The Multiverse Conundrum

[Atla]

So the entire universe is unbounded e.g infinite? e.g energy is infinite? Cool story

Observe how you are trying to invent a bounded (e.g finite) context...

Again: boundless but finite dimension.
Not infinite volume.

If you haven't heard of this yet then look it up. As I said: for a Timeseeker you haven't even considered circular time yet.

[TimeSeeker]

So the entire universe is unbounded e.g infinite? e.g energy is infinite? Cool story

Observe how you are trying to invent a bounded (e.g finite) context...

Again: boundless but finite dimension.
Not infinite volume.

If you haven't heard of this yet then look it up. As I said: for a Timeseeker you haven't even considered circular time yet.

I have

The phrase “boundless but finite” is an oxymoron

[Atla]

I have

The phrase “boundless but finite” is an oxymoron

Fine, imagine that you are a 1-dimensional being on a circle, or a 2-dimensional being on a sphere's surface. Where can you find the bound?

[TimeSeeker]

I have

The phrase “boundless but finite” is an oxymoron

Fine, imagine that you are a 1-dimensional being on a circle, or a 2-dimensional being on a sphere's surface. Where can you find the bound?

I can’t. But if I am to build any claimed “understanding” e.g scientific models of it.... then some simplifying ASSUMPTIONS will be made.

I have read Flatland

Either way - some inferential evidence will exist for the extra dimensions. So such claims are untestable/unfalsifiable. Not even wrong.

Unless you are claiming a belief without supporting evidence. e.g acknowledging your religion.

[Atla]

I have

The phrase “boundless but finite” is an oxymoron

Fine, imagine that you are a 1-dimensional being on a circle, or a 2-dimensional being on a sphere's surface. Where can you find the bound?

I can’t. But if I am to build any claimed “understanding” e.g scientific models of it.... then some simplifying ASSUMPTIONS will be made.

I have read Flatland

Either way - some inferential evidence will exist for the extra dimensions. So such claims are untestable/unfalsifiable. Not even wrong.

Unless you are claiming a belief without supporting evidence. e.g acknowledging your religion.

Actually extra dimensions aren't required. These examples are merely tools to start to visualize/conceptualize the idea, but the circle can be 1-dimensional and the spherical surface 2-dimensional.

[Atla]

Unless you are claiming a belief without supporting evidence. e.g acknowledging your religion.

It would be more appropriate to say that any idea about non-circular dimensions of our universe is probably religion.

[TimeSeeker]

Unless you are claiming a belief without supporting evidence. e.g acknowledging your religion.

It would be more appropriate to say that any idea about non-circular dimensions of our universe is probably religion.

You can’t test, falsify OR infer any circular claims.
Science is recursive, not circular.

And so by your criterion science is a religion.

[Atla]

Unless you are claiming a belief without supporting evidence. e.g acknowledging your religion.

It would be more appropriate to say that any idea about non-circular dimensions of our universe is probably religion.

You can’t test, falsify OR infer any circular claims.
Science is recursive, not circular.

And so by your criterion science is a religion.

Probably, but since the idea of separateness was debatedly refuted, so everything is probably interconnected with everything else in the universe, non-circularity can come across as a much more magical hypothesis.

[TimeSeeker]

It would be more appropriate to say that any idea about non-circular dimensions of our universe is probably religion.

You can’t test, falsify OR infer any circular claims.
Science is recursive, not circular.

And so by your criterion science is a religion.

Probably, but since the idea of separateness was debatedly refuted, so everything is probably interconnected with everything else in the universe, non-circularity can come across as a much more magical hypothesis.

Of course everything is connected. And in the big picture we are insignificant and our existence doesn’t matter.

So accepting that as your premises is no different to accepting nihilism. Of course - it is the logical conclusion.

Unless you have free will

I choose recursion. I choose to invent my own meaning.

[Atla]

our existence doesn’t matter

That remains to be seen.

Unless you have free will

I choose recursion. I choose to invent my own meaning.

Some people can keep their philosophical ponderings, and their everyday approach to life, largely separate, so they can kinda have both.

[TimeSeeker]

our existence doesn’t matter

That remains to be seen.

Unless you have free will

I choose recursion. I choose to invent my own meaning.

Some people can keep their philosophical ponderings, and their everyday approach to life, largely separate, so they can kinda have both.

Naturally. That is what I call dualism.

Discrepancy/inconsistency/idiosyncrasy between what you SAY and what you DO.

[Atla]

Naturally. That is what I call dualism.

Discrepancy/inconsistency/idiosyncrasy between what you SAY and what you DO.

Then they aren't keeping them separate.

[TimeSeeker]

Naturally. That is what I call dualism.

Discrepancy/inconsistency/idiosyncrasy between what you SAY and what you DO.

Then they aren't keeping them separate.

Keeping them separate (unnecessarily conpartmentalising your mind) IS what I call dualism...

There be knowledge (epistemology) and things I don’t know.

Adding yet another distinction makes that 4 categories. Occam’s razor applies to minds also

Keep it simple, stupid!

[Atla]

Keeping them separate (unnecessarily conpartmentalising your mind) IS what I call dualism...

There be knowledge (epistemology) and things I don’t know.

Adding yet another distinction makes that 4 categories. Occam’s razor applies to minds also

Keep it simple, stupid!

Right, and what about people who have an innate curiosity about existence?

[TimeSeeker]

Keeping them separate (unnecessarily conpartmentalising your mind) IS what I call dualism...

There be knowledge (epistemology) and things I don’t know.

Adding yet another distinction makes that 4 categories. Occam’s razor applies to minds also

Keep it simple, stupid!

Right, and what about people who have an innate curiosity about existence?

That isn’t the problem I am pointing out.

The problem is when your curiosity leads you to a logical conclusion different than the philosophy you apply to your day-to-day life!

Isn’t that how cognitive dissonance unfolds?
Isn’t that how late-life regret works?

“Follow your heart” and all that jazz.