Is there really a single universe?

[ken]

By the way those two theories can very easily be combined to form one truly accurate view of the Universe which by the way has already happened

Maybe in some philosophical sense but not in any way that would lead to a greater scientific understanding of how the Universe actually functions

What is the difference between 'some philosophical sense' and 'in any other way'?

Can not a 'philosophical sense' of how the Universe actually functions lead to a greater scientific understanding of how the Universe actually functions?

And, if not, then why not?

Just maybe the people in the scientific community base a considerable amount of their scientific knowledge on wrong assumptions, which is what is not leading them to a much earlier greater understanding of how the Universe actually functions. Because how the Universe actually functions is already known to some, and also pretty obvious really.

If you would like to again write what are the perceived incompatibilities that you and others see between general relativity and quantum mechanics, then I will try again to explain HOW those perceived incompatibilities can actually be re-united and re-solved again.

To Me, there is NO incompatibility between the two, there is only a perceived incompatibility.

[surreptitious57]

So if a theory of quantum gravity is currently beyond the reach of physics then how do you already know that it will be more accurate

Because it will remove the incompatibility between General Relatively and Quantum Mechanics

If a theory of quantum gravity will remove the incompatibility between general relativity and quantum mechanics as you propose it will
By the way the incompatibility has already been removed but anyhow HOW DO YOU KNOW that what removes the incompatibility will be
called a theory of quantum gravity

What is shown that actually removes the perceived incompatibility between general relativity and quantum mechanics might actually
be called some thing else. WHY do you propose a theory of quantum gravity will be the actual thing that removes the incompatibility

A GUT grand unified theory and /or a TOE theory of everything might in fact remove the incompatibility without the unnecessary
theory of quantum gravity

All things can be done a in a slow hard and complicated way. Or they can be done in a much quicker easier and simpler. The choice is yours

What a Theory Of Quantum Gravity is going to be called is of no real importance but that would be the most obvious choice however. A Theory
Of Everything or Grand Unified Theory are just other names for Quantum Gravity as they are all attempts to unify the four fundamental forces

Not everything can be done quickly and easily and simply. Physics is one such example. It is slow and hard and complicated so there is no choice

[surreptitious57]

those two theories can very easily be combined to form one truly accurate view of the Universe which by the way has already happened

Maybe in some philosophical sense but not in any way that would lead to a greater scientific understanding of how the Universe functions

What is the difference between some philosophical sense and in any other way

Can not a philosophical sense of how the Universe actually functions lead to a greater scientific understanding of how the Universe functions

Philosophy is nowhere near rigorous enough a discipline for understanding how the Universe functions and science is far better at it anyway

[Philosophy Explorer]

Many believe that the universe we have is it and disbelieve in a multiverse. On this basis we should have a single explanation for it. But we don't.

We have the theory of general relativity and we have quantum mechanics, two theories that are needed to explain our universe. All attempts at reconciling the theories have failed and all attempts to synthesize them have failed. Why?

So I'm suggesting we have at least two universes coinciding. If not, prove me wrong and show me the two theories are really one. Where is that Grand Unified Theory?

PhilX

Any theory would be relative, and that would only misguide us away from what it is we are trying to look at directly. We need to go deeper and throw away all our theories and look at this from an intuitive direct experience.

This is what I came up with .. >

The SOURCE and everything that has sprung forth from SOURCE are the same (IS-NESS)....or put another way the same ( ONE-ness )

If we think of this question in terms of is there really a single original source; then the answer is obviously yes.
A simple analogy of what I mean would go like this ..> > (the sea opens up burping forth great tidal waves; it's all just water )

As soon as a question arises about the EVERYTHING, the source is ignored completely, and the main attention is on the content. The IS-ness becomes divided into illusory conceptual parts. The EVERYTHING then becomes in relationship with it's source.

However, SOURCE is never in relationship with itself...relationship is mental activity, therefore illusory, an appearance of source.

To understand the nature of the external world of things including the distant stars and galaxies etc...we need to understand the essential nature of IS-ness or Being or Awareness that knows of such ideas...

An observation is not 'the Absolute Truth', it depends on the observer...

Physics and science is pure assumption, pure unexamined objectivism/materialism...It forgets to examine 'the supposed subject', the 'I'. Who is the 'I' that questions reality?

As long as it is not 'absolutely sure' about the subject, the examinator, the observer, the judge, etc...then ALL it's conclusions are speculations, assumptions.

And I can honestly say to you now, that that day will never come, because it would have come by now, and it hasn't come yet, since we are still asking questions... the day the subject is seen through (by no one) as just another story, the subject will fall away and with him/her ALL his/her beliefs aka knowledge and finally the whole world...because...

I am the world and the world is me.

.

I disagree with your approach as a theory is meant to be a guide, an explanation for what's happening and to be discarded only when there's sufficient evidence to overturn that theory.

PhilX

[surreptitious57]

If you would like to again write what are the perceived incompatibilities that you and others see between general relativity and
quantum mechanics then I will try again to explain HOW those perceived incompatibilities can actually be re united and re solved

A philosophical answer to a scientific question will not solve the surface discrepancy problem or remove infinity from the equations
What would really help however would be a scientific answer to these particular problems for that is what is actually required here

[surreptitious57]

To Me there is NO incompatibility between the two there is only a perceived incompatibility

There can not be any incompatibility between actual phenomena but there is in the models themselves
This is why Quantum Mechanics and / or General Relatively are only approximations of such phenomena

[Dontaskme]

I disagree with your approach as a theory is meant to be a guide, an explanation for what's happening and to be discarded only when there's sufficient evidence to overturn that theory.

PhilX

Throwing out one theory in favour of another proves irrefutably that this assumed entity that is the human intellect will never discover the secrets of itself (the universe) while looking outside itself for answers. In vain it replaces one illusion with another, then another, then after that comes another, never reaching it's destination. Only when it is realised that what you are looking for is the same place that you are looking from..and that you are already safely anchored HERE.

It's perfectly fine to disagree with this message. The intellect desires to be the knower. What you are wanting to know, IS NOT a theory.


There is no room for the intellect to make an approach. The knower is unavailable to the mind, because the mind is dual - The knower is one with itself, it's nondual.

You already are the knowing that wants to know.

If you're still in need of a guide external to you're own conscience, then you are looking in the wrong direction for you're answers. You already hold all the answers to you're questions.

It's perfectly fine to reject this message, you and only you will see this in you're own way.

.

[Philosophy Explorer]

I disagree with your approach as a theory is meant to be a guide, an explanation for what's happening and to be discarded only when there's sufficient evidence to overturn that theory.

PhilX

Throwing out one theory in favour of another proves irrefutably that this assumed entity that is the human intellect will never discover the secrets of itself (the universe) while looking outside itself for answers. In vain it replaces one illusion with another, then another, then after that comes another, never reaching it's destination. Only when it is realised that what you are looking for is the same place that you are looking from..and that you are already safely anchored HERE.

It's perfectly fine to disagree with this message. The intellect desires to be the knower. What you are wanting to know, IS NOT a theory.


There is no room for the intellect to make an approach. The knower is unavailable to the mind, because the mind is dual - The knower is one with itself, it's nondual.

You already are the knowing that wants to know.

If you're still in need of a guide external to you're own conscience, then you are looking in the wrong direction for you're answers. You already hold all the answers to you're questions.

It's perfectly fine to reject this message, you and only you will see this in you're own way.

.

How do you tell illusion from reality?

PhilX

[Dontaskme]

How do you tell illusion from reality?

PhilX

The brain has no way of distinguishing what is real or not real.

Since both real and not real are the same phenomena. Just as nondual nature of reality is duality. Duality means both real and unreal. Is and is not. Both and yet neither.

The truth is found in nondual literature, everything else is just a fictional story, including nondual literature.

It's so subtle, the mind does not grasp it...for the mind is heavily conditioned to believe anything about anything...what ever it believes it is.

In reality, reality does not hold onto a belief to be, it is with or without the belief it is.

From belief to clarity. Lose the mind and see what's left. You are that. This is that. I am that.

The universe is spontaneously self organising...but the word ''universe'' implies an object...all objects appear in reality, and it's infinitely one.
.

[Philosophy Explorer]

How do you tell illusion from reality?

PhilX

The brain has no way of distinguishing what is real or not real.

Since both real and not real are the same phenomena. Just as nondual nature of reality is duality. Duality means both real and unreal. Is and is not. Both and yet neither.

The truth is found in nondual literature, everything else is just a fictional story, including nondual literature.

It's so subtle, the mind does not grasp it...for the mind is heavily conditioned to believe anything about anything...what ever it believes it is.

In reality, reality does not hold onto a belief to be, it is with or without the belief it is.

From belief to clarity. Lose the mind and see what's left. You are that. This is that. I am that.
.

Then what do you mean by not real?

PhilX

[Dontaskme]

Then what do you mean by not real?

PhilX

Because the dynamics of mental activity works in the realm of opposites that exist in the same moment, the same now.

To know real is to know what is not real, to know what is not real is to know real.

You are the knower that cannot be known, to be known is to not know.


The universe is spontaneously self organising...but the word ''universe'' implies an object...all objects appear in reality, and it's infinitely one.
.

[Philosophy Explorer]

Then what do you mean by not real?

PhilX

Because the dynamics of mental activity works in the realm of opposites that exist in the same moment, the same now.

To know real is to know what is not real, to know what is not real is to know real.

You are the knower that cannot be known, to be known is to not know.


The universe is spontaneously self organising...but the word ''universe'' implies an object...all objects appear in reality, and it's infinitely one.
.

Just gibberish.

PhilX

[Dontaskme]

Just gibberish.

PhilX

Indeed!

Talking phantoms are full of it.

But if the shoe fits....

.

[Philosophy Explorer]

Just gibberish.

PhilX

Indeed!

Talking phantoms are full of it.

But if the shoe fits....

.

You're the one not making sense.

PhilX

[Dontaskme]

Just gibberish.

PhilX

Indeed!

Talking phantoms are full of it.

But if the shoe fits....

.

You're the one not making sense.

PhilX

I don't exist.

.