If you say so.Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Wed Mar 22, 2023 9:59 pmThe car exists as many things thus is a set and as set is grounded in multiplicity.Age wrote: ↑Sat Mar 11, 2023 9:53 pmLOL Being 'a PART OF' A Thing is, obviously, NOT thee Thing, Itself.
Your 'point' here ALREADY been PROVED False, Wrong, AND Incorrect.
What you are saying here, and 'trying to', claim is right is like 'trying to' argue two wheels of a car means the car, itself, is NOT One car. Which the ABSURDITY OF speaks for itself.
1=0 III
Re: 1=0 III
Re: 1=0 III
And "I" is formless unless it assumes impressions from the world. However if it does assume impressions from the world then it is continually changing thus leaving it, once again, as formless when taking the sum total of all impressions into account.
Re: 1=0 III
And what is the universal form of space and matter? Last time I checked all matter is shaped through form and all forms occur through space, all space is grounded in the simple point and the simple point is formless.Age wrote: ↑Thu Mar 23, 2023 9:47 amBut the Universe is WITH form, as I just SAID, and STATED, above.Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Wed Mar 22, 2023 9:57 pmIf the universe is without form it is 'nothing' as 'no-thing'.Age wrote: ↑Sat Mar 11, 2023 9:47 pm
1.Seemingly absurd or self-contradictory BUT expressing a truth.
2. Seemingly expressing a truth BUT is absurd or self-contradictory.
The latter being a closer definition so-called "scientists" tend to 'lean towards' and use.
Wow this is a VERY RARE USAGE, and QUITE COINCIDENTLY aligns VERY CLOSELY with YOUR ALREADY CONCLUDED BELIEF here, right?
Oh, and by the way, the Universe, Itself, is the Only Thing existing, this WITHOUT 'an other', and so there is NO comparison, YET thee Universe is, OBVIOUSLY, existing WITH form. This PROVING your CLAIM and BELIEF here IRREFUTABLY False, Wrong, AND Incorrect.
The Universe IS IN the 'form' of BOTH NO 'thing' AND SOME 'thing'. That is; in lay person's terms, 'space' AND 'matter'. BOTH co-existing TOGETHER, FOREVER.
Re: 1=0 III
Re: 1=0 III
What do you mean by 'universal form'?Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Fri Mar 24, 2023 7:03 pmAnd what is the universal form of space and matter?
'Matter' is 'that thing', which can be seen, physically.
'Space' is 'that distance' between and around those physically seen 'things', which cannot be seen with the physical eyes.
What is 'space' and what is the form of 'space', EXACTLY?
What does the 'grounded' word here mean and refer to, EXACTLY?
What do you mean by the use of the words 'simple point', EXACTLY?
you appear to be just words in a way, which you think would back up and support what you ALREADY BELIEVE IS IRREFUTABLY TRUE, RIGHT, and CORRECT, but which, when DELVED INTO and LOOKED AT, FULLY, might SHOW and PROVE otherwise.
And, we will NEVER KNOW until you CLARIFY and EXPLAIN your VIEWS here, FULLY.
Re: 1=0 III
Re: 1=0 III
1. How can a thing exist without form considering a thing must relate and this relation requires contrast (thus form)?Age wrote: ↑Fri Mar 24, 2023 11:34 pmWhat do you mean by 'universal form'?
'Matter' is 'that thing', which can be seen, physically.
'Space' is 'that distance' between and around those physically seen 'things', which cannot be seen with the physical eyes.
What is 'space' and what is the form of 'space', EXACTLY?What does the 'grounded' word here mean and refer to, EXACTLY?
What do you mean by the use of the words 'simple point', EXACTLY?
you appear to be just words in a way, which you think would back up and support what you ALREADY BELIEVE IS IRREFUTABLY TRUE, RIGHT, and CORRECT, but which, when DELVED INTO and LOOKED AT, FULLY, might SHOW and PROVE otherwise.
And, we will NEVER KNOW until you CLARIFY and EXPLAIN your VIEWS here, FULLY.
2. If space is "a distance" then it is a thing as it has form. Under these terms space is a thing between things and all we have are things thus thing loses its meaning.
3. Space is a contradiction as it is a boundary which divides but this boundary which divides divides space as one boundary exists through another. Thus space is dividing space as space (this will have to be reread a few times to understand it). Space is empty of meaning.
4. What are you asking when you asking what a thing "means and refers to"? What does 'meaning and reference' explain exactly? This is considering one thing means/refers to another thing then another thing then another thing without end.
5. A dot or a zero dimensional point.
Re: 1=0 III
Re: 1=0 III
WHOEVER even thought this, let alone ALLUDED TO 'it' or even MENTIONED 'it'?Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Fri Mar 31, 2023 6:39 pm1. How can a thing exist without form considering a thing must relate and this relation requires contrast (thus form)?Age wrote: ↑Fri Mar 24, 2023 11:34 pmWhat do you mean by 'universal form'?
'Matter' is 'that thing', which can be seen, physically.
'Space' is 'that distance' between and around those physically seen 'things', which cannot be seen with the physical eyes.
What is 'space' and what is the form of 'space', EXACTLY?What does the 'grounded' word here mean and refer to, EXACTLY?
What do you mean by the use of the words 'simple point', EXACTLY?
you appear to be just words in a way, which you think would back up and support what you ALREADY BELIEVE IS IRREFUTABLY TRUE, RIGHT, and CORRECT, but which, when DELVED INTO and LOOKED AT, FULLY, might SHOW and PROVE otherwise.
And, we will NEVER KNOW until you CLARIFY and EXPLAIN your VIEWS here, FULLY.
NOT 'me'. So, WHY ask 'me' this QUESTION?
'you' REALLY DO NEED to START TO LEARN to READ and COMPREHEND the ACTUAL WORDS that 'I' SAY to 'you'.
OF COURSE, did absolutely ANY one here SAY OTHERWISE?
If yes, then WHO, EXACTLY?
OF COURSE 'space' IS A 'thing'. WHY would ANY one think or PRESUME otherwise. Even 'nothing' IS A 'thing'. 'It' IS the 'thing', which is KNOWN AS and CALLED 'nothing'.
As for your Truly IDIOTIC, RIDICULOUS, ABSURD, STUPID, ILLOGICAL, and NONSENSICAL CLAIM that; 'all we have are 'things', and, 'therefore 'thing' loses its 'meaning', then this speaks for itself.
The 'meaning' of ANY and EVERY 'thing' is GIVEN BY 'you', human beings. So, ONLY when there is NO 'thing', like 'you', human beings, PROVIDING 'meaning' FOR 'things', then, and ONLY then, 'things' lose 'their meaning'.
False, Wrong, AND Incorrect, AGAIN.
But this is just BECAUSE 'you' are MAKING ASSUMPTIONS and JUMPING TO CONCLUSIONS, BEFORE 'you' SEEK OUT and OBTAIN ACTUAL CLARITY, FIRST.
The DISTANCE BETWEEN and AROUND 'physical matter/things' IS NOT so-called 'dividing itself', and to ASSUME that 'this' is HAPPENING is just FURTHER PROOF of HOW people will 'TRY TO' SAY just about ANY 'thing' while 'TRYING TO' back up and support the BELIEFS, which they are CURRENTLY HOLDING to be true.
The ONLY "thing' EMPTY OF 'meaning' here IS the, literally, the SPACE WITHIN 'that head'.
I suggest LOOKING IN a dictionary, FINDING the word 'space', CHOOSING one of the MANY DIFFERENT 'definitions' and 'meanings', and then FILLING 'that space', WITHING 'that head', WITH ACTUAL 'meaning'.
It IS, after all, literally, ONLY through 'meaning' HOW one MAKES SENSE OF and UNDERSTANDS 'the world', and 'the Universe, in which they have FOUND "them" 'self', LIVING WITH (and) IN.
What I am ASKING FOR IS 'your' PERSPECTIVE, literally, of 'things' here.
And, by this QUESTION here, it could appear that 'you' had NOT YET even REALLY CONSIDERED what the word 'thing', itself, EVEN MEANS or REFERS TO, EXACTLY, BEFORE.
Words, themselves, do NOT necessarily EXPLAIN ANY 'thing' AT ALL.
But what COMES WITH words are DEFINITIONS, and what 'definition' one GIVES FOR a word is completely and utter 'up to them'.
And, to me, what the words 'meaning' and 'reference', literally mean and refer to, EXACTLY, ARE:
'meaning'; what one ACTUALLY 'means' BEHIND the words that they USE. Or, because it is MUCH MORE USEFUL to NEVER USE the word being 'defined', in 'the definition', the word 'meaning' refers to the 'definition' one HAS or is PLACING onto, or behind, the words or the word one is USING.
So, in other words, WHATEVER 'definition' a person PLACES ONTO, WITH, or BEHIND 'a word' is WHAT 'meaning' IS, to me, EXACTLY.
'reference'; is a word USED to mention or allude to some 'thing' ELSE. Well, to me, anyway.
WHEN one runs OUT OF 'words', THEN this IS 'the end'.
What does a so-called 'zero dimensional point' LOOK LIKE, EXACTLY?
Also, WHY do you USE numbers, but which REFERENCE NO ACTUAL 'thing'?
Re: 1=0 III
Re: 1=0 III
1. If everything is one and there is only one then there is no contrast of 'the one' otherwise if there was contrast there would not be 'the one' and there would be 'the two' or 'the multitude'. This absence of contrast results in an absence of form, i.e. no-thing or zero, thus the one is formless.Age wrote: ↑Fri Mar 31, 2023 10:27 pmWHOEVER even thought this, let alone ALLUDED TO 'it' or even MENTIONED 'it'?Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Fri Mar 31, 2023 6:39 pm1. How can a thing exist without form considering a thing must relate and this relation requires contrast (thus form)?Age wrote: ↑Fri Mar 24, 2023 11:34 pm
What do you mean by 'universal form'?
'Matter' is 'that thing', which can be seen, physically.
'Space' is 'that distance' between and around those physically seen 'things', which cannot be seen with the physical eyes.
What is 'space' and what is the form of 'space', EXACTLY?
What does the 'grounded' word here mean and refer to, EXACTLY?
What do you mean by the use of the words 'simple point', EXACTLY?
you appear to be just words in a way, which you think would back up and support what you ALREADY BELIEVE IS IRREFUTABLY TRUE, RIGHT, and CORRECT, but which, when DELVED INTO and LOOKED AT, FULLY, might SHOW and PROVE otherwise.
And, we will NEVER KNOW until you CLARIFY and EXPLAIN your VIEWS here, FULLY.
NOT 'me'. So, WHY ask 'me' this QUESTION?
'you' REALLY DO NEED to START TO LEARN to READ and COMPREHEND the ACTUAL WORDS that 'I' SAY to 'you'.OF COURSE, did absolutely ANY one here SAY OTHERWISE?
If yes, then WHO, EXACTLY?OF COURSE 'space' IS A 'thing'. WHY would ANY one think or PRESUME otherwise. Even 'nothing' IS A 'thing'. 'It' IS the 'thing', which is KNOWN AS and CALLED 'nothing'.
As for your Truly IDIOTIC, RIDICULOUS, ABSURD, STUPID, ILLOGICAL, and NONSENSICAL CLAIM that; 'all we have are 'things', and, 'therefore 'thing' loses its 'meaning', then this speaks for itself.
The 'meaning' of ANY and EVERY 'thing' is GIVEN BY 'you', human beings. So, ONLY when there is NO 'thing', like 'you', human beings, PROVIDING 'meaning' FOR 'things', then, and ONLY then, 'things' lose 'their meaning'.
False, Wrong, AND Incorrect, AGAIN.
But this is just BECAUSE 'you' are MAKING ASSUMPTIONS and JUMPING TO CONCLUSIONS, BEFORE 'you' SEEK OUT and OBTAIN ACTUAL CLARITY, FIRST.The DISTANCE BETWEEN and AROUND 'physical matter/things' IS NOT so-called 'dividing itself', and to ASSUME that 'this' is HAPPENING is just FURTHER PROOF of HOW people will 'TRY TO' SAY just about ANY 'thing' while 'TRYING TO' back up and support the BELIEFS, which they are CURRENTLY HOLDING to be true.
The ONLY "thing' EMPTY OF 'meaning' here IS the, literally, the SPACE WITHIN 'that head'.
I suggest LOOKING IN a dictionary, FINDING the word 'space', CHOOSING one of the MANY DIFFERENT 'definitions' and 'meanings', and then FILLING 'that space', WITHING 'that head', WITH ACTUAL 'meaning'.
It IS, after all, literally, ONLY through 'meaning' HOW one MAKES SENSE OF and UNDERSTANDS 'the world', and 'the Universe, in which they have FOUND "them" 'self', LIVING WITH (and) IN.What I am ASKING FOR IS 'your' PERSPECTIVE, literally, of 'things' here.
And, by this QUESTION here, it could appear that 'you' had NOT YET even REALLY CONSIDERED what the word 'thing', itself, EVEN MEANS or REFERS TO, EXACTLY, BEFORE.
Words, themselves, do NOT necessarily EXPLAIN ANY 'thing' AT ALL.
But what COMES WITH words are DEFINITIONS, and what 'definition' one GIVES FOR a word is completely and utter 'up to them'.
And, to me, what the words 'meaning' and 'reference', literally mean and refer to, EXACTLY, ARE:
'meaning'; what one ACTUALLY 'means' BEHIND the words that they USE. Or, because it is MUCH MORE USEFUL to NEVER USE the word being 'defined', in 'the definition', the word 'meaning' refers to the 'definition' one HAS or is PLACING onto, or behind, the words or the word one is USING.
So, in other words, WHATEVER 'definition' a person PLACES ONTO, WITH, or BEHIND 'a word' is WHAT 'meaning' IS, to me, EXACTLY.
'reference'; is a word USED to mention or allude to some 'thing' ELSE. Well, to me, anyway.WHEN one runs OUT OF 'words', THEN this IS 'the end'.What does a so-called 'zero dimensional point' LOOK LIKE, EXACTLY?
Also, WHY do you USE numbers, but which REFERENCE NO ACTUAL 'thing'?
2. If space is a form then it is matter, as form is substance, and your dichotomy of space and matter is false.
3. Assumptions and biases on your part as you have provided no rational behind why I am wrong.
4. If you are asking for my perspective, and all perspectives are formed from space and matter and my perspective contradicts yours, then space and matter contradict and your points result in absurdity.
5. If a zero dimensional point looked like anything then it would not be a zero dimensional point. To reference a void, i.e. by referencing 0, is to reference a relation where there is an absence of one quality found in another. To speak of void, i.e. zero, is to speak of relation.
Re: 1=0 III
Re: 1=0 III
What you are more or less saying and stating here is, if there is not one, then there are two.Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Fri Apr 07, 2023 6:25 pm1. If everything is one and there is only one then there is no contrast of 'the one' otherwise if there was contrast there would not be 'the one' and there would be 'the two' or 'the multitude'.Age wrote: ↑Fri Mar 31, 2023 10:27 pmWHOEVER even thought this, let alone ALLUDED TO 'it' or even MENTIONED 'it'?
NOT 'me'. So, WHY ask 'me' this QUESTION?
'you' REALLY DO NEED to START TO LEARN to READ and COMPREHEND the ACTUAL WORDS that 'I' SAY to 'you'.OF COURSE, did absolutely ANY one here SAY OTHERWISE?
If yes, then WHO, EXACTLY?OF COURSE 'space' IS A 'thing'. WHY would ANY one think or PRESUME otherwise. Even 'nothing' IS A 'thing'. 'It' IS the 'thing', which is KNOWN AS and CALLED 'nothing'.
As for your Truly IDIOTIC, RIDICULOUS, ABSURD, STUPID, ILLOGICAL, and NONSENSICAL CLAIM that; 'all we have are 'things', and, 'therefore 'thing' loses its 'meaning', then this speaks for itself.
The 'meaning' of ANY and EVERY 'thing' is GIVEN BY 'you', human beings. So, ONLY when there is NO 'thing', like 'you', human beings, PROVIDING 'meaning' FOR 'things', then, and ONLY then, 'things' lose 'their meaning'.
False, Wrong, AND Incorrect, AGAIN.
But this is just BECAUSE 'you' are MAKING ASSUMPTIONS and JUMPING TO CONCLUSIONS, BEFORE 'you' SEEK OUT and OBTAIN ACTUAL CLARITY, FIRST.The DISTANCE BETWEEN and AROUND 'physical matter/things' IS NOT so-called 'dividing itself', and to ASSUME that 'this' is HAPPENING is just FURTHER PROOF of HOW people will 'TRY TO' SAY just about ANY 'thing' while 'TRYING TO' back up and support the BELIEFS, which they are CURRENTLY HOLDING to be true.
The ONLY "thing' EMPTY OF 'meaning' here IS the, literally, the SPACE WITHIN 'that head'.
I suggest LOOKING IN a dictionary, FINDING the word 'space', CHOOSING one of the MANY DIFFERENT 'definitions' and 'meanings', and then FILLING 'that space', WITHING 'that head', WITH ACTUAL 'meaning'.
It IS, after all, literally, ONLY through 'meaning' HOW one MAKES SENSE OF and UNDERSTANDS 'the world', and 'the Universe, in which they have FOUND "them" 'self', LIVING WITH (and) IN.What I am ASKING FOR IS 'your' PERSPECTIVE, literally, of 'things' here.
And, by this QUESTION here, it could appear that 'you' had NOT YET even REALLY CONSIDERED what the word 'thing', itself, EVEN MEANS or REFERS TO, EXACTLY, BEFORE.
Words, themselves, do NOT necessarily EXPLAIN ANY 'thing' AT ALL.
But what COMES WITH words are DEFINITIONS, and what 'definition' one GIVES FOR a word is completely and utter 'up to them'.
And, to me, what the words 'meaning' and 'reference', literally mean and refer to, EXACTLY, ARE:
'meaning'; what one ACTUALLY 'means' BEHIND the words that they USE. Or, because it is MUCH MORE USEFUL to NEVER USE the word being 'defined', in 'the definition', the word 'meaning' refers to the 'definition' one HAS or is PLACING onto, or behind, the words or the word one is USING.
So, in other words, WHATEVER 'definition' a person PLACES ONTO, WITH, or BEHIND 'a word' is WHAT 'meaning' IS, to me, EXACTLY.
'reference'; is a word USED to mention or allude to some 'thing' ELSE. Well, to me, anyway.WHEN one runs OUT OF 'words', THEN this IS 'the end'.What does a so-called 'zero dimensional point' LOOK LIKE, EXACTLY?
Also, WHY do you USE numbers, but which REFERENCE NO ACTUAL 'thing'?
Now, do you REALLY think that 'this' even needs saying, and stating?
Now this is OBVIOUSLY False, Wrong, and Incorrect, AGAIN, and ALSO.
What is False here is YOUR CLAIM that the form 'space' HAS TO BE 'matter'.
Also, 'space' IS A FORM, made up by the existence of 'matter'. As can be VERY EASILY and VERY SIMPLY demonstrated, and thus also proved True.
NO one has SOUGHT for me to provide so-called 'rational', NOR has ANY one SOUGHT for ACTUAL IRREFUTABLE PROOF. Which, if they had, then i could SHOW and PROVE HOW, WHY, WHERE, and WHEN you are Wrong in WHAT you SAY and CLAIM here.
Until then I am CERTAINLY NOT in ANY rush.
That some of YOUR perspectives CONTRADICT some of MY perspectives is of NO REAL IMPORTANCE here.
However, that some of YOUR perspectives CONTRADICT some of YOUR OTHER perspectives is what I find IMPORTANT ENOUGH to POINT OUT and SHOW here.
SO, a so-called 'zero dimensional point' is, literally, NO ACTUAL 'thing' AT ALL, right?
Okay, if you say and believe so.
- Agent Smith
- Posts: 1442
- Joined: Fri Aug 12, 2022 12:23 pm
Re: 1=0 III
"What did you say?!"
"Nuthin, I said nuthin!"
"You did say something ... about ... about ... wombats!!"
"Look here Tom, I know you're ... you're ... head over heels in love with wombats. Why would I say anything bad about wombats?! C'mon Tom, I'm not a jerk!"
"You did say bad things about wombats!! You did!! Say it! Saaay ittt!!"
"Ok, ok, promise me you'll be grown up about it! Promise me!!"
"Aaaargh! I promise!!"
"Well, I said that if wombats were partridges, the gates to paradise would be in Montenegro. Nothing bad ... about wombats ... right, right?"
"Wombats ... paradise ... hmmm ... I like how that sounds. I like partridges too by the way. Hehehe."
"We're good?"
"Yeah, we're good!"
"Nuthin, I said nuthin!"
"You did say something ... about ... about ... wombats!!"
"Look here Tom, I know you're ... you're ... head over heels in love with wombats. Why would I say anything bad about wombats?! C'mon Tom, I'm not a jerk!"
"You did say bad things about wombats!! You did!! Say it! Saaay ittt!!"
"Ok, ok, promise me you'll be grown up about it! Promise me!!"
"Aaaargh! I promise!!"
"Well, I said that if wombats were partridges, the gates to paradise would be in Montenegro. Nothing bad ... about wombats ... right, right?"
"Wombats ... paradise ... hmmm ... I like how that sounds. I like partridges too by the way. Hehehe."
"We're good?"
"Yeah, we're good!"