That 'becoming' still entails space.

There's the 'actual' frame in play, and then there are the 'potential' frames. Now if all frames were to occupy a single slot, the object would appear static, but if we were to space and layer them - they would motion.

Quite.
Time to close the door and pass on through.

Well if there's no space for motion, there's no space for change.

If there is nowhere to go, but where you're standing - you can't change position.
Likewise for all things - if they don't have any space but the occupied space, how would they motion?

That things change is obvious, but what allows them to is less so. — AJJ

Wouldn't that merely be space?

There are references to "soul" in the Old Testament, and none in the New Testament. None refer to a soul being immortal. — Relativist

How would you interpret the resurrection of Lazarus then?

I think it's a misleading statement. A door is a door. It allows passage, or it allows access to a passage, but it is not in itself a passage. Having (effectively) zero thickness, the one thing a door is not is a passage. A passage has length; it takes you from one place (one end) to another (the other end); it traverses distance. — Pattern-chaser

Very well.
But may I ask how this lack of passage intersects a passage? Likewise, wouldn't an effective zero thickness be counterproductive to your statement?

Now you're investigating the different meanings that "open" and "clear" can carry? — Pattern-chaser

I'm sheathing the door, hoping it fits.

Now I am completely and utterly lost.

What is the point of this diversion???
What are you trying to tell/show us??? — Pattern-chaser

Nothing important - moreso I'm just following through.

But it's not scripted.

And that irons out the irony.

Before the script is written, it's improvised.

I really don't understand this. The modeler has created the weather model to allow her to predict the real weather. They are no more the same than the word "weather" is the same as the rain and clouds. — T Clark

Pardon me, if my explanation is shoddy.

I'm simply asking - why do you add 'real'?
What is the difference besides practical semblance?
They are based on the same principles, so their derivations of weather - excluding how each is made - are functionally the same.

I wrote elsewhere, I can't remember if it was in this thread, I don't believe that objective reality exists. That's not quite right. What I really believe is that it is not a very useful way of thinking about things in many situations. As I've said many times, the existence of objective reality is a metaphysical question and, as such, it doesn't have a yes or no answer. — T Clark

And that's the - problem, maybe?

Objective reality is inescapable and the metaphysical question you propose, is situated within its stable ground.

I'm refering to a mutual relationship.

Whether we view the weather physically or virtually - both are simulations, who relate to the same derivation of possible weather.

The tempo of physically observed and virtual weather is the same. Which is to say they are principally and/or functionally the same.
But the rhythm of the two, which is to say the composition, does not align. This makes them practically different.

To illustrate:
A client must pay 18.75 for groceries and gives you 20.

You may either add to 18.75 til 20 or subtract 18.75 from 20 to deduce his change. Same tempo, different rhythm.

Going back to the topic at hand: What knowing feels like
I'm curious why you would consider an objective truth a hindrance - as the title sets an objective tempo?
All answers would thus follow to be principally objective, yet practically subjective and I think it would be hard to be mislead by one due to their layered functions.

If there is no objective truth to the query, then any posited quality would be worthless - methinks.

To summarise: How do you question without objectivity? How do you question, for lack of a better word, void?

Next time try driving through the wall as they are the same thing right. — Sir2u

Do you drive through the garage door or do you move it?

Could you elaborate further on the following:

A simulation is an objective reality - its subjectivity relies on its relativity to our own.
Is it misleading or are we mismatching - tempo or rhythm?

But a door offers extra function, just to confuse us. :wink: — Pattern-chaser

Now you're getting it.

That a door is a passage is an honest statement.
But alas an omission.

Open your hand - you unfold your hand - like you unfold the doorframe.
Open your ears - you clear your ears - like you clear the doorway.

You being @Pattern-chaser, I wonder, did you not pick up on my zig-zag? Perhaps looking at the chronology in retrospect you'll see it, if you did not.

And now that you've got it:

Is there a point to the mystery we're creating here? A door is a movable barrier. What are we chasing here, Shamshir? :chin: — Pattern-chaser

Thus framed, the point is the will of the wisp.
But when chasing patter, we are mystbound and not paying attention - finding we've lost our way.

Perhaps this needless extrapolation is actually an allusion - and while the suspense kept us in place, going through the door may have been the key.

Is this adequate?

The opening line of John.

I do not believe that absolute or objective truth exists. — T Clark

If there is no objective truth, is there subjective truth?

If a person who worships lies (ie. "believes" something that is not true) hears a truth that undermines their "belief", they will hate the person speaking the truth and accuse them of hate speech because it is how they themselves feel: hatred. — A Gnostic Agnostic

Would you like to be bullied, puppet?
I will sing a nasty tune for you and you will trot in requiem.

I will tear you up and assemble you anew, and you shall moan in gratitude - won't you, Shelley?

A garage door is a garage wall; if proportion is the issue.

But you said:

they install doors in them — Sir2u

And there are doorflaps within doorflaps.
Hence I said:

And thus - we come around again — Shamshir

Go back and the missing piece should become apparent. A door is indeed a wall - but what is missing?
Perhaps a glove may garner the answer?

Let's say it is not a passage, a through. What then do you open when you open the door...?

When men open their mouths, locusts come forth from them. They disturb the plants and the harvest fails to synthesize.
When they remain silent, like the moon hidden in the night, clarity settles. All manner of fruit appear and go to fill silence and the harvest is auspicious.

And those who ate of the unripe fruit were unripe themselves. They could not digest it, and their teeth and bowels ached in reminder of its bitter taste.

Oft it is then - the child stomps in disapproval, as it rushes to its grave unwittingly.

Above all things consign yourself to hope, work and patience - as fortune is a fort tune, much like rain reigns over and under.

Now, stay silent or you won't hear it - but not from me.

The bible or the babble?

It's sad because he gives Gnosticism a bad name. — 3017amen

A bad name? What name? No name.
Would you label if you knew the name?
You would, lest you took the meat from the freezer and mistook lamb for lamprey.

Remember: Medicine is often bitter. Despite the omission, it heals and prevents it.
Good luck mushroom picking - care with doses.

scripted applause
Good luck censer.

Patience is a virtue.

Now, shall you be patient to believe, or be ardent to cast lots?

Where and what is evidence - with or without faith?

Where and what is the evidence for evidence - it's evident - it even dints, it's even dense.

Now that I brought it up, what about "faith"? Isn't that belief despite lack of evidence? — TheMadFool

What of faith in evidence?

Matching leads.

There's many bumps with every climb - this is just one.

And thus - we come around again, do you open the wall or the passage?

Have you denied your children what they need to survive?

God did. — Gnostic Christian Bishop

Not food, nor water, nor air - yet surely, reason he has denied you.

Such is the faith of babble.

Both.

If it is impossible to get consent and a future action leads to unknown suffering that affects an actual person, then do not procreate that person who will be affected by being born and who will experience unknown suffering. — schopenhauer1

If it is impossible to predict whether a tortoise will fall on your head and the impact will kill you, then do not leave your home, lest fortune claims your life.

Immortal, yet destructible.

Suicide hasn't been observed in non-human animals as far as I know. — TheMadFool

What of the insects?

Generally there is no purpose to human existence. — schopenhauer1

Generally this is not so.

I don't see why not; wall is just a barricade.
Do you see any foundational difference between a wall and a barricade? A wall isn't immovable, merely stationary.

When you serve someone a meal, add a little salt - and more thereafter, if needed.
Don't be excessive, lest they throw your meal away.

Also I like the way people say RIP - Rest in PEACE. — TheMadFool

Good bye. Fare well.

Horrible only to the extent required by symmetry which is mathematical. — TheMadFool

What's not symmetrical?

..--.. . .-.- .- . .-- .-. . -... .. ..- / .-.- .. .--. --- ..-. .--. .. ..- / .-.. --- / .- --- .. - -. .-.- .. ..-. .--. -- .. / . .... - / ... .. / - -. .... --.

Anything understood well enough may come to be appreciated as miraculous.

So anything may be evidence in the specified regard and rarities are no exception. Rarities do not serve to prove divinity, but rather show just how little is understood of it - if any.

It does, in the sense that opening the door references the opening of said portal, and not the removal of the cover; not directly anyway, as the removal is just an assumed step that's not mentioned.

An easier way to convey the door as the barricade would be to reference its hinges; though considering this cover is more or less part of the passage, when you reference the cover you inadvertently reference the passage.