.

1. You feel threatened because you have to negate...but there is nothing wrong with feeling threatened, it is natural.

Well this is ONE ASSUMPTION, which, by the way, is ABSOLUTELY Wrong AND Incorrect.

2. The singularity has nothing to compare itself to and comparison is necessary for definition. We observe through definition.

When 'you' say, "The singularity", what EXACTLY is "The singularity".

When, and IF, you can EXPLAIN, then we can and WILL SEE and KNOW if 'you' KNOW what 'you' are TALKING ABOUT or NOT.

The singularity is sameness and sameness is indefinite as it is a result of an absence of contrast. To speak of the singularity is to speak of nothing thus is self-negating to talk about. Reason, as an extension of this singularity and thus a reflection of it, is self negating; we can only speak in self-negating statements if we chose speak at all.

[Age]

1. You feel threatened because you have to negate...but there is nothing wrong with feeling threatened, it is natural.

Well this is ONE ASSUMPTION, which, by the way, is ABSOLUTELY Wrong AND Incorrect.

2. The singularity has nothing to compare itself to and comparison is necessary for definition. We observe through definition.

When 'you' say, "The singularity", what EXACTLY is "The singularity".

When, and IF, you can EXPLAIN, then we can and WILL SEE and KNOW if 'you' KNOW what 'you' are TALKING ABOUT or NOT.

The singularity is sameness and sameness is indefinite as it is a result of an absence of contrast.

When you keep CHANGING the definition of 'things', like you do here, then you WILL keep going around in circles, like you do here.

To speak of the singularity is to speak of nothing thus is self-negating to talk about.

So, the ONLY way you can 'try to' COUNTER what I have POINTED OUT and SHOWN here is to just 'now' say and claim; "To speak of singularity is self-negating to talk about singularity".

Did you FORGET that it was 'YOU', "eodnhoj7", who STARTED this WHOLE, 'self-negating', thread on 'singularity'? Or, did you just PURPOSELY 'self-contradict' "yourself" here.

Reason, as an extension of this singularity and thus a reflection of it, is self negating; we can only speak in self-negating statements if we chose speak at all.

If you want to SAY and CLAIM that 'you' are 'self-negating' "your" OWN 'self', then so be it. But, 'you' would ALSO OBVIOUSLY just be 'self-negating' what you SAY and CLAIM here ALSO.

[Eodnhoj7]

Well this is ONE ASSUMPTION, which, by the way, is ABSOLUTELY Wrong AND Incorrect.


When 'you' say, "The singularity", what EXACTLY is "The singularity".

When, and IF, you can EXPLAIN, then we can and WILL SEE and KNOW if 'you' KNOW what 'you' are TALKING ABOUT or NOT.

The singularity is sameness and sameness is indefinite as it is a result of an absence of contrast.

When you keep CHANGING the definition of 'things', like you do here, then you WILL keep going around in circles, like you do here.

To speak of the singularity is to speak of nothing thus is self-negating to talk about.

So, the ONLY way you can 'try to' COUNTER what I have POINTED OUT and SHOWN here is to just 'now' say and claim; "To speak of singularity is self-negating to talk about singularity".

Did you FORGET that it was 'YOU', "eodnhoj7", who STARTED this WHOLE, 'self-negating', thread on 'singularity'? Or, did you just PURPOSELY 'self-contradict' "yourself" here.

Reason, as an extension of this singularity and thus a reflection of it, is self negating; we can only speak in self-negating statements if we chose speak at all.

If you want to SAY and CLAIM that 'you' are 'self-negating' "your" OWN 'self', then so be it. But, 'you' would ALSO OBVIOUSLY just be 'self-negating' what you SAY and CLAIM here ALSO.

1. Definition changes as the point of view changes; definition is relative to the context of the observer. But given x definition occurs for y angle of observation there are things which don't change thus absolute truth exists.

2. If "everything" and "contradiction" equate then self-negation, as contradiction, is everything. Reality negates itself as evidenced by change.

3. The totality of being is without form as this totality necessitates no contrast beyond it as any contrast must be a part of it; the singularity is the same as nothing.

[Age]

The singularity is sameness and sameness is indefinite as it is a result of an absence of contrast.

When you keep CHANGING the definition of 'things', like you do here, then you WILL keep going around in circles, like you do here.

To speak of the singularity is to speak of nothing thus is self-negating to talk about.

So, the ONLY way you can 'try to' COUNTER what I have POINTED OUT and SHOWN here is to just 'now' say and claim; "To speak of singularity is self-negating to talk about singularity".

Did you FORGET that it was 'YOU', "eodnhoj7", who STARTED this WHOLE, 'self-negating', thread on 'singularity'? Or, did you just PURPOSELY 'self-contradict' "yourself" here.

Reason, as an extension of this singularity and thus a reflection of it, is self negating; we can only speak in self-negating statements if we chose speak at all.

If you want to SAY and CLAIM that 'you' are 'self-negating' "your" OWN 'self', then so be it. But, 'you' would ALSO OBVIOUSLY just be 'self-negating' what you SAY and CLAIM here ALSO.

1. Definition changes as the point of view changes; definition is relative to the context of the observer. But given x definition occurs for y angle of observation there are things which don't change thus absolute truth exists.

2. If "everything" and "contradiction" equate then self-negation, as contradiction, is everything. Reality negates itself as evidenced by change.

3. The totality of being is without form as this totality necessitates no contrast beyond it as any contrast must be a part of it; the singularity is the same as nothing.

How, EXACTLY, can SOME 'thing' be the SAME as NO 'thing'?

[Eodnhoj7]

When you keep CHANGING the definition of 'things', like you do here, then you WILL keep going around in circles, like you do here.



So, the ONLY way you can 'try to' COUNTER what I have POINTED OUT and SHOWN here is to just 'now' say and claim; "To speak of singularity is self-negating to talk about singularity".

Did you FORGET that it was 'YOU', "eodnhoj7", who STARTED this WHOLE, 'self-negating', thread on 'singularity'? Or, did you just PURPOSELY 'self-contradict' "yourself" here.



If you want to SAY and CLAIM that 'you' are 'self-negating' "your" OWN 'self', then so be it. But, 'you' would ALSO OBVIOUSLY just be 'self-negating' what you SAY and CLAIM here ALSO.

1. Definition changes as the point of view changes; definition is relative to the context of the observer. But given x definition occurs for y angle of observation there are things which don't change thus absolute truth exists.

2. If "everything" and "contradiction" equate then self-negation, as contradiction, is everything. Reality negates itself as evidenced by change.

3. The totality of being is without form as this totality necessitates no contrast beyond it as any contrast must be a part of it; the singularity is the same as nothing.

How, EXACTLY, can SOME 'thing' be the SAME as NO 'thing'?

Infinite fullness and infinite emptiness are both indefinite and lack form therefore are "no-thing" (ie an absence of thingness).

[Age]

1. Definition changes as the point of view changes; definition is relative to the context of the observer. But given x definition occurs for y angle of observation there are things which don't change thus absolute truth exists.

2. If "everything" and "contradiction" equate then self-negation, as contradiction, is everything. Reality negates itself as evidenced by change.

3. The totality of being is without form as this totality necessitates no contrast beyond it as any contrast must be a part of it; the singularity is the same as nothing.

How, EXACTLY, can SOME 'thing' be the SAME as NO 'thing'?

Infinite fullness and infinite emptiness are both indefinite and lack form therefore are "no-thing" (ie an absence of thingness).

Well, OBVIOUSLY, because of what ACTUALLY EXISTS there is NEITHER 'infinite fullness' NOR 'infinite emptiness'. And, there NEVER WAS NOR NEVER WILL BE EITHER.

[Eodnhoj7]

How, EXACTLY, can SOME 'thing' be the SAME as NO 'thing'?

Infinite fullness and infinite emptiness are both indefinite and lack form therefore are "no-thing" (ie an absence of thingness).

Well, OBVIOUSLY, because of what ACTUALLY EXISTS there is NEITHER 'infinite fullness' NOR 'infinite emptiness'. And, there NEVER WAS NOR NEVER WILL BE EITHER.

The totality of being is infinite as it is indefinite because there is no contrast as there is only everything. This infinite nature of "the totality" is both full and empty as all qualities exist through it; the infinite nature of "the totality" necessitates infinite fullness/emptiness.

[Age]

Infinite fullness and infinite emptiness are both indefinite and lack form therefore are "no-thing" (ie an absence of thingness).

Well, OBVIOUSLY, because of what ACTUALLY EXISTS there is NEITHER 'infinite fullness' NOR 'infinite emptiness'. And, there NEVER WAS NOR NEVER WILL BE EITHER.

The totality of being is infinite as it is indefinite because there is no contrast as there is only everything. This infinite nature of "the totality" is both full and empty as all qualities exist through it; the infinite nature of "the totality" necessitates infinite fullness/emptiness.

In the OBVIOUS 'totality of SOME Thing' are you ABLE TO logically explain and/or show WHY there NECESSARILY HAS TO BE 'infinite fullness/emptiness', and, HOW there could even be, this alleged and supposed, 'infinite fullness/emptiness'?

If yes, then will you?

If no, then WHY NOT?

OBVIOUSLY there IS 'fullness' AND 'emptiness' in this SOME 'Thing' known as TOTALITY, Everything, or Universe, but YOUR CLAIM that, by nature, there necessitates INFINITE 'fullness/emptiness' seems rather absurd and illogical, well to me anyway. BUT, maybe you are ABLE TO explain this apparent INCONSISTENT CONTRADICTION. We shall just have to WAIT and SEE.

[Eodnhoj7]

Well, OBVIOUSLY, because of what ACTUALLY EXISTS there is NEITHER 'infinite fullness' NOR 'infinite emptiness'. And, there NEVER WAS NOR NEVER WILL BE EITHER.

The totality of being is infinite as it is indefinite because there is no contrast as there is only everything. This infinite nature of "the totality" is both full and empty as all qualities exist through it; the infinite nature of "the totality" necessitates infinite fullness/emptiness.

In the OBVIOUS 'totality of SOME Thing' are you ABLE TO logically explain and/or show WHY there NECESSARILY HAS TO BE 'infinite fullness/emptiness', and, HOW there could even be, this alleged and supposed, 'infinite fullness/emptiness'?

If yes, then will you?

If no, then WHY NOT?

OBVIOUSLY there IS 'fullness' AND 'emptiness' in this SOME 'Thing' known as TOTALITY, Everything, or Universe, but YOUR CLAIM that, by nature, there necessitates INFINITE 'fullness/emptiness' seems rather absurd and illogical, well to me anyway. BUT, maybe you are ABLE TO explain this apparent INCONSISTENT CONTRADICTION. We shall just have to WAIT and SEE.

1. Only being exists and this being has no contrast as there is only being; as absent of contrast it is indefinite thus infinite. The fullness of being and the emptiness of being are both forms of being that are indefinite, thus infinite, as only being exists.

2. What does not contradict?

[Age]

The totality of being is infinite as it is indefinite because there is no contrast as there is only everything. This infinite nature of "the totality" is both full and empty as all qualities exist through it; the infinite nature of "the totality" necessitates infinite fullness/emptiness.

In the OBVIOUS 'totality of SOME Thing' are you ABLE TO logically explain and/or show WHY there NECESSARILY HAS TO BE 'infinite fullness/emptiness', and, HOW there could even be, this alleged and supposed, 'infinite fullness/emptiness'?

If yes, then will you?

If no, then WHY NOT?

OBVIOUSLY there IS 'fullness' AND 'emptiness' in this SOME 'Thing' known as TOTALITY, Everything, or Universe, but YOUR CLAIM that, by nature, there necessitates INFINITE 'fullness/emptiness' seems rather absurd and illogical, well to me anyway. BUT, maybe you are ABLE TO explain this apparent INCONSISTENT CONTRADICTION. We shall just have to WAIT and SEE.

1. Only being exists and this being has no contrast as there is only being; as absent of contrast it is indefinite thus infinite. The fullness of being and the emptiness of being are both forms of being that are indefinite, thus infinite, as only being exists.

2. What does not contradict?

94. To who?

[Dontaskme]

Infinite fullness and infinite emptiness are both indefinite and lack form therefore are "no-thing" (ie an absence of thingness).

Very well said.

No 'thing' can define 'no-thing'

No 'thing' has any meaning or definition without attaching an 'OUGHT'
Nothing can be thought about only as an abstract thing, but nothing isn't a thing, no - thing.

[Dontaskme]

To who?

To Mr and Mrs Ambidextrous.

[Age]

To who?

To Mr and Mrs Ambidextrous.

Since you appear to know, then maybe you are the better one to answer the clarifying question, correct?