|
Post by xxxxxxxxx on Sept 15, 2022 22:38:27 GMT
Things occur through contrast and as such are dependent upon said contrast because it, the contrast that is, is necessary for distinction. A thing occurs through what it is not and as such the line between what a thing is and a thing is not is obscure. Separation results in unity and unity results in separation.
|
|
|
Post by Eugene 2.0 on Sept 21, 2022 9:35:42 GMT
You put all in together that rests unclear to solve anything.
I. Contrast exists, and seen: a) it is necessary for two or more things to distinct b) it happens, because two or more things aren't identical (the same)
II. Contrast doesn't exists, but seen: a) it's not necessary for two or more things to distinct b) it occurs, because of our sights
III. Contrast doesn't exists, and unable to see: a) it's impossible for two or more things to share the contrast b) it's just a weird idea of ours, nothing more
If we use this conceptualization it at least makes our way to be less rough. So, in this case paradoxes may occur, but only in few cases if, to say, there are not contrast, while we register it (II,b).
|
|
|
Post by xxxxxxxxx on Sept 29, 2022 20:56:26 GMT
You put all in together that rests unclear to solve anything. I. Contrast exists, and seen: a) it is necessary for two or more things to distinct b) it happens, because two or more things aren't identical (the same) II. Contrast doesn't exists, but seen: a) it's not necessary for two or more things to distinct b) it occurs, because of our sights III. Contrast doesn't exists, and unable to see: a) it's impossible for two or more things to share the contrast b) it's just a weird idea of ours, nothing more If we use this conceptualization it at least makes our way to be less rough. So, in this case paradoxes may occur, but only in few cases if, to say, there are not contrast, while we register it (II,b). You are giving contrasting examples of contrast.
|
|
|
Post by Eugene 2.0 on Sept 30, 2022 5:47:02 GMT
You put all in together that rests unclear to solve anything. I. Contrast exists, and seen: a) it is necessary for two or more things to distinct b) it happens, because two or more things aren't identical (the same) II. Contrast doesn't exists, but seen: a) it's not necessary for two or more things to distinct b) it occurs, because of our sights III. Contrast doesn't exists, and unable to see: a) it's impossible for two or more things to share the contrast b) it's just a weird idea of ours, nothing more If we use this conceptualization it at least makes our way to be less rough. So, in this case paradoxes may occur, but only in few cases if, to say, there are not contrast, while we register it (II,b). You are giving contrasting examples of contrast. And what do you hope to say by such an argument? It sounds like "the earth is round, bacause carrots are orange". Can you read?
|
|
|
Post by xxxxxxxxx on Oct 4, 2022 18:36:59 GMT
You are giving contrasting examples of contrast. And what do you hope to say by such an argument? It sounds like "the earth is round, bacause carrots are orange". Can you read? False, I am saying that in defining contrast we result in different types of contrast all of which result in contrast...your point is circular.
|
|
|
Post by Eugene 2.0 on Oct 4, 2022 20:08:26 GMT
And what do you hope to say by such an argument? It sounds like "the earth is round, bacause carrots are orange". Can you read? False, I am saying that in defining contrast we result in different types of contrast all of which result in contrast...your point is circular. No points have size. Being round, circular, or square is for something that has size.
|
|
|
Post by xxxxxxxxx on Oct 4, 2022 20:14:56 GMT
False, I am saying that in defining contrast we result in different types of contrast all of which result in contrast...your point is circular. No points have size. Being round, circular, or square is for something that has size. Points are 0d dimensional, they have no size. However if points did have size, in the respect that objects result in or come from points (ie the point is a relative object), and all that exists are points then the point does not have size as the point is relative only to itself resulting in an absence of contrast necessary for size. That being said you statement is off topic...and why? I am speaking about contradiction. If there are different contradictions then contradiction is contradictory as one thing results in many opposing things.
|
|
|
Post by Eugene 2.0 on Oct 4, 2022 20:34:49 GMT
No points have size. Being round, circular, or square is for something that has size. Points are 0d dimensional, they have no size. However if points did have size, in the respect that objects result in or come from points (ie the point is a relative object), and all that exists are points then the point does not have size as the point is relative only to itself resulting in an absence of contrast necessary for size. That being said you statement is off topic...and why? I am speaking about contradiction. If there are different contradictions then contradiction is contradictory as one thing results in many opposing things. Any points as geometric so abstract have no size. You don't understand the very nature of contradictions. It's ontological. If X is false, then Y is whatever. It doesn't really matter whether Y is something particular or peculiar. If X is false, then everything is permitted.
|
|
|
Post by xxxxxxxxx on Oct 4, 2022 20:41:59 GMT
Points are 0d dimensional, they have no size. However if points did have size, in the respect that objects result in or come from points (ie the point is a relative object), and all that exists are points then the point does not have size as the point is relative only to itself resulting in an absence of contrast necessary for size. That being said you statement is off topic...and why? I am speaking about contradiction. If there are different contradictions then contradiction is contradictory as one thing results in many opposing things. Any points as geometric so abstract have no size. You don't understand the very nature of contradictions. It's ontological. If X is false, then Y is whatever. It doesn't really matter whether Y is something particular or peculiar. If X is false, then everything is permitted. "All that is" is everything...there is only everything thus permission is universal. Given only reality exists reality becomes indefinite as there is no comparisons for it. This indefiniteness to reality results reality being a contradiction. This void, ie the indefiniteness, is also void of void (ie has form) if it is to be truly void and this is a contradiction. Reality is a contradiction as evidenced by our contradictory observations which are real.
|
|
|
Post by Eugene 2.0 on Oct 4, 2022 21:22:52 GMT
Any points as geometric so abstract have no size. You don't understand the very nature of contradictions. It's ontological. If X is false, then Y is whatever. It doesn't really matter whether Y is something particular or peculiar. If X is false, then everything is permitted. "All that is" is everything...there is only everything thus permission is universal. Given only reality exists reality becomes indefinite as there is no comparisons for it. This indefiniteness to reality results reality being a contradiction. This void, ie the indefiniteness, is also void of void (ie has form) if it is to be truly void and this is a contradiction. Reality is a contradiction as evidenced by our contradictory observations which are real. Again, it's not like that. Can you compare or to calculate the natural numbers? Yes, if N is natural numbers, and E is for even numbers, the. N=E. The same is about odd ones, etc. You can compare everything to its own part. But according to Cantor paradox :: if everything is N, then it has lower cardinal then its own power (of sets). So, N must be lower, than N–x? It's another paradox. And since there's no paradoxes in reality, this cannot be that only what we have got is everything.
|
|
|
Post by IM LITERALLY NEO on Oct 4, 2022 21:38:28 GMT
"All that is" is everything...there is only everything thus permission is universal. Given only reality exists reality becomes indefinite as there is no comparisons for it. This indefiniteness to reality results reality being a contradiction. This void, ie the indefiniteness, is also void of void (ie has form) if it is to be truly void and this is a contradiction. Reality is a contradiction as evidenced by our contradictory observations which are real. Again, it's not like that. Can you compare or to calculate the natural numbers? Yes, if N is natural numbers, and E is for even numbers, the. N=E. The same is about odd ones, etc. You can compare everything to its own part. But according to Cantor paradox :: if everything is N, then it has lower cardinal then its own power (of sets). So, N must be lower, than N–x? It's another paradox. And since there's no paradoxes in reality, this cannot be that only what we have got is everything. I'll Give You One Good Example: The Unit .999 Is Automatically Computed As 1 By The Universe, Not .999. The Existence Of .999 Is In The Realm Of Paradoxes Because The Universe Acknowledges It, But Yet Does Not Acknowledge It.
Another Paradox To Consider, Is That The Absence Of Law Is Still A Law Created By The Universe. It Exists, The Universe Designed The Absence Of Law, As Much As The Presence Of Law.
|
|
|
Post by Eugene 2.0 on Oct 6, 2022 11:30:04 GMT
Again, it's not like that. Can you compare or to calculate the natural numbers? Yes, if N is natural numbers, and E is for even numbers, the. N=E. The same is about odd ones, etc. You can compare everything to its own part. But according to Cantor paradox :: if everything is N, then it has lower cardinal then its own power (of sets). So, N must be lower, than N–x? It's another paradox. And since there's no paradoxes in reality, this cannot be that only what we have got is everything. I'll Give You One Good Example: The Unit .999 Is Automatically Computed As 1 By The Universe, Not .999. The Existence Of .999 Is In The Realm Of Paradoxes Because The Universe Acknowledges It, But Yet Does Not Acknowledge It.
Another Paradox To Consider, Is That The Absence Of Law Is Still A Law Created By The Universe. It Exists, The Universe Designed The Absence Of Law, As Much As The Presence Of Law.
Pay attention – it is computable! Let's say I might code a soft that doesn't compute .999 as 1. Moreover, I think you miss one important thing – if you made a mistake in .0001 in automobile, probably there's no need to expect serious troubles with it, but if you did it in a rocket shuttle, or an optical source, or in neuron medicine – you're done. It's impossible to escape it. If you have 999 bricks, and to build a stable house you need in 1000, your 999 bricked house will fall. Ask bridge engineers about it. .999 and 1 – are totally different numbers. What if I tell you that 26 is in real 27, but everyone thinks it as to be 26, what would you answer? What if I tell you that 1+1=1.99999999999, and 1+1=2 is false? You should not use witchcraft, God don't like people who it, only satan do. Don't you know any witches will be burn? And witches practiced numerology for so long ages.
|
|
|
Post by IM LITERALLY NEO on Oct 6, 2022 16:56:25 GMT
I'll Give You One Good Example: The Unit .999 Is Automatically Computed As 1 By The Universe, Not .999. The Existence Of .999 Is In The Realm Of Paradoxes Because The Universe Acknowledges It, But Yet Does Not Acknowledge It.
Another Paradox To Consider, Is That The Absence Of Law Is Still A Law Created By The Universe. It Exists, The Universe Designed The Absence Of Law, As Much As The Presence Of Law.
Pay attention – it is computable! Let's say I might code a soft that doesn't compute .999 as 1. Moreover, I think you miss one important thing – if you made a mistake in .0001 in automobile, probably there's no need to expect serious troubles with it, but if you did it in a rocket shuttle, or an optical source, or in neuron medicine – you're done. It's impossible to escape it. If you have 999 bricks, and to build a stable house you need in 1000, your 999 bricked house will fall. Ask bridge engineers about it. .999 and 1 – are totally different numbers. What if I tell you that 26 is in real 27, but everyone thinks it as to be 26, what would you answer? What if I tell you that 1+1=1.99999999999, and 1+1=2 is false? You should not use witchcraft, God don't like people who it, only satan do. Don't you know any witches will be burn? And witches practiced numerology for so long ages. The Universe Does Not Settle With Decimal Points, Or Else Design Itself Would Be More Complex Than It Already Is. Instead, It Rounds Itself Off, For An Example The 51.84 Degree Arc Of Giza, Is Rounded Up To 52 Degrees, So 52 Degrees + 52 Degrees = 104 Degrees, Then 76 Degrees For The Apex For A Total Of 180 Degrees (The Geometric Value Of A Pyramid).
Another Fine Example: Heart Beats Naturally 103680 Times Per Day (Without Human Influence), 103 + 680 = 783, Heart Frequency = 7.83 Hertz. The Universe Is Clearly Rounding Itself And Folding Itself Into Quantum Origami.
|
|
|
Post by Eugene 2.0 on Oct 6, 2022 17:25:17 GMT
Pay attention – it is computable! Let's say I might code a soft that doesn't compute .999 as 1. Moreover, I think you miss one important thing – if you made a mistake in .0001 in automobile, probably there's no need to expect serious troubles with it, but if you did it in a rocket shuttle, or an optical source, or in neuron medicine – you're done. It's impossible to escape it. If you have 999 bricks, and to build a stable house you need in 1000, your 999 bricked house will fall. Ask bridge engineers about it. .999 and 1 – are totally different numbers. What if I tell you that 26 is in real 27, but everyone thinks it as to be 26, what would you answer? What if I tell you that 1+1=1.99999999999, and 1+1=2 is false? You should not use witchcraft, God don't like people who it, only satan do. Don't you know any witches will be burn? And witches practiced numerology for so long ages. The Universe Does Not Settle With Decimal Points, Or Else Design Itself Would Be More Complex Than It Already Is. Instead, It Rounds Itself Off, For An Example The 51.84 Degree Arc Of Giza, Is Rounded Up To 52 Degrees, So 52 Degrees + 52 Degrees = 104 Degrees, Then 76 Degrees For The Apex For A Total Of 180 Degrees (The Geometric Value Of A Pyramid).
Another Fine Example: Heart Beats Naturally 103680 Times Per Day (Without Human Influence), 103 + 680 = 783, Heart Frequency = 7.83 Hertz. The Universe Is Clearly Rounding Itself And Folding Itself Into Quantum Origami.And?.. Have you seen "Number 23" (2007)? There was quite the same stuff. I see anything here to believe it. You know, for me it sounds like: my hair long = 0, I've got 3 birds in a cage, the diagonal of my workbook is 53 cm, my roof angle is 22°, today I had two scrambled eggs with 2,34 inches in diameter, water boils at 100°... These are just a bunch of facts. What are you trying to do is to combine them and make us believe in that salad. Who will? As I said before numerology is a false thing. There are some interesting features, however all of them are just mathematical. Let's say if you add any sequence of even numbers the result will also be an even number. If you add any sequence of such pairs as one is even, and one is odd number, the result will be an odd number. There are other interesting features, but they don't have any relation to the world. A number and a world don't have any links. Math and the world - are different.
|
|
|
Post by MAYA-EL on Oct 6, 2022 18:22:29 GMT
12-26-2022 is hear by dubbed with the name of my psycho bipolar cat that my daughter raised from a baby kitten that consequently do to the unusual non-traditional raising techniques that my daughter has used on it has created herself an imaginary LGBT invisible unicorn named Gladys and so it just seems right that I bless 12-26-2022 with the name that has an equal reputation to the character that he truly is , lets all welcome, Gladys.
|
|