/sci/ - Science & Math

No, your conclusion doesn't follow at all.

What is now happening has not already happened, nor has it not yet happened, but it is HAPPENING. Your wording is flawed.

>>2056824
Your conclusion is flawed. What hasn't yet happened and what hasn't already happened are past and future. We are in the present with what is happening how did you come to that conclusion ?

1. What has already happened is not now happening. What has not yet happened is not now happening. What is now happening has not already happened, nor has it not yet happened. Doesn't this mean that nothing can happen?

2. What is happening is in the process of happening now. What has already happened and what has not yet happened are not in the process of happening now.

3. How is the happening of the now-happening possible? If there is no happening at all, then the now-happening cannot happen.

4. What is happening now might not happen, but it seems that what is happening now is happening now, doesn't it?

5. If what is happening now is happening now, then, in the happening of what is happening now, there are two happenings: (1) that which is happening now and (2) the happening of that which is happening now.

6. If there are two happenings, then there must be two things that happen (two happeners), for there cannot be a happening without a happener.

7. If we can't say that anything is happening unless there is a happener (something that happens), then if nothing is happening, how could there be a happener (something that happens)?

8. Whatever happens must be either something that happens (a happener) or something that does not happen (a non-happener). If neither a happener nor a non-happener happens, what else is there that could happen?

9. If nothing happens, there cannot be a happener.1 If there is no happener, then we cannot say that a happener happens.

10. Someone who thinks that a happener happens (that is, that something that happens happens) must also think that there can be a happener even when nothing is happening.

11. If a happener were to happen, then we would have two happenings: (1) the happening of the happener and (2) the happening of the happening.

12. What is happening now doesn't begin with what has already happened, nor does it begin with what has not yet happened, nor does it begin with what is happening now (that is, with itself).3 Where, then, is the beginning of what is happening now?

13. We cannot find the beginning of what is happening now in that which is prior to the beginning of what is happening now (that is, in that which has already come and gone), nor can we find it in that which has not yet happened. Where, then, is it?

14. We can distinguish between (1) what has already happened, (2) what is happening now, and (3) what has not yet happened; but we cannot find the beginning of what is happening now anywhere.

15. [We can distinguish between (1) things that happen (happeners) and (2) things that do not happen (non-happeners).] Happeners are not standing still, but non-happeners are not standing still either.4 Other than happeners and non-happeners, what else is there that could be standing still?

16. The idea of a non-moving happener (that is, of something happening that doesn't happen) is nonsensical. Something happening without happening never happens.

17. Something that happens does not stop happening (1) because it is happening, or (2) because it has already happened, or (3) because it has not yet happened. Happening is the same as beginning to happen, and having already happened is the same as ceasing to happen.

18. It doesn't make sense to say that "the happener is the same as the happening" or that "the happener is different from the happening."

19. If the happener were the same as the happening, then actor and action, deed and doer, would be identical.

20. If the happener were different from the happening, then it would follow that there could be happeners without happenings and happenings without happeners.

21. If happener and happening are neither identical nor different, then how should we understand them? 22. When something that happens happens, it isn't caused to happen by its happening since it has no existence before it happens. So is there, in fact, anything that happens?

23. Something that happens doesn't show itself in a happening other than the happening by which it shows itself. Something that happens cannot show itself in two distinct happenings.

24. An existent happener's happening does not happen in any of "the three ways" (that is, neither in the past, nor in the future, nor [even] in the present). A non-existent happener's happening also does not happen in any of "the three ways."1

25. Therefore, neither an existent nor a non-existent happener's happening happens in any of "the three ways." The happening, the happener, and the happened are all non-existent.

the fuck are you getting this list?

>>2056824
happenings are relative

how much nog could a nig nog hog if a nig nog could hog nog

>>2056824
>>2056824
Hey GUIZE ITS ME AETHER...I AM A ENGLISH MAJOR THAT GOT BANNED FROM LIT. NOW I POST FAGGOTRY ON SCI. I LOVE COCK AND CRAVE ATTENTION. PLEASE PAY ATTENTION TO ME, PLEASE PAY ATTENTION TO ME, PLEASE PAY ATTENTION TO ME, PLEASE PAY ATTENTION TO ME, PLEASE PAY ATTENTION TO ME, PLEASE PAY ATTENTION TO ME, PLEASE PAY ATTENTION TO ME, PLEASE PAY ATTENTION TO ME, GUIZE!!!

Okay, if this is Buddhist philosophy, I am seriously underwhelmed.

>>2056912
No, aether would be tripfagging.

All things are relative which means nothing intrinsically exists.

PLEASE PAY ATTENTION TO ME,
PLEASE PAY ATTENTION TO ME,
PLEASE PAY ATTENTION TO ME,
PLEASE PAY ATTENTION TO ME,
PLEASE PAY ATTENTION TO ME,
PLEASE PAY ATTENTION TO ME,
PLEASE PAY ATTENTION TO ME,
PLEASE PAY ATTENTION TO ME, GUIZE!!!