What does "gone" mean, if not "somewhere(/thing) other than where(what) they were in the past"?

( Flapjack I spay a little mare for you, Tue 9 Jun 2009, 21:51, archived)

You should know better than to get involved in this one.

( Neptune A dole queue dosser and foul mouthed chav., Tue 9 Jun 2009, 21:53, archived)

they remain in exactly the same place in space and time as ever they did, do and will.
you are thinking of existence as transient and only applies to the present.
( Moon Girl Technologies horrendous beanbag, Tue 9 Jun 2009, 21:54, archived)

But you can't go back to that space and time.
Maybe in terms of quantum theory. But not in the majority of people's understanding of the way the world works.
( hoifbjifbef, Tue 9 Jun 2009, 21:56, archived)

you ARE that space and time.
there's no going about it.
( Moon Girl Technologies horrendous beanbag, Tue 9 Jun 2009, 21:57, archived)

I'm not thinking of anything,
you're misusing language (which is developed and used in transient experience) to score New Age waffle points.
( Flapjack I spay a little mare for you, Tue 9 Jun 2009, 21:58, archived)

"existence" isn't transient as a concept.
it may appear so grammatically, insofar as it would be correct grammar to say that something "existed" as much as it would do say it "exists in the past" and "does not exist now or in the present". There's nothing New Age about any of this. Mathematicians use the term with no reference to time or chronology whatsoever.
( Moon Girl Technologies horrendous beanbag, Tue 9 Jun 2009, 22:01, archived)

You're still waffling
human experience is transient. The fact that money existed in your bank account and will always have existed in your bank account at a certain time (which is only saying it existed) won't stop you being evicted for non-payment because at the time of demanding the money was gone.

You're at best replying to a conversational use of "gone" with a totally different definition. It doesn't show you're right, just that you've misunderstood the meaning of what was being said.
( Flapjack I spay a little mare for you, Tue 9 Jun 2009, 22:09, archived)

I can't help but think that you've misunderstood the meaning of what I've said,
either that or you're for some reason motivated to prove that the universe is a fundamentally depressing place.

Human experience is transient, that is correct. But "experience" as such is only a point of view. See things differently, intellectually, and things don't look so bad.
( Moon Girl Technologies horrendous beanbag, Tue 9 Jun 2009, 22:18, archived)

If you find it depressing, that's up to you
I'm taking issue with saying something that's gone is not gone because it's still where it was in the past at that point in time.

Whereas it's gone, by the definition of "gone", so if that gone-ness is upsetting or disquieting to someone, you don't change anything about its gone-ness or their affect, you just dangle shiny sophistry to distract them. Which may have been your aim, but I suspect not.
( Flapjack I spay a little mare for you, Tue 9 Jun 2009, 22:26, archived)

I think the problem may be with the word "gone" itself.
I suppose what I'm saying is that nothing is really ever literally gone at all. Or that "gone" doesn't strictly mean "non existent".
( Moon Girl Technologies horrendous beanbag, Tue 9 Jun 2009, 22:33, archived)