Strictly analytically, existence refers to one of the following things:
Non-existence, on the other hand, refers to predictions that we consider to be incorrect.
And that’s all these words mean.
Yes, it is.
All you’re reaffirming now is that you can’t listen. Incomprehensible to you does not impossible to everybody and everything. Computers can calculate what you, or I, cannot. Thus my point stands.
The universe includes all sets, all that is known, all that is unknown.
Good because you don’t have it, petulant child. It is a task to break through your solipsistic, autistic bubble though. I may as well do it, or, reality will pop your bubble for me, either way is fine.
I said that infinity is a process of change, not that change is infinite. This must be another of your reading mistakes.
And what does “in this sense” mean, context is required. You are quoting Russel out of context.
Humans obviously make mistakes in causation. Children, like you, believe Santa Clause is real. Thus they believe, falsely, that receiving presents on Christmas is caused by Santa Clause. That’s irrational, when premises are false. I’ve already covered this on the topic of “external versus internal causes”. You keep skipping over that, because you’re here to argue for the sake of arguing. You’ve already lost the point, long ago.
You’re the one bringing mysticism into the conversation as a strawman argument and red herring fallacy.
What I mentioned about gods and abrahamism is that most people, humanity, christians, jews, moslems, you, all associate “First Cause”, Causa Sui, to gods, for specific reason and cause. You obviously have no explanations nor deep knowledge about causality. Basically, people seek reasons/causes throughout life. When they/you cannot find them, then people use reasonability and rationality, estimation, guessing, prediction, and even mysticism. Solipsists like you go further.
You believe that “if I cannot know, then nobody must know!” This is flagrantly false and why you need to give up your points.
My argument, in response to you is, provide evidence, or even reasoning, for your hypothetical “uncaused event”. What do you mean, other than randomness, or what you personally cannot comprehend or explain? And just because something appears random to one person, doesn’t make it so to everybody else.
That’s humorous because your dead philosophers don’t side with you.
Another cop-out…
If this is what’s left of your arguments and rationality then this exchange must be at an end.
I am right, it is at an end.
Throw your tantrum, petulant child. Maybe you’ll learn after you calm down and realize the futility of your ignorance.
On the matter of unknown causes, there doesn’t need to be anything mystical, religious, or abrahamic about it. Science investigates unknown causes all the time. It’s an essential and common function of scientist. That you don’t know this fact either, discredits you even further.
Moron.
That’s subjective existence and I agree with you on that, but I mean objective existence. In order for existence to exist, it would have to come from a state of nonexistence and it will return to a nonexistent state. But nonexistence doesn’t mean a state of complete nothingness, but the polar opposite of what existence is.
“If you want to find the secrets of the universe, think in terms of energy, frequency and vibration.” Tesla
Is PI random?
That’s a good question. Hmm… well it has no repeating pattern, but it is determined. So I guess it depends on how one defines random.
“No repeating pattern” is chaos/randomness.
Most humans are solipsistic and believe that if something is not seen (the darkside of the moon) then it must not, or cannot, exist. Thus most humanity define existence according to experience and knowledge. “If you don’t know something then it doesn’t exist.”
“If I close my eyes then all the bad things go away.” That’s about 95% of humanity.
That reminds me about hurricanes with female names being perceived as less dangerous. cnn.com/2016/09/01/health/fe … index.html
Therefore if we mandate all hurricane names be female, average IQ should rise over time 
Anything x infinity is infinity according to math books but infinity itself is undefined as a specific quantity
The sequence of pi may be random given that it is irrational but pi itself is not random
Since it occupies a specific place on the number line just like every other number does
A circle has infinite sides, and so Pi represents a derivative function of infinity, hence why it cannot be calculated.
Define sides here and not your typical side.
You don’t know what a side is? Do you know what a triangle is?
Google it or ask your Kindergarten teacher.
Anything times an infinite is INFINITE, not “infinity”. Infinity is not a number, quantity, or place. Infinity is merely a vague idea of something unimaginably large.
And “random” means “lacking any predictable pattern”. So Pi, being predictable, is not random.
A side is where two points meet but a circle does not have any points
An infinite is not a number or quantity or place either but also just something unimaginably large
Just when you think the level of conversation cannot drop any lower…
“Infinite” merely means “ENDLESS”
If you multiply an endless thing by anything, you still get an endless thing. It does NOT mean that they are the SAME thing, but rather that they merely have the same quality of being endless, not equal.
It can also be unimaginably small (infinitesimal).
This is true as long as the number in question is greater than one
You multiply an endless thing by only zero then you will get zero
Okay, so tell me, oh wise one, when it comes to circles, where does each side begin and end?
At what point would you perceive a side?
Is perceiving the side of a circle as simple as that of a square or triangle or rectangle or trapezoid or pentagon, hexagon, octagon, ad continuum?
If a circle stands for infinity, how can it relate to the above shapes? Not speaking geometrically.
What if someone did not know how many degrees were in a circle and how to measure them? Where would the sides be to them?
All standard closed two dimensional shapes are 360 degrees regardless of their shape so it would not be necessary to measure them
Squares and rectangles and triangles and parallelograms and rhombuses all have the same number and so logically circles would too
So the fact that a circle has no sides would not be a problem if one could calculate the number of degrees by that simple deduction