1 = 0 = infinity

[Atla]

Context.

When in rome....

But doesn't make Rome the end all and be all now does it?

I wonder why you want to be in Rome so much suddenly.

You can break these forums down to three types of people.

1. You have the readers, those who seek to explore some idea put of pleasure or seek some truth to find meaning.

2. You have the writers, contributors of the forum, which keep the discussions going. Generally they are the active side of point one. Generally they have thetical and antithetical arguments which keep the dialogue going, and while sometimes if not often they use ad hominums, the general state is one of dialogue.

3. Then you have the useless trash, like you, which contribute nothing of value. No arguments, no opinions, nothing...just useless insulte, sarcasm, whatever. Why do you do it? Because this is where you peak. You have no insight. No originality. No creativity. No desire to go beyond yourself in any way shape or form.

Atla, make an argument or shut the fuck up. Personally I don't think you can. I truly do not believe you have what it takes intellectually to stand for or against an idea. Please dont tell me you are in your forties or over, if would explain why the younger generations are so lost...

And dont do the standard, "philosophy is bullshit", when you spend all your time on a philosophy forum because your ego is pricked.

Dont be another logic, univalence, time seeker, whatever his new name will be tomorrow...

The one advantage I will give you, over him, is that you do not hide behind multiple idenitities.

Yes yes that's what you truly believe. If you really want to know I'm more intelligent than you actually, and also took some effort before to write a list how everything you say is wrong in about 5-10 ways at once. You just didn't understand it, which makes sense because it's not really possible to realize more than 2-3 at once.

The only thing you bring to this forum is some entertainment value, and I admit that I do have a mild trollish side.

[Eodnhoj7]

I wonder why you want to be in Rome so much suddenly.

You can break these forums down to three types of people.

1. You have the readers, those who seek to explore some idea put of pleasure or seek some truth to find meaning.

2. You have the writers, contributors of the forum, which keep the discussions going. Generally they are the active side of point one. Generally they have thetical and antithetical arguments which keep the dialogue going, and while sometimes if not often they use ad hominums, the general state is one of dialogue.

3. Then you have the useless trash, like you, which contribute nothing of value. No arguments, no opinions, nothing...just useless insulte, sarcasm, whatever. Why do you do it? Because this is where you peak. You have no insight. No originality. No creativity. No desire to go beyond yourself in any way shape or form.

Atla, make an argument or shut the fuck up. Personally I don't think you can. I truly do not believe you have what it takes intellectually to stand for or against an idea. Please dont tell me you are in your forties or over, if would explain why the younger generations are so lost...

And dont do the standard, "philosophy is bullshit", when you spend all your time on a philosophy forum because your ego is pricked.

Dont be another logic, univalence, time seeker, whatever his new name will be tomorrow...

The one advantage I will give you, over him, is that you do not hide behind multiple idenitities.

Yes yes that's what you truly believe. If you really want to know I'm more intelligent than you actually, and also took some effort before to write a list how everything you say is wrong in about 5-10 ways at once. You just didn't understand it, which makes sense because it's not really possible to realize more than 2-3 at once.

The only thing you bring to this forum is some entertainment value, and I admit that I do have a mild trollish side.

Wrong you are not a troll, what you bring is the party...like how parents bring pinatas for there kids to beat up.

Anyhow.

Yes and I refuted that list...you just go in loops repeating the same thing. Don't do the "I am more intelligent thing"...been tested professionally in my youth.

Clear evaluation.
Excelled in the intelligence tests enough that, to quote "could be atomic physicist".


Save you the trouble, provide a list for this one.

[Atla]

You can break these forums down to three types of people.

1. You have the readers, those who seek to explore some idea put of pleasure or seek some truth to find meaning.

2. You have the writers, contributors of the forum, which keep the discussions going. Generally they are the active side of point one. Generally they have thetical and antithetical arguments which keep the dialogue going, and while sometimes if not often they use ad hominums, the general state is one of dialogue.

3. Then you have the useless trash, like you, which contribute nothing of value. No arguments, no opinions, nothing...just useless insulte, sarcasm, whatever. Why do you do it? Because this is where you peak. You have no insight. No originality. No creativity. No desire to go beyond yourself in any way shape or form.

Atla, make an argument or shut the fuck up. Personally I don't think you can. I truly do not believe you have what it takes intellectually to stand for or against an idea. Please dont tell me you are in your forties or over, if would explain why the younger generations are so lost...

And dont do the standard, "philosophy is bullshit", when you spend all your time on a philosophy forum because your ego is pricked.

Dont be another logic, univalence, time seeker, whatever his new name will be tomorrow...

The one advantage I will give you, over him, is that you do not hide behind multiple idenitities.

Yes yes that's what you truly believe. If you really want to know I'm more intelligent than you actually, and also took some effort before to write a list how everything you say is wrong in about 5-10 ways at once. You just didn't understand it, which makes sense because it's not really possible to realize more than 2-3 at once.

The only thing you bring to this forum is some entertainment value, and I admit that I do have a mild trollish side.

Wrong you are not a troll, what you bring is the party...like how parents bring pinatas for there kids to beat up.

Anyhow.

Yes and I refuted that list...you just go in loops repeating the same thing. Don't do the "I am more intelligent thing"...been tested professionally in my youth.

Clear evaluation.
Excelled in the intelligence tests enough that, to quote "could be atomic physicist".


Save you the trouble, provide a list for this one.

You haven't refuted anything I wrote on this forum, your attempts were also wrong in 5-10 ways. I would welcome being proven wrong about some major issue btw, because that would enable me to grow. Your ~150 existential IQ is not enough here, besides you are using it poorly so substract 10-20.

[Eodnhoj7]

Yes yes that's what you truly believe. If you really want to know I'm more intelligent than you actually, and also took some effort before to write a list how everything you say is wrong in about 5-10 ways at once. You just didn't understand it, which makes sense because it's not really possible to realize more than 2-3 at once.

The only thing you bring to this forum is some entertainment value, and I admit that I do have a mild trollish side.

Wrong you are not a troll, what you bring is the party...like how parents bring pinatas for there kids to beat up.

Anyhow.

Yes and I refuted that list...you just go in loops repeating the same thing. Don't do the "I am more intelligent thing"...been tested professionally in my youth.

Clear evaluation.
Excelled in the intelligence tests enough that, to quote "could be atomic physicist".


Save you the trouble, provide a list for this one.

You haven't refuted anything I wrote on this forum, your attempts were also wrong in 5-10 ways. I would welcome being proven wrong about some major issue btw, because that would enable me to grow. Your ~150 existential IQ is not enough here, besides you are using it poorly so substract 10-20.

Good, then stop stuttering and produce an argument why the above is wrong.

[Atla]

Good, then stop stuttering and produce an argument why the above is wrong.

Noo not this again. Ah well let's try, for example:

1. All number exists through form, as evidenced by the act of counting.

All numbers are concepts and don't exist through "form", whatever you mean by that.

Only someone genuinely stupid would claim that such an idea is evidenced by the act of counting. You probably think that "act" has a special role too.

[Eodnhoj7]

Good, then stop stuttering and produce an argument why the above is wrong.

Noo not this again. Ah well let's try, for example:

1. All number exists through form, as evidenced by the act of counting.

All numbers are concepts and don't exist through "form", whatever you mean by that.

False, the act of quantification is grounded in a basic number line...as in the progressive repetition of on phenomenon through time. All numbers, as quantities, are grounded in the quantification of some entity. This requires a seperation of one phenomenon from another. The number line represents this basic nature where the point and line are basic forms.

All forms are concepts.

Add in the fact all numbers take the form of the symbol, bare minimum, and form is inseperable.
You cannot seperate counting or quantification from form.

Only someone genuinely stupid would claim that such an idea is evidenced by the act of counting. You probably think that "act" has a special role too.

So numbers can exist without counting?

What a stupid argument, please try harder...trolls are meant to be entertaining.

[Atla]

I'll mostly just address your first mistake in a post okay? Otherwise this would quickly get out of hand.

False, the act of quantification is grounded in a basic number line...as in the progressive repetition of on phenomenon through time. All numbers, as quantities, are grounded in the quantification of some entity. This requires a seperation of one phenomenon from another. The number line represents this basic nature where the point and line are basic forms.

I'm not sure if this is circular or backwards thinking, or more like both.

In our thinking, we separate the world into made-up entites, such separation is necessary for everyday life. The number line is derived from this made-up separation (and it doesn't necessarily have anything to do with time either).

That doesn't mean that there are actually separate things, there is no basic nature with point and line as basic forms.

[Eodnhoj7]

I'll mostly just address your first mistake in a post okay? Otherwise this would quickly get out of hand.

False, the act of quantification is grounded in a basic number line...as in the progressive repetition of on phenomenon through time. All numbers, as quantities, are grounded in the quantification of some entity. This requires a seperation of one phenomenon from another. The number line represents this basic nature where the point and line are basic forms.

I'm not sure if this is circular or backwards thinking, or more like both.

Quantity and form are inseperable...but you are right...you are not sure.

In our thinking, we separate the world into made-up entites, such separation is necessary for everyday life.

Bandwagon fallacy, "our way" does not equal all ways. Plenty of cultures have observed an interconnectivity necessary for everyday life...it is generally described under the word "wholism".

The number line is derived from this made-up separation (and it doesn't necessarily have anything to do with time either).

Counting is progressive, hence temporal.

So there is no basic nature with point and line as basic forms.

False, the point and line are basic conceptual forms due to there simplicity and unity. Even our basic awareness is grounded in staring at one point to another when looking at an object, or replicating a line when measuring a connection or causing s seperation.

[Atla]

I'm not sure if this is circular or backwards thinking, or more like both.

Quantity and form are inseperable...but you are right...you are not sure.

Yes, they are inseparable, made-up together. That's the point, you justify one with the other, which is circular thinking. (And also backwards because separation is projected as basic nature.)

[Eodnhoj7]

I'm not sure if this is circular or backwards thinking, or more like both.

Quantity and form are inseperable...but you are right...you are not sure.

Yes, they are inseparable, made-up together. That's the point, you justify one with the other, which is circular thinking. (And also backwards because separation is projected as basic nature.)

Elaborate how seperation is a basic part of nature, when certain qualities such as genetics are recycled?

The truth is all phenomena exist through a progressive circularity, or spiral, in one form or another. Circularity does not prevent progressive definition.

[Atla]

Elaborate how seperation is a basic part of nature

You claimed that it is:

The number line represents this basic nature where the point and line are basic forms.

But all forms are made up.

when certain qualities such as genetics are recycled?

This is so inaccurate in several ways
It's not a magically "recycled" "quality", it's just that largely similar patterns follow each other through time.

The truth is all phenomena exist through a progressive circularity, or spiral, in one form or another. Circularity does not prevent progressive definition.

They do not, as there are no separate things neither in the moment, nor across time. Progression is an illusion and all this circularity is merely a projection of your own circular thinking errors..

[Skepdick]

Progression is an illusion

I may be plagiarising this quote but... Your insight may revolutionalize humanity's thinking. Well done!

It sure seems to me that your sentence above progresses from left to right. By rejecting time-progression you have invented a philosophical position that can't be verified, falsified or applied in practice.

That is truly revolutionary. In its uselessness.

A theory that explains everything, explains nothing --Karl Popper

[Eodnhoj7]

Elaborate how seperation is a basic part of nature

You claimed that it is:

I said elaborate.

The number line represents this basic nature where the point and line are basic forms.

But all forms are made up.

last time I check any object at a distance is always a point, up close composed of points, the branching and wave patterns in nature replicate, etc.

when certain qualities such as genetics are recycled?

This is so inaccurate in several ways
It's not a magically "recycled" "quality", it's just that largely similar patterns follow each other through time.

but above you said forms are abstractions, hence patterns....

The truth is all phenomena exist through a progressive circularity, or spiral, in one form or another. Circularity does not prevent progressive definition.

They do not, as there are no separate things neither in the moment, nor across time. Progression is an illusion and all this circularity is merely a projection of your own circular thinking errors..

You just argued seperation allows us to make things easier....

[Atla]

Progression is an illusion

I may be plagiarising this quote but... Your insight may revolutionalize humanity's thinking. Well done!

By rejecting time-progression you have invented a philosophical position that can't be verified, falsified or applied in practice.

That is truly revolutionary. In its uselessness.

A theory that explains everything, explains nothing --Karl Popper

In the fundamental sense it's an illusion, and that was experimentally proven. But of course you two don't know that.

But in the ordinary sense, the one you mentioned, of course we can see progression as quite real, just not in the distorted sense that Eodnhoj is talking about. That's obviously NOT what I was talking about so your comment is a strawman.

You fail as usual

[Skepdick]

In the fundamental sense it's an illusion, and that was experimentally proven.

It was EXPERIMENTALLY proven that progression is a contradiction?




EXPERIENCE (a temporal-phenomenon) disproved time.