Depends on what you mean by element. If you're referring to a constituent particle of matter, then it most certainly can be defined.

I am not familiar with the term "lineatiry," but I have seen various and sundry definitions for "plane" and "space."

Whether those definitions are precisely accurate or not is beyond my ability to determine, but they will suffice for me for the moment.

I have his book "The End of Time." I have not gotten through it all and I have to reserve judgement until I read and study it a lot more. I find it extremely fascinating.

Yes, we are equation two fundamentally distinct naming conventions in common grammar. Thus, one can see that truth in common grammar should be simple enough, but people are not taught to think that way, yet.

And, we have to first understand units of predication, and synonyms before we start adding them together to make this long sentences we have become habituated to.

Element.

See Aristotle's Metaphysics.

He tries to explain the two distinct ways to understand "element."

Normal people see an element as a small thing, or the smallest thing, and they end up defining things in terms of things.

However the other way is to do what your body does. Some environmental acquisition systems abstract material, and discard form, like eating. We take the material, but do not become the carrot we ate.

Some abstract form, and disregard the material, like the ocular system, what we see does not end up in our head.

Neither of these are things.

One can say, every thing came from these two not things, or nothings.

I have always felt that a sentence like "Tom is happy" actually is a short cut having an "invisible" word in it that is "understood.

Tom is (feeling) happy.

Tom = subject
is feeling = verb

happy = adjective (?)

Is this right or wrong?

Like I said, I am not using traditional grammar concepts.

However, if we go back in time, there were things perceptible, and things intelligible.

One can call one nouns and the other verbs, but they are still subjects.

I think the important thing is to get your point across to the stage of understanding and actual communication.

What you're doing is inserting a previously-implied verb into the equation, and there's nothing technically wrong with that (albeit some might see it as slightly redundant!) -- as it's generally understood that Tom's happiness is a condition of his present state....i.e., the "feeling" is implicit in the structure of the original sentence.

I have not spent my life in learning, and in doing things even I thought not possible is for nothing do you?

I work a great deal on these ideas, and you should not expect me to educate anyone on them in a moment.

I do make the free audio books, ebooks, videos, to log my progress and to share the ideas.

The Two-Element metaphysics, mirrored by one's biology, and even the definition of a thing, was started by some early Greeks, but lost in history. So, I took what I could find, and am trying to wrap my brain around it.

That is why the word "feeling" is left out of the sentence. Because it is implied or understood.

Everyone knows that "happy" is not a description of Tom, its a description of how he feels.

But getting back to the actual O.P.

My original post was to draw attention to the question I have been hearing over and over again by people of all walks of life.

Some assume the "big bang" is what started everything, and in assuming that premise, they assume that "time" exists; therefore they have to ask, "What, if anything, existed 'before' the big bang?"

The obvious answer to some would be "nothing." (But can "nothing" exist?)

And people constantly refer to the "big bang" as the beginning of "time" (as we know or understand it) blah blah blah....

So we have a paradox.

If the Big Bang was the beginning of everything including "time" then one must also believe that "before" the big bang, and "before time" that nothing existed. But how can nothing exist?

I say it can't. Therefore, the "Big Bang" is still happening and that there is no beginning and no end to that which exists.

I don't think wrapping your brain around anything sounds like a very good idea.

I prefer contemplation.

For what it's worth, John, I've been following your explanation, and understanding is only just beginning to dawn in me. You're talking about a different mode of thinking than we are used to. I would have to think on it more just to gain a better understanding.

Even so, it's an interesting concept. A manner of simplifying - or distilling - words and concepts into something easily convertible to mathematics. Basically, two variables which can be broken down into sub-variables.

Almost sounds a bit like Asimov's psycho-history...

Its way beyond me. Perhaps you can serve as an interpreter.

I know how very awesome and important mathematics is and I wish I knew more about it, but that's something I've never been able to wrap my brain around. I'm not sure I would want to.

Not in this life anyway. I'm on vacation. Planet earth.

Founation, have not given that a thought for a long time. I read sci fie when a child till I could see a hole in man's imagination, then I lost interest.

Anyway, Every logic, grammar, reasoning system is based on the same concept. It is why Plato said that Philosophy was over all the sciences, and that discipline of a philosopher is dialectic.

We use language to reason with. When the principles of language are understood, it becomes clear that they are crafting systems and they follow exacting principles. Today they teach Cartesian Geometry because Descartes was trying to figure out how to write a figure up with equations. It came naturally to me, I don't use Cartesian Geometry, I write the figures up straightforward into algebra. But by doing this we learn, as Plato said, how names can and cannot be used. The same principles are for common grammar.

At present, we use language very poorly. We are habituated to it. What a few people who could see these ideas realized is that since the mind functions linguistically, the only path to improving mankind is to improving his ability to think. Now that is a very dangerous thing as many found out.

There really is a solid foundation for all of human behavior, a real right and wrong.

Most importantly, since our behavior is a function of the mind, and the mind is striving to function using principles of language, the better we think, the less of our life we waste.

In an old metaphor, the mark on the forehead and hands, the better we think, the better we can do. The real psycho-history, or history of man's mind, is Scripture. It is how it is sealed to man's understanding. No decoder right ideas, or magic, just simple principles of language man does not yet use. He may say them, but he does not use them. As far as scripture goes, one man will see religion, or heresy, another will see a psychological method.

The strange thing about you, is you're really showing vital signs of real constructive thought. You, unlike these posters of non-sense theories, reject paradox. To them, it is invisible-or to be accepted. On some level, you realize it is a fault of language use, a fault in concept.

You are on the right tract. I was defending you, to a point.

However, things change all the time. One element, material difference will always be different and can never be the same. The other element, form, is a boundary. Imagine it this way, reality is like a fluid, we never did leave the oceans.

>>>>>, reality is like a fluid, we never did leave the oceans. <<<<

Good analogy.