1=0 III

What is the basis for reason? And mathematics?

Moderators: AMod, iMod

Post Reply
Eodnhoj7
Posts: 8595
Joined: Mon Mar 13, 2017 3:18 am

Re: 1=0 III

Post by Eodnhoj7 »

Age wrote: Sun Apr 09, 2023 12:47 am
Eodnhoj7 wrote: Fri Apr 07, 2023 6:25 pm
Age wrote: Fri Mar 31, 2023 10:27 pm

WHOEVER 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'?
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'.
What you are more or less saying and stating here is, if there is not one, then there are two.

Now, do you REALLY think that 'this' even needs saying, and stating?
Eodnhoj7 wrote: Fri Apr 07, 2023 6:25 pm This absence of contrast results in an absence of form, i.e. no-thing or zero, thus the one is formless.
Now this is OBVIOUSLY False, Wrong, and Incorrect, AGAIN, and ALSO.
Eodnhoj7 wrote: Fri Apr 07, 2023 6:25 pm 2. If space is a form then it is matter, as form is substance, and your dichotomy of space and matter is false.
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.
Eodnhoj7 wrote: Fri Apr 07, 2023 6:25 pm 3. Assumptions and biases on your part as you have provided no rational behind why I am wrong.
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.
Eodnhoj7 wrote: Fri Apr 07, 2023 6:25 pm 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.
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.
Eodnhoj7 wrote: Fri Apr 07, 2023 6:25 pm 5. If a zero dimensional point looked like anything then it would not be a zero dimensional point.
SO, a so-called 'zero dimensional point' is, literally, NO ACTUAL 'thing' AT ALL, right?
Eodnhoj7 wrote: Fri Apr 07, 2023 6:25 pm 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.
Okay, if you say and believe so.
1. One is paradoxical. It requires another if it is to be one as the one requires contrast to have form. However if the one requires contrast it is no longer the one but the two or more.

2. If the one is not formless then what is its form? It can only have one form otherwise it is not the one.

3. This is a philosophical argument, the whole point is to provide rationale as to why someone is right or wrong.

4. Of course my perspectives contradict themselves, that is the whole point. I argue a perspective from certain groundings until eventually they become absurd thus showing contradictions in the groundings.

5. A zero dimensional point is a paradox. It is nothing and everything. Nothing as empty in itself, everything as it is the grounding of all relationships (it is the grounding of relationships as void is the absence of one thing found in another thus necessitating a relationship of contrast).
Age
Posts: 20043
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

Re: 1=0 III

Post by Age »

Eodnhoj7 wrote: Wed Apr 12, 2023 4:09 pm
Age wrote: Fri Apr 07, 2023 10:30 pm
Eodnhoj7 wrote: Fri Apr 07, 2023 6:16 pm

All questioning leads to further questioning thus all questions can be answered with further questions.
This is OBVIOUSLY False.
Why?
BECAUSE, OBVIOUSLY, NOT 'ALL questioning' leads to 'further questioning'.
Age
Posts: 20043
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

Re: 1=0 III

Post by Age »

Eodnhoj7 wrote: Wed Apr 12, 2023 4:17 pm
Age wrote: Sun Apr 09, 2023 12:47 am
Eodnhoj7 wrote: Fri Apr 07, 2023 6:25 pm

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'.
What you are more or less saying and stating here is, if there is not one, then there are two.

Now, do you REALLY think that 'this' even needs saying, and stating?
Eodnhoj7 wrote: Fri Apr 07, 2023 6:25 pm This absence of contrast results in an absence of form, i.e. no-thing or zero, thus the one is formless.
Now this is OBVIOUSLY False, Wrong, and Incorrect, AGAIN, and ALSO.
Eodnhoj7 wrote: Fri Apr 07, 2023 6:25 pm 2. If space is a form then it is matter, as form is substance, and your dichotomy of space and matter is false.
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.
Eodnhoj7 wrote: Fri Apr 07, 2023 6:25 pm 3. Assumptions and biases on your part as you have provided no rational behind why I am wrong.
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.
Eodnhoj7 wrote: Fri Apr 07, 2023 6:25 pm 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.
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.
Eodnhoj7 wrote: Fri Apr 07, 2023 6:25 pm 5. If a zero dimensional point looked like anything then it would not be a zero dimensional point.
SO, a so-called 'zero dimensional point' is, literally, NO ACTUAL 'thing' AT ALL, right?
Eodnhoj7 wrote: Fri Apr 07, 2023 6:25 pm 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.
Okay, if you say and believe so.
1. One is paradoxical. It requires another if it is to be one as the one requires contrast to have form.
LOOK UP the 'paradoxical' word, and UNDERSTAND that 'that word' HAS TWO COMPLETELY OPPOSING meanings or definitions. Then you CAN LEARN and SEE the MISTAKE/S that you KEEP MAKING here.
Eodnhoj7 wrote: Wed Apr 12, 2023 4:17 pm However if the one requires contrast it is no longer the one but the two or more.
There THERE IS ONLY One Universe, and NO 'other' universe NOT thing, there IS here NO 'contrast'. However, and BECAUSE 'you', adult human beings, HAVE 'conceptually' CREATED 'an other' you SEE 'things' IN 'contrast'. BUT, conceptually CREATING 'things' does NOT mean that 'they' ACTUALLY EXIST in the way they CONCEPTUALLY APPEAR to.
Eodnhoj7 wrote: Wed Apr 12, 2023 4:17 pm 2. If the one is not formless then what is its form?
BUT 'It' is NOT 'formless'. you just keep HARPING back to CONCEPTUALLY False and Wrong 'things' like this, otherwise what you ALREADY BELIEVE is true here could NOT possibly be true.
Eodnhoj7 wrote: Wed Apr 12, 2023 4:17 pm It can only have one form otherwise it is not the one.
If you SAY and BELIEVE SO.
Eodnhoj7 wrote: Wed Apr 12, 2023 4:17 pm 3. This is a philosophical argument, the whole point is to provide rationale as to why someone is right or wrong.
But you are NOT providing ANY sound AND logical argument here, which ARE the ONLY REAL arguments worth DISCUSSING and REPEATING.

AND, OBVIOUSLY, if NONE of your arguments are sound AND valid, then THE RATIONALE for WHY YOUR arguments ARE 'wrong' speaks for itself.
Eodnhoj7 wrote: Wed Apr 12, 2023 4:17 pm 4. Of course my perspectives contradict themselves, that is the whole point.
GREAT. I am VERY HAPPY that you have ADMITTED that that was what you were 'arguing FOR', and what YOUR WHOLE 'point' and 'argument' was ABOUT here.

If YOUR perspectives CONTRADICT 'themselves', and that this is WHAT you want to REALLY 'argue' FOR, and POINT OUT, then you SUCCEEDED, and SUCCEEDED a long time ago.

'you' sound like "dontaskme" here "eodnhoj7". That is; WHEN it is POINTED OUT that what 'you' are SAYING CONTRADICTS 'itself', then 'you' just SAY and CLAIM 'I can NOT help it', or, 'That is the WHOLE POINT'.

It is like BOTH of you are PROUD that you CONTRADICT "yourselves" here.
Eodnhoj7 wrote: Wed Apr 12, 2023 4:17 pm I argue a perspective from certain groundings until eventually they become absurd thus showing contradictions in the groundings.
Well KEEP DOING 'that', if that makes you HAPPY and/or PROUD.
Eodnhoj7 wrote: Wed Apr 12, 2023 4:17 pm 5. A zero dimensional point is a paradox.
Well considering one does NOT ACTUALLY EXIST, in ACTUALITY, other than, OF COURSE, in CONCEPT ONLY, or ALONE, then that 'that' IS A 'paradox', TO you', ONLY, and/or ALONE, is PERFECTLY FINE WITH me.

I ALSO SUGGEST you LOOK UP what the word 'paradox' can ACTUALLY MEAN and/or REFER TO, EXACTLY. Then you can SEE just HOW 'paradoxical' 'things' can REALLY BE, in Life.

By the way, IF you EVER DO LOOK UP that word, I would be EXCITED TO FIND OUT and SEE what you FOUND, EXACTLY.
Eodnhoj7 wrote: Wed Apr 12, 2023 4:17 pm It is nothing and everything.
Okay, if you SAY and BELIEVE SO.

BUT, to me, that the ACTUALLY NONE EXISTING so-called 'zero dimensional point' exists, CONCEPTUALLY, TO you, AS 'nothing' AND 'everything', then this IS A GREAT EXAMPLE of HOW and WHY, to you, absolutely EVERY thing becomes ABSURD and IS GROUNDED IN CONTRADICTIONS.

'you' are, literally, ONLY LOOKING AT and SEEING 'things' from a Truly CONTRADICTORY VIEW, and/or STAND, POINT. And, 'that STAND POINT' is from the NOT ACTUALLY EXISTING, BUT CONCEPTUALLY EXISTING 'zero dimensional point of view' ONLY.
Eodnhoj7 wrote: Wed Apr 12, 2023 4:17 pm Nothing as empty in itself, everything as it is the grounding of all relationships (it is the grounding of relationships as void is the absence of one thing found in another thus necessitating a relationship of contrast).
Which ALL CONTRADICTS itself, which, literally, IS SAYING, and MEANING, NOTHING AT ALL, REALLY.
Eodnhoj7
Posts: 8595
Joined: Mon Mar 13, 2017 3:18 am

Re: 1=0 III

Post by Eodnhoj7 »

Age wrote: Thu Apr 13, 2023 1:46 am
Eodnhoj7 wrote: Wed Apr 12, 2023 4:09 pm
Age wrote: Fri Apr 07, 2023 10:30 pm

This is OBVIOUSLY False.
Why?
BECAUSE, OBVIOUSLY, NOT 'ALL questioning' leads to 'further questioning'.
So there is a point where questioning can be stopped? Where and what is this?
Eodnhoj7
Posts: 8595
Joined: Mon Mar 13, 2017 3:18 am

Re: 1=0 III

Post by Eodnhoj7 »

Age wrote: Thu Apr 13, 2023 2:09 am
Eodnhoj7 wrote: Wed Apr 12, 2023 4:17 pm
Age wrote: Sun Apr 09, 2023 12:47 am

What you are more or less saying and stating here is, if there is not one, then there are two.

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.
1. One is paradoxical. It requires another if it is to be one as the one requires contrast to have form.
LOOK UP the 'paradoxical' word, and UNDERSTAND that 'that word' HAS TWO COMPLETELY OPPOSING meanings or definitions. Then you CAN LEARN and SEE the MISTAKE/S that you KEEP MAKING here.
Eodnhoj7 wrote: Wed Apr 12, 2023 4:17 pm However if the one requires contrast it is no longer the one but the two or more.
There THERE IS ONLY One Universe, and NO 'other' universe NOT thing, there IS here NO 'contrast'. However, and BECAUSE 'you', adult human beings, HAVE 'conceptually' CREATED 'an other' you SEE 'things' IN 'contrast'. BUT, conceptually CREATING 'things' does NOT mean that 'they' ACTUALLY EXIST in the way they CONCEPTUALLY APPEAR to.
Eodnhoj7 wrote: Wed Apr 12, 2023 4:17 pm 2. If the one is not formless then what is its form?
BUT 'It' is NOT 'formless'. you just keep HARPING back to CONCEPTUALLY False and Wrong 'things' like this, otherwise what you ALREADY BELIEVE is true here could NOT possibly be true.
Eodnhoj7 wrote: Wed Apr 12, 2023 4:17 pm It can only have one form otherwise it is not the one.
If you SAY and BELIEVE SO.
Eodnhoj7 wrote: Wed Apr 12, 2023 4:17 pm 3. This is a philosophical argument, the whole point is to provide rationale as to why someone is right or wrong.
But you are NOT providing ANY sound AND logical argument here, which ARE the ONLY REAL arguments worth DISCUSSING and REPEATING.

AND, OBVIOUSLY, if NONE of your arguments are sound AND valid, then THE RATIONALE for WHY YOUR arguments ARE 'wrong' speaks for itself.
Eodnhoj7 wrote: Wed Apr 12, 2023 4:17 pm 4. Of course my perspectives contradict themselves, that is the whole point.
GREAT. I am VERY HAPPY that you have ADMITTED that that was what you were 'arguing FOR', and what YOUR WHOLE 'point' and 'argument' was ABOUT here.

If YOUR perspectives CONTRADICT 'themselves', and that this is WHAT you want to REALLY 'argue' FOR, and POINT OUT, then you SUCCEEDED, and SUCCEEDED a long time ago.

'you' sound like "dontaskme" here "eodnhoj7". That is; WHEN it is POINTED OUT that what 'you' are SAYING CONTRADICTS 'itself', then 'you' just SAY and CLAIM 'I can NOT help it', or, 'That is the WHOLE POINT'.

It is like BOTH of you are PROUD that you CONTRADICT "yourselves" here.
Eodnhoj7 wrote: Wed Apr 12, 2023 4:17 pm I argue a perspective from certain groundings until eventually they become absurd thus showing contradictions in the groundings.
Well KEEP DOING 'that', if that makes you HAPPY and/or PROUD.
Eodnhoj7 wrote: Wed Apr 12, 2023 4:17 pm 5. A zero dimensional point is a paradox.
Well considering one does NOT ACTUALLY EXIST, in ACTUALITY, other than, OF COURSE, in CONCEPT ONLY, or ALONE, then that 'that' IS A 'paradox', TO you', ONLY, and/or ALONE, is PERFECTLY FINE WITH me.

I ALSO SUGGEST you LOOK UP what the word 'paradox' can ACTUALLY MEAN and/or REFER TO, EXACTLY. Then you can SEE just HOW 'paradoxical' 'things' can REALLY BE, in Life.

By the way, IF you EVER DO LOOK UP that word, I would be EXCITED TO FIND OUT and SEE what you FOUND, EXACTLY.
Eodnhoj7 wrote: Wed Apr 12, 2023 4:17 pm It is nothing and everything.
Okay, if you SAY and BELIEVE SO.

BUT, to me, that the ACTUALLY NONE EXISTING so-called 'zero dimensional point' exists, CONCEPTUALLY, TO you, AS 'nothing' AND 'everything', then this IS A GREAT EXAMPLE of HOW and WHY, to you, absolutely EVERY thing becomes ABSURD and IS GROUNDED IN CONTRADICTIONS.

'you' are, literally, ONLY LOOKING AT and SEEING 'things' from a Truly CONTRADICTORY VIEW, and/or STAND, POINT. And, 'that STAND POINT' is from the NOT ACTUALLY EXISTING, BUT CONCEPTUALLY EXISTING 'zero dimensional point of view' ONLY.
Eodnhoj7 wrote: Wed Apr 12, 2023 4:17 pm Nothing as empty in itself, everything as it is the grounding of all relationships (it is the grounding of relationships as void is the absence of one thing found in another thus necessitating a relationship of contrast).
Which ALL CONTRADICTS itself, which, literally, IS SAYING, and MEANING, NOTHING AT ALL, REALLY.
1. Thus 'paradox' is paradoxical and falls under its own definitions.
2. If the one is not formless then what is it's form? You ignored this question.
3. Then why discuss what I say then?
4. And you do not contradict yourself when you say everything is "space and matter" (dualism) but everything is one (monism)?
5. Your perspective is absurd when following it from premise to conclusion.
6. "a seemingly absurd or self-contradictory statement or proposition that when investigated or explained may prove to be well founded or true."
https://www.google.com/search?client=fi ... definition

The contradictions I point to exist and as existing are true.
7. But if 1=0, everything equates with nothing, then in speaking nothing I am speaking something.


But enough of this....what is your rationale as to why contradictions and paradoxes should be avoided. Why do you assume existence has to make sense?
Age
Posts: 20043
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

Re: 1=0 III

Post by Age »

Eodnhoj7 wrote: Fri Apr 14, 2023 7:22 pm
Age wrote: Thu Apr 13, 2023 1:46 am
Eodnhoj7 wrote: Wed Apr 12, 2023 4:09 pm

Why?
BECAUSE, OBVIOUSLY, NOT 'ALL questioning' leads to 'further questioning'.
So there is a point where questioning can be stopped?
YES.

As just PROVED True, ONCE AGAIN.

Eodnhoj7 wrote: Fri Apr 14, 2023 7:22 pm Where and what is this?
Right HERE, Right NOW.

And 'this', underlined, IS 'what is 'this'?
Age
Posts: 20043
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

Re: 1=0 III

Post by Age »

Eodnhoj7 wrote: Fri Apr 14, 2023 7:28 pm
Age wrote: Thu Apr 13, 2023 2:09 am
Eodnhoj7 wrote: Wed Apr 12, 2023 4:17 pm

1. One is paradoxical. It requires another if it is to be one as the one requires contrast to have form.
LOOK UP the 'paradoxical' word, and UNDERSTAND that 'that word' HAS TWO COMPLETELY OPPOSING meanings or definitions. Then you CAN LEARN and SEE the MISTAKE/S that you KEEP MAKING here.
Eodnhoj7 wrote: Wed Apr 12, 2023 4:17 pm However if the one requires contrast it is no longer the one but the two or more.
There THERE IS ONLY One Universe, and NO 'other' universe NOT thing, there IS here NO 'contrast'. However, and BECAUSE 'you', adult human beings, HAVE 'conceptually' CREATED 'an other' you SEE 'things' IN 'contrast'. BUT, conceptually CREATING 'things' does NOT mean that 'they' ACTUALLY EXIST in the way they CONCEPTUALLY APPEAR to.
Eodnhoj7 wrote: Wed Apr 12, 2023 4:17 pm 2. If the one is not formless then what is its form?
BUT 'It' is NOT 'formless'. you just keep HARPING back to CONCEPTUALLY False and Wrong 'things' like this, otherwise what you ALREADY BELIEVE is true here could NOT possibly be true.
Eodnhoj7 wrote: Wed Apr 12, 2023 4:17 pm It can only have one form otherwise it is not the one.
If you SAY and BELIEVE SO.
Eodnhoj7 wrote: Wed Apr 12, 2023 4:17 pm 3. This is a philosophical argument, the whole point is to provide rationale as to why someone is right or wrong.
But you are NOT providing ANY sound AND logical argument here, which ARE the ONLY REAL arguments worth DISCUSSING and REPEATING.

AND, OBVIOUSLY, if NONE of your arguments are sound AND valid, then THE RATIONALE for WHY YOUR arguments ARE 'wrong' speaks for itself.
Eodnhoj7 wrote: Wed Apr 12, 2023 4:17 pm 4. Of course my perspectives contradict themselves, that is the whole point.
GREAT. I am VERY HAPPY that you have ADMITTED that that was what you were 'arguing FOR', and what YOUR WHOLE 'point' and 'argument' was ABOUT here.

If YOUR perspectives CONTRADICT 'themselves', and that this is WHAT you want to REALLY 'argue' FOR, and POINT OUT, then you SUCCEEDED, and SUCCEEDED a long time ago.

'you' sound like "dontaskme" here "eodnhoj7". That is; WHEN it is POINTED OUT that what 'you' are SAYING CONTRADICTS 'itself', then 'you' just SAY and CLAIM 'I can NOT help it', or, 'That is the WHOLE POINT'.

It is like BOTH of you are PROUD that you CONTRADICT "yourselves" here.
Eodnhoj7 wrote: Wed Apr 12, 2023 4:17 pm I argue a perspective from certain groundings until eventually they become absurd thus showing contradictions in the groundings.
Well KEEP DOING 'that', if that makes you HAPPY and/or PROUD.
Eodnhoj7 wrote: Wed Apr 12, 2023 4:17 pm 5. A zero dimensional point is a paradox.
Well considering one does NOT ACTUALLY EXIST, in ACTUALITY, other than, OF COURSE, in CONCEPT ONLY, or ALONE, then that 'that' IS A 'paradox', TO you', ONLY, and/or ALONE, is PERFECTLY FINE WITH me.

I ALSO SUGGEST you LOOK UP what the word 'paradox' can ACTUALLY MEAN and/or REFER TO, EXACTLY. Then you can SEE just HOW 'paradoxical' 'things' can REALLY BE, in Life.

By the way, IF you EVER DO LOOK UP that word, I would be EXCITED TO FIND OUT and SEE what you FOUND, EXACTLY.
Eodnhoj7 wrote: Wed Apr 12, 2023 4:17 pm It is nothing and everything.
Okay, if you SAY and BELIEVE SO.

BUT, to me, that the ACTUALLY NONE EXISTING so-called 'zero dimensional point' exists, CONCEPTUALLY, TO you, AS 'nothing' AND 'everything', then this IS A GREAT EXAMPLE of HOW and WHY, to you, absolutely EVERY thing becomes ABSURD and IS GROUNDED IN CONTRADICTIONS.

'you' are, literally, ONLY LOOKING AT and SEEING 'things' from a Truly CONTRADICTORY VIEW, and/or STAND, POINT. And, 'that STAND POINT' is from the NOT ACTUALLY EXISTING, BUT CONCEPTUALLY EXISTING 'zero dimensional point of view' ONLY.
Eodnhoj7 wrote: Wed Apr 12, 2023 4:17 pm Nothing as empty in itself, everything as it is the grounding of all relationships (it is the grounding of relationships as void is the absence of one thing found in another thus necessitating a relationship of contrast).
Which ALL CONTRADICTS itself, which, literally, IS SAYING, and MEANING, NOTHING AT ALL, REALLY.
1. Thus 'paradox' is paradoxical and falls under its own definitions.
2. If the one is not formless then what is it's form? You ignored this question.
3. Then why discuss what I say then?
4. And you do not contradict yourself when you say everything is "space and matter" (dualism) but everything is one (monism)?
5. Your perspective is absurd when following it from premise to conclusion.
6. "a seemingly absurd or self-contradictory statement or proposition that when investigated or explained may prove to be well founded or true."
https://www.google.com/search?client=fi ... definition
1. EXACTLY as 'I' HAVE BEEN SAYING and EXPLAINING, TO 'you'.
2. I NEVER ignored 'this question'. As can be CLEARLY SEEN and PROVED above here. AS I WAS SAYING and STATING, the One is FORMED BY and WITH 'matter' AND 'space'. That is the One's FORM, and BECAUSE of those two HOW 'that form', of the One, IS ALWAYS in a CONSTANTLY CONTINUALLY STATE OF CHANGE.
3. BECAUSE I WANT TO. Also as I have CLEARLY STATED BEFORE. I DO NOT KNOW what your numbers REFER TO, EXACTLY.
4. THAT IS Right. I CERTAINLY DO NOT and AM NOT CONTRADICTING "myself" AT ALL here.
5. If you ARE EVER GAME ENOUGH to INSTEAD of just writings numbers, which do NOT ACTUALLY REFER TO ABSOLUTELY ANY 'thing', and INSTEAD PRESENT, EXACTLY, my perspective/s which you think or BELIEVE ARE ABSURD, WHEN you FOLLOW FROM them 'premise' TO 'conclusion', then we can ACTUALLY LOOK AT and DISCUSS what you think or BELIEVE is true here. Until then I have ABSOLUTELY NO IDEA NOR CLUE as to what 'it' IS, which you are REFERRING TO here. HOPEFULLY, you BECOME BRAVE ENOUGH and PRESENT your ACTUAL perspective/s here.
6. That is ONE DEFINITION, which, LAUGHINGLY, COMPLETELY CONTRADICTS or OPPOSES some so-called "scientist's" DEFINITION/S of THAT word.
Eodnhoj7 wrote: Fri Apr 14, 2023 7:28 pm The contradictions I point to exist and as existing are true.
7. But if 1=0, everything equates with nothing, then in speaking nothing I am speaking something.
Just because some 'thing' exists does NOT mean that 'that thing' is so-called 'true'. For example, the words, 'An orange is an apple', OBVIOUSLY exist, but just as OBVIOUS is that those words are referring to is 'NOT true'. So, ONCE AGAIN, YOUR statement AND claim besides being ABSOLUTELY and Truly ABSURD and RIDICULOUS it is just plain old False, AS WELL.

Also, 'speaking something' does NOT equate to what is 'being spoken' IS True, Right, NOR Correct, AT ALL. As 'you', "eodnhoj7", REPEATEDLY have been PROVING IRREFUTABLY True here.

Eodnhoj7 wrote: Fri Apr 14, 2023 7:28 pm But enough of this....what is your rationale as to why contradictions and paradoxes should be avoided.
If you NEED to have it EXPLAINED to you as to WHY it is MUCH BETTER to AVOID 'contradictions' I FIRST NEED to UNDERSTAND how are you DEFINING the word 'contradiction' here?

And I have NEVER even thought, let alone, PRESUMED, nor even MENTIONED and/nor SUGGESTED, that 'paradoxes' should be avoided. WHY would you even ASSUME such a thing, especially CONSIDERING the ACTUAL DEFINITION of the word 'paradox' that you just provided above here?

From the DEFINITION above I suggest FAR MORE 'PARADOXES' are PRESENTED and SHARED on this forum, and/or throughout Life, itself, and that THOSE TYPES OF PARADOXES are NEVER AVOIDED AT ALL. That way KNOWING there ARE statements and/or propositions EXISTING might get 'you', adult human beings, to ACTUALLY think ABOUT AND consider MORE the words that are PRESENTED TO 'you' ALL.
Eodnhoj7 wrote: Fri Apr 14, 2023 7:28 pm Why do you assume existence has to make sense?
BUT I DO NOT ASSUME 'this'. What made you ASSUME that I DID.

Also, BECAUSE I HAVE ALREADY MADE SENSE of Existence, Itself, there IS NO need for me to ASSUME that Existence has to make sense.

To me, there is NOTHING in Existence that does NOT make sense. That 'you', adult human beings, in the days when this was being written, KEPT ABUSING 'things' in Existence, and thus KEPT ABUSING Existence, Itself, could have VERY EASILY and VERY SIMPLY APPEARED to NOT make sense, but BECAUSE I ALREADY KNEW EXACTLY WHY 'you' ALL thought and did what 'you' DID, 'complete sense' was ALREADY MADE, and KNOWN.
User avatar
Agent Smith
Posts: 1442
Joined: Fri Aug 12, 2022 12:23 pm

Re: 1=0 III

Post by Agent Smith »

1 = 0

Hahahahohohohehehe!

What's so funny?

You! 1 = 0!!! Hahahahohohohehehe!

Do you want coke or pepsi?

Hahaha! Hey! Wait a minute ...

We have all the time in the world.
Eodnhoj7
Posts: 8595
Joined: Mon Mar 13, 2017 3:18 am

Re: 1=0 III

Post by Eodnhoj7 »

Age wrote: Sat Apr 15, 2023 3:34 am
Eodnhoj7 wrote: Fri Apr 14, 2023 7:22 pm
Age wrote: Thu Apr 13, 2023 1:46 am

BECAUSE, OBVIOUSLY, NOT 'ALL questioning' leads to 'further questioning'.
So there is a point where questioning can be stopped?
YES.

As just PROVED True, ONCE AGAIN.

Eodnhoj7 wrote: Fri Apr 14, 2023 7:22 pm Where and what is this?
Right HERE, Right NOW.

And 'this', underlined, IS 'what is 'this'?
1. And what is that proof?

2. A statement of course...but what does making this statement really mean?
Last edited by Eodnhoj7 on Wed Apr 19, 2023 11:40 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Eodnhoj7
Posts: 8595
Joined: Mon Mar 13, 2017 3:18 am

Re: 1=0 III

Post by Eodnhoj7 »

Age wrote: Sat Apr 15, 2023 4:02 am
Eodnhoj7 wrote: Fri Apr 14, 2023 7:28 pm
Age wrote: Thu Apr 13, 2023 2:09 am

LOOK UP the 'paradoxical' word, and UNDERSTAND that 'that word' HAS TWO COMPLETELY OPPOSING meanings or definitions. Then you CAN LEARN and SEE the MISTAKE/S that you KEEP MAKING here.



There THERE IS ONLY One Universe, and NO 'other' universe NOT thing, there IS here NO 'contrast'. However, and BECAUSE 'you', adult human beings, HAVE 'conceptually' CREATED 'an other' you SEE 'things' IN 'contrast'. BUT, conceptually CREATING 'things' does NOT mean that 'they' ACTUALLY EXIST in the way they CONCEPTUALLY APPEAR to.


BUT 'It' is NOT 'formless'. you just keep HARPING back to CONCEPTUALLY False and Wrong 'things' like this, otherwise what you ALREADY BELIEVE is true here could NOT possibly be true.


If you SAY and BELIEVE SO.


But you are NOT providing ANY sound AND logical argument here, which ARE the ONLY REAL arguments worth DISCUSSING and REPEATING.

AND, OBVIOUSLY, if NONE of your arguments are sound AND valid, then THE RATIONALE for WHY YOUR arguments ARE 'wrong' speaks for itself.


GREAT. I am VERY HAPPY that you have ADMITTED that that was what you were 'arguing FOR', and what YOUR WHOLE 'point' and 'argument' was ABOUT here.

If YOUR perspectives CONTRADICT 'themselves', and that this is WHAT you want to REALLY 'argue' FOR, and POINT OUT, then you SUCCEEDED, and SUCCEEDED a long time ago.

'you' sound like "dontaskme" here "eodnhoj7". That is; WHEN it is POINTED OUT that what 'you' are SAYING CONTRADICTS 'itself', then 'you' just SAY and CLAIM 'I can NOT help it', or, 'That is the WHOLE POINT'.

It is like BOTH of you are PROUD that you CONTRADICT "yourselves" here.



Well KEEP DOING 'that', if that makes you HAPPY and/or PROUD.


Well considering one does NOT ACTUALLY EXIST, in ACTUALITY, other than, OF COURSE, in CONCEPT ONLY, or ALONE, then that 'that' IS A 'paradox', TO you', ONLY, and/or ALONE, is PERFECTLY FINE WITH me.

I ALSO SUGGEST you LOOK UP what the word 'paradox' can ACTUALLY MEAN and/or REFER TO, EXACTLY. Then you can SEE just HOW 'paradoxical' 'things' can REALLY BE, in Life.

By the way, IF you EVER DO LOOK UP that word, I would be EXCITED TO FIND OUT and SEE what you FOUND, EXACTLY.



Okay, if you SAY and BELIEVE SO.

BUT, to me, that the ACTUALLY NONE EXISTING so-called 'zero dimensional point' exists, CONCEPTUALLY, TO you, AS 'nothing' AND 'everything', then this IS A GREAT EXAMPLE of HOW and WHY, to you, absolutely EVERY thing becomes ABSURD and IS GROUNDED IN CONTRADICTIONS.

'you' are, literally, ONLY LOOKING AT and SEEING 'things' from a Truly CONTRADICTORY VIEW, and/or STAND, POINT. And, 'that STAND POINT' is from the NOT ACTUALLY EXISTING, BUT CONCEPTUALLY EXISTING 'zero dimensional point of view' ONLY.


Which ALL CONTRADICTS itself, which, literally, IS SAYING, and MEANING, NOTHING AT ALL, REALLY.
1. Thus 'paradox' is paradoxical and falls under its own definitions.
2. If the one is not formless then what is it's form? You ignored this question.
3. Then why discuss what I say then?
4. And you do not contradict yourself when you say everything is "space and matter" (dualism) but everything is one (monism)?
5. Your perspective is absurd when following it from premise to conclusion.
6. "a seemingly absurd or self-contradictory statement or proposition that when investigated or explained may prove to be well founded or true."
https://www.google.com/search?client=fi ... definition
1. EXACTLY as 'I' HAVE BEEN SAYING and EXPLAINING, TO 'you'.
2. I NEVER ignored 'this question'. As can be CLEARLY SEEN and PROVED above here. AS I WAS SAYING and STATING, the One is FORMED BY and WITH 'matter' AND 'space'. That is the One's FORM, and BECAUSE of those two HOW 'that form', of the One, IS ALWAYS in a CONSTANTLY CONTINUALLY STATE OF CHANGE.
3. BECAUSE I WANT TO. Also as I have CLEARLY STATED BEFORE. I DO NOT KNOW what your numbers REFER TO, EXACTLY.
4. THAT IS Right. I CERTAINLY DO NOT and AM NOT CONTRADICTING "myself" AT ALL here.
5. If you ARE EVER GAME ENOUGH to INSTEAD of just writings numbers, which do NOT ACTUALLY REFER TO ABSOLUTELY ANY 'thing', and INSTEAD PRESENT, EXACTLY, my perspective/s which you think or BELIEVE ARE ABSURD, WHEN you FOLLOW FROM them 'premise' TO 'conclusion', then we can ACTUALLY LOOK AT and DISCUSS what you think or BELIEVE is true here. Until then I have ABSOLUTELY NO IDEA NOR CLUE as to what 'it' IS, which you are REFERRING TO here. HOPEFULLY, you BECOME BRAVE ENOUGH and PRESENT your ACTUAL perspective/s here.
6. That is ONE DEFINITION, which, LAUGHINGLY, COMPLETELY CONTRADICTS or OPPOSES some so-called "scientist's" DEFINITION/S of THAT word.
Eodnhoj7 wrote: Fri Apr 14, 2023 7:28 pm The contradictions I point to exist and as existing are true.
7. But if 1=0, everything equates with nothing, then in speaking nothing I am speaking something.
Just because some 'thing' exists does NOT mean that 'that thing' is so-called 'true'. For example, the words, 'An orange is an apple', OBVIOUSLY exist, but just as OBVIOUS is that those words are referring to is 'NOT true'. So, ONCE AGAIN, YOUR statement AND claim besides being ABSOLUTELY and Truly ABSURD and RIDICULOUS it is just plain old False, AS WELL.

Also, 'speaking something' does NOT equate to what is 'being spoken' IS True, Right, NOR Correct, AT ALL. As 'you', "eodnhoj7", REPEATEDLY have been PROVING IRREFUTABLY True here.

Eodnhoj7 wrote: Fri Apr 14, 2023 7:28 pm But enough of this....what is your rationale as to why contradictions and paradoxes should be avoided.
If you NEED to have it EXPLAINED to you as to WHY it is MUCH BETTER to AVOID 'contradictions' I FIRST NEED to UNDERSTAND how are you DEFINING the word 'contradiction' here?

And I have NEVER even thought, let alone, PRESUMED, nor even MENTIONED and/nor SUGGESTED, that 'paradoxes' should be avoided. WHY would you even ASSUME such a thing, especially CONSIDERING the ACTUAL DEFINITION of the word 'paradox' that you just provided above here?

From the DEFINITION above I suggest FAR MORE 'PARADOXES' are PRESENTED and SHARED on this forum, and/or throughout Life, itself, and that THOSE TYPES OF PARADOXES are NEVER AVOIDED AT ALL. That way KNOWING there ARE statements and/or propositions EXISTING might get 'you', adult human beings, to ACTUALLY think ABOUT AND consider MORE the words that are PRESENTED TO 'you' ALL.
Eodnhoj7 wrote: Fri Apr 14, 2023 7:28 pm Why do you assume existence has to make sense?
BUT I DO NOT ASSUME 'this'. What made you ASSUME that I DID.

Also, BECAUSE I HAVE ALREADY MADE SENSE of Existence, Itself, there IS NO need for me to ASSUME that Existence has to make sense.

To me, there is NOTHING in Existence that does NOT make sense. That 'you', adult human beings, in the days when this was being written, KEPT ABUSING 'things' in Existence, and thus KEPT ABUSING Existence, Itself, could have VERY EASILY and VERY SIMPLY APPEARED to NOT make sense, but BECAUSE I ALREADY KNEW EXACTLY WHY 'you' ALL thought and did what 'you' DID, 'complete sense' was ALREADY MADE, and KNOWN.
1. But I already argued that even the notion of paradoxical is paradoxical thus leaving us with absurdity.
2. If the one is continually changing form then it has potential to be something else entirely from what it is currently, as such the one (i.e. actual) exists relative to the potential (i.e. the unactual) and we have a dichotomy.
3. And why do you want to?
4. You are arguing the monism is a dualism.
5. 1 is an individual form. 0 is the absence of form.
6. And that definition is the result of the computer scientists who created the internet.
7. An orange is an apple in the respect both are fruits, they are connected under the concept of 'fruit'.
8. If you made sense of existence then why can you not convince others of your viewpoint considering the viewpoint you have (i.e. claiming to have made sense of existence) would require you to know how to convince others?
Age
Posts: 20043
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

Re: 1=0 III

Post by Age »

Eodnhoj7 wrote: Wed Apr 19, 2023 11:39 pm
Age wrote: Sat Apr 15, 2023 4:02 am
Eodnhoj7 wrote: Fri Apr 14, 2023 7:28 pm

1. Thus 'paradox' is paradoxical and falls under its own definitions.
2. If the one is not formless then what is it's form? You ignored this question.
3. Then why discuss what I say then?
4. And you do not contradict yourself when you say everything is "space and matter" (dualism) but everything is one (monism)?
5. Your perspective is absurd when following it from premise to conclusion.
6. "a seemingly absurd or self-contradictory statement or proposition that when investigated or explained may prove to be well founded or true."
https://www.google.com/search?client=fi ... definition
1. EXACTLY as 'I' HAVE BEEN SAYING and EXPLAINING, TO 'you'.
2. I NEVER ignored 'this question'. As can be CLEARLY SEEN and PROVED above here. AS I WAS SAYING and STATING, the One is FORMED BY and WITH 'matter' AND 'space'. That is the One's FORM, and BECAUSE of those two HOW 'that form', of the One, IS ALWAYS in a CONSTANTLY CONTINUALLY STATE OF CHANGE.
3. BECAUSE I WANT TO. Also as I have CLEARLY STATED BEFORE. I DO NOT KNOW what your numbers REFER TO, EXACTLY.
4. THAT IS Right. I CERTAINLY DO NOT and AM NOT CONTRADICTING "myself" AT ALL here.
5. If you ARE EVER GAME ENOUGH to INSTEAD of just writings numbers, which do NOT ACTUALLY REFER TO ABSOLUTELY ANY 'thing', and INSTEAD PRESENT, EXACTLY, my perspective/s which you think or BELIEVE ARE ABSURD, WHEN you FOLLOW FROM them 'premise' TO 'conclusion', then we can ACTUALLY LOOK AT and DISCUSS what you think or BELIEVE is true here. Until then I have ABSOLUTELY NO IDEA NOR CLUE as to what 'it' IS, which you are REFERRING TO here. HOPEFULLY, you BECOME BRAVE ENOUGH and PRESENT your ACTUAL perspective/s here.
6. That is ONE DEFINITION, which, LAUGHINGLY, COMPLETELY CONTRADICTS or OPPOSES some so-called "scientist's" DEFINITION/S of THAT word.
Eodnhoj7 wrote: Fri Apr 14, 2023 7:28 pm The contradictions I point to exist and as existing are true.
7. But if 1=0, everything equates with nothing, then in speaking nothing I am speaking something.
Just because some 'thing' exists does NOT mean that 'that thing' is so-called 'true'. For example, the words, 'An orange is an apple', OBVIOUSLY exist, but just as OBVIOUS is that those words are referring to is 'NOT true'. So, ONCE AGAIN, YOUR statement AND claim besides being ABSOLUTELY and Truly ABSURD and RIDICULOUS it is just plain old False, AS WELL.

Also, 'speaking something' does NOT equate to what is 'being spoken' IS True, Right, NOR Correct, AT ALL. As 'you', "eodnhoj7", REPEATEDLY have been PROVING IRREFUTABLY True here.

Eodnhoj7 wrote: Fri Apr 14, 2023 7:28 pm But enough of this....what is your rationale as to why contradictions and paradoxes should be avoided.
If you NEED to have it EXPLAINED to you as to WHY it is MUCH BETTER to AVOID 'contradictions' I FIRST NEED to UNDERSTAND how are you DEFINING the word 'contradiction' here?

And I have NEVER even thought, let alone, PRESUMED, nor even MENTIONED and/nor SUGGESTED, that 'paradoxes' should be avoided. WHY would you even ASSUME such a thing, especially CONSIDERING the ACTUAL DEFINITION of the word 'paradox' that you just provided above here?

From the DEFINITION above I suggest FAR MORE 'PARADOXES' are PRESENTED and SHARED on this forum, and/or throughout Life, itself, and that THOSE TYPES OF PARADOXES are NEVER AVOIDED AT ALL. That way KNOWING there ARE statements and/or propositions EXISTING might get 'you', adult human beings, to ACTUALLY think ABOUT AND consider MORE the words that are PRESENTED TO 'you' ALL.
Eodnhoj7 wrote: Fri Apr 14, 2023 7:28 pm Why do you assume existence has to make sense?
BUT I DO NOT ASSUME 'this'. What made you ASSUME that I DID.

Also, BECAUSE I HAVE ALREADY MADE SENSE of Existence, Itself, there IS NO need for me to ASSUME that Existence has to make sense.

To me, there is NOTHING in Existence that does NOT make sense. That 'you', adult human beings, in the days when this was being written, KEPT ABUSING 'things' in Existence, and thus KEPT ABUSING Existence, Itself, could have VERY EASILY and VERY SIMPLY APPEARED to NOT make sense, but BECAUSE I ALREADY KNEW EXACTLY WHY 'you' ALL thought and did what 'you' DID, 'complete sense' was ALREADY MADE, and KNOWN.
1. But I already argued that even the notion of paradoxical is paradoxical thus leaving us with absurdity.
What you call 'already argued' is just your OWN EXPRESSED view, which you just BELIEVE is true.

Are you even AWARE that just because 'you' or ANY one "ELSE" so-call 'argues' some 'thing', then 'that' in and of itself does NOT make what was so-called 'argued' valid AND sound. And, it is ONLY valid AND sound arguments that are Truly WORTHY of being REPEATED.

What you have already ATTEMPTED to 'argue' here is just ABSURD and RIDICULOUS. As I have ALREADY SHOWN and PROVED.

Now, a 'paradox' is NOT necessarily absurd AT ALL, as I have ALREADY EXPLAINED, and which you ALREADY SHOWED in your OWN provided 'definition', which you SUPPLIED here, AFTER I mentioned LOOKING UP what the word 'paradox' ACTUALLY MEANS EXACTLY.

If some 'thing', like for example 'the notion of paradoxical', IS PARADOXICAL, then this does NOT necessarily mean that 'that notion' is absurd AT ALL. And, in fact it could mean that 'that notion' is ACTUALLY True, Right, and/or Correct and even Truly REASONABLE and SENSIBLE.

I suggest you, AGAIN, LOOK AT what the ACTUAL 'definition' of the word 'paradox' IS, EXACTLY. you KNOW 'the one', which you supplied here.

Eodnhoj7 wrote: Wed Apr 19, 2023 11:39 pm 2. If the one is continually changing form then it has potential to be something else entirely from what it is currently, as such the one (i.e. actual) exists relative to the potential (i.e. the unactual) and we have a dichotomy.
BUT 'the One' can NOT CHANGE from what 'It' IS, EXACTLY. Which IS; an ALWAYS CONSTANTLY-CHANGING Evolutionary-Creating One.
Eodnhoj7 wrote: Wed Apr 19, 2023 11:39 pm 3. And why do you want to?
To ALLUDE TO what the ACTUAL and IRREFUTABLE Truth IS, EXACTLY. Which is, OBVIOUSLY, NOT what you are providing here.
Eodnhoj7 wrote: Wed Apr 19, 2023 11:39 pm 4. You are arguing the monism is a dualism.
BECAUSE 'this' is what IS the ACTUAL and IRREFUTABLE Truth.

There is ONLY One Universe, which Its, FUNDAMENTAL, make up ARE the two 'things' sometimes known as and referred to as 'space' AND 'matter'.

'Matter' just REFERRING TO the visibly seen 'physicality' AND 'space' just REFERRING TO 'the distance' between or around 'matter'. 'This phenomena', by the way, happens on ALL what are called 'levels', that are; the classical and the quantum.

There is ONLY One Universe but It can NOT be made up of ONLY One 'thing'.

This WILL BE PROVED True IF and WHEN ANY one WANTS to QUESTION and/or CHALLENGE me here enough.
Eodnhoj7 wrote: Wed Apr 19, 2023 11:39 pm 5. 1 is an individual form. 0 is the absence of form.
Okay. I have NEVER said otherwise, and have NEVER been talking ABOUT 'this' here, AT ALL.

AND, you will NEVER come to UNDERSTAND what I have been ACTUALLY talking ABOUT UNTIL you BEGIN to SEEK OUT CLARITY.
Eodnhoj7 wrote: Wed Apr 19, 2023 11:39 pm 6. And that definition is the result of the computer scientists who created the internet.
SO WHAT?
Eodnhoj7 wrote: Wed Apr 19, 2023 11:39 pm 7. An orange is an apple in the respect both are fruits, they are connected under the concept of 'fruit'.
SO, are 'you', "eodnhoj7", TELLING the 'readers' here that 'an orange' IS 'an apple'?

If no, then WHY NOT?

But if yes, then OKAY.
Eodnhoj7 wrote: Wed Apr 19, 2023 11:39 pm 8. If you made sense of existence then why can you not convince others of your viewpoint considering the viewpoint you have (i.e. claiming to have made sense of existence) would require you to know how to convince others?
LOL I CERTAINLY DO NOT WANT TO, NOR HAVE I EVER EVEN TRIED TO, 'convince' ANY one of ANY thing here.

As some have ALREADY ACCUSED me of doing here, I have only been ALLUDING TO 'things', and NOT FULLY EXPRESSING 'them', I do 'this' while WAITING, PATIENTLY, for 'those' who are Truly CURIOS and Truly INTERESTED. I have ALSO made it VERY CLEAR that I am just here, in this forum, to LEARN how to communicate BETTER with 'you', human beings.

Just so you are VERY AWARE I am CERTAINLY NOT here to CONVINCE ANY one of ANY 'thing'. 'CONVINCING' "others" of ANY 'thing' is the EXACT OPPOSITE of what I am ACTUALLY DOING and ACHIEVING here.
Eodnhoj7
Posts: 8595
Joined: Mon Mar 13, 2017 3:18 am

Re: 1=0 III

Post by Eodnhoj7 »

Age wrote: Thu Apr 20, 2023 10:34 am
Eodnhoj7 wrote: Wed Apr 19, 2023 11:39 pm
Age wrote: Sat Apr 15, 2023 4:02 am

1. EXACTLY as 'I' HAVE BEEN SAYING and EXPLAINING, TO 'you'.
2. I NEVER ignored 'this question'. As can be CLEARLY SEEN and PROVED above here. AS I WAS SAYING and STATING, the One is FORMED BY and WITH 'matter' AND 'space'. That is the One's FORM, and BECAUSE of those two HOW 'that form', of the One, IS ALWAYS in a CONSTANTLY CONTINUALLY STATE OF CHANGE.
3. BECAUSE I WANT TO. Also as I have CLEARLY STATED BEFORE. I DO NOT KNOW what your numbers REFER TO, EXACTLY.
4. THAT IS Right. I CERTAINLY DO NOT and AM NOT CONTRADICTING "myself" AT ALL here.
5. If you ARE EVER GAME ENOUGH to INSTEAD of just writings numbers, which do NOT ACTUALLY REFER TO ABSOLUTELY ANY 'thing', and INSTEAD PRESENT, EXACTLY, my perspective/s which you think or BELIEVE ARE ABSURD, WHEN you FOLLOW FROM them 'premise' TO 'conclusion', then we can ACTUALLY LOOK AT and DISCUSS what you think or BELIEVE is true here. Until then I have ABSOLUTELY NO IDEA NOR CLUE as to what 'it' IS, which you are REFERRING TO here. HOPEFULLY, you BECOME BRAVE ENOUGH and PRESENT your ACTUAL perspective/s here.
6. That is ONE DEFINITION, which, LAUGHINGLY, COMPLETELY CONTRADICTS or OPPOSES some so-called "scientist's" DEFINITION/S of THAT word.



Just because some 'thing' exists does NOT mean that 'that thing' is so-called 'true'. For example, the words, 'An orange is an apple', OBVIOUSLY exist, but just as OBVIOUS is that those words are referring to is 'NOT true'. So, ONCE AGAIN, YOUR statement AND claim besides being ABSOLUTELY and Truly ABSURD and RIDICULOUS it is just plain old False, AS WELL.

Also, 'speaking something' does NOT equate to what is 'being spoken' IS True, Right, NOR Correct, AT ALL. As 'you', "eodnhoj7", REPEATEDLY have been PROVING IRREFUTABLY True here.




If you NEED to have it EXPLAINED to you as to WHY it is MUCH BETTER to AVOID 'contradictions' I FIRST NEED to UNDERSTAND how are you DEFINING the word 'contradiction' here?

And I have NEVER even thought, let alone, PRESUMED, nor even MENTIONED and/nor SUGGESTED, that 'paradoxes' should be avoided. WHY would you even ASSUME such a thing, especially CONSIDERING the ACTUAL DEFINITION of the word 'paradox' that you just provided above here?

From the DEFINITION above I suggest FAR MORE 'PARADOXES' are PRESENTED and SHARED on this forum, and/or throughout Life, itself, and that THOSE TYPES OF PARADOXES are NEVER AVOIDED AT ALL. That way KNOWING there ARE statements and/or propositions EXISTING might get 'you', adult human beings, to ACTUALLY think ABOUT AND consider MORE the words that are PRESENTED TO 'you' ALL.



BUT I DO NOT ASSUME 'this'. What made you ASSUME that I DID.

Also, BECAUSE I HAVE ALREADY MADE SENSE of Existence, Itself, there IS NO need for me to ASSUME that Existence has to make sense.

To me, there is NOTHING in Existence that does NOT make sense. That 'you', adult human beings, in the days when this was being written, KEPT ABUSING 'things' in Existence, and thus KEPT ABUSING Existence, Itself, could have VERY EASILY and VERY SIMPLY APPEARED to NOT make sense, but BECAUSE I ALREADY KNEW EXACTLY WHY 'you' ALL thought and did what 'you' DID, 'complete sense' was ALREADY MADE, and KNOWN.
1. But I already argued that even the notion of paradoxical is paradoxical thus leaving us with absurdity.
What you call 'already argued' is just your OWN EXPRESSED view, which you just BELIEVE is true.

Are you even AWARE that just because 'you' or ANY one "ELSE" so-call 'argues' some 'thing', then 'that' in and of itself does NOT make what was so-called 'argued' valid AND sound. And, it is ONLY valid AND sound arguments that are Truly WORTHY of being REPEATED.

What you have already ATTEMPTED to 'argue' here is just ABSURD and RIDICULOUS. As I have ALREADY SHOWN and PROVED.

Now, a 'paradox' is NOT necessarily absurd AT ALL, as I have ALREADY EXPLAINED, and which you ALREADY SHOWED in your OWN provided 'definition', which you SUPPLIED here, AFTER I mentioned LOOKING UP what the word 'paradox' ACTUALLY MEANS EXACTLY.

If some 'thing', like for example 'the notion of paradoxical', IS PARADOXICAL, then this does NOT necessarily mean that 'that notion' is absurd AT ALL. And, in fact it could mean that 'that notion' is ACTUALLY True, Right, and/or Correct and even Truly REASONABLE and SENSIBLE.

I suggest you, AGAIN, LOOK AT what the ACTUAL 'definition' of the word 'paradox' IS, EXACTLY. you KNOW 'the one', which you supplied here.

Eodnhoj7 wrote: Wed Apr 19, 2023 11:39 pm 2. If the one is continually changing form then it has potential to be something else entirely from what it is currently, as such the one (i.e. actual) exists relative to the potential (i.e. the unactual) and we have a dichotomy.
BUT 'the One' can NOT CHANGE from what 'It' IS, EXACTLY. Which IS; an ALWAYS CONSTANTLY-CHANGING Evolutionary-Creating One.
Eodnhoj7 wrote: Wed Apr 19, 2023 11:39 pm 3. And why do you want to?
To ALLUDE TO what the ACTUAL and IRREFUTABLE Truth IS, EXACTLY. Which is, OBVIOUSLY, NOT what you are providing here.
Eodnhoj7 wrote: Wed Apr 19, 2023 11:39 pm 4. You are arguing the monism is a dualism.
BECAUSE 'this' is what IS the ACTUAL and IRREFUTABLE Truth.

There is ONLY One Universe, which Its, FUNDAMENTAL, make up ARE the two 'things' sometimes known as and referred to as 'space' AND 'matter'.

'Matter' just REFERRING TO the visibly seen 'physicality' AND 'space' just REFERRING TO 'the distance' between or around 'matter'. 'This phenomena', by the way, happens on ALL what are called 'levels', that are; the classical and the quantum.

There is ONLY One Universe but It can NOT be made up of ONLY One 'thing'.

This WILL BE PROVED True IF and WHEN ANY one WANTS to QUESTION and/or CHALLENGE me here enough.
Eodnhoj7 wrote: Wed Apr 19, 2023 11:39 pm 5. 1 is an individual form. 0 is the absence of form.
Okay. I have NEVER said otherwise, and have NEVER been talking ABOUT 'this' here, AT ALL.

AND, you will NEVER come to UNDERSTAND what I have been ACTUALLY talking ABOUT UNTIL you BEGIN to SEEK OUT CLARITY.
Eodnhoj7 wrote: Wed Apr 19, 2023 11:39 pm 6. And that definition is the result of the computer scientists who created the internet.
SO WHAT?
Eodnhoj7 wrote: Wed Apr 19, 2023 11:39 pm 7. An orange is an apple in the respect both are fruits, they are connected under the concept of 'fruit'.
SO, are 'you', "eodnhoj7", TELLING the 'readers' here that 'an orange' IS 'an apple'?

If no, then WHY NOT?

But if yes, then OKAY.
Eodnhoj7 wrote: Wed Apr 19, 2023 11:39 pm 8. If you made sense of existence then why can you not convince others of your viewpoint considering the viewpoint you have (i.e. claiming to have made sense of existence) would require you to know how to convince others?
LOL I CERTAINLY DO NOT WANT TO, NOR HAVE I EVER EVEN TRIED TO, 'convince' ANY one of ANY thing here.

As some have ALREADY ACCUSED me of doing here, I have only been ALLUDING TO 'things', and NOT FULLY EXPRESSING 'them', I do 'this' while WAITING, PATIENTLY, for 'those' who are Truly CURIOS and Truly INTERESTED. I have ALSO made it VERY CLEAR that I am just here, in this forum, to LEARN how to communicate BETTER with 'you', human beings.

Just so you are VERY AWARE I am CERTAINLY NOT here to CONVINCE ANY one of ANY 'thing'. 'CONVINCING' "others" of ANY 'thing' is the EXACT OPPOSITE of what I am ACTUALLY DOING and ACHIEVING here.
1. Of course 1=0 is absurd, but this does not make it any less true. All things are absurd as all things contradict in the respect a thing stands apart from another thing.

2. If the one does not change from its nature of 'changing' then it is not completely change.

3. But I have refuted you throughout this whole thread. An example of this is your statement of everything being one but then stating it is a dichotomy of space and matter.

4. Matter is the distance between two or more points as evidenced by a line or the form of a tree. As a distance between two or more points matter is space. Another example of this is a circle (matter): There is the interior space of the circle, the exterior space of the circle, and the space between the interior and exterior spaces (i.e. the circle itself). Under these terms the dualism of matter and space is a dualism of space and space thus a contradiction occurs; space divides space as space thus space is a contradiction.

5. I understand that what you are talking about is absurd.

6. Thus the definition of paradox is credible or the scientists (whose work resulted in the promotion of said definition of 'paradox') are not credible or both.

7. The orange is both an apple and not an apple.

8. If you are here to "learn how to communicate better with...humans" then you did not make sense of everything as you have claimed you did.
Age
Posts: 20043
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

Re: 1=0 III

Post by Age »

Eodnhoj7 wrote: Fri Apr 21, 2023 8:45 pm
Age wrote: Thu Apr 20, 2023 10:34 am
Eodnhoj7 wrote: Wed Apr 19, 2023 11:39 pm

1. But I already argued that even the notion of paradoxical is paradoxical thus leaving us with absurdity.
What you call 'already argued' is just your OWN EXPRESSED view, which you just BELIEVE is true.

Are you even AWARE that just because 'you' or ANY one "ELSE" so-call 'argues' some 'thing', then 'that' in and of itself does NOT make what was so-called 'argued' valid AND sound. And, it is ONLY valid AND sound arguments that are Truly WORTHY of being REPEATED.

What you have already ATTEMPTED to 'argue' here is just ABSURD and RIDICULOUS. As I have ALREADY SHOWN and PROVED.

Now, a 'paradox' is NOT necessarily absurd AT ALL, as I have ALREADY EXPLAINED, and which you ALREADY SHOWED in your OWN provided 'definition', which you SUPPLIED here, AFTER I mentioned LOOKING UP what the word 'paradox' ACTUALLY MEANS EXACTLY.

If some 'thing', like for example 'the notion of paradoxical', IS PARADOXICAL, then this does NOT necessarily mean that 'that notion' is absurd AT ALL. And, in fact it could mean that 'that notion' is ACTUALLY True, Right, and/or Correct and even Truly REASONABLE and SENSIBLE.

I suggest you, AGAIN, LOOK AT what the ACTUAL 'definition' of the word 'paradox' IS, EXACTLY. you KNOW 'the one', which you supplied here.

Eodnhoj7 wrote: Wed Apr 19, 2023 11:39 pm 2. If the one is continually changing form then it has potential to be something else entirely from what it is currently, as such the one (i.e. actual) exists relative to the potential (i.e. the unactual) and we have a dichotomy.
BUT 'the One' can NOT CHANGE from what 'It' IS, EXACTLY. Which IS; an ALWAYS CONSTANTLY-CHANGING Evolutionary-Creating One.
Eodnhoj7 wrote: Wed Apr 19, 2023 11:39 pm 3. And why do you want to?
To ALLUDE TO what the ACTUAL and IRREFUTABLE Truth IS, EXACTLY. Which is, OBVIOUSLY, NOT what you are providing here.
Eodnhoj7 wrote: Wed Apr 19, 2023 11:39 pm 4. You are arguing the monism is a dualism.
BECAUSE 'this' is what IS the ACTUAL and IRREFUTABLE Truth.

There is ONLY One Universe, which Its, FUNDAMENTAL, make up ARE the two 'things' sometimes known as and referred to as 'space' AND 'matter'.

'Matter' just REFERRING TO the visibly seen 'physicality' AND 'space' just REFERRING TO 'the distance' between or around 'matter'. 'This phenomena', by the way, happens on ALL what are called 'levels', that are; the classical and the quantum.

There is ONLY One Universe but It can NOT be made up of ONLY One 'thing'.

This WILL BE PROVED True IF and WHEN ANY one WANTS to QUESTION and/or CHALLENGE me here enough.
Eodnhoj7 wrote: Wed Apr 19, 2023 11:39 pm 5. 1 is an individual form. 0 is the absence of form.
Okay. I have NEVER said otherwise, and have NEVER been talking ABOUT 'this' here, AT ALL.

AND, you will NEVER come to UNDERSTAND what I have been ACTUALLY talking ABOUT UNTIL you BEGIN to SEEK OUT CLARITY.
Eodnhoj7 wrote: Wed Apr 19, 2023 11:39 pm 6. And that definition is the result of the computer scientists who created the internet.
SO WHAT?
Eodnhoj7 wrote: Wed Apr 19, 2023 11:39 pm 7. An orange is an apple in the respect both are fruits, they are connected under the concept of 'fruit'.
SO, are 'you', "eodnhoj7", TELLING the 'readers' here that 'an orange' IS 'an apple'?

If no, then WHY NOT?

But if yes, then OKAY.
Eodnhoj7 wrote: Wed Apr 19, 2023 11:39 pm 8. If you made sense of existence then why can you not convince others of your viewpoint considering the viewpoint you have (i.e. claiming to have made sense of existence) would require you to know how to convince others?
LOL I CERTAINLY DO NOT WANT TO, NOR HAVE I EVER EVEN TRIED TO, 'convince' ANY one of ANY thing here.

As some have ALREADY ACCUSED me of doing here, I have only been ALLUDING TO 'things', and NOT FULLY EXPRESSING 'them', I do 'this' while WAITING, PATIENTLY, for 'those' who are Truly CURIOS and Truly INTERESTED. I have ALSO made it VERY CLEAR that I am just here, in this forum, to LEARN how to communicate BETTER with 'you', human beings.

Just so you are VERY AWARE I am CERTAINLY NOT here to CONVINCE ANY one of ANY 'thing'. 'CONVINCING' "others" of ANY 'thing' is the EXACT OPPOSITE of what I am ACTUALLY DOING and ACHIEVING here.
1. Of course 1=0 is absurd, but this does not make it any less true. All things are absurd as all things contradict in the respect a thing stands apart from another thing.
BUT NOT ALL 'things' CONTRADICT.

'you' just BELIEVE that ALL 'things' CONTRADICT, and this HELPS in EXPLAINING HOW and WHY 'you' KEEP CONTRADICTING what 'you' SAY and CLAIM here. It ALSO EXPLAINS HOW and WHY some of what you SAY and CLAIM is Truly NONSENSICAL, ILLOGICAL, and just plain old ABSURD.
Eodnhoj7 wrote: Fri Apr 21, 2023 8:45 pm 2. If the one does not change from its nature of 'changing' then it is not completely change.
If you SAY and BELIEVE SO, then 'it' MUST BE SO, right?
Eodnhoj7 wrote: Fri Apr 21, 2023 8:45 pm 3. But I have refuted you throughout this whole thread. An example of this is your statement of everything being one but then stating it is a dichotomy of space and matter.
So, WHERE is YOUR REFUTATION here, EXACTLY?

Also, only Everything IS One, which IS OBVIOUSLY made up of EVERY 'thing'. And, ONLY WHEN you SEEK OUT CLARIFICATION, then this is WHEN 'this' WILL BEGIN to make ANY SENSE to you. UNTIL THEN you will live IN and WITH your OWN BELIEFS and ASSUMPTIONS here.
Eodnhoj7 wrote: Fri Apr 21, 2023 8:45 pm 4. Matter is the distance between two or more points as evidenced by a line or the form of a tree. As a distance between two or more points matter is space. Another example of this is a circle (matter): There is the interior space of the circle, the exterior space of the circle, and the space between the interior and exterior spaces (i.e. the circle itself). Under these terms the dualism of matter and space is a dualism of space and space thus a contradiction occurs; space divides space as space thus space is a contradiction.
But considering the Fact that you are ONLY LOOKING AT 'this' FROM a VERY SMALL and TINY perspective and view and NOT FROM the WHOLE this EXPLAINS HOW and WHY you are SO MIXED UP and CONFUSED here.
Eodnhoj7 wrote: Fri Apr 21, 2023 8:45 pm 5. I understand that what you are talking about is absurd.
If this is what you are UNDERSTAND here, then I will AGAIN suggest you SEEK OUT CLARITY BEFORE you JUMP TO CONCLUSIONS.

But please FEEL absolutely FREE to continue on the way you HAVE BEEN.
Eodnhoj7 wrote: Fri Apr 21, 2023 8:45 pm 6. Thus the definition of paradox is credible or the scientists (whose work resulted in the promotion of said definition of 'paradox') are not credible or both.
LOL

WHERE are you GETTING THIS IDEA that so-called "scientists" come up with 'definitions'?

I have LOST COUNT of the NUMBER OF TIMES you have MISINTERPRETED, MISUNDERSTOOD, and/or just MISSED what I have been ACTUALLY SAYING, and MEANING here.
Eodnhoj7 wrote: Fri Apr 21, 2023 8:45 pm 7. The orange is both an apple and not an apple.
If you SAY SO, then 'this' MUST BE ABSOLUTELY SO, correct?
Eodnhoj7 wrote: Fri Apr 21, 2023 8:45 pm 8. If you are here to "learn how to communicate better with...humans" then you did not make sense of everything as you have claimed you did.
But MAYBE I HAVE, and from that SENSING I FOUND OUT that ACTUALLY WHILE 'you', human beings, are BELIEVING some 'thing' to be true, for example, then there IS ABSOLUTELY NO 'thing' in the WHOLE Universe, including the Everything, or (WHOLE) Universe, Itself, which can SHOW or PROVE TO 'you' BELIEVING ones ANY 'thing' OTHERWISE.

So, this COULD BE just ANOTHER one of the 'things', which MAKE SENSE, to me, but NOT YET, to you.
Eodnhoj7
Posts: 8595
Joined: Mon Mar 13, 2017 3:18 am

Re: 1=0 III

Post by Eodnhoj7 »

Age wrote: Sat Apr 22, 2023 10:07 am
Eodnhoj7 wrote: Fri Apr 21, 2023 8:45 pm
Age wrote: Thu Apr 20, 2023 10:34 am

What you call 'already argued' is just your OWN EXPRESSED view, which you just BELIEVE is true.

Are you even AWARE that just because 'you' or ANY one "ELSE" so-call 'argues' some 'thing', then 'that' in and of itself does NOT make what was so-called 'argued' valid AND sound. And, it is ONLY valid AND sound arguments that are Truly WORTHY of being REPEATED.

What you have already ATTEMPTED to 'argue' here is just ABSURD and RIDICULOUS. As I have ALREADY SHOWN and PROVED.

Now, a 'paradox' is NOT necessarily absurd AT ALL, as I have ALREADY EXPLAINED, and which you ALREADY SHOWED in your OWN provided 'definition', which you SUPPLIED here, AFTER I mentioned LOOKING UP what the word 'paradox' ACTUALLY MEANS EXACTLY.

If some 'thing', like for example 'the notion of paradoxical', IS PARADOXICAL, then this does NOT necessarily mean that 'that notion' is absurd AT ALL. And, in fact it could mean that 'that notion' is ACTUALLY True, Right, and/or Correct and even Truly REASONABLE and SENSIBLE.

I suggest you, AGAIN, LOOK AT what the ACTUAL 'definition' of the word 'paradox' IS, EXACTLY. you KNOW 'the one', which you supplied here.




BUT 'the One' can NOT CHANGE from what 'It' IS, EXACTLY. Which IS; an ALWAYS CONSTANTLY-CHANGING Evolutionary-Creating One.


To ALLUDE TO what the ACTUAL and IRREFUTABLE Truth IS, EXACTLY. Which is, OBVIOUSLY, NOT what you are providing here.


BECAUSE 'this' is what IS the ACTUAL and IRREFUTABLE Truth.

There is ONLY One Universe, which Its, FUNDAMENTAL, make up ARE the two 'things' sometimes known as and referred to as 'space' AND 'matter'.

'Matter' just REFERRING TO the visibly seen 'physicality' AND 'space' just REFERRING TO 'the distance' between or around 'matter'. 'This phenomena', by the way, happens on ALL what are called 'levels', that are; the classical and the quantum.

There is ONLY One Universe but It can NOT be made up of ONLY One 'thing'.

This WILL BE PROVED True IF and WHEN ANY one WANTS to QUESTION and/or CHALLENGE me here enough.


Okay. I have NEVER said otherwise, and have NEVER been talking ABOUT 'this' here, AT ALL.

AND, you will NEVER come to UNDERSTAND what I have been ACTUALLY talking ABOUT UNTIL you BEGIN to SEEK OUT CLARITY.



SO WHAT?



SO, are 'you', "eodnhoj7", TELLING the 'readers' here that 'an orange' IS 'an apple'?

If no, then WHY NOT?

But if yes, then OKAY.



LOL I CERTAINLY DO NOT WANT TO, NOR HAVE I EVER EVEN TRIED TO, 'convince' ANY one of ANY thing here.

As some have ALREADY ACCUSED me of doing here, I have only been ALLUDING TO 'things', and NOT FULLY EXPRESSING 'them', I do 'this' while WAITING, PATIENTLY, for 'those' who are Truly CURIOS and Truly INTERESTED. I have ALSO made it VERY CLEAR that I am just here, in this forum, to LEARN how to communicate BETTER with 'you', human beings.

Just so you are VERY AWARE I am CERTAINLY NOT here to CONVINCE ANY one of ANY 'thing'. 'CONVINCING' "others" of ANY 'thing' is the EXACT OPPOSITE of what I am ACTUALLY DOING and ACHIEVING here.
1. Of course 1=0 is absurd, but this does not make it any less true. All things are absurd as all things contradict in the respect a thing stands apart from another thing.
BUT NOT ALL 'things' CONTRADICT.

'you' just BELIEVE that ALL 'things' CONTRADICT, and this HELPS in EXPLAINING HOW and WHY 'you' KEEP CONTRADICTING what 'you' SAY and CLAIM here. It ALSO EXPLAINS HOW and WHY some of what you SAY and CLAIM is Truly NONSENSICAL, ILLOGICAL, and just plain old ABSURD.
Eodnhoj7 wrote: Fri Apr 21, 2023 8:45 pm 2. If the one does not change from its nature of 'changing' then it is not completely change.
If you SAY and BELIEVE SO, then 'it' MUST BE SO, right?
Eodnhoj7 wrote: Fri Apr 21, 2023 8:45 pm 3. But I have refuted you throughout this whole thread. An example of this is your statement of everything being one but then stating it is a dichotomy of space and matter.
So, WHERE is YOUR REFUTATION here, EXACTLY?

Also, only Everything IS One, which IS OBVIOUSLY made up of EVERY 'thing'. And, ONLY WHEN you SEEK OUT CLARIFICATION, then this is WHEN 'this' WILL BEGIN to make ANY SENSE to you. UNTIL THEN you will live IN and WITH your OWN BELIEFS and ASSUMPTIONS here.
Eodnhoj7 wrote: Fri Apr 21, 2023 8:45 pm 4. Matter is the distance between two or more points as evidenced by a line or the form of a tree. As a distance between two or more points matter is space. Another example of this is a circle (matter): There is the interior space of the circle, the exterior space of the circle, and the space between the interior and exterior spaces (i.e. the circle itself). Under these terms the dualism of matter and space is a dualism of space and space thus a contradiction occurs; space divides space as space thus space is a contradiction.
But considering the Fact that you are ONLY LOOKING AT 'this' FROM a VERY SMALL and TINY perspective and view and NOT FROM the WHOLE this EXPLAINS HOW and WHY you are SO MIXED UP and CONFUSED here.
Eodnhoj7 wrote: Fri Apr 21, 2023 8:45 pm 5. I understand that what you are talking about is absurd.
If this is what you are UNDERSTAND here, then I will AGAIN suggest you SEEK OUT CLARITY BEFORE you JUMP TO CONCLUSIONS.

But please FEEL absolutely FREE to continue on the way you HAVE BEEN.
Eodnhoj7 wrote: Fri Apr 21, 2023 8:45 pm 6. Thus the definition of paradox is credible or the scientists (whose work resulted in the promotion of said definition of 'paradox') are not credible or both.
LOL

WHERE are you GETTING THIS IDEA that so-called "scientists" come up with 'definitions'?

I have LOST COUNT of the NUMBER OF TIMES you have MISINTERPRETED, MISUNDERSTOOD, and/or just MISSED what I have been ACTUALLY SAYING, and MEANING here.
Eodnhoj7 wrote: Fri Apr 21, 2023 8:45 pm 7. The orange is both an apple and not an apple.
If you SAY SO, then 'this' MUST BE ABSOLUTELY SO, correct?
Eodnhoj7 wrote: Fri Apr 21, 2023 8:45 pm 8. If you are here to "learn how to communicate better with...humans" then you did not make sense of everything as you have claimed you did.
But MAYBE I HAVE, and from that SENSING I FOUND OUT that ACTUALLY WHILE 'you', human beings, are BELIEVING some 'thing' to be true, for example, then there IS ABSOLUTELY NO 'thing' in the WHOLE Universe, including the Everything, or (WHOLE) Universe, Itself, which can SHOW or PROVE TO 'you' BELIEVING ones ANY 'thing' OTHERWISE.

So, this COULD BE just ANOTHER one of the 'things', which MAKE SENSE, to me, but NOT YET, to you.
1. If it is a thing then its stands apart as this act of standing apart allows for contrast. As standing apart it contradicts that which it stands apart to.

2. Does it matter?

3. You are stating all is one then reverting to a dichotomy of space and matter. This is a contradiction.

4. If you knew the whole then you would no how to convince others of your viewpoint as these others are part of the whole.

5. If "all is one" according to you then anything which disagrees with you is a part of the one thus is true....so okay I will continue on with my viewpoint.

6. If I have misinterpreted what you are saying it is because your writing is vague...that is on you.

7. 'If I say so' only means 'If I say so'...it doesn't mean I am correct or even wrong.

8. If you do not know how to convince others of your viewpoint then you do not understand everything. If you understand that people believe what they believe then you fail to understand that your arguments are pointless. Either way your viewpoint ends in absurdity.
Age
Posts: 20043
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

Re: 1=0 III

Post by Age »

Eodnhoj7 wrote: Fri Apr 28, 2023 8:12 pm
Age wrote: Sat Apr 22, 2023 10:07 am
Eodnhoj7 wrote: Fri Apr 21, 2023 8:45 pm

1. Of course 1=0 is absurd, but this does not make it any less true. All things are absurd as all things contradict in the respect a thing stands apart from another thing.
BUT NOT ALL 'things' CONTRADICT.

'you' just BELIEVE that ALL 'things' CONTRADICT, and this HELPS in EXPLAINING HOW and WHY 'you' KEEP CONTRADICTING what 'you' SAY and CLAIM here. It ALSO EXPLAINS HOW and WHY some of what you SAY and CLAIM is Truly NONSENSICAL, ILLOGICAL, and just plain old ABSURD.
Eodnhoj7 wrote: Fri Apr 21, 2023 8:45 pm 2. If the one does not change from its nature of 'changing' then it is not completely change.
If you SAY and BELIEVE SO, then 'it' MUST BE SO, right?
Eodnhoj7 wrote: Fri Apr 21, 2023 8:45 pm 3. But I have refuted you throughout this whole thread. An example of this is your statement of everything being one but then stating it is a dichotomy of space and matter.
So, WHERE is YOUR REFUTATION here, EXACTLY?

Also, only Everything IS One, which IS OBVIOUSLY made up of EVERY 'thing'. And, ONLY WHEN you SEEK OUT CLARIFICATION, then this is WHEN 'this' WILL BEGIN to make ANY SENSE to you. UNTIL THEN you will live IN and WITH your OWN BELIEFS and ASSUMPTIONS here.
Eodnhoj7 wrote: Fri Apr 21, 2023 8:45 pm 4. Matter is the distance between two or more points as evidenced by a line or the form of a tree. As a distance between two or more points matter is space. Another example of this is a circle (matter): There is the interior space of the circle, the exterior space of the circle, and the space between the interior and exterior spaces (i.e. the circle itself). Under these terms the dualism of matter and space is a dualism of space and space thus a contradiction occurs; space divides space as space thus space is a contradiction.
But considering the Fact that you are ONLY LOOKING AT 'this' FROM a VERY SMALL and TINY perspective and view and NOT FROM the WHOLE this EXPLAINS HOW and WHY you are SO MIXED UP and CONFUSED here.
Eodnhoj7 wrote: Fri Apr 21, 2023 8:45 pm 5. I understand that what you are talking about is absurd.
If this is what you are UNDERSTAND here, then I will AGAIN suggest you SEEK OUT CLARITY BEFORE you JUMP TO CONCLUSIONS.

But please FEEL absolutely FREE to continue on the way you HAVE BEEN.
Eodnhoj7 wrote: Fri Apr 21, 2023 8:45 pm 6. Thus the definition of paradox is credible or the scientists (whose work resulted in the promotion of said definition of 'paradox') are not credible or both.
LOL

WHERE are you GETTING THIS IDEA that so-called "scientists" come up with 'definitions'?

I have LOST COUNT of the NUMBER OF TIMES you have MISINTERPRETED, MISUNDERSTOOD, and/or just MISSED what I have been ACTUALLY SAYING, and MEANING here.
Eodnhoj7 wrote: Fri Apr 21, 2023 8:45 pm 7. The orange is both an apple and not an apple.
If you SAY SO, then 'this' MUST BE ABSOLUTELY SO, correct?
Eodnhoj7 wrote: Fri Apr 21, 2023 8:45 pm 8. If you are here to "learn how to communicate better with...humans" then you did not make sense of everything as you have claimed you did.
But MAYBE I HAVE, and from that SENSING I FOUND OUT that ACTUALLY WHILE 'you', human beings, are BELIEVING some 'thing' to be true, for example, then there IS ABSOLUTELY NO 'thing' in the WHOLE Universe, including the Everything, or (WHOLE) Universe, Itself, which can SHOW or PROVE TO 'you' BELIEVING ones ANY 'thing' OTHERWISE.

So, this COULD BE just ANOTHER one of the 'things', which MAKE SENSE, to me, but NOT YET, to you.
1. If it is a thing then its stands apart as this act of standing apart allows for contrast.
1. Just because 'a thing' 'stands apart' FROM 'another thing', then this in and of itself does NOT mean 'as this act of standing apart ALLOWS for contrast. your USE of the 'as' word here is Incorrect. Now, if some 'thing', so-called, 'stands apart' FROM 'another thing', then there JUST IS and WILL ALWAYS JUST BE 'contrast', ANYWAY. Therefore, the 'standing apart' does NOT 'allow' for contrast but IS 'the contrast', itself.
Eodnhoj7 wrote: Fri Apr 28, 2023 8:12 pm As standing apart it contradicts that which it stands apart to.
YOUR USE of the word and term 'contradiction' here appears to be COMPLETELY and VERY DIFFERENT FROM mine and "others" use of 'that word'.

Will you inform us of how you define the 'contradict' word here?

Also, 'a thing', so-called, 'stands apart' FROM 'another thing' EITHER in 'actuality' AND/OR in 'conception', ONLY. And, if it is IN 'conception' ONLY but NOT IN 'actuality', THEN there is NO 'ACTUAL' 'standing apart', and ANY 'contrast' exists IN 'thought', or 'conception', ALONE.
Eodnhoj7 wrote: Fri Apr 28, 2023 8:12 pm 2. Does it matter?
That ALL depends on the 'observer', itself. And on what 'it' IS, EXACTLY, OF COURSE.

So, does 'it' matter to 'you'?
Eodnhoj7 wrote: Fri Apr 28, 2023 8:12 pm 3. You are stating all is one then reverting to a dichotomy of space and matter. This is a contradiction.
NOT WHEN 'space' is ACTUALLY NO 'thing', or, in other words, ACTUALLY NOTHING, and 'matter', itself, is just one 'thing'.

AND, OBVIOUSLY, there is NOT ONE solitary and/or singular 'piece of matter' existing. Therefore, what CAUSES or CREATES the APPEARANCE of 'separation', or 'dualism', is the 'space', or the 'distance of NO matter', which is ACTUALLY, physically NOTHING and NO 'thing', in between AND around 'matter', itself. The ONLY ACTUAL visibly SEEN 'thing' THERE IS.

ONCE AGAIN I WILL SUGGEST that IF you SOUGHT OUT CLARIFICATION and CLARITY BEFORE you MADE ASSUMPTIONS and JUMPED TO CONCLUSIONS, then you COULD and WOULD FIND OUT OTHER 'things' BESIDES what you ALREADY ASSUME and/or BELIEVE IS TRUE.
Eodnhoj7 wrote: Fri Apr 28, 2023 8:12 pm 4. If you knew the whole then you would no how to convince others of your viewpoint as these others are part of the whole.
ONCE AGAIN, I am NOT here to 'convince' ANY one of ANY 'thing'.

ALL of 'you', human beings, ARE INTELLIGENT ENOUGH to WORK OUT HOW to FIND, and SEE, what the ACTUAL Truth IS, all by "your" OWN 'selves'.

I am just SHOWING, and/or REVEALING, HOW 'you' CAN ALL do 'this', all by "your" OWN 'selves'.
Eodnhoj7 wrote: Fri Apr 28, 2023 8:12 pm 5. If "all is one" according to you then anything which disagrees with you is a part of the one thus is true....
In a sense VERY Wrong, but in another sense VERY True. BECAUSE although some of what 'you' are SAYING and CLAIMING here is VERY False, VERY Wrong, and VERY Incorrect, that 'you' are EXPRESSING those False, Wrong, and Incorrect viewpoints HELPS thee One to SHOW the so-called "others" of 'you' what IS ACTUALLY True, Right, AND Correct. So that EVERY one day ALL CAN and WILL come-together as One, in the way that WAS MEANT-TO-BE.
Eodnhoj7 wrote: Fri Apr 28, 2023 8:12 pm so okay I will continue on with my viewpoint.
I LOVE that 'you', "eodnhoj7", are EXPRESSING 'your' OWN viewpoint here. 'you' are LIVING PROOF of what I have been SAYING and CLAIMING here, and 'you' ARE providing GREAT EXAMPLES FOR 'me', as it can be CLEARLY SEEN that I am NOT leading 'you' here in ANY way, shape, NOR form.

ALL by "your" OWN 'self' "eodnhoj7" 'you' are PROVIDING ACTUAL PROOFS of what I SAY and CLAIM ABOUT HOW 'you', human beings, BEHAVE and MISBEHAVE and ABOUT HOW the human brain, itself, ACTUALLY WORKS and WORKS IN ACTUAL CONTRAST to the Mind, Itself, SOMETIMES.
Eodnhoj7 wrote: Fri Apr 28, 2023 8:12 pm 6. If I have misinterpreted what you are saying it is because your writing is vague...that is on you.
I KNOW that 'my writing' IS ON 'Me'. I also KNOW HOW and WHY I AM writing THE WAY that I AM here. This IS BECAUSE I ALREADY KNOW what WILL COME-TO-BE, or BE-COME.

I SPECIFICALLY WRITE 'vaguely' as 'you' call 'it' here BECAUSE as I CONTINUALLY INFORM 'you' I am NOT here to 'convince' ANY one of ANY 'thing' but rather here to GUIDE and SHOW you HOW TO LEARN, FIND, and SEE the ACTUAL Truth of 'things' all on your OWN.
Eodnhoj7 wrote: Fri Apr 28, 2023 8:12 pm 7. 'If I say so' only means 'If I say so'...it doesn't mean I am correct or even wrong.
Okay, but 'that' is NOT REALLY ANSWERING the ACTUAL QUESTION I posed, and ASKED you.

So, when you say, for example, 'The orange is both an apple and not an apple', then you do NOT YET KNOW whether 'that' IS correct or even wrong, right?
Eodnhoj7 wrote: Fri Apr 28, 2023 8:12 pm 8. If you do not know how to convince others of your viewpoint then you do not understand everything.
LOL
LOL
LOL

If ONLY 'you' KNEW. If ONLY 'you' KNEW "eodnhoj7".

What could be MORE 'convincing' if and when one FINDS OUT, DISCOVERS or UNCOVERS, and COMES-TO-KNOW some 'thing' ALL BY "their" OWN 'self'?

SEE, I could TELL 'you' My VIEWPOINT/S, and ONLY the ones that ARE IRREFUTABLY True, for eternity, BUT, and this is a HUGE BUT, WHILE some one is BELIEVING some 'thing' to be ALREADY True, Right, and/or Correct, then they ARE NOT OPEN to FINDING OUT and SEEING what the ACTUAL Truth IS, EXACTLY. So what this MEANS IS I ALREADY KNOW that it is AN IMPOSSIBILITY to 'convince' some one of some 'thing', even WHEN 'that thing' IS an IRREFUTABLE Truth WHILE 'that one' is BELIEVING that they ALREADY KNOW the truth.

So, this MEANS that I ALREADY KNOW it IS a COMPLETE and UTTER WASTE of 'time' and 'energy' to even BEGIN to 'TRY TO' 'convince' ANY one of ANY 'thing'.

What I ALSO ALREADY KNOW is that PROVIDING IRREFUTABLE PROOF, through ACTUAL EXAMPLES, OF HOW the Mind and the brain WORKS. EXACTLY, on, for example, a forum WHERE 'human beings' are PROVIDING 'their' OWN ACTUAL thoughts and thinking, in a PARTICULAR PERIOD of time in human history, WHILE POINTING OUT the ACTUAL INCONSISTENCIES and CONTRADICTIONS in and from 'those thinking human beings', then, WITH REFLECTION, on the part from 'future human beings', THEN 'those ones' COULD SEE WHERE, and WHAT, EXACTLY NEEDED, and NEEDS, CHANGING, and WITH 'CHANGE' ACTUAL PROGRESSION and FORWARD TRAJECTORY TOWARDS living together IN Peace and IN Harmony, as One, CAN and WILL OCCUR, as IS HAPPENING, RIGHT HERE, RIGHT NOW. (Here, and now, are, by the way, absolutely RELATIVE, to the observer, just like EVERY 'thing' ELSE IS.)

ABSOLUTELY NOTHING BE-COMES MORE 'convincing' then FROM FINDING, SEEING, and KNOWING, 'things', IRREFUTABLY, FROM one's OWN 'senses'.

LEARNING and TEACHING HOW-TO FIND, SEE, and KNOW 'things', FOR SURE and IRREFUTABLY, "oneself" IS an EXTREMELY SIMPLE and EASY 'thing' to do. However, FINDING 'those' in adult years, in the days when this was being written, who had NOT YET SUCCUMB to HAVING a DETRIMENTAL WAY of LOOKING and SEEING 'things', which WAS what IS BLOCKING and PREVENTING 'you' FROM LEARNING and SEEING 'things' here IS just a process of WAITING, PATIENTLY.

SEE, one has to HAVE BEEN 'prepared', EARLIER, to Be, or BE-come, ONCE AGAIN, Truly Honest, in order to LEARN HOW-TO FIND and SEE the ACTUAL and IRREFUTABLE Truth of 'things'. This HAS ALREADY HAPPENED. We just NOW, WAIT PATIENTLY, for ANY "others" TO COME ALONG, ALSO. Which, by the way, AS SOON as one more DOES COME ALONG, then 'the ride' WILL INCREASE, EXPONENTIALLY.
Eodnhoj7 wrote: Fri Apr 28, 2023 8:12 pm If you understand that people believe what they believe then you fail to understand that your arguments are pointless.
Does 'this sentence' of YOURS here even make sense?

If yes, then HOW, EXACTLY?

If I understand that people BELIEVE what they BELIEVE, (which I ALREADY DO UNDERSTAND that people BELIEVE what they BELIEVE), then I will, supposedly, FAIL to understand that 'my arguments are pointless'. Now, WHAT 'arguments' do you even think or BELIEVE I have made here?

I do NOT recall EVER even making 'an ACTUAL argument' here.

I CERTAINLY NEVER intended to.
Eodnhoj7 wrote: Fri Apr 28, 2023 8:12 pm Either way your viewpoint ends in absurdity.
BUT you think or BELIEVE that EVERY 'thing' CONTRADICTS itself and SO think or BELIEVE that EVERY 'thing' IS 'absurdity' anyway, correct?

If no, then 'what', EXACTLY do you think or BELIEVE does NOT CONTRADICT and IS NOT ABSURD?
Post Reply