Infinite and eternal

[Fairy]

So there is behavioural change when there is the sense of being watched.

In SOME 'things', but NOT ALL 'things', OBVIOUSLY.

But I never mention in all things.

I said...People change their behavior when they know they’re being watched.

I didn't say all things.

[Fairy]

OBVIOUSLY "atla" can NOT in absolutely ANY WAY REFUTE MY CLAIM that the Universe IS infinite AND eternal, and so WILL 'try' ANY thing to SOMEHOW 'try' and DISCREDIT 'me'.

Hardly discrediting. More an obvious observation that AGE is using CAPS a lot, again.

[Atla]

WHY is 'it' 'WORRYING', TO 'you' ONLY, here, "atla"?

Also, NOTICE HOW when 'these people', BACK when this was being written, could NOT back up NOR support their views, claims, nor beliefs, NOR could they COUNTER nor REFUTE what I was saying and claiming, they would RESORT to 'this kind of stuff', ONLY, like 'this one' is, here, ONCE AGAIN.

Well there is a little cult now with the belief that one day, Age will press the caps lock one last time and will write in all caps only. Signifying that the end times have come. And then soon after the universe will blow up. I'm simply afraid that this day draws closer that's all.

[Fairy]

Unless, OF COURSE, some one just ANSWERS the QUESTION, 'HOW can one KNOW, FOR SURE, how some thing IS BEHAVING WHEN 'it' IS NOT BEING OBSERVED?'

'it' can't be known what's happening when 'it' is not being observed. That's how.

It's not a question of how can one know how some thing is behaving when not being observed, because it's already known to be not known.

[Age]

So there is behavioural change when there is the sense of being watched.

In SOME 'things', but NOT ALL 'things', OBVIOUSLY.

But I never mention in all things.

I NEVER said, NOR even suggested, that you did.

I said...People change their behavior when they know they’re being watched.

The sentence BEFORE 'that one' you ALSO said, 'Matter does change it's behaviour as if it senses it's being watched.'

I didn't say all things.

I KNOW.

you, however, said, Matter does change it's behaviour as if it senses it's being watched.

And, to SOME people, ALL there is, IS 'matter'.

[Age]

OBVIOUSLY "atla" can NOT in absolutely ANY WAY REFUTE MY CLAIM that the Universe IS infinite AND eternal, and so WILL 'try' ANY thing to SOMEHOW 'try' and DISCREDIT 'me'.

Hardly discrediting. More an obvious observation that AGE is using CAPS a lot, again.

So, what was the 'worrying' word USED FOR, exactly?

Is not the 'worrying' word, in relation to 'the way' i am writing, here, meant to IMPLY some sort of 'concern', here?

Could "atla" be SHOWING some sort of ACTUAL 'concern' FOR 'me'?

Or, could it be MORE LIKELY that "atla" was EXPRESSING A 'concern' ABOUT 'me', in relation to some sort of DOWNWARD SPIRAL in regards TO 'me'?

OBVIOUSLY, "atla" is the ONLY one who could EXPRESS the ACTUAL Truth, here.

But, do you REALLY BELIEVE that "atla" went to the trouble of formulating A GRAPH on 'the way' i write, here, to just EXPRESS AN 'observation' ONLY?

If fact, and out of curiosity, do you think that "atla" just MADE 'that graph' UP, or, actually spend the time to FIND OUT, Accurately, the 'percentage of all cap words over cumulative word count'?

Either way, what do you imagine the ACTUAL PURPOSE was for "atla" to do EITHER?

By the way, if 'it' was an OBVIOUS observation, then WHY NOT just EXPRESS 'that'? WHY BOTHER with the formulating of A GRAPH?

[Age]

WHY is 'it' 'WORRYING', TO 'you' ONLY, here, "atla"?

Also, NOTICE HOW when 'these people', BACK when this was being written, could NOT back up NOR support their views, claims, nor beliefs, NOR could they COUNTER nor REFUTE what I was saying and claiming, they would RESORT to 'this kind of stuff', ONLY, like 'this one' is, here, ONCE AGAIN.

Well there is a little cult now with the belief that one day, Age will press the caps lock one last time and will write in all caps only.

LOL you REALLY ARE A COMPLETE IDIOT. I have INFORMED you, PREVIOUSLY, I have NEVER USED the 'caps lock', here.

So, ANY CLAIM of 'one last time' is just BEYOND ABSOLUTE ABSURDISM.

And, AGAIN, if USING capital letters, here, is the ONLY 'thing' that you can 'PRESS me ON', as some would say, then SO BE IT.

Signifying that the end times have come. And then soon after the universe will blow up. I'm simply afraid that this day draws closer that's all.

Talk about a PRIME example of IMAGINATION, ASSUMPTIONS, and BELIEFS leading one IN, and TO, INSANITY.

Oh, and by the way, who is in this 'little cult' of which you speak of, here? And, WHO is the "leader" of it, "atla"? Are 'you' the "leader" WITH 'that BELIEF' "atla"?

Also, NOTED is you, STILL, can NOT just ANSWER and CLARIFY the ACTUAL QUESTIONS posed, and ASKED TO you. And, even AFTER you QUOTE them, in YOUR RESPONSE. LOL

[Fairy]

I said...People change their behavior when they know they’re being watched.

The sentence BEFORE 'that one' you ALSO said, 'Matter does change it's behaviour as if it senses it's being watched.'

I said 'particle' not matter.

I compared 'Brian Cox' to a particle.

Particles change behaviour when being watched.

you, however, said, Matter does change it's behaviour as if it senses it's being watched.

No, I did not say 'matter', I said 'particle'.

And, to SOME people, ALL there is, IS 'matter'.

That's because there is meaning in the concept of 'matter'. Meaning is conceptual thought written down in the form of words, thought is the carrier of meaning. Matter waves are a central part of the theory of quantum mechanics, being half of wave–particle duality in all practicality.

[Age]

Unless, OF COURSE, some one just ANSWERS the QUESTION, 'HOW can one KNOW, FOR SURE, how some thing IS BEHAVING WHEN 'it' IS NOT BEING OBSERVED?'

'it' can't be known what's happening when 'it' is not being observed. That's how.

THANK YOU for FINALLY ANSWERING.

Imagine if you just DID THIS, instead, in the beginning, and/or, from the outset.

It's not a question of how can one know how some thing is behaving when not being observed, because it's already known to be not known.

BUT, ALREADY BEING KNOWN, by one, does NOT MEAN that there is NOT someone ELSE who KNOWS - HOW.

Which is, EXACTLY, WHY I REMAIN OPEN, ALWAYS.

[Fairy]

I have INFORMED you, PREVIOUSLY, I have NEVER USED the 'caps lock', here.

How does I know I have never used the 'caps lock' here?

[Wizard22]

I said 'particle' not matter.

I compared 'Brian Cox' to a particle.

Particles change behaviour when being watched.

It's really that small huh? That's not very nice...better hope Prom doesn't read this.

[Fairy]

Unless, OF COURSE, some one just ANSWERS the QUESTION, 'HOW can one KNOW, FOR SURE, how some thing IS BEHAVING WHEN 'it' IS NOT BEING OBSERVED?'

'it' can't be known what's happening when 'it' is not being observed. That's how.

THANK YOU for FINALLY ANSWERING.

Imagine if you just DID THIS, instead, in the beginning, and/or, from the outset.

I try my best, thank you for your patience.

It's not a question of how can one know how some thing is behaving when not being observed, because it's already known to be not known.

BUT, ALREADY BEING KNOWN, by one, does NOT MEAN that there is NOT someone ELSE who KNOWS - HOW.

Which is, EXACTLY, WHY I REMAIN OPEN, ALWAYS.

Well that's great, and I think we can all agree, if one can know, then all the other ones can know as well.

[Fairy]

I said 'particle' not matter.

I compared 'Brian Cox' to a particle.

Particles change behaviour when being watched.

It's really that small huh? That's not very nice...better hope Prom doesn't read this.

[Age]

I said...People change their behavior when they know they’re being watched.

The sentence BEFORE 'that one' you ALSO said, 'Matter does change it's behaviour as if it senses it's being watched.'

I said 'particle' not matter.

LOOK AT the ACTUAL SENTENCE, PRIOR.

you SAID, 'Matter'.

Now, if you would like me to LINK you to WHERE you SAID, 'Matter', then I WILL. (After I work out HOW to do it.)

I compared 'Brian Cox' to a particle.

Okay. But, DIFFERENT subject.

Particles change behaviour when being watched.

'Particles' of 'what', EXACTLY?

you, however, said, Matter does change it's behaviour as if it senses it's being watched.

No, I did not say 'matter', I said 'particle'.

Did you READ the ACTUAL WORDS that I WROTE, to YOUR RESPONSE WHERE you ACTUALLY WROTE:

Matter does change it's behaviour as if it senses it's being watched.
For example: people usually do not like to be watched while taking a dump. That's why they prefer to do it in private, and not do it when they sense they are being watched.. There's a behavioural change right there in that example, right?

Second page of this thread, nine posts down.

In MY RESPONSE TO 'your words', here, I EXPLAINED:

Now, I KNOW that a LOT of you posters, here, FAIL TO SEE and RECOGNIZE the DECEPTIONS in 'your writings'. And, I KNOW that A LOT OF those DECEPTIONS were COMPLETELY UNINTENDED. I ALSO KNOW that it WILL BE ONLY THROUGH A THOROUGH INTROSPECTION, and A Truly OPEN and Honest DISCUSSIONS that I can BRING ALL of the things that I WANT TO POINT OUT and BRING-TO-LIGHT, WHERE and WHEN 'they' CAN BE. But, can you SEE how 'you' JUMPED FROM 'matter' TO 'people', as SPOKE and WROTE as though 'they' ARE the EXACT SAME things, and BEHAVE in the EXACT SAME WAY?

And, to SOME people, ALL there is, IS 'matter'.

That's because there is meaning in the concept of 'matter'.

Is there NOT 'meaning' in EVERY other concept of EVERY other word?

Meaning is conceptual thought written down in the form of words, thought is the carrier of meaning. Matter waves are a central part of the theory of quantum mechanics, being half of wave–particle duality in all practicality.

SO WHAT?

WHO CARES?

you CLAIMED that 'matter' changes 'its' behavior WHEN OBSERVED. you ALSO CLAIMED that "brian cox" is just a 'quantum particle', and, that 'this particle behaves like a wave, existing in superposition until it is observed'.

And, I have, more or less, JUST BEEN QUESTIONING you OVER, and ABOUT, 'HOW can one KNOW, FOR SURE, how some thing IS BEHAVING WHEN 'it' IS NOT BEING OBSERVED?'

AND, you HAVE, FINALLY, ANSWERED 'that QUESTION'.

[Age]

I have INFORMED you, PREVIOUSLY, I have NEVER USED the 'caps lock', here.

How does I know I have never used the 'caps lock' here?

BECAUSE it is 'I', in this situation, DOING, 'the doing'.

OBVIOUSLY NO one could REFUTE 'the CLAIM'. And, considering that 'it' matters NOT one IOTA, here, WHY EVEN BOTHER ABOUT 'it'?