Resolving Paradoxes

[Nick_A]

Scott

To understand how a contradiction can be true, take this statement: "I am alive and dead." While this may seem non-resolvable, there is an infinite possibilities in which this is true, of which one example is: "I am alive and dead ....in the period between two years before I was born and two years after." This is just one possible interval which justifies how this can be true. Reality as a whole CAN permit this true when we find a greater domain with respect to time. Totality holds all possible truths in a kind of 'simultaneous' way. [It's hard for us to escape the words we use for time, like 'simultaneous'.] All times are contained in totality and so we are just limited LOCALLY to perceive one specific reality. So our 'finite' reality is perceived to resolve paradox BY the illusion of time.

"I am alive and dead" It doesn't make sense for dualism concerned with the moment. You've raised the question of time. The Law of the Included Middle reconciles two extremes as one from a higher perspective. Take the cycle of a person's life. What if it repeats? Then what is called "I" repeats as a bodily expression we called life. When it isn't repeating we call it death. From the perspective of a higher level of reality we are both alive and dead within the cycle of existence

I am suggesting that it is a possibility impossible to contemplate from dualism but is possible to contemplate consciously from a higher perspective, a "middle" within which the extremes are united. If the Buddha experienced cycles of life it wasn't through binary thought.

We are at the beginning of time when it will be possible for society to consciously remember the Law of the Included Middle. Whether we do or not is an open question but at least it offers the potential for people to understand why life appears as an absurdity and a complete contradiction along with opening to the means to consciously respond to it rather than just react to it through conditioning. .

[Age]

Included Middle is an idea proposed by Stéphane Lupasco (in The Principle of Antagonism and the Logic of Energy in 1951), further developed by Joseph E. Brenner and Basarab Nicolescu, and also supported by Werner Heisenberg. The notion pertains to physics and quantum mechanics, and may have wider application in other domains such as information theory and computing, epistemology, and theories of consciousness. The Included Middle is a theory proposing that logic has a three-part structure. The three parts are the positions of asserting something, the negation of this assertion, and a third position that is neither or both. Lupasco labeled these states A, not-A, and T. The Included Middle stands in opposition to classical logic stemming from Aristotle. In classical logic, the Principle of Non-contradiction specifically proposes an Excluded Middle, that no middle position exists, tertium non datur (there is no third option). In traditional logic, for any proposition, either that proposition is true, or its negation is true (there is either A or not-A). While this could be true for circumscribed domains that contain only A and not-A, there may also be a larger position not captured by these two claims, and that is articulated by the Included Middle................................

This...

The three parts are the positions of asserting something, the negation of this assertion, and a third position that is neither or both.

...makes no sense to me.

I say your pants are on fire (I assert sumthin').

You say your pants are not on fire, and you show me your non-burning pants (you negated my assertion).

Where the hell does a third position come into play?

And: color me stupid but I don't see what any of this has to do with paradoxes.

It isn't a matter of being stupid Henry. You are just used to reasoning from basic dualism as is the norm in the world which limits itself to one level of reality.

How many levels of "reality" are there exactly, to you?

The Law of non contradiction asserts that your pants cannot be both on fire and not on fire. The Law of the Included Middle states that their potentials can simultaneously exist at a higher level of reality.

But 'potential' is NOT the same as 'being'. For example, have the 'potential of being' on fire or not on fire is not the same as 'being' both on fire and not on fire.

Also, are you just using the terms "both" "on fire", and, "not on fire" at the exact same time, or at different times?

The Liar's Paradox asserts that when a person calls themselves a liar they can be either lying or telling the truth. The Law of the Included Middle shows how they can both be included within a higher level of reality. It reveals the limitations of dualism.

Will you reveal the limitations of 'dualism'?

The world isn't ready for this yet since secularism is dependent upon dualism. Once recognition of levels of reality becomes more popular, opening to a higher level of reality won't be as shocking s it is now.

But the absolute True and only One Reality was NOT shocking at all.

Why do you propose the Truth of things will be "shocking".

The link concludes with:

Included Middle is a concept already deployed in a variety of scientific domains and could benefit from a wider application in being promoted to “meme” status. This is because beyond its uses in science, Included Middle is a model for thinking. The Included Middle is a conceptual model that overcomes dualism and opens a frame that is complex and multi-dimensional, not merely one of binary elements and simple linear causality. We have now come to comprehend and address our world as one that is complex as opposed to basic, and formal tools that support this investigation are crucial. The Included Middle helps to expose how our thinking process unfolds. When attempting to grasp anything new, a basic “A, not-A” logic could be the first step in understanding the situation. However, the idea is then to progress to the next step which is another level of thinking that holds both A and not-A. The Included Middle is a more robust model that has properties of both determinacy and indeterminacy, the universal and the particular, the part and the whole, and actuality and possibility. The Included Middle is a position of greater complexity and possibility for addressing any situation. Conceiving of a third space that holds two apparent contradictions of a problem is what the Included Middle might bring to contemporary challenges in consciousness, artificial intelligence, disease pathologies, and unified theories in physics and cosmology.

Life is a paradox.

Did you provide this for "henry quirk" to 'dismantle'?

And are 'you' at all able to explain how 'Life', Itself, could be a 'paradox'?

What does 'paradox', and 'life', mean to 'you' actually?

What are we?

'you' were the one here who used the word 'we', so only 'you' would KNOW exactly what that 'we' is in relation to. So, what are the 'we', in the context 'you' were using that word in?

How is it that we say one thing and do another?

Very easily by the exact same way 'you' ALL do things.

Do 'you' KNOW how 'you' do ALL things?

The Law of the included Middle allows us to appreciate the human condition and why this apparent absurdity is actually lawfully normal.

What is the 'human condition' which you allege that the 'law of the included middle' allows you to appreciate?

Also, what is the 'apparent absurdity' that 'you' actually see?

Yes, at a higher level of reality your pants can be both on fire and not on fire.

Are you able to elaborate on this and explain this further?

If yes, then please do.

If no, then okay.

[Age]

It may exist, but I don't live there.

Here, where I live, your pants are on fire or your pants are not on fire.

Here, where I live, the fella is lyin' or is not lyin'

Here, where I live, the cat in the box is alive or dead.

Here, where I live, there's no middle to exclude, no third position to take.

Your wife cheats or she doesn't, your kid shoplifted or he he didn't, your neighbor murdered or he didn't, your boss embezzles or he doesn't, and on and on.

Duality (this or that, up or down, in or out, right or wrong) is apparently natural and normal. I, at least, find it useful.


Now, who's got some paradoxes for me to piss on...

I agree, this is where we live. We live in Plato's cave as creatures of reaction responding to worldly and cosmic laws by means of our senses which includes dualistic associative thought. Is dualism the highest form of human thought?

What do you mean by "highest form of human thought"?

And, because 'you' think that your view of things is a "higher" or is the "highest form of human thought" does this make you feel, or believe, that 'you' are more superior than "others" are?

What exactly IS the "highest form of human thought"?

Most say yes. I'm in the minority who say no and the Law of the Included Middle reveals the limitations of dualism. If dualism supplies your need for meaning, by all means expand on it. My concern is for the minority who sense something being lost in the modern obsession with thought and seek a realistic means for putting thought into a human perspective. Awareness of The Law of the Included Middle serves this need. When it does, the paradox or contradiction is welcomed as a door rather than as an invitation to blindly take sides.

Do you take the side that 'dualism' is a "lesser form of human thinking" than the "form of thinking that you see"?

Do 'you' "blindly takes sides"? From this perspective it sure LOOKS like you do.

[Age]

Included Middle is an idea proposed by Stéphane Lupasco (in The Principle of Antagonism and the Logic of Energy in 1951), further developed by Joseph E. Brenner and Basarab Nicolescu, and also supported by Werner Heisenberg. The notion pertains to physics and quantum mechanics, and may have wider application in other domains such as information theory and computing, epistemology, and theories of consciousness. The Included Middle is a theory proposing that logic has a three-part structure. The three parts are the positions of asserting something, the negation of this assertion, and a third position that is neither or both. Lupasco labeled these states A, not-A, and T. The Included Middle stands in opposition to classical logic stemming from Aristotle. In classical logic, the Principle of Non-contradiction specifically proposes an Excluded Middle, that no middle position exists, tertium non datur (there is no third option). In traditional logic, for any proposition, either that proposition is true, or its negation is true (there is either A or not-A). While this could be true for circumscribed domains that contain only A and not-A, there may also be a larger position not captured by these two claims, and that is articulated by the Included Middle................................

This...

The three parts are the positions of asserting something, the negation of this assertion, and a third position that is neither or both.

...makes no sense to me.

I say your pants are on fire (I assert sumthin').

You say your pants are not on fire, and you show me your non-burning pants (you negated my assertion).

Where the hell does a third position come into play?

And: color me stupid but I don't see what any of this has to do with paradoxes.

I haven't caught up with the thread in completion yet. So I apologize if my response has been answered similarly by others.

The term, "contradiction" literally tells you that something is "con-" (= with), "-tra-" (=third), "-dict-" (=spoken/dictated), "-ion" (=particle).

Although such contradictions may seem useless to speak of under the assumptions of most things said, reality DOES hold certain factors that are sincerely not consistent with respect to the whole of totality.

How could 'reality', itself, hold certain factors that are "sincerely" not consistent with respect to the whole of totality?

After you explain this, then we can look at and discuss your proposition/s.

If there were no contradiction to reality as a whole, we'd have perfect 'consistency' in non-existence.

What do you mean?

I do not follow nor see how that just because there were NO contradictions, "to reality as a whole", you would have perfect 'consistency' in non-existence.

1. There ARE NO actual contradictions to 'reality', which can only be a whole, other than those so called "contradictions" that 'you', human beings, make up, see, and/or believe.
2. There ALREADY IS perfect 'consistency', in Existence. Even if you human beings can not see thing or just refuse to look at It and see It.
3. How could there be perfect 'consistency' in 'non-existence'? In fact how could there be ANY thing in 'non-existence'?

Forces, if they are to have any ultimate causation, have to either have some justification for going from non-existence to existence.

Well considering that non-existence to existence is not even feasible, let alone ever being possible, there is NO use looking at that. Unless of course you have some actual evidence and proof otherwise, which if you do, then will you bring it forward?

The alternative is for everything to be true at all times (in totality, not necessarily one particular universe).

Everything, which IS True, is ALWAYS True (at all times). Just most human beings, when this is written, have not yet seen nor recognized this yet.

If absolutely everything was true, then this would include absolutely nothing.

Is this meant to make sense, somehow?

If only specific things are UNIQUELY true, then the question would be why some perfectly finite set of truths exist if you cannot contrast them with what is not true.

But the CAN BE contrasted, that is; Once you have the KNOW-HOW.

To understand how a contradiction can be true, take this statement: "I am alive and dead." While this may seem non-resolvable, there is an infinite possibilities in which this is true, of which one example is: "I am alive and dead ....in the period between two years before I was born and two years after." This is just one possible interval which justifies how this can be true.

Will 'you' explain WHY the period between two years before and after some occurrence relates here?

Also, who and/or what is the 'I', which supposedly can be alive and dead?

Let us first SEE who/what 'you' say 'I' am, which 'you' say be alive and dead, before we move onto the rest?

Reality as a whole CAN permit this true when we find a greater domain with respect to time. Totality holds all possible truths in a kind of 'simultaneous' way. [It's hard for us to escape the words we use for time, like 'simultaneous'.] All times are contained in totality and so we are just limited LOCALLY to perceive one specific reality.

I am am able to perceive thee One True Reality because, to Me, LOCALLY is Totality, Itself.

So our 'finite' reality is perceived to resolve paradox BY the illusion of time.

Any 'paradox' is dissolved by its own words, and thus is resolved in and of its own self.

Dismantling 'paradoxes' reveals the Truth of things.

Note that if you are to ask what a real 'simultaneous' event is, this proves the nature of contradiction as real: a sincerely 'simultaneous' event is an interval that has NO TIME!

And this is just how thee One and only Universe IS, and works. There is NO actual physical thing as 'time', as the Universe is just in a state of HERE-NOW.

That is, if there is a 'point' in time that exists, it is equally non-existing.....a paradox.

If you say so. Will you elaborate on this further?

Politics and social constructs are ALWAYS contradictory because they deal with what is 'right' versus 'wrong' when nature itself is indifferent to this illusion (or better, delusion).

Are you saying that 'you' do NOT know what is right, and/or what is wrong?

But where people AGREE to certain things, we can show that people are acting hypocritical to some belief with respect to some morale they hold.

What happens when people who are AGREEING on certain things, which are certainly True, Right, and Correct?

Are those people also "acting hypocritical to some belief with some morale they hold"?

If yes, then could that 'morale' be one that aligns with what is actually Right?

Would acting to some belief of a morale, which is actually Good and Right, by hypocritical?

This then is where we can use contradiction when we EXPECT something to be consistent.

Why do 'you' 'expect' any thing to be 'consistent'?

Where things are contradictory in science, like the arguments surrounding interpretations on Quantum Mechanics, some argue that such appearances only indicate that something is "incomplete". That was the point about the Incompleteness Theorem mentioned in the article.

In general, I think that contradiction IS the engine of reality.

So, to you, and correct me if I am wrong, 'reality' really is a contradiction?

That is, I think that all of reality only exists precisely because of a major contradiction regarding origins: that if reality came into existence from nothing, it comes about due TO the fact that a totality that might be identical to nothing would be both true and false. To such a reality, this is alright because where something is absolutely nothing, it lacks even any rule of 'consistency' that requires it to obey.

There is NO thing that 'came into existence from nothing'. Therefore, all of what you say here is does not matter at all.

Thus, contradition and paradox are useful to understand even for more than curiosity or fun.

Paradoxes, to me, are a great way of SEEING and UNDERSTANDING thee actual Truth of things.

Contradictions, however, are better ALWAYS avoided.

But, then again, I SEE and UNDERSTAND just about ALL things much differently than just about ALL human beings do.

[Age]

Of course we don't. Money is a convenience, not a necessity. So: where's the paradox?

To you it is obviously not a 'paradox', but to "others" it is a 'paradox'.

"Others" see things differently than 'you' do. For example, "others" also see the definition and the meaning of the word 'paradox' differently than 'you' do. So, is 'this' a 'paradox', to you?

Can you, would you, explain how We do not need money to live. is a paradox?

As I already explained it is NOT a 'paradox', to you. But, to 'others' it is a paradox because when those that see this as a contradiction, then, to them, it is a paradox.

There are actually some that actually BELIEVE we do need money to live. Therefore, to those ones this is a paradox.

And, also remember, as well, what a 'paradox' means to 'you' is different from what a 'paradox' means to some "others".

So, when the word 'paradox' is used meaning; a seemingly absurd or contradictory statement or proposition which when investigated may prove to be well founded or true. then that means the statement or proposition, We do not need money to live, is a paradox, to some "others", besides 'you'.

[Age]

Scott

To understand how a contradiction can be true, take this statement: "I am alive and dead." While this may seem non-resolvable, there is an infinite possibilities in which this is true, of which one example is: "I am alive and dead ....in the period between two years before I was born and two years after." This is just one possible interval which justifies how this can be true. Reality as a whole CAN permit this true when we find a greater domain with respect to time. Totality holds all possible truths in a kind of 'simultaneous' way. [It's hard for us to escape the words we use for time, like 'simultaneous'.] All times are contained in totality and so we are just limited LOCALLY to perceive one specific reality. So our 'finite' reality is perceived to resolve paradox BY the illusion of time.

"I am alive and dead" It doesn't make sense for dualism concerned with the moment. You've raised the question of time. The Law of the Included Middle reconciles two extremes as one from a higher perspective. Take the cycle of a person's life. What if it repeats? Then what is called "I" repeats as a bodily expression we called life. When it isn't repeating we call it death. From the perspective of a higher level of reality we are both alive and dead within the cycle of existence

I am suggesting that it is a possibility impossible to contemplate from dualism but is possible to contemplate consciously from a higher perspective, a "middle" within which the extremes are united. If the Buddha experienced cycles of life it wasn't through binary thought.

We are at the beginning of time when it will be possible for society to consciously remember the Law of the Included Middle. Whether we do or not is an open question but at least it offers the potential for people to understand why life appears as an absurdity and a complete contradiction along with opening to the means to consciously respond to it rather than just react to it through conditioning. .

But to understand WHY life appears as an absurdity and a complete contradiction just takes 'you' to explain to 'us' WHY 'you', your "self", SEE life as an absurdity and a complete contradiction. So, WHY does life appear as an absurdity and a complete contradiction, to 'you', "nick_A"?

I certainly do NOT see Life this way at all. Although i used to. But when i discovered and learned WHY i did, then I was able to STOP thy "self" from LOOKING in the absurd and completely contradictory way, which made life appeart to be n absurdity and a complete contradiction, which OBVIOUSLY It is NOT. That is; when KNOWING how to LOOK AT and SEE things CLEARLY and CORRECTLY.

[Scott Mayers]

If there were no contradiction to reality as a whole, we'd have perfect 'consistency' in non-existence.

What do you mean?

I do not follow nor see how that just because there were NO contradictions, "to reality as a whole", you would have perfect 'consistency' in non-existence.

You and I have discussed some of this on my thread regarding 'walls' (limits of time and space) as one example. As for what would be ideally neither pleasant nor painful (neither good nor bad) is to be nothing itself, just as before we are born and after we die. [if these actually exist, that is.]

1. There ARE NO actual contradictions to 'reality', which can only be a whole, other than those so called "contradictions" that 'you', human beings, make up, see, and/or believe.

(What's with the third person alien perspective in your rhetoric?...."you human beings'")

The contradiction of origins is one factor. For whatever anything is 'defined' as, it must have a point in time where it's existence was not as defined and a point where it is. What is in the interval between these two extremes is hard to discern without leading into contradictions.

2. There ALREADY IS perfect 'consistency', in Existence. Even if you human beings can not see thing or just refuse to look at It and see It.

This is just begging. It isn't a proof. "Consistency" is just what derives closure for us. If life was perfectly 'consistent' why is time itself needed? What is so consistent about living? and so...

3. How could there be perfect 'consistency' in 'non-existence'? In fact how could there be ANY thing in 'non-existence'?

Absolutely Nothing is INCONSISTENT. Thus it is inconsistency itself, not consistency, that the contradiction of reality is to be both true and false that permits causation at all. Relative Nothing is 'consistent' when we speak of not existing. You do not suffer the confusion of why we require to suffer in order to also have bliss. This is a 'contradiction' itself. [Maybe 'you', alien being, need to tell me what you are to know anything better than us humans?]

Forces, if they are to have any ultimate causation, have to either have some justification for going from non-existence to existence.

Well considering that non-existence to existence is not even feasible, let alone ever being possible, there is NO use looking at that. Unless of course you have some actual evidence and proof otherwise, which if you do, then will you bring it forward?

HA... you just fell into my stance stated above: that the interval between the two itself leads to contradiction. What is your presumably clear evidence that this transition is 'not even feasible'?

[Scott Mayers]

If absolutely everything was true, then this would include absolutely nothing.

Is this meant to make sense, somehow?

If all numbers are accounted for in an infinite set of numbers, does this not include zero? In the past, this idea was hard to convey. The borderline of 0 A.D. == 0 B.C. , for instance, was not used in the past for the same reason you cannot fathom the idea of absolutely nothing to be included within absolutely everything. If absolutely nothing is outside of absolutely everything, then something outside of absolutely everything also exists: namely, absolutely nothing.

Will 'you' explain WHY the period between two years before and after some occurrence relates here?

Also, who and/or what is the 'I', which supposedly can be alive and dead?

Let us first SEE who/what 'you' say 'I' am, which 'you' say be alive and dead, before we move onto the rest?

The point was to show that if given the statement "(Any X is) alive and dead" is true, because we think in terms of what can be simultaneously true, this SEEMS contradictory. It BECOMES non-contradictory only when we add more information. The statement is incomplete without it. Time is itself a kind of illusion that separates the contradiction so that it appears as relatively 'consistent' to NOT have both truths exist at some simultaneous instant.

Ask yourself this: If we could actually freeze time as we witness in science fiction, would we be able to actually see anything? Would we be able to actually move in this space? What would be the consequence of moving an inch and then unfreezing time?

[Age]

If there were no contradiction to reality as a whole, we'd have perfect 'consistency' in non-existence.

What do you mean?

I do not follow nor see how that just because there were NO contradictions, "to reality as a whole", you would have perfect 'consistency' in non-existence.

You and I have discussed some of this on my thread regarding 'walls' (limits of time and space) as one example. As for what would be ideally neither pleasant nor painful (neither good nor bad) is to be nothing itself, just as before we are born and after we die. [if these actually exist, that is.]

There is NO before born nor after death, from My perspective. So, the 'we' 'you' refer to does not relate to Me.

1. There ARE NO actual contradictions to 'reality', which can only be a whole, other than those so called "contradictions" that 'you', human beings, make up, see, and/or believe.

(What's with the third person alien perspective in your rhetoric?...."you human beings'")

Thank you, this is about the first time any one ever actually asked a clarifying question to me regarding MY 'you', human being, comments. But I am curious as to what do you mean by the use of the 'rhetoric' word here?

Looking at this from a different perspective than 'you', human beings, do, is just reaffirming that in Reality, Itself, there are NO contradictions at all. If there is proposed to be ANY "contradictions" at all, then that is because 'you', human beings, have created them, and/or see them. See, I do NOT see any 'contradictions' at all in Life other than the ones human beings make and see.

The contradiction of origins is one factor.

What supposed "contradiction" 'of origins'?

There is obviously only One Truth, and so NO actual contradiction here other than the one 'you', human beings, have made up and see. Thee actual Truth IS that the ONLY origin is the One, NOW.

NOW is thee continual beginning, and if thee Truth be KNOWN, the continual ending as well.

For whatever anything is 'defined' as, it must have a point in time where it's existence was not as defined and a point where it is. What is in the interval between these two extremes is hard to discern without leading into contradictions.

There is NO actual two extremes. There can, however, be a perception of two extremes. But thee actual Truth lays somewhere in between the perceived extremes.

Why does it matter at all WHEN a definition of any thing comes into existence? The 'interval' between when some thing is not defined and when that thing is defined, happens, literally, in the instant of NOW. However, it could also be said, from the human being perspective, that the interval between when the definition of some thing does not exist to the point when 'it' (whatever 'it' is) defined is eternally in the past up until when 'it' is defined. For example, the 'it' here in single quotation marks has not yet been defined, so hitherto up to the point of when 'it' is defined is 'the interval between not existing and coming to exist'.

2. There ALREADY IS perfect 'consistency', in Existence. Even if you human beings can not see thing or just refuse to look at It and see It.

This is just begging.

This is NOT begging ANY thing.

I am just stating a FACT, from My perspective.

It isn't a proof.

Of course NOT. I was NOT giving ANY, as I do NOT need to.

"Consistency" is just what derives closure for us.

Who is this 'us'.

'Consistency' has ALREADY been ACHIEVED and is SEEN, to Me.

If life was perfectly 'consistent' why is time itself needed?

But 'time' is NOT needed. Thee Truth IS; just some of 'you', human beings, BELIEVE 'time' is needed.

What is so consistent about living?

Everything.

What do you propose is NOT "consistent" about living?

and so...

And so 'what'?

What is this is relation to exactly?

3. How could there be perfect 'consistency' in 'non-existence'? In fact how could there be ANY thing in 'non-existence'?

Absolutely Nothing is INCONSISTENT.

This is because there is NO such 'thing' as 'nothing' obviously. Therefore, 'absolutely nothing' would be very INCONSISTENT, with thee Truth and FACT that the 'Thing' existing IS CONSISTENT.

Thus it is inconsistency itself, not consistency, that the contradiction of reality is to be both true and false that permits causation at all.[/quote]

But you have NOT pointed out ANY Reality YET.

You also did NOT answer my clarifying question in regards to; HOW could there be ANY thing in 'non-existence'?, yet. If you WANT to make a CLAIM, then it is BEST that you can actually back up and support that CLAIM with EVIDENCE and PROOF.

Relative Nothing is 'consistent' when we speak of not existing.

Okay. But relative ANY thing is NOT necessarily thee Truth of things. Only what is relative to thee actual Truth of things is what IS actually True, Right, and Correct.

You do not suffer the confusion of why we require to suffer in order to also have bliss.

No. I ALREADY KNOW WHY 'you', human beings, are confused and suffering.

This is a 'contradiction' itself.

To 'you' it maybe. To 'me' it is NOT.

[Maybe 'you', alien being, need to tell me what you are to know anything better than us humans?]

I, non "alien" Being, do NOT need to tell 'you', but I WILL.

Thee 'I', in the non visible sense, is thee Mind, or God, Itself, if 'you' prefer.
Thee 'I', in the visible sense, is thee Universe, or God, Itself, if 'you' prefer.

WHY did 'you' ASSUME that 'I' was some sort of "alien"?

Forces, if they are to have any ultimate causation, have to either have some justification for going from non-existence to existence.

Well considering that non-existence to existence is not even feasible, let alone ever being possible, there is NO use looking at that. Unless of course you have some actual evidence and proof otherwise, which if you do, then will you bring it forward?

HA... you just fell into my stance stated above: that the interval between the two itself leads to contradiction.

But I did NOT fall into ANY thing. I am STILL HERE. There also was NOTHING actually to fall into.

The 'interval' between a not YET existing definition of some thing, to when 'it' exists, has ALREADY been answered, and thus solved. Once again, there is NO contradiction at all.

What is your presumably clear evidence that this transition is 'not even feasible'?

Thank you profusely for HIGHLIGHTING and SHOWING the ERRORS of my way. I OBVIOUSLY said some thing, which was TOTALLY WRONG.

Obviously I would have been much better of saying that 'nothing' to 'existence' is not even feasible, meaning that what comes to exist did NOT come from nothing.

Obviously Existence has ALWAYS existed, so Existence once being non-existent is not even feasible and also NOT possible, absolutely EVERY thing that came into Existence and so they came to exist from previously not existing. BUT, ALL things have OBVIOUSLY NOT come from nothing.

So, thank you AGAIN, for SHOWING me the error of my ways. You pointing out my WRONGS is MUCH APPRECIATED.

I can only learn how to communicate better when I am SHOWN my ERRORS. I can not become better at communicating if I am not challenged and questioned, like you have done here. I appreciate what you have done here so far. I would really enjoy you questioning and challenging me further, and pointing out all the more flaws, faults, and failings I make also.

[Age]

If absolutely everything was true, then this would include absolutely nothing.

Is this meant to make sense, somehow?

If all numbers are accounted for in an infinite set of numbers, does this not include zero?

That all depends if zero exists or not and/or if zero is included in 'an infinite set of numbers'. If zero is included in an infinite set of numbers, then 'an infinite set of numbers' does include zero. Am I correct?

In the past, this idea was hard to convey.

'What' idea?

You just asked me a clarifying question, which I just answered.

What 'idea' was 'hard to convey'?

The borderline of 0 A.D. == 0 B.C. , for instance, was not used in the past for the same reason you cannot fathom the idea of absolutely nothing to be included within absolutely everything.

But I have fathomed the idea of absolutely nothing to be included within absolutely everything. I actually have ALREADY posed HOW this actually IS thee Truth of things.

So, I am NOT sure what 'reason' 'you' are assuming here exactly.

If absolutely nothing is outside of absolutely everything, then something outside of absolutely everything also exists: namely, absolutely nothing.

But there is NOTHING outside of absolutely Everything, including nothing, itself.

Absolute 'nothing' is INSIDE and just another part of absolutely Everything.

Will 'you' explain WHY the period between two years before and after some occurrence relates here?

Also, who and/or what is the 'I', which supposedly can be alive and dead?

Let us first SEE who/what 'you' say 'I' am, which 'you' say be alive and dead, before we move onto the rest?

The point was to show that if given the statement "(Any X is) alive and dead" is true, because we think in terms of what can be simultaneously true, this SEEMS contradictory.

'This' SEEMS contradictory probably because it IS.

If any one thinks some thing is alive and dead, and expresses this, then I would just ask them, What do you mean? and/or how could this even be possible.

It BECOMES non-contradictory only when we add more information.

Well I suggest NEVER stop adding more information UNTIL 'you' arrive at the One and only Truth of things.

The statement is incomplete without it. Time is itself a kind of illusion that separates the contradiction so that it appears as relatively 'consistent' to NOT have both truths exist at some simultaneous instant.

I just LOOK AT and SEE thee Truth of things. From this perspective there simply is NO illusion and easily NO contradictions.

Ask yourself this: If we could actually freeze time as we witness in science fiction, would we be able to actually see anything?

But there is NO 'we' that could actually freeze 'time' because 'time' is NOT an actual physical moving thing. But because 'time', itself, is just a concept in thought, then freezing a concept is simply and easily done. But this will NOT do any thing in relation to "freezing 'time' as witnessed in science fiction movies".

I suggest you express thee Truth here, instead of what 'you' said, and so instead say; If we could actually stop change from occurring, as witnessed in some science fiction movies, would we be able to actually see any thing?

From the human being perspective my answer would be No. is this correct?

Would we be able to actually move in this space?

From the human being perspective i would once again say No. is this correct again?

What would be the consequence of moving an inch and then unfreezing time?

I do not know. Could it even be possible to move "an inch" or even "have an inch" if 'you' were frozen STILL?

If no, then how could 'you' move "an inch", and then "unfreeze" 'change', or what 'you' call "time"?

Also, what do 'you' propose would be the consequence of 'this'?

[henry quirk]

To you it is obviously not a 'paradox', but to "others" it is a 'paradox'.

"Others" see things differently than 'you' do. For example, "others" also see the definition and the meaning of the word 'paradox' differently than 'you' do. So, is 'this' a 'paradox', to you?

Can you, would you, explain how We do not need money to live. is a paradox?

As I already explained it is NOT a 'paradox', to you. But, to 'others' it is a paradox because when those that see this as a contradiction, then, to them, it is a paradox.

There are actually some that actually BELIEVE we do need money to live. Therefore, to those ones this is a paradox.

And, also remember, as well, what a 'paradox' means to 'you' is different from what a 'paradox' means to some "others".

So, when the word 'paradox' is used meaning; a seemingly absurd or contradictory statement or proposition which when investigated may prove to be well founded or true. then that means the statement or proposition, We do not need money to live, is a paradox, to some "others", besides 'you'.

Age, do you think We do not need money to live is a paradox?

[Age]

Can you, would you, explain how We do not need money to live. is a paradox?

As I already explained it is NOT a 'paradox', to you. But, to 'others' it is a paradox because when those that see this as a contradiction, then, to them, it is a paradox.

There are actually some that actually BELIEVE we do need money to live. Therefore, to those ones this is a paradox.

And, also remember, as well, what a 'paradox' means to 'you' is different from what a 'paradox' means to some "others".

So, when the word 'paradox' is used meaning; a seemingly absurd or contradictory statement or proposition which when investigated may prove to be well founded or true. then that means the statement or proposition, We do not need money to live, is a paradox, to some "others", besides 'you'.

Age, do you think We do not need money to live is a paradox?

Yes.

[henry quirk]

As I already explained it is NOT a 'paradox', to you. But, to 'others' it is a paradox because when those that see this as a contradiction, then, to them, it is a paradox.

There are actually some that actually BELIEVE we do need money to live. Therefore, to those ones this is a paradox.

And, also remember, as well, what a 'paradox' means to 'you' is different from what a 'paradox' means to some "others".

So, when the word 'paradox' is used meaning; a seemingly absurd or contradictory statement or proposition which when investigated may prove to be well founded or true. then that means the statement or proposition, We do not need money to live, is a paradox, to some "others", besides 'you'.

Age, do you think We do not need money to live is a paradox?

Yes.

Why is We do not need money to live paradoxical to you?

[Age]

Age, do you think We do not need money to live is a paradox?

Yes.

Why is We do not need money to live paradoxical to you?

Because, as I stated earlier, some people still see that as being a contradiction, but on further investigation see that it actually expresses a truth. So, when there is NO people left seeing it as a contradiction to begin with, as see it as a truth, then that is when it will cease to be a paradox.

[henry quirk]

Yes.

Why is We do not need money to live paradoxical to you?

Because, as I stated earlier, some people still see that as being a contradiction, but on further investigation see that it actually expresses a truth. So, when there is NO people left seeing it as a contradiction to begin with, as see it as a truth, then that is when it will cease to be a paradox.

I get that some folks see a paradox in We do not need money to live, but I'm not talkin' with them, I'm talkin' with you, and you say you see We do not need money to live as a paradox. I just wanna know why you think We do not need money to live is paradoxical.