|
|
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 Eugene 2.0 on Nov 24, 2022 18:19:23 GMT
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.Are you familiar with that Euler's formula for geometry: X+Y+Z = 2? Can you prove the formula is fair for each polyhedron? |
|
|
|
Post by IM LITERALLY NEO on Nov 25, 2022 4:41:20 GMT
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. Are you familiar with that Euler's formula for geometry: X+Y+Z = 2? Can you prove the formula is fair for each polyhedron? |
|
|
|
Post by xxxxxxxxx on Dec 1, 2022 21:58:12 GMT
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."
If you cannot explain something to a general audience then you do not understand it as well. |
|
|
|
Post by IM LITERALLY NEO on Dec 2, 2022 5:15:35 GMT
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.
If you cannot explain something to a general audience then you do not understand it as well. |
|
|
|
Post by xxxxxxxxx on Dec 8, 2022 22:50:41 GMT
If you cannot explain something to a general audience then you do not understand it as well. Proof is relative. What works as proof for some does not work as proof to others. You disagree with me and yet I am part of the grand design, and so everyone else for that matter. |
|
|
|
Post by IM LITERALLY NEO on Dec 8, 2022 23:53:51 GMT
This Is False, There Are Some Things The General Audience Cannot Comprehend Easily, Especially Those That Call Everything A Paradox, Yet Argue Reality As If There Is A Non-Paradoxical Meaning, Which Stems From Your Egotistical Hunger To Degrade Reality By Obfuscating Its Fundamental Status With Your Wanton Word Salads That Have Been Proven Wrong Constantly. Proof is relative. What works as proof for some does not work as proof to others. You disagree with me and yet I am part of the grand design, and so everyone else for that matter. |
|
|
|
Post by xxxxxxxxx on Dec 30, 2022 19:24:41 GMT
Proof is relative. What works as proof for some does not work as proof to others. You disagree with me and yet I am part of the grand design, and so everyone else for that matter. It is immutable and unquestionable to you but not to others. Your proof is relative. |
|
