Resolving Paradoxes

[henry quirk]

Here is typical definition of paradox:

a seemingly absurd or self-contradictory statement or proposition that when investigated or explained may prove to be well founded or true

Saint Paul describes the ultimate paradox as it takes place within him:

Romans 7

14 We know that the law is spiritual; but I am unspiritual, sold as a slave to sin. 15 I do not understand what I do. For what I want to do I do not do, but what I hate I do. 16 And if I do what I do not want to do, I agree that the law is good. 17 As it is, it is no longer I myself who do it, but it is sin living in me. 18 For I know that good itself does not dwell in me, that is, in my sinful nature.[c] For I have the desire to do what is good, but I cannot carry it out. 19 For I do not do the good I want to do, but the evil I do not want to do—this I keep on doing. 20 Now if I do what I do not want to do, it is no longer I who do it, but it is sin living in me that does it.

This is the hypocrisy of the human condition; the ultimate paradox. Can it be resolved?

For those who take this seriously, the resolution is *simple: leave your fallen life behind and embrace Christ (cuz only he can save you, you cannot save yourself).









*not easy, simple

[henry quirk]

What I know: paradoxes didn't mean diddly. Clever word play and fictional musings.

Here's a challenge to you, or anyone: throw your most devious paradox my way and I'll dismantle it.

That's dismantle, not resolve.

How do you dismantle this so called "paradox"?

Zeno's Paradox says that two objects can never touch. The idea is that if one object (say a ball) is stationary and the other is set in motion approaching it that the moving ball must pass the halfway point before reaching the stationary ball. As there are an infinite number of half way points the two balls can never touch - there will always be another halfway point to cross before reaching the stationary ball. A paradox because obviously two objects can touch while Zeno has used mathematics to prove that it cannot happen.

Wordplay (which includes math tricks). Demonstrably, the two balls touch. I roll the cue over to the eight ball, the cue impacts, smacks into the eight ball. I see it happen, I hear it happen, if I interpose my hand the cue rolls into my palm.

Zeno crafted a clever bit of bullshit. That's it, that's all. Ain't nuthin' there that anyone ought be strugglin' with.

[Age]

I did, several times, in this thread.

I have, in other threads.

Did I clarify things for you or are they still confusing for you?

Yeah, pretty much I don't get anything you post.

Is your answer here meant to make any sense?

I asked you previously; If you find my writing 'confusing', then why do you not ask me for clarification?
You say, that you have asked me for clarification several times in this thread.
So, I then asked you the clarifying question, Did I clarify things for you, or are you still confused by my writings?

You answered, Yeah, pretty much I don't get anything I post.

So, what is the 'yeah' in relation to exactly? Did I clarify things for you? Or, are you still confused by my writings?

You say you do not understand absolutely ANY thing I post. So, you are contradiction "yourself" and your own words here.

If you do NOT get ANY thing I post, or even if there is just one thing you do not get about my writings, then so you will NOT be confused any more, and if you do NOT want to be a confused person any more, then as I wrote previously;
If you find my writing 'confusing', then why do you not ask me for clarification?

We could, instead, just keep going around in circles like this, if that is what you want.

[Age]

What I know: paradoxes didn't mean diddly. Clever word play and fictional musings.

Here's a challenge to you, or anyone: throw your most devious paradox my way and I'll dismantle it.

That's dismantle, not resolve.

How do you dismantle this so called "paradox"?

Zeno's Paradox says that two objects can never touch. The idea is that if one object (say a ball) is stationary and the other is set in motion approaching it that the moving ball must pass the halfway point before reaching the stationary ball. As there are an infinite number of half way points the two balls can never touch - there will always be another halfway point to cross before reaching the stationary ball. A paradox because obviously two objects can touch while Zeno has used mathematics to prove that it cannot happen.

Wordplay (which includes math tricks). Demonstrably, the two balls touch. I roll the cue over to the eight ball, the cue impacts, smacks into the eight ball. I see it happen, I hear it happen, if I interpose my hand the cue rolls into my palm.

Zeno crafted a clever bit of bullshit. That's it, that's all. Ain't nuthin' there that anyone ought be strugglin' with.

I would NEVER call it 'clever'. I just call those who thought it was actually true or right, and/or believed that mathematics was used to prove that it could not happen, 'stupid'.

I agree wholeheartedly that that so called "paradox" was just 'wordplay', and could be dismantled and SHOWN WRONG, very simply and very easily.

This dismantling and showing the wrongness in all of these so called "paradoxes" is a very simple and very easy thing to do, as I have written about and shown previously.

However, in saying that, I still SEE REAL 'paradoxes', which those ones are NOT, actually are great things in REVEALING the Truths of Life, and living.

[henry quirk]

Did I clarify things for you or are they still confusing for you?

Yeah, pretty much I don't get anything you post.

Is your answer here meant to make any sense?

I asked you previously; If you find my writing 'confusing', then why do you not ask me for clarification?
You say, that you have asked me for clarification several times in this thread.
So, I then asked you the clarifying question, Did I clarify things for you, or are you still confused by my writings?

You answered, Yeah, pretty much I don't get anything I post.

So, what is the 'yeah' in relation to exactly? Did I clarify things for you? Or, are you still confused by my writings?

You say you do not understand absolutely ANY thing I post. So, you are contradiction "yourself" and your own words here.

If you do NOT get ANY thing I post, or even if there is just one thing you do not get about my writings, then so you will NOT be confused any more, and if you do NOT want to be a confused person any more, then as I wrote previously;
If you find my writing 'confusing', then why do you not ask me for clarification?

We could, instead, just keep going around in circles like this, if that is what you want.

To be clear, Age: I don't understand what it is you're tryin' to communicate as philosophy. To me, your clarifications rarely clarify. Also, your writing style is off-putting (as mine is to some folks). All in all: we, you and me, are effectively alien to one another. Might be best to just leave it at that.

#

"I still SEE REAL 'paradoxes'"

I don't.

[Scott Mayers]

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?

"Rhetoric" is just any verbal or written means to sell some point of view that is broader than just logic itself. Thus, if one uses an emotional appeal intended to get one to believe or understand them, while it may be rational to do so on the level of someone's practical need, often it doesn't supercede the logical argument alone.

Your use of language is a rhetoric of some sort that I am not clear about when you say things like, "you human beings" because it implies (logically) that you are speaking outside of humanity itself, like an alien from another planet if literal. I used the word, "we", in context to reference humanity where I happen to be included in this class of beings, but not implying each individual in it. Since you question the point of me saying 'we' as though I'm including you personally when in context (of normal English rhetoric) you seem to be confirming that you believe that you are not human and/or some being above and beyond humanity.

So the question to you is about the 'why' of your specific choice of words that, IF TAKEN LITERALLY, may be implying that you want others to see you as though you are some mysterious being. If it is just a style of your personality, that's cool. But if you are being serious, then I have to ask you if you are intentionally implying that you are not human?

So...

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.

If "human beings" are themselves real, then they too belong to totality as a subset of it. If totality (or, "universe" OR "whole", etc) has NO contradictions anywhere within it, this would require accepting any subset of it to be unable to contradict as well.

If you believe that you are distinct from human beings, like that you could be some A.I. learning to speak, then the last still stands true of yourself,...that you CAN contradict yourself. That is, anything can replace the word, "human beings" above as:

If anything and everything belongs to totality AND nothing in totality (including itself) is non-contradictory, then "contradiction" itself is meaningless to use as a word to desribe anything, including as a means to separate a good argument from a bad one. If what anyone has to say, being that they cannot contradict themselves in totality, then anything anyone can say is true regardless of what they have to say.

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.

You are using some esoteric rhetoric here. If you are the only being to know this wisdom, AND human beings here and now that you are speaking to are the only things that can be deluded into thinking there is a contradiction, then perhaps human beings exist outside of this universe and are hopelessly unable to follow you permanently. How can you expect any human to agree with you without them instantly becoming non-human beings who could see reality from the non-contractory part you exist in? That is, no argument you could assert would help when you define everything as 'true'.

I think it might help if you try to define 'true' and 'truth', and how to differentiate if from what these are not. I'll keep this separate from the rest of your post. This one is just about your personal use of language and how you interpret meanings of words. I don't know how to argue in a way that would be able to prove anything to you without understanding you better on your approach.

[Scott Mayers]

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.

I value your own thinking so don't think less of you in any way.

As to what you and I discussed before, we agree to infinite reality as making better sense (with respect to the Cosmos). But it was due to the nature of internally arguing that requires defining the third possibility between things that are strictly 'true' versus 'false' AS a "contradiction" [a third statement of something that is either both true and false, or neither.] This means that we can define what is "inconsistent" as something that is both "consistent AND inconsistent (or non-consistent)"

We agreed that if something did have an apparent origin, that it must be an illusion similar to how something can approach some vanishing point in a distance of parallel lines. [We didn't use this particular words together. I'm just paraphrasing my understanding of it and what I remember of stating.]

Reality CAN be "original" [ie: come from what is not real] if and only if an absolute nothing = absolutely nothing AND absolutely something. This last statement is interpretable to any perspective. If someone believes that something can come from nothing, then whatever this 'nothing' is, would have to be 'contradictory' (neutrally) such that IF TRUE, then the nature of contradiction would suffice to cause what absolutely something is, is something in a larger place that has "something as a subset" within a totality that contains both. In this sense, totality would REQUIRE being infinite, which resolves the contradiction. We cannot perceive whatever exists outside of our 'consistent' reality. But we can perceive change (infinitely) as what resolves thinking of reality as being fixed in a consistent way.

If, by contrast, one thinks there is NO origin, this already assumes infinity. Thus there is the 'consistency' that you are thinking of that is ALWAYS 'true'. Since this already does not have the fault, it still holds to the same definitions. Both ways of understanding are perceptual differences only.

This does not disprove that an 'origin' cannot exist, ...just that we could not logically PROVE it regardless. Thus, presuming an origin as a CERTAIN truth, is not rational thinking. So we are better off presuming a reality as 'consistent' but that we (as humans) are limited to determining this.

So in this way, "contradiction", is USEFUL, in the same way zero is in math. To think of it as meaningless, this would just stiffle a means to prove or disprove certain things about what we think is or is not 'true'. "Truth" is at least the agreement between two perspectives as one.

[Age]

Yeah, pretty much I don't get anything you post.

Is your answer here meant to make any sense?

I asked you previously; If you find my writing 'confusing', then why do you not ask me for clarification?
You say, that you have asked me for clarification several times in this thread.
So, I then asked you the clarifying question, Did I clarify things for you, or are you still confused by my writings?

You answered, Yeah, pretty much I don't get anything I post.

So, what is the 'yeah' in relation to exactly? Did I clarify things for you? Or, are you still confused by my writings?

You say you do not understand absolutely ANY thing I post. So, you are contradiction "yourself" and your own words here.

If you do NOT get ANY thing I post, or even if there is just one thing you do not get about my writings, then so you will NOT be confused any more, and if you do NOT want to be a confused person any more, then as I wrote previously;
If you find my writing 'confusing', then why do you not ask me for clarification?

We could, instead, just keep going around in circles like this, if that is what you want.

To be clear, Age: I don't understand what it is you're tryin' to communicate as philosophy.

Do you have any examples of any thing actually being communicated "as philosophy"?

Just like I explained how we, 'you' and 'I', can use very different and even completely opposing definitions for the exact same word, it appears this is happening again once more with the 'philosophy' word this time.

To me, your clarifications rarely clarify.

Then if you are still confused, then I suggest asking further clarifying questions, that is; of course only if you Truly do want to understand and learn more.

Also, your writing style is off-putting (as mine is to some folks).

Would you like to explain what it is exactly about my writing style, which is off-putting to 'you'?

All in all: we, you and me, are effectively alien to one another.

But 'you' are NOT at all alien to me, as I know exactly who and what 'you' ARE and why and how 'you' become the way 'you' ARE.


Might be best to just leave it at that.

#

Okay, if that is what you really want.

"I still SEE REAL 'paradoxes'"

I don't.

[henry quirk]

"But 'you' are NOT at all alien to me, as I know exactly who and what 'you' ARE and why and how 'you' become the way 'you' ARE."

Well, that's a helluva claim!

Please, tell me who & what I am. And, if it's not too much trouble, please explain why & how I became the way I am.

[Age]

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.

(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?

"Rhetoric" is just any verbal or written means to sell some point of view that is broader than just logic itself. Thus, if one uses an emotional appeal intended to get one to believe or understand them, while it may be rational to do so on the level of someone's practical need, often it doesn't supercede the logical argument alone.

Your use of language is a rhetoric of some sort that I am not clear about when you say things like, "you human beings" because it implies (logically) that you are speaking outside of humanity itself, like an alien from another planet if literal.

When you say, ' "like" an alien from another planet "if literal" ', does the 'like' work infer this is just an example but the 'if literal' negate this, which means you do literally see my, " 'you', human being," remark as being literally about an alien from another planet?

I used the word, "we", in context to reference humanity where I happen to be included in this class of beings, but not implying each individual in it. Since you question the point of me saying 'we' as though I'm including you personally when in context (of normal English rhetoric) you seem to be confirming that you believe that you are not human and/or some being above and beyond humanity.

First of, I do NOT 'believe' any such thing here, nor do I 'believe' any thing EVER (except for the one and only thing that I have referred to before). Anyway, and this is where things could start getting even more perplexing, that is; without further clarifying questions, but which does lead to thee Truth of things, anyway, when I say, 'you', human beings, 'I' am referring to the fact that thee 'I' in the question, Who am 'I'?' is not a human being. 'I' am also not an alien from another planet. 'I' am just God. 'I', God, do not do, nor see, things the way 'you', human beings, do.

So the question to you is about the 'why' of your specific choice of words that, IF TAKEN LITERALLY, may be implying that you want others to see you as though you are some mysterious being.

But there is NOTHING mysterious at all here, and I certainly do not want "others" to see me as though I am some mysterious thing. If ANY one wants to KNOW ANY thing, then all they have to do is just ask clarifying questions. It really is just that simple and easy. There are NO mysteries to LIfe. There are, however, some people who are just not aware of some things, YET.

If it is just a style of your personality, that's cool. But if you are being serious, then I have to ask you if you are intentionally implying that you are not human?

Thee 'I' is not a human being, but the 'you' obviously is. The word 'you' includes that human being through whose fingers these words are appearing here under the label of 'age'.

So...

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.

If "human beings" are themselves real, then they too belong to totality as a subset of it. If totality (or, "universe" OR "whole", etc) has NO contradictions anywhere within it, this would require accepting any subset of it to be unable to contradict as well.

But did I not just get through explaining that Totality, Universe, or Whole does NOT have no contradictions?

What is NOT FULLY understood in the sentence, I do NOT see any contradictions at all in the Universe OTHER THAN the contradictions that 'you', human beings, make up and see?

I NEVER said anywhere that the Universe has NO contradictions, or have I?

If I have, then WHERE did I say this?

If you believe that you are distinct from human beings, like that you could be some A.I. learning to speak, then the last still stands true of yourself,...that you CAN contradict yourself.

I do NOT believe ANY thing (except for one thing). So, the rest of what you said here was unnecessary.

Besides that fact, I have also explained that the word 'you', when in relation to human beings, also includes that one known as "age" here in this thread.

Also, I suggest instead of making up all these assumptions about whether 'I' could be referring to "an alien", to "being a.i.", or to absolutely ANY thing else, and instead just asked for clarification BEFORE any assuming at all took place, then UNDERSTANDING comes much, much, much quicker.

That is, anything can replace the word, "human beings" above as:

If anything and everything belongs to totality AND nothing in totality (including itself) is non-contradictory, then "contradiction" itself is meaningless to use as a word to desribe anything, including as a means to separate a good argument from a bad one.

ALL of this is depended upon IF, and only IF, Everything is non-contradictory. But I have NEVER said such thing, and IF NO one else has ever said such thing, then what is the purpose of even LOOKING AT or DISCUSSING this?

Maybe IF 'you' clarified with Me what I have been saying AND MEANING, then we would NOT have needed to be LOOKING AT and DISCUSSING these issues, which NO one that I KNOW of even thinks could be true, let alone thinking that they are true.

If what anyone has to say, being that they cannot contradict themselves in totality, then anything anyone can say is true regardless of what they have to say.

To me, this all seems totally unnecessary.

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.

You are using some esoteric rhetoric here.

IF, as you say, to you, "Rhetoric" is just any verbal or written means to sell some point of view that is broader than just logic itself." Then, what is 'esoteric rhetoric', to you?

By the way I am NOT and I would NEVER say nor write any to "sell" some point of view that is broader than just logic itself. I would NEVER even 'try to' "convince" ANY one of ANY thing. What I say and write can be PROVEN with reason AND logic. I do NOT even see how there could even be any thing "broader" than just logic itself anyway. But maybe 'you' will SHOW us how there IS or COULD BE some thing, which is "broader than logic".

If you are the only being to know this wisdom, AND human beings here and now that you are speaking to are the only things that can be deluded into thinking there is a contradiction, then perhaps human beings exist outside of this universe and are hopelessly unable to follow you permanently.

A LOT of words have been written here now, which were completely unnecessary.

If it was not for human beings, then there would be NO contradictions in the Universe. Human beings, themselves, make up the contradictions in the Universe. Therefore, there are contradictions in the Universe, all of them are just created by 'you', human beings. Unless of course 'you' can SHOW and PROVE otherwise.

How can you expect any human to agree with you without them instantly becoming non-human beings who could see reality from the non-contractory part you exist in? That is, no argument you could assert would help when you define everything as 'true'.

But I do NOT expect any human being to agree with me. The things that i say are not true, not right, not correct, and/or are not accurate, then i would like, and in a sense, expect to be informed of WHERE and WHY i am wrong.

I think it might help if you try to define 'true' and 'truth', and how to differentiate if from what these are not.

What do you mean by 'try to'? Are you under some sort of assumption that I could not define 'true' and 'truth'?

Either you would like me to define words or not because I either define words or I do not. I will not just 'try to' define words.

Also, have ALL of the other things been sorted and settled first yet? I much prefer to have things FULLY understood before I move onto another thing.

Do 'you' FULLY understand what I have said above?

For example, every thing I say and write I am NOT selling some thing. Nothing I say or write is broader than 'logic', itself. Do you FULLY understand and thus KNOW the answer to the question 'Who am 'I'?', from my perspective. The words 'you', human beings, includes this body and person also. If there is any thing else that you are not yet fully sure of, from my perspective, then just let me know, and I will find a way so that you do fully understand. But before we both move on to defining the words 'true' and 'truth' from both of our perspectives, I would just like to know what 'esoteric rhetoric' means from your perspective first?

I'll keep this separate from the rest of your post.

This sounds like a good idea.

This one is just about your personal use of language and how you interpret meanings of words.

Before we move on to looking at how I interpret meanings of words, how about I just provide the meaning of the word I use first? This will then show how the meaning I use for some words can be and/or will be the exact opposite of the meaning you and/or "others" use for the exact same word. Once this is FULLY understood and accepted, then we can delve deeper and look into how I interpret that and other meanings of words, if you so wish to.

I don't know how to argue in a way that would be able to prove anything to you without understanding you better on your approach.

I suggest just doing HOW ALL arguing is BEST DONE. That is; through logical reasoning provide sound and valid arguments.

How else could one 'argue', unless of course one wants to disagree, dispute, debate, contest, fight and/or war instead. But be forewarned I do NOT like doing any of these so I probably will not.

By the way if you really want to PROVE any thing to me, then just provide the EVIDENCE for it, and/or provide a sound and valid argument. If you were to do this, then there is NOTHING I could dispute, let alone be able to refute.

If you really want to understand better my approach, then I want to approach with and from thee Truly OPEN Mind always. This approach, however, is some times prevented and blocked and/or gets distorted some times because I inadvertently have assumed some thing. Obviously if I have MISSED this, then I NEED to be informed of this, so this is WHY I love to be challenged and questioned. The BEST way for me to correct the WRONG I make and do, is to be INFORMED of IT by "others". Otherwise it could go unnoticed forever.

[Age]

"But 'you' are NOT at all alien to me, as I know exactly who and what 'you' ARE and why and how 'you' become the way 'you' ARE."

Well, that's a helluva claim!

Please, tell me who & what I am. And, if it's not too much trouble, please explain why & how I became the way I am.

Firstly I used the word 'you' and not 'I'. Although this statement or proposition may appear absurd or contradictory at first upon further investigation this may prove to be well founded or true.

Thee actual Truth of things WILL, or may, come to light (depending on how one is looking and how well they can SEE things). Anyway;

The 'you', looked at from an objective point of view, from My perspective, is the 'person' or the 'personality' of a human being, and this person is made up of thoughts and emotions only.

So,
Who the 'you' is, is a 'person'. And,

What 'you' are is the thoughts and emotions within the human body.

How 'you', the thoughts and emotions, within a human body became the way 'you/they' are is because of any or all of the five senses of the human body, which is continually transferring information from the outside of the body inwards to the inside of the body. This information then becomes 'you', thoughts and emotions, within that human body.

Why 'you', those thoughts and emotions, became the way 'you' ARE is because of the previous experiences that that human body has experienced, up to any given moment.

If 'you' are still somewhat confused, then just let me know and I can explain this in other ways. As long as I am informed of what 'you' are confused about exactly, what it is that 'you' really want to know, and clarify with Honesty questions I ask of you, then I can explain ALL-OF-THIS in as much detail as you like.

If, however, 'you' really did want to KNOW who and what 'I' am, and also really did want explain to 'you' why and how 'I' became the way 'I' am, then I can do this as well. Again, just let me know what it is that 'you' want me to clarify and/or explain in regards to my words, then I can and WILL.

[Age]

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.

I value your own thinking so don't think less of you in any way.

Honestly I would NOT care at all if you did or did not 'think' of me in any way.

What human beings 'think' is of NO importance to what is ALREADY KNOWN, which is actually True, Right, and Correct.

As to what you and I discussed before, we agree to infinite reality as making better sense (with respect to the Cosmos).

But what do you mean by making 'better' sense? To me, from what I have observed an infinite Universe is the 'only thing' that makes sense. To me, at this moment, of when this is written, there is absolutely NOTHING I can SEE, which shows otherwise. Until some thing else comes to light, then there is, to me, NOTHING else that makes sense. So, there is NOTHING that makes better, nor worse, sense. To me, there is literally only One that makes sense.

But it was due to the nature of internally arguing that requires defining the third possibility between things that are strictly 'true' versus 'false' AS a "contradiction" [a third statement of something that is either both true and false, or neither.] This means that we can define what is "inconsistent" as something that is both "consistent AND inconsistent (or non-consistent)"

I am NOT sure that I CAN define what is 'inconsistent' as some thing that is both 'consistent AND inconsistent' (or non-consistent). If I CAN, then will you provide at least some examples of this now? So, then at least I have some thing to LOOK AT and discuss.

Also, can there be more than just a 'third' possibility? Why NOT LOOK AT and DISCUSS ALL of the 'possibilities' instead of just a 'third' one?

We agreed that if something did have an apparent origin, that it must be an illusion similar to how something can approach some vanishing point in a distance of parallel lines.

Did I agree to this?

If yes, the would you like to provide a link to it?

If no, then okay.

Also what do you mean by if some thing did have an 'apparent' origin?

Either some thing had an origin or it did not, and, to me, absolutely EVERY thing had an origin, except for one thing and that thing is thee Universe, Itself, (or any thing which is eternal/infinite just like thee Universe, Itself. For example, Life, Consciousness, Existence, et cetera.).

[We didn't use this particular words together. I'm just paraphrasing my understanding of it and what I remember of stating.]

Okay. This might be WHY I do NOT recall nor remember this.

Reality CAN be "original" [ie: come from what is not real] if and only if an absolute nothing = absolutely nothing AND absolutely something.

How are 'you' defining the 'reality' word here?

How CAN 'reality' come from what is not real?

How can 'absolutely nothing be both absolutely nothing AND absolutely something? (I have already given my explanation, which makes sense to me. But what you are saying here now does not seem to make sense to me, at the moment. Maybe it will when you explain HOW it could).

This last statement is interpretable to any perspective. If someone believes that something can come from nothing, then whatever this 'nothing' is, would have to be 'contradictory' (neutrally) such that IF TRUE, then the nature of contradiction would suffice to cause what absolutely something is, is something in a larger place that has "something as a subset" within a totality that contains both.

To me, if some one BELIEVES some thing, then they are NOT open to any thing else contrary nor different, and what I have found so far, there is NOTHING that can show nor prove otherwise to some one who BELIEVES. So, if some one believes that some thing can come from nothing, then, to them, that IS thee Truth, which can NOT be refuted.

To these 'believing' people I usually just ask them HOW could it even be POSSIBLE that some thing could come from no thing? Then I wait patiently for them to respond. If they can SHOW by PROVING how it could even be POSSIBLE for some thing to have come from no thing, THEN, I will LOOK FOR things that could have come from nothing. Until then what I have observed hitherto is NO one has yet explained logically and reasonably HOW some thing could actually POSSIBLY come from nothing.

In this sense, totality would REQUIRE being infinite, which resolves the contradiction.

I am SORRY but I just do NOT see an ACTUAL contradiction ANY where, so, to me, there is NOTHING that needs to be resolved here. To me, Totality does NOT necessarily have to require being infinite for me to just SEE Totality IS infinite, any way.

We cannot perceive whatever exists outside of our 'consistent' reality.

What do you now mean by 'consistent reality'?

You just got through telling me that reality can come from what is not real, so what is now 'consistent reality' and HOW could reality be consistent if reality can come from what is not real anyway?

But we can perceive change (infinitely) as what resolves thinking of reality as being fixed in a consistent way.

But WHO thinks reality as being fixed in a consistent way, anyway? I certainly do NOT.

Also, WHY concentrate on things that MAY BE thought of in any particular way?

Why not just LOOK AT and DISCUSS only 'that' what IS True, Right, and Correct, instead?

If, by contrast, one thinks there is NO origin, this already assumes infinity.

Again, you are LOOKING AT what MIGHT BE the case. This is like LOOKING AT 'theories' and 'trying to' SEE if they fit in with and work with what IS actually True, Right, and Correct.

I say a much EASIER and SIMPLER way to FIND and SEE thee actual Truth of things is done by just LOOKING AT and SAYING thee actual Truth of things, instead.

I KNOW this way is NOT popular, in the days of when this is written, by when it is actually tried, and the outcome is REALIZED, then this way WILL catch on and become quite very popular.

Thus there is the 'consistency' that you are thinking of that is ALWAYS 'true'.

But 'thinking' of ANY thing is just like making assumptions, theories, guesses about things. Either one thinks some thing is true, believes some thing is true, or actually ALREADY KNOWS some thing is True.

I tend to only express what I ALREADY KNOW is True, and if I fail at doing this, then I very much appreciated being SHOWN WHERE and WHY I failed.

Since this already does not have the fault, it still holds to the same definitions. Both ways of understanding are perceptual differences only.

If you say so.

This does not disprove that an 'origin' cannot exist, ...just that we could not logically PROVE it regardless. Thus, presuming an origin as a CERTAIN truth, is not rational thinking. So we are better off presuming a reality as 'consistent' but that we (as humans) are limited to determining this.

If you did NOT provide your definition of 'reality', then could you please do it now?

From my perspective 'reality', from one sense, can very easily be seen to NOT be 'consistent' anyway.

So in this way, "contradiction", is USEFUL, in the same way zero is in math. To think of it as meaningless, this would just stiffle a means to prove or disprove certain things about what we think is or is not 'true'.

Once again, 'you' are LOOKING AT the 'IF' word. IF any one thinks of 'contradiction' as not being useful, or as meaningless, then that is "them", which has absolutely NOTHING at all to do with absolutely ANY thing I have said.

You also could go on forever explaining about all the different ways of HOW to find thee Truth of things.

To me, finding and KNOWING thee Truth of things is so simple and so easy it is achieved almost immediately.

As I have already explained I do NOT SEE ANY contradictions in Life, (other than the ones 'you' human beings make up), and so I ALREADY SEE and KNOW thee Truth of things.

"Truth" is at least the agreement between two perspectives as one.

So, 'Truth' IS agreement, correct?

(I wonder how many can SEE what this actually means?)

[henry quirk]

"But 'you' are NOT at all alien to me, as I know exactly who and what 'you' ARE and why and how 'you' become the way 'you' ARE."

Well, that's a helluva claim!

Please, tell me who & what I am. And, if it's not too much trouble, please explain why & how I became the way I am.

Firstly I used the word 'you' and not 'I'. Although this statement or proposition may appear absurd or contradictory at first upon further investigation this may prove to be well founded or true.

Thee actual Truth of things WILL, or may, come to light (depending on how one is looking and how well they can SEE things). Anyway;

The 'you', looked at from an objective point of view, from My perspective, is the 'person' or the 'personality' of a human being, and this person is made up of thoughts and emotions only.

So,
Who the 'you' is, is a 'person'. And,

What 'you' are is the thoughts and emotions within the human body.

How 'you', the thoughts and emotions, within a human body became the way 'you/they' are is because of any or all of the five senses of the human body, which is continually transferring information from the outside of the body inwards to the inside of the body. This information then becomes 'you', thoughts and emotions, within that human body.

Why 'you', those thoughts and emotions, became the way 'you' ARE is because of the previous experiences that that human body has experienced, up to any given moment.

If 'you' are still somewhat confused, then just let me know and I can explain this in other ways. As long as I am informed of what 'you' are confused about exactly, what it is that 'you' really want to know, and clarify with Honesty questions I ask of you, then I can explain ALL-OF-THIS in as much detail as you like.

If, however, 'you' really did want to KNOW who and what 'I' am, and also really did want explain to 'you' why and how 'I' became the way 'I' am, then I can do this as well. Again, just let me know what it is that 'you' want me to clarify and/or explain in regards to my words, then I can and WILL.

You've described a generic (person), not a particular (me).

[Age]

"But 'you' are NOT at all alien to me, as I know exactly who and what 'you' ARE and why and how 'you' become the way 'you' ARE."

Well, that's a helluva claim!

Please, tell me who & what I am. And, if it's not too much trouble, please explain why & how I became the way I am.

Firstly I used the word 'you' and not 'I'. Although this statement or proposition may appear absurd or contradictory at first upon further investigation this may prove to be well founded or true.

Thee actual Truth of things WILL, or may, come to light (depending on how one is looking and how well they can SEE things). Anyway;

The 'you', looked at from an objective point of view, from My perspective, is the 'person' or the 'personality' of a human being, and this person is made up of thoughts and emotions only.

So,
Who the 'you' is, is a 'person'. And,

What 'you' are is the thoughts and emotions within the human body.

How 'you', the thoughts and emotions, within a human body became the way 'you/they' are is because of any or all of the five senses of the human body, which is continually transferring information from the outside of the body inwards to the inside of the body. This information then becomes 'you', thoughts and emotions, within that human body.

Why 'you', those thoughts and emotions, became the way 'you' ARE is because of the previous experiences that that human body has experienced, up to any given moment.

If 'you' are still somewhat confused, then just let me know and I can explain this in other ways. As long as I am informed of what 'you' are confused about exactly, what it is that 'you' really want to know, and clarify with Honesty questions I ask of you, then I can explain ALL-OF-THIS in as much detail as you like.

If, however, 'you' really did want to KNOW who and what 'I' am, and also really did want explain to 'you' why and how 'I' became the way 'I' am, then I can do this as well. Again, just let me know what it is that 'you' want me to clarify and/or explain in regards to my words, then I can and WILL.

You've described a generic (person), not a particular (me).

I just did what you told me to do.

'you', the 'person' known as "henry quirk", is absolutely NO different in any way of what 'you' are, nor in how and why 'you' became the way 'you' are than any other 'person'. Who 'you', "henry quirk" are is also absolutely NO different in the way 'you' are in a continual process of change.

If, however, 'you' think or believe that 'you' are a particular ('you'), and 'you' are able to provide and show actual evidence of this, then go right ahead and do so, if this pleases 'you'.

So, how exactly is that "one" known as "henry quirk" particularly different than every "other" so called "one"?

[henry quirk]

"So, how exactly is that "one" known as "henry quirk" particularly different than every "other" so called "one"?"

The most obvious evidence is, for example, I'm sitting here tapping away on an Ipad, while my thirteen year old (who refers to himself as 'I', who views himself as 'one') is three feet away playing 'Death Stranding' on his Playstation. He and me: two distinct beings, similar in many ways, radically different in many other ways; two separate minds.

Another evidence is you and me: you call yourself 'I', I call myself 'I', two distinct beings, two separate minds with some radically different viewpoints.

The three of us -- me, my thirteen year old, you -- have common features (cuz we're all of the same species), but those commonalities are overshadowed by all the idiosyncratic elements, both biological and psychological, that comprise our personalities.

Simply: we three are each distinct, discrete, persons and there's almost no interchangeability among us except on the most base level (organ systems and the like).