That feeling of devouring has appeared in time and time, and it seems that the tacit understanding between me and it is disappearing.

However, there is no pattern to speak of. Even if the same thing happened hundreds of millions of times before, there is no way to prove that it will be the same next time.

And the explanation based on the law of occurrence of this thing is even more nonsense. The idea of finding a theory as to why things happen the way they do is itself based on assumptions.

I'm assuming that the pattern of things that occur hundreds of millions of times will continue forever. Only then can I find a theory to explain and then test the theory.

It is easy to be misled, as if a theory explains something, or purportedly predicts something, and justifies the theory. In reasonable explanations, all speculation.

Yuan Changwen felt that he was very inexplicable, why was he thinking about this kind of thing? Unreal is unreal, why do he have to explain it very well, and explain it perfectly?

It's as if knocking out science at the level of science is a beautiful victory. And through a higher level of explanation, such as the picture element to explain the picture element, it is considered to be a strong argument.

.

The apple fell to the ground and shattered, which is a phenomenon I observed. So, I came up with a theory to explain this phenomenon. For example, the interaction of the force between the apple and the ground causes the apple to be unable to withstand this force and shatter.

But do I really know the relationship between the crushing of the apple and the fall of the apple?

It seems that this explanation will not be satisfactory. But why do I have to keep improving my explanations?

It's as if if I can't say it clearly, it proves that my rhetoric is just nonsense. It's funny, why should I prove that my argument is not? To whom? Who is qualified to ask me to prove it?

I don't need to gain the trust of others, because I can't be sure that others have a mind. Even if someone else is a real person like me, there is still the power of emotions to block it.

The point is, why convince people? Why do you want to gain people's trust?

If someone like me wants to kill, then just go and kill it. If other people are just coming for sightseeing, then just take a look at it, and I don't need to say anything.

Because I don't sell anything at all, and I don't need propaganda or nice words. Only when what you sell is not true, but only changes the distortion of belief in your head, then a good set of rhetoric can seem plausible and make the character agree.

But the truth, whether approved or not, is in the truth.

Who would go to great lengths to perfect the argument to prove that the sun is hot? Only those who want to prove that the sun is cold need all sorts of arguments and a series of fearful routines, such as hell if you don't believe something.

There is no need to grasp the content of these killings, Yuan Changwen really can't figure out why he wants to catch them, he doesn't need these killing contents to kill. Well, it seems that the goal of grabbing these things is only for someone else, or rather, for a better explanation.

To whom is it explained?judges?arbiters?society?others?

Perhaps, this is just the next step in the slash. Everything reminds me of one thing, I treat others as real and still want to flesh out characters.

There is no one else, right, no matter how real others seem to be, it is only the presentation of the elements of the picture. The existence of a character is false, and I try to persuade and obtain false approval of a falsehood, isn't this nonsense?

That interaction, that casual way of talking, as if everything else is the same as mine. Although the subtleties are different, in general, I have never doubted others. It seems that it is a very natural thing for many people to live in the same world.

However, being uncertain is not being certain, and I have no idea of the authenticity of others. In front of me was a human body. Words, gestures, and then what?

What reason do I have to prove that someone else is a real person? Just because they look like me and say the same thing as me, I think they are real people like me?

The point is, I'm not real. This mind, this body, is only a representation of the elements of the picture. The same is true for others, who are only part of the presentation of the elements of the picture. There is no essential difference from stones and shit.

Others are still just present, like the table, and the belief that others have a mind is just wishful thinking on my part. What other people say, how others think, and how I want to nail my own interpretation and analysis into the logical framework of other people's thinking, these ideas are nonsense in themselves.

Stuff built on countless assumptions, why should I discuss things on assumptions?

Whether it is useful or not, this is again another misleading.

Like, this theory is useful and can advance real life. Then, I don't need to care if the theory is true or speculative, as long as it works.

It's a pity that I'm not here to make life better, and unreal is unreal. Even if this theory can allow human beings to fly out of the universe, even if this theory can build a beautiful and harmonious human civilization, it is still untrue.

The assumption of this proof is that reality is real, so what is useful in reality can prove the truth of the theory.

Yuan Changwen felt that he was abandoning reality as if he were abandoning a rag, relaxed and casual. Unreal is unreal, and bargaining is just a compromise. There is no need to make everything reasonable, reality itself is not reasonable, what can't be done?

Isn't it possible to directly present the so-called contradiction in the presentation of the elements of the picture? Even, there is no contradiction at all, but only the conflict between the memory and reality presented, is this a contradiction?

The contradiction of theory is even more nonsense, one's own assumptions are wrong, one's own guesses are wrong, ignoring speculation and trying to compromise, isn't it funny?

I don't know when, I started to center on reality, as if everything had to make sense in reality, and everything had to be useful in reality. Then, let's move on.

There is nothing to argue about, and no one needs to be convinced. I'm not real, others are not real, and the so-called persuasion is only part of the stage drama. Being persuaded or not being persuaded has nothing to do with my thinking.

Any judgment is nonsense, because it is just a prejudice. And no matter how you judge it, you can't be wrong, because it's just a presentation of the elements of the picture.

So, can it be judged?

I don't know, and I don't want to answer. How do you answer a question that isn't a problem at all?

When is it pooping? What's the problem?

Yuan Changwen felt that his death would inevitably die, and he must die. The destruction of the characters is inevitable, and I also welcome the Grim Reaper's cutie Scythe. (https:)

Please remember that the first domain name of this book is:. Mobile version reading URL: