1=0 III

[Eodnhoj7]

Know 'what', EXACTLY?

That you know...

For the very simple fact that I am able to discern between what I know from what I think, and between knowing and thinking.

That is a thought thus one thought distinguishes itself from another thought thus leaving us with the fact that your thoughts are in opposition.

[Age]

That you know...

For the very simple fact that I am able to discern between what I know from what I think, and between knowing and thinking.

That is a thought thus one thought distinguishes itself from another thought thus leaving us with the fact that your thoughts are in opposition.

LOL
LOL
LOL

That is NOT a 'thought' as 'it' IS KNOWN to be IRREFUTABLY True.

To me,
a 'thought' is ABOUT some 'thing' NOT YET KNOWN, FOR SURE.

WHEREAS,

When some 'thing' IS KNOWN, FOR SURE, then 'it' is NOT in 'thinking' ANYMORE but is now in 'knowing'.

But you could NEVER SEE and UNDERSTAND 'this' Fact BECAUSE, to you, EVERY 'thing' IS the EXACT SAME ONE 'thing'.

[Eodnhoj7]

For the very simple fact that I am able to discern between what I know from what I think, and between knowing and thinking.

That is a thought thus one thought distinguishes itself from another thought thus leaving us with the fact that your thoughts are in opposition.

LOL
LOL
LOL

That is NOT a 'thought' as 'it' IS KNOWN to be IRREFUTABLY True.

To me,
a 'thought' is ABOUT some 'thing' NOT YET KNOWN, FOR SURE.

WHEREAS,

When some 'thing' IS KNOWN, FOR SURE, then 'it' is NOT in 'thinking' ANYMORE but is now in 'knowing'.

But you could NEVER SEE and UNDERSTAND 'this' Fact BECAUSE, to you, EVERY 'thing' IS the EXACT SAME ONE 'thing'.

Facepalm. What you stated is a thought of yours. To know something is a thought as we observe through the mind what we know. To say knowing is different than thought is to distinguish one thought from another. Dually if thinking and knowing are distinct this distinction necessitates 'not all is one'.

[Age]

That is a thought thus one thought distinguishes itself from another thought thus leaving us with the fact that your thoughts are in opposition.

LOL
LOL
LOL

That is NOT a 'thought' as 'it' IS KNOWN to be IRREFUTABLY True.

To me,
a 'thought' is ABOUT some 'thing' NOT YET KNOWN, FOR SURE.

WHEREAS,

When some 'thing' IS KNOWN, FOR SURE, then 'it' is NOT in 'thinking' ANYMORE but is now in 'knowing'.

But you could NEVER SEE and UNDERSTAND 'this' Fact BECAUSE, to you, EVERY 'thing' IS the EXACT SAME ONE 'thing'.

Facepalm. What you stated is a thought of yours. To know something is a thought as we observe through the mind what we know. To say knowing is different than thought is to distinguish one thought from another. Dually if thinking and knowing are distinct this distinction necessitates 'not all is one'.

Okay.

[nemos]

Suppose you have 1 apple. If you give your apple to a friend, how many apples will you have left ?
1 apple. Why? I will not give it.

So 1 is everything 0 is nothing.
In general, 0 does not indicate the existence of something that does not exist, but the absence of something. But if we assume that 0 does indicate the existence of non-existence, then why is such an existence only 1, if it is non-existent then nothing will change if there are more of them than 1 non-existent existence ... ?

[commonsense]

The numbers 1 and 0 can equivocate through a simple act of measurement.

“There is only the totality, ie everything.”

No, there is also the components of everything.

Therefore, every claim that follows this false premise is fallacy.

[commonsense]

If 1 = everything, the totality, the whole, and 0 = nothing, then they cannot be the same thing. Everything cannot be nothing if there is one thing, anything. This is obvious because of the apple.