Philosophy Now Forum

attofishpi wrote: ↑Sat Sep 12, 2020 7:10 amFuck physics and fuck life.

Cheer up atto, there's still beer.

attofishpi wrote: ↑Sat Sep 12, 2020 7:10 am Indeed, how can we ever truly determine a truly stationary point in 3D space

I guess, not at all.
Simply because all movement is always relative, but not to an absolutely stationary point, but to other relativistic movement.
There is no standstill in relative/objective reality, but the absolute never moves at all... thats also why you can’t measure anything from “there” (from absolute stillness).

uwot wrote: ↑Sat Sep 12, 2020 11:48 am Cheer up atto, there's still beer.

Cheers to that!

AlexW wrote: ↑Sat Sep 12, 2020 1:43 pm

uwot wrote: ↑Sat Sep 12, 2020 11:48 am Cheer up atto, there's still beer.

Cheers to that!

Unfortunately I am off the beer - just in case my weight gain causes an imbalance to the Solar System and we end up with the Moon bouncing into us.

attofishpi wrote: ↑Sun Sep 13, 2020 4:17 am Unfortunately I am off the beer - just in case my weight gain causes an imbalance to the Solar System and we end up with the Moon bouncing into us.

Not sure what's worse... no beer or the moon bouncing into us...

Age wrote: ↑Fri Sep 11, 2020 12:08 pm

Paradigmer wrote: ↑Thu Sep 10, 2020 5:38 pm

Age wrote: ↑Thu Sep 10, 2020 6:45 am But the Honest answer is a 'Yes' or a 'No'.

The scientific community as it IS was more on the pragmatic theory of truth, so to speak there isn't any real 'Honest' answer of a 'Yes' or a 'No' for the 'why' of the premise that focuses on making politically correct propositions for its pragmatical measurements.

I asked you the question, in regards to one of your comments. I ask you:
Have you thought about, or do you know WHY, some are being 'deliberately kept' there?

To me a 'Yes' or a 'No', for either or both, would suffice.

You asked 'WHY' on that, which is very subjective to individual premises and therefore there would never have an absolute answer, and the whole issue would become very argumentative to no real conclusions at all. And you have no idea you are begging the question, which is not a worthy point of view to respond to.

Age wrote: ↑Fri Sep 11, 2020 12:08 pm

Paradigmer wrote: ↑Thu Sep 10, 2020 5:38 pm

Age wrote: ↑Thu Sep 10, 2020 1:36 pm Which, in turn, helps in showing and reveal just HOW a Truly 'peaceful world', for EVERY one, can and will be created.

Really?

Yes.

Paradigmer wrote: ↑Thu Sep 10, 2020 5:38 pm You meant all living things when you said "EVERY one"?

Are you asking or telling. Your sentence is a statement BUT with a question mark at the end.

If it is a statement, then okay. But, if it is a question, then Yes.

Paradigmer wrote: ↑Thu Sep 10, 2020 5:38 pm Or were you just referring to the human species only, or just by switching the mindsets of the individuals like what the ostriches are doing?

No, to the first part of this question. I do NOT have clue what the second part of the question is in relation to.

Paradigmer wrote: ↑Thu Sep 10, 2020 5:38 pm Or you were suggesting Truly 'peaceful world' could solely be accomplished by the human species alone and nevermind all other living things?

Human beings are the only ones, which they are yet aware of, who can fathom and discuss issues regarding 'peace'. So, only human beings, 'alone', can accomplish a Truly 'peaceful world', on earth. But, this OBVIOUSLY would include ALL other living things.

Paradigmer wrote: ↑Thu Sep 10, 2020 5:38 pm See the arrogance of your belief?

But I do NOT have a belief.
So, there could NOT be any arrogance of some, alleged, belief, either.
Therefore, I could NOT see the, alleged, arrogance of what I do NOT even have.

Would you like to explain further what you were talking about here?

Your belief on you 'do NOT have a belief' is just that, a belief.

Age wrote: ↑Fri Sep 11, 2020 12:08 pm

Paradigmer wrote: ↑Thu Sep 10, 2020 5:38 pm

Age wrote: ↑Thu Sep 10, 2020 6:45 am But I was being, so called, "screwed" ALL of my life, that is; UNTIL I worked out and could SEE and UNDERSTAND what is actually going on here. Only THEN I could SEE that I am NOT being "screwed" here at all. So, this is how I see things NOW. BEFORE I was like ALL the "others" who view themselves as being "screwed over" by Life, Itself.

LOOKING AT and SEEING things for how they actually ARE, relieves absolutely ANY and ALL misgivings about being "screwed" here.

But because I UNDERSTAND, FULLY, WHAT is going to come about, and WHY ALL-OF-THIS, you talk about here, is necessary for what IS to-come, there is, to me, NO 'suffering' at all and NO sense at all of 'being screwed' either.

You now have understood the value of being 'screwed', and therefore 'SEE' that you are not being 'screwed', is another matter on your idea of "others" who view themselves as being "screwed over" by Life.

These do not change the fact that we are all being screwed in this 'physical' world regardless of how you or others view it.

To make such a claim here, as you just have, then you would have to KNOW, and thus also be ABLE TO EXPLAIN, EXACTLY, who and/or what the 'we' is here, which 'you' are claiming are ALL being "screwed" in this 'physical' world.

For 'you' to make a claim regarding 'Me', which directly OPPOSES what 'I' ACTUALLY said, SEE, and UNDERSTAND, is a HUGE claim to make. Now, I suggest that you better have some VERY GOOD PROOF and EXPLAINING to od, which backs up and supports YOUR CLAIM HERE. So, what PROOF do 'you' have of who AND what 'I' am, AND, how do 'you explain that 'I' am SUPPOSEDLY being "screwed" in this 'physical' world.

Until you can provide thee accurate, proper, AND correct ANSWER to the question 'Who am 'I'?' then I suggest you forget about YOUR CLAIM here. Unless of course you would like to start EXPLAINING and start SHOWING the PROOF, which you have. And, if you do, then please go right ahead, and START.

Paradigmer wrote: ↑Thu Sep 10, 2020 5:38 pm And you are assuming everyone is viewing 'being screwed' is absolutely a bad thing.

And what did you base this ASSUMPTION on, EXACTLY?

Paradigmer wrote: ↑Thu Sep 10, 2020 5:38 pm Much could be said on this but I cut it short here.

Please do NOT cut it short. When you talk about ALL of 'we' 'being screwed' what do you ACTUALLY MEAN?

The 'We' I was referring to, include all creatures , yourself, also the Einsteinian relativists you so tried to convince, and all the living things of this delimited physical world.

And you have no idea you are affirming the consequent in a way no different to the proponents of the Einsteinian TOR, which the arguments are not really worthy to argue with. And you should know very well their relentless convictions with the absolute 'scientific proofs' to prove to you what time is as if you were an idiot.

Can you not see how screwy is this world?

Age wrote: ↑Fri Sep 11, 2020 12:08 pm

Paradigmer wrote: ↑Thu Sep 10, 2020 5:38 pm

Age wrote: ↑Thu Sep 10, 2020 6:45 am But this is ALL part of the BEAUTY of what is being Created, and what is about to come.

The MORE 'one' has been 'trodden on', 'looked down upon', and been 'put down', then the MORE BEAUTIFUL it is for that 'one' RISE UP and SHOW and REVEAL what thee actual True Nature of Life, living, and loving, Itself, REALLY IS.

Indeed it is.

So you should be able to understand there actually is not anything that is really 'Wrong' in the way you had insisted.

What do 'you' mean by; "in the way you had insisted"?

What have I insisted? And, in what way, have I insisted 'that'?

Now, what is the 'thing', which I had, supposedly, "insisted on others" was so 'Wrong'?

I think you might be ASSUMING just a bit, or quite a bit, to much here.

Did I EVER say the 'thing' was so 'Wrong'?

If yes, then it would be very easy and simple for you to point us to WHERE I said this.

Yes you did in this post back at page 11:

Age wrote: ↑Mon Sep 07, 2020 11:40 am And, considering EXACTLY WHERE 'point of views' and, so called, "core values" originate from, then WHY adult people do take sides, and WHY this way of thinking and seeing things is TOTALLY WRONG and INAPPROPRIATE becomes CLEAR, and OBVIOUS.

Age wrote: ↑Fri Sep 11, 2020 12:08 pm

Paradigmer wrote: ↑Thu Sep 10, 2020 5:38 pm

Age wrote: ↑Thu Sep 10, 2020 1:36 pm What does the word 'paradoxical' mean, exactly, in the title, "The paradoxical effect of the cosmos"?

And, what does the word 'cosmos' refer to exactly, in that title?

As mentioned, you can visit my thread where there is a link to my web page on "The paradoxical effect of the cosmos" to check on its dictionary definitions. And you can also look up at the 'Glossary' section if you want a more specific definition 'in the title' of the topic. Your questions for the two terminologies are self-explanatory there, if still not satisfied you can also skim through the content and should be able to grasp their explicit meanings in between the lines. Every term there was defined as much as could be despite that was not always possible, and also the limitations with words are indeed quite a hinder on the eliminations of ambiguities for being specific by definition, but most readers looked hard enough should be able to get its drift.

If you could not be bother to answer these questions directly here, in this forum, then I could not be bothered to read multiple words, and maybe multiple pages, just to find what you are alluding to, which could have just been very easily written here. In fact to answer my very simple questions could probably be done in less words that you actually wrote to tell me to go look for those answers yourself by trawling through texts somewhere else.

Have you not got the cognizance this is someone else thread we need to pay some respect to?

Will not respond to your further AOB questions in this thread.

So please don't post anymore off topic stuff here to me. TQ.

Age wrote: ↑Fri Sep 11, 2020 12:08 pm

Paradigmer wrote: ↑Thu Sep 10, 2020 5:38 pm As per se, agreeing or not to what you read is another matter, but please don't analyze until you become mentally paralyzed and inflict the paralysis on others as well; no statement could be absolutely perfect and of course some could be so wrong even on its own premises.

Will you provide examples?

Here is one spontaneous example. You were so sticky with your analyses on the terminologies of the title I mentioned, and refused to proceed from there in the way you was insisting. This was despite having prompted to you on this is not the place for that off-topic discussion, and had also pointed to you the link and explained how you might get your questions properly answered. Whether you agree to it not is another issue, but you simply wouldn't move on. Was this not fair to say 'analyze until you become mentally paralyzed and inflict the paralysis on others'?

Age wrote: ↑Fri Sep 11, 2020 12:08 pm

Paradigmer wrote: ↑Thu Sep 10, 2020 5:38 pm Also, everyone is at their different stages on multifarious levels for their learning process be it right or wrong, and no one sharing their point of view openly really owes you any explanation for their living on what you think as ought to be from your point of view.

Well you appear to have what I have been saying COMPLETELY and UTTERLY MIXED UP and WRONG.

Paradigmer wrote: ↑Thu Sep 10, 2020 5:38 pm And 'understanding HOW to differentiate between' the objective reality of the cosmos, and the nature of reality is 'just one more thing to learn, in Life'.

Already achieved, and VERY EASILY DONE.

No comment about your opinion.

Glad you at least think you have 'Already achieved, and VERY EASILY DONE.'. Definitely wished you did.

Age wrote: ↑Fri Sep 11, 2020 12:08 pm

Paradigmer wrote: ↑Thu Sep 10, 2020 5:38 pm There is no absolute truth in the nature of reality. And William Blakes knew this so well:
“Truth can never be told so as to be understood, and not to be believ'd”

Is this an absolute truth? Or, is this just ANOTHER one of those comments, which are NOT absolutely true at all?

See, EVERY time some one 'tries' to say, or explain, that there is NO absolute truth, then they have to admit that what they are saying, or explaining, is NOT absolutely true at all, either.

Is this 'deduction' not anything but the post-hoc fallacy of your assumption?

Stuff like this is if you know it, no need to explain, and if you don't know, its no use explaining.

Nonetheless, if you are out to profess truth as per se, you should read the works of William Blakes. When he was around, no one had really acknowledged anything about his works and he was largely unrecognized during his lifetime, but now he is being regarded as the number 38th of the 100 Greatest Britons of "far and away the greatest artist Britain has ever produced".

And honestly, could you really convince any of those hardcore relativists with your definition of what time is?

Age wrote: ↑Fri Sep 11, 2020 12:08 pm

Paradigmer wrote: ↑Thu Sep 10, 2020 5:38 pm You are most welcome to post your questions on this topic in the thread I had started there; let's not saturate this thread with off topic discussions. But in the events if I could not wrap my head around any issue I might not be responding at all or in a timely manner as of demands.

Have you started a thread in this forum, on that topic?

If no, then why not?

Also, why do you like to mention 'that' topic, with so many links to that different, not secure, website?

Yes I did and it was previously mentioned. It was just a few threads under the "Philosophy of Science" section, under the thread header also titled as "The paradoxical effect of the cosmos". Albeit in this thread it was just plain text without the links to your questions for the definitions of the terminologies, so have to point you to the 'place' with the explicated definitions that could satisfy your questions.

The webpage was indeed stated as "not secure" by most browsers, and in fact it was hacked a few times with some pages replaced. However, after enquiry with the Internet Host, they replied it would not compromise the security of viewers besides could alter the pages with unwanted popup advertisement. The hacking had not happened very often, totally tamed off in the last few years, so I let it be despite still vulnerable, but would just need to reload the webpages if hacked. No big deal really.

'that' was because you had asked, and you also mentioned 'I may not looking at things the way you are and so I am not seeing what you can'.

So I believed you could be oblivious to an intrinsic nature of reality after so many instances of such comments (a few are quoted below) from you. And those were just my casual responses; no need to be so hardup.

Age wrote:And, why do you PRESUME that some 'things' are "very elusive to our senses"?

Age wrote: But OBVIOUSLY I may not looking at things the way you are and so I am not seeing what you can.

Also, why do you like to 'clarify' with such ways of questioning with your assumed 'PRESUME', and so obsessed with hunting for the 'wrong' things with your beliefs instead of any serious introspection at all?

Paradigmer wrote: ↑Tue Sep 15, 2020 12:48 pm

Age wrote: ↑Fri Sep 11, 2020 12:08 pm

Paradigmer wrote: ↑Thu Sep 10, 2020 5:38 pm
The scientific community as it IS was more on the pragmatic theory of truth, so to speak there isn't any real 'Honest' answer of a 'Yes' or a 'No' for the 'why' of the premise that focuses on making politically correct propositions for its pragmatical measurements.

I asked you the question, in regards to one of your comments. I ask you:
Have you thought about, or do you know WHY, some are being 'deliberately kept' there?

To me a 'Yes' or a 'No', for either or both, would suffice.

You asked 'WHY' on that, which is very subjective to individual premises and therefore there would never have an absolute answer, and the whole issue would become very argumentative to no real conclusions at all. And you have no idea you are begging the question, which is not a worthy point of view to respond to.

Yes I did use the 'why' word in my clarifying question posed to you.

I did NOT use individual premises, in my clarifying question posed to you, other than the individual premise you wrote.

Is your claim that there would NEVER have an absolute answer, an 'absolute answer' itself?

I hope the 'whole issue' would become very 'argumentative' as 'arguing' is meant to be a big issue in and of philosophical discussions. Some even say that 'arguing' is the whole issue in philosophy. I found REAL conclusions do actually come through 'arguing'.

What does 'begging the question' actually mean, to you? This might explain WHY you wrote what you did here about me. Did you use the 'begging the question' phrase because of the question I asked you?

You also seem to have NO idea what has actually occurred here. That is;

You wrote and claimed; people with different fundamental point of views are being deliberately kept high and dry at places of being not at their side.

I just then asked you a clarifying question, ONLY

I just asked you; Have you thought about, or do you know WHY those ones who are being deliberately kept high and dry, are being 'deliberately kept' there?

I was NOT presenting any arguments where the premises assume the truth of the conclusion. Again, I ONLY asked you a CLARIFYING QUESTION here, ONLY.

Paradigmer wrote: ↑Tue Sep 15, 2020 12:48 pm

Age wrote: ↑Fri Sep 11, 2020 12:08 pm

Paradigmer wrote: ↑Thu Sep 10, 2020 5:38 pm

Really?

Yes.

Paradigmer wrote: ↑Thu Sep 10, 2020 5:38 pm You meant all living things when you said "EVERY one"?

Are you asking or telling. Your sentence is a statement BUT with a question mark at the end.

If it is a statement, then okay. But, if it is a question, then Yes.

Paradigmer wrote: ↑Thu Sep 10, 2020 5:38 pm Or were you just referring to the human species only, or just by switching the mindsets of the individuals like what the ostriches are doing?

No, to the first part of this question. I do NOT have clue what the second part of the question is in relation to.

Paradigmer wrote: ↑Thu Sep 10, 2020 5:38 pm Or you were suggesting Truly 'peaceful world' could solely be accomplished by the human species alone and nevermind all other living things?

Human beings are the only ones, which they are yet aware of, who can fathom and discuss issues regarding 'peace'. So, only human beings, 'alone', can accomplish a Truly 'peaceful world', on earth. But, this OBVIOUSLY would include ALL other living things.

Paradigmer wrote: ↑Thu Sep 10, 2020 5:38 pm See the arrogance of your belief?

But I do NOT have a belief.
So, there could NOT be any arrogance of some, alleged, belief, either.
Therefore, I could NOT see the, alleged, arrogance of what I do NOT even have.

Would you like to explain further what you were talking about here?

Your belief on you 'do NOT have a belief' is just that, a belief.

Your claim here is just absurd and ridiculous.

How could you even PROVE that this is a belief?

What you are actually PROVING here is that this is just 'your' ASSUMPTION, and BELIEF, only.

Unless of course you can PROVE that I have beliefs and that one of them is that 'I have NO beliefs'.

Paradigmer wrote: ↑Tue Sep 15, 2020 12:48 pm

Age wrote: ↑Fri Sep 11, 2020 12:08 pm

Paradigmer wrote: ↑Thu Sep 10, 2020 5:38 pm

You now have understood the value of being 'screwed', and therefore 'SEE' that you are not being 'screwed', is another matter on your idea of "others" who view themselves as being "screwed over" by Life.

These do not change the fact that we are all being screwed in this 'physical' world regardless of how you or others view it.

To make such a claim here, as you just have, then you would have to KNOW, and thus also be ABLE TO EXPLAIN, EXACTLY, who and/or what the 'we' is here, which 'you' are claiming are ALL being "screwed" in this 'physical' world.

For 'you' to make a claim regarding 'Me', which directly OPPOSES what 'I' ACTUALLY said, SEE, and UNDERSTAND, is a HUGE claim to make. Now, I suggest that you better have some VERY GOOD PROOF and EXPLAINING to od, which backs up and supports YOUR CLAIM HERE. So, what PROOF do 'you' have of who AND what 'I' am, AND, how do 'you explain that 'I' am SUPPOSEDLY being "screwed" in this 'physical' world.

Until you can provide thee accurate, proper, AND correct ANSWER to the question 'Who am 'I'?' then I suggest you forget about YOUR CLAIM here. Unless of course you would like to start EXPLAINING and start SHOWING the PROOF, which you have. And, if you do, then please go right ahead, and START.

Paradigmer wrote: ↑Thu Sep 10, 2020 5:38 pm And you are assuming everyone is viewing 'being screwed' is absolutely a bad thing.

And what did you base this ASSUMPTION on, EXACTLY?

Paradigmer wrote: ↑Thu Sep 10, 2020 5:38 pm Much could be said on this but I cut it short here.

Please do NOT cut it short. When you talk about ALL of 'we' 'being screwed' what do you ACTUALLY MEAN?

The 'We' I was referring to, include all creatures , yourself, also the Einsteinian relativists you so tried to convince, and all the living things of this delimited physical world.

Okay, but now I have NO idea what you are referring to when you wrote; "the "einsteinian relativists" I, supposedly, so tried to convince.

What did I, supposedly, tried to convince these, so called, "einsteinian relativists" of, EXACTLY?

Paradigmer wrote: ↑Tue Sep 15, 2020 12:48 pm And you have no idea you are affirming the consequent in a way no different to the proponents of the Einsteinian TOR, which the arguments are not really worthy to argue with.

I have absolutely NO idea at all what you are talking about NOR referring to, at all, let alone have ANY idea at all of the specifics you are talking about and referring to here.

Paradigmer wrote: ↑Tue Sep 15, 2020 12:48 pm And you should know very well their relentless convictions with the absolute 'scientific proofs' to prove to you what time is as if you were an idiot.

Can you not see how screwy is this world?

When you say, "this world", then what are you referring to, EXACTLY?

Paradigmer wrote: ↑Tue Sep 15, 2020 12:48 pm

Age wrote: ↑Fri Sep 11, 2020 12:08 pm

Paradigmer wrote: ↑Thu Sep 10, 2020 5:38 pm

Indeed it is.

So you should be able to understand there actually is not anything that is really 'Wrong' in the way you had insisted.

What do 'you' mean by; "in the way you had insisted"?

What have I insisted? And, in what way, have I insisted 'that'?

Now, what is the 'thing', which I had, supposedly, "insisted on others" was so 'Wrong'?

I think you might be ASSUMING just a bit, or quite a bit, to much here.

Did I EVER say the 'thing' was so 'Wrong'?

If yes, then it would be very easy and simple for you to point us to WHERE I said this.

Yes you did in this post back at page 11:

I looked at page 11. I still have absolutely NO idea what you are talking about and referring to, exactly.

ONCE AGAIN:
What do 'you' mean by; "in the way you had insisted"?

What have I insisted? And, in what way, have I insisted 'that'?

When you answer these three clarifying questions, if you ever do, then can you move forward and answer the next clarifying question.

Now, what is the 'thing', which I had, supposedly, "insisted on others" was so 'Wrong'?

I think you might be ASSUMING just a bit, or quite a bit, to much here.

Did I EVER say the 'thing' was so 'Wrong'?

If yes, then it would be very easy and simple for you to point us to WHERE I said this.

IF you have already answered the previous four clarifying questions, and your response to the last clarifying question here is still "Yes", then will you point us to the actual WORDS that I wrote, instead of just a page number?

Paradigmer wrote: ↑Tue Sep 15, 2020 12:48 pm

Age wrote: ↑Mon Sep 07, 2020 11:40 am And, considering EXACTLY WHERE 'point of views' and, so called, "core values" originate from, then WHY adult people do take sides, and WHY this way of thinking and seeing things is TOTALLY WRONG and INAPPROPRIATE becomes CLEAR, and OBVIOUS.

Age wrote: ↑Fri Sep 11, 2020 12:08 pm

Paradigmer wrote: ↑Thu Sep 10, 2020 5:38 pm

As mentioned, you can visit my thread where there is a link to my web page on "The paradoxical effect of the cosmos" to check on its dictionary definitions. And you can also look up at the 'Glossary' section if you want a more specific definition 'in the title' of the topic. Your questions for the two terminologies are self-explanatory there, if still not satisfied you can also skim through the content and should be able to grasp their explicit meanings in between the lines. Every term there was defined as much as could be despite that was not always possible, and also the limitations with words are indeed quite a hinder on the eliminations of ambiguities for being specific by definition, but most readers looked hard enough should be able to get its drift.

If you could not be bother to answer these questions directly here, in this forum, then I could not be bothered to read multiple words, and maybe multiple pages, just to find what you are alluding to, which could have just been very easily written here. In fact to answer my very simple questions could probably be done in less words that you actually wrote to tell me to go look for those answers yourself by trawling through texts somewhere else.

Have you not got the cognizance this is someone else thread we need to pay some respect to?

If you had ANY respect for "another's" thread, then you would STOP talking about and STOP linking to your OWN website or OWN web page in an "others" thread. Also, have you even considered starting your OWN thread, here in this forum, about what you obviously want to lead towards?

Paradigmer wrote: ↑Tue Sep 15, 2020 12:48 pm Will not respond to your further AOB questions in this thread.

I do NOT know what AOB means.

Also, just now saying you are NOT going to answer my questions some CLEARLY SEE the REASON for.

Paradigmer wrote: ↑Tue Sep 15, 2020 12:48 pm So please don't post anymore off topic stuff here to me. TQ.

What does 'TQ' mean, to you?

Also, have you even realized that asking me to not post anymore off topic stuff here to you, is just MORE off topic stuff?

If you look back over your discussions with me, if I recall correctly, there is just about NOTHING in relation to the topic of this thread.

Paradigmer wrote: ↑Tue Sep 15, 2020 12:48 pm

Age wrote: ↑Fri Sep 11, 2020 12:08 pm

Paradigmer wrote: ↑Thu Sep 10, 2020 5:38 pm As per se, agreeing or not to what you read is another matter, but please don't analyze until you become mentally paralyzed and inflict the paralysis on others as well; no statement could be absolutely perfect and of course some could be so wrong even on its own premises.

Will you provide examples?

Here is one spontaneous example.

So, you just asked me, politely, to 'please' not post anymore off topic stuff here to you, but you then instantly go on to post off topic stuff, to you. Now, do you not want me to respond to the rest of your off topic stuff that you write here?

Paradigmer wrote: ↑Tue Sep 15, 2020 12:48 pm You were so sticky with your analyses on the terminologies of the title I mentioned, and refused to proceed from there in the way you was insisting.

Me just asking you some clarifying questions about the title of your writings appears to have really upset or concerned you somewhat.

Also, how has me just asking you some clarifying questions, in order to gain a better understanding of 'you', and your views, led you to the conclusion that I am "so sticky" and have "analyzed your terminologies"? The WHOLE PURPOSE of asking CLARIFYING QUESTIONS is so that I can understand their terminologies BETTER.

Paradigmer wrote: ↑Tue Sep 15, 2020 12:48 pm This was despite having prompted to you on this is not the place for that off-topic discussion, and had also pointed to you the link and explained how you might get your questions properly answered.

And despite all of this you are still talking about off topic stuff, correct? And maybe of more of an issue you are still talking about YOUR OWN writings on YOUR OWN website/webpage.

Oh, and by the way, I have ALREADY informed you that I am NOT going to read ALL of your writings on some OTHER website, and then working out how to ask you questions on that OTHER website. If you can NOT and will NOT answer questions on THIS website, then so be it. And, if you want to use the "justification" that you will NOT do this in THIS 'thread', then remember you are FREE to start ANOTHER thread, from which you can then advertise your website/webpage there. But, if you did start a thread, in this forum, then would you properly answer the clarifying questions posed to you? Or, do you still want "others" to follow your links and go to YOUR OWN web site?

Paradigmer wrote: ↑Tue Sep 15, 2020 12:48 pm Whether you agree to it not is another issue, but you simply wouldn't move on. Was this not fair to say 'analyze until you become mentally paralyzed and inflict the paralysis on others'?

This is NOT about what is 'fair', but rather about what is 'logical' AND 'sensible'.

Your analyze about me analyzing is just PLAIN WRONG. But you might be mently paralyzed by your analyses here.

Paradigmer wrote: ↑Tue Sep 15, 2020 12:48 pm

Age wrote: ↑Fri Sep 11, 2020 12:08 pm

Well you appear to have what I have been saying COMPLETELY and UTTERLY MIXED UP and WRONG.



Already achieved, and VERY EASILY DONE.

No comment about your opinion.

Glad you at least think you have 'Already achieved, and VERY EASILY DONE.'. Definitely wished you did.

'What' EXACTLY do you definitely wished I did?

Paradigmer wrote: ↑Tue Sep 15, 2020 12:48 pm

Age wrote: ↑Fri Sep 11, 2020 12:08 pm

Is this an absolute truth? Or, is this just ANOTHER one of those comments, which are NOT absolutely true at all?

See, EVERY time some one 'tries' to say, or explain, that there is NO absolute truth, then they have to admit that what they are saying, or explaining, is NOT absolutely true at all, either.

Is this 'deduction' not anything but the post-hoc fallacy of your assumption?

But it is NOT an 'assumption' at all.

It is either true or false. If it is false, to you, then WHY?

Paradigmer wrote: ↑Tue Sep 15, 2020 12:48 pm Stuff like this is if you know it, no need to explain, and if you don't know, its no use explaining.

But if you do NOT know, then you can NOT explain. So, saying, "it is then no use explaining", "when you do NOT know" is just nonsensical AND illogical.

Also, your attempt at deflecting away from what you actually did here, which was; to claim "There is NO absolute truth" does NOT work on me, as it is still OBVIOUS that what you claim here could NOT be absolutely true at all.

Paradigmer wrote: ↑Tue Sep 15, 2020 12:48 pm Nonetheless, if you are out to profess truth as per se, you should read the works of William Blakes. When he was around, no one had really acknowledged anything about his works and he was largely unrecognized during his lifetime, but now he is being regarded as the number 38th of the 100 Greatest Britons of "far and away the greatest artist Britain has ever produced".

And honestly, could you really convince any of those hardcore relativists with your definition of what time is?

What is my definition of what 'time' is?

And, the very last thing I am intending to do is to 'convince' ANY one, of ANY thing.

Paradigmer wrote: ↑Tue Sep 15, 2020 12:48 pm

Age wrote: ↑Fri Sep 11, 2020 12:08 pm

Have you started a thread in this forum, on that topic?

If no, then why not?

Also, why do you like to mention 'that' topic, with so many links to that different, not secure, website?

Yes I did and it was previously mentioned. It was just a few threads under the "Philosophy of Science" section, under the thread header also titled as "The paradoxical effect of the cosmos". Albeit in this thread it was just plain text without the links to your questions for the definitions of the terminologies, so have to point you to the 'place' with the explicated definitions that could satisfy your questions.

My bad then. But, I suggest that if you want to point me to a thread, in this forum, which has the EXACT SAME name as a webpage of yours, then so that I do not get so easily mistaken, then you just make this absolutely CLEAR.

Paradigmer wrote: ↑Tue Sep 15, 2020 12:48 pm The webpage was indeed stated as "not secure" by most browsers, and in fact it was hacked a few times with some pages replaced. However, after enquiry with the Internet Host, they replied it would not compromise the security of viewers besides could alter the pages with unwanted popup advertisement. The hacking had not happened very often, totally tamed off in the last few years, so I let it be despite still vulnerable, but would just need to reload the webpages if hacked. No big deal really.

'that' was because you had asked, and you also mentioned 'I may not looking at things the way you are and so I am not seeing what you can'.

So I believed you could be oblivious to an intrinsic nature of reality after so many instances of such comments (a few are quoted below) from you. And those were just my casual responses; no need to be so hardup.

What do you ASSUME I am, supposedly, "so hardup" about?

And, what does "hardup" mean, to you?

Paradigmer wrote: ↑Tue Sep 15, 2020 12:48 pm

Age wrote:And, why do you PRESUME that some 'things' are "very elusive to our senses"?

Age wrote: But OBVIOUSLY I may not looking at things the way you are and so I am not seeing what you can.

Also, why do you like to 'clarify' with such ways of questioning with your assumed 'PRESUME', and so obsessed with hunting for the 'wrong' things with your beliefs instead of any serious introspection at all?

LOL

LOOK AT 'my' questions. What can be CLEARLY SEEN, that is; WHEN LOOKING OPENLY, is that they are JUST 'clarifying questions', asked from a Truly OPEN viewpoint, with NO presumptions, assumptions, nor beliefs AT ALL. They are a SERIOUS introspection. For example, my one and only clarifying question, which you quoted above here, is asked from a Truly OPEN perspective, for clarification. See, there is NOTHING AT ALL elusive to our senses, to me, so I am just CURIOUS as to WHY you PRESUME that there are some 'things', which are, so called, "very elusive to our senses"?

Maybe if you just provide some examples of what you find elusive to YOUR senses, then I could inform you of how those things are NOT elusive to OUR senses at all. Very simple and easy, REALLY.

I did NOT assume your presumption. You do presume there are some 'things', which are "very elusive to our senses", correct? Or, am I wrong here?

Also, I am NOT hunting at all for 'wrong' things. To me, there is NO 'wrong' things in what has been experienced and is being perceived.

And AGAIN I have NO beliefs.