Infinite and eternal

[Age]

'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 is not an issue at all.

you REALLY DO NOT have to thank me at all, here.

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.

Although 'this' IS True. you appear to have MISSED MY POINT, once again.

I MEANT that because 'i', one of many, ALREADY KNOW some thing, then this NEVER MEANS that someone ELSE KNOWS something ELSE, or MORE.

(By the way, when ALL of 'us', 'ones', FIND what 'it' is that 'we' ALL AGREE ON, and ACCEPT, then this is WHEN 'we' KNOW 'we' have REACHED the level of the One and ONLY One, and KNOW WHEN 'we' are AT the ACTUAL and IRREFUTABLE Truth of things.)

[Fairy]

THANK YOU for FINALLY ANSWERING.

It is not an issue at all.

You really do not have to thank me at all, here.

[Fairy]

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

Because that's the way it wanted to be expressed, through the graph.

I hardly think there was any intentional sinister motivation in choosing to express the caps usage in the way it was.

You could have just responded by acknowledging the observation was correct, and left it at that.

[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?

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

Doing what, exactly?

[Fairy]

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'.

Yes, I see now, I did use the word 'matter'

But so what?

Matter is made up of particles which have many different names. So the 'people' reference was just pointing to one of the many names that are given to particles that make up matter.

So again, matter that is made up of particles that have many names, change their behaviour when observed.

What's wrong with that?

[Age]

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

Because that's the way it wanted to be expressed, through the graph.

OBVIOUSLY.

But WHY?

Now, and again, "atla" is the ONLY one, here, that KNOWS.

I hardly think there was any intentional sinister motivation in choosing to express the caps usage in the way it was.

Okay. Thank you for letting 'us' know what 'you' hardly think, here. But, can what you hardly think, or just think, be Wrong?

You could have just responded by acknowledging the observation was correct, and left it at that.

I could have responded in multiple different other ways, also. Just like you could have, as well.

And, for me to honestly acknowledge that 'the observation' was correct I would first have to be bothered to check to see if the observation was correct. Obviously the actual graph, depicting "atla's" observation could just be MADE UP, and thus NOT correct at all.

Also, have you noticed how the topic of discussion has CHANGED FROM being about the Universe being infinite and eternal TO being about 'the way' one writes, here?

So, was this 'other topic of discussion' introduced into this thread for some underlying reason? Or, was it just introduced for absolutely NO other reason than to just express one's own observation, ONLY?

Again, 'you' and 'i' would NOT actually know, as ONLY "atla" would know, here. And, if one was going to go by "atla's" past dialogues with me, then some conclusions are much CLEARER than others are. However, and OBVIOUSLY, you could be 100% Correct and Right, here.

But, again, does ANY one REALLY CARE how words 'come across' TO them?

And, let 'us' NOT FORGET that most of the comments about my USE of capital letters have COME FROM Wrong and False PRESUMPTIONS, ANYWAY.

[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'.

Doing what, exactly?

USING capital letters.

[Age]

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'.

Yes, I see now, I did use the word 'matter'

Okay, great.

But so what?

Well, and as I was SAYING and POINTING OUT, previously, CLAIMING that 'matter' changes when observed is a VERY, VERY DIFFERENT CLAIM FROM CLAIMING 'people' change when observed. That is 'what'.

Matter is made up of particles

What are 'particles', exactly?

And, 'particles' are particles of 'what', exactly?

If I recall correctly I have asked you, more or less, this exact same clarifying question, previously.

which have many different names.

'Particles' have only the ONE name. Just like 'matter' has ONLY the ONE name.

A 'bunch' of 'matter' group together to form an 'object', however, can go by many names, like, for example, a 'human body', a 'star', a 'planet', a 'table', a 'spoon', or a 'fork'.

So the 'people' reference was just pointing to one of the many names that are given to particles that make up matter.

Just for reference it is NOT YET a PROVED Fact that 'people', "themselves", are actually made up of 'matter', itself.

Now, obviously human bodies are made up of 'matter', but you, 'people', "yourselves", are NOT actually the 'human bodies', themselves, right? Or, do 'you' SEE and CLASS the 'human body', itself, as a 'person'?

So again, matter that is made up of particles that have many names, change their behaviour when observed.

And, AGAIN, I have ASKED you TO CLARIFY HOW A 'table', for experience, CHANGES 'its' behavior, EXACTLY, when 'it' is being observed?

I, STILL, WAIT.

Now, AGAIN, 'matter', itself, or 'particles', themselves, do NOT have MANY names, AT ALL.

What's wrong with that?

What I have SHOWN and POINTED OUT, here in this post, as well as IN my OTHER posts and responses, TO you, in this thread.

1. Really THINK ABOUT what the word 'particles' are REFERRING TO, EXACTLY.

2. THINK ABOUT how it is NOT 'particles', themselves, that have MANY names.

3. THINK ABOUT how it is ONLY a 'conglomerate' of 'particles', (of what 'they' are, exactly), in some shape or form, which is WHEN you, human beings, THEN PLACE other names, or labels, ONTO 'that shape' or 'form'. Which, again, and by the way, is HOW and WHY there is ONLY a PERCEIVED SEPARATION of the One and ONLY, existing. It is FROM the forming and making up of MANY 'names', and then PLACING THOSE names, or labels, CONCEPTUALLY ONLY onto DIFFERENT shapes or forms of 'joined particles OF matter' WHY the ILLUSION OF SEPARATION EXISTS. But, and again, this is the ONLY WAY the human brain MAKES SENSE of where it has FOUND itself.

[Fairy]

Age wrote:
“And, AGAIN, I have ASKED you TO CLARIFY HOW A 'table', for experience, CHANGES 'its' behavior, EXACTLY, when 'it' is being observed?”


Response: But there is only consciousness which is known to be the observer. There’s not two observers only one.

From the perspective of the observer any thing that appears to be outside external to the observer can only be known to be an object. Not the observer because observing cannot observe observing. So the Observer has to be the observed.


So a table for example, the object observed, has to be consciousness itself, a projection of its own making.

How to prove that consciousness is fundamental to the object is simple. The table isn’t the observer, the table is the observer observed.

Flip this around and try to see if the table is observing the observer. Or, is the observer observing the table? It’s obvious the table is not observing the observer.

It’s only when consciousness itself becomes aware of the object and subject duality it becomes conscious of itself believing itself to be in more than one place. It becomes aware that it is being watched, unaware that it is only itself watching itself as if it was holding a mirror up to itself.

I’m saying all this because it’s my personal experience, how I intuitively know the way reality works. I’m not saying it’s true because it’s simply my own experience how I understand the workings of reality.

I don’t care whether anyone agrees or disagree, this is just my theory on the matter.

[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?

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

Doing what, exactly?

USING capital letters.

All I’m reading here, is the I has never used “caps lock”

But when asked how is that known, the answer is because it is I doing the usage of “caps lock”

So not sure what you are showing here, maybe you could calculate a more precise definition that might help readers understand exactly what you mean.

[Age]

Doing what, exactly?

USING capital letters.

All I’m reading here, is the I has never used “caps lock”

If that is ALL 'you' are reading here, then okay.

But when asked how is that known, the answer is because it is I doing the usage of “caps lock”

you, REALLY, are NOT reading VERY WELL, here.

Just like you MISSED your OWN words, above here, you are MISSING my OWN words, here, AS WELL.

I suggest READING the ACTUAL WORDS, above, and ONLY THE WORDS, ALONE, and do NOT ASSUME absolutely ANY thing AT ALL, here.

So not sure what you are showing here, maybe you could calculate a more precise definition that might help readers understand exactly what you mean.

AGAIN, I suggest you READ the ACTUAL WORDS that I WRITE and USED, above here, at least ONCE MORE, and then if you do NOT SEE where you are MAKING AN Inaccurate ASSUMPTION and CONCLUSION, here, and you INFORM me of this, then I WILL SHOW you WHERE, EXACTLY, you are MAKING THE MISTAKE.

[Fairy]

USING capital letters.

All I’m reading here, is the I has never used “caps lock”

If that is ALL 'you' are reading here, then okay.

But when asked how is that known, the answer is because it is I doing the usage of “caps lock”

you, REALLY, are NOT reading VERY WELL, here.

Just like you MISSED your OWN words, above here, you are MISSING my OWN words, here, AS WELL.

I suggest READING the ACTUAL WORDS, above, and ONLY THE WORDS, ALONE, and do NOT ASSUME absolutely ANY thing AT ALL, here.

So not sure what you are showing here, maybe you could calculate a more precise definition that might help readers understand exactly what you mean.

AGAIN, I suggest you READ the ACTUAL WORDS that I WRITE and USED, above here, at least ONCE MORE, and then if you do NOT SEE where you are MAKING AN Inaccurate ASSUMPTION and CONCLUSION, here, and you INFORM me of this, then I WILL SHOW you WHERE, EXACTLY, you are MAKING THE MISTAKE.

I do not see where I am making an inaccurate assumption and conclusion.

Can you show me where I am making the mistake?

[Age]

All I’m reading here, is the I has never used “caps lock”

If that is ALL 'you' are reading here, then okay.

But when asked how is that known, the answer is because it is I doing the usage of “caps lock”

you, REALLY, are NOT reading VERY WELL, here.

Just like you MISSED your OWN words, above here, you are MISSING my OWN words, here, AS WELL.

I suggest READING the ACTUAL WORDS, above, and ONLY THE WORDS, ALONE, and do NOT ASSUME absolutely ANY thing AT ALL, here.

So not sure what you are showing here, maybe you could calculate a more precise definition that might help readers understand exactly what you mean.

AGAIN, I suggest you READ the ACTUAL WORDS that I WRITE and USED, above here, at least ONCE MORE, and then if you do NOT SEE where you are MAKING AN Inaccurate ASSUMPTION and CONCLUSION, here, and you INFORM me of this, then I WILL SHOW you WHERE, EXACTLY, you are MAKING THE MISTAKE.

I do not see where I am making an inaccurate assumption and conclusion.

Can you show me where I am making the mistake?

When one writes words in capital letters, on a computer, one can USE the 'caps lock' key. i have NEVER USED the 'caps lock' when writing, here, in this forum. In fact I do not even know if there is a 'caps lock' key on this computer.

So, i have NEVER USED the 'caps lock', WHEN I have been USING 'capital letters', here.

Can you 'now' SEE WHERE you have been MISSING things, here, and MAKING A MISTAKE?

[Fairy]

If that is ALL 'you' are reading here, then okay.


you, REALLY, are NOT reading VERY WELL, here.

Just like you MISSED your OWN words, above here, you are MISSING my OWN words, here, AS WELL.

I suggest READING the ACTUAL WORDS, above, and ONLY THE WORDS, ALONE, and do NOT ASSUME absolutely ANY thing AT ALL, here.


AGAIN, I suggest you READ the ACTUAL WORDS that I WRITE and USED, above here, at least ONCE MORE, and then if you do NOT SEE where you are MAKING AN Inaccurate ASSUMPTION and CONCLUSION, here, and you INFORM me of this, then I WILL SHOW you WHERE, EXACTLY, you are MAKING THE MISTAKE.

I do not see where I am making an inaccurate assumption and conclusion.

Can you show me where I am making the mistake?

When one writes words in capital letters, on a computer, one can USE the 'caps lock' key. i have NEVER USED the 'caps lock' when writing, here, in this forum. In fact I do not even know if there is a 'caps lock' key on this computer.

So, i have NEVER USED the 'caps lock', WHEN I have been USING 'capital letters', here.

Can you 'now' SEE WHERE you have been MISSING things, here, and MAKING A MISTAKE?

Yes, now that you’ve explained it, I can understand what you wrote when you said you didn’t use the caps lock key.

I understand that it was only an assumption made, but not literally true. However you could have just made it clear at the time you responded to atla… saying you don’t use the caps lock key. People just assume one uses caps lock key when writing in capitals…it’s a common assumption. So it’s not unusual to make the assumption.

[Atla]

Okay, great.

Well, and as I was SAYING and POINTING OUT, previously, CLAIMING that 'matter' changes when observed is a VERY, VERY DIFFERENT CLAIM FROM CLAIMING 'people' change when observed. That is 'what'.

What are 'particles', exactly?

And, 'particles' are particles of 'what', exactly?

If I recall correctly I have asked you, more or less, this exact same clarifying question, previously.

'Particles' have only the ONE name. Just like 'matter' has ONLY the ONE name.

A 'bunch' of 'matter' group together to form an 'object', however, can go by many names, like, for example, a 'human body', a 'star', a 'planet', a 'table', a 'spoon', or a 'fork'.

Just for reference it is NOT YET a PROVED Fact that 'people', "themselves", are actually made up of 'matter', itself.

Now, obviously human bodies are made up of 'matter', but you, 'people', "yourselves", are NOT actually the 'human bodies', themselves, right? Or, do 'you' SEE and CLASS the 'human body', itself, as a 'person'?

And, AGAIN, I have ASKED you TO CLARIFY HOW A 'table', for experience, CHANGES 'its' behavior, EXACTLY, when 'it' is being observed?

I, STILL, WAIT.

Now, AGAIN, 'matter', itself, or 'particles', themselves, do NOT have MANY names, AT ALL.

What I have SHOWN and POINTED OUT, here in this post, as well as IN my OTHER posts and responses, TO you, in this thread.

1. Really THINK ABOUT what the word 'particles' are REFERRING TO, EXACTLY.

2. THINK ABOUT how it is NOT 'particles', themselves, that have MANY names.

3. THINK ABOUT how it is ONLY a 'conglomerate' of 'particles', (of what 'they' are, exactly), in some shape or form, which is WHEN you, human beings, THEN PLACE other names, or labels, ONTO 'that shape' or 'form'. Which, again, and by the way, is HOW and WHY there is ONLY a PERCEIVED SEPARATION of the One and ONLY, existing. It is FROM the forming and making up of MANY 'names', and then PLACING THOSE names, or labels, CONCEPTUALLY ONLY onto DIFFERENT shapes or forms of 'joined particles OF matter' WHY the ILLUSION OF SEPARATION EXISTS. But, and again, this is the ONLY WAY the human brain MAKES SENSE of where it has FOUND itself.

Much lower percentages than before, the caps lock isn't glowing red hot anymore, it barely makes any smoke now. Some of the cultists thought that we were done for, but we may yet live to see another day. Hooray!