The best way to know the meaning of something is to consider different scenarios and whether you would call it that. An example is the meaning of knowledge. Would you Call a guess Knowledge? If the teacher asks you a question, then you give some random number then it turns out to be right, then is that knowledge. No, so its something that is gained through justified process. This is an example of using this method and you would continue with different situations until you reach a meaning that satisfies the purpose at the moment.

With Time, the first thing you got to ask is, is Today time? No, rather you would say that "I have a class at that time". From this we can say time may be an ordered set collection of something. We only talk about time in relation to events. From this I know an event is the entire description of all reality. The present can be called the Description of reality that is true, while past events are the events that was once the present but is no longer true. The present is the reference point of the past events in which was true and not true.

A visual would be

E3, E2, E1, Present

E3 essentially means that it was the present

E3, E2, E1, Present(E3 from previous)

E3, E2, E1(E3), Present

E3, E2(E3), E1, Present

Then the present became different thus a new present and and the present that was is now a past event. All of this takes the present as the reference point since the description of reality is what exists. Past event exists only as true statements. You guys should not be confuse Time with the measurement of change of phenomenon, like I climbed the mountain in three days. The event of the first day is you were at the the initial and the third day you are at the top. It is just individual occurrences which are related to one another.

The future is actually can only be a called when the present becomes the past thus the present now can be called an event after a past event. Which means the future the relation of past events to the present.

Understood, Just checking on your discussions right now. Interesting Planonist discussion.

As far as I know, I have not broken any rules of this forum, there not responsible for any wrong. As for the reprehensible, your opinion which I do not share in context to what I said in these comments.

Whether they are for research in any subject or not,(I was saying as a collective group of people, Nomads were not in such groups), does not mean they could not be gained from them.

"I cannot, ultimately, understand opposition to freedom. In a free society, everything approaches being the best it can be, and more importantly, has reasonably good error-correction built in. And if I am correct, then opponents of freedom, whoever they are, however many they are, and wherever found, are truly enemies of the people, enemies of everyone."
-Tim Wood

Well Tim, you are aware that say something is close to best or any comparison must be a starndard to base itself. It may be that your standards prebuilt a free society(overly broad for me to pass Judgement in whether I agree or not) in its definition of best like how gravity is built in Planck units so that saying why gravity is so weak compared to other fundamentle forces is mraningless for firce of gravity is part of the standard.

With Hong Kong, I hoped to continue this system of one country two systems just for comparison of economy and technological advancement.

I actually prefer multiple types of Rulers of the countries of the world to a certain extent. What I mean is have all these types of rulers (republics, fasist, Communism, and such) just for research purposes.

I have returned, and nice seeing you all here. First I want, I want to announce that I plan to check grammer on future posts by writing it on paper first. Second is this concept of Eternalism is nonsense.

Evidence is that that we can say time is defined change of events that is now to being has been. Events are all characteristics of reality, and present means the event that contains all true characteristics of said reality.

From this, we can say that a new event means that reality has changed and the event that was the present is now a past event. All past events are ordered from one another with the present as a reference point to which was the present before or after.

I would now like to use a version of zeno's paradox now. Now let me say that space can have infinite series that equals a finite amount. Use calculus to get to that with Summnation. Time ,and thus motion, must be finite and not continous unlike the real numbers in a line. The reason is I will show you is say that you are facing a wall that is two feet away. From where you were, you move to the wall. There. Now did you go through an infinite events between the event you were at the original point and the wall. No, because remember the nature of events is that they occur one after the other. If Event A3 is the present, then A2 must not be the present. If you had been at every real number between the two points then it is impossible for then this would be the case

A=0
A1=1
A2=1+(1/2)
A3=1+(1/2)+(1/4)
.
.
.

Here you can see this would continue forever, there for every event afterwards would be either at or between any A(nth) events. An event B=2 would never happen. Therefore motion of an object can not have existed at all real numberee point between a distance.

Wait, I not well veresed with potential and actual in infinity, is pi a potential or actual infinity.

I thought everyone agreed that velocity inherently meant change of distance while an instant of time is refering to certain properties that is true, so unchanged. Would seem obvious that it would be contradictory. Remember, All observations can be measured ultimately with Distance(m), time(s), and mass(g).

Sorry, still need to check before posting to see If I wrote something correctly.

But, "The stone in your backyard", I would say needs to be said as There is the stone in your backyard. This would be a truth. Just stone would not provide any distinction of what you are saying.

Infinity is more so a concept, so it would not be strange that something that is true such as in a finite system , to not apply in a non finite system. Infinite Hotel being an example, full but can hold more people.

First I would ask whether that money is tradable in the currency exchange system, then say that question requires emperical evidence to solve.

Sorry, Grammar is still not the best.

Truth is defined and I assume is defined as what is, or another way of saying, what exists.

What exists must be in compliance to the three laws. You can extrapolate the three laws from the very concept of the meaning exist.

The simple fact that proof by contradiction is not accepted as valid, even though the result must be true. Inherently the axiomatic system is focused on proof results that specifies an object. I know that the system accepts Law of Excluded Middle over a finite set boundaries, but not over an infinity. Last reason is because the system is based on pire mathematical concepts. The Three Laws are based independant to such and thus between them is the implications of The three laws are more overarching.

Yes, that is what I mean.

I mentioned before that The three laws are neccessarily come from meaning of truth, what is.

Because what is , is called truth, I am making the argument that what is by it's own meaning be in the form of The Three Laws, because the three laws come from the meaning of is.

What I mean is it says what is true if you can prove it and if not then not priveable. The condition of truth is dependant on provability in a sense.

I have a question, since intuitionistic logic stems from a mathematical. Axiom, does it not mean from Godel's Incompleteness Theorem that it cannot prove everything itself?

What someone meant and means are two different things. The wording can be reaarranged if there is an equivalency. Language allows one to say something regardless of intention.

It is indirectly talking about itself. The First one is saying the meaning of the below is false, and, thus in other words, we can replace The below with This statement for it is Logically equvalent.

I not saying they are self-evident just defining truth, a defining part if it, is the conformity to the laws of logic.

Sorry, my grammar was always said by my humanities professor to be awkward.

But what I mean is if you assume There is an infinite past. Then you can represent event event from the present with the natural numbers, since they are real events. If you went back to the nth event that was equivalent to how many even number events there are, then you have a past event that is infinite number of events from the present. Each past event was the present and then not, one after the other. An addition of finite events from a point will always be separeted by a finite amount, so an infinite past leads to a contradition, so it is false.

Hope you understand.

That would not be a problem for what I said for it to be called true, it must be in Compliance of The three Laws of logic for Truth, defintion is in the form of the three laws. It is self Inherent that these hold. Identity Law is a=a, Law of Exluded Middle aV(-a), Law if Non Contradiction a=-(a). The first law for it is in the definition. Second Law for saying other wise would be saying it is not true and its negation is not true which would be a contradiction -a=-(-a), and contradiction is nonsense. Third law for the reason just stated.

Soory did not finish, accidently posted comment. The fact is Since infinity is not an integer you can ever have such in successive addition, so an infinite past is impossible for event Infinite events from the past is impossible.

Infinity is not an integer,

Is this the longest thread? I mean on length and and in Longevity.

May you elaborate, considering I do not see how such a definition breaks either the three fundamental laws or other logical rules.

The laws of Logic, are simply what truth, that which is, to be in. As long as any proposition is in conformity of these laws that you can then first past the bar of then actually saying whether is true or not.

I forget the name of that particular liar paradox name, but we can just break down the meaning of "the below" and "the above" as this statement is false for both, and as I mentioned this is a contradiction with the implicit meaning of statement. Then you have the statement A contradiction is false, and that would be simply be meaning less because a contradiction is nonsense.


1. The below is false - This statement is false is false.
2. The above is false - This statement is false is false.

I am just saying the Law of Logics are innherent to the meaning of truth. Truth is based that it is in The laws of logic form.

That is no different that saying 1inch=2.54 cm. The fact of the matter is the planck constants need time(s) of SI Units and The planck constant by nature is not as consistant since gravitational force can't be repeatedly measured at all. And all of these can be described as instance of phenomena like light in comparison to others like cesium atom radiation. Evidence is the observational data is always taken as instances, and quantum theory is compatible with discrete instants of motion.

Fundmental means none can derive further, and both plank length and time require speed of light. And that is set to by the new SI units to be a set exact value of 299,792,458 m/s , and that require the measuring of the instants of a cesium atom to derive meter from. Such that the only thing Fundamental is the cesium atom radiation at a set occurence, and speed of light already set in from the motion of light which lead to exact instances.

Read a post of yours earlier that involved the discussion of the speed of light being constant implies motion is continous. Wanted to know how you arrived to such a thing. Speed of light by definition as the distance (m) over Time (s), and both are based currently based on , respectively, the speed of light taken to be absolutely 299,792,458 m/s and divided over the cesium atom period which is over 9,192,637,770 periods. Each of this presume absolute instance of events to measure each other, therefore the use of such instances if time that leads to a constant should refute such notion.

How are you defining essence, reality, and existence then? The definition of abstact is something conceived in thought.

The very definition of existence is something determinate, meaning it is. The implicit meaning would have you reach the simple fact that anything is and is not whatever not is. Nonsense by definition is it means absolutley not a single thing is either true or false.

The point I was making about About S is simply that saying having a thing would be the same as defining S as a being that has it. Therefore if S is P, a definition of S is having P. A, B, C are just things that define S. A concrete thing anyway is just something that exists that can distint from another through simple abstract concepts like color, numbers, etc. You can not have a concrete thing with some abstact concept. If S is P, it is no more than saying The definition of A,B,C and P. Definition is an if and only if of distinction. Something having p or not would make them seperate things.

Any definition can be switched with the name of said thing. Like myself being dead or not example I gave. If I exist with A representing myself. And E exists then when I say A is E, myself is defined already as dead along with the Characteristics of B,C, and D. In other words A=B,C,D and E is the equivalent of saying A=E for E is a definition of A. If the proposition is false, then that means I do not possess E in Myself, A. As long as it is not in Myself it is not in myself. The reason there exists 3 laws of logic is because there is only existence, things like concrete or abstact are just distinctions like those within them that are simply is. There is only existence mean is, for meaning means literally is. There is none other then what is for theat is the definition. If it does not follow the three laws it is nonsense. Literally an equivalent. The basis of what I am saying is more overarching and less assuming for the one premises is only existence, therefore we can say the identity law from such A=A, law of Exluded Middle, for since there is nothing but existence, the concept of not is formed through whatever is not in existence which we get aV(-a). And law of non contradition from the prior two, if there is not any except whatever is and is self and whatever not is not then you can not have A=-A. The simple premise is reality or existence is just existence.

You and I, before going any further may need to create a new discussion in the forum the the premise of logic to use for our disagreement on time is simple. If I am Right on just that all three laws are, then you are wrong, and If I am wrong you have an argument to have on your side. Either way my argument of not having a infinite past is either proven or debateable under such conditions.

It holds only for determinate states of things, and if the universe were truly determinate, then change would be impossible.
-Alethiest

First of all change simply means from to another. No, the law of Exluded Middle just means every propositions, a claim on reality, is either true or not true, is or is not. We just need to say change of the whole true propositions is already in the state of what is. Meaning Time is defined as all propisitions that is or was. Say s is p in the present, what curently is, then we say s is not p, the new present. Law of excluded middle is not violated because we just need to say there is no gap between the two events. You say change to have an inbetween by defintion of going from one to another. Just define Time as the whole set of instants ordered from the present. Where no instant is the same as the other. Motion is just just the change of certain propositions of distance of objects, and the concept of continuity is simply an illusion. Film is the best example to give.

Again, "P" denotes an abstract quality. The mode of being of such a quality is not existence, but essence. It only exists by inhering in concrete things. When "S is P" is true, the quality denoted by "P" inheres in the thing denoted by "S." When "S is P" is not true, the quality denoted by "P" does not inhere in the thing denoted by "S." It might inhere in other things, or it might not inhere in anything, but its non-inherence in one particular thing does not affect its being a real quality.
-Alethiest

The best way to understand something is break down its components and compare to others. You mention that an abstract quality does not exist unless you have it in a concrete thing. Abstract quality means that which exists in thought. An example is numbers, they represent reality and may be used in objects that exist. For example there is 1 dog infront of me. This may be true or false, but the 1 exists as a description of objects. Object itself, as a concept, is an abstract thought that represent physical phenomena. 2+2=4 is always true, this exists, but a physical object that exists is different for this may exist. Real ,as you are using, means an object existence. When you say some abstract essence exists, you mean it describes a physical object. With your example that s is an object and p is some abstract quality we can just define an object. If s exists, then what defines s must exist. Let us say s=a,b,andc. When you say s=p, then you must be saying a,b,and c,p=p. When you say s is not p, then a,b,and c is not p. This is because an abstract essence if true of an object, is part of the definition. If not, then it is not in the definition. The moment you say s is neither p nor not p, you are actually saying s itself is nonsense for the definition of s has to be means nothing if p exists. An example of this is imagine A represents myself. Myself is defined by only Three things B,C,and D. Let us say E means dead. A is E, in other words A is B,C,D,and E. E becomes my defintion and may or may not change my other descriptions. The moment I say A is neither E nor Not E. I am saying only one of three things. One is I have never existed. Second death does not exist. Or third having A=E makes a contradiction. An example of the third option is Imagine A was redefined as simply sound. Sound,one of it definition is not alive. Saying A=E is just a contradiction. Whenever you say Any object has an abstract thought, you are saying it is part of what defines it. If it is not what defines it then that abstract quality then does not exist in that said object and saying p is neither in it nor not in it , can be flipped to saying nothing about About S exists for there is no meaning of it that can be compared to say either is or is not. Same holds true for p. That is why we have law of exluded middle for any proposition to either be true or false because anything other would mean the thing being said just is nonsense.

No, Time is The combination of all events in order of relation of what the present. Event is the complete description of reality. But since reality changes then that event no longer is true. It is replaced by a new complete description of reality, called the Present. The future is not anything that exists, so do not need the consider it.

Also, simple fact you define Events as state of things that are real. Simply put that state of things means that which exists

I read your thread of definitions, and have an idea of intuitive logic. First things first, Reality is whatever is. I read your thread and came across times where you said an event is a gradual state of changing between any actual. The meaning of gradual is over period of time, which is of little value in actually talking about time. You have claimed in this thread and the other one that non excluded middle does not apply in the event inbetween s is p and s is not p. If we assume S exists then all things that define it exist. If it is not then it is not S. Reality implicitly puts itself as is, nothing else. You can not have a situation s is neither p or not p, for that means p does not exist at all. It can never exist for it is nonsense. If we have an event where s exists and is p then p must be some statement. And I will repeat the meaning of statement, which is a putting forth of what is. Remember there is and only is . P=-(-p). That is the simple fact of reality. The three laws of logic is the very foundation of everything, the intuitive logic stems from pure mathemtics. Reality is simply what is. I am either walking or not, there is no reality that i am neither walking or not walking for Either I do not exist or walking is nonsense. If I am, then that which defines me is only that.