Also, sorry for the many posts, but I fail to see how Non Excluded Middle is not a law like the identity and noncontradiction. A statement itself is a claim of truth implicitly, and from that it is or is not and also neither both.

Getting to the wall is impossible if a thing was always going halfway the distance. This would naturally disprove the existance of infinite events, rather we motion is dicrete on that all particles are essentially teleporting at a certain distance, which is consistant with quantum theory and special relativaty.

can you list your definitions of time , event, change, indefenite moment, and potential infinity in any order. In order to refute your conclusion, I will need to have the same dictionary to explain.

The wording is wrong and the conclusion. Its If you take half the time from being the go to the wall. This mean will will continue to be some events from reaching the wall , here metaphor for the present, if you have infinite events. Each event occurs one after the other, so getting to the wall is impossible. This would also mean motion is not infinitly continous.

Well, I reject that definition, as well as the underlying assumption that time is composed of instants. An event is a change from one state of things to a logically incompossible state of things.
-Alethiest
Sorry, still I Am incompetant in using the quote feature on this text input.

Now change by definition is from one to another. There has to be a definite point to say from and to, therefore even if you deny a next instant, you have to accept there is an order of simply before or after any instant. Instant, which I define here as the state of reality. From there you may choose any arbritary Instant that happens in a list from the most current. This first Instant is the reference point for all other arbritary instants. Now if we assume infinite past there is a real infinite instants , regardless of the events you define as, such that ( ...I3, I2, I1). Remember these are arbritary, so even if you say there is an infinite events that are changing to have two instants, they are real and come in order, meaning I3 is when I4 is no longer. Whether there is an indeterminate between them is besides the point, and not affecting my argument. If these infinite arbritary ordered points were numbered in terms from the First instant, then let us go to the Instant that's term is equal the the whole even terms there is on the list. This Instant , which we will call ( nth) would have an infinite instances from the first instant and an infinite instances before it. Any list number terms is equal to the whole even and odd terms. As I have said before that that (nth) was the present which means an addition of successive instants that is infinity has occured but an addition of successive values will never be a non integer such as infinity, therefore an infinite past leads to a contradiction thus impossible. Which would mean the infinite events between such instances is impossible. If there is a problem with the logic or facts please just list it.

Wait, I defined an Event as a complete description of reality meaning an instant of what is or was. Lapse would entail a change of instants in Time. Since any instant of time exists one after the other, then you still can not go an infinite events after a point.

No what I mean by not applicable means for ex. The integer 1/2 is greater than 0. This is neither true or false, it is nonsense.

What do you mean by "prolonged" or "during" in your two prior posts?

Ok, from there lets define an infinite past. An infinite past is all the events that have occured from the present. Present is defined as simply the event that is. Event is a complete description of reality.An example being the first instant of today and all statements that are true along with it. Time is simply all events ordered from the present. A past event is an the present that longer is. Any problems so far with my defintions?

[quoteLet me try restating my example of an event using "S" to denote a concrete thing and "P" to denote an abstract quality. At the lapse of time before the event, "S is P" is true. At the lapse of time after the event, "S is not-P" is true. At the lapse of time during the event, neither "S is P" nor "S is not-P" is true. There is no contradiction here--that would require both "S is P" and "S is not-P" to be true at the same determination of time--but the principle of excluded middle does not hold.

[/quote]

If S is niether p or not p, then that just means p is not applicaple to be describe S. And would this not assume there exists an event between every concrete event that is not definable. Either way there is a distinct event you put forth of "S is P" and in that event any other description of reality as a whole.

Also answer me this, what is a true continuity?

A duration is literally the time inbetween events
— BB100
Again, this is an assumption, which I reject.

a second being just the composition of the periods of a cesium atom.
— BB100
This is simply the basis of our arbitrary unit for measuring the passage of time.

What actually happens is like you throw a ball in the air. It is not going through a continous motion, but like a film Instants of change is occuring that we perciew as continous.
— BB100
Again, this is an assumption, which I reject.

But that just proves that motion is not continous for motion is change of distance
— BB100
No, continuous motion is the reality and distance is how we measure and describe it. A meter is an arbitrary unit for that purpose.

Time though, is successive, meaning one event after the other.
— BB100
Again, this is an assumption, which I reject.
-Alethiest

First of All, that is the definition that is used in the dictionary.

It is a measurement, therefore there is a point which had to be and all associated truths when this occured. Also you mentioned previously that the non excluded middle is not a law, while in fact it is for to be a statement it either is or is not. To say that a thing neither is or is not would be a contradiction for a thing is an existence by definition.

This is not an assumption, all emperical data is a combination of points in time.

If I I have one then name the first one you find and we can start from there for me to clarify.

that assumes that measurement = reality. Unjustified, for we did not measure gravitationtional waves until a a set number of years ago, But it existed before we observed it. Let me make it clear that infinite past being impossible makes all other possiblities of infinity like infinite space impossible.

I did not assume it had a beginning, but assumed not finite and used contradiction to say it is at the end. If have an infinite past, then there exists an event in the past that is an infinite events away from the present and has another infinite events before it. Since all events must be present or present then not. An infinite events has successively occured but that is a contradiction for successive addition of terms from a point will never be anything but an integer term. Essentially you get finite terms=infinite terms, thus a conyradiction of no infinite past or infinite set of evenys between points.

Zeno's paradox assumes anyway that we travel at all points in the distance between two points and claims motion is impossible from the half the distance truth. But that just proves that motion is not continous for motion is change of distance which would be different events and as I proved already an addition synthesis will never be a non integer mraning no infinite events have occured. Distance is continous for 1/10 of a meter exists along with 2/10 of a meter. Time though, is successive, meaning one event after the other.

Also, Alethiest, you mentioned zeno's paradox, And I say that we are not traveling over an infinite set of distances
For the reason that travel implies time in it where there would be an infinite set of events. What actually happens is like you throw a ball in the air. It is not going through a continous motion, but like a film Instants of change is occuring that we perciew as continous. Our own thinking exists like this as well. The empericial evidence is that we only have finite information everytime we measure between events.

I am confused by what you mean true continouity. A duration is literally the time inbetween events, which I explained are just the ordered events measured relatively, a second being just the composition of the periods of a cesium atom. When you say I traveled 7 feet in 8 seconds, and am saying this change of phenomena, myself , changed from a certain reference point as did the phenomena of cesium atom's radiation. It is just in an event where a change of certain phenomena in it is compared from a previous phenomenon.

Right, but it is faulty because continuous motion does not require a series of discrete steps, going only halfway to the destination with each step. Likewise, continuous time does not require a series of discrete moments or events.
-Alethiest

First of all, a continous function means infinite points inbetween any point with no gap. This works fine in a static dimension like a graph where you conenct points, But this is impossible in Time for What I mentioned. The point is is there exist discrete points in a continous function like the Natural Number Integers in a plane.

A statement is not an event, although it might be a description of an event. Statements can be true or false, but events cannot. In my view, an event is a definite change; if statement X is true at an earlier determination of time and false at a later determination of time, then an event is realized at a lapse of time between those two determinations, during which statement X is neither true nor false.
-Alethiest

True means it is , and false means it is not. Inherently they are present focused because the present is everthing that is, If I said Event A in the past is the present, then that would be false but if, I said simply Event A occured then It is true. Your last statement is false because under the law of non excluded middle a statement has to be either true or false.

My First post is still true if we just made Each event from the visual ( E(nth) ... E3, E2, E1, P) an arbritary event besides The present wuth the only condition it is ordered from each in relation to the present, and still get the result. Also define direction, because it is not something I may be not comprehend from you. Past is before , present is the refrence and future is after. Right?

Why would anyone be restricted to traversing only half the distance to the wall with each step? If the first step goes halfway, and the second step goes the same distance, then you are contacting the wall after just those two steps. Zeno's paradoxes dissolve once we recognize that he is smuggling in a requirement for discrete steps that does not apply to continuous motion.

First of all it is a thought experiment that says any point the takes half the distance for every change of distance to some point, then it will never get there. Reason being become it will aways have to make a finite addition of distance that will only have more distance needed to go. We can you use this for a situation if we were to assume there is an infinite set of events between two events. Lets call the two point A and B respectively. Event A is a past event that occured as well as Event B, which occured after. Since In order for Point B to occur then the event evenly between them must have occured first, which we will call A(1/2). Then before Event B to occur, the event Evenly Between Event A(1/2) to Event B must occur first and so on. Therefore if we say there is an infinite event then this process must never stop of It having to go halfway. Therefor Event B cannot happen therefore there is no two past Event that have an infinite set of Events between them because an event is a description of all reality that is and then is replaced. Since each event must have been the present then Infinite set of events between any two events is impossible ot would mean In the example I gave, Event B has Happened and not happened.

This is McTaggart's C series, which by itself is inadequate as a definition of time, because it lacks direction. The A series is also required to get past, present, and future.
-alethiest

The order I thought I visualized with (E(nth)... E3, E2, E1, P). Each event is ordered from the present. The present which is defined as The characterististics of all beings of existence. Meaning that as I am typing, I am 5'11, in The Northeast and all other distinguish descriptions of reality that exists along with it. If I were to finish this text, then The instant that I was writing came became a past event while the one if I finishing is the present. Each event must have been the present and the order from which is based simply if was the present before or after. The future I won't discuss because it is not the current reality or has been, so I can not be certain of I reality will change or not.

Indeed, and this was also McTaggart's assumption--time is composed of individual moments, whose contents are individual events--which I consider faulty.
-alethiest

The existence of time requires that what is , is no longer the case. A change of what characteristics in reality exist and what does not, meaning if a statement X is true and then not, then the we can say statement X is an event along with all other statements that were true along with it. And then not true is another event that we can say came after because it is the present. Remember that all of our observation is the change of certain truths, velocity is the displacement from seconds, which is defined now as the duration of 9,192,631,770 periods of the radiation corresponding to the transition between the two hyperfine levels of the ground state of the caesium-133 atom" (at a temperature of 0 K). Wikipedia. Every event that is the present is not any event previous for that event became not what reality.

Many of you I would expext would know the half the distance to the wall scenario. Imagine you are facing directly a wall and every step you take is half the distance to it. Since each step happens one after the other, there will never be any step that gets you to contact the wall. If there was an infinite events between any two past events then that would mean that from two points you can say that halfway event ocuured but before that that halfway of that point and so on, therefore it will never reach that other point.

Is your question is that between every two past events, there exists an infinite set of events. Remember that a past event means that it was the present then a new event to over. A visual is (E3, E2, E1, P) then you have (E3, E2, E1,P1,P). Meaning that every present that is replaced adds 1 space in terms of placement of sequence of events. The fact is that there can not be an infinite set of events passing from now because successive addition. As I mentioned if you were to count 1 then 2 then 3 and so on, there will never say anything but an integer and the distance between two integers is finite. Therefore by contradiction we can come to know that there is no infinite past because it would require from a present an infinite number of events to occur but successive addition from a point will never be infinite.

Now that I think about it, is it my run on sentences?

May you explain on steam of consciousness and how that relates to Stephen Hawking?

We call the universe the observations we make the definition I gave was broad but the actual definition for I could say everything that which exists in and outside of me and my self is part of the universe and as such are phenomena which happens. Next let us make word called emitime and say this means the events of from the present in chronological order as they happened than from the same reasoning I put forth we get that there can be no infinite events before the present and as such is finite than it has a point where the universe did not exist.

We need to define the universe first and time as well. The universe is the phenomena of objects like the earth, sun, moon, and all of that above and with it. Time has two definitions which are the measure of events an event occur from each other. The other being the events happening in chronological order. A start is one where an event has none before. We can say that since the universe is events of phenomenons than it must have a beginning since an infinite past is impossible because you can not have an infinite events after a certain event because addition synthesis can not equal infinity. An infinite past must have an event with an infinite number of events after it to present so it is impossible. From these reasons, we know the universe has a beginning.

The second amendment is not difficult. Just say what is there instead of preconconvied notions. A well regulated militia, being necessary for the security of a free state, the right of the people, shall not be infringed. Well regulated meant something that works properly at the revolutionary time, as they would say to clocks that kept precise and true time that they were well regulated. Militia than actually meant adult white men that would be able to call to service in an event of an invasion or rebellion. The being necessary part was detailing the first part as to what is.

The right of the people is the interesting part because it written in a way where the right was already there before it talks about. To keep and bear arms does not require revolutionary dictionary or grammar understanding. Keep means to have and bear means to be in active possessions Arms meant any weapon that may be used against the enemy and since it gives no condition, you do not need one to keep and bear one. The shall not be infringed part is the mandate on the amendment with regard to people in keep and bear arms.

An example of the structure in modern time would be ," a well informed public, being necessary for a civilized society, the right of the people to spread true information, shall not be infringed". It is important to know that there were arms regulation at the founders time, but this was at the state level where you certain hand guns restricted and canon size having laws. The first 10 amendments apply to the federal government only than as Barron v. Baltimore says. But since the 14th amendment made a majority of rights in the 10 amendment applicable to states.

The regulation would technically be unconstitutional, but the courts would not risk today's weapon with no regulation. Reading the federalist papers would help give context to the founders reason for citizens being armed. Oh, another proof against the argument about arms being for military purpose is a draft of the second amendment that the founders made but discarded for the one we have said" a well regulated militia, being necessary for the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, for the common defense, shall not be infringed".

The constitution is an undemocratic document for it sets certain policy and laws off from democratic choice like the 1st amendment. The court must interpret accordingly to context applied language at time and debates on the amendments. This also applies to laws that are passed and they also need to be impartial unlike Kavanaugh's emotional burst or Ginsburg political comments.

Application of language requires context of speech and the word privaledges and immunities refer to the bill of rights because in its debates it was talking about the bill of rights. I already talked about equal protection and if it is not in the constitution or directly implicated than anything other is subject to the states. Remember that a constitution is undemocratic by nature because if restriction without the majority decides.

The 14th amendment is not really difficult since if you read the entire debate, context of enactment, and words definition you understand that the immunities and privilege clause state that the rights if the bill of rights cannot be infringed by states and equal protection refers that matters dealing with protections from direct harm like police not responding to blacks being lynched to white mobs but to whites protect them or letting a white person get a day early from a trial but a black person does not is not allowed and must be equal in nature. The important part is protect direct harm from source like police or criminal justice.

No, for Human Rights are based upon the idea that the Human race as a species is entitled to the ability to not to be killed by our own and our property taken without due process. pretty much a system of ours that only applies to ones species. Since an android is a machine, it is not a species and not obligated or upon obligation to be entitled to such codes.

I never denied it rather I said my MAIN point is that they are using baseless claims on the interpretation of it. If you claim I am wrong, than justify that claim with proof from truth and not use your authority as a lawyer to prove such claim.

No, for Human Rights are based upon the idea that the Human race as a species is entitled to the ability to not to be killed by our own and our property taken without due process. pretty much a system of ours that only applies to ones species. Since an android is a machine, it is not a species and not obligated or upon obligation to be entitled to such codes.

You claim I am interpreting the constitution, but my main point is the claims of interpretation by the courts is not interpretation at all. It is baseless, for it takes up arguments that are not from agreed upon texts or implication of there agreement. I do not want a government run by the founders vision, but rather be honest in our decisions concerning the constitution. It has to be interpreted with words, phrases, and legal jargon at the time for when one applies language in communication, you have to use the language at that time which was used to understand it. An example is if your reading a newspaper from the 1700's, you would use a dictionary and common understandings of situations and context to understand the newspaper. Same in our current society, we have codes like c++ or matlab, or such that in order to understand them you use their language and rules of communications. The matter of the central bank was not concerning on what the constitution meant because they all agreed that they could make "Enact All laws necessary and proper to enforce the previous powers". They just argued was it really necessary and proper. Which means you have to have it in order to enforce the powers listed before and would it be appropriate to that situation. Most of them did come to a conclusion yes because in order to spend money you need such an institution. An analogy would be like I have 5 kg in one hand and have to decide whether another object is less or more than 5 kg, I am not arguing what i am scaling by, but the object in question. the matter of voting rights and such were addressed by changing the constitution in the 15th amendment and the 19th amendment which we would apply using the language at that time. This is proper way of handling the constitution where if something does not work, we do not make up a lie of the document, just add or change it to make it work to the current situations. Also, it was not the due process clause because that just makes sure every gets a judicial hearings or proper process like law making were enacted before your life, liberty or property were taken. it was the privileges and immunity clause which made the rights in the bill of rights applicable to the states. Also ancient fallacies are just opinions that are not held by current grouop of people. We are a republic which means rule of law is over the people, if the people want something there has to be due process( which means a manner of trial or making laws that are clear and made with proper process like elections and such).

I would like you to define action and will and be more concise on will for there are desire that come from external forces and answers are based on previous thought and the concept of will to mine.

This case was wrongly decided since self defense is not a mentioned or implied by definition for keep and bear arms. We know this because as I mentioned a former draft of the constitution was thrown away saying, " a well regulated militia, being necessary for the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, for the common defense, shall not be infringed. since The right has no condition after it, that means a reason is not need to keep and bear arms. Arms meaning any weapon useful for killing or destroy enemies at the time the use of the word was made. With the 14th, any regulation prohibiting arms is illegal at federal and state. Also a right is set can not have exceptions except when stated or changed through Article 5.

I would like to have the current amendments kept, I would like a intrastate commerce clause, which means control of commerce in the state. Though it may be denied if 3/4 of the state legislature denies it, just to keep our federal system in balance. Another is ban on all intoxicants and such halucigens. Lastly is a balance budget amendment where the feds can spend only what they have, except for natural disaster, wars, or insurrections among the people. Also get rid of Trumps tariff abilities. He should not have them under the current constitution based upon the fact only Congress can control commerce among foreign nations. Citizen United was interesting, the main argument was that corporations are groups of people essentially so they reasoned that if a person has the free speech than organizations should have the ability to use. Spending money can be speech since it speech means to Express a point or ideal. Though this tends lead to more corruption, so I would probably support an amendment against electioneering by corporation.

This case was wrongly decided since self defense is not a mentioned or implied by definition for keep and bear arms. We know this because as I mentioned a former draft of the constitution was thrown away saying, " a well regulated militia, being necessary for the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, for the common defense, shall not be infringed. since The right has no condition after it, that means a reason is not need to keep and bear arms. Arms meaning any weapon useful for killing or destroy enemies at the time the use of the word was made. With the 14th, any regulation prohibiting arms is illegal at federal and state. Also a right is set can not have exceptions except when stated or changed through Article 5.