1 "Your premise deals with entropy, which of course, in a thermodynamic sense, deals with the level of interactions between molecules, from which, energy is derived and at the end tends to nothingness as you use up the amount of matter, which is converted to energy, in a closed unit. Your very 'temporary being' will eventually be permanent as it changes to nothing.
The very idea of nothingness is permanent in its grasp, once matter and energy is used up, there is nothing upon which to change this state and thus, nothingness prevails in permanence for eternity.
"
No, entropy is not mentioned in the first law, and is not needed for the demonstration I did.
Nothing ever changes to nothing (first law). Things just get more and more chaotic (laws dealing with reversability and entropy).
2 "Also, I don't believe you fail to see that if TAZ becomes non-autonomous, it invariably loses the title of being autonomous altogether and becomes 'TNAZ'. I never said Zoners will stop existing, merely TAZ will change and thus not exist in its current form. "
What you have not understood yet, despite my previous explanation, is that the name does not mean that the people inside the group have to be autonomous at every point in their lives, or every point of their membership in the organization, without a need for namechange.
3. "Merely having a child fed doesn't preclude evil. "
Didnt say it did.
4. "You cannot classify the idea of 'good', in any meaningful sense, without having the comparative of evilness upon which to compare it."
But being well fed will still be good, even if you dont know it.
The are many 'laws' in the field of physics, a premise is not based on one law alone but encompasses all, as they can be understood, in totality. The laws of any system continue invariably to a conclusion. When matter is converted to energy you lose 'useable energy' in the way of heat lost. Thus it might not be 'nothing' in that sense but it will be 'nothing' in the ability to continue the conversion of matter to energy in the closed system. In the greater universal system, once energy and matter are used up, what do you have that is useable? Answer begins with a N and ends with a G. For the continued existence of the universe, in any meaningful sense, you would have to be able to convert 100% of matter to energy and back again. A difficult task.
Whether or not some TAZ members decide to go their own way should TAZ become non-autonomous, their existence is not TAZ as it was previously, nor would it be TAZ in the naming sense. It would be a new body of Zoners, bearing some resemblance to TAZ but being different at the same time, thus not truly being what it was before.
How to you propose that one describes 'good' in a world without evil? If someone has not known evil, they would have absolutely no manner upon which to base the 'good' that they enjoy. Unless someone else tells them. Which necessitates the existence of evil simply for the 'other' person to know.
1. "The are many 'laws' in the field of physics, a premise is not based on one law alone but encompasses all, as they can be understood, in totality."
No, not all laws are needed to demonstrate something and find out about another law. If that were the case, we would know exactly 0 laws about anything right now.
2 "The laws of any system continue invariably to a conclusion. When matter is converted to energy you lose 'useable energy' in the way of heat lost. Thus it might not be 'nothing' in that sense but it will be 'nothing' in the ability to continue the conversion of matter to energy in the closed system. In the greater universal system, once energy and matter are used up, what do you have that is useable? Answer begins with a N and ends with a G. For the continued existence of the universe, in any meaningful sense, you would have to be able to convert 100% of matter to energy and back again. A difficult task."
Well you said "nothing", not "usable energy". As for the "usable energy" , you can be relieved. It is monotonically falling with the entropy increase, but the decrease slows down as it decreases, and will never reach zero. Because before it can reach zero, the decrease would also reach zero, which it cant as long as the usable energy isnt zero. Because you are slowing down as the decrease slows down, you wont notice it anyway.
3. "Whether or not some TAZ members decide to go their own way should TAZ become non-autonomous, their existence is not TAZ as it was previously, nor would it be TAZ in the naming sense. It would be a new body of Zoners, bearing some resemblance to TAZ but being different at the same time, thus not truly being what it was before."
Even if it was different in terms of members before, it doesnt change the fact that it is made up of Zoners who were at some point temporarily autonomous. "Permanently Autonomous" is a strict title which is hard to fullfill, while "temporary" is not strict and can mean pretty much anything in terms of autonimity.
4. "How to you propose that one describes 'good' in a world without evil? If someone has not known evil, they would have absolutely no manner upon which to base the 'good' that they enjoy. Unless someone else tells them. Which necessitates the existence of evil simply for the 'other' person to know."
This was already answered. You dont have to know that something is good in order for it to be good, and you dont have to know that something is bad in order for it to be bad.
The verb "be" actually means existence. So if he doesn't exist, he can't be. Therefor he can't be anything.
And the "Temporary" naming reflects only the currently intended state of the faction, as in the present nobody can foresee when will this state change, if ever will. The faction leaders however expect it to change someday in the future, hence the "Temporary" naming.
"To be" means to exist, but used like "to be something" it doesn't necessarily mean that.
I'll give you a few examples, so you understand.
To be fictional.
To be non existant.
To be a werewolf.
To be a vampire.
A person can be a vampire, if that the person who is a vampire does not exist in reality.
Someone can be a vampire, as long as he is a fictional person.
Someone can't be a vampire in reality, but he can be a vampire if he is fictional and not really existant.
Dracula is a vampire. Dracula can be a vampire because he does not really exist.
I hope this helps you to understand better.
About your thoughts on "temporary", they are correct. I hope Scanvenger listens to you, he seems to have a problem accepting things that I say for some reason.
Benjamin, I am sorry but I was not able to understand what you were saying.
"To be" means to exist, but used like "to be something" it doesn't necessarily mean that.
I'll give you a few examples, so you understand.
To be fictional.
To be non existant.
To be a werewolf.
To be a vampire.
A person can be a vampire, if that the person who is a vampire does not exist in reality.
Someone can be a vampire, as long as he is a fictional person.
Someone can't be a vampire in reality, but he can be a vampire if he is fictional and not really existant.
Dracula is a vampire. Dracula can be a vampire because he does not really exist.
I hope this helps you to understand better.
About your thoughts on "temporary", they are correct. I hope Scanvenger listens to you, he seems to have a problem accepting things that I say for some reason.
Benjamin, I am sorry but I was not able to understand what you were saying.
Hm, I am quite capable of understanding the concept of being in existence and not existing and the concept of constant change and thus the temporary nature of life. I think you misunderstand the entire idea of posting this topic in flood. Which was to have a bit of a laugh. The contradictory nature of my posts was me just having fun.
I think you're perhaps taking things a little too seriously. Not that I don't enjoy a good argument.