Hi, origin, It is difficult for me too. Part_1 looks like grammar - "Static". Things, Connections/Spaces Part_2 does not look like grammar - "Dynamic"~ Machine (-s) Connections/Spaces with direction/order give/form Flows/Currents. Genitive gives Feeding/Eating (, ... ???). Non_Genitive gives Transactions/Exchange (???) Creation/Annihilation are here. (???) 1-d space with its 2 directions (???) - - - Stimulus hunger Recognition hunger Time structure hunger ... - - - Time in Part_1: 0-d and 1-d representation, ... Time in Part_2 is with memory (???). (Now=0) is Observer's State/Quality. Memories are events which have Observer(Now=-1, ...) and Observer(Now=0) has them. Observer(Now=0) becomes Observer(Now=-1) every few seconds. Those are just speculations.
They're not even that, really. They're disjointed half-thoughts that don't cohere into a comprehensible message. Your ideas here are no yet ready for public consumption. Rewrite your speculations in sentences - in particular, using verbs - if you want to have others to be able to engage in meaningful dialogue. And avoid using personal shortcuts such as 'Observer(No=0)', etc.
You are right, DaveC426913. "Simple sentence" followed by lengthy gibberish (without verbs). It's ironic.
Hi, Equivalence gives Sides. Set gives Complementarity. Genitive-ness gives Levels/Hierarchy/Power. Non_Genitive-ness gives Next-ness.
Part_1 (looks like grammar - "Static") Things, Connections/Spaces Equivalence "gives" Sides. Set "gives" Complementarity. Genitive-ness "gives" Levels/Hierarchy/Power. Non_Genitive-ness "gives" Next-ness. Connection_over_1 "gives" Existence. Part_2 (does not look like grammar - "Dynamic") Machine (-s) Connections/Spaces with direction/order form Flows/Currents. Genitive forms Feeding/Eating (, ... ???). Non_Genitive forms Transactions/Exchange Creation/Annihilation_over_0/1 is here. 1-d space with its 2 directions of movement(/flow/current) is here. (... ?)
Maybe this should be moved to a more appropriate section of the forum, I'm thinking cesspool since it is not a new theory, it is complete gibberish.
Isn't this just one more sock puppet of what's his name? I can't even remember the name; just the style.
Hi, DaveC426913, I don't mind if thread is moved to cesspool section of the forum. The "simple sentence. ..." was post in November 2019 in a section "Outside of the box" of a linguistic forum. /which was attacked and brought down early in April this year/ Currently, "simple sentence. ..." is in "Silly Claims" section of a certain forum. I don't mind even if it is removed. No hard feelings, O. W. Grant