[JAK]

Originally Posted by futrethink

---By perception, I mean it as the interaction of ‘fields’ of ‘energy’ at any level; quantum, relative, electric, magnetic, known five senses or whatever. A rock ‘perceives’ another rock hitting it, by the interaction of the granite hitting granite or the electromagnetic fields relating to each other or whatever. That same rock perceives gravity and gravity perceives the rock by the ineraction/perception of the energy fields that each individual concept has, as a part of their existence.

A rock hitting a rock is "perception"?? A rock is an observer??!!
Wow, if you are going to redefine standard English as we go along, this will never come to a concensus.
Okay, if a rock can be an observer which "perceives" another rock upon hitting it, then change occurs and differences occur. With this twisted definition of "perceive", then "not" requires "perception".
So what have we gained? If all differences now require "observation", the only place no "observation" and no "perception" can occur is in a featureless void where nothing moves and nothing exists.
Given that such a place exists, it is not here. As a result, there are at least two "places" in the universe - one with features and one with none. Given the duality, the 1st law remains intact. The featureless void is not this corner of the universe. And this corner is not the featureless void part.

Originally Posted by futrethink

---MJA keeps focusing on things being equal/=, but I see a different perception. For example; reality exists, it doesn’t exist, it is both at the same time, it is neither of them, it is all of the previous at the same time and it is none of the concepts described by this sentence. So, the equal fits in as a part of it, but only as a part.

After watching you redefine "perceive", I don't doubt that you can redefine existence and non-existence into meaning the same thing.
So, what have you gained by this feat of grammatical sleight of hand? Let's suppose that everything exists and does not exist? So, what? Of what benefit is that?
Moreover, how do you convince someone that their definitions of existence and non-existence are wrong, or at least, not as useful as yours? Sell me on why your definition of existence and non-existence are better and more useful.

Originally Posted by futrethink

---For the above example to happen, would be for something to be simply as you describe it: or you could call it a singularity or a unique individual, with nothing to compare it to.

Only a featureless void can have "a unique individual, with nothing to compare it to". If it is the "being" surrounded by nothing, then you have duality - that which is "the being" and that which is not (the surroundings of nothing). The only way to retain the singularity is to claim that there is nothing but the being - the being is featureless and is omnipresent and omnipotent. By your definition of perception, you can probably add omniscient to the list, too.

Originally Posted by futrethink

---Yes, I know that you will bring up that ‘nothing’ or ’nonexistence’ is a ‘not’, but it is not a not (For something to not be a not, it has to be something, but if it is ‘not’ a thing, how can it be a ‘not’?), since it doesn’t even exist, the argument of being a ‘not’ is moot anyway. It has an existence, but only within certain parameters/variables of being perceived by something/ANYTHING that exists. Take away those parameters/variables, have nothing perceive it and that past ‘existence’ of nonexistence goes away.

Okay, you claim your “being” is not a void, but it is still featureless as well as omnipotent, omnipresent, and omniscient. I think I'm still with you.

Originally Posted by futrethink

---As I have already stated and agreed to, just because you take away a perception, it doesn’t take away the things that were previously perceived about that thing, but again nonexistence is not a ‘thing’, in any way shape or form, it is merely a perception, itself, of a lack of things.

This is not clear at all. Are you saying that a perception is not a thing? Or are you about to say that this universal "being" is a single perception? If so, please say so.

Originally Posted by futrethink

---Let me repeat that line, with the hopes that you will think about it more, if I place an emphasis on one word; JAK, you simply can’t get past that mindtrap can you?

Let's be nice. You obviously have a mindtrap of your own that you are struggling with. I suggest we stick with the facts (as poorly as they may appear before us).

Originally Posted by futrethink

---You asked me for a definition/explanation of what I think ‘proof’ is to be. Instead of focusing on how the interaction of the, not the same, energy fields that create words prove you right, how about you focus on what information I put forward and get past that mindtrap, huh?

I am trying to get out of my mindtrap, but you do not appear to be doing likewise. You redefine standard terms on the fly ("perceive", existence=non-existence, etc.), and the examples you try to make are not well-conceived. I am trying to adapt to your vocabulary and stay with the spirit of your examples inspite of them. So, bear with me.

(Okay, another breakpoint for the sake of the ToE software which choked again.)