YMS: “And yet 2.00138E-09

YMS:
“And yet 2.00138E-09 seconds after I hit a key, a character appears on the screen that was previously outside the light cone, connected in a direct chain of causation. If I stab a man and he dies of the stab wounds an hour later, you wouldn’t say the two things were unconnected. All points in space are connectable”
And how is that character outside the light cone?
But, you interpret ‘connected’ to mean ‘causally connected’, and yet there are countless events in history that aren’t now causally connected with, say, you. For example , the death of Julius Caesar isn’t now causally connected with you, since it no longer exists.
“I wouldn’t wait, it’s nothing, really.”
But, we don’t define anything in relation to nothing, as you seem to believe.
“That is all dialectic is: indeed, Rosa has been engaging in dialectics on this forum from the off. (I’ll have top go off and read the rest of the book now).”
I’m OK with the classical definition of ‘dialectic’ (connected with argument), although I prefer to avoid it since it creates confusion when I say such things; what I am not Ok with is the metaphysical version of the dialectic many of you seem to have accepted. Moreover, I have yet to see a good reason to accept it — and I have only been looking for nigh on 30 years! Certainly, and with all due respect, no one here has come up with even so much as a weak reason.
Anyway, Schopenhauer is wrong about logic; it isn’t the ‘science of thought’. If it were, logicians would do brain scans, psychometric testing and conduct surveys; they’d not waste their time with all those useless proofs and defintions.