|
Post by xxxxxxxxx on Sept 10, 2020 17:12:26 GMT
"All that exists" necessitates "all" as contrasting to Nothingness, yet there is no Nothingness as only being exists. Nothing is a statement of relation between parts where Nothingness is the absence of one thing relative to another. An empty cup for example observes the absence of that which fills the cup leaving only the cup. Thus "all" in contrast to Nothingness is "all" in contrast to some other being which exists as distinct with this distinction being the point of change from one phenomenon into another. "All" is the point of distinction between one set of being, as distinct, and another set of being, as distinct. "All" effectively leads to some other being as all is a point of change from one set of being to another thus leaving multiple "alls".
Testing for the totality of the universe is impossible given the test must be applied to what is real, yet this reality of the test must first be established. The test must be real to test what is real, but what is real is only real if tested. A regressive spiral occurs where the test must be real but what is real must be tested. The test must test itself thus always leading to a test of what is real existing beyond what can be tested. In simpler terms the test is assumed as real, but in itself cannot be test thus cannot be real.
The ability to test, as defining what is real, is falsifiable given the test is a mimicking of natural variables. In mimicking one set of variables a series of variables are left out given the mimicking is an approximation of the natural set of variables. There is no true test which contains all variables thus testing is nothing other than a recursion of natural variables being repeated in a new light thus causing a fundamental difference between what is being tested and the test in itself. The test is a variation of what is being tested and as a variation is distinct thus different from what is being tested. In testing a phenomenon what is being observed is the test and not the natural environment in itself.
|
|
|
Post by Eugene 2.0 on Sept 14, 2020 6:33:09 GMT
xxxxxxxxxMaybe my words injured you, I hope they didn't, but I did not try to ignore words, the content of what you always talk cannot be checked. I can object your words as well as to confirm and endorse them, with no real issue, because what ussues here lie – who knows? Squares as an idea hor houses are possible to occur in minds, but when you are in the process of building you usually infelt, live through, or experiencing how will it be, or particularly, how comfortable the inhabitants will live there. I mean that all to what your speculations lead is to non-existential categories, yet to just geometry, to math-like categories or etc. That is why it is really excusable to try to understand the rest (=the unsaid, or what is behind the math-like conceptions) of it, not just playing all over the time speech games with circular, reflective rules. How can one hope to understand it if not playing word-games? Such a style risks to turn against itself: it locks on itself only, and then breaks all the connections with philosophy. Because philosophy is not what is narrow, but the widest thing is possible.
|
|
|
Post by xxxxxxxxx on Sept 14, 2020 13:28:44 GMT
xxxxxxxxx Maybe my words injured you, I hope they didn't, but I did not try to ignore words, the content of what you always talk cannot be checked. I can object your words as well as to confirm and endorse them, with no real issue, because what ussues here lie – who knows? Squares as an idea hor houses are possible to occur in minds, but when you are in the process of building you usually infelt, live through, or experiencing how will it be, or particularly, how comfortable the inhabitants will live there. I mean that all to what your speculations lead is to non-existential categories, yet to just geometry, to math-like categories or etc. That is why it is really excusable to try to understand the rest (=the unsaid, or what is behind the math-like conceptions) of it, not just playing all over the time speech games with circular, reflective rules. How can one hope to understand it if not playing word-games? Such a style risks to turn against itself: it locks on itself only, and then breaks all the connections with philosophy. Because philosophy is not what is narrow, but the widest thing is possible. No your words did not injure me Eugene, they are just incorrect. To revert back to the original post relative to the ability to "check": Testing for the totality of the universe is impossible given the test must be applied to what is real, yet this reality of the test must first be established. The test must be real to test what is real, but what is real is only real if tested. A regressive spiral occurs where the test must be real but what is real must be tested. The test must test itself thus always leading to a test of what is real existing beyond what can be tested. In simpler terms the test is assumed as real, but in itself cannot be test thus cannot be real.
|
|
|
Post by Eugene 2.0 on Sept 14, 2020 15:23:23 GMT
xxxxxxxxx Maybe my words injured you, I hope they didn't, but I did not try to ignore words, the content of what you always talk cannot be checked. I can object your words as well as to confirm and endorse them, with no real issue, because what ussues here lie – who knows? Squares as an idea hor houses are possible to occur in minds, but when you are in the process of building you usually infelt, live through, or experiencing how will it be, or particularly, how comfortable the inhabitants will live there. I mean that all to what your speculations lead is to non-existential categories, yet to just geometry, to math-like categories or etc. That is why it is really excusable to try to understand the rest (=the unsaid, or what is behind the math-like conceptions) of it, not just playing all over the time speech games with circular, reflective rules. How can one hope to understand it if not playing word-games? Such a style risks to turn against itself: it locks on itself only, and then breaks all the connections with philosophy. Because philosophy is not what is narrow, but the widest thing is possible. No your words did not injure me Eugene, they are just incorrect. To revert back to the original post relative to the ability to "check": Testing for the totality of the universe is impossible given the test must be applied to what is real, yet this reality of the test must first be established. The test must be real to test what is real, but what is real is only real if tested. A regressive spiral occurs where the test must be real but what is real must be tested. The test must test itself thus always leading to a test of what is real existing beyond what can be tested. In simpler terms the test is assumed as real, but in itself cannot be test thus cannot be real.Do you agree on that our, let's call it, investigation of the whole Uviverse can degrees? Or what do we investigate is only black-and-white dual reality? I mean that a test might approach the Universe step by step, not assuming if the test is real as the first and the last research already. It's you who still don't understand about what I've been talking. Your analysis is detailed and amazing, but it has no access to what we've called the investigation of the Universe. Because the investigation is not a standalone one, it requires at least two persons. Maybe what you're continuously sayings is the investigation, yet none of anyone except for you can understand the process. So, to get an access to your investigation is an attempt (you can call it the challenge) for you to change your technique or manner of the investigation of the Universe into another. You already did it when you had been using math or logical apparatus, but there are plenty ones different ones. Moreover, who knows maybe the next day you'll wake up as another person, a different one to the one you're now. What's then? Would you still be you? So, for saving your ideas you should try to be prepared to keep 'em even being another person. And, I guess, exactly this (preparedness to possible changes) is why we're all communicate with each other. I understand the dialectic of the testing you've typed. So, what I was saying you was to break it down, not to hold this. We are the ones who do the relity, response for this, and, if it's necessary, care about it (usually, there's no need in this). To test – is not just narrow procedure, it's rather the sequence of many tests, but each one test might be transformed into something that is not a test anymore. – The time when I am speaking might be the one, why not?
|
|
|
Post by xxxxxxxxx on Sept 14, 2020 16:40:56 GMT
No your words did not injure me Eugene, they are just incorrect. To revert back to the original post relative to the ability to "check": Testing for the totality of the universe is impossible given the test must be applied to what is real, yet this reality of the test must first be established. The test must be real to test what is real, but what is real is only real if tested. A regressive spiral occurs where the test must be real but what is real must be tested. The test must test itself thus always leading to a test of what is real existing beyond what can be tested. In simpler terms the test is assumed as real, but in itself cannot be test thus cannot be real.Do you agree on that our, let's call it, investigation of the whole Uviverse can degrees? Or what do we investigate is only black-and-white dual reality? I mean that a test might approach the Universe step by step, not assuming if the test is real as the first and the last research already. It's you who still don't understand about what I've been talking. Your analysis is detailed and amazing, but it has no access to what we've called the investigation of the Universe. Because the investigation is not a standalone one, it requires at least two persons. Maybe what you're continuously sayings is the investigation, yet none of anyone except for you can understand the process. So, to get an access to your investigation is an attempt (you can call it the challenge) for you to change your technique or manner of the investigation of the Universe into another. You already did it when you had been using math or logical apparatus, but there are plenty ones different ones. Moreover, who knows maybe the next day you'll wake up as another person, a different one to the one you're now. What's then? Would you still be you? So, for saving your ideas you should try to be prepared to keep 'em even being another person. And, I guess, exactly this (preparedness to possible changes) is why we're all communicate with each other. I understand the dialectic of the testing you've typed. So, what I was saying you was to break it down, not to hold this. We are the ones who do the relity, response for this, and, if it's necessary, care about it (usually, there's no need in this). To test – is not just narrow procedure, it's rather the sequence of many tests, but each one test might be transformed into something that is not a test anymore. – The time when I am speaking might be the one, why not? Degrees is both black and white thus necessitating it as triadic: black, white, gray. In requiring two or more persons you are stating that objectivity is two or more symmetrical subjective states thus necessitating all investigations as bias to the angle of observation. Investigation is testing, testing is proof, proof is a body of facts, a body of facts is the connection of truth particles.
|
|
|
Post by Eugene 2.0 on Sept 14, 2020 17:31:48 GMT
Do you agree on that our, let's call it, investigation of the whole Uviverse can degrees? Or what do we investigate is only black-and-white dual reality? I mean that a test might approach the Universe step by step, not assuming if the test is real as the first and the last research already. It's you who still don't understand about what I've been talking. Your analysis is detailed and amazing, but it has no access to what we've called the investigation of the Universe. Because the investigation is not a standalone one, it requires at least two persons. Maybe what you're continuously sayings is the investigation, yet none of anyone except for you can understand the process. So, to get an access to your investigation is an attempt (you can call it the challenge) for you to change your technique or manner of the investigation of the Universe into another. You already did it when you had been using math or logical apparatus, but there are plenty ones different ones. Moreover, who knows maybe the next day you'll wake up as another person, a different one to the one you're now. What's then? Would you still be you? So, for saving your ideas you should try to be prepared to keep 'em even being another person. And, I guess, exactly this (preparedness to possible changes) is why we're all communicate with each other. I understand the dialectic of the testing you've typed. So, what I was saying you was to break it down, not to hold this. We are the ones who do the relity, response for this, and, if it's necessary, care about it (usually, there's no need in this). To test – is not just narrow procedure, it's rather the sequence of many tests, but each one test might be transformed into something that is not a test anymore. – The time when I am speaking might be the one, why not? Degrees is both black and white thus necessitating it as triadic: black, white, gray. In requiring two or more persons you are stating that objectivity is two or more symmetrical subjective states thus necessitating all investigations as bias to the angle of observation. Investigation is testing, testing is proof, proof is a body of facts, a body of facts is the connection of truth particles. 9x comes to the store. At the checkout, the store keeper: - Something else, young fella? - Something can't be else since else is elsewhere in double oppositions to itself and, in turn, returning to its return it circuits by its circularity for eternal round of circles in triple eternity, and yet becoming a plural fact of singular change in constant of contrasts within contradictions as self oppositions to its roots of returning comes the negation of denying the fact in itself... - !!!???.. Er.. Hm.. Okay, but 9$, please.
|
|
|
Post by xxxxxxxxx on Sept 14, 2020 17:45:25 GMT
Degrees is both black and white thus necessitating it as triadic: black, white, gray. In requiring two or more persons you are stating that objectivity is two or more symmetrical subjective states thus necessitating all investigations as bias to the angle of observation. Investigation is testing, testing is proof, proof is a body of facts, a body of facts is the connection of truth particles. 9x comes to the store. At the checkout, the store keeper: - Something else, young fella? - Something can't be else since else is elsewhere in double oppositions to itself and, in turn, returning to its return it circuits by its circularity for eternal round of circles in triple eternity, and yet becoming a plural fact of singular change in constant of contrasts within contradictions as self oppositions to its roots of returning comes the negation of denying the fact in itself... - !!!???.. Er.. Hm.. Okay, but 9$, please. Ad hominums only show your inability to argue your point further. You have no argument left for your stance Eugene.
|
|
|
Post by Eugene 2.0 on Sept 14, 2020 18:29:07 GMT
9x comes to the store. At the checkout, the store keeper: - Something else, young fella? - Something can't be else since else is elsewhere in double oppositions to itself and, in turn, returning to its return it circuits by its circularity for eternal round of circles in triple eternity, and yet becoming a plural fact of singular change in constant of contrasts within contradictions as self oppositions to its roots of returning comes the negation of denying the fact in itself... - !!!???.. Er.. Hm.. Okay, but 9$, please. Ad hominums only show your inability to argue your point further. You have no argument left for your stance Eugene. What's the point of my arguments if you don't hear them? Ad hominem is like a double-edged sword: sometimes it ends the discussion, but sometimes it tries to find the center of the key position. And what is just an impressive what you've said: so, how anyone can to argument something, if all what you do is just impose your own rules? It's not a honest game, 9x. Definitely, that in this game the winner is always the only one - is you.
|
|
|
Post by xxxxxxxxx on Sept 14, 2020 18:42:09 GMT
Ad hominums only show your inability to argue your point further. You have no argument left for your stance Eugene. What's the point of my arguments if you don't hear them? Ad hominem is like a double-edged sword: sometimes it ends the discussion, but sometimes it tries to find the center of the key position. And what is just an impressive what you've said: so, how anyone can to argument something, if all what you do is just impose your own rules? It's not a honest game, 9x. Definitely, that in this game the winner is always the only one - is you. Presenting a topic and discussing/debating it is not imposing my own rules. Reverting to ad hominums is just a recourse away from the topic discussed. It points out where your argumentation falls short not mine.
|
|