Counting as grounded in Assumption of Void

[Arising_uk]

The point voiding itself to another point necessitates form. ...

Form of what?

It's not the same 'point' you just have two points.

No different than the 0d point projecting to another 0d point through 1 line on the number line.

What zero dimensional points?

Quantifying each point. 1 point projects as another point as 2 points. Each point as void is quantifiable as 1. We see this in quantifying points of an argument, or even quantifying the points on a number line as 1, 2, 3...etc., even though the number lines are quantifiable in themselves as well.

What on earth does 'as void' mean?

Void is Voided as Form

See above.

One point projecting itself to another point as a 1 directional line.

But there are two directions there but it's only your dashes that make a sort of line.

Void is nothing. Void voids itself as form. ...

If it's nothing then there is no form?

Form is this being exists as function considering it divides Nothingness through it's own nature. ...

Sounds like gibberish to me.

Nothingness can only be observed through multiplicity and not a thing in and itself as nothing is not there, just multiple forms. Thus 1 form effectively exists as it's own function. It changes itself through void. ...

How can something that is not there change anything?

You will not understand this, it is over the head of a loon, your are stuck with aristotelian identity "assumptions" and fail to see they are inherently empty.

Actually it's more to do with you not being able to express what you mean in coherent English.

It Inverts itself into form.

What on earth does this mean?

Zero zeros zero as 1. Zero is nothing and nothing voids nothing as it is nothing.
The voiding of nothing is being as the opposition of nothing.

I'd have thought 'zero' is just anything other than a number?

And what is a number. Can you separate +1 from +1+1= +2? Or "-" from -1 in -1+1=0?

Sure, in the latter -1 are the symbols to the left of the +1 and in the former there are two +1's.

See above.

So not talking about the successor function then.

There is no idea, that is what I am trying to say, the numbers are inherently empty contexts by nature you cannot even call them tools unless you want to call an empty assumption a tool...but this is an empty assumption as well. ...

Well, they are certainly just symbols if you want to just work with theory but when applied?

]It goes in a loop, which is a context of self referencing, that again is empty of itself as it is assumed.

You appear to forget the applied part of Mathematics, much like you ignore the experimental part of Physics.

[Eodnhoj7]

The point voiding itself to another point necessitates form. ...

Form of what?

It's not the same 'point' you just have two points.

A point is it's own context that has no size nor does it have shape. The point is a state of superpositioning through itself and this superpostioning of the point is what creates quality and quantity as the point is formless in and of itself, thus quantity and quality that results from the point as imaginary by nature...ie they form images.

This statement may seem overly complex, so here is a shorter explanation. The point is formless, thus when it divides infinite length as a quality is produced. Finiteness as the multiplicity of the points is also produced

No different than the 0d point projecting to another 0d point through 1 line on the number line.

What zero dimensional points?

Really...the above just said they are zero dimensional points.

Quantifying each point. 1 point projects as another point as 2 points. Each point as void is quantifiable as 1. We see this in quantifying points of an argument, or even quantifying the points on a number line as 1, 2, 3...etc., even though the number lines are quantifiable in themselves as well.

What on earth does 'as void' mean?

Each point is fundamentally nothing, we only observed Nothingness as the respective beginning and ends of the line.

Void is Voided as Form

See above.

One point projecting itself to another point as a 1 directional line.

But there are two directions there but it's only your dashes that make a sort of line.

That is because I am using an iPad and connot put in a normal line symbol.

Void is nothing. Void voids itself as form. ...

If it's nothing then there is no form?

Nothing is no form, but we cannot observe Nothingness except through form as Nothingness is well nothing...thus void is void as form with the voiding of void observed by the multiplicity of forms which variate from 1 form.

Form is this being exists as function considering it divides Nothingness through it's own nature. ...

Sounds like gibberish to me.

That's because you are self admitted loon, everything sounds like gibberish too you.

Nothingness can only be observed through multiplicity and not a thing in and itself as nothing is not there, just multiple forms. Thus 1 form effectively exists as it's own function. It changes itself through void. ...

How can something that is not there change anything?

You will not understand this, it is over the head of a loon, your are stuck with aristotelian identity "assumptions" and fail to see they are inherently empty.

Actually it's more to do with you not being able to express what you mean in coherent English.

Coherency is relative to the observer, hegel was incoherent to many...but not to others. Same with wittgenstien....same with some random foreigner screaming....

It Inverts itself into form.

What on earth does this mean?

Formless formless, is a self negation leaving form as foundational.

Zero zeros zero as 1. Zero is nothing and nothing voids nothing as it is nothing.
The voiding of nothing is being as the opposition of nothing.

I'd have thought 'zero' is just anything other than a number?

But like a loon you throw "number" out there as an empty assumption.

And what is a number. Can you separate +1 from +1+1= +2? Or "-" from -1 in -1+1=0?

Sure, in the latter -1 are the symbols to the left of the +1 and in the former there are two +1's.

The first is my fault as a typo, it should be seperate "+" from +1. The typo is not present for the second question.

See above.

So not talking about the successor function then.

There is no idea, that is what I am trying to say, the numbers are inherently empty contexts by nature you cannot even call them tools unless you want to call an empty assumption a tool...but this is an empty assumption as well. ...

Well, they are certainly just symbols if you want to just work with theory but when applied?

When applied they act as transitive to other symbols, with then symbol composed of further transitive propertied.

]It goes in a loop, which is a context of self referencing, that again is empty of itself as it is assumed.

You appear to forget the applied part of Mathematics, much like you ignore the experimental part of Physics.

I assume void, you claim they a made up and only loon live in an imaginary world.

[Arising_uk]

A point is it's own context that has no size nor does it have shape. The point is a state of superpositioning through itself and this superpostioning of the point is what creates quality and quantity as the point is formless in and of itself, thus quantity and quality that results from the point as imaginary by nature...ie they form images.

This statement may seem overly complex, so here is a shorter explanation. The point is formless, thus when it divides infinite length as a quality is produced. Finiteness as the multiplicity of the points is also produced

Are you talking ontologically here? Are you claiming these 'points' exist, if so you appear to be talking about Leibniz's Monads.

Really...the above just said they are zero dimensional points.

Ontologically you can't have a zero dimensional point.

Each point is fundamentally nothing, we only observed Nothingness as the respective beginning and ends of the line. ...

I'd have just thought we observe the line ends, there is always something else there.

That is because I am using an iPad and connot put in a normal line symbol. ..

Still a mark.

That's because you are self admitted loon, everything sounds like gibberish too you. ...

Not everything, ust most of what you write as you appear to mix an' match ontology and epistemology when and where it suits you with no clarity about either.

Coherency is relative to the observer, hegel was incoherent to many...but not to others. Same with wittgenstien....same with some random foreigner screaming....

Don't be so hard on yourself, you're not screaming just babbling. But lmao that you think yourself in such company.

Formless formless, is a self negation leaving form as foundational.

Which or what 'form or forms' are you talking about?

But like a loon you throw "number" out there as an empty assumption.

And yet you avoid the logical conclusion that all you say is assumption and is wrong, as if it is not then how are you obtaining your 'truth' and would it not then not be an assumption?

The first is my fault as a typo, it should be seperate "+" from +1. The typo is not present for the second question.

Do you have a problem with your eyes then? As there are three +1's and three -1's.

When applied they act as transitive to other symbols, with then symbol composed of further transitive propertied.

Actually when applied they solve problems in the world.

I assume void, you claim they a made up and only loon live in an imaginary world.

You're beginning to garble, what are you trying to say here?

[Arising_uk]

View it this way...you know why wittgenstein's tractus was considered deep? Because is was pure bullshit and he knew it was bullshit...that is what he pointed to, the number/symbols are not right because they are not even wrong, they are just empty contexts. ...

Where does 'right' or 'wrong' come into the TLP?

There are no numbers in the TLP, other than the headings.

As far as I can tell Wittgenstein was trying to describe the logical form of Symbolism, trying to outline what criteria a perfectly logical language of Symbols would need. As such he said or not said many things in the TLP and one of them was that Propositional Logic draws the boundaries of what can be said or thought about things or states of affairs with the Tautologies being what is necessary, the Contradictions being what is impossible and the rest being the Contingents which have to be proved by some other means than Logic. He also said this, "“The complex sign 'aRb' says 'a stands in relation R to b;'” but we must say, “That 'a' stands in a certain relation to 'b' says that aRb.”, you appear to confuse this?

I mean look at it this way, we get numbers through counting.

We count material objects.

Those material objects are made of atoms. ...

Are there 'Atoms'? I thought them just a model.

Those atoms are 99.999... percent empty. ...

Your Physics model is well out-of-date, the 'empty space' is full.

The non empty part? ...

In your out-of-date model the non empty part is composed of protons, neutrons and electrons.

No one knows because then they would have to say it was just "form"...and we are stuck with a holographic universe the platonists and Hindus and Christian's have been saying for millenia. Experimentation to prove a holographic universe is in itself a holograph... ...

And yet this is a theory out that provides a falsifiable experiment that would test if its all a holograph or not.

Even the book of 24 philosophers observes God as a sphere encapsulating nothing through pure opposition of nothing (void..voiding voiding) as being......

So what?

How does that differ from a basic empty atom as a sphere? ...

Well out of date.

The particular is a general and the general is a particular. "As above so below". Even the munchausseen trillema observes our rationality as a form of an empty circle. And the Buddhists use this empty circle as a symbol for enlightenment. ...

Again, so what? Or are you now saying that intersubjective agreement is 'truth'?

See the empty context repeating itself yet as an empty context?

Nope, in truth the phrase 'empty context' seems a contradiction in terms to me so always false.

We are literally dividing empty space into forms when we count, and these number themselves are empty contexts. ...

In my world when we count we are matching objects.

Even the line itself, the foundation of all form strictly as a movement from point a to point B, is composed of infinite lines and those are composed of infinite lines... ...

Not in the real world they aren't.

So when you quantify a line (or line segment) as 1 ...

What do you mean here?

your are quantifying and infinity and infinity is indefinite. ...

I'll wait for the above answer.

1 is both odd and even and is indefinite. ...

How we treat 1 has changed over time but by and large 1 is an odd number and it's definitely not an even one and it's impossible for it to be both at the same time.

In quantifying a form as 1, by default, your are observing one infinity. It is a paradox and math cannot deal with paradoxes because it necessitates that math has not foundations but empty assumptions. ...

I'd have thought that philosophically the foundations of Mathematics were cut away a long-time back and it seems to have made no difference to the application of Mathematics? I'd also have thought that it is paradoxes that Mathematics thrives upon?

Math is empty context and so is logic. ...

You cant have an 'empty context'.

Take for example the beginning of the Assumptive Logic thread, it mapped out some transitive states where one symbol went to another symbol. These transitive states are subject to themselves and eachother thus are generalities within generalites... you want a particular? How can you without making a new generality? ...

It's a bit of a big ask calling what you posted there a Logic.

So each symbol, as a generality, is a transitive state composed of other transitive states as transitive states. So if I deduce reality to some unbreakable point...I get a point that underlies everything.

You cannot continual deduce without ending back in a generality again.

It effectively is both meaningful as ever presently repeated and meaningless as it is nothing itself as it is formless by nature.

So assuming reality is the most general case for existence and when broken down we are left with assumption again.

It is the paradox of one (generality) and many (particulars as generalities) with this loop being an empty circle. ...

Or you could just say there are 'Monads' or 'Atomic Propositions' a la Lebiniz and Wittgenstein or 'Atoms' like the Greeks, etc, etc. Either way I think Kant right and you are trying to talk about the Noumena so any old model can be believed so it could all just be a 'God' or fairies, demons and pixie dust, what counts is how useful they are in accounting for how phenomena work and so far 'Science' appears to be the best of the lot in this respect.

Math and logic are just a means of pulling a rabbit out of a hat when reality a hat was pulled off a rabbit. ...

Or in reality we have no idea if its rabbits or turtles all the way down.

That is why you do not understand, nor does wtf...there is "no-thing" to understand considering to understand is to assume and all assumptions are void. ...

Is this an absolute assumption? But it looks like we agree that the Noumena is not knowable but you forget Phenomena.

Ta-da!....Magic....

Clarke's Third Law: Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic.

[Dontaskme]

Your Physics model is well out-of-date, the 'empty space' is full.

Y /our Physics model is well in/out-of-date, the 'empty full space' is full of emptiness / empty of fullness.

Something cannot come from Nothing. And Nothing cannot come from Something.

Something and Nothing are the same ONE which is just another word for ZERO

.

[Dontaskme]

A ''sense of identity'' is like the dot inside a circle.

The dot is the point of reference that can only refer to itself. The dot represents ''self-identity'' which cannot cross over the circumfrence to meet with itself because there isn't one. For the ''sense of identity'' is forever trapped within it's own net.

Hermes Trismegistus, “thrice-great Hermes” “God is an infinite sphere, the center of which is everywhere, the circumference nowhere.”

.

Book of 24 philosophers is the source, the source of the book is obscure.

The book can have a book written about it.

Very good and the story is inseparable from the book.

The Author, Story and Reader are ONE.

The problem of knowledge is solved. If you say you know - you don't.

.

[Arising_uk]

Y /our Physics model is well in/out-of-date, the 'empty full space' is full of emptiness / empty of fullness. ...

What do you mean by 'emptiness' and 'fullness'?

Something cannot come from Nothing. And Nothing cannot come from Something. ...

You are something and when you die you will be nothing.

Something and Nothing are the same ONE which is just another word for ZERO

Are you saying there is something then as there appears to be this 'ONE'? Which also makes you a substance monist.

[Arising_uk]

Very good and the story is inseparable from the book.

What's a book with blank pages then? Or an atlas?

The Author, Story and Reader are ONE. ...

You keep capitalizing this 'ONE', what do you mean by this 'ONE'?

The problem of knowledge is solved. If you say you know - you don't.

And you know this how?

[Dontaskme]

And you know this how. Asks arising uk

It’s not known how I know what I don’t know.

[Arising_uk]

Not what I asked you though was it. You stated that if someone says they know then they don't but presumably you knows this so I ask you how do you know this or don't you?
Maybe I should also ask what it is they are supposed to be knowing about?

[Eodnhoj7]

View it this way...you know why wittgenstein's tractus was considered deep? Because is was pure bullshit and he knew it was bullshit...that is what he pointed to, the number/symbols are not right because they are not even wrong, they are just empty contexts. ...

Where does 'right' or 'wrong' come into the TLP?

There are no numbers in the TLP, other than the headings.

As far as I can tell Wittgenstein was trying to describe the logical form of Symbolism,
Numbers are symbols, so are math functions, and words and empirical reality because of its transitive nature, symbols are transitive in nature.


trying to outline what criteria a perfectly logical language of Symbols would need. As such he said or not said many things in the TLP and one of them was that Propositional Logic draws the boundaries of what can be said or thought about things or states of affairs with the Tautologies being what is necessary, the Contradictions being what is impossible and the rest being the Contingents which have to be proved by some other means than Logic. He also said this, "“The complex sign 'aRb' says 'a stands in relation R to b;'” but we must say, “That 'a' stands in a certain relation to 'b' says that aRb.”, you appear to confuse this?


"a" stands in relation R to b, where the position of a determines how it relates, necessitates all symbolic form as Directional. This directionality, as the foundation of all symbolic phenomenon (math, logic, language...even "being", is not only assumed but is a way of assuming. This directionality necessitates each variable as not only intrinsically empty but necessarily a tautology ground in form itself as a tautology...and what is any more tautological than symbols are directions due to there transitory nature.

Truth, under identity properties, is recursive. One thing can be said in a infinite number of ways.

This tautology as a form is intrinsically empty context as self reptition necessitate circularity as a constant form. This context is empty, much like the basic proposition of P=P is empty.

P=P is a circular statement through recurssion. "=" is fundamentally empty of meaning and is void, it merely allows P to invert itself from one position to many.

This empty context necessitates it always right and wrong thus fundamentally existing strictly as is.

I mean look at it this way, we get numbers through counting.

We count material objects.

Those material objects are made of atoms. ...

Are there 'Atoms'? I thought them just a model.

Those atoms are 99.999... percent empty. ...

Your Physics model is well out-of-date, the 'empty space' is full.

Of an undefined substance void of meaning. Take it up with Google and physics.

The non empty part? ...

In your out-of-date model the non empty part is composed of protons, neutrons and electrons.

And these protons, neutrons, and electrons are just fields until observed. Void in themselves except through the other. They necessitate form as these result in the curvature of a phenomenon. Positive, negative, neutral.

No one knows because then they would have to say it was just "form"...and we are stuck with a holographic universe the platonists and Hindus and Christian's have been saying for millenia. Experimentation to prove a holographic universe is in itself a holograph... ...

And yet this is a theory out that provides a falsifiable experiment that would test if its all a holograph or not.
Falsified according to what? How many different experiments have to be run for something to be falsified considering each experiment represents a different context.

And keep in mind, the loop problem, if we live in a holographic universe, all the tools are holographic as well...

Even the book of 24 philosophers observes God as a sphere encapsulating nothing through pure opposition of nothing (void..voiding voiding) as being......

So what?

Metaphysics observed atomism long before empirical experiments.

How does that differ from a basic empty atom as a sphere? ...

Well out of date.

Different angle of awareness.

The particular is a general and the general is a particular. "As above so below". Even the munchausseen trillema observes our rationality as a form of an empty circle. And the Buddhists use this empty circle as a symbol for enlightenment. ...

Again, so what? Or are you now saying that intersubjective agreement is 'truth'?

Intersubjective agreement is objectivity, but this is grounded in subjectivity.
Objectivity is fundamentally impossible, as well as subjectivity. You want to seperate them, uh you can't without assuming an experiment from a subjective angle of awareness.

See the empty context repeating itself yet as an empty context?

Nope, in truth the phrase 'empty context' seems a contradiction in terms to me so always false.

"to me" therefore "always false".... ROFL....loon.

We are literally dividing empty space into forms when we count, and these number themselves are empty contexts. ...

In my world when we count we are matching objects.

No snowflake is the same.

Even the line itself, the foundation of all form strictly as a movement from point a to point B, is composed of infinite lines and those are composed of infinite lines... ...

Not in the real world they aren't.

In the real world people use lines to move, a particle is always connected to some other particle instantaneously across time and space, a particle moves from point a to point b in a straight line (where any replication of a position is grounded in linear direction), a line is the closest distance between two points, branching patterns in arteries/leaves, the geometric form of crystals having straight edges as well as angulature (necessitating linearism), etc.

What real world are you claiming,

So when you quantify a line (or line segment) as 1 ...

What do you mean here?

a line as quantified becomes finite, it becomes finite when it becomes a part, it becomes a part when it exists in multiple states.

your are quantifying and infinity and infinity is indefinite. ...

I'll wait for the above answer.

1 is both odd and even and is indefinite. ...

How we treat 1 has changed over time but by and large 1 is an odd number and it's definitely not an even one and it's impossible for it to be both at the same time.

Actually the pythagoreans viewed it as odd and even. It is odd as a form, even in that is acts as divisor empty of substance.

For example if I count from one to two, I observed 1 inverting itself one time into two. One exists as a divisor that results in a dualism. One as formless is represented as fundamentally even considering all even numbers represent an absence of connection by polarity or opposition.
Odd always has an inherent middle, no matter how you rearrange the objects in a line, thus necessitates unity through connecitivity.

In quantifying a form as 1, by default, your are observing one infinity. It is a paradox and math cannot deal with paradoxes because it necessitates that math has not foundations but empty assumptions. ...

I'd have thought that philosophically the foundations of Mathematics were cut away a long-time back and it seems to have made no difference to the application of Mathematics? I'd also have thought that it is paradoxes that Mathematics thrives upon?

If the foundations for mathematics where cut away a long time back, and science requires math for a foundation of measuring...science has no foundation.

Math is empty context and so is logic. ...

You cant have an 'empty context'.

Actually you can: circularity.

P=P observes P existing as defined through recursion as circularity, "=" is empty of any value as undefined, you assume something is there but this assumption is not only empty but empty in itself without a progression to further outside symbol to observe it. The law of identity, on it's own terms necessitates equivocation, circularity, slippery slope, etc.

It gave birth to all the fallacies.

Take for example the beginning of the Assumptive Logic thread, it mapped out some transitive states where one symbol went to another symbol. These transitive states are subject to themselves and eachother thus are generalities within generalites... you want a particular? How can you without making a new generality? ...

It's a bit of a big ask calling what you posted there a Logic.

Assumptive logic, it shows the transition and nature of ratio underlying not just the nature of assumptions but how the assumptions manifest. It necessitates logic, as assumptions grounded in an underlying form.

Logic is "assessment of through the strict principles of validity" and what necessitates validity is form. Logic is form, through context with context itself being form.

It is grounded in assumptions, thus "assumptive logic" is "irrational" but valid and necessitates the irrationality all logical systems fundamentally are. It is this rationalizing of assumptions are primarily form, containing form, that necessitates its simulataneous "rationality" as the observation of ratios or "parts within parts".

Validity is actually simultaneously right and wrong, thus is empty context.

So each symbol, as a generality, is a transitive state composed of other transitive states as transitive states. So if I deduce reality to some unbreakable point...I get a point that underlies everything.

You cannot continual deduce without ending back in a generality again.

It effectively is both meaningful as ever presently repeated and meaningless as it is nothing itself as it is formless by nature.

So assuming reality is the most general case for existence and when broken down we are left with assumption again.

It is the paradox of one (generality) and many (particulars as generalities) with this loop being an empty circle. ...

Or you could just say there are 'Monads' or 'Atomic Propositions' a la Lebiniz and Wittgenstein or 'Atoms' like the Greeks, etc, etc.

You are observing only particulars... the problem with a particular such as a monad or atomic propostion is that monad and atomic propostion are both generalities that observe infinite variations.

So in trying to break down truth to some small unbreakable point, you created a generality that encompasses everything.

Either way I think Kant right and you are trying to talk about the Noumena so any old model can be believed so it could all just be a 'God' or fairies, demons and pixie dust, what counts is how useful they are in accounting for how phenomena work and so far 'Science' appears to be the best of the lot in this respect.

Usefullness is not only assumed but contextual and not always agreed upon...it is an assumption.

Science is not only made up "according to you" but does not explain itself. It is a faith system of rituals.

Create a prayer "hypothesis"
Create a ritual "experiment"
Create an answer to the prayer (if hypothesis and experiment match up the answer is given)

It is a religious dogma grounding in a spiral of reasoning.

Math and logic are just a means of pulling a rabbit out of a hat when reality a hat was pulled off a rabbit. ...

Or in reality we have no idea if its rabbits or turtles all the way down.

Yeah but your are always pulling the same hat off of them.

That is why you do not understand, nor does wtf...there is "no-thing" to understand considering to understand is to assume and all assumptions are void. ...

Is this an absolute assumption? But it looks like we agree that the Noumena is not knowable but you forget Phenomena.
Phenomena are assumed, with assumption being phenomena, thus phenomena are void contexts.

Ta-da!....Magic....

Clarke's Third Law: Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic.

Anti-Clarke's Third Law: any sufficiently advanced magic is indistinguisable from a simple piece of tech...

[Dontaskme]

Very good and the story is inseparable from the book.

What's a book with blank pages then? Or an atlas?

A book with blank pages is a book with blank pages, the blank pages are inseparable from the book. An Atlas is just another variation of a book with stories.

The Author, Story and Reader are ONE. ...

You keep capitalizing this 'ONE', what do you mean by this 'ONE'?

ONE is the central point of reference. ''self-referential / anecdotal evidence''
It's a claimed proposition taken by itself. A position cannot be taken because it's already taken.
ONE is just another word for YOU

The problem of knowledge is solved. If you say you know - you don't.

And you know this how?

A claim to know, is a proposition, it's an assumed encounter with the idea that there is a 'someone' to know something. The idea that there is a knower that can be encountered to be known is a false assumption. It's not a 'someone' that knows, a 'someone' is a falsely claimed proposed assumption that cannot know. A 'someone' is a concept known by that which cannot be known, in essence YOU are the knowing that cannot be known.

I've explained this to you millions of times over A-uk.

[Dontaskme]

Y /our Physics model is well in/out-of-date, the 'empty full space' is full of emptiness / empty of fullness. ...

What do you mean by 'emptiness' and 'fullness'?

Empty = 0
Full = 1

0 1 = are the same reality differing in appearance, the difference is apparent only within the illusion of knowledge.

Something cannot come from Nothing. And Nothing cannot come from Something. ...

You are something and when you die you will be nothing.

Birth and Death are the same thing, they just differ in appearance.

Something and Nothing are the same ONE which is just another word for ZERO

Are you saying there is something then as there appears to be this 'ONE'? Which also makes you a substance monist.

A a substance monist is a claimed proposition, it's an assumption, it's an opinion known by ONE which is nothing knowing it's something.
Therefore, that which is known cannot know anything.

[Dontaskme]

Not what I asked you though was it. You stated that if someone says they know then they don't but presumably you knows this so I ask you how do you know this or don't you?
Maybe I should also ask what it is they are supposed to be knowing about?

Knowing is not known by a 'someone' a 'someone' is known by the only knowing there is, you are the knowing that cannot be known.

You cannot know you are the knower...this implies two. You are the knowing that cannot be known /ONE

[Arising_uk]

ONE is just another word for YOU

Great! So can I take it that YOU are ONE as well so there are now two ONE's?