[Lloyd Gillespie]

Originally Posted by futrethink Lloyd. ---Restrictive?? You have got to be kidding me. My translation of your post: You aren’t asking the question in a way that will allow me to be right. ---Then allow me to alter the question to give you, seemingly, less limits: Is there any times, in any contexts, when light and dark don’t compliment each other?[Still the same___Too restrictively paradox building... Your context has both too large, and too small, a parameters...] ---It is essentially the same question.

Futrethink, your question is paradox creating, and paradoxes do not exist in nature. The nature of your question is the problem. Anyone can create such ridiculous questions, such as, "How long is a piece of string?" I'm not trying to be right, I'm only asking for correct science...

Lloyd

[futrethink]

Lloyd.

Anyone can create such ridiculous questions, such as, "How long is a piece of string?"

---As long as from one point to the other.
---Any relatively, objective scientist knows that there are no ridiculous questions. Just unknown answers to those questions.

Futrethink, your question is paradox creating, and paradoxes do not exist in nature.

---My question doesn’t create a paradox. I am just asking you a simple question about the nature of the relation between two separate concepts.
---Whether you believe that relationship exists or not, isn’t going to change what is or isn’t.

Your context has both too large, and too small, a parameters...

---Ah, I see the problem. The question is too open-ended and you want me to set limits that fit within your belief system, instead of within reality’s system.

I'm not trying to be right, I'm only asking for correct science...

---Yes, you are trying to be right. You want questions that only exist within a limited existence that you believe in. This involves questions that you are familiar with and can comprehend. I am giving you a question that involves you thinking “outside of your box” and you are falling back on rote answers.

Too restrictively paradox building…

---How can it be restrictive, when I give you the right to answer it in any way you see fit: subjectively or as objectively as possible?

[Fluent Piffle]

The Infinite Cosmos vibrates with its own energy. This is how existence exists.

This infinite motion happens as ripples, or waves.

Because Infinite Space is 3-dimensional, these waves appear as spheres.

These spherical waves combine with each other to produce 'points', the wave-centres.

We measure the wave-centres as 'particles', which carry on the same process of combining with each other (the only 'task' they can possibly perform) to form the larger 'things' we observe, and are.

At certain rare instances, these finite 'particles' combine to produce the cosmological phenomenon we have called 'life', or 'organic life'. As the motion and accumulation continues, this 'life' is capable of producing 'consciousness', as a method of measuring its own being.

When it discovers that its own being cannot be measured, as it is actually infinite, this creates a 'problem' for the method of accumulated 'finite-logic' it has adopted.

The solution to this 'problem' is to understand its own reality, thereby alleviating its 'problem', and accepting it as the non-contradictory 'Truth'.




pif.

[futrethink]

Lloyd.
---So to go back to the intelligent discussion of paradox, instead of us acting like kids going, “Is”, Is not”, “Is”, “Is not”, I will ask the question(s) again:
***Form 1: Does light and dark compliment each other at all times and in all contexts or do they have contradictory aspects pertaining to the other’s existence?
***Form 2: Is there any times, in any contexts, when light and dark don’t compliment each other?
---Instead of complaining about the questions being a certain way, how about you just answer the question(s) honestly.

[Lloyd Gillespie]

Originally Posted by futrethink Lloyd. ---So to go back to the intelligent discussion of paradox, instead of us acting like kids going, “Is”, Is not”, “Is”, “Is not”, I will ask the question(s) again: ***Form 1: Does light and dark compliment each other at all times and in all contexts or do they have contradictory aspects pertaining to the other’s existence? ***Form 2: Is there any times, in any contexts, when light and dark don’t compliment each other? ---Instead of complaining about the questions being a certain way, how about you just answer the question(s) honestly.

Scientifically, your line of questioning is in-applicable to science, i.e., it's non-sense. I'd suggest you read the cognitive science of paradoxes, and paradoxible questions... You most likely will have to study many philosophers, of all times. When you arive at their thousands of pseudo-paradoxes, and pseudo-paradoxible questions, you may start to understand, a bit more about science. True intuitive physical logic has no paradoxes, or paradoxibles...

Again,
Lloyd

[futrethink]

Lloyd.

Scientifically, your line of questioning is in-applicable to science, i.e., it's non-sense.

---Hey, you were the one to use the unscientific word ‘compliment’. And my question is reasonable. Or would you rather we start talking about the interactions of wavelengths of the state pertaining to ‘light’ and the concept of the lesser state, in relation, of dark?
---So to go back to the intelligent discussion of paradox, instead of us acting like kids going, “Is”, Is not”, “Is”, “Is not”, I will ask the question(s) again:
***Form 1: Does light and dark compliment each other at all times and in all contexts or do they have contradictory aspects pertaining to the other’s existence?
***Form 2: Is there any times, in any contexts, when light and dark don’t compliment each other?
---Instead of complaining about the questions being a certain way or my seeming lack of knowledge, how about you just answer the question(s) honestly.

[Lloyd Gillespie]

Scientifically, you're still not using science___Paradoxical ego can not displace science. The paradoxical/paradoxible ego can only continue to compliment itself, yet achieve no advances in science, which are fundamentally, physical facts based...

Lloyd

[N0B0DY]

Good point, Lloyd, but that deduction is only possible using counter-intuitive metaphysical ideology.

[Lloyd Gillespie]

Originally Posted by N0B0DY Good point, Lloyd, but that deduction is only possible using counter-intuitive metaphysical ideology.

False___All meta-systems are fundamentally incapable of scientific comprehension, due to the very fact of their own definition...

Lloyd

[futrethink]

Lloyd.

---I always hope for the best and expect the worst of people. That way, I am never disappointed.

Scientifically, you're still not using science___Paradoxical ego can not displace science. The paradoxical/paradoxible ego can only continue to compliment itself, yet achieve no advances in science, which are fundamentally, physical facts based...

---I see that you still don’t want to answer the question(s). Does this mean that you are afraid of being wrong in your beliefs and less than what you believe you are, if I prove to be right?
---I have no problem admitting to being wrong, as this allows me to learn from my mistakes and grow from them. Can you?