Creation - Evolution

[Age]

If anyone with a desire to talk 'about me', why anyone would I do not know, but anyway, there is another thread opened and started 'about how "age" was hit as a child because of "his" or "her" inability to understand'.

[Age]

Anyway, the Universe, Itself, is always in an evolving action/reaction process, or just a continual Creation process, Itself.

Also, notice how no one has actually been able to counter nor refute this.

Unjustified or partially justified assertions (views?) met other unjustified or partially justified assertions.

So, this one believes that there are not yet justified assertions here.

One wonders if this one has the courage, understanding, and knowledge of how to just present what is, supposedly, not yet fully justified, and then explain why that one believes so.

Doing so is obviously the next step of collaborative and/or effective communication.

Just making a claim, and then holding back, when asked for clarification, is a sign of weakness, fear, and/or a lack of understanding.

So, we have a set of assertions that have not been proven to be the case.

This one is so narrowed or closed here that it actually asserts that if something has not been proven to be the case, 'to this one', then it has not been proven to be the case, 'to another'.

Do you really believe that what has not been proven to be the case to you "iwannaplato" has not been proven to be the case to another?

And we have counterassertions that have not been proven to be correct.

But, you have not actually countered what I have been saying, and meaning. you are just making a so-called 'counter assertion' just for the sake of it.

you have just asserted that I have assertions that are not yet justified and have not been proven to be the case.

See, I can and will prove and thus justify my assertions because the assertions have already been proved to be the case. I would not have expressed them if they had not been.

I am, again, just waiting for those who still have some curiosity and interest here left.

[Iwannaplato]

Do you really believe that what has not been proven to be the case to you "iwannaplato" has not been proven to be the case to another?

No, I don't believe that. I believe what I wrote. I was referring to the OP. There may be full proofs of the assertions made somewhere. If you have fully justifed all the assertions in the OP and can link me to that, please do.

But, you have not actually countered what I have been saying, and meaning. you are just making a so-called 'counter assertion' just for the sake of it.

That's correct, I have not. I think others will agree that the OP does not constitute a full proof. I also think it is self-evident. You may or may not agree, but then possibly you are not the only reader here.

you have just asserted that I have assertions that are not yet justified and have not been proven to be the case.

Correct, I have just asserted that.

See, I can and will prove and thus justify my assertions because the assertions have already been proved to be the case.

I think it is possible that you can and will. If you do I will read it. If you do in this thread, that is.

And just in case it might have seemed otherwise to you, you did not ask for clarification. At least, in your way of communicating and your expectations of such things, you did not ask for clarification. You did tell others what you think it would mean if I didn't respond to a request for clarification. I can point out the parts of the OP I think are not justified there.

This is a mirroring example of how your...I suppose we could call it literalness slows down collaboration.

[Age]

Do you really believe that what has not been proven to be the case to you "iwannaplato" has not been proven to be the case to another?

No, I don't believe that. I believe what I wrote. I was referring to the OP. There may be full proofs of the assertions made somewhere. If you have fully justifed all the assertions in the OP and can link me to that, please do.

It is good to see you actually change your beliefs after you have actually considered what you have previously claimed and believed was true.

But, you have not actually countered what I have been saying, and meaning. you are just making a so-called 'counter assertion' just for the sake of it.

That's correct, I have not. I think others will agree that the OP does not constitute a full proof.

Once again "iwannaplato", it was never meant to have.

Were you under some sort of presumption or belief that it was meant to or did?

I also think it is self-evident. You may or may not agree, but then possibly you are not the only reader here.

But, it was meant to be self-evident.

I wrote it in a very specific way, for a very specific purpose, of which you are still not yet aware of.

you have just asserted that I have assertions that are not yet justified and have not been proven to be the case.

Correct, I have just asserted that.

See, I can and will prove and thus justify my assertions because the assertions have already been proved to be the case.

I think it is possible that you can and will. If you do I will read it. If you do in this thread, that is.

And just in case it might have seemed otherwise to you, you did not ask for clarification.

In regards to what, exactly?

At least, in your way of communicating and your expectations of such things, you did not ask for clarification.

Was I meant to have?

Or, do you just like expressing the blatantly obvious here?

You did tell others what you think it would mean if I didn't respond to a request for clarification. I can point out the parts of the OP I think are not justified there.

Okay. And, if you ever do, then I will read it. If you do in this thread, that is.

This is a mirroring example of how your...I suppose we could call it literalness slows down collaboration.

Okay. Again, if this is what you want to believe is true, then, to you, this must be true.

you can say things that you do not actually mean, or you can mean things that you do not actually say. And, you can even think or believe that doing this speeds things up here, but if you never clarify your claims, when you are asked to, then this is what Truly slows things down here.

[Iwannaplato]

It is good to see you actually change your beliefs after you have actually considered what you have previously claimed and believed was true.

I didn't change a belief regarding what you wrote and I responded to there, but yes it is true I can change beliefs.

But, you have not actually countered what I have been saying, and meaning. you are just making a so-called 'counter assertion' just for the sake of it.

That's correct, I have not. I think others will agree that the OP does not constitute a full proof.

Once again "iwannaplato", it was never meant to have.

Were you under some sort of presumption or belief that it was meant to or did?

Nope.

I also think it is self-evident. You may or may not agree, but then possibly you are not the only reader here.

But, it was meant to be self-evident.

I meant that it was self-evident that that the OP was not a full proof.

you have just asserted that I have assertions that are not yet justified and have not been proven to be the case.

Correct, I have just asserted that.

See, I can and will prove and thus justify my assertions because the assertions have already been proved to be the case.

I think it is possible that you can and will. If you do I will read it. If you do in this thread, that is.

And just in case it might have seemed otherwise to you, you did not ask for clarification.

In regards to what, exactly?

If you look at what you wrote about in your previous post, regarding clarification you will see what I am referring to.

At least, in your way of communicating and your expectations of such things, you did not ask for clarification.

Was I meant to have?

I don't know.

You did tell others what you think it would mean if I didn't respond to a request for clarification. I can point out the parts of the OP I think are not justified there.

Okay. And, if you ever do, then I will read it. If you do in this thread, that is.

Peachy.

Perhaps at some point we will justify further our assertions in this thread. Perhaps not. Time will tell.

[Age]

So, if no one is going to note the parts of what I have said, which are not yet fully justified nor fully proven to them, and why they are not, to them, then, as some might say now, 'my work here is done'.

[Sculptor]

So, if no one is going to note the parts of what I have said, which are not yet fully justified nor fully proven to them, and why they are not, to them, then, as some might say now, 'my work here is done'.

You're done!!

[risaperis]

So, again, to get back to what I actually said and wrote here:

For those that cannot comprehend the irrefutable.

Every action has a reaction.

Every reaction is a new creation.

Every new creation evolves.

Every evolving creation interacts with other creations.

The Universe is, fundamentally, made up of 'matter', and a distance between and around matter. This distance is 'space'.

The action of when matter interacts with itself causes a reaction, and thus a new creation.

This always occurring action/reaction process is how all things/the Universe, Itself, are/is evolving.

The evolving-creation process that the Universe, Itself, is in is eternal.

A significant part of the universe and, consequently, the world with its living things is influenced or guided by randomness. Evolution isn't about intent, it is about frozen accidents, partly. This is why evolution can't be recreated or manufactured. Of course, this establishes the question if we create true AI then it stands to reason that AI will evolve based on environment and experiences, but we will not be able to control that evolvement. Perhaps another reason to be wary of true AI.

[Age]

So, if no one is going to note the parts of what I have said, which are not yet fully justified nor fully proven to them, and why they are not, to them, then, as some might say now, 'my work here is done'.

You're done!!

Are you here saying or suggesting that there is absolutely no one with the courage, ability, or want who is going to write down and share the parts of what I have said, which are not yet fully justified nor fully proven to them, and why they are not?

[Sculptor]

So, if no one is going to note the parts of what I have said, which are not yet fully justified nor fully proven to them, and why they are not, to them, then, as some might say now, 'my work here is done'.

You're done!!

Are you here saying or suggesting that there is absolutely no one with the courage, ability, or want who is going to write down and share the parts of what I have said, which are not yet fully justified nor fully proven to them, and why they are not?

Like I said above you've not really said anything.
You might think that what you said was new or novel in some way, but what you said as well as being a bit convolutered and confused does not really add anything to the conversation.

[Age]

You're done!!

Are you here saying or suggesting that there is absolutely no one with the courage, ability, or want who is going to write down and share the parts of what I have said, which are not yet fully justified nor fully proven to them, and why they are not?

Like I said above you've not really said anything.

And, like I said above, there is nothing that you have really countered nor refuted.

You might think that what you said was new or novel in some way, but what you said as well as being a bit convolutered and confused does not really add anything to the conversation.

Once again, this one wants to claim;

1. That what I have said here has, supposedly, 'not really said anything', which is, literally, not really saying anything at all.

2. That what I have said is, supposedly, a bit convoluted and confused, yet never ever said 'what' nor 'why'.

So, what in what I have said here do you think or believe is a 'bit convoluted and confused' "sculptor"? And, why do you think or believe this "sculptor"?

Until you answer and thus clarify these clarifying questions, then you are, again, literally not really saying anything at all here.

Look, the Universe is infinite and eternal. The causation or action/reaction process is eternal, which is what makes the Universe, Itself, eternal. The eternal 'reaction' process is also how evolution works, eternally, and how the Universe, Itself, is in Creation, always, HERE-NOW and was not all Created all at once, before. There is also no boundary whatsoever, which makes the Universe, Itself, infinite. The Universe is temporally eternal and spatially infinite.

The Universe therefore did not begin, and is also not expanding.

There is nothing here that has been countered nor refuted, and if there is absolutely anyone here who thinks or believes that there is absolutely anything here that is not yet justified nor fully proved to them and/or that there is absolutely anything here that is convoluted or confusing to them, then just speak up and write what is not justified, not fully proven, convoluted, and or confusing to you here, exactly.

Then, and only then, can 'we' move on, successfully here.

Until these things are understood, agreed with, and accepted, fully, introducing the next things I want to talk about and consider here will be so much more confusing for you.

Until you people here can show that you can and do understand the irrefutable facts that I have written and expressed above here, comprehending and understanding what is to be introduced 'next' is going to be near impossible for you.

[Sculptor]

Are you here saying or suggesting that there is absolutely no one with the courage, ability, or want who is going to write down and share the parts of what I have said, which are not yet fully justified nor fully proven to them, and why they are not?

Like I said above you've not really said anything.

And, like I said above, there is nothing that you have really countered nor refuted.

Duh.
You have to first state something worth countering.

[Age]

Like I said above you've not really said anything.

And, like I said above, there is nothing that you have really countered nor refuted.

Duh.
You have to first state something worth countering.

So, if I have not said anything worth countering, to you anyway, then this could mean one particular thing.

[Atla]

Until these things are understood, agreed with, and accepted, fully, introducing the next things I want to talk about and consider here will be so much more confusing for you.

Until you people here can show that you can and do understand the irrefutable facts that I have written and expressed above here, comprehending and understanding what is to be introduced 'next' is going to be near impossible for you.

You can safely skip ahead to telling us about your hallucinations/dreams about the utopic future, and how we will get there.

[Age]

Obviously what is True is not worth countering, nor even able to be counted. So, if no one finds what I have stated here worth countering nor even able to be attempted to be counted, and refuted, then there is no one able to counter nor refute what I have stated here.