|
Post by Eugene 2.0 on Nov 8, 2022 17:28:21 GMT
If everything had itself as one of its own members, then that member everything wouldn't be the everything. If everything didn't have everything as one of its members, then the everything would be incomplete. Either way everything doesn't have itself and it is incomplete.
|
|
|
Post by xxxxxxxxx on Nov 11, 2022 0:01:09 GMT
If everything had itself as one of its own members, then that member everything wouldn't be the everything. If everything didn't have everything as one of its members, then the everything would be incomplete. Either way everything doesn't have itself and it is incomplete. If everything had itself as one of its own members then only everything exists and it becomes self-referential and without form. It would be neither complete or incomplete as it is definition-less.
|
|
|
Post by IM LITERALLY NEO on Nov 11, 2022 21:00:59 GMT
Everything = Every (All-Encompassing) Thing (Aspect)
|
|
|
Post by xxxxxxxxx on Nov 16, 2022 21:31:04 GMT
Everything = Every (All-Encompassing) Thing (Aspect) All aspects equate to the totality. The totality is 1 as only it exists. The totality is 0 as it has no comparison necessary for its distinction.
|
|
|
Post by IM LITERALLY NEO on Nov 17, 2022 2:16:48 GMT
Everything = Every (All-Encompassing) Thing (Aspect) All aspects equate to the totality. The totality is 1 as only it exists. The totality is 0 as it has no comparison necessary for its distinction. Nope. What You Mean Is -1 Is Negation Of Matter, Not 0. 0 And 1 Are Not -1, You Have Missed This Simple Point.
|
|
|
Post by xxxxxxxxx on Nov 17, 2022 22:17:40 GMT
All aspects equate to the totality. The totality is 1 as only it exists. The totality is 0 as it has no comparison necessary for its distinction. Nope. What You Mean Is -1 Is Negation Of Matter, Not 0. 0 And 1 Are Not -1, You Have Missed This Simple Point.0 is an absence of form. -1 still has form as evidenced by the number line (both 1 and -1 result in a line).
|
|
|
Post by IM LITERALLY NEO on Nov 17, 2022 23:35:31 GMT
Nope. What You Mean Is -1 Is Negation Of Matter, Not 0. 0 And 1 Are Not -1, You Have Missed This Simple Point. 0 is an absence of form. -1 still has form as evidenced by the number line (both 1 and -1 result in a line). Except -1 Is The Absence Of 1, But 0 Is Not The Absence Of 1, But Rather The Internal Space Of 1.
|
|
|
Post by xxxxxxxxx on Nov 17, 2022 23:56:27 GMT
0 is an absence of form. -1 still has form as evidenced by the number line (both 1 and -1 result in a line). Except -1 Is The Absence Of 1, But 0 Is Not The Absence Of 1, But Rather The Internal Space Of 1.Both a square peg and square hole share the nature of square. Dually if 0 is the internal space of 1 then 1 is a loop and you argue reality does not depend upon loops.
|
|
|
Post by Eugene 2.0 on Nov 18, 2022 0:15:53 GMT
Everything = Every (All-Encompassing) Thing (Aspect) Let's imagine we don't really know what everything is, okay? So, let everything be just X. Then if we want to say X is something that has any objexts, then it is the same way as to say: whatever p is it belongs to X. So, any p belongs to X. But X is also "something". So it must belongs to itself! It seems like either "everything" can be without a part (?but how?), or it is drown into a contradiction.
|
|
|
Post by IM LITERALLY NEO on Nov 18, 2022 0:37:39 GMT
Except -1 Is The Absence Of 1, But 0 Is Not The Absence Of 1, But Rather The Internal Space Of 1. Both a square peg and square hole share the nature of square. Dually if 0 is the internal space of 1 then 1 is a loop and you argue reality does not depend upon loops. Square = 1, Square Hole = -1, 1 Is Not -1.
|
|
|
Post by IM LITERALLY NEO on Nov 18, 2022 0:39:05 GMT
Everything = Every (All-Encompassing) Thing (Aspect) Let's imagine we don't really know what everything is, okay? So, let everything be just X. Then if we want to say X is something that has any objexts, then it is the same way as to say: whatever p is it belongs to X. So, any p belongs to X. But X is also "something". So it must belongs to itself! It seems like either "everything" can be without a part (?but how?), or it is drown into a contradiction. Or... Maybe Everything Is Everything In Itself, And Not As Much As "Everything" To A Being With Limited Perception; Having Limited Perception Does Not Change The Sheer Intelligence Of The Universe's Design Which Works Beyond Human Intellect.
|
|
|
Post by xxxxxxxxx on Nov 23, 2022 18:31:09 GMT
Both a square peg and square hole share the nature of square. Dually if 0 is the internal space of 1 then 1 is a loop and you argue reality does not depend upon loops. Square = 1, Square Hole = -1, 1 Is Not -1.Yet both are square thus necessitating the pattern of square repeating. You ignored the second statement: "Dually if 0 is the internal space of 1 then 1 is a loop and you argue reality does not depend upon loops."
|
|
|
Post by Eugene 2.0 on Nov 23, 2022 21:40:01 GMT
Let's imagine we don't really know what everything is, okay? So, let everything be just X. Then if we want to say X is something that has any objexts, then it is the same way as to say: whatever p is it belongs to X. So, any p belongs to X. But X is also "something". So it must belongs to itself! It seems like either "everything" can be without a part (?but how?), or it is drown into a contradiction. Or... Maybe Everything Is Everything In Itself, And Not As Much As "Everything" To A Being With Limited Perception; Having Limited Perception Does Not Change The Sheer Intelligence Of The Universe's Design Which Works Beyond Human Intellect.Oh, yeah, your objections are really nailing the point. For sure, we may ask: how our brains B (let's say equal=1) can grab or accept the everything (equal>>1)? Firstly this problem was mentioned by in ancient Greece by Anaxagoras. He made a fascinating conclusion for his time in history saying that without ration (mind, etc) nothing cannot be accepted as itself. Or in other words, if everything is everything, then everything is possible to be rationally got/accepted. For us this mean that if everything is everything it can be formalized (somehow) or converted (somehow) for our brains. The size of universe makes no real sense for a person to understand it.
|
|
|
Post by IM LITERALLY NEO on Nov 24, 2022 17:46:07 GMT
Square = 1, Square Hole = -1, 1 Is Not -1. Yet both are square thus necessitating the pattern of square repeating. You ignored the second statement: "Dually if 0 is the internal space of 1 then 1 is a loop and you argue reality does not depend upon loops." I Answered The Second Statement With My Statement, But My Statement Is Not As Linear As Your Statement, So It Appears Non-Appropriated, When In Reality I Am Revealing With My Statement That You Have A Lot Of Room To Improve, Because Once You Do, You Will See How My Previous Statement Fully And Concisely Answered Your Second Statement Succinctly. Meaning, The Statement You Quoted Already Answers Your Response, If You Do Not See The Answer, Then You Do Not Understand This Idea.
|
|
|
Post by IM LITERALLY NEO on Nov 24, 2022 17:55:02 GMT
Or... Maybe Everything Is Everything In Itself, And Not As Much As "Everything" To A Being With Limited Perception; Having Limited Perception Does Not Change The Sheer Intelligence Of The Universe's Design Which Works Beyond Human Intellect. Oh, yeah, your objections are really nailing the point. For sure, we may ask: how our brains B (let's say equal=1) can grab or accept the everything (equal>>1)? Firstly this problem was mentioned by in ancient Greece by Anaxagoras. He made a fascinating conclusion for his time in history saying that without ration (mind, etc) nothing cannot be accepted as itself. Or in other words, if everything is everything, then everything is possible to be rationally got/accepted. For us this mean that if everything is everything it can be formalized (somehow) or converted (somehow) for our brains. The size of universe makes no real sense for a person to understand it. For Many, Yes. There Are Some That Have Conquered This Way Of Thinking, And Have Pursued What Pieces Of The Universe They Could Fathom To Propagate An Objective Consensus That Is Not Based On Human Opinion But Rather Universal Absolution Where Laws And Formulas Exist By Pre-Cognizant Apparatuses, I.E My Formulas For PI, Euler And The Golden Ratio Are Based On Pre-Existing Ordinances.
|
|