Change cannot happen at now

[Age]

You wanted my argument and I presented it for you to refute which you did not.

Did I say that I wanted your argument, IN THIS THREAD? Or, was it in the other thread that I wanted it, which you are appearing to be mixing up, ONCE AGAIN.

It was IN ANOTHER THREAD where you presented an argument, in list form, for your CLAIMS in THIS THREAD.

This is 'your argument', in list form, which you presented in ANOTHER THREAD.

1. All comes from a point.

2. All being is reduced to a point from a distance.

3. All is composed of points upon closer inspection.

4. The point Inverts to another point and repeats through further points.

5. The point as existing through further points necessitates the point as continuous thus static.

AND, 'my response/refutation' to this argument is IN THAT OTHER THREAD.

AND, because it is you who is mixing these threads up and it is you who is CHOOSING NOT to learn how to quote PROPERLY and CORRECTLY, I will leave it up to you to sort this out now. I am only going to CORRECT your MISQUOTING so many times before I STOP doing it anymore.

You repeat yourself again and again saying I do not know and am making assumptions, so who is the one projecting? You are.

What is 'it', EXACTLY, which you now CLAIM that I "do NOT know", and, what is 'it', EXACTLY, which you now CLAIM I "am making assumptions" about?

Perpetual change establishes an unchanging principle of change thus a law which is still and constant remains.

ONCE AGAIN, you are using the 'still' word ONLY BECAUSE this is what YOUR currently held onto BELIEFS tell 'you' is true.

Why can 'you' NOT YET SEE the ACTUAL DIFFERENCE between the words 'still' and 'constant'?

The ACTUAL ANSWER is VERY SIMPLE and VERY EASY to SEE, that is; Once you KNOW how to LOOK and SEE things PROPERLY and CORRECTLY.

An unchanging law necessitates a principle of stillness occuring thus a secondary form of stillness occurs.

What do you mean by an 'unchanging law' and an ' unchanging law NECESSITATES a "principle of stillness" '?

How could, for example, an 'unchanging law' of 'constant change' NECESSITATE a principle of 'stillness'?

The word 'stillness' is in DIRECT OPPOSITION of the word 'change'. How could the EXACT SAME thing 'be still' and still be 'changing' at the EXACT SAME MOMENT?

Considering the way you have previously used words, then I am NOT at all surprised of what you have done here, but YOU CLARIFYING my QUESTIONS here would be most appreciated.

Considering there are two forms of stillness, the principle and the phenomenon of stillness, two manifests itself as a constant.

To me, two does NOT manifest itself as a constant AT ALL. Two is just YOU 'trying' ABSOLUTELY ANY thing to back up and support your currently held BELIEFS and ASSUMPTIONS.

Now there are three still phenomena: the principle, the phenomenon of stillness, and the numbers 2.

This is from YOUR PERSPECTIVE ONLY.

But you HAVE TO HAVE and MAINTAIN this perspective, otherwise you would be CONTRADICTING "your" 'self', that is; YOUR current BELIEFS and ASSUMPTIONS about what is true.

From this four then five then six, ad infinitum degrees of stillness occur.

LOL if you say so.

If stillness does not exist then where do we get it as a phenomenon?

From 'relativity', itself. And do NOT LOOK AT this from ANY preconceived ideas. Otherwise you will FALL back into the SAME TRAP that I have been warning you about.

If you LOOK AT this from your currently gained and held onto BELIEFS and ASSUMPTIONS, then you will NEVER Truly UNDERSTAND what 'it' IS that I am ACTUALLY SAYING, and MEANING here.

As I have ALREADY EXPLAINED, and which is just PURELY OBVIOUS; Absolutely EVERY thing is 'relative' to the observer.

The phenomena of 'stillness' comes from the EXACT SAME PLACE that EVERY other 'phenomena' comes from, that is; just from the way the 'you' LOOKS AT and SEES 'things'.

SEE, 'you', adult human beings, will, for example, LOOK AT a photo, picture, drawing, or painting and SEE, and gain a SENSE OF, 'stillness'. This just and ONLY 'sense of' 'stillness', then becomes a 'phenomena', which you can then BELIEVE is true, and which you can then PUT ONTO 'other things' when you are LOOKING AT and SEEING them. And, because you would SAW, or more correctly PERCEIVED was 'stillness' when you were OBSERVING that photo, picture, etc, then this adds to the WRONG ASSUMPTION and BELIEF that there is 'stillness' and that 'stillness' actually exists.

BUT, if and when a photo, picture, drawing, AND painting is LOOKED AT Truly DEEPLY, in True DEPTH, or from thee Truly OPEN perspective, which is just from ALL perspectives POSSIBLE, then what is ACTUALLY SEEN is that that photo, picture, etc. is NOT 'still' AT ALL. And, in fact, they are ALL IN constant-change. But most of 'you', adult human beings, in the days of when this is being written, do NOT LOOK AT things from as MANY PERSPECTIVES as POSSIBLE, which OBVIOUSLY includes from the sub-atomic or quantum level of things, which is WHERE constant-change can VERY EASILY be OBSERVED, RECOGNIZED, and SEEN.

Mostly 'you', adult human beings, only LOOK AT and SEE things from the human being level and perspective, and even more specifically these adults only LOOK AT and SEE things from their OWN VERY SPECIFICALLY personal level and perspective ONLY. And even more NARROWER and SHORT SIGHTED these people's views are is they ONLY LOOK FROM and ONLY SEE things FROM their OWN ASSUMPTIONS and/or BELIEFS, ONLY. Which is WHERE 'stillness' is "seen" but ONLY because they are NOT LOOKING AT what IS ACTUALLY HAPPENING and OCCURRING. They are ONLY LOOKING AT and SEEING things from the RELATIVE perspective of the one individual observer ONLY.

WHERE 'you', adult human beings, get YOUR 'stillness' as a phenomena is FROM your ASSUMPTIONS and BELIEFS ONLY that 'stillness' "actually exists".

IF 'stillness' actually exists, or could possibly exist, then just SHOW and PROVE, FIRST, that 'stillness' could possibly exist, and then SHOW and PROVE, EXACTLY, WHERE 'stillness' ACTUALLY EXISTS. Once this is PROVEN, then the rest of what you say and claim here could and will make sense, but until then what you say and claim here are just your OWN ASSUMPTIONS and BELIEFS, which, AGAIN and OBVIOUSLY, could be COMPLETELY or partly False, Wrong, and/or Incorrect.

And what way is it the universe "actually works" and "has to work"?

In the way that It does, which is;

The Universe at Its fundamental level is made up of 'matter' AND 'space', and because of these two things coexisting the Universe is able to and IS constantly changing. This IS the way the UNIVERSE IS, and how the Universe ACTUALLY WORKS IS because of 'space' 'matter' is able to move about absolutely FREELY. Because this ability for matter to move about FREELY the Universe has, is, and will ALWAYS been moving FREELY, and thus continually and constantly CHANGING. Because the Universe works this way in constant-change and ALWAYS works in this way, the Universe 'has to work' this way, eternally.

The point negates itself into a form, much in the same manner a point negates into a line or circle.

And the same way YOUR 'point' negates itself? Or, does YOUR 'point' NOT work this way?

The new form is composed of points thus changes into further forms.

So, WHEN, WHEREABOUTS, and for how long, EXACTLY, does the alleged 'static, and thus unchanging, form' exist?

The point is the means of change from one form into another thus is ever present and unchanging.

To me, the 'means of change' is just the ABILITY to FREELY CHANGE, which ALWAYS just exists.

Now, if, as you say, the 'point' is the 'means of change from one form into another' and thus the 'point' is ever present and unchanging, then HOW EXACTLY can AN EVER PRESENT and UNCHANGING 'point' be the 'means' of change, itself?

[Eodnhoj7]

You wanted my argument and I presented it for you to refute which you did not.

Did I say that I wanted your argument, IN THIS THREAD? Or, was it in the other thread that I wanted it, which you are appearing to be mixing up, ONCE AGAIN.

It was IN ANOTHER THREAD where you presented an argument, in list form, for your CLAIMS in THIS THREAD.

This is 'your argument', in list form, which you presented in ANOTHER THREAD.

1. All comes from a point.

2. All being is reduced to a point from a distance.

3. All is composed of points upon closer inspection.

4. The point Inverts to another point and repeats through further points.

5. The point as existing through further points necessitates the point as continuous thus static.

AND, 'my response/refutation' to this argument is IN THAT OTHER THREAD.

AND, because it is you who is mixing these threads up and it is you who is CHOOSING NOT to learn how to quote PROPERLY and CORRECTLY, I will leave it up to you to sort this out now. I am only going to CORRECT your MISQUOTING so many times before I STOP doing it anymore.

You repeat yourself again and again saying I do not know and am making assumptions, so who is the one projecting? You are.

What is 'it', EXACTLY, which you now CLAIM that I "do NOT know", and, what is 'it', EXACTLY, which you now CLAIM I "am making assumptions" about?

You repeat yourself in saying others do not know and are making assumptions, the same repetition you accuse me of is the same reptition you are guilty of.

Perpetual change establishes an unchanging principle of change thus a law which is still and constant remains.

ONCE AGAIN, you are using the 'still' word ONLY BECAUSE this is what YOUR currently held onto BELIEFS tell 'you' is true.

Why can 'you' NOT YET SEE the ACTUAL DIFFERENCE between the words 'still' and 'constant'?

That which is still and unchanging is constant.

The ACTUAL ANSWER is VERY SIMPLE and VERY EASY to SEE, that is; Once you KNOW how to LOOK and SEE things PROPERLY and CORRECTLY.

And here you are repeating yourself.

An unchanging law necessitates a principle of stillness occuring thus a secondary form of stillness occurs.

What do you mean by an 'unchanging law' and an ' unchanging law NECESSITATES a "principle of stillness" '?
Everything constantly changes is a law. This law does not change thus necessitates stillness as existing.

How could, for example, an 'unchanging law' of 'constant change' NECESSITATE a principle of 'stillness'?
See above.

The word 'stillness' is in DIRECT OPPOSITION of the word 'change'. How could the EXACT SAME thing 'be still' and still be 'changing' at the EXACT SAME MOMENT?

A point dividing into another point observes one point multiplying, thus change, yet all points are the same thus the point remains constant.

Considering the way you have previously used words, then I am NOT at all surprised of what you have done here, but YOU CLARIFYING my QUESTIONS here would be most appreciated.

Considering there are two forms of stillness, the principle and the phenomenon of stillness, two manifests itself as a constant.

To me, two does NOT manifest itself as a constant AT ALL. Two is just YOU 'trying' ABSOLUTELY ANY thing to back up and support your currently held BELIEFS and ASSUMPTIONS.

And there you go repeating yourself. Two manifests itself as a constant where there are two constant principles.

Now there are three still phenomena: the principle, the phenomenon of stillness, and the numbers 2.

This is from YOUR PERSPECTIVE ONLY.

But you HAVE TO HAVE and MAINTAIN this perspective, otherwise you would be CONTRADICTING "your" 'self', that is; YOUR current BELIEFS and ASSUMPTIONS about what is true.

There you go projecting again.

From this four then five then six, ad infinitum degrees of stillness occur.

LOL if you say so.

If stillness does not exist then where do we get it as a phenomenon?

From 'relativity', itself. And do NOT LOOK AT this from ANY preconceived ideas. Otherwise you will FALL back into the SAME TRAP that I have been warning you about.

But relavitity is constant therefore stillness is constant.

If you LOOK AT this from your currently gained and held onto BELIEFS and ASSUMPTIONS, then you will NEVER Truly UNDERSTAND what 'it' IS that I am ACTUALLY SAYING, and MEANING here.

As I have ALREADY EXPLAINED, and which is just PURELY OBVIOUS; Absolutely EVERY thing is 'relative' to the observer.

This is an underlying principle of observation then which means there are principles that are not subject to the observer. Everything be relative to the observer is not relative to the observer.

The phenomena of 'stillness' comes from the EXACT SAME PLACE that EVERY other 'phenomena' comes from, that is; just from the way the 'you' LOOKS AT and SEES 'things'.

SEE, 'you', adult human beings, will, for example, LOOK AT a photo, picture, drawing, or painting and SEE, and gain a SENSE OF, 'stillness'. This just and ONLY 'sense of' 'stillness', then becomes a 'phenomena', which you can then BELIEVE is true, and which you can then PUT ONTO 'other things' when you are LOOKING AT and SEEING them. And, because you would SAW, or more correctly PERCEIVED was 'stillness' when you were OBSERVING that photo, picture, etc, then this adds to the WRONG ASSUMPTION and BELIEF that there is 'stillness' and that 'stillness' actually exists.

The emptiness behind the thought is in itself still.

BUT, if and when a photo, picture, drawing, AND painting is LOOKED AT Truly DEEPLY, in True DEPTH, or from thee Truly OPEN perspective, which is just from ALL perspectives POSSIBLE, then what is ACTUALLY SEEN is that that photo, picture, etc. is NOT 'still' AT ALL. And, in fact, they are ALL IN constant-change. But most of 'you', adult human beings, in the days of when this is being written, do NOT LOOK AT things from as MANY PERSPECTIVES as POSSIBLE, which OBVIOUSLY includes from the sub-atomic or quantum level of things, which is WHERE constant-change can VERY EASILY be OBSERVED, RECOGNIZED, and SEEN.

Constant change is an underlying principle which does not change thus necessitating stillness as a principle.

Mostly 'you', adult human beings, only LOOK AT and SEE things from the human being level and perspective, and even more specifically these adults only LOOK AT and SEE things from their OWN VERY SPECIFICALLY personal level and perspective ONLY. And even more NARROWER and SHORT SIGHTED these people's views are is they ONLY LOOK FROM and ONLY SEE things FROM their OWN ASSUMPTIONS and/or BELIEFS, ONLY. Which is WHERE 'stillness' is "seen" but ONLY because they are NOT LOOKING AT what IS ACTUALLY HAPPENING and OCCURRING. They are ONLY LOOKING AT and SEEING things from the RELATIVE perspective of the one individual observer ONLY.

Then you, as a human being, are looking at things through your own assumptions and beliefs.

WHERE 'you', adult human beings, get YOUR 'stillness' as a phenomena is FROM your ASSUMPTIONS and BELIEFS ONLY that 'stillness' "actually exists".

IF 'stillness' actually exists, or could possibly exist, then just SHOW and PROVE, FIRST, that 'stillness' could possibly exist, and then SHOW and PROVE, EXACTLY, WHERE 'stillness' ACTUALLY EXISTS. Once this is PROVEN, then the rest of what you say and claim here could and will make sense, but until then what you say and claim here are just your OWN ASSUMPTIONS and BELIEFS, which, AGAIN and OBVIOUSLY, could be COMPLETELY or partly False, Wrong, and/or Incorrect.

Void is example of stillness. That which is without form is an example of stillness. A point is an example of stillness.

And what way is it the universe "actually works" and "has to work"?

In the way that It does, which is;

The Universe at Its fundamental level is made up of 'matter' AND 'space', and because of these two things coexisting the Universe is able to and IS constantly changing. This IS the way the UNIVERSE IS, and how the Universe ACTUALLY WORKS IS because of 'space' 'matter' is able to move about absolutely FREELY. Because this ability for matter to move about FREELY the Universe has, is, and will ALWAYS been moving FREELY, and thus continually and constantly CHANGING. Because the Universe works this way in constant-change and ALWAYS works in this way, the Universe 'has to work' this way, eternally.

Matter is space. A form is composed of curvature this curvature is space. The universe is space dividing space through a perpetual contradiction.

The point negates itself into a form, much in the same manner a point negates into a line or circle.

And the same way YOUR 'point' negates itself? Or, does YOUR 'point' NOT work this way?

Void voids itself into being.

The new form is composed of points thus changes into further forms.

So, WHEN, WHEREABOUTS, and for how long, EXACTLY, does the alleged 'static, and thus unchanging, form' exist?

It is relative to other forms.

The point is the means of change from one form into another thus is ever present and unchanging.

To me, the 'means of change' is just the ABILITY to FREELY CHANGE, which ALWAYS just exists.

And as always existing it does not change.

Now, if, as you say, the 'point' is the 'means of change from one form into another' and thus the 'point' is ever present and unchanging, then HOW EXACTLY can AN EVER PRESENT and UNCHANGING 'point' be the 'means' of change, itself?

It moves through itself as itself. It is the totality of being.

[Age]

You wanted my argument and I presented it for you to refute which you did not.

Did I say that I wanted your argument, IN THIS THREAD? Or, was it in the other thread that I wanted it, which you are appearing to be mixing up, ONCE AGAIN.

It was IN ANOTHER THREAD where you presented an argument, in list form, for your CLAIMS in THIS THREAD.

This is 'your argument', in list form, which you presented in ANOTHER THREAD.

1. All comes from a point.

2. All being is reduced to a point from a distance.

3. All is composed of points upon closer inspection.

4. The point Inverts to another point and repeats through further points.

5. The point as existing through further points necessitates the point as continuous thus static.

AND, 'my response/refutation' to this argument is IN THAT OTHER THREAD.

AND, because it is you who is mixing these threads up and it is you who is CHOOSING NOT to learn how to quote PROPERLY and CORRECTLY, I will leave it up to you to sort this out now. I am only going to CORRECT your MISQUOTING so many times before I STOP doing it anymore.

You repeat yourself again and again saying I do not know and am making assumptions, so who is the one projecting? You are.

What is 'it', EXACTLY, which you now CLAIM that I "do NOT know", and, what is 'it', EXACTLY, which you now CLAIM I "am making assumptions" about?

You repeat yourself in saying others do not know and are making assumptions, the same repetition you accuse me of is the same reptition you are guilty of.

I asked you a clarifying question and you AGAIN will NOT answer it.

LOOK, you, ONCE AGAIN, made a CLAIM, now PROVE that YOUR CLAIM is True, Right, or Correct or just admit that you CANNOT, ONCE MORE.

What you OBVIOUSLY DISTRACTEDLY said here has ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to do with YOUR CLAIM, NOR with my CLARIFYING QUESTION.

Perpetual change establishes an unchanging principle of change thus a law which is still and constant remains.

ONCE AGAIN, you are using the 'still' word ONLY BECAUSE this is what YOUR currently held onto BELIEFS tell 'you' is true.

Why can 'you' NOT YET SEE the ACTUAL DIFFERENCE between the words 'still' and 'constant'?

That which is still and unchanging is constant.

The ACTUAL ANSWER is VERY SIMPLE and VERY EASY to SEE, that is; Once you KNOW how to LOOK and SEE things PROPERLY and CORRECTLY.

And here you are repeating yourself.

An unchanging law necessitates a principle of stillness occuring thus a secondary form of stillness occurs.

What do you mean by an 'unchanging law' and an ' unchanging law NECESSITATES a "principle of stillness" '?
Everything constantly changes is a law. This law does not change thus necessitates stillness as existing.

How could, for example, an 'unchanging law' of 'constant change' NECESSITATE a principle of 'stillness'?
See above.

The word 'stillness' is in DIRECT OPPOSITION of the word 'change'. How could the EXACT SAME thing 'be still' and still be 'changing' at the EXACT SAME MOMENT?

A point dividing into another point observes one point multiplying, thus change, yet all points are the same thus the point remains constant.

Considering the way you have previously used words, then I am NOT at all surprised of what you have done here, but YOU CLARIFYING my QUESTIONS here would be most appreciated.

Considering there are two forms of stillness, the principle and the phenomenon of stillness, two manifests itself as a constant.

To me, two does NOT manifest itself as a constant AT ALL. Two is just YOU 'trying' ABSOLUTELY ANY thing to back up and support your currently held BELIEFS and ASSUMPTIONS.

And there you go repeating yourself. Two manifests itself as a constant where there are two constant principles.

Now there are three still phenomena: the principle, the phenomenon of stillness, and the numbers 2.

This is from YOUR PERSPECTIVE ONLY.

But you HAVE TO HAVE and MAINTAIN this perspective, otherwise you would be CONTRADICTING "your" 'self', that is; YOUR current BELIEFS and ASSUMPTIONS about what is true.

There you go projecting again.

From this four then five then six, ad infinitum degrees of stillness occur.

LOL if you say so.

If stillness does not exist then where do we get it as a phenomenon?

From 'relativity', itself. And do NOT LOOK AT this from ANY preconceived ideas. Otherwise you will FALL back into the SAME TRAP that I have been warning you about.

But relavitity is constant therefore stillness is constant.

If you LOOK AT this from your currently gained and held onto BELIEFS and ASSUMPTIONS, then you will NEVER Truly UNDERSTAND what 'it' IS that I am ACTUALLY SAYING, and MEANING here.

As I have ALREADY EXPLAINED, and which is just PURELY OBVIOUS; Absolutely EVERY thing is 'relative' to the observer.

This is an underlying principle of observation then which means there are principles that are not subject to the observer. Everything be relative to the observer is not relative to the observer.

The phenomena of 'stillness' comes from the EXACT SAME PLACE that EVERY other 'phenomena' comes from, that is; just from the way the 'you' LOOKS AT and SEES 'things'.

SEE, 'you', adult human beings, will, for example, LOOK AT a photo, picture, drawing, or painting and SEE, and gain a SENSE OF, 'stillness'. This just and ONLY 'sense of' 'stillness', then becomes a 'phenomena', which you can then BELIEVE is true, and which you can then PUT ONTO 'other things' when you are LOOKING AT and SEEING them. And, because you would SAW, or more correctly PERCEIVED was 'stillness' when you were OBSERVING that photo, picture, etc, then this adds to the WRONG ASSUMPTION and BELIEF that there is 'stillness' and that 'stillness' actually exists.

The emptiness behind the thought is in itself still.

BUT, if and when a photo, picture, drawing, AND painting is LOOKED AT Truly DEEPLY, in True DEPTH, or from thee Truly OPEN perspective, which is just from ALL perspectives POSSIBLE, then what is ACTUALLY SEEN is that that photo, picture, etc. is NOT 'still' AT ALL. And, in fact, they are ALL IN constant-change. But most of 'you', adult human beings, in the days of when this is being written, do NOT LOOK AT things from as MANY PERSPECTIVES as POSSIBLE, which OBVIOUSLY includes from the sub-atomic or quantum level of things, which is WHERE constant-change can VERY EASILY be OBSERVED, RECOGNIZED, and SEEN.

Constant change is an underlying principle which does not change thus necessitating stillness as a principle.

Mostly 'you', adult human beings, only LOOK AT and SEE things from the human being level and perspective, and even more specifically these adults only LOOK AT and SEE things from their OWN VERY SPECIFICALLY personal level and perspective ONLY. And even more NARROWER and SHORT SIGHTED these people's views are is they ONLY LOOK FROM and ONLY SEE things FROM their OWN ASSUMPTIONS and/or BELIEFS, ONLY. Which is WHERE 'stillness' is "seen" but ONLY because they are NOT LOOKING AT what IS ACTUALLY HAPPENING and OCCURRING. They are ONLY LOOKING AT and SEEING things from the RELATIVE perspective of the one individual observer ONLY.

Then you, as a human being, are looking at things through your own assumptions and beliefs.

WHERE 'you', adult human beings, get YOUR 'stillness' as a phenomena is FROM your ASSUMPTIONS and BELIEFS ONLY that 'stillness' "actually exists".

IF 'stillness' actually exists, or could possibly exist, then just SHOW and PROVE, FIRST, that 'stillness' could possibly exist, and then SHOW and PROVE, EXACTLY, WHERE 'stillness' ACTUALLY EXISTS. Once this is PROVEN, then the rest of what you say and claim here could and will make sense, but until then what you say and claim here are just your OWN ASSUMPTIONS and BELIEFS, which, AGAIN and OBVIOUSLY, could be COMPLETELY or partly False, Wrong, and/or Incorrect.

Void is example of stillness. That which is without form is an example of stillness. A point is an example of stillness.

And what way is it the universe "actually works" and "has to work"?

In the way that It does, which is;

The Universe at Its fundamental level is made up of 'matter' AND 'space', and because of these two things coexisting the Universe is able to and IS constantly changing. This IS the way the UNIVERSE IS, and how the Universe ACTUALLY WORKS IS because of 'space' 'matter' is able to move about absolutely FREELY. Because this ability for matter to move about FREELY the Universe has, is, and will ALWAYS been moving FREELY, and thus continually and constantly CHANGING. Because the Universe works this way in constant-change and ALWAYS works in this way, the Universe 'has to work' this way, eternally.

Matter is space. A form is composed of curvature this curvature is space. The universe is space dividing space through a perpetual contradiction.

The point negates itself into a form, much in the same manner a point negates into a line or circle.

And the same way YOUR 'point' negates itself? Or, does YOUR 'point' NOT work this way?

Void voids itself into being.

The new form is composed of points thus changes into further forms.

So, WHEN, WHEREABOUTS, and for how long, EXACTLY, does the alleged 'static, and thus unchanging, form' exist?

It is relative to other forms.

The point is the means of change from one form into another thus is ever present and unchanging.

To me, the 'means of change' is just the ABILITY to FREELY CHANGE, which ALWAYS just exists.

And as always existing it does not change.

Now, if, as you say, the 'point' is the 'means of change from one form into another' and thus the 'point' is ever present and unchanging, then HOW EXACTLY can AN EVER PRESENT and UNCHANGING 'point' be the 'means' of change, itself?

It moves through itself as itself. It is the totality of being.

[Eodnhoj7]

Did I say that I wanted your argument, IN THIS THREAD? Or, was it in the other thread that I wanted it, which you are appearing to be mixing up, ONCE AGAIN.

It was IN ANOTHER THREAD where you presented an argument, in list form, for your CLAIMS in THIS THREAD.

This is 'your argument', in list form, which you presented in ANOTHER THREAD.

1. All comes from a point.

2. All being is reduced to a point from a distance.

3. All is composed of points upon closer inspection.

4. The point Inverts to another point and repeats through further points.

5. The point as existing through further points necessitates the point as continuous thus static.

AND, 'my response/refutation' to this argument is IN THAT OTHER THREAD.

AND, because it is you who is mixing these threads up and it is you who is CHOOSING NOT to learn how to quote PROPERLY and CORRECTLY, I will leave it up to you to sort this out now. I am only going to CORRECT your MISQUOTING so many times before I STOP doing it anymore.



What is 'it', EXACTLY, which you now CLAIM that I "do NOT know", and, what is 'it', EXACTLY, which you now CLAIM I "am making assumptions" about?

You repeat yourself in saying others do not know and are making assumptions, the same repetition you accuse me of is the same reptition you are guilty of.

I asked you a clarifying question and you AGAIN will NOT answer it.

LOOK, you, ONCE AGAIN, made a CLAIM, now PROVE that YOUR CLAIM is True, Right, or Correct or just admit that you CANNOT, ONCE MORE.

What you OBVIOUSLY DISTRACTEDLY said here has ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to do with YOUR CLAIM, NOR with my CLARIFYING QUESTION.



ONCE AGAIN, you are using the 'still' word ONLY BECAUSE this is what YOUR currently held onto BELIEFS tell 'you' is true.

Why can 'you' NOT YET SEE the ACTUAL DIFFERENCE between the words 'still' and 'constant'?

That which is still and unchanging is constant.

The ACTUAL ANSWER is VERY SIMPLE and VERY EASY to SEE, that is; Once you KNOW how to LOOK and SEE things PROPERLY and CORRECTLY.

And here you are repeating yourself.



What do you mean by an 'unchanging law' and an ' unchanging law NECESSITATES a "principle of stillness" '?
Everything constantly changes is a law. This law does not change thus necessitates stillness as existing.

How could, for example, an 'unchanging law' of 'constant change' NECESSITATE a principle of 'stillness'?
See above.

The word 'stillness' is in DIRECT OPPOSITION of the word 'change'. How could the EXACT SAME thing 'be still' and still be 'changing' at the EXACT SAME MOMENT?

A point dividing into another point observes one point multiplying, thus change, yet all points are the same thus the point remains constant.

Considering the way you have previously used words, then I am NOT at all surprised of what you have done here, but YOU CLARIFYING my QUESTIONS here would be most appreciated.



To me, two does NOT manifest itself as a constant AT ALL. Two is just YOU 'trying' ABSOLUTELY ANY thing to back up and support your currently held BELIEFS and ASSUMPTIONS.

And there you go repeating yourself. Two manifests itself as a constant where there are two constant principles.



This is from YOUR PERSPECTIVE ONLY.

But you HAVE TO HAVE and MAINTAIN this perspective, otherwise you would be CONTRADICTING "your" 'self', that is; YOUR current BELIEFS and ASSUMPTIONS about what is true.

There you go projecting again.



LOL if you say so.



From 'relativity', itself. And do NOT LOOK AT this from ANY preconceived ideas. Otherwise you will FALL back into the SAME TRAP that I have been warning you about.

But relavitity is constant therefore stillness is constant.

If you LOOK AT this from your currently gained and held onto BELIEFS and ASSUMPTIONS, then you will NEVER Truly UNDERSTAND what 'it' IS that I am ACTUALLY SAYING, and MEANING here.

As I have ALREADY EXPLAINED, and which is just PURELY OBVIOUS; Absolutely EVERY thing is 'relative' to the observer.

This is an underlying principle of observation then which means there are principles that are not subject to the observer. Everything be relative to the observer is not relative to the observer.

The phenomena of 'stillness' comes from the EXACT SAME PLACE that EVERY other 'phenomena' comes from, that is; just from the way the 'you' LOOKS AT and SEES 'things'.

SEE, 'you', adult human beings, will, for example, LOOK AT a photo, picture, drawing, or painting and SEE, and gain a SENSE OF, 'stillness'. This just and ONLY 'sense of' 'stillness', then becomes a 'phenomena', which you can then BELIEVE is true, and which you can then PUT ONTO 'other things' when you are LOOKING AT and SEEING them. And, because you would SAW, or more correctly PERCEIVED was 'stillness' when you were OBSERVING that photo, picture, etc, then this adds to the WRONG ASSUMPTION and BELIEF that there is 'stillness' and that 'stillness' actually exists.

The emptiness behind the thought is in itself still.

BUT, if and when a photo, picture, drawing, AND painting is LOOKED AT Truly DEEPLY, in True DEPTH, or from thee Truly OPEN perspective, which is just from ALL perspectives POSSIBLE, then what is ACTUALLY SEEN is that that photo, picture, etc. is NOT 'still' AT ALL. And, in fact, they are ALL IN constant-change. But most of 'you', adult human beings, in the days of when this is being written, do NOT LOOK AT things from as MANY PERSPECTIVES as POSSIBLE, which OBVIOUSLY includes from the sub-atomic or quantum level of things, which is WHERE constant-change can VERY EASILY be OBSERVED, RECOGNIZED, and SEEN.

Constant change is an underlying principle which does not change thus necessitating stillness as a principle.

Mostly 'you', adult human beings, only LOOK AT and SEE things from the human being level and perspective, and even more specifically these adults only LOOK AT and SEE things from their OWN VERY SPECIFICALLY personal level and perspective ONLY. And even more NARROWER and SHORT SIGHTED these people's views are is they ONLY LOOK FROM and ONLY SEE things FROM their OWN ASSUMPTIONS and/or BELIEFS, ONLY. Which is WHERE 'stillness' is "seen" but ONLY because they are NOT LOOKING AT what IS ACTUALLY HAPPENING and OCCURRING. They are ONLY LOOKING AT and SEEING things from the RELATIVE perspective of the one individual observer ONLY.

Then you, as a human being, are looking at things through your own assumptions and beliefs.

WHERE 'you', adult human beings, get YOUR 'stillness' as a phenomena is FROM your ASSUMPTIONS and BELIEFS ONLY that 'stillness' "actually exists".

IF 'stillness' actually exists, or could possibly exist, then just SHOW and PROVE, FIRST, that 'stillness' could possibly exist, and then SHOW and PROVE, EXACTLY, WHERE 'stillness' ACTUALLY EXISTS. Once this is PROVEN, then the rest of what you say and claim here could and will make sense, but until then what you say and claim here are just your OWN ASSUMPTIONS and BELIEFS, which, AGAIN and OBVIOUSLY, could be COMPLETELY or partly False, Wrong, and/or Incorrect.

Void is example of stillness. That which is without form is an example of stillness. A point is an example of stillness.



In the way that It does, which is;

The Universe at Its fundamental level is made up of 'matter' AND 'space', and because of these two things coexisting the Universe is able to and IS constantly changing. This IS the way the UNIVERSE IS, and how the Universe ACTUALLY WORKS IS because of 'space' 'matter' is able to move about absolutely FREELY. Because this ability for matter to move about FREELY the Universe has, is, and will ALWAYS been moving FREELY, and thus continually and constantly CHANGING. Because the Universe works this way in constant-change and ALWAYS works in this way, the Universe 'has to work' this way, eternally.

Matter is space. A form is composed of curvature this curvature is space. The universe is space dividing space through a perpetual contradiction.




And the same way YOUR 'point' negates itself? Or, does YOUR 'point' NOT work this way?

Void voids itself into being.



So, WHEN, WHEREABOUTS, and for how long, EXACTLY, does the alleged 'static, and thus unchanging, form' exist?

It is relative to other forms.



To me, the 'means of change' is just the ABILITY to FREELY CHANGE, which ALWAYS just exists.

And as always existing it does not change.

Now, if, as you say, the 'point' is the 'means of change from one form into another' and thus the 'point' is ever present and unchanging, then HOW EXACTLY can AN EVER PRESENT and UNCHANGING 'point' be the 'means' of change, itself?

It moves through itself as itself. It is the totality of being.

It doesn't appear you have any responses unless I am mistaken.

[Age]

It doesn't appear you have any responses unless I am mistaken.

You are MISTAKEN, once again.

The EXACT SAME APPLIES here as in the other thread. That is;

Because you will NOT put the effort into just LEARNING how to quote CORRECTLY I am NOT going to put the effort into reading your responses and replying.

Then don't, if you have no response then don't respond.

But I, more than likely, would have a response, that is; IF I did read it. But because you have DECIDED to NOT learn how to quote, so as to make reading, and responding, FAR EASIER, I have DECIDED to NOT read it. And, obviously, if I do NOT read it, then I could NOT form an accurate nor sufficient response. So, I have DECIDED to NOT respond for THIS reason and NOT for the, so called, "reason" you have provided us with here.

[Eodnhoj7]

It doesn't appear you have any responses unless I am mistaken.

You are MISTAKEN, once again.

The EXACT SAME APPLIES here as in the other thread. That is;

Because you will NOT put the effort into just LEARNING how to quote CORRECTLY I am NOT going to put the effort into reading your responses and replying.

Then don't, if you have no response then don't respond.

But I, more than likely, would have a response, that is; IF I did read it. But because you have DECIDED to NOT learn how to quote, so as to make reading, and responding, FAR EASIER, I have DECIDED to NOT read it. And, obviously, if I do NOT read it, then I could NOT form an accurate nor sufficient response. So, I have DECIDED to NOT respond for THIS reason and NOT for the, so called, "reason" you have provided us with here.

Loading a response with a large number of leading questions makes it uninterpratable given the finite space of the post. There shear volume of your questions makes the post unreadable. Now of you could condense your post to a few questions it would be far easier to read and respond too. You are guilty of the same obscurity you blame others of.

[Age]

It doesn't appear you have any responses unless I am mistaken.

You are MISTAKEN, once again.

The EXACT SAME APPLIES here as in the other thread. That is;

Then don't, if you have no response then don't respond.

But I, more than likely, would have a response, that is; IF I did read it. But because you have DECIDED to NOT learn how to quote, so as to make reading, and responding, FAR EASIER, I have DECIDED to NOT read it. And, obviously, if I do NOT read it, then I could NOT form an accurate nor sufficient response. So, I have DECIDED to NOT respond for THIS reason and NOT for the, so called, "reason" you have provided us with here.

Loading a response with a large number of leading questions makes it uninterpratable given the finite space of the post. There shear volume of your questions makes the post unreadable. Now of you could condense your post to a few questions it would be far easier to read and respond too. You are guilty of the same obscurity you blame others of.

But it does NOT matter if I write one or a hundred questions in a post, you continue to DETRACT from just answering the actual question/s posed to 'you'

[Eodnhoj7]

You are MISTAKEN, once again.

The EXACT SAME APPLIES here as in the other thread. That is;



But I, more than likely, would have a response, that is; IF I did read it. But because you have DECIDED to NOT learn how to quote, so as to make reading, and responding, FAR EASIER, I have DECIDED to NOT read it. And, obviously, if I do NOT read it, then I could NOT form an accurate nor sufficient response. So, I have DECIDED to NOT respond for THIS reason and NOT for the, so called, "reason" you have provided us with here.

Loading a response with a large number of leading questions makes it uninterpratable given the finite space of the post. There shear volume of your questions makes the post unreadable. Now of you could condense your post to a few questions it would be far easier to read and respond too. You are guilty of the same obscurity you blame others of.

But it does NOT matter if I write one or a hundred questions in a post, you continue to DETRACT from just answering the actual question/s posed to 'you'

The only detraction is the number of questions lends itself to an obscurity.

[Age]

Loading a response with a large number of leading questions makes it uninterpratable given the finite space of the post. There shear volume of your questions makes the post unreadable. Now of you could condense your post to a few questions it would be far easier to read and respond too. You are guilty of the same obscurity you blame others of.

But it does NOT matter if I write one or a hundred questions in a post, you continue to DETRACT from just answering the actual question/s posed to 'you'

The only detraction is the number of questions lends itself to an obscurity.

Okay.

[psycho]

Any change contains two states of affair cause and effect (before and after). There is the moment of decision between cause and effect that happens at now. All these, cause, decision, and effect, cannot lay at one point.

I do not get to understand the situation well.

Imagining that there are two balls in space and one of them orbits the other. Each ball is the cause of the changes suffered by the other ball and at the same time, each ball is also the cause of its own characteristics in space (its lesser or greater mass determines part of its characteristics in real time, etc.).

Each ball is the cause of effects on the other ball and itself continuously and constantly.

I don't see how to suggest that the cause precedes the effect.

Regards.

[bahman]

Any change contains two states of affair cause and effect (before and after). There is the moment of decision between cause and effect that happens at now. All these, cause, decision, and effect, cannot lay at one point.

I do not get to understand the situation well.

Imagining that there are two balls in space and one of them orbits the other. Each ball is the cause of the changes suffered by the other ball and at the same time, each ball is also the cause of its own characteristics in space (its lesser or greater mass determines part of its characteristics in real time, etc.).

Each ball is the cause of effects on the other ball and itself continuously and constantly.

I don't see how to suggest that the cause precedes the effect.

Regards.

For an instant motion transfer, you need infinite rigidity. A billiard ball is not that rigid.

[psycho]

Any change contains two states of affair cause and effect (before and after). There is the moment of decision between cause and effect that happens at now. All these, cause, decision, and effect, cannot lay at one point.

I do not get to understand the situation well.

Imagining that there are two balls in space and one of them orbits the other. Each ball is the cause of the changes suffered by the other ball and at the same time, each ball is also the cause of its own characteristics in space (its lesser or greater mass determines part of its characteristics in real time, etc.).

Each ball is the cause of effects on the other ball and itself continuously and constantly.

I don't see how to suggest that the cause precedes the effect.

Regards.

For an instant motion transfer, you need infinite rigidity. A billiard ball is not that rigid.

The effect begins when it begins and extends for as long as it lasts but cause and effect are contemporary. It is an interaction and both components must be contemporaneous.

[bahman]

I do not get to understand the situation well.

Imagining that there are two balls in space and one of them orbits the other. Each ball is the cause of the changes suffered by the other ball and at the same time, each ball is also the cause of its own characteristics in space (its lesser or greater mass determines part of its characteristics in real time, etc.).

Each ball is the cause of effects on the other ball and itself continuously and constantly.

I don't see how to suggest that the cause precedes the effect.

Regards.

For an instant motion transfer, you need infinite rigidity. A billiard ball is not that rigid.

The effect begins when it begins and extends for as long as it lasts but cause and effect are contemporary. It is an interaction and both components must be contemporaneous.

You couldn't have a change if cause and effect are simultaneous.

[psycho]

For an instant motion transfer, you need infinite rigidity. A billiard ball is not that rigid.

The effect begins when it begins and extends for as long as it lasts but cause and effect are contemporary. It is an interaction and both components must be contemporaneous.

You couldn't have a change if cause and effect are simultaneous.

The effect begins when it begins and extends for as long as it lasts but cause and effect are contemporary. It is an interaction and both components must be contemporaneous.

You CANNOT have a change if the components of the interaction are not contemporary. If an interaction occurs between two elements of reality, these elements must interact at the same time.

[bahman]

The effect begins when it begins and extends for as long as it lasts but cause and effect are contemporary. It is an interaction and both components must be contemporaneous.

You couldn't have a change if cause and effect are simultaneous.

The effect begins when it begins and extends for as long as it lasts but cause and effect are contemporary. It is an interaction and both components must be contemporaneous.

You CANNOT have a change if the components of the interaction are not contemporary. If an interaction occurs between two elements of reality, these elements must interact at the same time.

No. Even in quantum field theory for matter, the cause comes before effect. That is correct since you cannot possibly have a change if they were simultaneous.