Is our universe alone?

[Eodnhoj7]

Language is a flexible medium in a continual state of evolution but at the same time it has
to have some basic foundation to it otherwise communication can be rendered meaningless

Its foundation is patterns created from sense data. The patterns are labelled. Some of those labels are communicable.

It doesn’t work this way for autodidacts.

I discover patterns far faster than I can find the common labels for them. So I label them myself.

What I gain in learning I lose in communication. No free lunch :/

Rofl....there is some deep truth to this statement...

[Eodnhoj7]

1) A universe exists containing infinite universes considering these infinite universe as the continual progression of the 1 universe as constant. 1 must be infinite if it is to exist as 1.

2) These infinite universes are an extension of the 1 universe and as extensions of it mirror (replicate) its same form and function. As extensions, they are universes in themselves as following the same form and function. As existing through the nature of the 1 universe these universes replicate through eachother as eachother as 1. These infinite universes are the 1 mirroring itself as itself through infinity.

3) These "multiple" universe exist inside the 1 universe while the 1 universe exists inside the multiple universes with the "inside/outside" dualism observing the nature of "universe" as the division of nothingness through pure being where unity and multiplicity appear seperate through nothingness but nothingness in itself cancels itself out. This dualism of the one and many is in itself an observation of the "many" with this dualism, of both 1 and many as division. This division manifests ad-infinitum as "1" act where being as infinitely divided dually shows a paradoxical connection considering what must be contintually divided must at one point be connected. Hence infinite division is infinite connection. Under these terms the universe as one, many and both exists as 3 in 1, where each part is .333333 ad-infinitum, as 1 part in itself that exists through the the others as 1 through eachother. 1/3 is 1 infinity in itself existing through the infinity of .999999 as 1.


To answer the question in real simpler terms, there are infinite universes by reason alone all of them meaningful, unique and connected where the nature of "universe" stems from a process of continual movement as 1 in itself.

[Age]

I think we need to take a step back and look at what is meant by 'definition'.

How would you define definition?

Are you asking this from an OPEN perspective and so really wanting me to answer it? Or, are you just asking from the perspective that it is just a waste of time perspective?

The problem with defining words is that they can only be defined in terms of other words, and so are ultimately circular and meaningless.

Is that what the case Is?

In other words are you OPEN to; that if the definition of words, in terms of other words, fit together "perfectly" then they would still be 'circular', which does NOT have to necessarily have to be a bad or negative thing, and then could actually be truly meaning FULL also?

Well I would be open to what you suggest if I could be convinced of it , but I have to admit that I think the chances of that are pretty slim.

The irony here is you can not be convinced if you are not open first.

Human beings do not learn new things and be convinced of those new things, and then would become open. Sort of defeats the purpose of being open, to a new idea, in the beginning. The order in which human beings learn new things is;

1. Be OPEN first, (in order to just be ABLE TO look at, and discover, some thing new).
2. Learn NEW things.
3. Gain more understanding and knowledge of that now "new" thing.
4. It is self-choice whether to be convinced or not of its truth.

[Age]

How does language evolve if everybody means the same thing and uses the same words ?

Language is a flexible medium in a continual state of evolution but at the same time it has
to have some basic foundation to it otherwise communication can be rendered meaningless

Sure, but when I walk off into the Forrest to places you have never been and see things you have never seen, it is difficult to come back and tell you what I have seen and much easier to just show you, no?

But why would you NEED to tell them what you have seen?

Also, what happens if they do NOT BELIEVE you that that forrest exists, and so, based on their BELIEF, they refuse to LOOK AT what you want/need to show them?

You obviously can NOT force some one to SEE things that you have SEEN.

[Age]

Language is a flexible medium in a continual state of evolution but at the same time it has
to have some basic foundation to it otherwise communication can be rendered meaningless

Its foundation is patterns created from sense data. The patterns are labelled. Some of those labels are communicable.

It doesn’t work this way for autodidacts.

Based on your proven (dis)abilities some autodidacts are much faster teachers than others are.

To some, language is NOT limiting at all. As you are trying to insist it is.

To some autodidacts, through language, absolutely every thing in the Universe has already been labeled.

But like I just suggested some are much faster teachers, and learners, then others are

[A_Seagull]

Are you asking this from an OPEN perspective and so really wanting me to answer it? Or, are you just asking from the perspective that it is just a waste of time perspective?



Is that what the case Is?

In other words are you OPEN to; that if the definition of words, in terms of other words, fit together "perfectly" then they would still be 'circular', which does NOT have to necessarily have to be a bad or negative thing, and then could actually be truly meaning FULL also?

Well I would be open to what you suggest if I could be convinced of it , but I have to admit that I think the chances of that are pretty slim.

The irony here is you can not be convinced if you are not open first.

Human beings do not learn new things and be convinced of those new things, and then would become open. Sort of defeats the purpose of being open, to a new idea, in the beginning. The order in which human beings learn new things is;

1. Be OPEN first, (in order to just be ABLE TO look at, and discover, some thing new).
2. Learn NEW things.
3. Gain more understanding and knowledge of that now "new" thing.
4. It is self-choice whether to be convinced or not of its truth.

It is a matter of whether what is suggested is interesting or not, an entirely subjective judgement.

[Age]

Well I would be open to what you suggest if I could be convinced of it , but I have to admit that I think the chances of that are pretty slim.

The irony here is you can not be convinced if you are not open first.

Human beings do not learn new things and be convinced of those new things, and then would become open. Sort of defeats the purpose of being open, to a new idea, in the beginning. The order in which human beings learn new things is;

1. Be OPEN first, (in order to just be ABLE TO look at, and discover, some thing new).
2. Learn NEW things.
3. Gain more understanding and knowledge of that now "new" thing.
4. It is self-choice whether to be convinced or not of its truth.

It is a matter of whether what is suggested is interesting or not, an entirely subjective judgement.

Yes very true. How OPEN, or closed, a person IS, to any thing, is entirely controlled by their already obtained subjective judgement.

[A_Seagull]

The irony here is you can not be convinced if you are not open first.

Human beings do not learn new things and be convinced of those new things, and then would become open. Sort of defeats the purpose of being open, to a new idea, in the beginning. The order in which human beings learn new things is;

1. Be OPEN first, (in order to just be ABLE TO look at, and discover, some thing new).
2. Learn NEW things.
3. Gain more understanding and knowledge of that now "new" thing.
4. It is self-choice whether to be convinced or not of its truth.

It is a matter of whether what is suggested is interesting or not, an entirely subjective judgement.

Yes very true. How OPEN, or closed, a person IS, to any thing, is entirely controlled by their already obtained subjective judgement.

So how open do you think you are?

[Age]

It is a matter of whether what is suggested is interesting or not, an entirely subjective judgement.

Yes very true. How OPEN, or closed, a person IS, to any thing, is entirely controlled by their already obtained subjective judgement.

So how open do you think you are?

At times as open as can be.

If i neither believe nor disbelieve any thing, then what would i not be open to?

[TimeSeeker]

Its foundation is patterns created from sense data. The patterns are labelled. Some of those labels are communicable.

It doesn’t work this way for autodidacts.

Based on your proven (dis)abilities some autodidacts are much faster teachers than others are.

To some, language is NOT limiting at all. As you are trying to insist it is.

To some autodidacts, through language, absolutely every thing in the Universe has already been labeled.

But like I just suggested some are much faster teachers, and learners, then others are

Well, I know I am a terrible teacher, but I am a fast learner. And you couldn’t teach me anything.

So you are no better teacher than me...

[A_Seagull]

Yes very true. How OPEN, or closed, a person IS, to any thing, is entirely controlled by their already obtained subjective judgement.

So how open do you think you are?

At times as open as can be.

If i neither believe nor disbelieve any thing, then what would i not be open to?

Something that might demonstrate that the above statement was false?

[Age]

It doesn’t work this way for autodidacts.

Based on your proven (dis)abilities some autodidacts are much faster teachers than others are.

To some, language is NOT limiting at all. As you are trying to insist it is.

To some autodidacts, through language, absolutely every thing in the Universe has already been labeled.

But like I just suggested some are much faster teachers, and learners, then others are

Well, I know I am a terrible teacher, but I am a fast learner.

What does 'autodidact' mean to you?
How do you define 'autodidact'?

And you couldn’t teach me anything.

The way you can NOT comprehend expressly clearly written things is obvious to me that I can NOT teach you any thing. So, what you wrote here does NOT surprise me at all.

I have on a few occasions told you already that I am NOT here to TEACH nor convince any one, any thing, including YOU. I will tell you ONCE AGAIN, let us see if you can comprehend this time. I am HERE, in this forum, to LEARN, how to communicate better. Can you comprehend that NOW?

I could NOT teach you any thing because I am NOT even trying to teach you any thing.

I WANT to LEARN from you, every one, here, NOT TEACH.

Just what i WANT to LEARN is NOT what you might want to teach me nor what you are THINKING/ASSUMING i want to LEARN.

So you are no better teacher than me...

I NEVER even conceived of that idea, let alone could have even remotely expressed any thing like that.

Really, WHAT does 'autodidact' actually mean, to you?

[Age]

So how open do you think you are?

At times as open as can be.

If i neither believe nor disbelieve any thing, then what would i not be open to?

Something that might demonstrate that the above statement was false?

Well, I AM completely OPEN, so would you like to now demonstrate HOW My statement could be or was false?

Remember if i neither believe nor disbelieve ANY thing, then that means i also would NOT believe, nor disbelieve, the above statement.

[TimeSeeker]

Based on your proven (dis)abilities some autodidacts are much faster teachers than others are.

To some, language is NOT limiting at all. As you are trying to insist it is.

To some autodidacts, through language, absolutely every thing in the Universe has already been labeled.

But like I just suggested some are much faster teachers, and learners, then others are

Well, I know I am a terrible teacher, but I am a fast learner.

What does 'autodidact' mean to you?
How do you define 'autodidact'?

And you couldn’t teach me anything.

The way you can NOT comprehend expressly clearly written things is obvious to me that I can NOT teach you any thing. So, what you wrote here does NOT surprise me at all.

I have on a few occasions told you already that I am NOT here to TEACH nor convince any one, any thing, including YOU. I will tell you ONCE AGAIN, let us see if you can comprehend this time. I am HERE, in this forum, to LEARN, how to communicate better. Can you comprehend that NOW?

I could NOT teach you any thing because I am NOT even trying to teach you any thing.

I WANT to LEARN from you, every one, here, NOT TEACH.

Just what i WANT to LEARN is NOT what you might want to teach me nor what you are THINKING/ASSUMING i want to LEARN.

So you are no better teacher than me...

I NEVER even conceived of that idea, let alone could have even remotely expressed any thing like that.

Really, WHAT does 'autodidact' actually mean, to you?

You couldn’t understand “autodidact”.

It was expressly and clearly written, so you aren’t better off in the learning department...

And we have ourselves a catch 22 situation because at the very least you have to teach me what you want to learn. Tricky business this communication.

[A_Seagull]

At times as open as can be.

If i neither believe nor disbelieve any thing, then what would i not be open to?

Something that might demonstrate that the above statement was false?

Well, I AM completely OPEN, so would you like to now demonstrate HOW My statement could be or was false?

Remember if i neither believe nor disbelieve ANY thing, then that means i also would NOT believe, nor disbelieve, the above statement.

Presumably you believe that you neither believe nor disbelieve anything. Which is self-contradictory.