The Epistemic Communication Dilemma Why Infinite Consequences Require Perfect Communication My Personal Argument

Philosophy Forums Philosophy
,
21

See how these people make assumptions and believe them to be true without ever even beginning to seek out clarification.

Just maybe I look at and see a much larger context than you even realise.

Correct.

And, the actual reason I said this you still have absolutely no idea nor clue about.

In fact I actually meant that in a far more literal sense than you had even previously envisioned. But again you have no idea what I actual meant and still mean.

The reason I do not explain why, until asked, is to;

  1. Show readers how lacking in curiousity people had become in the days when this was being written.
  2. Wait to see how many, if any, people have even the slightest bit of interest in finding out why. See, the reason why you people in the days when this was being written were still seeking answers, solutions, and the Truth if things is because you had lost curiosity and stopped asking, ‘Why?’ Which again was the result of having to live through and endure through abusive childhood upbringings.

So, now you know, exactly, why I did not explain why.

That is Correct that I restated that. Which again is exactly True and Right.

Now, again, the reason why you are not being provided with the level of certainty you want is because it is all happening within that one head only and not in relation to what another one is saying and meaning.

See, if you really want to believe something is true, before you have obtained the actual True and Right knowledge, then you will never be provided with a level of certainty that you now contradictory claim you want.

If you really do want the highest level of certainly then do not presume or believe anything at all. Just always wait, patiently, until you have been provided with the irrefutable proof and facts. Like I do.

So, what was and is your answer?

See, this is how one obtains the highest level of certainty. Asking questions, from a Truly open perspective, for clarity’s sake, is how True understanding is found, and obtained. That is, of course, the other is actually open and honest “themself”, as well.

See how if and when you presume and/or believe things like you did here, and do not seek out to obtain certainty and understanding, discussion just stops, with nothing being found and uncovered?

Exactly. And, when you have the solution to the Only and only real ‘problem’ in Life, like I have, then you already have the solution to solving and answering ALL of the Truly meaningful questions and problems in Life as well. Again, like I have.

Okay.

But just so you are provided with a level of certainty, I know, and do not think, that there was not a ‘problem’ where you “saw” one.

Again, without explaining why, but to give you a hint, ‘definition’ plays a huge part here.

But, in that context, I already did understand what you consider to be a so-called ‘problem’.

I was just informing you that I do not see a ‘problem’ where you do. I was hoping that given the context this would lighten up a spark of some sort of inquisitiveness within you, but sadly it did not. But not to worry, as you not becoming curious at all just further proved my claim True about how curiosity was just about absolutely completely dead in adult human beings, in the days when this is being written

Thank you very much for reading back, with an open perspective.

For every ‘problem’ there is a solution, and, for every ‘solution’ there is a ‘formula’.

Having already come to discover and know the formula to solving all problems, this does not mean there are no ‘real problems’ as there are many, I just know HOW, and thus have the know-how, to solve all ‘problems’.

When I say, I do not see a ‘problem’ where you do, again is in relation to definitions only.

See, until ‘we’ seek out and obtain actual clarity in regards to this misunderstandings can and will continue, which, again, is why so much disagreement, bickering, conflict, tension, fighting ING, and warring exists within the world.

Whereas, just through seeking out what the other means, exactly, understanding is obtained, and formed, from which True Peace and Harmony ensues.

Which how to achieve is what I am really seeking out to show and present here, in these forums.

But I do not have absolutely any beliefs here. So, how could I be firm, let alone extremely firm, here?

LOL Once again it is me saying ‘something new’, which challenges your ‘current’ views, beliefs, and presumptions.

Remember, in the earth revolving the sun example, I am the one here with the ‘new view’, which opposes the ‘currently’ held views. With this example I am the one who KNOWS that the earth revolves around the sun, while you people still believe it is the opposite that happens and occurs.

Look, I KNOW what the irrefutable Truth is here. So, maybe if you showed some interest and curiousity, then you also could find out what the Truth here is exactly also.

Now, if you really believe that you have ‘something new’ to share here, then what is 'that, exactly?

Once more, I provide no arguments until they are asked for. Again, I KNOW what the Truth is, because I already have the irrefutable proof and Facts, so I have absolutely no need to fight not argue for what I already know is irrefutably True.

If people come along with Real interest in learning and understanding more and anew here, then ‘we’ can have a True and proper discussion here.

But that is the whole point here. If you are open enough, then you would have enough interest to learn and understand more. And, if you have enough interest and desire to learn more, then you will start asking clarifying questions out of curiousity.

If you are open enough, then you will also challenge me on my direct claims, again by asking open clarifying questions.

Again, I wait, patiently for those with enough interest and curiosity to come forward.

If you are really open here, then you will want a further discussion. If, however, you are not, then thie discussion will end.

By the way, why do believe that ‘I’ l, supposedly, ‘have to’ engage with what ‘you’ are saying, but ‘you’ do not have to engage with what ‘I’ am saying?

Now, if you want to make a claim here, then what is it exactly?

22

Okay, instead of me making any kind of attacks or assumptions, and entirely out of curiosity and attempting to be good faith, I ask, even if you have said it before, what is the irrefutable truth that you speak of and what are the reasons you have to support it?

I will say however though, that in general, when making claims about something, people typically involve their reasoning and do not make statements and then wait for someone to ask why. Only making statements and waiting for someone to ask why tends to dampen engagement with what you are saying as you have seen on the forums. But out of curiosity because I would like to know your reasoning, I ask the questions above in the first paragraph.

23

Yes I know, but what people have been ‘typically’ doing for say the last few thousand years has not led to creating World Peace. So, I thought I would do something different and not ‘typical’.

Do not forget I have already explained the reasoning why, although no one sought this reasoning out.

Again, I am not, necessarily, here to prove anything. I am certainly not in any rush nor need to, but again, if absolutely anyone here wants to have a discussion, then I am more than willingly and ready to.

Until then, I now have the proof of how much of the natural curiosity that exists from birth had been lost.

I will have to take a look at what was said and written, and get back to you.

24

you wrote;

Do you recall which one irrefutable Truth I was speaking of here.

I just spoke of 14, in another thread, but which one is it, exactly, that you are asking for here, and asking for the reasons that I have that support it?

I will look for it here, but if you provide the exact one you are asking for here, then I can’t make a mistake.

25

If possible, I would like to know your reasoning for all 14 of the irrefutable truths you have listed.

26

Would you like them here in this thread or in another thread? I have already started a new thread.

27

When the word ‘Universe’ is defined as Everything; Totality; All there is, the Universe is infinite and eternal. One reason why the Universe is infinite, spatially, is because even if, say there were the furthest objects, then between those furthest objects and the next closest objects ‘inwards’ there is a distance. When this distance is called and known as ‘space’, then instead of objects - stars, planets, meteorites, et cetera - being ‘in space’, there is ‘a space’ between objects.

When ‘space’ is defined as distance, then there is a distance not just on the ‘inside’ of the furthest objects but also on the other side of them. This space and distance has to either go on forever, or infinitely, or it ends at another object, which would now have to be the furthest, or there are more objects, further out. Either way the Universe is bigger in size than what was previously imagined.

Now, if we imagine the “new” furthest objects is a wall that encircled wholly, then this wall has a limited thickness, or it goes on forever ‘outwards’. Or, if it is a limited thickness, then in the other side is a distance, and that space either ends with objects, or goes on forever, infinitely.

Obviously, all space, distance, and objects are included in Everything, Totality, or All there is. Therefore, again, when the Universe is defined in ‘that way’, then the Universe is infinite, in size.

Does this reasoning suffice?

28

I would agree with your reasoning, but I don’t agree with your definition of space. I understand that for your argument the definition of space you use as it being distance, does make your reasoning strong, but the question I am left with is how do you prove that space is distance and not something else? How do you know that space is actually distance? Because logically your argument is sound, but if the goal is truth beyond speculation, then space would have to be proven to be distance in the way you have described and not be found to be something else in actuality. My understanding of space is that there is emptiness, but that it is filled with objects of some kind and the space that is not filled with objects is known as empty space, but then if there is nothing in that space, and space is distance between objects, but there is a last object as you have described in your reasoning, then there is nothing after that last object, and therefore, this ‘nothing’ goes on forever. I would have to say in this sense, I agree that everything where there isn’t something, there is nothing, and this nothing would seem to be infinite, but there is the issue that we have no reasons to think that nothing is finite and we have no reasons to think that nothing is infinite, so you have an equally strong claim for it being either. My reasoning is that as I understand the concept of nothing, if someone were to define it, then it would no longer be nothing because true nothingness is the lack of everything, which means that we can not observe nothingness and therefore, we cannot make claims about something that cannot even be proven to exist beyond the fact that we claim that there is a concept tied to it that says it exists. The problem here is that the concept of nothingness dives even further into a conundrum because the concept of nothing is the concept of something that does not exist, and by definition, you cannot actually have a concept of something that doesn’t exist because there isn’t something that you can tie this lack of existence to.

So in a somewhat complex manner, I would say that the main point I disagree with is the claim that space goes on infinitely because there is this thing that we call nothingness, which is the lack of everything, that we cannot prove or know anything about because it doesn’t exist.

So following all of this, I ask, can something that doesn’t exist go on infinitely?

1 Like
29

Well ‘space’ is obviously a distance, if it can be something else we’ll have to wait and see.

What proof do need do you need that ‘space’, itself, is a distance. For every ‘space’ between objects there is a distance, right?

For every space between objects there is actual distance. So, that is how I know ‘space’ is actually distance.

Again, ‘space’ is obviously distance, if you happen to find ‘space’, itself, is something else, then okay.

Can you see the contradiction in your understanding here?

This does not make logical sense.

Where do you envision there are places where there is not some thing?

How could there be an infinite nothing when and where matter exists?

There is certainly no thing that seems infinite to me. How could it seems this way to you?

Where there is matter there cannot be infinite nothing. Also, how are you defining the ‘nothing’ word here?

you appear to be confused here.

How does defining a word like ‘nothing’ make it supposedly be no longer nothing?

This reasoning of yours here appears illogical, nonsensical, and unreasonable, to me.

I can define the word ‘nothing’ as 'no physical thing’, ‘distance’, or ‘space’, for example, and ‘it’ or ‘they’ are still ‘nothing’, by definition.

A so-called ‘true nothingness’ when defined as the lack of everything can be very easily imagined. But, because there are things already existing, and because of what the Universe is and how It works, there could never have been a ‘lack of everything’ and never could be.

Beginning here with, “which means”, does not logically proceed from what you said prior.

It does not logically follow that because “someone were to define ‘nothing’, then it would no longer be nothing because true nothingness is the lack of everything,” that ‘this’ means “that we can not observe nothingness”. Human beings cannot observe ‘nothing’ because the word means or refers to ‘no physical things’, at least. And, human beings can only observe ‘physical things’. And, this is the reason why human beings cannot observe nothingness. ‘Nothingness’ is just a place or area of at least ‘no physical things’.

This does not logically follow as well. Saying, “we cannot observe nothingness” does not mean, “therefore, we cannot make claims about something that cannot even be proven”.

There are so many things to address here.

  1. Human beings can and do make claims about lots and lots of things. Even if they can be proven or not. Or, even if they are Wrong or not.

  2. This, “therefore” did not logically follow the previous “which means”, which did not logically follow from your previous understanding and claim.

  3. Nothing only, or ‘nothingness’ cannot exist. As partly explained already.

No one has been curious enough here to find out why I do not see ‘problems’ when others supposedly do, but to inform you, a ‘problem’, to me, is a question posed for a solution. Therefore, to me, until a question is posed, for a solution, there is literally no ‘problem’, to me.

Just so we are all clear here, I never used the ‘nothing’ word at all in ‘my reasoning’. you “acltills” introduced this word, and are now claiming that there is some sort of ‘problem’ here.

you introduced the ‘nothing’ word here and have ‘tried’ to use it and/or argue or fight against ‘that concept’, but this is your own tangent and has nothing to do with what I have said and written. Although I can still use the ‘nothing’ and ‘nothingness’ words, and ‘my claim’ here would still be the irrefutable Truth.

There are areas of what could be considered ‘nothing’. But, ‘nothingness’, itself, could not exist. Which we can go into much more detail so that you also understand the irrefutable proof, if you so like.

This is the second time you have used the ‘you’ word as though I have some thing and that I can do some thing. Please do not tell ‘me’ what I have or can do.

Now, ‘we’ can imagine ‘nothingness’, a lack of everything. This is very simple and easy to do. I can even imagine ‘nothingness’ existing, in the concept that there is absolutely no physical thing. But, the fact that ‘I’ exist, means that the Universe exists, and because of what the Universe is fundamentally made up of and how It works, this means that ‘nothingness’ could not have existed, nor could it ever exist. This is all fully explained when discussing in far more detail about the Universe, Itself.

By the way, ‘tieing’ a ‘lack of existence’ to something is very simple and easy. I just ‘tie’ it to ‘Existence’, Itself. Everything has an opposite, or a distinction itself exists, if you like, and this is how ‘we’ ‘tie’ things to other things, and together.

Could you come across more confused?

I never even thought, let alone meant that ‘space’, itself, goes on infinitely. I even expressed how ‘space’ ends with and at objects. Objects exist. Therefore, ‘space’ itself cannot go on infinitely. So, since I never made the claim that ‘space’ goes on infinitely, who you are disagreeing with here I do not know.

There is also ‘this thing’ we call ‘unicorns’, but so what?

And, ‘the thing’ known by the word ‘nothingness’ refers to, cannot exist, just like ‘the thing’ that the word ‘unicorn’ refers to also cannot exist. So, you are making complex what is essentially not here.

If you believe absolutely that you cannot prove or know absolutely anything about ‘nothingness’, then why was it ‘you’ who introduced and brought up the word ‘nothingness’ and even the word ‘nothing’ here?

If, to you, ‘nothingness’ does not exist, cannot be known, and cannot be proven, to you, then why are ‘you’ talking ‘about it’ for, exactly?

Why would ‘you’ ask ‘me’ a question like this for?

Again, I never even thought, nor let alone implied nor said, absolutely anything like that.

Maybe if you re-read what I actually said and wrote you might see how I never said one thing, let alone something that does not exist, go on infinitely, besides, of course, the Universe, itself, but at the most fundament level it is made up of at least two things.

30

I agree that for every distance between objects there is space, but this definition of space is reliant on there being an object that it is between. If it is true that space is simply the gap of distance between objects, then this definition is reliant and objects. I then ask, is there a distance between an object and nothing? We could say that it is infinite, but there is no object at the end of this infinity that we would say has an infinite distance away from another object. So I ask how can space be infinite if it is reliant on objects for it’s understanding?

31

What is the ‘it’ word here in reference to exactly?

I do not understand what you mean by, “but this definition of space is reliant on there being an object that ‘it’ is between”.

Does the ‘it’ word mean ‘that object’ here?

If yes, then what do you mean by, “… reliant on there being an object that ‘that object’ is between”?

Or, am I completely missing or misunderstanding something here?

Did you mean ‘on’ when you wrote ‘and’?

If yes, then since ‘objects’ obviously exist, is there any issue here that you see? Obviously, ‘a distance’ exists between objects. But, if there is no other objects from one side of an object, then ‘that distance’, or ‘space’, will go on forever, in one direction.

your question here is nonsensical, well to me anyway.

Where is or what is ‘nothing’, where ‘a distance’ could end, which is needed to make ‘a distance’.

If there are not two physical things, then ‘a distance’ goes on, forever or infinitely. If there is only one physical thing, then in one direction ‘a distance’ stops or ends, and in the other direction ‘the distance’ does not stop, nor end.

Why do you believe that there ‘has to be’ ‘an object’ at the end of infinity?

To begin with, there is ‘no end’ of infinity, obviously. Secondly, if there was an object at the so-called ‘end’, then what is on the other side of it?

Once more, there would ‘have to be’ something, otherwise ‘that object’ would go on forever, or infinitely, in ‘that direction’.

But, ‘space’, itself, is not and can not be infinite.

Once again, this is because ‘objects of matter’ exist, obviously.

32

sorry, wrong thread

33

Do you mind me asking how old you are and what your educational background is?

I ask because I would like to understand more about the context in which your ideas exist and have been formed.

This information would also help me understand your usage of terms more clearly.

I would also ask that you define more of your terms when you are using them in a more specific and less broad sense because in the honesty and openness thread you said that you use terms differently than how they are commonly used which would explain why misunderstandings commonly occur.

To appeal to the intellectual honesty and openness that you have asked for and I then assume you value, I ask that you be more open minded as well because at times I am getting the impression that you are coming from a place of strong certainty about you being correct, but then when you use terms differently than how they are commonly used, you put the responsibility on me for not knowing what you meant. In communication, it is the responsibility of the one communicating to ensure that their ideas are understood and communicated in a way that facilitates that. In saying this last sentence, I appeal to a sense of wanting to be understood that I can only assume you have, and so in an effort to understand you, I ask that you clearly communicate the different ways in which you use terms so that I can understand you better and also because it is not my fault if you use a term in a way that it isn’t commonly used and then I reasonably misunderstand you. I am interested in what you have to say, but I won’t be blamed for not understanding something you haven’t clearly communicated.

34

I also don’t see the value in stating that things are obviously one way or another or in general obvious. My reasoning is that, is it obvious to someone who majors in english how many atoms there are in a molecule? No, but to a chemistry major it is. This example very simply demonstrates that there is no such thing as obvious facts or information. Everything is learned and any appeal to obviousness just weakens an argument and adds nothing to a discussion about complex topics where there are no obvious answers. You may think that you know the answer to everything or have the capacity to acquire those answers, but there are so many things that you like all people do not know, including me. No one knows everything and any statement otherwise is a complete lie. Every single person has a different frame of referrence that facilitates how they engage with information, so any appeal to obviousness or common sense as many people refer to when speaking of obviousness, is pointless because there are countless examples of how any given piece of acquired information or knowledge has not been acquired by a different person. I could make many statements about things that I find obvious, like how it obvious that when you say that space is the distance between objects, then it is very obvious that there is nothing inbetween those objects or else there isn’t a so called space between those objects as that space if filled with objects. But what isn’t obvious is that you could mean that you consider any distance at all whether it has objects or not is considered space. You did not state exactly that, but it is obvious that when someone uses terms in an uncommon way and also doesn’t cover every possible interpretation as that is either impossible or too rigorous in the given time frame, misunderstandings will occur. If you value being understood and want me and others to be curious about what your arguments are, then stating it is obvious that things are certain way, isn’t a very compelling argument for why I should continue being curious. You can reason as to how of course people are such and such way and won’t engage with what you say because all manner of ways in which people are something negative, but that doesn’t map onto the reality that people are not inside of your head and therefore cannot know what you know without it being explained in a way that accurately conveys the information. You speak of how often I and others have misunderstood you, but this is your fault. You are responsible for clearly communicating what you mean by what you say. If you use a term differently than how it is commonly used, then you have to specify that or else you will be misunderstood. Language is generalized for the sake of shared meaning and your constant usage of terms in an uncommon way or your complete redefining of them takes away the ability for shared meaning. If you value being understood then you will take what I have said here and be ammicable about it, but if you choose to attack me for pointing out ways in which communication could be improved on your end, then I will not engage in further discussion with you because I don’t value discussion with someone who thinks that they know everything and are never wrong.

Honesty & Openness
35

I do not think that I would have said and meant it exactly like that.

I have also informed people that I specifically do not explain ‘my claims’ until those who are interested in learning more show curiosity. I have explained the reasoning for why I do this. Another reason why I do this is that I have found it is absolutely useless to say things to people who believe absolutely otherwise.

If people believe things to already be true or right, then there is no use in speaking to them. However, for those who are Truly open, and really do want to learn, understand and know more or anew, then those ones will ask the Right clarifying questions. These people are the ones I am seeking to have discussions with here.

  1. If you are open, then you will have the curiosity to seek out clarification and clarity.

  2. No one can become nor be more open minded. This is because the Mind, Itself, is always completely open.

  3. From the very outset, no one knows what another means, unless, of course, clarification and clarity is sought out and obtained. A huge reason why there is so much misunderstanding, and thus resentment, conflict, arguing, fighting, and warring is due to people just pre/assuming or believing that they already know what another meant.

  4. All of ‘my claims’ here come from not just a ‘strong certainty’ but an ‘absolute certainty’. Again, only after proof has been presented to me is when I express ‘my claims’ as I did in that thread of mine.

  5. I do not see the posters here expressing the terms and definitions they use. So, why do you expect me to do with each and every word?

  6. I might only use half a dozen or so words differently than how they are commonly used. If that is even what I did actually express and write.

  7. I am not sure how many times I have to inform you readers here that I am not here to necessarily have ‘my claims’ understood by you. Again, only when people with True interest and curiosity are the ones I am seeking here and who I will prove ‘my claims’ to. If that happens to be some or all posters here, then so be it. Again, it all depends on how much True curiosity and interest one has. If they exist within this forum, or in the future, is of no concern to me.

  8. I am not necessarily here to have ‘my ideas’ understood here. If anyone comes along here who is Truly open and really curious, then great. So, if anyone wants to hear about, learn, understand, and know another’s ideas, then it is their responsibility to seek out and find. But, obviously, those who are Truly open and interest will just do this anyway.

How could I possibly clearly communicate any preconceived ‘different ways’, ‘different understandings’, or ‘different definitions’ if you do not clearly communicate your ways, your understandings, and your definitions, first?

What I hope is being clearly demonstrated here is that if ‘we’ all do not seek out to obtain clarification and gain clarity from each other, then, in essence, all ‘we’ are really do is just ‘assuming’. And, as ‘we’ all know, all assumptions could be false, wrong, inaccurate, and/or incorrect. Which all too easily and simply leads to misunderstandings. Which, again, is a huge reason why ‘the world’ is in the mess that it is in ‘now’, when this is being written.

Unlike some posters here I have absolutely no Accurate idea nor clue as to how words or terms are ‘commonly’ used. I also do not like to assume I do.

Of course, you cannot nor would be blamed for not understanding anything that I have not clearly nor fully communicated. I would never ever do such a thing.

But, with other posters who continually assume or believe I am saying and meaning I AM NOT, then I will continue to point out that they are making False and/or Wrong presumptions or claims.

This is not blaming them for ‘the way’ I communicate, but just pointing out that because they are not seeking out clarification from a Truly open perspective and obtaining fully Accurate and Correct. clarity. Obviously this is not ‘my fault’, but because of ‘their doing’ or not doing.

Another example I will point out others do is when they say or claim things like “my or your mind”, and I ask them what do they mean by, ‘mind’, and they do not provide absolutely anything, then I will make clear that them claiming that there are many minds or that people have their own minds, will not in any way refute nor counter ‘my claim’ that there is only One Mind alone.

Do you know what the commonly used what the word ‘mind’ is defined exactly, for example?

36

To respond, the way that words are commonly used are how they are defined in the english dictionary. Every single word is defined and has a definite meaning. If you use the word differently than how it is defined in the english dictionary, then you should clarify. More specifically, the Merriam Webster online dictionary because of the ease of use as well as it being widely used.

If you do not agree that there is a commonly used form of words then how do you know what I mean by anything I say? A person would have to pretend that words have no common meaning while using those words to convey that because otherwise, no one would know what they are saying. The act of speaking or writing with a language is proof alone that there is a common way in which words are used because otherwise, the use of that langauge would be pointless.

37

The word mind is commonly used to refer to the thing where mental activity takes place such as where conscious and unconscious thought occur, and other mental activities. It is defined as such.

38

Here I quote your example of how you have stated that you use a word differently than how it is commonly used. Your statement of having to continually point out how you use words differently than how others use it is what I base my statement that you are responding to off of.

39

You reasonably state that there is no use in speaking to people who are not open and who already believe things to be true and right.

In this quote you claim an absolute certainty and by doing so already believe things to be true and right. This is a double standard if you apply this to others and not yourself. What use is there in discussing with you if you are doing the exact same thing that by your standard would justify a discussion as useless?

Are you somehow above this standard?

If so then you are just as close minded as those you reasonably criticize.

40

If, for example, one is saying and claiming that the earth revolves around the sun, and that ‘this is obvious’, (once people look at and listen openly to what I am showing and saying), while everyone else is believing otherwise, and so are not yet able to see and hear the ‘obvious Truth’, then this does not take anything away from the Fact that ‘it’ is obvious.

But, if you do not see any value here, then okay.

Some things are ‘obvious’, after and when people just look or listen from ‘another perspective’.

It could become obvious to that person if they really wanted to learn, understand, and know more here.

It is obvious to absolutely anyone who is Truly open, Truly curios, and who is Truly interested in wanting to learn more and/or anew.

Again, one has to ‘want to learn’ before they really can.

Is it obvious that there is one existing and aware of things?

Also, once information is learned, and becomes known and understood, then ‘the facts’ can and do become obvious. So, these are obvious facts and information. But, and once more, one just has to learn, know, and understand them first. And, remember, one has to really ‘want to’ learn, understand, and know things first.

There are NO so-called ‘complex topics’ in Life.

See, once things are learned, understood, and known, then they are, and they also become obvious as well. I agree wholeheartedly that almost all things are learned. I also agree that nothing is obvious, until it is.

But, if using the word ‘obvious’ disturbs as much as it appears to here, I will try to remember this when conversing with you. But remember I also have to do this with everyone else here. Remember everyone has some things they do not like or that disturbs them, but others do not have any care at all about.

Absolutely any human being who thinks or believes that I think this way must be Truly insane.

I have NEVER ever written a single word that could be interpreted as though i think that i know the answer to everything. I suggest you do not allow people’s writings to influence you into thinking or believing things that are absolutely False or Wrong.

Once you learn and understand the True and Right Correct answer to the question, ‘Who am ‘I’?’ and to who and what human beings are exactly, then ‘you’ will understand and know far more here.

That you even thought there was a need to say this shows how influenced you have been by the words of others here.

Here, ‘we’ have another example of how, when one believes something is true they are not open to anything opposite or contrary. Even if the opposite or contrary is the actual Truth.

Why are you telling me what I already know, and knew quite a while ago?

Is that what is obvious, to you?

And, if you really did want to learn, understand, and/or know, then you would just ask a clarifying question, from a Truly open perspective.

Also, considering what I have said about ‘space’ and ‘objects’, that you even imagined what you have here surprises me.

Are you sure this is ‘obvious’?

Also, how do you define ‘uncommon way’ here exactly? And, how do you know, for sure, what is ‘common’ from ‘uncommon’?

Once more, if and when enough clarification and clarity is sought out and obtained, then ‘misunderstandings’ do not occur. I could say ‘obviously’, but since that troubles or disturbs you, I will not now.

How many times are you going to repeat this?

It is like you are ‘trying to’ use ‘an excuse’ for not wanting to learn and understand more from me.

Also, absolutely no argument was even attempted to be compelling why you should start, and then continue, being curios.

The Fact that you were born Truly curious, and why you have lost that curiosity, is compelling enough in and of itself.

And, again, where is this presumption about ‘value being understood’ here coming from exactly?

It is like what I have said and pointed out many times over is not being listened to, heard, and understood.

Once again, I express ‘a claim’. I then await those who are Truly interested and curious. If no one is then so be it.

I agree, this is ‘my fault’.

Again, I am here to learn how to communicate better, with you human beings.

When I say, ‘The Universe is infinite and eternal, and as such It did not begin and is not expanding,’ then that is exactly what I mean, by what I said.

Or, when I say, ‘God exists’, then that is exactly what I mean.

Now, how others defined the ‘God’ word, or if any of those uncountable definitions are ‘common’ or not, I have no idea.

Again, you are repeating what you have already said.

And, once again, how do you know if you are using a term differently than how it is commonly used, or not?

you speak as though you know the ‘shared and common meanings’ of words and terms. So, what is the ‘shared meaning’ of the words;

God?

Love?

Mind?

To begin with.

And, where is ‘this claim’ of yours about “my constant usage of terms in an uncommon way or my complete redefining of them” coming from exactly?

Look, if you really do want to understand the proofs and facts for ‘my claims’, then you will seek them out by asking clarifying questions and/or challenging me on ‘my claims’.

How many times are you going to write, “If you value being understood, then …”, as though that is even what I want or desire here?

I went out of my way to explain what the word ‘space’ means and refers to, to me. Why do you appear to have missed this?

you keep telling me to improve communication on my end I need to explain ‘my terms’ and their definitions. I have done this already. Why do you not focus on this, and if you believe that the Universe is not infinite, then argue against what I have said about ‘space’ and ‘objects’.

Why are you so focused on ‘the way’ I write and communicate here?

It is like you have been influenced, and indoctrinated, by others to also to ‘look at’ things that have nothing to do with ‘my words’.

Again, you repeat the most idiotic words, “someone who thinks they know everything”.

Where is this perception coming from exactly?

And, your claim about “never wrong” is again so far out there I wonder what made you think such a thing.

I know the Universe is infinite, spatially, and eternal, temporally. Just like the one who claimed that the earth revolves around the sun ‘knew that’ when they claimed it.