marieltrokan

Lee Harvey Oswald. Hayley Atwell. John Carpenter. Cleopatra. Masters and Johnson. Any internet user. Any mammal. Any species. Is any living being's thoughts the reason of existence?

The absence of error is the absence of society. Society needs division and conflict in order to exist - as it does alienation, overworking, and territorial greed.

I have the same opinion of whistleblowers as I do of anyone else: they should be asked if they want to be known as the Universe.

I'm intrigued by the quote. The reason of existence I think has to be one with existence - so the challenge of intelligence is to fulfil the reason, but at the same time fulfil the means of the reason (in other words, infinite reflection).

Because reality is uniformity, I just think it's better to have a uniformity of no nations than uniformity of nations. After all, nations require social alienation to exist, and because any life form doesn't exist to be shunned, no nations by default is what should exist.

I think the answer is for the UN to say in public that the topic of nations and the identity of the Universe should be raised by national leaders.

Why is it inaccurate? Do you think that everyone on Earth should be asked if they want to be referred to as the Universe?

I think a start would be to say that all people deserve to be referred to as the Universe; not just humanity as a whole, but each individual.

Thanks for replying. I just mean that a Wikipedia page is as much reality as a movie it's based on, therefore could people regard the page (even if the page isn't one of criticism) as being as meaningful as the movie itself. I think I'm trying to say that Wikipedia pages about movies make me regard movies as less meaningful.

I suppose by worldwide political action. Not violence, but just through a worldwide referendum.

Alien Covenant is currently filming, and when it gets released it'll be reviewed and perhaps be praised or criticised - either way, will its Wikipedia page be as much meaningful?

If all nations were to be ended, how do you think it should happen?

I think that if life exists on other planets, DVD's and book clubs must exist on those planets as well.

Is anyone's thoughts the same as a PlayStation, or a mountain?

I think what I meant is that the Universe isn't without a beginning, but that the identity of the beginning and the status quo represent no division; the original force of existence "is" the status quo, but has had to convert itself because of need. The issue I'm trying to resolve is the duplication of ability: if the original force's point is to achieve, how does one reconcile the divide between ability being a means to the achievement, and the achievement itself? If the original force needed to change, because of the problem of identity and divide being separate, can this original force cease the separation without betraying the principle of no duplication?

What about forums themselves? Or chat shows and newspapers? Do you think it's an error if these are not needed but part of the story of reality upgrading itself? In my mind, error is need being both an ability and an inability. Could the story of the Universe be the resolution of this battle?

It's possible that the Universe is a recreation; a means to the source of existence fulfilling its need, in order to achieve its potential. In this sense the Universe isn't division from the source, but the source re-existing.

The purpose of existence is to reflect absence.

Hello Universe: You wanted to copy yourself, but weren't able to. You therefore used this inability in order to create the ability to replicate. And now because of this your anti is neither replication or anti, making you the ability to be neither replication or anti.

True, they do allow politicians to be elected; but speeches are as much nothing to do with elections, and there are many speeches throughout human history that are famous for having nothing to do with elections. Elected officials saying to millions and millions of people that they're each the Universe, and that because of this the world should make the effort to exist so that categorization isn't needed is the solution.

If speeches are nothing, why do they exist?

People do and don't listen to politicians - and because that truth can apply to anything, why should the topic of the world making the effort to exist so that categorization needn't exist prompt the bias? The Scottish independence referendum took place in 2014, and yet on that issue people would have ignored campaigners for independence - and the same applies to the American War of Independence.

I think that political leaders saying in public that the world should exist so that words like squatter aren't needed is a perfect solution.

You mean build homes? I think political leaders should say in public that the world should exist so that words like squatter aren't needed.

My response is to just not use the word at all. And that political leaders should say in public that the world should exist so that the word isn't needed.