|
|
Post by Eugene 2.0 on Sept 6, 2022 21:16:53 GMT
If atoms don't change, they don't have any future, nor past. What about the present? Do they have it?
No-soul objects don't need in nay time. For why? The next second is the same as the previous, the future = the past.
A person cares. For a person it makes sense what's gonna happen tomorrow. And any next minute. Some people care.
And time create that purposes, allow meaning to appear right after our view of that near future. It makes sense.
If S :: A will be in future as B, and we don't want A to become C, but we'd like A became B, then S is what makes sense.
Example: a seed of an apple buried into the soil will bring apple fruits. But if instead of fruits it had brought potatoes, it wouldn't make any sense.
However, it's not definitely. If that seed is a potato one, we will use it in different situation, or will sell it.
It seems like anything makes sense, that is predictable. But without time, any predictions fade out.
And again, if something doesn't change or changes constantly, then it only a surface where sense is being made.
If to long this thought, and to add functions in it (I'll try to introduce and to explain it a little later) it will encounter a paradox, that any meaningful things are uncertain, and they are out of sense.
(Briefly, to make sense that something must be governed, and predictable. Predictions must be previously unknown, and a function of such things must not be tautology. But in this case, any such functions make no sense as unpredictable.)
|
|
|
|
Post by xxxxxxxxx on Sept 9, 2022 17:01:43 GMT
If atoms don't change, they don't have any future, nor past. What about the present? Do they have it? No-soul objects don't need in nay time. For why? The next second is the same as the previous, the future = the past. A person cares. For a person it makes sense what's gonna happen tomorrow. And any next minute. Some people care. And time create that purposes, allow meaning to appear right after our view of that near future. It makes sense. If S :: A will be in future as B, and we don't want A to become C, but we'd like A became B, then S is what makes sense. Example: a seed of an apple buried into the soil will bring apple fruits. But if instead of fruits it had brought potatoes, it wouldn't make any sense. However, it's not definitely. If that seed is a potato one, we will use it in different situation, or will sell it. It seems like anything makes sense, that is predictable. But without time, any predictions fade out. And again, if something doesn't change or changes constantly, then it only a surface where sense is being made. If to long this thought, and to add functions in it (I'll try to introduce and to explain it a little later) it will encounter a paradox, that any meaningful things are uncertain, and they are out of sense. (Briefly, to make sense that something must be governed, and predictable. Predictions must be previously unknown, and a function of such things must not be tautology. But in this case, any such functions make no sense as unpredictable.) Time is paradoxical. 1. If time is unending then time is timeless. 2. If time is ending then time is temporal and negates itself into timelessness. Either way we end with timelessness which necessitates a reality beyond the senses; this is considering time is part of definition because time necessitates change and change necessitates distinction, all of which are necessary for the senses. |
|
|
|
Post by Eugene 2.0 on Sept 9, 2022 18:37:54 GMT
If atoms don't change, they don't have any future, nor past. What about the present? Do they have it? No-soul objects don't need in nay time. For why? The next second is the same as the previous, the future = the past. A person cares. For a person it makes sense what's gonna happen tomorrow. And any next minute. Some people care. And time create that purposes, allow meaning to appear right after our view of that near future. It makes sense. If S :: A will be in future as B, and we don't want A to become C, but we'd like A became B, then S is what makes sense. Example: a seed of an apple buried into the soil will bring apple fruits. But if instead of fruits it had brought potatoes, it wouldn't make any sense. However, it's not definitely. If that seed is a potato one, we will use it in different situation, or will sell it. It seems like anything makes sense, that is predictable. But without time, any predictions fade out. And again, if something doesn't change or changes constantly, then it only a surface where sense is being made. If to long this thought, and to add functions in it (I'll try to introduce and to explain it a little later) it will encounter a paradox, that any meaningful things are uncertain, and they are out of sense. (Briefly, to make sense that something must be governed, and predictable. Predictions must be previously unknown, and a function of such things must not be tautology. But in this case, any such functions make no sense as unpredictable.) Time is paradoxical. 1. If time is unending then time is timeless. 2. If time is ending then time is temporal and negates itself into timelessness. Either way we end with timelessness which necessitates a reality beyond the senses; this is considering time is part of definition because time necessitates change and change necessitates distinction, all of which are necessary for the senses. Do you understand what time is? If you do, then so what whether it's paradoxical or not? Irrational numbers are paradoxical, metatheories paradoxical, any formal systems are paradoxical, life is paradoxical, and some puzzles are also paradoxical, but this only makes sense if you have got time to solve it. Besides, if you had no time, you couldn't decide whether something was paradoxical. |
|
|
|
Post by xxxxxxxxx on Sept 10, 2022 22:32:58 GMT
Time is paradoxical. 1. If time is unending then time is timeless. 2. If time is ending then time is temporal and negates itself into timelessness. Either way we end with timelessness which necessitates a reality beyond the senses; this is considering time is part of definition because time necessitates change and change necessitates distinction, all of which are necessary for the senses. Do you understand what time is? If you do, then so what whether it's paradoxical or not? Irrational numbers are paradoxical, metatheories paradoxical, any formal systems are paradoxical, life is paradoxical, and some puzzles are also paradoxical, but this only makes sense if you have got time to solve it. Besides, if you had no time, you couldn't decide whether something was paradoxical. If it is paradoxical the only thing you understand is that it is paradoxical and can mean anything. Time, as the paradoxes suggest above, results in timelessness thus time can never be fully understood as timelessness goes beyond the senses as time is necessary for sense. |
|
|
|
Post by IM LITERALLY NEO on Sept 10, 2022 23:37:37 GMT
Do you understand what time is? If you do, then so what whether it's paradoxical or not? Irrational numbers are paradoxical, metatheories paradoxical, any formal systems are paradoxical, life is paradoxical, and some puzzles are also paradoxical, but this only makes sense if you have got time to solve it. Besides, if you had no time, you couldn't decide whether something was paradoxical. If it is paradoxical the only thing you understand is that it is paradoxical and can mean anything. Time, as the paradoxes suggest above, results in timelessness thus time can never be fully understood as timelessness goes beyond the senses as time is necessary for sense.
Not Even Multiple Time Intervals Or Space Time Travelling Is A Paradox, Because Events Done In Time (Limit) Still Affect The Events In The Future, Which Is In Theory Suggesting That All The "Paradox Time Travel" Themes Are Contradicting Themselves, By Necessitating The Laws And Rules Of Time Travel Are Linear, Not Paradoxical. The Chain Of Events Are Merely Vast Complications Of Reality Alteration, To The Point People Get Confused And Call It A "Paradox", But If Anyone Would Just Observe The Butterfly Effect, It's No Different Than Throwing A Stone In A Pond And Watching The Ripples Move From The Impact (Present) To The Point It Reaches (Future).
Once You See The Pattern, You Will See The System: 6 Protons, 6 Neutrons, 6 Electrons, 6+6+6+6 Hours, 6 x 10 Minutes 6 x 10 Seconds, 6 x 60 Joints, Heart Naturally Beats 103680 Times A Day Without Human Influence Based On Most Natural Heart Rate Is 6 x 6 x 6 x 6 x 80, 66 + 6 Speech Muscles, I Can Go On And On, 6th Planet Rules "Time", The 6's, Why All The Hexagons Like In "Wandavision", There's Nothing Paradoxical About A Systematical Algorithm, You Just Call It A PARADOX Because YOU Don't Understand HOW IT WORKS. |
|
|
|
Post by xxxxxxxxx on Sept 11, 2022 22:27:34 GMT
If it is paradoxical the only thing you understand is that it is paradoxical and can mean anything. Time, as the paradoxes suggest above, results in timelessness thus time can never be fully understood as timelessness goes beyond the senses as time is necessary for sense.
Not Even Multiple Time Intervals Or Space Time Travelling Is A Paradox, Because Events Done In Time (Limit) Still Affect The Events In The Future, Which Is In Theory Suggesting That All The "Paradox Time Travel" Themes Are Contradicting Themselves, By Necessitating The Laws And Rules Of Time Travel Are Linear, Not Paradoxical. The Chain Of Events Are Merely Vast Complications Of Reality Alteration, To The Point People Get Confused And Call It A "Paradox", But If Anyone Would Just Observe The Butterfly Effect, It's No Different Than Throwing A Stone In A Pond And Watching The Ripples Move From The Impact (Present) To The Point It Reaches (Future).
Once You See The Pattern, You Will See The System: 6 Protons, 6 Neutrons, 6 Electrons, 6+6+6+6 Hours, 6 x 10 Minutes 6 x 10 Seconds, 6 x 60 Joints, Heart Naturally Beats 103680 Times A Day Without Human Influence Based On Most Natural Heart Rate Is 6 x 6 x 6 x 6 x 80, 66 + 6 Speech Muscles, I Can Go On And On, 6th Planet Rules "Time", The 6's, Why All The Hexagons Like In "Wandavision", There's Nothing Paradoxical About A Systematical Algorithm, You Just Call It A PARADOX Because YOU Don't Understand HOW IT WORKS.Then reread the paradox. 1. If time is never ending then time is timeless. 2. If time is ending then time ends and this ending of time results in time ceasing to exist, aka becoming its potential state of timelessness. As to the paradox of limitless limits the line is a perfect example: it is one thing, a line, composed of infinite things, lines. It is both finite and infinite. |
|
|
|
Post by IM LITERALLY NEO on Sept 11, 2022 22:56:36 GMT
What On Earth Is Paradoxical About Time? Time = Limit; Timeless = Limitless, There's Nothing Paradoxical About Time.
Not Even Multiple Time Intervals Or Space Time Travelling Is A Paradox, Because Events Done In Time (Limit) Still Affect The Events In The Future, Which Is In Theory Suggesting That All The "Paradox Time Travel" Themes Are Contradicting Themselves, By Necessitating The Laws And Rules Of Time Travel Are Linear, Not Paradoxical. The Chain Of Events Are Merely Vast Complications Of Reality Alteration, To The Point People Get Confused And Call It A "Paradox", But If Anyone Would Just Observe The Butterfly Effect, It's No Different Than Throwing A Stone In A Pond And Watching The Ripples Move From The Impact (Present) To The Point It Reaches (Future).
Once You See The Pattern, You Will See The System: 6 Protons, 6 Neutrons, 6 Electrons, 6+6+6+6 Hours, 6 x 10 Minutes 6 x 10 Seconds, 6 x 60 Joints, Heart Naturally Beats 103680 Times A Day Without Human Influence Based On Most Natural Heart Rate Is 6 x 6 x 6 x 6 x 80, 66 + 6 Speech Muscles, I Can Go On And On, 6th Planet Rules "Time", The 6's, Why All The Hexagons Like In "Wandavision", There's Nothing Paradoxical About A Systematical Algorithm, You Just Call It A PARADOX Because YOU Don't Understand HOW IT WORKS. Then reread the paradox. 1. If time is never ending then time is timeless. 2. If time is ending then time ends and this ending of time results in time ceasing to exist, aka becoming its potential state of timelessness. As to the paradox of limitless limits the line is a perfect example: it is one thing, a line, composed of infinite things, lines. It is both finite and infinite.
Time Being Limited, Timeless Being Unlimited Does NOT Make It A "Paradox".
You Keep Using The Word "Paradox", And People Keep Asking You "What Paradox?" Because You Don't Know What One Is.
Paradox Example: "After Dark", "Before Dark" Does Not Elaborate On The Fact There Was A Night Before The Day, Which Was A Day Before The Night, So In Actuality, If Someone At 9 P.M Of Thursday Says "Before Dark", It Wouldn't Exactly Be True, Because At 9 P.M Wednesday It Was "Dark", So This Means It's "Before Today's Dark" And "After Yesterday's Dark", That's How A Paradox Works. |
|
|
|
Post by xxxxxxxxx on Sept 11, 2022 23:00:44 GMT
Then reread the paradox. 1. If time is never ending then time is timeless. 2. If time is ending then time ends and this ending of time results in time ceasing to exist, aka becoming its potential state of timelessness. As to the paradox of limitless limits the line is a perfect example: it is one thing, a line, composed of infinite things, lines. It is both finite and infinite.
Time Being Limited, Timeless Being Unlimited Does NOT Make It A "Paradox".
You Keep Using The Word "Paradox", And People Keep Asking You "What Paradox?" Because You Don't Know What One Is.
Paradox Example: "After Dark", "Before Dark" Does Not Elaborate On The Fact There Was A Night Before The Day, Which Was A Day Before The Night, So In Actuality, If Someone At 9 P.M Of Thursday Says "Before Dark", Wouldn't Exactly Be True, Because At 9 P.M Wednesday It Was "Dark", So This Means It's "Before Today's Dark" And "After Yesterday's Dark", That's How A Paradox Works.And the algorithm does not exist outside of said distinguishable cycles as the algorithm distinguishes said cycles and when the cycle is not distinguishable neither is the algorithm. The algorithm is thus dependent upon its opposite, the non algorithm. Not everything is an algorithm because if it is then the algorithm had no contrast and means nothing. |
|
|
|
Post by IM LITERALLY NEO on Sept 12, 2022 0:06:25 GMT
I Really Don't Think You Understand What "Paradox" Means, Your Limited Understanding Of Something Doesn't Make It A "Paradox", There Is A Concise Algorithm Involved With Time That Comes In Distinguishable Cycles, That's NOT A "Paradox".
Time Being Limited, Timeless Being Unlimited Does NOT Make It A "Paradox".
You Keep Using The Word "Paradox", And People Keep Asking You "What Paradox?" Because You Don't Know What One Is.
Paradox Example: "After Dark", "Before Dark" Does Not Elaborate On The Fact There Was A Night Before The Day, Which Was A Day Before The Night, So In Actuality, If Someone At 9 P.M Of Thursday Says "Before Dark", Wouldn't Exactly Be True, Because At 9 P.M Wednesday It Was "Dark", So This Means It's "Before Today's Dark" And "After Yesterday's Dark", That's How A Paradox Works. And the algorithm does not exist outside of said distinguishable cycles as the algorithm distinguishes said cycles and when the cycle is not distinguishable neither is the algorithm. The algorithm is thus dependent upon its opposite, the non algorithm. Not everything is an algorithm because if it is then the algorithm had no contrast and means nothing.
You Are Again SAYING It's "Dependent On Its Opposite", But Not SHOWING Any Reason That It Does, While I Did Just That.
Your Arguments Are "Dependent" On Semantics, So How Can You Have An Objective Discussion If You Hang The Balance Of Your Argument On Statements That Involve SAYING Something Is "Dependent", And Then When Someone Says "No, It's Not Dependent", You Then Reply With "Dependent Because It NEEDS An Opposite", How About You Slow Down On Binary Thinking,
And Look At The Myriad Of Other Points You Could Be Making, Which I Am Making For You Right Now. |
|
|
|
Post by xxxxxxxxx on Sept 15, 2022 21:31:57 GMT
And the algorithm does not exist outside of said distinguishable cycles as the algorithm distinguishes said cycles and when the cycle is not distinguishable neither is the algorithm. The algorithm is thus dependent upon its opposite, the non algorithm. Not everything is an algorithm because if it is then the algorithm had no contrast and means nothing.
You Are Again SAYING It's "Dependent On Its Opposite", But Not SHOWING Any Reason That It Does, While I Did Just That.
Your Arguments Are "Dependent" On Semantics, So How Can You Have An Objective Discussion If You Hang The Balance Of Your Argument On Statements That Involve SAYING Something Is "Dependent", And Then When Someone Says "No, It's Not Dependent", You Then Reply With "Dependent Because It NEEDS An Opposite", How About You Slow Down On Binary Thinking,
And Look At The Myriad Of Other Points You Could Be Making, Which I Am Making For You Right Now.The cycle is thus an algorithm and where one is absent so is the other...they both equivocate. Cycles embody information just as algorithms do. If algorithms come before cycles, and manifest them, then when no cycle is present no algorithm is present. All things are dependent upon there opposite given the opposite allows for contrast which, furthermore, allows the thing to be distinguished. Without distinguishment the thing does not exist. |
|
|
|
Post by IM LITERALLY NEO on Sept 15, 2022 23:10:01 GMT
Very Often Are Algorithms Discovered BEFORE The Cycle, The CYCLE Is Concluded Once An Algorithm Is Established, Meaning That An Algorithm Being Found Does NOT Depend On Knowing Its Cycle. An Algorithm Suggests A Cycle Is Hidden Nearby.
You Are Again SAYING It's "Dependent On Its Opposite", But Not SHOWING Any Reason That It Does, While I Did Just That.
Your Arguments Are "Dependent" On Semantics, So How Can You Have An Objective Discussion If You Hang The Balance Of Your Argument On Statements That Involve SAYING Something Is "Dependent", And Then When Someone Says "No, It's Not Dependent", You Then Reply With "Dependent Because It NEEDS An Opposite", How About You Slow Down On Binary Thinking,
And Look At The Myriad Of Other Points You Could Be Making, Which I Am Making For You Right Now. . Cycles embody information just as algorithms do. If algorithms come before cycles, and manifest them, then when no cycle is present no algorithm is present. All things are dependent upon there opposite given the opposite allows for contrast which, furthermore, allows the thing to be distinguished. Without distinguishment the thing does not exist. |
|
|
|
Post by xxxxxxxxx on Sept 29, 2022 21:10:00 GMT
The cycle is thus an algorithm and where one is absent so is the other...they both equivocate. Cycles embody information just as algorithms do. If algorithms come before cycles, and manifest them, then when no cycle is present no algorithm is present. All things are dependent upon there opposite given the opposite allows for contrast which, furthermore, allows the thing to be distinguished. Without distinguishment the thing does not exist. Pattern is repetition as all patterns are determined through symmetry and symmetry is the repetition of forms. For example the pattern of a square is the repetition of lines and angles. The pattern of one's eating habits is the repetition what/how/when they eat. |
|
|
|
Post by IM LITERALLY NEO on Sept 29, 2022 22:31:43 GMT
Algorithm And Cycle Are Two Different Things. The Algorithm Is Measured By Pattern, The Cycle Is Measured By Repetition. There You Go Again With Equivocating By Force, Instead Of By Fact. Pattern is repetition as all patterns are determined through symmetry and symmetry is the repetition of forms. For example the pattern of a square is the repetition of lines and angles. The pattern of one's eating habits is the repetition what/how/when they eat. |
|
|
|
Post by xxxxxxxxx on Sept 29, 2022 22:38:29 GMT
Pattern is repetition as all patterns are determined through symmetry and symmetry is the repetition of forms. For example the pattern of a square is the repetition of lines and angles. The pattern of one's eating habits is the repetition what/how/when they eat. An algorithm is a pattern, a pattern is the repetition of substance/form, repetition is circular thus an algorithm is cyclical. Take for example 1+2=3, it is the repetition of 1: 1+(1+1)=(1+1+1). |
|
|
|
Post by IM LITERALLY NEO on Sept 29, 2022 22:47:55 GMT
Algorithm Is The Function Of A Cycle, One Can Know A Cycle Without Knowing Its Algorithm. They Are Two Separate Things. An algorithm is a pattern, a pattern is the repetition of substance/form, repetition is circular thus an algorithm is cyclical. Take for example 1+2=3, it is the repetition of 1: 1+(1+1)=(1+1+1).
Cycle = Game Interface. |
|
