1 - I strive to use simple and plain vocabulary, I am a non native English speaker, I didn't use any complex language at any point in our conversation, although I have referred to complex concepts. Its not my problem that you don't grasp what they mean. In fact the reason I replied to your nonsense instead of a straight ignore function was based on the assumption you are very young, so I gave you the benefit of the doubt.
hahaha you think your concepts are too complex for me, but it is you who is stuck on the level of concepts, and can't take the ultimate step beyond them. i understand all your concepts 100%. i said you strive to use complex language, not that i didn't understand it, lol. also, i would love it if you ignored me sir. i mean i couldn't win this battle any easier, with a straight up forfeit from you.
2 - I don't want to deny the existence of events, I challenge you to quote me on that not just in this thread but anywhere on the all forum on that regard. Quite on the contrary I am asserting their existence against your questioning them, as questioning reality questions the existence of any events at all in case you haven't notice.
i didn't say you wanted to deny events. i said your silly theory that spontaneity is impossible because it relies on time, only holds true if you deny the existence of any discrete events. so i understand that you want to 'assert their existence', but your theory proves otherwise. if spontaneity requires time, then events require time. if events exist in an ensemble, then the spontaneity still exists within the ensemble. you are being simple minded by saying that if there is an infinite ensemble, then spontaneity cannot exist. you just get stuck on words, because you are more concerned that your perspective is shown to be correct. i personally don't care about concepts such as spontaneity, space, time, existence. these are random musings. also, it is only because there is some truth in my words that you are bothering to respond.
3 - Again events need a background where to occur such as space and time, but space n time need not be the ultimate structure of reality. In fact if they are not then events although ordered in past present and future exactly as they are now can still be said part of an ensemble. Once all the structure of spacetime itself co-exists.
ok, you think what you said above is one of your 'complex concepts'. unfortunately no, i get it fully. it is just meaningless to me though, what are you trying to prove? is the argument about spontaneity or reality now? i don't know anymore. i am only arguing for spontaneity because you are denying it. i am only arguing against reality because you are trying to assert it.
4 - I wonder if you are not trolling when in your attempt to rebut the simplest of my assertions you state you don't need a real question to question the real...I can only conclude either you didn't spare 2 seconds to think on the matter or that you are beyond hope. Obviously in order to question anything at all there must be questions so to state that there is questioning. How thick can you be to not get it is beyond me.
you wonder if i'm trolling because you only see the simple minded view of 'questioning reality'. if you just sit there and say 'is there a reality? ohhh wait here i am asking the question. yep there must be reality.' then yes, congrats to you, you can stop at that level of inquiry. if you go a bit further, you can actually question yourself also. how do you know you exist. because you have some sensory experiences constantly happening. something feels like it is happening in your body and mind. but the source of that feeling of consciousness can never be fully arrived at. so, you are assuming that 'experience' is real, even though you are unable to get to its source? you can't actually know for sure what is the source of your consciousness, yet you believe it is real 100%, just because some sort of 'experience' is happening in your 'consciousness'. when you really question the consciousness itself, and try and find out what is the subject, the observer, 'yourself', eventually, or at least in my case, i concluded that there is 'nothing' there. hence my conclusion that all of 'reality' is just an illusion of a primary consciousness which cannot be said to exist outside its own self-defined 'existence'.
you state you don't need a real question to question the real...I can only conclude either you didn't spare 2 seconds to think on the matter or that you are beyond hope. Obviously in order to question anything at all there must be questions so to state that there is questioning.
in order to question anything, there must be a question. yes. but that sentence is made of english words, from which we derive meanings. the idea of a question is just a concept. so now i want to question reality. reality is also a concept. if you assume a reality, then of course, to question it, one needs a real question. but if you stop assuming a reality (yes of course its paradoxical because 'you' appear to exist and are questioning), but if you just try anyway, it becomes obvious that there is no way to assert a reality either, except by trusting your own conscious experience. if you negate consciousness completely, there is nothing else to find except empty nothingness. therefore, this empty nothingness could also be the only true 'reality'.
to conclude, again, please ignore me, because it is clear that what i am saying is not quite being understood. this was my thread, your opinions have been amusing to me, so thank you.