Measuring Existence?

[kevin]

Altonhare,
I am not laughing at YOU, it's how you approach everything that makes ME laugh.
it is akin to a comedian telling a funny joke, it is the joke that makes you laugh, not the comedian, but it is the delivery of the comedian that helps, the timing etc.
I can only go on the developed mental image that this machine allows, and I build up that from the many posts any certain person posts.
In your case , I sometimes imagine you in a right paddy, it comes through in your writing.
That is good, as you really mean it, and it is YOU not just a repeat of others.
But that paddy image makes me laugh, sorry.

I am very under educated, dyslexia rules but not an excuse, I somehow just KNEW it was all balls.
So I went fishing instead, then suddenly in an instant, and I mean an instant, I KNEW, just didn't know what the questions were to what I KNEW.
So I thank you sir, most deeply, for been you, for going at things full bore , with total commitment, good for You.

What I KNEW is betond belief, I fell all the way down a wabbit hole, and logic and proportion are gone, but it's absolutely fabulous, beyond my small grasp of language, just MAGNIFICENT.
We are all ONE, I often laugh at myself sir.
kevin

[Birkeland]

I do not need any help from Ayn Rand or anyone else in the universe. We can follow this logic process all by ourselves, we don't need to appeal to authority.

Aristotle is the father of logic - you don't escape philosophy in science: it's a necessity, and there is no need to reinvent the wheel. Appeal to authority is only to be considered a fallacy when there is no authority involved.

[kevin]

Altonhare,
I have recently discovered William Blake, to my amazement I very much resemble him, to my further amazement we share the same birth date, to my total amazement , if I could write, I would write what he did, If I could paint , I would paint what he did,
This sir is very relevant to this thread, and I KNOW why.
http://www.artcyclopedia.com/artists/de ... ml?noframe
kevin

[altonhare]

I have realized why there has been some difficulty in my communication of the definition of exist and the definition of object. Objectively, in the universe, there are only fundamental constituent(s). Whether there are one or a zillion differently shaped fundamental constituents, still fundamental constituents are all that is, objectively. Therefore, the study of existence absolutely MUST be a study of the qualities of the entity "fundamental constituent".

The fundamental constituent, by definition, is not made of smaller entities, it is continuous. By this definition it is unbreakable and incompressible. To bend something there must be space within it, some entities composing it must become closer and/or others become further apart. To break something it must be composed of smaller parts. Fundamental constituents do not change their length, width, height, or shape ever. They are rigid, static entities that may only change location by colliding with (touching) other fundamental constituents.

Furthermore, the fundamental constituent is unavoidable in any study of existence. To deny the fundamental constituent immediately imposes irreconcilable paradox. Without a fundamental constituent any entity would be composed of entities which is composed of entities... infinitely. The existence of a fundamental constituent is so fundamental I would call it axiomatic. There simply would be no universe with consciousness if there were not a fundamental constituent.

And so, the difficulties I've had is that everyone else has been pointing at an object like ice cube and thinking of it as an entity. In my mind the only entities are fundamental constituents. The ice cube is simply an arrangement of fundamental constituents I have named. The particular arrangement of the FC's changes and I no longer perceive that particular collection of FC's as "ice cube", but nothing has actually "ceased to exist". A bunch of FC's simply changed location. When we measure a perceived/named object as changing in its spatial extent it is because it is actually made of smaller parts. We are not measuring the perceived object's existence, we are observing a CHANGE in LOCATION of FC's.

It seems, then, that an ice cube is not an entity of itself. It is a group of entities, each with a particular spatial relationship to each other. The ice cube is a concept because it is a relationship among entities (FCs). Since we cannot easily perceive the FCs we think of the ice cube itself as an object that can change its shape or spatial extent.

I hope GC is still reading, maybe this will help some

I hope GC is still listening, maybe this will clear something up .

[kevin]

Altonhare,
Well said , and explained, now just keep going.
Everything is composed of coalesced something.
That something is no-thing.
No-thing becomes everything.
No-thing is the ONE that everything is.
It turns itselfs around to create something.
it does that by spin.
Therefore everything is no-thing.
But it is able to coalesce by attraction of opposites.
Would you Adam and eve it?
Kevin.