|
|
Post by xxxxxxxxx on Jun 16, 2022 20:12:58 GMT
If observation is dependent upon only itself, as it must be if one considers there is nothing separate from observation, it is dependent upon nothing as only observation existing leaves no room for comparison thus resulting in formless no-thingness.
|
|
|
|
Post by IM LITERALLY NEO on Sept 29, 2022 22:46:40 GMT
The Nature Of Change Has Always Been Around, But The True Ending Of Planet Earth Is Beyond The Faculties Of Change, It Is Transformation From The Beyond For The First Time That Actually Involves The Exit / Exodus Of Humans That Behaved In This Prison.
There Is No Relativity Here, I Have Perfect Formulas For Euler's Function And PI, That's Not Relativity, That's Perfect Objectivity. The ending of one thing is the beginning of another so nothing really changes in this respect considering the underlying substance/form, of that which "changes", is repeated again. The destruction of this planet is the beginning of another. Yet know one agrees one perfection, you math is you interpretation otherwise you would be universally accepted...and you are not.
Not Being Universally Accepted Does Not Make My Work Non-Universally Applicable. |
|
|
|
Post by xxxxxxxxx on Sept 29, 2022 22:51:13 GMT
The ending of one thing is the beginning of another so nothing really changes in this respect considering the underlying substance/form, of that which "changes", is repeated again. The destruction of this planet is the beginning of another. Yet know one agrees one perfection, you math is you interpretation otherwise you would be universally accepted...and you are not.
Not Being Universally Accepted Does Not Make My Work Non-Universally Applicable.And yet according to you there are cycles to reality. If you are not universally accepted then you are not universally applicable given it, ie your "work", must be applied to everything through everyone if it is universal. |
|
|
|
Post by IM LITERALLY NEO on Sept 29, 2022 23:01:49 GMT
Having A Beginning In Another, Does Not Exclude The Ending Of The Prior. You Are Resorting To Circulatory Logic To Defend Circulatory Reasoning, Because You Don't Know How To Close Thinking Circles Into Logical Conclusions Like I Do.
Not Being Universally Accepted Does Not Make My Work Non-Universally Applicable. And yet according to you there are cycles to reality. If you are not universally accepted then you are not universally applicable given it, ie your "work", must be applied to everything through everyone if it is universal. |
|
|
|
Post by xxxxxxxxx on Oct 4, 2022 18:31:50 GMT
And yet according to you there are cycles to reality. If you are not universally accepted then you are not universally applicable given it, ie your "work", must be applied to everything through everyone if it is universal. They are connected and as connected result in equivocation, cycles/algorithms are two different means of describing the same thing. |
|
