Philosophy Now Forum

Fairy wrote: ↑Sun Aug 10, 2025 5:46 am

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Sun Aug 10, 2025 1:17 am

mickthinks wrote: ↑Wed Aug 06, 2025 7:10 am This thread is astounding!

It is an unpublished book of mine.

Many authors appear, but there’s only one reading writing no one ever writ.

Nothing’s for sale.

The one occurs as many.

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Sun Aug 10, 2025 6:02 pm

Fairy wrote: ↑Sun Aug 10, 2025 5:46 am

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Sun Aug 10, 2025 1:17 am

It is an unpublished book of mine.

Many authors appear, but there’s only one reading writing no one ever writ.

Nothing’s for sale.

The one occurs as many.

Many of the one.

Fairy wrote: ↑Wed Aug 13, 2025 7:06 am

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Sun Aug 10, 2025 6:02 pm

Fairy wrote: ↑Sun Aug 10, 2025 5:46 am

Many authors appear, but there’s only one reading writing no one ever writ.

Nothing’s for sale.

The one occurs as many.

Many of the one.

All is paradox.

Hi, I need help understanding.

I understand the part that at the start, negation of negation leads to a positive.

But I dont understand what happens after, wouldn't you just have positive=positive infinitely? How do you get the next thing?

huphuphup123 wrote: ↑Tue Aug 26, 2025 8:50 pm Hi, I need help understanding.

I understand the part that at the start, negation of negation leads to a positive.

But I dont understand what happens after, wouldn't you just have positive=positive infinitely? How do you get the next thing?

Apologies for the late response, I was not aware of your response.

Philosophy is often a language game of meanings so I will help but I prefer if you ask further questions if the explanation appears unclear from your point of view.

So...to begin...

1. Negation of negation leads to a positive.

2. A positive of a positive results in one positive as relative "greater" than another thus a relative negation of degrees of a positive occurs.

2a. Think of Grey becoming white, shades of Grey continue to exist but with each shade there is less and less black.

3. A dualism of positive and negative occurs.

4. The presence of this dualism is a positive.

5. This positive results in a negative, ie an absence of said dualism for positive is distinct by what it is not, absence.

6. There is a dualism of dualism.

7. This presence of "a dualism of dualism" is a positive.

8. The presence of "a dualism of dualism" results in a negative form positive is distinct by what it is not, absence.

9. There is a dualism of dualism of dualism.

10. This occurs infinitely thus there are infinite dualisms by degree of grades of a primary dualism.

11. All things occur dualistically, at minimum by degree of "presence" and "absence".

12. There are infinite degrees of relative presence and absence, that is what constitutes all things we observe as distinct.


Hope that helps...again apologies for late response. If you have anymore questions feel free to ask...there are no dumb questions.


If you disagree with the book please feel free to disagree. No hard feelings.

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Sat Sep 13, 2025 5:52 am

huphuphup123 wrote: ↑Tue Aug 26, 2025 8:50 pm Hi, I need help understanding.

I understand the part that at the start, negation of negation leads to a positive.

But I dont understand what happens after, wouldn't you just have positive=positive infinitely? How do you get the next thing?

Apologies for the late response, I was not aware of your response.

Philosophy is often a language game of meanings so I will help but I prefer if you ask further questions if the explanation appears unclear from your point of view.

So...to begin...

1. Negation of negation leads to a positive.

2. A positive of a positive results in one positive as relative "greater" than another thus a relative negation of degrees of a positive occurs.

2a. Think of Grey becoming white, shades of Grey continue to exist but with each shade there is less and less black.

3. A dualism of positive and negative occurs.

4. The presence of this dualism is a positive.

5. This positive results in a negative, ie an absence of said dualism for positive is distinct by what it is not, absence.

6. There is a dualism of dualism.

7. This presence of "a dualism of dualism" is a positive.

8. The presence of "a dualism of dualism" results in a negative form positive is distinct by what it is not, absence.

9. There is a dualism of dualism of dualism.

10. This occurs infinitely thus there are infinite dualisms by degree of grades of a primary dualism.

11. All things occur dualistically, at minimum by degree of "presence" and "absence".

12. There are infinite degrees of relative presence and absence, that is what constitutes all things we observe as distinct.


Hope that helps...again apologies for late response. If you have anymore questions feel free to ask...there are no dumb questions.


If you disagree with the book please feel free to disagree. No hard feelings.

so before I can go on, I am stuck on this part

. A positive of a positive results in one positive as relative "greater" than another thus a relative negation of degrees of a positive occurs.

So I understand you are saying the second is more positive than the first, which is like saying the first is more negative than the second which means there is a negative here

but can you put it in logical letters like A and not-A or 'something' and 'nothing'

because you aren't saying A=not-A right? The statement must be different to show a relative absence within the first positive

So to start you have not-A =not-A in the beginning

then you get A which is like A=A

but then A=A turns itself into what? It wouldn't be A=not-A, and like you could add brackets (A=A) = not-A or something like that, but I keep thinking A=not-A negates itself into not-A,

like if you have the color red and you have another red which is redder than the first, then you are not saying the absence of the second red is the first red, but rather it would be something else whilst the first red stays there

Positve = positve are two positives, but one positive in relation to another is a negative, so (positive = positive) = negative, it is making sense

but there needs to be clarification that you are not saying positive = negative, if one positive is a negative in relation to the other positive, then were you actually saying positive = negative to begin with?

but (positive = positive) = negative, with brackets make sense kind of

How does change occur?

huphuphup123 wrote: ↑Sat Sep 13, 2025 6:14 pm

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Sat Sep 13, 2025 5:52 am

huphuphup123 wrote: ↑Tue Aug 26, 2025 8:50 pm Hi, I need help understanding.

I understand the part that at the start, negation of negation leads to a positive.

But I dont understand what happens after, wouldn't you just have positive=positive infinitely? How do you get the next thing?

Apologies for the late response, I was not aware of your response.

Philosophy is often a language game of meanings so I will help but I prefer if you ask further questions if the explanation appears unclear from your point of view.

So...to begin...

1. Negation of negation leads to a positive.

2. A positive of a positive results in one positive as relative "greater" than another thus a relative negation of degrees of a positive occurs.

2a. Think of Grey becoming white, shades of Grey continue to exist but with each shade there is less and less black.

3. A dualism of positive and negative occurs.

4. The presence of this dualism is a positive.

5. This positive results in a negative, ie an absence of said dualism for positive is distinct by what it is not, absence.

6. There is a dualism of dualism.

7. This presence of "a dualism of dualism" is a positive.

8. The presence of "a dualism of dualism" results in a negative form positive is distinct by what it is not, absence.

9. There is a dualism of dualism of dualism.

10. This occurs infinitely thus there are infinite dualisms by degree of grades of a primary dualism.

11. All things occur dualistically, at minimum by degree of "presence" and "absence".

12. There are infinite degrees of relative presence and absence, that is what constitutes all things we observe as distinct.


Hope that helps...again apologies for late response. If you have anymore questions feel free to ask...there are no dumb questions.


If you disagree with the book please feel free to disagree. No hard feelings.

so before I can go on, I am stuck on this part

. A positive of a positive results in one positive as relative "greater" than another thus a relative negation of degrees of a positive occurs.

So I understand you are saying the second is more positive than the first, which is like saying the first is more negative than the second which means there is a negative here

but can you put it in logical letters like A and not-A or 'something' and 'nothing'

because you aren't saying A=not-A right? The statement must be different to show a relative absence within the first positive

So to start you have not-A =not-A in the beginning

then you get A which is like A=A

but then A=A turns itself into what? It wouldn't be A=not-A, and like you could add brackets (A=A) = not-A or something like that, but I keep thinking A=not-A negates itself into not-A,

like if you have the color red and you have another red which is redder than the first, then you are not saying the absence of the second red is the first red, but rather it would be something else whilst the first red stays there

Sure, no problem.

This is covered in the "holographic logic" thread in the math and logic section if you desire a more thorough formalism. The argument has be run through AI analysis approximately several hundred times, literally, and was found coherent and logical about 99.99 percent of the time. In other words, the system, according to the vast analysis', is legitimate. It may address your specific question modality better than this specific book. I have to warn you the abstraction level is very high, which may be or not be for you. It is about 50+ pages total and goes into a proto-logical view of basic distinctions.


But for this specific book:


For context "->" can be observed as "leads to" , "directed to", "is". This is a very basic formal system. For context this is a recursive sequence, you may and probably already know this.

Equality, or "=", is synonymous to a recursive sequence implied within this book later. The implication is there, it is not directly argued, if memory serves (I wrote it a few years ago and just remembered about it recently)

"->" is process oriented identity, change oriented, while "=" is better viewed as static/status oriented identity.



1. (A -> A) -> (A, -A, B)
2. (A -> -A) <-> (A -> B)
3. (-A -> -A) <-> (A,B)
4. (-A -> -A) -> (A, -A, -B)

Relative to a "more red":

One red is redder than another red. The less red red has an absence of redness compared to the redder red (this less red may be whiter, blacker, or contain another non red color).

huphuphup123 wrote: ↑Sun Sep 14, 2025 2:28 am Positve = positve are two positives, but one positive in relation to another is a negative, so (positive = positive) = negative, it is making sense

but there needs to be clarification that you are not saying positive = negative, if one positive is a negative in relation to the other positive, then were you actually saying positive = negative to begin with?

but (positive = positive) = negative, with brackets make sense kind of

How does change occur?

I understand your point but in the context of the book a positive can equal a negative. In western reasoning this may seem counterintuitive...but counterintuitive truths exist.

The reasoning is argued elsewhere if memory serves (if not in this book it is another book. For context this book is one of four sub-books as one large book of books within a book)

There are several dimensions to this:

Contrast is a necessary relationship where one identity is occurs because of the other. This is a form of isomorphism, same foundations but differing appearance. There is no true equality between things without there effectively being one thing. "A" cannot be equal to itself without there being multiple "A's" as equality is a relationship between multiple things. If there are multiple "A" then there is a difference of conditionality that defines each "A", at minimum there are differences in time and space of each. Conditionality, or context, is an integral part of identity for it sets the limits of its existence. You will see this in reading Husserl, Neitztche, Heraclitus, Hegel and others in western philosophy, and the majority of eastern philosophy under Nagajuna, Lao Tzu, various schools of Hinduism, etc.

Now equality under these terms is contextual assuming the above. There is one thing repeated across multiple states and this equality between differences is but the underlying repeated foundations that exist across differences as a self-referentiality. In this specific context, recursion can be viewed synonymously to equality as equality is self referentiality, for example it may be seen that "A=A", in classical standards, is but a self-reference.

So in these specific respects the nature of "A = -A" occurs.

"A" and "-A" not only share the same foundations, at minimum being founded in degree as distinction.

In another respect both are co-dependent by necessary contrast, one exists because of the other. The mutual dependency necessitates equality in the respect of the necessity of each. One does not exist without the other thus they are relationally dependent, thus of one identity in this respect through said necessity of relationship.

As to change:

We understand things by contrast, obviously I am repeating things here, and this contrast necessitates a transition of one appearance into another. For a thing to be distinct there must be change. But what is change? It is a process of emerging and dissolving distinctions. But what causes the process? Potentiality.

For change to occur there must be the potential to do so, there must be a void by which things are. If a tree is distinct from a car there must be a void of the tree in a car and a void of car in the tree. In another respect if a car is to move from point A to point B there must be a void of relative things for the movement to occur. Change is thus the manifestation of something from nothing, nothing being potentiality, potentiality being void (these three terms are synonymous).

So what is change fundamentally?

The presence of potentiality within actuality as the absence of actuality. A thing containing its opposite, akin to quantum superpositioning in some respects as potentiality and actuality are superimposed.

In simpler terms, and you may want to ask further questions for the following statement: change is the distinction of potentiality by degree of actuality of potentiality as a distinction. The current Grok 4 AI model presented something very similar to this when ask about the nature of God, ie existence.

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Tue Jul 22, 2025 8:12 pm I

To prove a thing in itself is to make is subject to human observation

Just noting that Kant's thing-in-itself can by definition not be proven, can by definition not be made subject to human observation, that's the point. So this is a non-Kantian thing-in-itself.

As to change:

We understand things by contrast, obviously I am repeating things here, and this contrast necessitates a transition of one appearance into another. For a thing to be distinct there must be change. But what is change? It is a process of emerging and dissolving distinctions. But what causes the process? Potentiality.

For change to occur there must be the potential to do so, there must be a void by which things are. If a tree is distinct from a car there must be a void of the tree in a car and a void of car in the tree. In another respect if a car is to move from point A to point B there must be a void of relative things for the movement to occur. Change is thus the manifestation of something from nothing, nothing being potentiality, potentiality being void (these three terms are synonymous).

So what is change fundamentally?

The presence of potentiality within actuality as the absence of actuality. A thing containing its opposite, akin to quantum superpositioning in some respects as potentiality and actuality are superimposed.

In simpler terms, and you may want to ask further questions for the following statement: change is the distinction of potentiality by degree of actuality of potentiality as a distinction. The current Grok 4 AI model presented something very similar to this when ask about the nature of God, ie existence.

[/quote]

But when a thing contains its opposite, does this mean that the thing is in exist for a moment before it turns into its opposite, or would it always eternally have been non existence? Wouldn't it be the latter?

quantum superpositioning means something is there and not there at the same time, but only when you observe it then you can say it is one of them as if you cannot actually measure change.

huphuphup123 wrote: ↑Wed Oct 01, 2025 9:31 pm

As to change:

We understand things by contrast, obviously I am repeating things here, and this contrast necessitates a transition of one appearance into another. For a thing to be distinct there must be change. But what is change? It is a process of emerging and dissolving distinctions. But what causes the process? Potentiality.

For change to occur there must be the potential to do so, there must be a void by which things are. If a tree is distinct from a car there must be a void of the tree in a car and a void of car in the tree. In another respect if a car is to move from point A to point B there must be a void of relative things for the movement to occur. Change is thus the manifestation of something from nothing, nothing being potentiality, potentiality being void (these three terms are synonymous).

So what is change fundamentally?

The presence of potentiality within actuality as the absence of actuality. A thing containing its opposite, akin to quantum superpositioning in some respects as potentiality and actuality are superimposed.

In simpler terms, and you may want to ask further questions for the following statement: change is the distinction of potentiality by degree of actuality of potentiality as a distinction. The current Grok 4 AI model presented something very similar to this when ask about the nature of God, ie existence.

But when a thing contains its opposite, does this mean that the thing is in exist for a moment before it turns into its opposite, or would it always eternally have been non existence? Wouldn't it be the latter?

quantum superpositioning means something is there and not there at the same time, but only when you observe it then you can say it is one of them as if you cannot actually measure change.
[/quote]

If you look at a frequency it goes up and down. At the down point it inverts into the up point. At the up point it inverts into the down point. When a thing goes to a relative extreme, within a given framework, it resorts to its opposite.

Everyday people reflect this. A man who has experienced deep conflict often moves towards peace. A man who has experienced deep peace often move towards conflict. This can be seen in countries as well.

What is unified in one respect is seperate in another. A chair is a unified set of parts but exists because it is not a car. A thing is by what it is not, thus the things identity contains its oppositional nature, ie "not-x".

Now for existence what is actual contains its potential and what is potential contains its actual.

For example there is a car. The car is actual. It is distinct. It contains within its actuality different ways of actualizing: doors open and close, tires move, it moves from point A to point B.

Now the potential of the car contains the actual. The potential of the doors to open and close, tires move, traveling from point A to point B, allows the car to exist for if it could not do such things it would not be an fully actual car.

Now going into deep metaphysics:

A point is actual by degree of its comparison to other points.

A point is potential by degree of the actual points which may come from it.

A point is purely 0d space. Void. When void is made distinct as potential there is actuality as the distinction itself of there being potential.

Think of a yin yang.

Superpostioning, specifically this term, can be observed as multiple states existing as once. This can be observed in simple paradoxes, like the "ship of theseus", schrodinger's cat (obviously), the "all cretans are liars", etc. where the paradox is a state of observation.

But superpositioning can be expressed further. A simple form of "xyz", as any geometric form you can imagine, may have form "x", form "y" and form "z" existing all at once as a new form....multiple superimposed forms as a new form.

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Thu Oct 02, 2025 12:44 am

huphuphup123 wrote: ↑Wed Oct 01, 2025 9:31 pm

But when a thing contains its opposite, does this mean that the thing is in exist for a moment before it turns into its opposite, or would it always eternally have been non existence? Wouldn't it be the latter?

quantum superpositioning means something is there and not there at the same time, but only when you observe it then you can say it is one of them as if you cannot actually measure change.

If you look at a frequency it goes up and down. At the down point it inverts into the up point. At the up point it inverts into the down point. When a thing goes to a relative extreme, within a given framework, it resorts to its opposite.

Everyday people reflect this. A man who has experienced deep conflict often moves towards peace. A man who has experienced deep peace often move towards conflict. This can be seen in countries as well.

What is unified in one respect is seperate in another. A chair is a unified set of parts but exists because it is not a car. A thing is by what it is not, thus the things identity contains its oppositional nature, ie "not-x".

Now for existence what is actual contains its potential and what is potential contains its actual.

For example there is a car. The car is actual. It is distinct. It contains within its actuality different ways of actualizing: doors open and close, tires move, it moves from point A to point B.

Now the potential of the car contains the actual. The potential of the doors to open and close, tires move, traveling from point A to point B, allows the car to exist for if it could not do such things it would not be an fully actual car.

Now going into deep metaphysics:

A point is actual by degree of its comparison to other points.

A point is potential by degree of the actual points which may come from it.

A point is purely 0d space. Void. When void is made distinct as potential there is actuality as the distinction itself of there being potential.

Think of a yin yang.

Superpostioning, specifically this term, can be observed as multiple states existing as once. This can be observed in simple paradoxes, like the "ship of theseus", schrodinger's cat (obviously), the "all cretans are liars", etc. where the paradox is a state of observation.

But superpositioning can be expressed further. A simple form of "xyz", as any geometric form you can imagine, may have form "x", form "y" and form "z" existing all at once as a new form....multiple superimposed forms as a new form.

[/quote]

This makes sense but what I was asking isn't what change is, but how change occurs, like what causes what. Do you say that it happens from recursion/paradox/self-reference. Like you said the liar's paradox leads to a gradient truth and false at the same time. But the question is how the change happens from there not being both true and false thing, to there being one, after it all starts from nothing.

Like when you had the list of presence and absence starting from nothing=nothing, cant all of those things happen at the same time, it isn't saying that postive and negative exists for a moment on its own and then you get "presence and absence" being positive

huphuphup123 wrote: ↑Fri Oct 03, 2025 2:18 pm

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Thu Oct 02, 2025 12:44 am

But when a thing contains its opposite, does this mean that the thing is in exist for a moment before it turns into its opposite, or would it always eternally have been non existence? Wouldn't it be the latter?

quantum superpositioning means something is there and not there at the same time, but only when you observe it then you can say it is one of them as if you cannot actually measure change.

If you look at a frequency it goes up and down. At the down point it inverts into the up point. At the up point it inverts into the down point. When a thing goes to a relative extreme, within a given framework, it resorts to its opposite.

Everyday people reflect this. A man who has experienced deep conflict often moves towards peace. A man who has experienced deep peace often move towards conflict. This can be seen in countries as well.

What is unified in one respect is seperate in another. A chair is a unified set of parts but exists because it is not a car. A thing is by what it is not, thus the things identity contains its oppositional nature, ie "not-x".

Now for existence what is actual contains its potential and what is potential contains its actual.

For example there is a car. The car is actual. It is distinct. It contains within its actuality different ways of actualizing: doors open and close, tires move, it moves from point A to point B.

Now the potential of the car contains the actual. The potential of the doors to open and close, tires move, traveling from point A to point B, allows the car to exist for if it could not do such things it would not be an fully actual car.

Now going into deep metaphysics:

A point is actual by degree of its comparison to other points.

A point is potential by degree of the actual points which may come from it.

A point is purely 0d space. Void. When void is made distinct as potential there is actuality as the distinction itself of there being potential.

Think of a yin yang.

Superpostioning, specifically this term, can be observed as multiple states existing as once. This can be observed in simple paradoxes, like the "ship of theseus", schrodinger's cat (obviously), the "all cretans are liars", etc. where the paradox is a state of observation.

But superpositioning can be expressed further. A simple form of "xyz", as any geometric form you can imagine, may have form "x", form "y" and form "z" existing all at once as a new form....multiple superimposed forms as a new form.

This makes sense but what I was asking isn't what change is, but how change occurs, like what causes what. Do you say that it happens from recursion/paradox/self-reference. Like you said the liar's paradox leads to a gradient truth and false at the same time. But the question is how the change happens from there not being both true and false thing, to there being one, after it all starts from nothing.

Like when you had the list of presence and absence starting from nothing=nothing, cant all of those things happen at the same time, it isn't saying that postive and negative exists for a moment on its own and then you get "presence and absence" being positive
[/quote]

Cool....so will I will start slow and then build up.

Change is the spontaneous emergence of a distinction.

What causes change is the potentiality from which it emerges and dissolves back into.

This process is a pattern. Think of point C moving from point A to point B, each position of point C is a pattern of the point occuring recursively. The occurence of movement of point C is a recursive cycle, a pattern, thus change is the emergence of patterns, ie in this case the recursion on point C.

So change is the emergence of a pattern.

One pattern emerges relative to another and the distinction of one pattern to another is change. What change fundamentally is is contrast by degree of comparison. The cause of change is the act of distinction, the cause of the act of distinction is potentiality, ie the absence of actuality until the potentiality becomes distinct as potentiality, ie a distinction.

The cause of change is everpresent potentiality. By degrees of differences there is the potentiality of a thing to be distinct from another. In these respects change can be viewed as a static event in the respect that one pattern contrasts to another, movement is the occurence and dissolution of patterns where the occurence and dissolution is the distinction itself.

Yes all things occur at the same time in two respects:

1. The absolute sense of a "totality".
2. The relative sense where distinctions occur within the context of other distinctions.

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Wed Oct 08, 2025 5:14 am

huphuphup123 wrote: ↑Fri Oct 03, 2025 2:18 pm

If you look at a frequency it goes up and down. At the down point it inverts into the up point. At the up point it inverts into the down point. When a thing goes to a relative extreme, within a given framework, it resorts to its opposite.

Everyday people reflect this. A man who has experienced deep conflict often moves towards peace. A man who has experienced deep peace often move towards conflict. This can be seen in countries as well.

What is unified in one respect is seperate in another. A chair is a unified set of parts but exists because it is not a car. A thing is by what it is not, thus the things identity contains its oppositional nature, ie "not-x".

Now for existence what is actual contains its potential and what is potential contains its actual.

For example there is a car. The car is actual. It is distinct. It contains within its actuality different ways of actualizing: doors open and close, tires move, it moves from point A to point B.

Now the potential of the car contains the actual. The potential of the doors to open and close, tires move, traveling from point A to point B, allows the car to exist for if it could not do such things it would not be an fully actual car.

Now going into deep metaphysics:

A point is actual by degree of its comparison to other points.

A point is potential by degree of the actual points which may come from it.

A point is purely 0d space. Void. When void is made distinct as potential there is actuality as the distinction itself of there being potential.

Think of a yin yang.

Superpostioning, specifically this term, can be observed as multiple states existing as once. This can be observed in simple paradoxes, like the "ship of theseus", schrodinger's cat (obviously), the "all cretans are liars", etc. where the paradox is a state of observation.

But superpositioning can be expressed further. A simple form of "xyz", as any geometric form you can imagine, may have form "x", form "y" and form "z" existing all at once as a new form....multiple superimposed forms as a new form.

This makes sense but what I was asking isn't what change is, but how change occurs, like what causes what. Do you say that it happens from recursion/paradox/self-reference. Like you said the liar's paradox leads to a gradient truth and false at the same time. But the question is how the change happens from there not being both true and false thing, to there being one, after it all starts from nothing.

Like when you had the list of presence and absence starting from nothing=nothing, cant all of those things happen at the same time, it isn't saying that postive and negative exists for a moment on its own and then you get "presence and absence" being positive

Cool....so will I will start slow and then build up.

Change is the spontaneous emergence of a distinction.

What causes change is the potentiality from which it emerges and dissolves back into.

This process is a pattern. Think of point C moving from point A to point B, each position of point C is a pattern of the point occuring recursively. The occurence of movement of point C is a recursive cycle, a pattern, thus change is the emergence of patterns, ie in this case the recursion on point C.

So change is the emergence of a pattern.

One pattern emerges relative to another and the distinction of one pattern to another is change. What change fundamentally is is contrast by degree of comparison. The cause of change is the act of distinction, the cause of the act of distinction is potentiality, ie the absence of actuality until the potentiality becomes distinct as potentiality, ie a distinction.

The cause of change is everpresent potentiality. By degrees of differences there is the potentiality of a thing to be distinct from another. In these respects change can be viewed as a static event in the respect that one pattern contrasts to another, movement is the occurence and dissolution of patterns where the occurence and dissolution is the distinction itself.

Yes all things occur at the same time in two respects:

1. The absolute sense of a "totality".
2. The relative sense where distinctions occur within the context of other distinctions.
[/quote]

by distinction, you mean that one thing being different to another. Something having an absence like A and not-A right?
but isn't something having potentiality which is the absence of something same as distinction,

so you are saying what causes change is the absence of something?

I'm still confused but you say that when A=A happens it turns itself into A=not-A, and you would call that a distinction, are you saying that is change?
or when nothing=nothing turns into something are you saying that is change?