Strange

Dali, not "Puicasso". And it isn't abstract. But apart from that ...

0. Congratulations on writing a grammatically correct and (sort of) meaningful sentence. 1. It is complete non-sequitur; why don't you try and explain what you wrote before? 2. This appears to have nothing to do with the thread. (but then, neither does Lindsay Lohan.) 3. Also, you may not have noticed, but the universe is much more than life on Earth. Much more than Earth, in fact. 4. What effect do you expect such a statement to have? Why do you think the UN has that sort of power?

That is the trouble with these many of the vague "intuitive" and common sense notions of time, space and infinity. They quickly fall apart when you attempt to make them rigorous....

Barely. You buried a URL in the text. Not even a link. And even if it were a link, not a link to your source. http://www.worldwildlife.org/species/directory?sort=extinction_status&direction=desc But do you really think that is anywhere near a complete list? There are millions of species on Earth, not just the handful listed there. I'm not sure that some promotional material on a charity website really counters extensive research by (at least) four universities. So, how about some actual data to support your claims?

In what language does that sentence make any sense at all? What possible connection is there between the Middle East and Lindsay Lohan? How is supposed to end the Middle East? And what does it mean to to "end the Middle East"? Make it disappear? Are you expecting an actress to destroy a continent? "When you reply, try to make as much sense as possible."

I didn't miss that. I ignored it because it appears to have no connection whatsoever to "the possibility that time is eternal without being infinite". That is a statement about time, not space. As usual, you are just making responses that appear to be complete non sequiturs.

Because your posts are incoherent nonsense. That doesn't mean the ideas are wrong; it means there are no ideas, just random strings of words with no semantic content. Maybe you should try Google translate. If you are already using Google translate, then maybe you need to learn to write in English.

It means that your posts consist of incoherent strings of random words. Nothing you write makes any sense.

You mean all the rest of them travel through time as well; it's just the flying that is unusual...

Crumbleshanks the Mighty despairs in the face of such pulchritude. Eat your anonymous hat, begone! Trifle not with the presbyterians beyond all understand and sitting.

Sounding more and more like a broken chatbot.

Not all criticism is contradiction. There is such a thing as constructive criticism. What makes you think that reality cannot exist without it? Colourless green sheep dream furiously while waiting for Godot. Tremble before the mercury of solidarity.

So please explain how it can be eternal (without end) but not infinite (without end). Just to be clear, to my mind, the only difference between the two words is that eternal can only refer to time, while infinite can refer to other things (for example, space). But in this case, they are both explicitly referring to time, so I am curious how you interpret them differently.

What do you mean by "oppose contradiction"? Do you just mean discussing different points of view? And what does this have to do with "reality's ability to exist"? Reality exists and there isn't much we can do about it.

I think it always happens.

Semantics is the study of the meanings of words and symbols. Rhetorical tricks refers to your evasiveness, moving the goal posts, using straw man arguments, the frequent use of fallacies such as begging the question and others. I'm not sure how you think these two things are related. You are stating your personal beliefs as fact. Which is very tedious. So not very useful, then. Then why did you claim they are different?

It gets recreated, at least partly, by the viewer. The artist may have a meaning in mind, but the viewer may see other meanings (instead or as well as the artists ideas).

I am not aware of any research (not my area and can't be bothered to Google it) but I wouldn't be surprised if it helped. Reading out loud forces you to read what is there, rather than skimming over the text and seeing what you think is there (or just missing chunks). It is recommended practice for writers to read their writing out loud when reviewing it for exactly that reason. (I have often spotted several errors in something that I though was "finished".) Also, as StringJunky says, anything that gets you to approach the subject in a different way, using different senses/parts of the brain should help.

How about some sources, rather than guesses?

Actually, what they were wrong about was their conclusion that quantum theory must be incomplete because there is a correlation between non-local measurements. Bell's inequality shows that no theory with local hidden variables can produce the same results as quantum theory (and, therefore, reality).

You seem to be forgetting the small detail that EPR were wrong.

I don't think they would be linked in the same way - where changes in one are tied to changes in the other. So in a non-relativistic universe, everyone would agree on the meaning of "now" so there would be no problem synchronising distant measurements. You would just agree to do them at 1 o'clock. In relativity (and the real world) you can't easily do that.

But if several people clearly don't understand, maybe you need to clarify rather than simply repeating the same thing.

That may make sense in the original language (or in your head) but it makes no sense in English. Why not? Please define what you mean by "the opposite of reality". Please explain the connection between "the opposite of reality" and "the source of existence". Philosophy does not necessarily have anything to do with reality. Then your stamens are meaningless. 1. Please define exactly what YOU mean by "reason" and "difference". This is very ambiguous. 2. Do you mean "the error of reason"? If so, what is that? 3. Do you mean "the error of reason or difference"? If so, what does that mean? 4. Do you mean "the error of these existing more than once"? If so, how can reason exist more than once? How can difference exist more than once? (You might find it helpful to answer (1) first.) 5. What does that mean? 6. What is this data? What is the source of this data? 7. Why are you simply repeating the same statements without explaining anything or answering any questions? If you are not interested in a dialogue, why are you on a DISCUSSION forum? Please show us some examples of this research. If this is science then show us the hypothesis, and specifically, the mathematical model. And then show us the observations or experiments that support the hypothesis. Please feel free to include error bars and statistical analysis in your presentation. Oh, you can't do that. Because it isn't science. And you say it isn't philosophy. So maybe this should be moved to Trash.

Ah, I see what you mean. Good point, well made.