..there are ...one is .. ..another is ...antiwave hitchhikes ...makes existence..medium was created ... name is ..She is .. who are ...they have ..they ..FRONT ...
Well, we can illustrate by your example, what the nonsense means in AWT. Many sentences can have meaning for most of users, while they're still not usable as a part of whatever causal theory ("Earth is round", "Sun is shining", "Universe is 13.2 GYrs old",....).
AWT uses so called implicate geometry
proposed by Bohm to explain this paradox. In AWT the theory appears like stream of water flowing from the top of hill in fractal landscape. Every stream of water must follow certain causal space-time gradient to be usable as a part of theory. Of course, streams can be less or more vague, i.e. formed by thin layer of water, but the general trend in causality must be always observable here.
The role of causal streams in every theory is represented by so called entailments
, whose time arrows are defined by material conditionals. The above essay doesn't contain no relation words (so called predicates) like "if", "thus", "therefore", "because", and so on. It's just a stream of "pure claims", so called tautologies (i.e. logical statements with true value undefined), which are representing zero-rank tensors (scalars) in causal space and their true value remains undefined. Albeit some sentences may sound familiar for someone or even appear meaningful in broader context, they cannot be used for derivation of logical constructs in fact, because their true value cannot be analyzed mutually and checked independently in terms of predicate logics.
From predicate logics perspective such sequence of statements isn't reproducibly testable, falsificable the less, i.e. it represents atemporal informational noise, from which nothing else can be deduced - despite the fact, it may be composed of claims, which are verified individually and intersubjectivelly accepted in general as so called axioms or postulates.
Therefore we are not required to analyze the meaning of individual sentences in above post at all, because we can safely say at the first sight, they're unusable with respect to every deeper logical construct due the absence of predicates, indicative conditionals in particular.