perhaps reality is?

[Harbal]

But you plainly and obviously stated, "we can not know what reality is", "because we are not equipped to know". So, either this is real and true, or it is not.

I said it because I think it to be the case, but I'm not arrogant enough to be certain that it is the case. Maybe it is true in some sense, but not in another, I don't know.

If it is not, then why say and claim it? But, if it is real and true, then it is (a) reality, and thus contradicting what was said and claimed.

Well I suppose such things don't cause me the same anguish that they seem to cause you.

[bobmax]

Parmenides' reasoning is clear, as you can see by reading Plato's "Parmenides".

If you are referring to Zeno's paradoxes, these did not deny the movement, but the multiple.

No one thing is distinct from the other precisely because there is movement.

The theory of infinitesimals has hidden this truth.

As can be clearly seen, what is said here is due to ignorance.

I think I know something, having a degree in engineering.

I guess you have no idea what infinetisimal calculus is.

And nevertheless you allow yourself to determine who is ignorant about subjects you don't know.

Okay, I'll definitely ignore you.

[Age]

But you plainly and obviously stated, "we can not know what reality is", "because we are not equipped to know". So, either this is real and true, or it is not.

I said it because I think it to be the case, but I'm not arrogant enough to be certain that it is the case. Maybe it is true in some sense, but not in another, I don't know.

So, what you ACTUALLY MEANT, but did NOT say IS: 'We might know what reality is, because we might be equipped to know', correct?

If no, then what is 'it' EXACTLY that you do ACTUALLY MEAN?

If it is not, then why say and claim it? But, if it is real and true, then it is (a) reality, and thus contradicting what was said and claimed.

Well I suppose such things don't cause me the same anguish that they seem to cause you.

Those things are NOT causing absolutely ANY 'anguish' here.

I am just POINTING OUT how either what you SAID and CLAIMED was EITHER true and right, or, false and wrong. AND, if it could even be true and/or right, then 'it' would CONTRADICT its OWN self.

Does this cause you ANY 'anguish' AT ALL?

And, could your reference to 'anguish' and 'me' just be some sort of an ATTEMPT at DEFLECTION from what I am just POINTING OUT and SHOWING here?

[Age]

Parmenides' reasoning is clear, as you can see by reading Plato's "Parmenides".

If you are referring to Zeno's paradoxes, these did not deny the movement, but the multiple.

No one thing is distinct from the other precisely because there is movement.

The theory of infinitesimals has hidden this truth.

As can be clearly seen, what is said here is due to ignorance.

I think I know something, having a degree in engineering.

I guess you have no idea what infinetisimal calculus is.

You are free to GUESS absolutely ANY thing you like. But I found that IF and WHEN you OBTAIN CLARITY FIRST, then you do NOT end up being SO Wrong, nor AS OFTEN, as you are here.

And nevertheless you allow yourself to determine who is ignorant about subjects you don't know.

And this CONCLUSION is based on 'what', EXACTLY?

Okay, I'll definitely ignore you.

Okay. So, 'you' will DEFINITELY ignore 'me' based on your OWN GUESSES, ASSUMPTIONS, and CONCLUSIONS, without EVER GAINING absolutely ANY CLARIFICATION AT ALL, FIRST.

We will SEE how long this LASTS FOR.

[Harbal]

So, what you ACTUALLY MEANT, but did NOT say IS: 'We might know what reality is, because we might be equipped to know', correct?

If no, then what is 'it' EXACTLY that you do ACTUALLY MEAN?

No, I didn't mean that. There are things that we do not have the sense organs to sense, and there are probably things that we do not have the capacity to understand. If there is such a thing as absolute reality, these things must be part of it, but as we are unable to experience them, it seems to follow that we cannot experience reality. I haven't given any deep thought to the matter, and I am certainly not presenting this view as an irrefutable account of anything.

Those things are NOT causing absolutely ANY 'anguish' here.

I am just POINTING OUT how either what you SAID and CLAIMED was EITHER true and right, or, false and wrong. AND, if it could even be true and/or right, then 'it' would CONTRADICT its OWN self.

Does this cause you ANY 'anguish' AT ALL?

No it doesn't cause me anguish. If it did, I would stop thinking about it. You, on the other hand, do not seem to be able to let go of anything that doesn't make sense to you, and you seem compelled to pursue it to the bitter end, which led me to the conclusion that leaving things unresolved must cause you some kind of discomfort, which I termed anguish. If anguish is the wrong word, I am quite happy for you to substitute your own, or even just do away with it and leave whatever state it is that you get into when questions remain unanswered unspecified.

And, could your reference to 'anguish' and 'me' just be some sort of an ATTEMPT at DEFLECTION from what I am just POINTING OUT and SHOWING here?

I don't think so, because even if you were to show that something I said was utter nonsense, it wouldn't bother me enough to make me go to the effort of trying to deflect you from doing it.

[Age]

So, what you ACTUALLY MEANT, but did NOT say IS: 'We might know what reality is, because we might be equipped to know', correct?

If no, then what is 'it' EXACTLY that you do ACTUALLY MEAN?

No, I didn't mean that. There are things that we do not have the sense organs to sense,

Like 'what', for example?

And, how did you come to KNOW this?

and there are probably things that we do not have the capacity to understand.

Why 'probably'? And,

What made you ASSUME this and come to this CONCLUSION?

If there is such a thing as absolute reality, these things must be part of it, but as we are unable to experience them, it seems to follow that we cannot experience reality.

But if you came to KNOW this, through and from experiencing, and what you say here is 'reality', then, obviously, you not just can experience 'reality', and actually have experienced 'reality', and are experiencing 'reality'.

And, if what you are saying here is absolutely true, then that is the absolute 'reality', here.

I haven't given any deep thought to the matter, and I am certainly not presenting this view as an irrefutable account of anything.

On reflection a lot of what is said and conveyed throughout this forum, not a lot of real 'deep thought' has been given, nor provided.

Most of what is provided here, in this forum, is just presented from a very shallow, narrowed, and superficial leve.

Those things are NOT causing absolutely ANY 'anguish' here.

I am just POINTING OUT how either what you SAID and CLAIMED was EITHER true and right, or, false and wrong. AND, if it could even be true and/or right, then 'it' would CONTRADICT its OWN self.

Does this cause you ANY 'anguish' AT ALL?

No it doesn't cause me anguish.

So, this means absolutely NOTHING written here has caused either of us absolutely ANY anguish AT ALL.

If it did, I would stop thinking about it. You, on the other hand, do not seem to be able to let go of anything that doesn't make sense to you, and you seem compelled to pursue it to the bitter end, which led me to the conclusion that leaving things unresolved must cause you some kind of discomfort, which I termed anguish.

LOL I have NOT even BEGUN to SHOW and REVEAL to 'you', adult human beings, HOW to RESOLVE ALL 'things'.

See, ALL 'things' have ALREADY BEEN RESOLVED, except, OF COURSE, 'me' continually LEARNING how to BETTER communicate with 'you', adult human beings.

LEARNING how to OVERCOME and OVERRIDE 'your' preoccupation with LISTENING, to your OWN selves, that is; 'your' OWN views, BELIEFS, and ASSUMPTION ONLY, just takes some time.

BUT, which is in the process of being RESOLVED.

If anguish is the wrong word, I am quite happy for you to substitute your own, or even just do away with it and leave whatever state it is that you get into when questions remain unanswered unspecified.

The only state 'I' am in is the Truly OPEN and CURIOUS state.

And, could your reference to 'anguish' and 'me' just be some sort of an ATTEMPT at DEFLECTION from what I am just POINTING OUT and SHOWING here?

I don't think so, because even if you were to show that something I said was utter nonsense, it wouldn't bother me enough to make me go to the effort of trying to deflect you from doing it.

LOL Completely and utterly MISSED what just already took place here.

I have already just POINTED OUT and SHOWED how what you SAID and CLAIMED here was EITHER true and right, or, false and wrong. AND, if it could even be true and/or right, then 'it' would CONTRADICT its OWN self.

In other words there is NO use in making ANY effort in 'trying to' DEFLECT, because I have ALREADY SHOWN and PROVED what I wanted to do.

And, besides all of this, perhaps 'Reality' is just what is actually possible, anyway, and thus absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with just what 'you', adult human beings, can not or are just NOT YET able to do. So, we will just have to WAIT, to SEE.

[Harbal]

Like 'what', for example?

And, how did you come to KNOW this?

We can’t see infra-red, for example. If we could, we would be able to see in the dark much better. We can’t hear sound above a certain frequency. If we could use echo location, like a bat, things would seem very different to us. The air is full of radio waves, but we can’t sense them, we need a radio receiver to detect them. There are no end of waves and forces in our environment that would make what we perceive as reality different if we were able to sense them. I’m sure I don’t need to explain how I came to know this.

Why 'probably'? And,

What made you ASSUME this and come to this CONCLUSION?

When people used to think that the visible universe revolved round the earth, that was reality to them. We now know much more about the movement of planets and stars, so what we know as reality has changed, but reality in an objective sense hasn’t changed. Scientists are now discovering things in quantum physics that suggest reality is quite different to what they previously thought. Although they can observe these phenomena, they admit they don’t understand what is going on, and it isn’t certain that they ever will understand. I haven’t assumed any of this, except in the sense that I have heard about it and assume it to be true.

If there is such a thing as absolute reality, these things must be part of it, but as we are unable to experience them, it seems to follow that we cannot experience reality.

But if you came to KNOW this, through and from experiencing, and what you say here is 'reality', then, obviously, you not just can experience 'reality', and actually have experienced 'reality', and are experiencing 'reality'.

And, if what you are saying here is absolutely true, then that is the absolute 'reality', here.

No, if you look again at what I wrote, you will see that I say we are unable to experience certain things, which would alter our impression of reality if we were able to experience them.

On reflection a lot of what is said and conveyed throughout this forum, not a lot of real 'deep thought' has been given, nor provided.

Most of what is provided here, in this forum, is just presented from a very shallow, narrowed, and superficial leve.

Anyone from a man who sweeps the street to a rocket scientist can post their thoughts on this forum. If you require deeper thought of higher quality, perhaps you should go to your nearest university and find a professor, rather than expect to find it on a forum that is open to all and sundry.

LOL I have NOT even BEGUN to SHOW and REVEAL to 'you', adult human beings, HOW to RESOLVE ALL 'things'.

See, ALL 'things' have ALREADY BEEN RESOLVED, except, OF COURSE, 'me' continually LEARNING how to BETTER communicate with 'you', adult human beings.

LEARNING how to OVERCOME and OVERRIDE 'your' preoccupation with LISTENING, to your OWN selves, that is; 'your' OWN views, BELIEFS, and ASSUMPTION ONLY, just takes some time.

BUT, which is in the process of being RESOLVED.

This makes you sound like you are suffering from some sort of mental issue. If you want people to take you seriously and respond to you, I suggest you leave that kind of stuff out of your posts.

I have already just POINTED OUT and SHOWED how what you SAID and CLAIMED here was EITHER true and right, or, false and wrong. AND, if it could even be true and/or right, then 'it' would CONTRADICT its OWN self.

In other words there is NO use in making ANY effort in 'trying to' DEFLECT, because I have ALREADY SHOWN and PROVED what I wanted to do.

There might be lots of things wrong with what I said and claimed, but I’m afraid you haven’t shown that to be the case. If you think I am contradicting myself, I suggest that is the result of your lack of understanding of what I have said. You will dispute that, of course, but unless an unbiased third party intervenes to act as arbiter, the matter must remain unresolved.

[Walker]

Although they can observe these phenomena ...

Have scientists finally observed Dark Matter?

[Harbal]

Although they can observe these phenomena ...

Have scientists finally observed Dark Matter?

Yes. Someone had the inspired idea of shinning a torch on it.

[Age]

Like 'what', for example?

And, how did you come to KNOW this?

We can’t see infra-red, for example. If we could, we would be able to see in the dark much better.

But you KNOW it is there, correct?

If yes, then HOW did you KNOW, if you could not experience it in some form or another.

We can’t hear sound above a certain frequency. If we could use echo location, like a bat, things would seem very different to us.

But you KNOW this correct?

If yes, then that 'reality' is KNOWN also, right?

The air is full of radio waves, but we can’t sense them, we need a radio receiver to detect them.

So you KNOW that the air is full of radio waves, which are part of 'reality', correct?

There are no end of waves and forces in our environment that would make what we perceive as reality different if we were able to sense them.

But HOW do you KNOW that they exist if you have NOT sensed them, in some form or another?

I’m sure I don’t need to explain how I came to know this.

No you do NOT. This is because you came to KNOW this through sensory experiences.

Why 'probably'? And,

What made you ASSUME this and come to this CONCLUSION?

When people used to think that the visible universe revolved round the earth, that was reality to them.

But WHY did 'you', human beings, ASSUME that that was 'reality'?

We now know much more about the movement of planets and stars, so what we know as reality has changed,

But what, EXACTLY, do you know as 'reality'?

I thought you said or implied above that it is IMPOSSIBLE for you to KNOW 'reality'.

Also, HOW could 'reality', itself, CHANGE?

but reality in an objective sense hasn’t changed.

OF COURSE NOT.

Scientists are now discovering things in quantum physics that suggest reality is quite different to what they previously thought.

What "scientists", and what did they previously think 'reality' was EXACTLY?

Although they can observe these phenomena, they admit they don’t understand what is going on, and it isn’t certain that they ever will understand.

But understanding what is ACTUALLY going on EVERYWHERE HERE is VERY EASY and SIMPLE to understand.

I haven’t assumed any of this, except in the sense that I have heard about it and assume it to be true.

But none of this even relates to 'Reality', Itself.

If there is such a thing as absolute reality, these things must be part of it, but as we are unable to experience them, it seems to follow that we cannot experience reality.

But if you came to KNOW this, through and from experiencing, and what you say here is 'reality', then, obviously, you not just can experience 'reality', and actually have experienced 'reality', and are experiencing 'reality'.

And, if what you are saying here is absolutely true, then that is the absolute 'reality', here.

No, if you look again at what I wrote, you will see that I say we are unable to experience certain things,

BUT, if you can NOT, supposedly, experience 'them', in one form or another, then HOW, EXACTLY, do you KNOW they exist.

which would alter our impression of reality if we were able to experience them.

What 'impression' of 'reality' have you ACTUALLY got?

I thought you said or implied that 'reality' can NOT be experienced NOR known. And, if this was your 'impression' of 'reality', then if that 'impression' was altered, then that would imply that that 'reality' can in fact be experienced AND known.

On reflection a lot of what is said and conveyed throughout this forum, not a lot of real 'deep thought' has been given, nor provided.

Most of what is provided here, in this forum, is just presented from a very shallow, narrowed, and superficial leve.

Anyone from a man who sweeps the street to a rocket scientist can post their thoughts on this forum. If you require deeper thought of higher quality, perhaps you should go to your nearest university and find a professor, rather than expect to find it on a forum that is open to all and sundry.

But those so-called "professors" also have very shallow, narrowed, and superficial perspectives of things here.


Also I do NOT require deeper thought of higher quality because what the word 'Reality' refers to, EXACTLY, which fits in, PERFECTLY, with the Grand Unified Theory Of Everything is ALREADY KNOWN, by the way.

LOL I have NOT even BEGUN to SHOW and REVEAL to 'you', adult human beings, HOW to RESOLVE ALL 'things'.

See, ALL 'things' have ALREADY BEEN RESOLVED, except, OF COURSE, 'me' continually LEARNING how to BETTER communicate with 'you', adult human beings.

LEARNING how to OVERCOME and OVERRIDE 'your' preoccupation with LISTENING, to your OWN selves, that is; 'your' OWN views, BELIEFS, and ASSUMPTION ONLY, just takes some time.

BUT, which is in the process of being RESOLVED.

This makes you sound like you are suffering from some sort of mental issue.

Okay noted.

There is NO CURIOSITY AT ALL within, which makes you just want to inquire into what I ACTUALLY MEANT?

If you want people to take you seriously and respond to you, I suggest you leave that kind of stuff out of your posts.

I do NOT want 'you', posters, here to do such a thing, therefore this is moot.

I am just USING 'you', posters, here to SHOW and REVEAL just how CLOSED 'you' REALLY ARE, and how much LACK OF CURIOSITY existed within the adult human beings, in the days when this was being written.

You MAKING AN ASSUMPTION, and JUMPING TO A CONCLUSION, without gaining clarification, just SHOWS and REVEALS, EXACTLY, what I wanted and am doing here.

I have already just POINTED OUT and SHOWED how what you SAID and CLAIMED here was EITHER true and right, or, false and wrong. AND, if it could even be true and/or right, then 'it' would CONTRADICT its OWN self.

In other words there is NO use in making ANY effort in 'trying to' DEFLECT, because I have ALREADY SHOWN and PROVED what I wanted to do.

There might be lots of things wrong with what I said and claimed, but I’m afraid you haven’t shown that to be the case.

Is it NOT POSSIBLE that it is 'you' who is NOT SEEING here?

If you think I am contradicting myself, I suggest that is the result of your lack of understanding of what I have said.

This could well be VERY True.

You will dispute that, of course,

Will I?

And, what is 'it', EXACTLY, which you think I am NOT YET 'understanding' here?

but unless an unbiased third party intervenes to act as arbiter, the matter must remain unresolved.

But this does NOT have to MUST remain unresolved.

For example, if a claim was made that 'reality' is unknowable, and that this is 'reality', then that this is a self-contradiction, or just one contradicting "them" 'self', can be SEEN, and UNDERSTOOD.

[Harbal]

Like 'what', for example?

And, how did you come to KNOW this?

We can’t see infra-red, for example. If we could, we would be able to see in the dark much better.

But you KNOW it is there, correct?

If yes, then HOW did you KNOW, if you could not experience it in some form or another.

We can’t hear sound above a certain frequency. If we could use echo location, like a bat, things would seem very different to us.

But you KNOW this correct?

If yes, then that 'reality' is KNOWN also, right?

The air is full of radio waves, but we can’t sense them, we need a radio receiver to detect them.

So you KNOW that the air is full of radio waves, which are part of 'reality', correct?

There are no end of waves and forces in our environment that would make what we perceive as reality different if we were able to sense them.

But HOW do you KNOW that they exist if you have NOT sensed them, in some form or another?

I’m sure I don’t need to explain how I came to know this.

No you do NOT. This is because you came to KNOW this through sensory experiences.

Why 'probably'? And,

What made you ASSUME this and come to this CONCLUSION?

When people used to think that the visible universe revolved round the earth, that was reality to them.

But WHY did 'you', human beings, ASSUME that that was 'reality'?

We now know much more about the movement of planets and stars, so what we know as reality has changed,

But what, EXACTLY, do you know as 'reality'?

I thought you said or implied above that it is IMPOSSIBLE for you to KNOW 'reality'.

Also, HOW could 'reality', itself, CHANGE?

but reality in an objective sense hasn’t changed.

OF COURSE NOT.

Scientists are now discovering things in quantum physics that suggest reality is quite different to what they previously thought.

What "scientists", and what did they previously think 'reality' was EXACTLY?

Although they can observe these phenomena, they admit they don’t understand what is going on, and it isn’t certain that they ever will understand.

But understanding what is ACTUALLY going on EVERYWHERE HERE is VERY EASY and SIMPLE to understand.

I haven’t assumed any of this, except in the sense that I have heard about it and assume it to be true.

But none of this even relates to 'Reality', Itself.

But if you came to KNOW this, through and from experiencing, and what you say here is 'reality', then, obviously, you not just can experience 'reality', and actually have experienced 'reality', and are experiencing 'reality'.

And, if what you are saying here is absolutely true, then that is the absolute 'reality', here.

No, if you look again at what I wrote, you will see that I say we are unable to experience certain things,

BUT, if you can NOT, supposedly, experience 'them', in one form or another, then HOW, EXACTLY, do you KNOW they exist.

which would alter our impression of reality if we were able to experience them.

What 'impression' of 'reality' have you ACTUALLY got?

I thought you said or implied that 'reality' can NOT be experienced NOR known. And, if this was your 'impression' of 'reality', then if that 'impression' was altered, then that would imply that that 'reality' can in fact be experienced AND known.

On reflection a lot of what is said and conveyed throughout this forum, not a lot of real 'deep thought' has been given, nor provided.

Most of what is provided here, in this forum, is just presented from a very shallow, narrowed, and superficial leve.

Anyone from a man who sweeps the street to a rocket scientist can post their thoughts on this forum. If you require deeper thought of higher quality, perhaps you should go to your nearest university and find a professor, rather than expect to find it on a forum that is open to all and sundry.

But those so-called "professors" also have very shallow, narrowed, and superficial perspectives of things here.


Also I do NOT require deeper thought of higher quality because what the word 'Reality' refers to, EXACTLY, which fits in, PERFECTLY, with the Grand Unified Theory Of Everything is ALREADY KNOWN, by the way.

LOL I have NOT even BEGUN to SHOW and REVEAL to 'you', adult human beings, HOW to RESOLVE ALL 'things'.

See, ALL 'things' have ALREADY BEEN RESOLVED, except, OF COURSE, 'me' continually LEARNING how to BETTER communicate with 'you', adult human beings.

LEARNING how to OVERCOME and OVERRIDE 'your' preoccupation with LISTENING, to your OWN selves, that is; 'your' OWN views, BELIEFS, and ASSUMPTION ONLY, just takes some time.

BUT, which is in the process of being RESOLVED.

This makes you sound like you are suffering from some sort of mental issue.

Okay noted.

There is NO CURIOSITY AT ALL within, which makes you just want to inquire into what I ACTUALLY MEANT?

If you want people to take you seriously and respond to you, I suggest you leave that kind of stuff out of your posts.

I do NOT want 'you', posters, here to do such a thing, therefore this is moot.

I am just USING 'you', posters, here to SHOW and REVEAL just how CLOSED 'you' REALLY ARE, and how much LACK OF CURIOSITY existed within the adult human beings, in the days when this was being written.

You MAKING AN ASSUMPTION, and JUMPING TO A CONCLUSION, without gaining clarification, just SHOWS and REVEALS, EXACTLY, what I wanted and am doing here.

I have already just POINTED OUT and SHOWED how what you SAID and CLAIMED here was EITHER true and right, or, false and wrong. AND, if it could even be true and/or right, then 'it' would CONTRADICT its OWN self.

In other words there is NO use in making ANY effort in 'trying to' DEFLECT, because I have ALREADY SHOWN and PROVED what I wanted to do.

There might be lots of things wrong with what I said and claimed, but I’m afraid you haven’t shown that to be the case.

Is it NOT POSSIBLE that it is 'you' who is NOT SEEING here?

If you think I am contradicting myself, I suggest that is the result of your lack of understanding of what I have said.

This could well be VERY True.

You will dispute that, of course,

Will I?

And, what is 'it', EXACTLY, which you think I am NOT YET 'understanding' here?

but unless an unbiased third party intervenes to act as arbiter, the matter must remain unresolved.

But this does NOT have to MUST remain unresolved.

For example, if a claim was made that 'reality' is unknowable, and that this is 'reality', then that this is a self-contradiction, or just one contradicting "them" 'self', can be SEEN, and UNDERSTOOD.

This is useless, Age, whatever I say, you are going to twist it in some way. It is tedious enough having to quote all your individual comments and respond to them without having to untwist your misinterpretations of my comments as well. The fact is, we each find the other's deductive process flawed, and I can't see a way round that. And it isn't worth the effort, because I don't care about any of this anywhere near as much as you seem to. I don't mind a bit of a debate, just to keep the brain going, but I didn't sign up for it to run a marathon.

I'm not looking forward to your response to this, because I know it is bound to be exasperating.

[Age]

We can’t see infra-red, for example. If we could, we would be able to see in the dark much better.

But you KNOW it is there, correct?

If yes, then HOW did you KNOW, if you could not experience it in some form or another.

We can’t hear sound above a certain frequency. If we could use echo location, like a bat, things would seem very different to us.

But you KNOW this correct?

If yes, then that 'reality' is KNOWN also, right?

The air is full of radio waves, but we can’t sense them, we need a radio receiver to detect them.

So you KNOW that the air is full of radio waves, which are part of 'reality', correct?

There are no end of waves and forces in our environment that would make what we perceive as reality different if we were able to sense them.

But HOW do you KNOW that they exist if you have NOT sensed them, in some form or another?

I’m sure I don’t need to explain how I came to know this.

No you do NOT. This is because you came to KNOW this through sensory experiences.

When people used to think that the visible universe revolved round the earth, that was reality to them.

But WHY did 'you', human beings, ASSUME that that was 'reality'?

We now know much more about the movement of planets and stars, so what we know as reality has changed,

But what, EXACTLY, do you know as 'reality'?

I thought you said or implied above that it is IMPOSSIBLE for you to KNOW 'reality'.

Also, HOW could 'reality', itself, CHANGE?

but reality in an objective sense hasn’t changed.

OF COURSE NOT.

Scientists are now discovering things in quantum physics that suggest reality is quite different to what they previously thought.

What "scientists", and what did they previously think 'reality' was EXACTLY?

Although they can observe these phenomena, they admit they don’t understand what is going on, and it isn’t certain that they ever will understand.

But understanding what is ACTUALLY going on EVERYWHERE HERE is VERY EASY and SIMPLE to understand.

I haven’t assumed any of this, except in the sense that I have heard about it and assume it to be true.

But none of this even relates to 'Reality', Itself.

No, if you look again at what I wrote, you will see that I say we are unable to experience certain things,

BUT, if you can NOT, supposedly, experience 'them', in one form or another, then HOW, EXACTLY, do you KNOW they exist.

which would alter our impression of reality if we were able to experience them.

What 'impression' of 'reality' have you ACTUALLY got?

I thought you said or implied that 'reality' can NOT be experienced NOR known. And, if this was your 'impression' of 'reality', then if that 'impression' was altered, then that would imply that that 'reality' can in fact be experienced AND known.

Anyone from a man who sweeps the street to a rocket scientist can post their thoughts on this forum. If you require deeper thought of higher quality, perhaps you should go to your nearest university and find a professor, rather than expect to find it on a forum that is open to all and sundry.

But those so-called "professors" also have very shallow, narrowed, and superficial perspectives of things here.


Also I do NOT require deeper thought of higher quality because what the word 'Reality' refers to, EXACTLY, which fits in, PERFECTLY, with the Grand Unified Theory Of Everything is ALREADY KNOWN, by the way.

This makes you sound like you are suffering from some sort of mental issue.

Okay noted.

There is NO CURIOSITY AT ALL within, which makes you just want to inquire into what I ACTUALLY MEANT?

If you want people to take you seriously and respond to you, I suggest you leave that kind of stuff out of your posts.

I do NOT want 'you', posters, here to do such a thing, therefore this is moot.

I am just USING 'you', posters, here to SHOW and REVEAL just how CLOSED 'you' REALLY ARE, and how much LACK OF CURIOSITY existed within the adult human beings, in the days when this was being written.

You MAKING AN ASSUMPTION, and JUMPING TO A CONCLUSION, without gaining clarification, just SHOWS and REVEALS, EXACTLY, what I wanted and am doing here.

There might be lots of things wrong with what I said and claimed, but I’m afraid you haven’t shown that to be the case.

Is it NOT POSSIBLE that it is 'you' who is NOT SEEING here?

If you think I am contradicting myself, I suggest that is the result of your lack of understanding of what I have said.

This could well be VERY True.

You will dispute that, of course,

Will I?

And, what is 'it', EXACTLY, which you think I am NOT YET 'understanding' here?

but unless an unbiased third party intervenes to act as arbiter, the matter must remain unresolved.

But this does NOT have to MUST remain unresolved.

For example, if a claim was made that 'reality' is unknowable, and that this is 'reality', then that this is a self-contradiction, or just one contradicting "them" 'self', can be SEEN, and UNDERSTOOD.

This is useless, Age, whatever I say, you are going to twist it in some way. It is tedious enough having to quote all your individual comments and respond to them without having to untwist your misinterpretations of my comments as well.

Are you even aware of the misinterpretations you make as well?

The fact is, we each find the other's deductive process flawed, and I can't see a way round that. [/quote]

Look, it is this PLAIN and SIMPLE, absolutely EVERY one who claims there is NO absolute truth OR that we can NEVER know reality, is making an absolute truth claim about reality, itself. SO, to claim that we can never know the truth or reality is making a claim to know the truth or what reality is exactly. Which is OBVIOUSLY a self-contradiction.

Now TELL us what is FLAWED here.

I have ALREADY SHOWN and EXPLAINED WHY what you have claimed is FLAWED.

And it isn't worth the effort, because I don't care about any of this anywhere near as much as you seem to.

I have ALREADY DONE what I set out to do.

If you find all or even just any of this to much effort for you, then so be it.

I don't mind a bit of a debate, just to keep the brain going, but I didn't sign up for it to run a marathon.

I do not do debate.

I'm not looking forward to your response to this, because I know it is bound to be exasperating.

ANOTHER ASSUMPTION MADE, and ANOTHER CONCLUSION JUMPED TO, BEFORE ABSOLUTELY ANY CLARIFICATION WAS EVEN SORT OUT, FIRST.

[Harbal]

I'm not looking forward to your response to this, because I know it is bound to be exasperating.

ANOTHER ASSUMPTION MADE, and ANOTHER CONCLUSION JUMPED TO,

And totally justified, as it turned out.

[Iwannaplato]

I'm not looking forward to your response to this, because I know it is bound to be exasperating.

His response will most likely be a question. Pardon the probable obviousness of this. But if in a dialogue your interlocutor primarily challenges most things you say with a question, then you are put in the position of continually defending yourself (answering the questions) or running away (which is how he couched my deciding to no longer engage with him) or perhaps simply not responding. It's a philosophy forum, that's a specific kind of context. Someone asks for justification, it seems part of an invisible contract to answer. So, exasperation is a possible outcome.

Does this mean questions are wrong? Obviously not. And look what Socrates was like?

But then: What was Socrates ratio of accusation to 'hey, let's see where this leads'?

So, one strategy, though possibly also exasperating, is to respond primarily with short questions. Get justification, and then question the justification.

F F with F.

[Harbal]

So, one strategy, though possibly also exasperating, is to respond primarily with short questions. Get justification, and then question the justification.

F F with F.

Age seems to think that, because we are here, we are duty bound not only to engage with him, but to do it on his terms. Well that is at least one thing he is irrefutibly wrong about.