|
Post by Eugene 2.0 on Aug 19, 2020 19:53:46 GMT
(a) "This man M weights 80 kg and this man M doesn't weight 80 kg" is False. p&~p is always False. There are no place, even imaginable, where it might be True
(b) "A man weights eight tons" might be True, but there's no such persons in this World. Maybe somewhere out of this World there is one or dozens, but we can't really say.
(c) "A Earth man lives one five million Earth years" might be True, but it's too impossible to be True. However, it might be, even if that seems to not be so.
If we'd like to arrange or to put in a row these possibilities on a scale of impossibility, it's more likely that (a) would be the farthest from possibility, then it came (c), and then (b). Among them (a) is the most impossible thing whatever it is. And this thing is impossible no matter how good we try to reach it. There are not way to get it. There cannot be any. So, even if (b) and (c) would happen for some reasons, (a) would never happen. For us (c) is beyond our ability to watch it, or to get it somehow, but it's still able to be within our imagination.
(d) "This man M weights 80+N kg" - that N is a number that always higher, than we are able to beat (to reach) it. When that man M got some extra weight, at the particular moment he misses it - he can reach 80+K (K<N), but he cannot reach N.
All three things: (b), (c) and (d) are out of existence, but they might be. (d) is what withing to be possible, however, it's not like that, because it's always "chasing" out of our ability to reach it. And even if there's (d), (a) is the most unreachable thing. That's why (a) is beyond the beyondness. It's not out of it, and it's not over it, - it's just beyond it.
|
|
|
Post by xxxxxxxxx on Aug 20, 2020 2:57:06 GMT
(a) "This man M weights 80 kg and this man M doesn't weight 80 kg" is False. p&~p is always False. There are no place, even imaginable, where it might be True The man may weigh 80.1kg. The man does weigh 80kg when rounded, he does not weigh 80 kg when not rounded. Dually a man may weigh 80kg as a subset of 80.1 kg. The man does weigh 80kg but also more than 80kg thus not 80kg.(b) "A man weights eight tons" might be True, but there's no such persons in this World. Maybe somewhere out of this World there is one or dozens, but we can't really say. (c) "A Earth man lives one five million Earth years" might be True, but it's too impossible to be True. However, it might be, even if that seems to not be so. If we'd like to arrange or to put in a row these possibilities on a scale of impossibility, it's more likely that (a) would be the farthest from possibility, then it came (c), and then (b). Among them (a) is the most impossible thing whatever it is. And this thing is impossible no matter how good we try to reach it. There are not way to get it. There cannot be any. So, even if (b) and (c) would happen for some reasons, (a) would never happen. For us (c) is beyond our ability to watch it, or to get it somehow, but it's still able to be within our imagination. (d) "This man M weights 80+N kg" - that N is a number that always higher, than we are able to beat (to reach) it. When that man M got some extra weight, at the particular moment he misses it - he can reach 80+K (K<N), but he cannot reach N. All three things: (b), (c) and (d) are out of existence, but they might be. (d) is what withing to be possible, however, it's not like that, because it's always "chasing" out of our ability to reach it. And even if there's (d), (a) is the most unreachable thing. That's why (a) is beyond the beyondness. It's not out of it, and it's not over it, - it's just beyond it.
|
|
|
Post by Eugene 2.0 on Aug 20, 2020 4:35:24 GMT
xxxxxxxxx - this must be pretty round man =) I could write instead: "The man M is being weighted at the moment as having W kg" or sorta. Of course this man can be viewed as not having weight at all, depending on relativity to what measure we do it. But I couldn't take such an example (if it is quite messy gor any number) and took instead this: "This man M has a property P at the moment T" and opposite to this: "This man M doesn't have a property P at the moment T" ("This man M doesn't have any properties at the moment T"
|
|
|
Post by xxxxxxxxx on Aug 20, 2020 16:01:09 GMT
xxxxxxxxx - this must be pretty round man =) I could write instead: "The man M is being weighted at the moment as having W kg" or sorta. Of course this man can be viewed as not having weight at all, depending on relativity to what measure we do it. But I couldn't take such an example (if it is quite messy gor any number) and took instead this: "This man M has a property P at the moment T" and opposite to this: "This man M doesn't have a property P at the moment T" ("This man M doesn't have any properties at the moment T" Dually a man may weigh 80kg as a subset of 80.1 kg. The man does weigh 80kg but also more than 80kg thus not 80kg.
|
|
|
Post by Eugene 2.0 on Aug 20, 2020 16:42:56 GMT
xxxxxxxxx - this must be pretty round man =) I could write instead: "The man M is being weighted at the moment as having W kg" or sorta. Of course this man can be viewed as not having weight at all, depending on relativity to what measure we do it. But I couldn't take such an example (if it is quite messy gor any number) and took instead this: "This man M has a property P at the moment T" and opposite to this: "This man M doesn't have a property P at the moment T" ("This man M doesn't have any properties at the moment T" Dually a man may weigh 80kg as a subset of 80.1 kg. The man does weigh 80kg but also more than 80kg thus not 80kg. In this sense, yes, it seems to be it. But nobody can weight less than one weight at the same moment if only that person isn't a usual, ordinary person. Maybe that person is a magician or Harry Houdini's ghost... Who knows?
|
|