Everything physical has duration, even if that duration is almost infinitessimal, such as with some sub-atomic particles, or virtually infinite, such as the univers as a whole.

But you do touch on an interesting thing about "change" itself. That is, if something "changes", is it still "the same thing", or is it actually "a different thing"? It is axiomatic that "change" requires "time", and thus "space" as well. But what else does it require? Quantum non-locality points to some interesting possibilities here. If two things separated by space instantly "change" sychronously, are they really "different"? Or are they actually the same thing? --Sky

I'm clipping out some pieces here, as it's the only way I can manage to understand where you are going. If you say everything physical has duration, then how do you incorporate the finding that energy is actually matter and matter is actually compressed energy? For these I have come to believe (discovery channel) are one and the same. It's only a question of taking on different forms. Some are perceptible to the human eye, and those that are not are translated through graphics and so forth, in order to be comprehended conceptually.

Warm greetings to you Trunner. Thanks for joining us here. Fantastic insight. The best arguments are an art, artful in the way we actively listen, interpret at best value, and dissolve impending conflict when feelings may come into play.

Now you've got me looking up the difference between universal and absolute...
Absolute
One of Websters answers: Unrelated and unaffected by anything else
Unaffected by circumstances of time, space or material.

Universal: Any general or widely held concept or principle. Applying to all members of a particular class or genre.

So, it looks like the difference here is mainly in its usage. Absolute is used for as a basis for measurements in science,
whereas Universal is used by orators in philosophical discussions or gross generalizations of people, places and events.
Right?

Cool. I never thought of that distinction. You politely corrected my word usage. Thanks Sky.

But does everything have duration?? Really? Or is it all about an endless continuum of changes, which we decide to stop-gap, if you will, in order to identify the processes in an intelligible way?

Note to the fiesty: Waxy old dude is not meant an insult. Just a nice sounding phrase that means little to nothing, such as "My Old Man" Just gives a little punch to the reference, no harm intended Wax. If I didn't think you're writing was worth reading, I wouldn't.

Ahha! Gotcha Jane,
Every interaction has a purpose. What if mine was not only two-fold, but three-fold? Would you like me to explain? Ok, I'll just take a chance you do. First, I did see an obvious flaw in Wax's ability to attract women. Please excuse me, WAX. His overly verbose synopsis of what constitutes a worthwhile argument explicitly excludes the element of emotions. Women, and all humans, but especially women, may think quite logically, but act upon their emotions 95% of the time. Why did you call me Darling? For lack of a nicer word, or as a backhanded slap, no matter. I am calm and cool, working on collected. And now I see a kind of psychotic reverence for the Waxy old dude. Try to identify the underlying purposes in every word you have printed here. Sorry WAX, but you see what I'm saying.

Somebody had a logic class. Good Job CreativeSoul

What is real is whatever most of the people believe most of the time. Therefore, in India, the Ghanges is a sacred river. In America, Tom Cruise is hot. All women will sleep with Brad Pitt after watching Thelma and Louise. Someone is going to argue with me. Because MOST of the people believe they can argue about anything MOST of the time.

Here Here!!
Nice work SkyHook

I like this.

Truth is subjective.

Logic is objective,
that is, either the argument is valid or invalid.
Carp is a fish. Charlie Tuna is a fish.
Charlie Tuna is a carp. Valid??

There is a science to it. You have to be able to distinguish the pattern of premises and conclusions. Then you can decide if the pattern of thinking is valid or invalid.

Above is the original arguement. I actually think it has some basis in reality. Without inflection, it's easy to misunderstand. I think Jason meant, If you are arguing purely to win an arguement, there is no valid reason to play other than to compete.

furthermore, I am guessing someone has been attacking Jason's posts somewhere else in the community. and he is justified to feel offended.

Who wants to play fair? No one is kid-king anyone's butt, butt me I'm calling in the big guns.
Evan where are you?


Would anyone like to know why Jason started this whole thing? did it have something to do with jane? Tell us what happened Jason, or Jane or Whoever said something so perfect it couldn't be denied?

Now, WUX...no one is going to read all this. Even though i did. But I must say you have revealed the obvious reason why you're never going to get a woman in your corner. Gjeeeeesh!!

Goodnight my friends. It's tomorrow here already. Sweet dreams

Which brings us to Feeeelings, whoa oh oh feeeeeelings. The loser goes away frustrated and the winner goes away cocky in a bad arguement. In a good arguement, you win some points and you lose some. Back to the art of it. All involved must be careful to keep the balance of points won fairly level. So that everyone gets some consession, and no one goes home without a cookie.

How about this. Just by clicking on your quote, I can cause you to repeat yourself. That is similar to the way people try to control an arguement, with the purpose of making the person look silly.

Just kidding about dismissing you, Evan. Great idea. Multiple perspectives is the beauty of arguement.

We do in fact know what the original antecedent was, just not specifically. btw i am going to dismiss what evan had to say...because I can...he is talking about an emotional issue here...not one where you look at the planets and say is it a gas or an energy, etc. He is upset that people argue stupidly, purely for the sake of shedding blood, sweat and tears. Does anyone here agree?

I know you're typing madly now, Wux. Trying to get ahead of me huh? Well i'm typing while you're thinking, so now what are you going to do? Here's the thing...

Hey Wux, don't get wuxy on me. I came here to fight, and fight I will! Unless ya'all just want to be friends. Then forget about it. Now, I like what you said Wux, so please continue. Chess players do win and lose. And an arg. can win a fight if others go along with him, or if he proves fact as holding true in all conditions at all times. After that he may have to ammend these things to suit the changing times. That provides him a whole new game. And these games are constantly being refreshed, revamped, reconfigured...