|
|
Post by xxxxxxxxx on Aug 18, 2021 23:31:07 GMT
The very fact that one observation changes into another necessitates a reality existing independent of the human mind given the inversion of what is not known to what is known further necessitates a reality beyond human observation which accounts for the change of human observation. Change in human observation is the not known becoming the known thus the not known is not only a means of change but a phenomenon which exists.
|
|
|
|
Post by Eugene 2.0 on Aug 19, 2021 3:44:28 GMT
This is nonsense. There is non sequitur.
I van say that, because someone thinks the reality exists, then the reality exists – why? – somebody might ask me – because his own observation act has been changed...
|
|
|
|
Post by xxxxxxxxx on Aug 23, 2021 23:03:33 GMT
This is nonsense. There is non sequitur. I van say that, because someone thinks the reality exists, then the reality exists – why? – somebody might ask me – because his own observation act has been changed... False, the very fact that something changes into something else along a timeline necessitates a being existing beyond the observed being. A potential form is a form and as unseen the potential form still exists. Potentiality determines change as it is the point of change. For example observing a timeline of events where only A is observed then expanding this timeline to where A changes into B occurs necessitates the unseen B in the first timeline as a seen form in another. The nature of "not" observing something is determined by an angle of observation. Because not seeing something is determined by angulature we know things exist beyond one observed state by changing the angle. |
|
|
|
Post by Eugene 2.0 on Aug 27, 2021 5:01:13 GMT
This is empty. There is no necessity for some "unseen B" to be beyond, and why should we postulate something? If it would be just one way for B to exist, but there are some others, like: one sees that a thing (a banana) has changed to something (a banana's peel). What makes this person think that the reality is independent and so on? What makes you think this are imaginary reasons that you put behind all that. So indeed we have the next one: the changing makes us think that the reality is dependent on our minds.
|
|
|
|
Post by xxxxxxxxx on Aug 30, 2021 20:53:02 GMT
This is empty. There is no necessity for some "unseen B" to be beyond, and why should we postulate something? If it would be just one way for B to exist, but there are some others, like: one sees that a thing (a banana) has changed to something (a banana's peel). What makes this person think that the reality is independent and so on? What makes you think this are imaginary reasons that you put behind all that. So indeed we have the next one: the changing makes us think that the reality is dependent on our minds. Given all phenomenon are empty in themselves, as they exist through other phenomenon, necessitates the human mind as empty in itself thus necessitating something beyond it. This something beyond the human mind is an agent of change given the human mind changes when something which is not observed is observed. The movement of observation, ie something being not observed then observed, necessitates something existing beyond the human mind with the human mind being that which perceives (human mind is synonymous to perception). Change is the movement from a state of no observation to a state of observation thus necessitating a reality which exists beyond the human mind. |
|
