A collection of infinitely many distinct elements

[doronshadmi]

So without “yourself” there is no “two”? As you are “yourself” the product of two, your parents, clearly “two” existed before “yourself” and is not dependent on “yourself”. If you simply whish to claim that in order for “yourself” to understand anything, like the concept of “two” or “yourself”, requires “yourself”, well that is just redundant.

Time is not involved in reasoning, and "yourself" is not any particular person but it is the fundamental form of any person.

 

[ddt]

No,

Wihout this form you are unable to get, for example, number 2.

What form? You're not being very coherent.

And what do you mean with number 2? Is that the bristled pine? Number 4, at least that I know, is the larch.

 

[doronshadmi]

What form?

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=4078206&postcount=2234

 

[Darat]

Either immediately get back onto a topic appropriate for this thread e.g. mathematics or I'll be closing the thread. If you want to post about philosophy stuff take it to the appropriate section of the Forum.

Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: Darat

 

[The Man]

This is your reasoning, where anything is based on thoughts, so please provide the answer.

Actually that is your reasoning; you are the one who asserted that we might someday change reality with our minds. The only thing that I have claimed is based on thoughts is thinking. Your question as to how infinite regression can be avoided remains invalid until you show that infinite regression can be obtained.

Time is not involved in reasoning, and "yourself" is not any particular person but it is the fundamental form of any person.

Please show how your reasoning does not involve time, while we add up (mathematically) the time for you to reason your response.

“Yourself” is a particular person in that it is singular, whom that particular person is depends on the context it is used.

Please show where “yourself” refers to “the fundamental form of any person”.

 

[doronshadmi]

Please show where “yourself” refers to “the fundamental form of any person”.

Non-Locality\Locality complementation:

    .             .             .   (Locality)
    |             |             |
    |             |             |  ... etc.
    |             |             |
    |             |             |
   _______________________________  (Non-locality)

 

[jsfisher]

Looks like this thread as about to end, Doron. Got anything mathematical you offer that might save it?

 

[The Man]

Non-Locality\Locality complementation:

    .             .             .   (Locality)
    |             |             |
    |             |             |  ... etc.
    |             |             |
    |             |             |
   _______________________________  (Non-locality)

Now your just getting lazy, Doron, before you would have at least typed the words “yourself” and “the fundamental form” in your non-local spot then “Person A”, “Person B” and “Person C” in your local spots.

Since this is just a repetition of your universally applied diagram it required little reasoning. Of the hour it took you to respond how much of that time was used in reasoning the value of repeating yourself again.

For the required math

Time of my post 08:19

Time of your post 09:25

X = Time you read my post

Y= Time you decided repeat your universally applied diagram without at least your minimal alterations that only convince you of the applicability of that diagram to the specific application being considered.

Y-X = Your reasoning time.


Please provide mathematical or evidentiary confirmation of your assertion that

“Time is not involved in reasoning”

 

[Darat]

As per Mod box warning - thread closed.

Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: Darat