Philosophy Now Forum

Scott Mayers wrote: ↑Tue Dec 22, 2020 12:45 pm

Age wrote: ↑Mon Dec 21, 2020 8:33 am

Scott Mayers wrote: ↑Sun Dec 20, 2020 3:53 pm Go ahead and keep writing. I am not censoring you, though I am 'censuring' (rebuking) you. If you have something more friendly to respond to that lacks the cues of distraction, I'll respond. Otherwise, I have to pass over what you initially say in a those mile-long posts. It's just practical sense.

What can be CLEARLY SEEN, EVIDENCED, and PROVEN in my last reply and post to 'you', in this thread, is EXACTLY HOW I have COUNTERED YOUR "argument" and CLAIM here.

I have ALREADY SHOWN HOW and WHY your argument is NOT sound NOR valid as well as SHOWED HOW and WHY your claim is SO WRONG.

Now, 'you' may NOT have liked this, but either ACCEPT this, or, COUNTER it. But please REFRAIN from whinging AND complaining about this.

ALL 'you' are REALLY CLAIMING and arguing for IS:
BEFORE 'Something' or 'Everything' came into existence, there was ABSOLUTELY 'Nothing'.

Now if 'this' IS WRONG, then CORRECT IT.

And, ALL 'I' am REALLY SAYING IS;
IF you want to CLAIM 'this', then PROVE there was an 'origin', and then PROVE that at that 'origin' there was Absolutely Nothing, absolutely existing.

So, what is with EVERY 'thing' else 'you' have spent so much "time" and "effort" saying AND writing here.

IF 'you' do NOT NOW CLAIM what 'you' were at the start of this thread, then so be it. That is PERFECTLY FINE and UNDERSTANDABLE. But, back tracking AND distracting is NOT helping 'you' AT ALL here.

Also, is it only 'me' with the, so called, "mile-long posts".

[Look at the prior post you wrote to me. I only need this last comment near the long post to respond to. The rest is discussing how we communicate and not on topic. Let's just move on.]

This is just to confusing for me to even begin to question you for clarity. Although I can see PERFECTLY WHERE and WHY you have got this SO WRONG I could not be bothered to show, through clarifying questions, why this is so confusing.

Scott Mayers wrote: ↑Tue Dec 22, 2020 12:45 pm To save me time, look at the other conversations I'm having for some of your answers if what I now say is insufficient.

But ABSOLUTELY NOTHING you have said is, so called, "insufficient". What you have said is just PLAIN WRONG, and SO OBVIOUSLY WRONG, to me, by the way. And the reason WHY what you have said is SO OBVIOUSLY WRONG I have ALREADY POINTED OUT. As can be CLEARLY SEEN, EVIDENCED, and PROVEN above.

Scott Mayers wrote: ↑Tue Dec 22, 2020 12:45 pm I already expressed that the meaning of 'origin' is an unfortunate one because the concept Absolutely Nothing LACKS time and so is everywhere and nowhere all at once. It would also be a root cause of 'time' itself for time being irrelevant where law and order lack "existence".

I ALREADY KNEW this. As this is just so PLAIN OBVIOUS. This does NOT need to be explained, to me. But, remember, what is said here is NOT necessarily a reflection of what thee ACTUAL Truth IS.

In fact, what thee ACTUAL Truth IS is VERY DIFFERENT.

Scott Mayers wrote: ↑Tue Dec 22, 2020 12:45 pm Absolutely Nothing, as I've compared above to Veritas, can be compared to the background media, like a the blank canvass of paper or the background on this forum of our posts that we use black colored characters in contrast to represent Absolutely Something while the 'white spaces' [not necessarily 'white'] happens to be what is necessary to define characters including the spaces between words or other paragraphs; these are the Relative Nothings that though require meaning by contasting the black print from the background, are distinctfully meaningful. Then Absolutely Everything is the infinite possible pages or continuum of the length of a thread. All three define Totality but ONLY the Absolute Nothing can stand alone: The media has to pre-exist or the content is not able to be expressed.

LOOK, the concept of 'Absolute Nothing' is EXTREMELY SIMPLE and EASY to UNDERSTAND. This concept does NOT need to be explained, to me. Is this understood by you?

And remember, your last sentence here is NOT necessarily a reflection of what the ACTUAL Truth IS.

In fact, what the ACTUAL Truth IS is VERY DIFFERENT.

Scott Mayers wrote: ↑Tue Dec 22, 2020 12:45 pm The same goes with reality as a whole.

The argument FROM an 'origin' would be something like:

Absolutely Everything from Absolutely Nothing wrote: (0) Totality is Absolutely Nothing
(1) But rule (0) is at least a something and so is Totality. So Totality has now not only nothing by (0), but Totality as ONE thing and this fact representing TWO things.
(2) But we need to add (1) in the count and this fact makes THREE things.
(3) But since rule (2) adds another fact, we have FOUR things.
(4) But since rule (3) adds another fact, we have FIVE things.
(5) But since rule (4) adds another fact, we have SIX things.
....
(∞) But since rule (∞-1) adds another fact. we have ∞ + 1 things.
....
(∞^∞) But since the rule before this one adds another fact, we have the Continuum.

Absolutely Nothing is able to manifest Absolutely Everything continuously. So each finite proposal or Absolute Ones also exist in the Continuum.

This, AGAIN, does NOT need to be explained to me. As this is VERY OBVIOUS. But do NOT forget this idea of YOURS is NOT necessarily what the ACTUAL Truth IS.

In fact, what the ACTUAL Truth IS is VERY DIFFERENT.

Scott Mayers wrote: ↑Tue Dec 22, 2020 12:45 pm Note that I used time-based terms which is simply difficult to express in our languages by everyday standards.

If you find absolutely ANY term 'difficult' to express, then I suggest using that as A SIGN that you are on the WRONG PATH. The VERY FACT that what you are 'trying to' CLAIM here is a physical and logical IMPOSSIBILITY should have have been a WARNING and a SIGN a LOT EARLIER, to you, that you have completely drifted off the True and Right path.

See, once you are able to Unify EVERY thing together, properly AND correctly, then knowing how to use and express the RIGHT terms in PLAIN SIMPLE language, by everyday standards, is NOT 'difficult' AT ALL. In fact, explaining and expressing how ALL-OF-THIS is Truly UNIFIED is REALLY quite VERY SIMPLE and EASY. That is; once you learn what the True, Right, and Correct terms are with their True, Right, and Correct definitions as well.

Until then you will continue along down this WRONG path that you are on now.

Scott Mayers wrote: ↑Tue Dec 22, 2020 12:45 pm All of the above including all of Totality that may not be included here is without time or 'instantaneously' real as a whole, including all times of all worlds, spaces and matter.

Although this concept is ALREADY OBVIOUS and AGAIN does NOT need explaining to me, what you are 'trying to' CLAIM as being true is NOT necessarily what the ACTUAL Truth IS.

In fact, what the ACTUAL Truth IS is VERY DIFFERENT.

What the ACTUAL Truth IS here is you are OBVIOUSLY 'trying' absolutely ANY thing to back up and support your ALREADY held BELIEFS. What is also OBVIOUS is that what you say is NOT, so called, "insufficient" but IS just PLAIN WRONG.

Sure, what you are 'explaining' is RIGHT but this is only on the proviso that IF what you 'claim' were true, then this would be RIGHT. But what you are 'trying to' CLAIM as being true is OBVIOUSLY not even actually able to be possible, let alone being a possibility of actually being true. Which I could provide examples for for EVERY one of CLAIMS above.

What you are CLAIMING is that IF there was an origin, then you PROPOSE that it would be like 'this'. Which may well be the case IF there was an 'origin'. But considering the FACT that an 'origin' is NOT even able to be possible, the rest of what you CLAIM is just moot, or just FALLS TO PIECES.

When will you understand this fact?

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Tue Dec 22, 2020 7:56 am

Scott Mayers wrote: ↑Tue Dec 22, 2020 6:21 am

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Mon Dec 21, 2020 8:25 am In your case the above basic principle is applied to the external physical world and its origin, which is absolute nothing.
The only other alternative is Philosophical Anti-Realism which main principle is, a given thing exists in reality interdependently with human knowledge and understanding, which is Kant's Copernican Revolution [.I agree] and others [some I don't agree with] of the like.
Do you have an alternative to the above two distinct philosophical stance? I would be very interested if you can come up with something else which is not reducible to either.

Wait up. I am very able to express my view and you keep overlooking them to try to fit me into labels of other's in a way that attempts to commit me to taking 'sides' of some whole classes of beliefs, but not anything specific. Read those Wiki entries' sentences that assert them AS general classes of philosophies.

Problem: they assume that you have to have EXCLUSIVE beliefs about reality when I interpret them both as mere PERSPECTIVES that are context-related. One actually is embedded in both,...the anti-real presumption.

Yes, Philosophical Realism and Philosophical Anti-Realism are represented by a general classes of philosophies but they are all reducible to a core principle for each, i.e. which is

• -Philosophical Realism = reality is ULTIMATELY independent of the human conditions,
  -Philosophical Anti-Realism = reality is ULTIMATELY interdependent with the human condition.

Note the term 'ultimately' in the above.

For the philosophical anti-realists, reality can be proximately [not ultimately] independent of the human conditions as in my stance re Empirical Realism but it is ultimately interdependent with the human conditions.
It is the same with my claims of Moral Realism which is merely proximately independent with the human conditions but ultimately interdependent with the human conditions.

So contexts is very critical in discussing the above.

My point is your stance is ultimately Philosophical Realism [PR], i.e. whatever you claim as the final reality is independent of the human conditions.
Reflect and try to get out of this PR straight-jacket, you cannot.

Bullshit. I just expanded the argument from ONLY the perspective of your 'anti-realist' position given it is inclusive of the 'real', or "interdependent", in your terms here, but ONLY if you can deduce that your 'antireal' intepretation is NOT solipsistic.

I completely disagree with your interpretions of me nor do I see that you have ground to ANY reason if you are so extreme as to add that "I am" (below) is not real either. I understand the Kantian view as meaning precisely to resist interpreting the world AS beyond our perspective through the sensations that are assumed by him and others as 'not (determinately) real'. Then he presumes that you take the IDEA (or form) in mind about the sensations and EXTEND this to reference reality beyond (called, 'transcending'). It doesn't abolish all reasoning such as a Donald Trump would do when denying anything regardless of the presence of evidence (anti-realistically). It either suggests you as not understanding or imposing some insanity on me deceptively for not getting that what is real is somehow equivalent to what is not real.

You are very confused about the interpretation of Kant and have your own view independent of either the 'realist' or the 'antirealist' philosophically. Anyone who argues for 'empiricism' is defaulting to assume the 'realist' position!! This thus turns what you assume of me around on you. They default to assuming that objects out there are MORE 'real' than simply our independent minds. Otherwise, CONVENING with other science has to be understood as 'antireal' (a delusion). This is NOT the case.

Wikipedia on Anti-realism wrote: In anti-realism, the truth of a statement rests on its demonstrability through internal logic mechanisms, such as the context principle or intuitionistic logic, in direct opposition to the realist notion that the truth of a statement rests on its correspondence to an external, independent reality.[2] In anti-realism, this external reality is hypothetical and is not assumed.[3][4]

This means that the "Anti-realist" is only defaulting to NOT assume that the realities exist outside the senses, something that I wholeheartedly agree with.

But I use the same 'internal logic' to infer the 'realist' position valid by denying 'solipsism' in a logical argument: Since I CAN only default to my existence INTERNALLY, then if the 'images' I see are ALL that still resides in me, the only way that I can deny the outside world is NOT REAL is to take the "solipsistic" position. You are 'solipsitic' if you are strictly unable to INFER THAT a reality exists outside of you. And I see that you got this by now introducing that term, "interdependence" as though you have some partial appreciation of the existence of the outside world but will not commit to it.

As I had stated before, whatever you postulated as possibly real in reality, it must have only possible empirical elements or their combinations, e.g. horns, horses, thus unicorns are empirically possible. To confirm it is really real, we need to empirical evidence to verify and justify it exists as real.

I exist, therefore SOMETHING exists EMPIRICALLY.
I don't need a formal panel of scientists to agree to this as they too are merely other people I MUST assume are just a part of my 'empirical' environment IN QUESTION, ...like the very 'objects' we are discussing.

So, given 'someting exists' EMPIRICALLY to me, I am either ALL there is or am a SUBSET of some greater environment, right?

NOPE.
There is no problem for scientists or anyone to verify and justify the empirical-you or empirical-I.

What now? How do you even know that 'scientists' or 'anyone' is REAL by the 'anti-realist' position as defined by the Wikipedia entry? All you can tell is that through your senses you infer the reality exists as what transcends from the sensations themselves, a second-hand reflection of the reality out there. As such, you are jumping here to the 'realist' position for assuming any validity to those beings operating even when you are not observing.

But there is serious philosophical issue with the "I-AM."
Note Descartes' I-Think [empirically] therefore I-AM [ontologically].

His error was NOT that. It was his intended goal to begin with that and expect it shold prove 'God exists'. His failure wasn't at the beginning of his reasoning but at the end. The value of his initial postulate, that he exists by "I think, therefore I am" statement is undeniable or perfectly self-evident. He was trying to argue independent of the senses but failed and has thus contributed to the philosophy of science by demonstrating a foundation for empiricism itself, ironically, given that this his postulate actually suffices to BEGIN with the senses but requires INDUCING the reality outside rather than the DEDUCTION he was attempting to prove God by that start. His failure gave an accidental proof that induction is needed to take sense inputs as 'assumptions' external to the premises that are merely 'self-evident' apriori. That is, any deductive arguments that speak about reality require ASSUMING something from outside by INDUCING patterns from the senses. This is the first step in 'observing' without bias to the presume the objects out there exist because your senses are only a perspective of the 'real' world.

The Philosophical Realists will insist there is an "I-AM" that is independent of the "I-Think" and many concluded that is an independent "I-AM" i.e. a soul that survive physical death.
Note Jesus' "Before Abraham was, I-AM."

You must have missed anything I discussed on religion and my intensive use of connecting etymological roots of religious terms to secular labels that have meaning. I use it to demonstrate the memetic links to Egypt's history, not an independent Jewish or Hebrew post interpretion. I extend this to Christianity and so "I am" is where "Je suis" comes from. I have written a lot on this. But the 'before Abraham' is news to me. "Ab- ra- ham" (Father sees all); Adam, Aten, Odin, Atum, Autumn, Item, Eden, are all related for instance as relations of the sun's position in the sky; 'ra' is used in most sources that can be summarily referred to as 'light' or 'sound' or any energy based upon the lion's growl and the male's dominant main as it represents the sun's rays! [but this is off topic and addictively distracting to me ]

Back on topic, your interpretation lacks clear differentiation. Decartes was only asserting THAT he exists as 'self-evident'. So it is both empirical AND a logical apriorism that are valid AND sound. I won't respond to the rest of what you said on this point because what I've said just above is sufficient to dismiss the other additions.

Veritas Aequitas wrote: This is why reading and understanding the extensive philosophical views is so critical and useful.

From your last sentence, I think you are not even understanding the views you read. I can see that you completely misinterpret the sources. So how am I to extend this to even others besides the disagreement of Kant that you impose an opposite meaning to? I can't argue for him but only from what you quoted and what I can read in summary of him from other sources. He is a transcendental idealist which means that the IDEA in one's mind is ALL that we have to interpret the outside world with (including ourselves as 'objects') and so assumes the objects out there are never able to be certain, including those other people who 'observe'.

Regardless of your agreement to this or not, this is WHAT I am saying: We can only judge what it 'real' from the perspective of the sensations as 'ideas' (symbols) to which we INFER reality anywhere AS the ideas in mind themselves. This is a 'realistic' position that only gets the label, 'anti-real' if you also presume that the sensations themselves don't count as SOMETHING you sense. I'm confused at what you are intepreting otherwise and why I'd rather you speak for yourself too, rather than get me to interpret your opinion against mine as 'proven' beyond my capacity to validate other people's works. Just speak for your own view minus the labels that you don't define yourself. I am unable to follow your meaning otherwise.

Let me quote also what I read of that same Wikipedia entry:

Wikipedia: Anti-realism wrote: One kind of metaphysical anti-realism maintains a skepticism about the physical world, arguing either: 1) that nothing exists outside the mind, or 2) that we would have no access to a mind-independent reality, even if it exists.

Again, very agreeable. But I argue for (2) and not (1). The way I'm arguing for Absolute Nothing here doesn't need more than recognizing one's existence, that there is an external world defined by one's inability to absolutely control it solipsistically, and that you can infer Absolute Nothing by reasoning in your head alone. I'm trying, afterall, to prove how you CAN discover reality without resort to 'science' in principle, ignoring what I propose later on given I may not be able to. So you can PRETEND that (1) is true as well, that "nothing exists outside the mind" (as a postulate) or, prefertially, infer that 'nothing' is meaningful and real, that the Absolutes I presented are sufficient extremes that exhaustively cover the foundations of Totality very logically as I've argued and continue to do so here, and thus establish that the 'background' root of all existence can be derivable from Absolutely Nothing. [I will stop using 'origin' as no one can get that I'm not referencing a 'time when' there was Absolutely Nothing but that it is a property inclusive to the meaning of Totality as a 'backdrop' just as locally in this Universe, space, matter, and energy would be 'empty' at a singularity (if this could occur).]

====

Veritas Aequitas wrote:

Scott Mayers wrote:Thus I can call myself at this initiating stage, "Totality OR some part of Totality, where the label, "Totality" can just as easily be my arbitrary name for WHATEVER reality is.
But what is certain, is that the label's referent of me being all that is real (solipsistically) or some part of it, the MEANING of Totality is nevertheless REAL.
I don't have to question whether reality actually exists apart from me or not at this stage because "Totality" exists independently for being true of BOTH the 'realist' and the 'anti-realist'.

Nope.
Note I stated for the anti-realist, independence is only a proximate truth[note this term] but not an ultimate truth.
For the realist like yourself, independence is the ultimate truth.

For you as a philosophical realist, that TOTALITY which you deduced is independent of the human conditions in the ultimate sense.
For philosophical anti-realists like me, an ' independent totality' is empirical and merely a proximate truth but not an ultimate truth. For me, whatever is reality, all-there-is or totality is ultimately empirical and interdependent with the human conditions. Note,
Humans are the Co-Creator of Reality [totality] They are In
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=31180

This is odd wording. You appear to be asserting that no reality exists UNLESS humans exist to observe it! Hmmm....sounds like the Solipsistic egocentric view of reality when you have to accept yourself as arbitor of reality. You cannot have special licence to just pick and choose when you want to except others as 'real' (anti-real by you?) where they agree with you and 'not real' (real by you) where they don't. Extending your argument to include opinions of others through 'empiricism' is now jumping to the realist position conveniently and what is confusing me of your views here.

The empirical method BEGINS with each of our OWN capacity to observe and to judge 'reality' as AT LEAST THAT which we perceive.

Note that I looked at "Transcendental Idealism" and "Absolute Idealism", both with the subtle distinctions except that the Absolute Idealism is an approach I share with Hegel. I noticed that the Wikipedia for "Transcendental Idealism" asserts:

Wikipedia: Transcendental Idealism wrote:Transcendental idealism is a doctrine founded by German philosopher Immanuel Kant in the 18th century. Kant's doctrine is found throughout his Critique of Pure Reason (1781). Kant argues that the conscious subject cognizes the objects of experience not as they are in themselves, but only the way they appear to us under the conditions of our sensibility. Thus Kant's doctrine restricts the scope of our cognition to appearances given to our sensibility and denies that we can possess cognition of things as they are in themselves, i.e. things as they are independently of how we experience them through our cognitive faculties.

In the "Transcendental Aesthetic" section of the Critique of Pure Reason, Kant outlines how space and time are pure forms of human intuition contributed by our own faculty of sensibility. Space and time do not have an existence "outside" of us, but are the "subjective" forms of our sensibility and hence the necessary a priori conditions under which the objects we encounter in our experience can appear to us at all. Kant describes time and space as "empirically real" but transcendentally ideal.

Although the underlined term may seem to fit with your interpretation of allowance for "empirical" reality, it presumes that one only 'extends' (transcends) this by inference as I have done by using 'solipsism' to prove that something OTHER than myself exists. This is what assures THAT a 'real world' exists and thus qualifies for being 'empirically' real.

When I looked up "Absolute Idealism", I also approve of Hegel's approach and is who first introduced the concept of 'contradiction' as a dynamic function of reality rather than something to dismiss. He uses very awkward language because he IS the first and also attempts, as Descartes did, to argue for God. [I get most of his method through Karl Marx' arguments for cycles in politics, ...his 'Material Dialectic'] That is, he introduced what others more sensibly called 'multivariable' logic, and is what the creators of set theories did indirectly by showing that you can represent dynamic relations STATICALLY, thus enabling one to see how you CAN demonstrate reality of change by using only sets. Hegel didn't know how to do this without assuming a dynamic process. Though the difference is subtle, my argument about the allowance for Absolute Nothing to exist given there is no laws extant there, its very 'contradiction' can be thought to be dynamically a 'force' OR, statically, as a background, both of which I used in my arguments. Thus I relate to both types of Idealism to some degree. I just have not read their complete works to assert that I share all the same views, ...certainly none that expect a proof of 'God'. But Karl Marx picked up on this too. And he too is athiest as I am! I won't even try to raise more issues regarding others. But note that I agreed with Plato with a large degree regarding 'absolutes' as the "most general form" of something, that is itself not directly something one can 'observe' but only infer (as the metaphor of "the Cave" was set up to demonstrate).
.....

I interpret the 'realist' from your perspective as those proposing that reality exists beyond our senses and you may think that I cannot 'know' objects outside of me.
That is 'solipsistic' and implies that if I was all there was, I would require proving this TO MYSELF, by something as simply as demanding that I shall wish a "unicorn" to exist. "Abracadabra".....(I wait),.....nope, no unicorn.
Thus this proves to me EMPIRICALLY, that I either lack the power to BE totally all there is -- except possibly if I opted to 'forget' that I was playing some game as a 'god'.
Regardless, I lack BOTH the ability to assert that I am Totality (for not being able to have power to pop 'outside' of my perspective) nor that the images are not themselves just a layer of the same,...as an 'image' of an 'image'.
Thus, neither the 'real' nor 'anti-real' positions relate to what is or is not real but only perspectives one WANTS to assert is the starting point to reason about the sensations.

Note Solipsism is an Incoherent Concept,
https://iep.utm.edu/solipsis/#H7
thus it has no philosophical teeth at all.

For the philosophical anti-realists, they are only concern with what is empirically known and if not yet known, it must be empirically possible to be verified and justified empirically and philosophically.
Philosophical anti-realist don't give a damn with an independent totality beyond the human conditions. What is the use of such knowledge?

On the other hand, philosophical realists merely speculate their reality and totality exists beyond human conditions purely for psychological reasons as I had mentioned many times.
At the end of one extreme, theists as philosophical realists jumped to conclusion there exists an independent reality and an independent God merely to soothe their dissonance and selfish drive for salvation. Such belief in an illusion had been malignant and had brought forth terrible evils and sufferings to humanity.
From 'No Man's Land' to 'La La Land'

At another end of a benign extreme, philosophical realists like you are driven to a totality that is independent of the human conditions to soothe some smaller degree of dissonance.
Btw, what utility has your theory to mankind other than for your own consonance.
This is just my view, you would disagree.

Ha! I use it as a mere BASE to my scientific theory to make it into a real THEOREM, a logical argument that step by step can explain reality up to the chemistry. That is, I can CLOSE physics as a logical argument that literally describes what matter, space, and energy is. It is no more 'psychological' than anyone's ability to stick to some career goal. Would you call someone's career 'obsessive', for instance? Of course. So I don't know your reference to some kind of mental delusion here, something you are implying with innuendo.

I already KNOW that the solipsist argument is not real. But this is due to reasoning FIRST from a private position that assumes it just as I interpret Kant doing. But the anti-realist according to that quote above to the Wikipedia page suggests that he was only extending idealism to realism making both true. [the ideal transcends the image of the senses to real objects but only by prepostulating no (certain) real objects as a given, only their images.

I certainly do NOT fit in with your interpretation of me being a 'realist'. I am 'realistic' but would fit more appropriately (as should be evident by my arguments) as philosophically idealist and lean towards the Absolute Idealism. The reason I hate borrowing other labels is precisely because I didn't get to choose the labels. Older labels tend to FLIP meaning at times to which one era might interpret 'cool' as meaning 'hot' or vice versa. (I happen to think they can be the same too if you catch my drift!! )

Age wrote: ↑Mon Dec 21, 2020 10:36 pm

Atla wrote: ↑Mon Dec 21, 2020 3:32 pm

Age wrote: ↑Mon Dec 21, 2020 5:26 am

I have NEVER mentioned ANYWHERE ANY thing about some, so called, "unified mind".

Also, here is ANOTHER PRIME EXAMPLE of one who comes to, and/or makes up, "conclusions" about what I am, supposedly, 'thinking', YET they do NOT EVEN YET KNOW what I have I ACTUALLY BEEN TALKING ABOUT, NOR SAYING.

These people do NOT even KNOW what I have been SAYING, although my words are CLEARLY WRITTEN DOWN, before them, as is CLEARLY EVIDENCED, and PROVEN, but they STILL BELIEVE that they KNOW what thee ACTUAL Truth IS, as PROVEN by this person's next statement, and CLAIM.



LOL What are 'you' basing YOUR ASSUMPTION here on, EXACTLY?

And 'what' is " probably one of the oldest delusions 'in the book' "?

Also, what 'book' are 'you' referring to here?

By the way, I am NOT making ANY ASSUMPTIONS here.

I am BASING what I have ACTUALLY SAID, and MEANT, on what can and will be ACTUALLY used as EVIDENCE to back up, support, AND PROVE what I SAY, AND CLAIM.

Remember that 'you' are STILL AT the DO NOT EVEN KNOW what I am ACTUALLY SAYING YET, let alone KNOWING the ACTUAL MEANING behind my words AND sentences. I suggest that 'you' CLARIFY this FIRST, BEFORE 'you' even START to ASSUME ANY thing, which is going on in the 'background', 'in the KNOWING', which I am USING to CREATE to 'that', which I have set out to create and am Creating.

'you' just saying, "stop making baseless assumptions", is about one of the MOST 'baseless ASSUMPTIONS', itself. As can be and will be PROVEN True.

Unless, OF COURSE, you would like to PROVE 'me' WRONG here. Which, by all means if you do, feel completely and absolutely FREE to go right on ahead and do that.

If you would like to PROVE 'me' WRONG, then just EXPLAIN to ALL the readers here:
1. What is, SUPPOSED, to be 'my' ASSUMPTION here, from YOUR perspective, and which you CLAIM is "baseless"?
2. After you have done that, then EXPLAIN, HOW and WHY that, supposed, ASSUMPTION IS 'baseless'.

SHOW 'us', and let 'us' SEE, IF YOUR ASSUMPTION here is BASED on ABSOLUTELY ANY thing or on NOTHING AT ALL.

'We' are ALL WAITING, for 'you' NOW.

So you wrote about reunification, and then lied that you didn't wite about any reunification.

NO. I NEVER did ANY such thing. And, WHY is this 'accusing me of lying' YOUR ONLY 'go to' in relation to 'you' 'trying to' counter 'my views'?

So, WHERE EXACTLY in my words did it make 'you' JUMP 'to the conclusion' that I "lied"?

IF 'you' EVER answer this question Honestly, then we, at least, have SOME 'thing', which we can LOOK AT, INTO, and DISCUSS.

I suggest that 'you' LOOK AT the ACTUAL words I use, and ONLY them, instead of PRESUMING 'things' and SEEING what is ACTUALLY NOT HERE.

Also, what is CLEARLY OBVIOUS is that 'you' were COMPLETELY DISABLED to answering my four CLARIFYING QUESTIONS Honestly. This is because if you did, then you would just be CONTRADICTING your previous views, claims, and/or beliefs.

Now you're lying even more, as usual.

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Tue Dec 22, 2020 8:31 am ...

On the other hand, the philosophical anti-realists [with Empirical Realism] there is no illusion because he is always engaged with the empirical and has no psychological drive to seek what is beyond the empirical or whatever unknown that is empirically possible.

It appears that there is interference in understanding here. I look at many philosphers that dis another only to notice that in essence they actually 'agree'. Again, this is why I don't like to rely on other peoples' works where non-essentail. Using terms that I cannot define myself creates trouble because terms like 'anti-realist' suggests someone is literally being 'unreal' or anti-real' and means colloqually, 'delusional'.

I also discovered after reading all of Plato's works that many commentating philosophers dis Plato's 'forms' or 'absolutes' without knowing that this is precisely what lead to Aristotle's classification and then to his Syllogistic logic, with more formal improvement. I find many skeptics like myself who tend to piss on Aristotle wholesale when they don't recognize that the interpretations of his conjectures regarding certain thinking about physics. That given OTHER's like the Catholic church may take wholesale the views that include nonsense about the Earth as being the center of the Universe as though everything Aristotle says has to be exclusively correct or all is incorrect.???

I found utility in Zeno's paradoxes to which he is the one that passed this onto the word (because many other religious people intentionally censored him almost out of existence for his daring challenge of the infinites and the concept of 'nothing'. I believe that "zero" is likely named after him but this too would be castigated from the literature to disconnect credit to him.

If you adopt the Kantian view, you should recognize that his distinction, ...as I'm being forced to learn here, is not different than mine in principle. I assume ONLY my own mind to begin on and treat everything I sense as 'inputs' from indeterminate sources. I gamble that they are 'real' normally from childhood on, but recognize that it is necessary to justify external reality by treating this internal sense of life as the first empirical evidence that I cannot even doubt. Then by inducing the patterns of logic, I use this to take the inputs as 'symbols' in my head that the 'logic' (my intentional rationalizing process) can determine what I can output (my muscles) and wait for feedback. The feedback repeats and we induce more and more what the external reality is in time and experience.

An argument against solipsism assures that there IS an external world by ONLY the logic that implies that I should be able to get what I want for merely wanting it, if I were all there is. Nothing new would 'come' to me from outside if I didn't know it before hand (omniscence) and so 'solipsism' is false leaving the outside world 'true' by argument.

Given I don't believe in God or gods, etc, I assume Totality as requiring nothing 'special' in things like "laws" or it will end up with unsettled or dangling questions. Reality then is both empirically some of what I am versus some of what I am not. Given me as an absolute something, then not-me, is either something, nothing, or everything. I call whatever the truth is (without determined specific meaning) exhaustively "Totality" of which it is necessarily true that either this means Absolutely All, Absolutely Some, or Absolutely Nothing and then find that totality fits with all of them. This assures that Absolulutely Nothing exists AND is a 'minimal' concept, in fact the MOST minimal.

Then I ask why this is contradictory until I realize it CAN be for being most 'complete' when something is 'inconsistent'. Furthermore, anything inconsistent both is 'inconsistent' AND 'consistent', by our nature of being 'contingent' (meaning for our particular world experience, some one thing has to be 'consistent' and some other single thing has to be 'inconsitent' to be 'contingent. Thus what is "inconsistent = inconsistent AND consistent"; the 'consistent' worlds thus have to at least be 'consistent' by identity and given something is certainly real, "either the REAL thing is true OR it is not", which defines the WHOLE statement by the 'OR' not its parts. So it doesn't matter if Absolutely nothing is acceptable to anyone. This principle is the DeMorgans' rule in consistent logics everywhere and is a 'complement' to the "inconsistent" statement.

I can now infer Absolute Nothing as both meaningful and real. But it would be something that lacks time, space, and energy, etc. This is fine. Then given it lacks 'laws' because even abstractions cannot exist there, it is contradicting. You can intepret this as meaning that we need to dynamically fix this (as Hegel would) or think of it statically as another spacial dimension (space-time). You cannot dismiss it as having power to 'originate' in that absolutely everything is also true. This means that ONLY Absolutely Nothing is at least necessarily real as a background.

Then I go to:

(0)Nothing exists absolutely
(1)But if that is 'true' that is ONE thing.This is a fact.
(2)Since (1) is a fact, then it too has to be added and we have (3) facts,
(3)Since (2) is a fact, ....

...

I used a slightly different wording to Skepdick and/or Age. But the point is, if this much is true, you can induce (mathematically) that this demonstrates how this has the power of the 'continuum'. (infinite infinites upon multiple levels of the power of infinities)

This shows how Something CAN come from Absolutely Nothing by our independent perspective of thought alone....pure reasoning. PROOF complete for my intent so far. And it works also for the religious if they wouldn't taboo questioning God as subject to be a subset of Totality as I defined it. [But I'm guessing it won't be welcome in general politically because it is "nihilistic" logically and scares people for what it implies as though it steals away all civilized functioning.]

Age wrote: ↑Tue Dec 22, 2020 3:50 pm
In fact, what the ACTUAL Truth IS is VERY DIFFERENT.

I'm "wrong" according to you without warrant other than this statement you keep asserting. Are you claiming to be some 'god' or 'know some god' or have a complete thesis about reality that conflicts with mine? Please explain this. You are attempting to sound mystically superior and alien.

Atla wrote: ↑Tue Dec 22, 2020 5:18 pm

Age wrote: ↑Mon Dec 21, 2020 10:36 pm

Atla wrote: ↑Mon Dec 21, 2020 3:32 pm
So you wrote about reunification, and then lied that you didn't wite about any reunification.

NO. I NEVER did ANY such thing. And, WHY is this 'accusing me of lying' YOUR ONLY 'go to' in relation to 'you' 'trying to' counter 'my views'?

So, WHERE EXACTLY in my words did it make 'you' JUMP 'to the conclusion' that I "lied"?

IF 'you' EVER answer this question Honestly, then we, at least, have SOME 'thing', which we can LOOK AT, INTO, and DISCUSS.

I suggest that 'you' LOOK AT the ACTUAL words I use, and ONLY them, instead of PRESUMING 'things' and SEEING what is ACTUALLY NOT HERE.

Also, what is CLEARLY OBVIOUS is that 'you' were COMPLETELY DISABLED to answering my four CLARIFYING QUESTIONS Honestly. This is because if you did, then you would just be CONTRADICTING your previous views, claims, and/or beliefs.

Now you're lying even more, as usual.

TYPICAL, this 'lying' thing is the 'only' thing that you can say and talk about. YET, you can NEVER provide ANY evidence for. I, however, have THEE evidence that I NEVER lied. But, the burden of proof is NOT on 'me' but rather is ON 'you'.

Also, being only able to accuse me of lying PROVES that there is NOT one actual thing in what I say that you can counter.

By the way, I have NOT 'lied' anywhere in my writings, which can be EVIDENCED and PROVEN True, which is the EXACT OPPOSITE of what 'you' can do.

You are so FEARFUL of providing ANY actual examples of where I have SUPPOSEDLY 'lied', because of what this would ACTUALLY PROVE, this has made you, here, a completely INCAPABLE human being.

Now provide the examples of where you BELIEVE I have 'lied', or just continue on with your OWN ILLUSION here.

Accusing "others" of 'lying' but NEVER providing ANY actual 'thing' is just PROOF of YOUR INABILITIES.

Now let 'us' SEE 'you' PUT UP, at least ONCE, or 'you' KNOW what to do.

Scott Mayers wrote: ↑Tue Dec 22, 2020 11:54 am ....

I just spent 2 hours typing a response and it got lost because my session timed out.

Fuck it.

Scott Mayers wrote: ↑Tue Dec 22, 2020 5:46 pm

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Tue Dec 22, 2020 8:31 am ...

On the other hand, the philosophical anti-realists [with Empirical Realism] there is no illusion because he is always engaged with the empirical and has no psychological drive to seek what is beyond the empirical or whatever unknown that is empirically possible.

It appears that there is interference in understanding here. I look at many philosphers that dis another only to notice that in essence they actually 'agree'. Again, this is why I don't like to rely on other peoples' works where non-essentail. Using terms that I cannot define myself creates trouble because terms like 'anti-realist' suggests someone is literally being 'unreal' or anti-real' and means colloqually, 'delusional'.

I also discovered after reading all of Plato's works that many commentating philosophers dis Plato's 'forms' or 'absolutes' without knowing that this is precisely what lead to Aristotle's classification and then to his Syllogistic logic, with more formal improvement. I find many skeptics like myself who tend to piss on Aristotle wholesale when they don't recognize that the interpretations of his conjectures regarding certain thinking about physics. That given OTHER's like the Catholic church may take wholesale the views that include nonsense about the Earth as being the center of the Universe as though everything Aristotle says has to be exclusively correct or all is incorrect.???

I found utility in Zeno's paradoxes to which he is the one that passed this onto the word (because many other religious people intentionally censored him almost out of existence for his daring challenge of the infinites and the concept of 'nothing'. I believe that "zero" is likely named after him but this too would be castigated from the literature to disconnect credit to him.

If you adopt the Kantian view, you should recognize that his distinction, ...as I'm being forced to learn here, is not different than mine in principle. I assume ONLY my own mind to begin on and treat everything I sense as 'inputs' from indeterminate sources. I gamble that they are 'real' normally from childhood on, but recognize that it is necessary to justify external reality by treating this internal sense of life as the first empirical evidence that I cannot even doubt. Then by inducing the patterns of logic, I use this to take the inputs as 'symbols' in my head that the 'logic' (my intentional rationalizing process) can determine what I can output (my muscles) and wait for feedback. The feedback repeats and we induce more and more what the external reality is in time and experience.

An argument against solipsism assures that there IS an external world by ONLY the logic that implies that I should be able to get what I want for merely wanting it, if I were all there is. Nothing new would 'come' to me from outside if I didn't know it before hand (omniscence) and so 'solipsism' is false leaving the outside world 'true' by argument.

Given I don't believe in God or gods, etc, I assume Totality as requiring nothing 'special' in things like "laws" or it will end up with unsettled or dangling questions. Reality then is both empirically some of what I am versus some of what I am not. Given me as an absolute something, then not-me, is either something, nothing, or everything. I call whatever the truth is (without determined specific meaning) exhaustively "Totality" of which it is necessarily true that either this means Absolutely All, Absolutely Some, or Absolutely Nothing and then find that totality fits with all of them. This assures that Absolulutely Nothing exists AND is a 'minimal' concept, in fact the MOST minimal.

Then I ask why this is contradictory until I realize it CAN be for being most 'complete' when something is 'inconsistent'. Furthermore, anything inconsistent both is 'inconsistent' AND 'consistent', by our nature of being 'contingent' (meaning for our particular world experience, some one thing has to be 'consistent' and some other single thing has to be 'inconsitent' to be 'contingent. Thus what is "inconsistent = inconsistent AND consistent"; the 'consistent' worlds thus have to at least be 'consistent' by identity and given something is certainly real, "either the REAL thing is true OR it is not", which defines the WHOLE statement by the 'OR' not its parts. So it doesn't matter if Absolutely nothing is acceptable to anyone. This principle is the DeMorgans' rule in consistent logics everywhere and is a 'complement' to the "inconsistent" statement.

I can now infer Absolute Nothing as both meaningful and real. But it would be something that lacks time, space, and energy, etc. This is fine. Then given it lacks 'laws' because even abstractions cannot exist there, it is contradicting. You can intepret this as meaning that we need to dynamically fix this (as Hegel would) or think of it statically as another spacial dimension (space-time). You cannot dismiss it as having power to 'originate' in that absolutely everything is also true. This means that ONLY Absolutely Nothing is at least necessarily real as a background.

Then I go to:

(0)Nothing exists absolutely
(1)But if that is 'true' that is ONE thing.This is a fact.
(2)Since (1) is a fact, then it too has to be added and we have (3) facts,
(3)Since (2) is a fact, ....

...

I used a slightly different wording to Skepdick and/or Age. But the point is, if this much is true, you can induce (mathematically) that this demonstrates how this has the power of the 'continuum'. (infinite infinites upon multiple levels of the power of infinities)

This shows how Something CAN come from Absolutely Nothing by our independent perspective of thought alone....pure reasoning.

This does NOT, and I will repeat, DOES NOT 'show' ANY such thing. And, this is just PURE ILLUSION to think or believe that 'that' is SHOWN by 'thought alone' .... 'pure reasoning'. You are just SEEING 'that' what is NOT THERE.

IF you REALLY want to 'show' EXACTLY HOW, supposedly, 'Something CAN come from Absolutely Nothing', then just SHOW, logically and/or empirically, just how Absolutely ANY thing CAN come from Absolutely Nothing.

What you have ACTUALLY DONE is just TWIST and DISTORT words in a way, which makes you think or believe "shows" what it is that you ALREADY BELIEVE is true.

LOOK, it is REALLY SIMPLE to SEE what is ACTUALLY going on here.

Your (0) 'Nothing exists absolutely', is ABSOLUTELY True. But this is just because the Universe, the way that It ACTUALLY ALWAYS IS, could NOT exist in any OTHER way. 'Nothing' DOES exist absolutely (or absolutely exists) BUT ONLY in 'places' BETWEEN physical things. This is just IRREFUTABLY True, Right, AND Correct.

Your (1) 'But if 'Nothing exists absolutely' is 'true', then that is ONE thing. This is a fact', is ALSO ABSOLUTELY True. But this is just because 'nothing' (or no thing) is, literally, just SOME (or ONE) thing. Obviously, 'nothing' FITS under the label of something. The word 'some' is literally defined as ONE 'thing' or ANY number of 'things' up to but NOT including ALL 'things' in ANY group of 'things'. So, 'nothing', itself, FITS in PERFECTLY under the label of Everything AND with the group known as Something. Nothing, itself, is something.

Your (2) "Since (1) is a fact, then it too has to be added and we have (3) facts," and your (3)Since (2) is a fact, .... although is PARTLY true the part about "has to be added" is just NOT true AT ALL.

You ONLY 'add' them together because you think or believe that doing so would help back up and support your already held beliefs. But, sadly AND unfortunately for you, doing that does NOT back up NOR support your currently held BELIEFS.

And Absolutely Nothing you have said, so far, could conclude that Absolutely Nothing exists as an 'origin'. To think or believe so is just a COMPLETE ILLUSION.

WHY 'you' want to BELIEVE, and INSIST, that IF there was an 'origin', then it would be Absolutely Nothing, is of your OWN making. But just because you BELIEVE this, this DOES NOT make 'it' Absolutely True.

What you have 'tried to' argue here is just a FALLACY. Your "reasoning" is faulty AND you have made 'wrong moves' in the attempt of making a sound and valid argument. As I have SHOWN and PROVEN your "argument" is invalid AND unsound.

Scott Mayers wrote: ↑Tue Dec 22, 2020 5:46 pm PROOF complete for my intent so far.

NOT at all. The only thing PROVEN here is that you will 'try' absolutely ANY thing to 'try to' back up and support your ALREADY HELD BELIEFS.

And, I will remind you that what you are 'intending' and 'trying' to do and achieve here will NEVER WORK.

Scott Mayers wrote: ↑Tue Dec 22, 2020 5:46 pmAnd it works also for the religious if they wouldn't taboo questioning God as subject to be a subset of Totality as I defined it. [But I'm guessing it won't be welcome in general politically because it is "nihilistic" logically and scares people for what it implies as though it steals away all civilized functioning.]

Besides being scientifically, or 'empirically', IMPOSSIBLE for ANY thing to come from NO thing it is ALSO, 'logically' IMPOSSIBLE.

Scott Mayers wrote: ↑Tue Dec 22, 2020 5:46 pm This shows how Something CAN come from Absolutely Nothing by our independent perspective of thought alone....pure reasoning.

Note Kant's Critique of Pure Reason is one whole argument demonstrating whatever proximate and ultimate that is concluded from Pure Reason is illusory, thus an illusion.
The two proximates illusions are TOTALITY, the soul and the ultimate illusion is GOD.

Thus from Kant's perspective, your theory [re TOTALITY] merely conclude with an illusion, i.e. not real - note 'what is real' below.

It either suggests you as not understanding or imposing some insanity on me deceptively for not getting that what is real is somehow equivalent to what is not real.

To Kant and my own view,
what is real is empirically possible and can be verified and justified within a credible framework and system of reality or knowledge [FSK].
The standard bearer of reality [truth, knowledge] is the scientific FSK, thus no other verification of reality can be more realistic than science.
If you disagree, then what FSK can represent reality more realistically than science [with its limitations]

You are very confused about the interpretation of Kant and have your own view independent of either the 'realist' or the 'antirealist' philosophically.

If you have not studied Kant thoroughly, any judgment of your related to Kant is not credible.

Using terms that I cannot define myself creates trouble because terms like 'anti-realist' suggests someone is literally being 'unreal' or anti-real' and means colloqually, 'delusional'.

You need to get some bearings with Philosophical Realism versus Philosophical anti-Realism.

'Realists' and Realism is just a label by some philosophers who promptly initiated and unilaterally claimed 'what is reality' is independent of human conceptions. It does not mean what they [Philosophical Realists] claim as reality is realistic.

Those who oppose the above views of "what is reality" i.e. reality is not independent of human conceptions, are thus logically and conveniently labelled as 'Philosophical anti-realist'.

Thus you cannot take the terms Philosophical Realism and Philosophical anti-Realism literally but rather must be aware of the origin [etymology] of the terms.

Wikipedia: Transcendental Idealism wrote: Transcendental idealism is a doctrine founded by German philosopher Immanuel Kant in the 18th century.
Kant's doctrine is found throughout his Critique of Pure Reason (1781).
Kant describes time and space as "empirically real" but transcendentally ideal.

Note again, Kant's book, is The Critique of Pure Reason, it is very severe and almost a condemnation of Pure Reason, which you are relying upon. [albeit Kant conceded there is one good use for it in another different perspective but not for reality sake].

You noted Kant is a Transcendental Idealist, but note at the same time Kant is also an Empirical Realist.

Kant in CPR wrote:The Transcendental Idealist is, therefore, an Empirical Realist, and allows to Matter, as Appearance, a Reality which does not permit of being inferred, but is Immediately Perceived.

Transcendental Realism, on the other hand, inevitably falls into difficulties, and finds itself obliged to give way to Empirical Idealism, in that it regards the Objects of Outer Sense as something distinct from the Senses themselves, treating mere Appearances as Self-Subsistent Beings, existing outside us.
CPR 371

[It is not easy to grasp the above in its full context]

Since you oppose Kant [siding with Hegel and Plato in some way] you are then a Transcendental Realist and at the same time an Empirical Idealist.
That is your ultimate reality of 'absolute -nothing' is transcendentally real, i.e. derived from Pure Reason which is crude and easily influenced by psychological impulses.
What is ultimately real of empirical reality to you is correspondingly idealistic, i.e. absolute idealism. To Kant this 'so claimed reality' from PURE REASON is an illusion.

For me as an Empirical Realist [Kantian] there is no worry of 'solipsism' since we are leveraged on reality, i.e. empirical reality with an external world [not absolutely external].
An empirical realist recognized the reality of the external world but do not postulate anything else beyond that to Absolute-Nothing [yours], Totality [yours], The Absolute [Hegel] or God [theists].

VA wrote:For me, whatever is reality, all-there-is or totality is ultimately empirical and interdependent with the human conditions.
Note,
Humans are the Co-Creator of Reality [totality] They are In
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=31180

Mayer wrote:This is odd wording.
You appear to be asserting that no reality exists UNLESS humans exist to observe it!
Hmmm....sounds like the Solipsistic egocentric view of reality when you have to accept yourself as arbiter of reality.

Note this post re the plausibility of the above hypothesis, "objects have no pre-existence until the moment we 'see' them";

Donald Hoffman: There is No Objective Reality
viewtopic.php?p=485927#p485927


=========================
Re "interdependent with the human conditions."
don't interpret the above too literally.

My approach is top down from a given reality as with Kant Copernican Revolution and dig inward without the presumption there is something ultimate.

The most we can dig is what can be possibly be known empirically and no more.
Therefrom we invoke Wittgenstein where necessary,
“Whereof one cannot speak, thereof one must be silent”
thus that literally meant to shut up!

It is only those that suffer from some kind of cognitive dissonance and cannot endure the suspense that they will be driven psychologically* to infer there is something, even nothing as the ultimate.
* in this case, psychologically do not entail mental illness.

Scott Mayers wrote: ↑Tue Dec 22, 2020 5:56 pm

Age wrote: ↑Tue Dec 22, 2020 3:50 pm
In fact, what the ACTUAL Truth IS is VERY DIFFERENT.

I'm "wrong" according to you without warrant other than this statement you keep asserting.

We can now LOOK AT 'this' two ways:
1. You have COMPLETELY and UTTERLY MISSED 'that' what actually WARRANTS what I am and have been asserting here. Which is T/HERE for ALL to SEE.

Or,

2. You do NOT really want to actually SEE and KNOW what could VERY SIMPLY and VERY EASILY be CLARIFIED, that is; with just some VERY SIMPLE CLARIFYING QUESTIONS, which if you did, then what WILL BE CLEARLY SEEN is 'that', which ACTUALLY WARRANTS my CLAIM that 'you ARE WRONG' here, and which states; In fact, what the ACTUAL Truth IS is VERY DIFFERENT from what you CLAIM.

See, I have NOT one iota of care if what I assert here is accepted or not. This is because I KNOW FOR SURE, without ANY doubt, that 'it' can be PROVEN to be ABSOLUTELY True, and actually will be PROVEN ABSOLUTELY and COMPLETELY True, WHEN I learn a way to get 'you', adult human beings, to become OPEN enough, and CURIOUS enough, AGAIN, just as 'you' ALL were once before.

Thee ACTUAL Truth has this affect on one to NOT care what "others" think.

Scott Mayers wrote: ↑Tue Dec 22, 2020 5:56 pm Are you claiming to be some 'god' or 'know some god' or have a complete thesis about reality that conflicts with mine?

When, and IF, 'you' EVER discover or learn and understand what 'God' ACTUALLY IS and what 'Reality' ACTUALLY IS, combined with the KNOWING of what some other things ACTUALLY ARE, then you will be MUCH MORE CLOSER to KNOWING what thee ACTUAL True ANSWER is to your CLARIFYING QUESTION here.

See, at this moment, the True and Right answer could NOT be given to you as a "Yes" or a "No" response, without FURTHER CLARIFICATION. This is because you do NOT YET KNOW what 'God' and/or 'Reality' REALLY IS.

Scott Mayers wrote: ↑Tue Dec 22, 2020 5:56 pm Please explain this.

And here is a PRIME EXAMPLE of the WHOLE 'ISSUE' of 'misunderstanding' among 'you', human beings. The reason WHY ALL of 'you', adult human beings, are still IN CONFUSION, and thus are still SEEKING ANSWERS and LOOKING FOR MEANING and UNDERSTANDING, is because of statements like 'this' one here, and the subsequent ASSUMPTIONS that follow.

The solution, and thus resolution, to this 'ISSUE' has been MY MAIN MESSAGE throughout this forum.

But, in the days of when this is being written, has ANY 'one' of 'you' even SEEN 'this MESSAGE' YET, let alone be able to SAY EXACTLY what 'it' IS?

If ANY 'one' of you can, then you NOW HAVE what is necessary in order to gain True understanding.

Scott Mayers wrote: ↑Tue Dec 22, 2020 5:56 pm You are attempting to sound mystically superior and alien.

HOW to STOP "another" sounding 'mystically superior' and 'alien', to 'you', I have ALREADY CLEARLY EXPLAINED, and which is linked DIRECTLY to my last point.

For those of 'you' who STILL do NOT YET KNOW what I am referring to, then just ask some Truly OPEN CLARIFYING QUESTIONS.

See, IF 'you' Truly WANT to UNDERSTAND "another" FULLY, and thus KNOW EXACTLY what they are ACTUALLY SAYING and REALLY MEANING, then ALL that is NEEDED is just some CLARIFYING QUESTIONS, from a Truly OPEN perspective.

FOR EXAMPLE, What does the word 'this' refer to EXACTLY in your request; Please explain 'this'.

What can be CLEARLY SEEN is that you just asked me a "Yes" or a "No" CLARIFYING QUESTION, and then just requested, or demanded, that I explain some "thing", which in all Honesty, without CLARIFICATION, I do NOT KNOW FOR SURE what you are referring to.

So, use this as a PRIME EXAMPLE for what I have been CONTINUALLY SAYING and MEANING about HOW to UNDERSTAND 'one' "another" FULLY.

NOW, do NOT forget, If 'you' do NOT YET KNOW what I am ACTUALLY talking about and am ACTUALLY MEANING HERE, then what is the BEST METHOD to overcome 'this' dilemma that 'you' ARE IN?

Scott Mayers wrote: ↑Tue Dec 22, 2020 4:19 pm
Ha! I use it as a mere BASE to my scientific theory to make it into a real THEOREM, a logical argument that step by step can explain reality up to the chemistry. That is, I can CLOSE physics as a logical argument that literally describes what matter, space, and energy is.

I would LOVE to SEE this step by step 'logical argument' that, supposedly, explains 'reality', itself, up to the chemistry.

I would therefore ALSO LOVE to SEE you CLOSE physics in and with a 'logical argument' that literally describes what 'matter', 'space', and 'energy' is.

To me,

'Matter' is just physical things.
'Space' is just the distance between physical things.
'Energy' is just what is caused from the friction when physical things interact with each other.

'Space' is, literally, Absolutely Nothing, which is what allows complete and utter freedom for physical things to always be in constant motion, or change.

At the most fundamental level the Universe is just made up of 'matter' [Something] AND 'space' [Nothing]. End of story.

The two matter AND space coexist always-forever. This is the ONLY way the Universe can exist, ALWAYS in the HERE and NOW. Thee One and ONLY Universe just being infinite AND eternal and ALWAYS in the state of constant-change. This constant state of change with physical things "bumping" into each other and causing friction, because of the empty space between them is HOW and WHY 'energy' will ALWAYS be.

And this is what is REALLY happening AND occurring. What is 'reality', however, is some thing different, which is far more on the psychological construct of 'things'.

Now what is YOUR, so called, "scientific theory", "THEOREM", and 'logical argument' that, supposedly, CLOSES physics by literally describing what 'matter', 'space', and 'energy' is?

Age wrote: ↑Tue Dec 22, 2020 10:49 pm

Atla wrote: ↑Tue Dec 22, 2020 5:18 pm

Age wrote: ↑Mon Dec 21, 2020 10:36 pm

NO. I NEVER did ANY such thing. And, WHY is this 'accusing me of lying' YOUR ONLY 'go to' in relation to 'you' 'trying to' counter 'my views'?

So, WHERE EXACTLY in my words did it make 'you' JUMP 'to the conclusion' that I "lied"?

IF 'you' EVER answer this question Honestly, then we, at least, have SOME 'thing', which we can LOOK AT, INTO, and DISCUSS.

I suggest that 'you' LOOK AT the ACTUAL words I use, and ONLY them, instead of PRESUMING 'things' and SEEING what is ACTUALLY NOT HERE.

Also, what is CLEARLY OBVIOUS is that 'you' were COMPLETELY DISABLED to answering my four CLARIFYING QUESTIONS Honestly. This is because if you did, then you would just be CONTRADICTING your previous views, claims, and/or beliefs.

Now you're lying even more, as usual.

TYPICAL, this 'lying' thing is the 'only' thing that you can say and talk about. YET, you can NEVER provide ANY evidence for. I, however, have THEE evidence that I NEVER lied. But, the burden of proof is NOT on 'me' but rather is ON 'you'.

Also, being only able to accuse me of lying PROVES that there is NOT one actual thing in what I say that you can counter.

By the way, I have NOT 'lied' anywhere in my writings, which can be EVIDENCED and PROVEN True, which is the EXACT OPPOSITE of what 'you' can do.

You are so FEARFUL of providing ANY actual examples of where I have SUPPOSEDLY 'lied', because of what this would ACTUALLY PROVE, this has made you, here, a completely INCAPABLE human being.

Now provide the examples of where you BELIEVE I have 'lied', or just continue on with your OWN ILLUSION here.

Accusing "others" of 'lying' but NEVER providing ANY actual 'thing' is just PROOF of YOUR INABILITIES.

Now let 'us' SEE 'you' PUT UP, at least ONCE, or 'you' KNOW what to do.

You already got caught in the lie, now you're merely lying about lying about lying and pretend it's the other person.

Age wrote: ↑Wed Dec 23, 2020 1:50 pm The solution, and thus resolution, to this 'ISSUE' has been MY MAIN MESSAGE throughout this forum.

But, in the days of when this is being written, has ANY 'one' of 'you' even SEEN 'this MESSAGE' YET, let alone be able to SAY EXACTLY what 'it' IS?

If ANY 'one' of you can, then you NOW HAVE what is necessary in order to gain True understanding.

You haven't communicated any message yet that makes sense. You babble about being open and asking clarifying questions, but many people are already doing that, everyone knows that being open and asking clarifying questions doesn't solve most disagreements. Nor does it lead to special knowledge about 'God' or 'Reality'. Only someone who is severely mentally retarded/disordered could possibly believe that.

Atla wrote: ↑Wed Dec 23, 2020 3:56 pm

Age wrote: ↑Tue Dec 22, 2020 10:49 pm

Atla wrote: ↑Tue Dec 22, 2020 5:18 pm
Now you're lying even more, as usual.

TYPICAL, this 'lying' thing is the 'only' thing that you can say and talk about. YET, you can NEVER provide ANY evidence for. I, however, have THEE evidence that I NEVER lied. But, the burden of proof is NOT on 'me' but rather is ON 'you'.

Also, being only able to accuse me of lying PROVES that there is NOT one actual thing in what I say that you can counter.

By the way, I have NOT 'lied' anywhere in my writings, which can be EVIDENCED and PROVEN True, which is the EXACT OPPOSITE of what 'you' can do.

You are so FEARFUL of providing ANY actual examples of where I have SUPPOSEDLY 'lied', because of what this would ACTUALLY PROVE, this has made you, here, a completely INCAPABLE human being.

Now provide the examples of where you BELIEVE I have 'lied', or just continue on with your OWN ILLUSION here.

Accusing "others" of 'lying' but NEVER providing ANY actual 'thing' is just PROOF of YOUR INABILITIES.

Now let 'us' SEE 'you' PUT UP, at least ONCE, or 'you' KNOW what to do.

You already got caught in the lie, now you're merely lying about lying about lying and pretend it's the other person.

You have made a CLAIM "atla". But when pressed to present ANY thing to support that CLAIM you have FAILED COMPLETELY. As PROVEN and SHOWN above.

I HAVE NOT LIED. As PROVEN and SHOWN above.

Just ADMIT it, there is ABSOLUTELY NOTHING you can counter in what I say, EXCEPT TO SAY; "You lied", which OBVIOUSLY have FAILED to YET PROVE. But we still WAIT to SEE if you CAN.