All Circular Reasoning is Linear

[Atla]

WOW. You still continue to strawman me! Have you no shame? The concept of The Universe refers to VERY MANY quarks, leptons and electrons.

I am asking you to show them to me. ALL of them!

You are still denying that the universe is there. You are asking me to show the universe, but everything around us, including us, is the unvierse so it can't not be shown.

But without a strawman - you have no argument

I made the same valid argument about information being an abstraction (as supported by all known evidence) 50 times and you avoided it 50 times. You've been called out on your bullshit but you are too intellectually dishonest to admit it.

Ok. I cannot tolerate such dishonesty and character assassination any longer.. I am just going to call you out now. You are a bullshitter!
Who cannot admit when they are wrong. Probably because you lack the ability to introspect.

Show me The Universe. Show me the COLLECTIVE NOUN of quarks, leptons and electrons.

Show me the CATEGORY in YOUR HEAD which you have labelled "The Universe".

I told you that you were projecting the avoidance, but you didn't believe me.

And now you are playing the victim, trying to turn things around. That is a typical response from your type.

While still avoiding the actual issue, strawmanning.

[TimeSeeker]

I made the same valid argument about information being an abstraction (as supported by all known evidence) 50 times and you avoided it 50 times. You've been called out on your bullshit but you are too intellectually dishonest to admit it.

And I conceded that it is just a concept in my head. And that it is real. In exactly the same way "The Universe" is real. They are both concepts.

Yet you cannot reciprocate and concede that "The Universe" is a collective noun. A category. A super-set. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superset

The things IN the set exist. The set ITSELF does not. It is just a category in your head. A concept. Which is WHY you can't point at "The Universe", but you can point at its parts - galaxies, stars, planets, black holes, atoms, quarks, leptons, electrons.

So now you are trying to twist my words. Good thing the internet is forever and anybody watching this debate gets to decide for themselves who is dishonest.

Bye Bullshitter You are now on my ignore list now.

[Atla]

And I conceded that it is just a concept in my head. And that it is real. In exactly the same way "The Universe" is real. They are both concepts.

And that's not true, the universe is both a concept and a "thing-in-itself". Information is just an abstraction, a concept based on other concepts.
If you say the universe is as "real" as information, then you essentially deny that the universe is there.

Bye Bullshitter You are now on my ignore list now.

If that will protect your fragile ego

[TimeSeeker]

And that's not true, the universe is both a concept and a "thing-in-itself"

This is demonstrably false. The Universe is not A "thing-in-itself". The Universe (a COLLECTIVE NOUN) contains MANY "things-in-themselves".

A thing means 1.
Last I bothered to check there are around 10^200 quarks, leptons and electrons. All interacting with each other to form protons, atoms, molecules, planets stars, life forms, galaxies etc. in the last 14 billion years.

If you can't tell the difference between 1 and 10^200 over 14 billion years. You are beyond help.

Poor dualist. Thinks he can step "outside" of the universe (and sit right next to God) so he can perceive The Universe as "one thing".

Know your limits, then you have no use for an ego

[Atla]

And that's not true, the universe is both a concept and a "thing-in-itself"

This is demonstrably false. The Universe is not A "thing-in-itself". The Universe (a COLLECTIVE NOUN) contains MANY "things-in-themselves".

A thing means 1.
Last I bothered to check there are around 10^200 quarks, leptons and electrons. All interacting with each other to form protons, atoms, molecules, planets stars, life forms, galaxies etc. in the last 14 billion years.

If you can't tell the difference between 1 and 10^200 over 14 billion years. You are beyond help.

Poor dualist. Thinks he can step "outside" of the universe (and sit right next to God) so he can perceive The Universe as "one thing".

Know your limits, then you have no use for an ego

That depends on whether or not we view them as separate, which is, again, another issue, not the one about abstraction. (Also, you have probably not heard of quantum non-separability, no one knows whether it applies to the entire universe or not.)
And "thing" is just a metaphor here, but English is a dualistic language. I'm a nondualist btw. But again, these issues are all strawmen here.

Is your ignore list malfunctioning btw?

[TimeSeeker]

And "thing" is just a metaphor here, but English is a dualistic language.

And all metaphors are language and language only exists in minds. I guess that is as much of an admission of wrongness I can expect from somebody as intellectually dishonest as you

"I am not a dualist" said the dualist. Separating self from universe with the word I. Else he would say nothing. For the universe needs not speak. Only humans do

Is your ignore list malfunctioning btw?

No it isn't. It works as expected. I CHOOSE to engage

[Atla]

And all metaphors are language and language only exists in minds. I guess that is as much of an admission of wrongness I can expect from somebody as intellectually dishonest as you

I don't think in language, I just express myself in language. How else should I express myself, reality is nondual but we live our everyday lives in the apparent dual. And that's fine. You understand nothing.

"I am not a dualist" said the dualist. Separating self from universe with the word I. Else he would say nothing. For the universe needs not speak. Only humans do

I don't separate myself from the rest of the universe, but that doesn't mean that I won't speak. So much nonsense you come up with.

No it isn't. It works as expected. I CHOOSE to engage

I knew you would, your fragile ego couldn't handle being proven wrong about your religion.

Post by TimeSeeker » Thu Sep 27, 2018 4:49 pm
...
Information is my religion. ...

[TimeSeeker]

I don't separate myself from the rest of the universe, but that doesn't mean that I won't speak. So much nonsense you come up with.

You are one with The universe.
The universe is one.
I am not one with you.

So many ones that are all one.

Your ego went just two steps over MY front door. To encompass ME in YOUR universe

Now you see what ego is.

[Atla]

I don't separate myself from the rest of the universe, but that doesn't mean that I won't speak. So much nonsense you come up with.

You are one with The universe.
The universe is one.
I am not one with you.

So many ones that are all one.

Your ego went just two steps over MY front door. To encompass ME in YOUR universe

Now you see what ego is.

Oneness is one extreme; separateness is another extreme. You mistake nondualism for monism and now you are lost in your own contradictions.

[TimeSeeker]

I don't separate myself from the rest of the universe, but that doesn't mean that I won't speak. So much nonsense you come up with.

You are one with The universe.
The universe is one.
I am not one with you.

So many ones that are all one.

Your ego went just two steps over MY front door. To encompass ME in YOUR universe

Now you see what ego is.

Oneness is one extreme; separateness is another extreme. You mistake nondualism for monism and now you are lost in your own contradictions.

Except I am not lost. So you contradict yourself.

Of course - the point to demonstrate is. That the unity of truth is bullshit.

You have a coherent framework you won’t let go of. I have a coherent framework I won’t let go of. I am happy with my religion.

So what then?

How do we “objectively” decide who is “right” and who is “wrong”?

[Atla]

You are one with The universe.
The universe is one.
I am not one with you.

So many ones that are all one.

Your ego went just two steps over MY front door. To encompass ME in YOUR universe

Now you see what ego is.

Oneness is one extreme; separateness is another extreme. You mistake nondualism for monism and now you are lost in your own contradictions.

Except I am not lost. So you contradict yourself.

Of course - the point to demonstrate is. That the unity of truth is bullshit.

You have a coherent framework you won’t let go of. I have a coherent framework I won’t let go of. I am happy with my religion.

So what then?

How do we “objectively” decide who is “right” and who is “wrong”?

The issue of unity of truth - is that some strawman based on a strawman based on a strawman now?

Since information is an abstraction, your framework certainly doesn't describe the world properly. It's pretty impossible to describe the world properly without understanding the Reification fallacy, in general.
Your framework may be useful for many practical purposes. You can believe in it as much as you want, but you won't overthrow 3000 years of philosophy with it.

[TimeSeeker]

Oneness is one extreme; separateness is another extreme. You mistake nondualism for monism and now you are lost in your own contradictions.

Except I am not lost. So you contradict yourself.

Of course - the point to demonstrate is. That the unity of truth is bullshit.

You have a coherent framework you won’t let go of. I have a coherent framework I won’t let go of. I am happy with my religion.

So what then?

How do we “objectively” decide who is “right” and who is “wrong”?

The issue of unity of truth - is that some strawman based on a strawman based on a strawman now?

Since information is an abstraction, your framework certainly doesn't describe the world properly. It's pretty impossible to describe the world properly without understanding the Reification fallacy, in general.
Your framework may be useful for many practical purposes. You can believe in it as much as you want, but you won't overthrow 3000 years of philosophy with it.

And that is a fallacy of gray.

I didn’t say it describes the world “properly”.
I said it describes it better than anything 3000 years of philosophy has managed.

Perfection is the enemy of good.

[Atla]

Except I am not lost. So you contradict yourself.

Of course - the point to demonstrate is. That the unity of truth is bullshit.

You have a coherent framework you won’t let go of. I have a coherent framework I won’t let go of. I am happy with my religion.

So what then?

How do we “objectively” decide who is “right” and who is “wrong”?

The issue of unity of truth - is that some strawman based on a strawman based on a strawman now?

Since information is an abstraction, your framework certainly doesn't describe the world properly. It's pretty impossible to describe the world properly without understanding the Reification fallacy, in general.
Your framework may be useful for many practical purposes. You can believe in it as much as you want, but you won't overthrow 3000 years of philosophy with it.

And that is a fallacy of gray.

I didn’t say it describes the world “properly”.
I said it describes it better than 3000 years of philosophy does.

Perfection is the enemy of good!

It doesn't, it describes the world worse. And it describes the world much worse, when we include Eastern philosophy.

[TimeSeeker]

It doesn't, it describes the world worse. And it describes the world much worse, when we include Eastern philosophy.

And now you claim objective morality else you have no method for asserting 'better' or 'worse' All you could say is that "Eastern philosophy is different".

You are appealing to Completeness ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Completeness_(logic) )
And reject all models as equally incomplete, and accuse me of reification fallacy for placing concreteness in an abstraction when you aren't even placing it anywhere.

Not very pragmatic, and the universe has a harsh way with such folly.

[Atla]

It doesn't, it describes the world worse. And it describes the world much worse, when we include Eastern philosophy.

And now you claim objective morality else you have no method for asserting 'better' or 'worse' All you could say is that "Eastern philosophy is different".

You are appealing to Completeness ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Completeness_(logic) )
And reject all models as equally incomplete, and accuse me of reification fallacy for placing concreteness in an abstraction when you aren't even placing it anywhere.

Not very pragmatic, and the universe has a harsh way with such folly.

The topic has abso fucking lutely nothing to do with objective morality.

And I'm not just saying that Eastern philosophy is different.

And I wasn't appealing to Completeness.

And I don't reject all models as equally incomplete, that would make zero sense.

And I'm placing concreteness into the conrete and abstractness into the abstract.

That's 0/5, anythin else you want to pull out of your ass?