Is our universe alone?

[Atla]

And, any BELIEF in absolutely any thing, which may NOT even be True, could also be seen as 'just a form of insanity', also.

Well I wouldn't rate the belief that there's a monitor in front of me, and the belief in absolute certainty, as equally insane.

WHY are you FAIRLY CERTAIN of such a thing? There is NOTHING that I have seen here in this thread, nor even in this forum, that would even imply such a thing. Did you come to that 'fairly certain' all by your self?

Because as to my knowledge, that's what loops are. Loops are loops, not recursive spirals.

If, belief in absolute certainty is just a form of insanity,
then could belief in being fairly certain be just a higher degree form of insanity?

If you mean, higher degree than belief in absolute certainty, then no.

Did ANY one say, or even suggest, here that the NOW is NOT moving, NOT changing, NOT evolving, and/or NOT even in Creation, Itself?

WHAT exactly made you think up or of such a thing?

Yes, I did. Because loops are loops, not recursive spirals.

The kind of change and evolution that we normally talk about / experience is already there in the eternal now.

[TimeSeeker]

Come on now "timeseeker" I have explained to you MANY times ALREADY how to find the True, Right, Correct objective, and even absolute, TRUTH, from the countless so called "truths" that you human beings see, make up, and even BELIEVE are true. Surely you, of all those people, are NOT that slow in learning and understanding from the actual words that I write down here in front of you in this forum?



OBVIOUSLY, 'which truth is the most true' IS the One that EVERY one, as One, agrees is the most true. Speaks for itself. Like I just said, I have explained that to you many times already. I do this by just writing the same words again and again. You are looking at the actual words that I put in front of you, RIGHT?

Or, are you only seeing some parts, and/or ONLY seeing what you WANT to see?

No you didn’t. You explained to me how to find YOUR truth. And I disagree with it, so it can’t be true then?

On the other hand, lots of people including most scientists agree with my truth.

What you forgot to explain is why your truth is better than my truth. It is just your naive insistence that everybody should think like you.

Like every youngster that ever lived on Earth.
You are explaining how, not showing how.

The trouble with you, "timeseeker", and the countless other ones, just like YOU, who continually JUMP to the WRONG conclusion is your responses are boringly monotonous, and extremely predictable.

NOW, you might be jumping to the WRONG conclusions time and time again because I can NOT communicate properly, or because you are NOT reading the actual words that I am writing from a truly OPEN perspective. Or, I could be writing in a certain way to get people like YOU to give the same boring monotonous responses that you are continually giving, and which are clearly obviously WRONG?

If it is the latter, then I do that to show the observers how you, and others, will jump to completely and utterly WRONG conclusions BECAUSE of your BELIEFS and ASSUMPTIONS, which are based SOLELY from your own past personal experiences.

So there are many truths but some truths are wrong?

Ok. Define “wrong”.

Is your truth right or wrong?

[Nick_A]

Since this thread came from another thread. The same issue still remains; What is the actual definition of the thing being talked about?

The 'thing' being discussed in this thread is the 'Universe'. So, what is the definition of the 'Universe'. When the RIGHT definition is found/given, then the RIGHT answer to the question WILL BE KNOWN.

HOW we will KNOW if we have the 'right' definitions and answers IS when there is NO thing in disagreement with those definitions AND answers. They will be RIGHT because they ALL fit together perfectly to form a perfectly very easy and simply understood and explained 'picture' of the real thing.

So, what is the RIGHT definition for the 'Universe'?

You WILL KNOW when you have the RIGHT answer.

If you would like a suggestion, the I am more than willing to provide one.

I would be interested in your definition of "universe." For me the definition is everything existing as a unity within ONE. Uni means one and verse relates to the word diversity.

I could not agree more.

The diversity of every thing (two words to describe absolutely every (single diverse) thing) when brought together or united IS and, literally, becomes everything (one word) as, and within, One.

If that definition is a rough enough definition for now, then obviously the Universe is One and thus IS alone. There, literally, can NOT be any thing above, beyond, or outside of Everything, which can also be known as ALL-THERE-IS.

In the Bible universe is described as "I AM." I is the conscious whole within which the diversity of AM interacts at its lawful levels of reality.

I could not agree more, here also.

The way I read the bible the Creator of the Universe IS Itself. Seeing how the Universe is obviously eternal and infinite, then It is the One Creator. And, also obviously by the way the Universe actually works It is thee Creator too. The 'I', in the invisible to the human eye sense, is the Spiritual God talked about in the bible. As the Universe is fundamentally made up of two things, they being matter and space, space being obviously that invisible to the human eye part and matter being that obviously seen with human eyes is the physical, BOTH co-exist together as One - The Creator. How is every physical form created? Through the interaction of physical matter. In this obviously seen by human eye sense ALL physical parts of the Universe is the Creator, sometimes referred to as the Creator God. Obviously when two things interact together that is an action, which obviously creates a reaction, and that reaction IS creation. Always has, always will be, and always IS, happening NOW in an evolving-creation. Absolutely every (individual diverse) thing IS created, and, is always evolving as and within the One Everything. Matter can NOT freely move without space so the empty distance between ALL physical objects of matter is needed for Creation, Itself, to exist. The Universe, Itself IS the Creator of Its Self. Always IS forever-NOW. Matter without space is an unchangeable form. Space without matter is no thing, and as one is nothing. Therefore, BOTH space and matter have NEEDED to co-exist forever for Creation, to be Creating, Its Self.

That is just a tiny snippet of my clumsy writings, of which I am continually learning to communicate better. There are countless of other ways to rearrange words so that the actual TRUE, RIGHT and CORRECT absolute picture of HOW exactly ALL-THERE-IS works and exists can be shared, and thus come into agreement with EVERY one as One. But this forum obviously is certainly NOT the place for that, yet.

Perhaps we can discuss some of these ideas you bring up for example matter and space. Is space empty for example or does it contain everything Plato referred to as above his divided line analogy? The important beginning as I see it has to be agreement on the necessity of the functioning universe to have a conscious source. Read this explanation of the ONE as described by Plotinus. Do you see anything of value in it? For me I view the universe as the "body of God" as explained on Panentheism. The ONE is beyond time and space while creation is governed by the laws of time and space so the universe is within the ONE. Does this make sense to you?

https://www.iep.utm.edu/plotinus/

The 'concept' of the One is not, properly speaking, a concept at all, since it is never explicitly defined by Plotinus, yet it is nevertheless the foundation and grandest expression of his philosophy. Plotinus does make it clear that no words can do justice to the power of the One; even the name, 'the One,' is inadequate, for naming already implies discursive knowledge, and since discursive knowledge divides or separates its objects in order to make them intelligible, the One cannot be known through the process of discursive reasoning (Ennead VI.9.4). Knowledge of the One is achieved through the experience of its 'power' (dunamis) and its nature, which is to provide a 'foundation' (arkhe) and location (topos) for all existents (VI.9.6). The 'power' of the One is not a power in the sense of physical or even mental action; the power of the One, as Plotinus speaks of it, is to be understood as the only adequate description of the 'manifestation' of a supreme principle that, by its very nature, transcends all predication and discursive understanding. This 'power,' then, is capable of being experienced, or known, only through contemplation (theoria), or the purely intellectual 'vision' of the source of all things. The One transcends all beings, and is not itself a being, precisely because all beings owe their existence and subsistence to their eternal contemplation of the dynamic manifestation(s) of the One. The One can be said to be the 'source' of all existents only insofar as every existent naturally and (therefore) imperfectly contemplates the various aspects of the One, as they are extended throughout the cosmos, in the form of either sensible or intelligible objects or existents. The perfect contemplation of the One, however, must not be understood as a return to a primal source; for the One is not, strictly speaking, a source or a cause, but rather the eternally present possibility -- or active making-possible -- of all existence, of Being (V.2.1). According to Plotinus, the unmediated vision of the 'generative power' of the One, to which existents are led by the Intelligence (V.9.2), results in an ecstatic dance of inspiration, not in a satiated torpor (VI.9.8; for it is the nature of the One to impart fecundity to existents -- that is to say: the One, in its regal, indifferent capacity as undiminishable potentiality of Being, permits both rapt contemplation and ecstatic, creative extension. These twin poles, this 'stanchion,' is the manifested framework of existence which the One produces, effortlessly (V.1.6). The One, itself, is best understood as the center about which the 'stanchion,' the framework of the cosmos, is erected (VI.9.8. This 'stanchion' or framework is the result of the contemplative activity of the Intelligence.

[Age]

And, any BELIEF in absolutely any thing, which may NOT even be True, could also be seen as 'just a form of insanity', also.

Well I wouldn't rate the belief that there's a monitor in front of me, and the belief in absolute certainty, as equally insane.

Could, what you call, the monitor in front of you, NOT be True? If it could NOT not be true, then is that 'absolute certainty'? Is it a form of insanity or not?

WHY are you FAIRLY CERTAIN of such a thing? There is NOTHING that I have seen here in this thread, nor even in this forum, that would even imply such a thing. Did you come to that 'fairly certain' all by your self?

Because as to my knowledge, that's what loops are. Loops are loops, not recursive spirals.

You wrote: But I'm fairly certain that if everything loops back into itself within the eternal now, then that means that no change is ever possible.

YES I KNOW to your knowledge loops are loops, and they are not recursive spirals. As I see them I agree wholeheartedly with you also. BUT, that was NOT was WHAT you said, that I was questioning about. What you said, of which I was questioning you was; If everything loops back into itself, then that means NO CHANGE IS EVER POSSIBLE. (and that you were fairly certain of this.)

The NO CHANGE IS POSSIBLE part was the point that I was questioning you with my two questions. That are;

WHY are you FAIRLY CERTAIN of such a thing?
Did you come to that 'fairly certain' (view) all by your self?

I asked BOTH questions because I do NOT see anywhere HOW if every thing loops back into itself then that means that NO CHANGE IS POSSIBLE. That is NOT a VIEW I have seen anywhere. Unlike you it is NOT a view I have nor hold.

So, if you explain WHY you are fairly certain that NO change is possible if everything loops back into itself. And, if you also explain HOW you came to that 'fairly certain' view that change is not possible if everything loops back into itself, then I might possible be able to see WHY you see this.

If, belief in absolute certainty is just a form of insanity,
then could belief in being fairly certain be just a higher degree form of insanity?

If you mean, higher degree than belief in absolute certainty, then no.

This is not what I meant.

Did ANY one say, or even suggest, here that the NOW is NOT moving, NOT changing, NOT evolving, and/or NOT even in Creation, Itself?

WHAT exactly made you think up or of such a thing?

Yes, I did. Because loops are loops, not recursive spirals.

But if Everything loops back onto Itself, then does that NECESSARILY mean that change is an impossibility?

The kind of change and evolution that we normally talk about / experience is already there in the eternal now.

Okay.

[Age]

No you didn’t. You explained to me how to find YOUR truth. And I disagree with it, so it can’t be true then?

On the other hand, lots of people including most scientists agree with my truth.

What you forgot to explain is why your truth is better than my truth. It is just your naive insistence that everybody should think like you.

Like every youngster that ever lived on Earth.
You are explaining how, not showing how.

The trouble with you, "timeseeker", and the countless other ones, just like YOU, who continually JUMP to the WRONG conclusion is your responses are boringly monotonous, and extremely predictable.

NOW, you might be jumping to the WRONG conclusions time and time again because I can NOT communicate properly, or because you are NOT reading the actual words that I am writing from a truly OPEN perspective. Or, I could be writing in a certain way to get people like YOU to give the same boring monotonous responses that you are continually giving, and which are clearly obviously WRONG?

If it is the latter, then I do that to show the observers how you, and others, will jump to completely and utterly WRONG conclusions BECAUSE of your BELIEFS and ASSUMPTIONS, which are based SOLELY from your own past personal experiences.

So there are many truths but some truths are wrong?

Obviously some subjective personal truths can BE and ARE wrong.

Also, from another perspective, If ALL subjective personal truths ARE considered as could be wrong until they have been actually verified as being True and RIGHT, then that person with their own personal views IS remaining OPEN, and thus then ABLE TO discover what the true and actual TRUTH IS. I have already explained HOW to find and verify what THEE actual and real TRUTH IS.

Ok. Define “wrong”.

NOT RIGHT.

Is your truth right or wrong?

Now you are getting into territory that you will NEVER understand, that is; from the way that you look at things now.

When 'you' say the word 'your', who/what are 'you' referring to, or what do 'you' mean? HOW does that one, who is self-labelled "timeseeker", define the word 'your'?

I asked you to define things like this previously. But you declined to.

Until you are able to clarify what you are actually asking, then how will I KNOW what you are referring to?

[Age]

I would be interested in your definition of "universe." For me the definition is everything existing as a unity within ONE. Uni means one and verse relates to the word diversity.

I could not agree more.

The diversity of every thing (two words to describe absolutely every (single diverse) thing) when brought together or united IS and, literally, becomes everything (one word) as, and within, One.

If that definition is a rough enough definition for now, then obviously the Universe is One and thus IS alone. There, literally, can NOT be any thing above, beyond, or outside of Everything, which can also be known as ALL-THERE-IS.

In the Bible universe is described as "I AM." I is the conscious whole within which the diversity of AM interacts at its lawful levels of reality.

I could not agree more, here also.

The way I read the bible the Creator of the Universe IS Itself. Seeing how the Universe is obviously eternal and infinite, then It is the One Creator. And, also obviously by the way the Universe actually works It is thee Creator too. The 'I', in the invisible to the human eye sense, is the Spiritual God talked about in the bible. As the Universe is fundamentally made up of two things, they being matter and space, space being obviously that invisible to the human eye part and matter being that obviously seen with human eyes is the physical, BOTH co-exist together as One - The Creator. How is every physical form created? Through the interaction of physical matter. In this obviously seen by human eye sense ALL physical parts of the Universe is the Creator, sometimes referred to as the Creator God. Obviously when two things interact together that is an action, which obviously creates a reaction, and that reaction IS creation. Always has, always will be, and always IS, happening NOW in an evolving-creation. Absolutely every (individual diverse) thing IS created, and, is always evolving as and within the One Everything. Matter can NOT freely move without space so the empty distance between ALL physical objects of matter is needed for Creation, Itself, to exist. The Universe, Itself IS the Creator of Its Self. Always IS forever-NOW. Matter without space is an unchangeable form. Space without matter is no thing, and as one is nothing. Therefore, BOTH space and matter have NEEDED to co-exist forever for Creation, to be Creating, Its Self.

That is just a tiny snippet of my clumsy writings, of which I am continually learning to communicate better. There are countless of other ways to rearrange words so that the actual TRUE, RIGHT and CORRECT absolute picture of HOW exactly ALL-THERE-IS works and exists can be shared, and thus come into agreement with EVERY one as One. But this forum obviously is certainly NOT the place for that, yet.

Perhaps we can discuss some of these ideas you bring up for example matter and space. Is space empty for example or does it contain everything Plato referred to as above his divided line analogy?

To me, 'space' is not a thing in and of itself. 'Space' therefore is no thing. 'Space', to me, is just the distance between two physical things.

Really I do not read much of any thing, so i had no idea of a 'divided line analogy' but when i had a quick glance of it just now, to me, it just bogs down or complicates what IS actually very simple and easy to understand. But when I do read bits and pieces here and there it is very easy to see how those people came to the view/s that they have, and how from different perspectives different truths and falsehoods are seen. Once a certain perspective is gained every thing begins to make more sense.

'Space' to me, is empty, but, if a person wants to refer to 'space' contain everything in a particular place then I can see how they are doing that also. I would just question how that definition for that word, fits in with other definitions for other words, to paint a true, right, and correct picture of all-there-is.

The important beginning as I see it has to be agreement on the necessity of the functioning universe to have a conscious source.

Is there a NECESSITY of the functioning Universe to have a CONSCIOUS source? If yes, WHY?

We already KNOW the Universe is already functioning because we have become CONSCIOUSLY aware of IT and It functioning. Even for the very fact that if the Universe was NOT functioning then we would NOT be CONSCIOUS of It. So, if as you see it, and say, the IMPORTANT beginning HAS TO BE agreement on the NECESSITY of THIS functioning Universe having a conscious source, then WHEN you provide the answer to the WHY question I just asked you, then we can if AGREEMENT can be reached on what you see as being the IMPORTANT BEGINNING.

BUT, I would suggest before we even begin to consider that the Universe NEEDS to have a conscious source and we just consider that there IS already conscious source, that being; (the) 'you' and (the) 'I' conscious beings, which are the obvious evidence of and for this fact, then we consider WHAT that conscious source ACTUALLY IS, WHERE that conscious source ACTUALLY IS, WHEN, or if, that conscious source ACTUALLY CAME INTO BEING, HOW that conscious source ACTUALLY EXISTS, and finally WHY that conscious source ACTUALLY EXISTS, but we are still a fair way off from KNOWING the TRUTH to these yet.

WHY the conscious source ACTUALLY EXISTS in the (functioning) Universe WILL become obviously seen and understood thus KNOWN, but other things NEED to be looked at first in order to eventually understand and KNOW this FACT.

Read this explanation of the ONE as described by Plotinus. Do you see anything of value in it?

YES. There is absolute value in every thing. Even the things that make no sense at all have value in them because they teach HOW not to look at and HOW not to discern things.

For me I view the universe as the "body of God" as explained on Panentheism.

To me, once any thing becomes an 'ism', that is; a BELIEF, then it is better being completely disregarded, and then start looking all over again.

Within any 'ism' there are truths and falsehoods, but to the person with a BELIEF in any 'ism' they are NOT able to discern between what is ACTUALLY true and what is ACTUALLY false in the 'ism'. They just BELIEVE the whole lot as being true.

There is NO necessity for any 'ism' just like there is NO necessity in any 'belief'. Having a view with EITHER or BOTH prevent a person from being Truly OPEN and OPENNESS is NEEDED to be able to look AND see what is ACTUALLY True, Right, and, Correct in LIfe.

If you view the Universe as the "body of God" then that is fine with me. You are free to choose to look at and view things any way you like. But, to me, the Universe is made up of two parts. That is; a physical part (matter) and a non-physical part (space). Although I can very easy see how the 'body of God' can be seen as the Universe, which is Everything, I do NOT necessarily look at this that way because 'body' is better defined in relation to what is made up of physical matter. So, from that perspective the 'bod of God' would be ALL the seen to the eyes physical matter, and, the 'Spirit of God' would be ALL the unseen to the eyes space that is in, that is in between, and that surrounds ALL physical matter. This Spirit of God, to me, is also known as Consciousness, Itself, or very simply known as the Mind, Itself.

The ONE is beyond time and space while creation is governed by the laws of time and space so the universe is within the ONE. Does this make sense to you?

In a way, a definitely YES. HOWEVER, the reason WHY some people say that 'The ONE is BEYOND time and space ...' IS only because they do NOT yet KNOW what the ONE actually IS, yet.

Once that definition IS agreed upon, obviously with and by EveryONE, then with that KNOWING also comes the KNOWING HOW and WHY the ONE is NOT beyond, above, or outside of ANY THING.

Just because some human beings have not yet grasped the understanding nor knowledge of WHAT some thing IS yet, then that does NOT necessarily mean that "thing" is beyond, above, nor outside of the Universe, ALL-THERE-IS, Itself. In fact it would be illogical to even think that "it" was.

https://www.iep.utm.edu/plotinus/

The 'concept' of the One is not, properly speaking, a concept at all, since it is never explicitly defined by Plotinus, yet it is nevertheless the foundation and grandest expression of his philosophy. Plotinus does make it clear that no words can do justice to the power of the One; even the name, 'the One,' is inadequate, for naming already implies discursive knowledge, and since discursive knowledge divides or separates its objects in order to make them intelligible, the One cannot be known through the process of discursive reasoning (Ennead VI.9.4). Knowledge of the One is achieved through the experience of its 'power' (dunamis) and its nature, which is to provide a 'foundation' (arkhe) and location (topos) for all existents (VI.9.6). The 'power' of the One is not a power in the sense of physical or even mental action; the power of the One, as Plotinus speaks of it, is to be understood as the only adequate description of the 'manifestation' of a supreme principle that, by its very nature, transcends all predication and discursive understanding. This 'power,' then, is capable of being experienced, or known, only through contemplation (theoria), or the purely intellectual 'vision' of the source of all things. The One transcends all beings, and is not itself a being, precisely because all beings owe their existence and subsistence to their eternal contemplation of the dynamic manifestation(s) of the One. The One can be said to be the 'source' of all existents only insofar as every existent naturally and (therefore) imperfectly contemplates the various aspects of the One, as they are extended throughout the cosmos, in the form of either sensible or intelligible objects or existents. The perfect contemplation of the One, however, must not be understood as a return to a primal source; for the One is not, strictly speaking, a source or a cause, but rather the eternally present possibility -- or active making-possible -- of all existence, of Being (V.2.1). According to Plotinus, the unmediated vision of the 'generative power' of the One, to which existents are led by the Intelligence (V.9.2), results in an ecstatic dance of inspiration, not in a satiated torpor (VI.9.8; for it is the nature of the One to impart fecundity to existents -- that is to say: the One, in its regal, indifferent capacity as undiminishable potentiality of Being, permits both rapt contemplation and ecstatic, creative extension. These twin poles, this 'stanchion,' is the manifested framework of existence which the One produces, effortlessly (V.1.6). The One, itself, is best understood as the center about which the 'stanchion,' the framework of the cosmos, is erected (VI.9.8. This 'stanchion' or framework is the result of the contemplative activity of the Intelligence.

This is written way to clumsy, cumbersome, complicated, confusingly, contradictory, and conflicting for me to begin to fully understand what the writer was intending to mean. NOT because it is wrong but because I probably do NOT know the definition and meaning for more than half of words being used here. Therefore, I know less than I know more.

But on first glance and the gist I got from it is it is more or less has come to the same conclusion as I have and is just about saying the exact same thing I am. We just use different words and terminology, also we are using different definitions for the words and the terms that we each use. But I KNOW with the RIGHT agreed upon words and definitions, then we WILL come to the EXACT same agreement of things.

[Atla]

Could, what you call, the monitor in front of you, NOT be True? If it could NOT not be true, then is that 'absolute certainty'? Is it a form of insanity or not?

I'm not really sure what a "True" monitor means. But if we think that our belief can't be wrong, then yeah that's absolute certainty.

If, belief in absolute certainty is just a form of insanity,
then could belief in being fairly certain be just a higher degree form of insanity?

If you mean, higher degree than belief in absolute certainty, then no.

This is not what I meant.

In that case everyone is always insane, it's only a matter of degree. Technically we could say that that's correct, but I don't think that's a good use of the word "insane".

But if Everything loops back onto Itself, then does that NECESSARILY mean that change is an impossibility?

You wrote: But I'm fairly certain that if everything loops back into itself within the eternal now, then that means that no change is ever possible.

YES I KNOW to your knowledge loops are loops, and they are not recursive spirals. As I see them I agree wholeheartedly with you also. BUT, that was NOT was WHAT you said, that I was questioning about. What you said, of which I was questioning you was; If everything loops back into itself, then that means NO CHANGE IS EVER POSSIBLE. (and that you were fairly certain of this.)

The NO CHANGE IS POSSIBLE part was the point that I was questioning you with my two questions. That are;

WHY are you FAIRLY CERTAIN of such a thing?
Did you come to that 'fairly certain' (view) all by your self?

I asked BOTH questions because I do NOT see anywhere HOW if every thing loops back into itself then that means that NO CHANGE IS POSSIBLE. That is NOT a VIEW I have seen anywhere. Unlike you it is NOT a view I have nor hold.

So, if you explain WHY you are fairly certain that NO change is possible if everything loops back into itself. And, if you also explain HOW you came to that 'fairly certain' view that change is not possible if everything loops back into itself, then I might possible be able to see WHY you see this.

But if Everything loops back onto Itself, then does that NECESSARILY mean that change is an impossibility?

The kind of change and evolution that we normally talk about / experience is already there in the eternal now. And it already containts all the loops, which have no additional effect. Loops are loops, not recursive spirals.

This is where many people go wrong, they fall into a cognitive pseudo-infinite regression and don't properly dissolve it. (They have to realize that human thinking processes are always finite.) So they start to think that the infinite-looping-back-to-itself has an additional effect.

[TimeSeeker]

Ok. Define “wrong”.

NOT RIGHT.

Define 'RIGHT' then...

When 'you' say the word 'your', who/what are 'you' referring to, or what do 'you' mean? HOW does that one, who is self-labelled "timeseeker", define the word 'your'?

I asked you to define things like this previously. But you declined to.

Until you are able to clarify what you are actually asking, then how will I KNOW what you are referring to?

Oh yeah, I forgot - you have no beliefs.

Except the belief that you know what's right and wrong

[Age]

Ok. Define “wrong”.

NOT RIGHT.

Define 'RIGHT' then...

THAT (whatever that may be) what EVERYONE, as One, agrees upon IS 'RIGHT'.

When 'you' say the word 'your', who/what are 'you' referring to, or what do 'you' mean? HOW does that one, who is self-labelled "timeseeker", define the word 'your'?

I asked you to define things like this previously. But you declined to.

Until you are able to clarify what you are actually asking, then how will I KNOW what you are referring to?

Oh yeah, I forgot - you have no beliefs.

YES, that IS RIGHT. I have NO beliefs.

Let us see how long they remember for this time.

Except the belief that you know what's right and wrong

But I do NOT believe that at all.

I have explicitly explained to you, on some occasions already, that only THAT what EVERYONE as One agrees with, is what IS RIGHT, and, is what IS WRONG.

But you continually either forget this on purpose, or for the reason that I explained earlier. You may have onset of alzhiemers. Or, you do NOT read the actual words that I write, do not or can not comprehend and/or understand what I write, just continually ignore what I write, and/or just completely disregard what I write regarding this.

I can ONLY KNOW what is right and wrong when, and IF, EVERYONE as One is in agreement. Until I KNOW what that agreement IS, and even AFTER I KNOW what that agreement IS, I will always REMAIN OPEN.

HAVING A BELIEF is the very opposite of REMAINING OPEN. I neither believe or disbelieve any thing, unlike you, for the very reason that I WANT TO REMAIN OPEN ALWAYS.

[TimeSeeker]

THAT (whatever that may be) what EVERYONE, as One, agrees upon IS 'RIGHT'.

But we haven't agreed on anything yet, so there is no right and wrong yet?

YES, that IS RIGHT. I have NO beliefs.

What about this belief that "what EVERYONE, as One, agrees upon IS 'RIGHT'" ?

But I do NOT believe that at all.
I have explicitly explained to you, on some occasions already, that only THAT what EVERYONE as One agrees with, is what IS RIGHT, and, is what IS WRONG.

OK, but YOU are part of the WE. So when the time comes YOU have to AGREE to something. So you must KNOW what is 'right' or 'wrong' otherwise you wouldn't agree to anything. What if everybody-but-you agrees that murder is OK? Are you willing to remain that OPEN?

[Age]

Could, what you call, the monitor in front of you, NOT be True? If it could NOT not be true, then is that 'absolute certainty'? Is it a form of insanity or not?

I'm not really sure what a "True" monitor means. But if we think that our belief can't be wrong, then yeah that's absolute certainty.

My point completely misunderstood, overlooked, or taken out of context.

You were stating that there is a difference between two beliefs. You wrote; Well I wouldn't rate the belief that there's a monitor in front of me, and the belief in absolute certainty, as equally insane.

I asked; If the BELIEF, 'that there is a monitor in front of you', could NOT be True? In other words are you 'absolutely certain' of this? There is NO right or wrong answer. I was just wondering.

I NEVER meant any thing regarding a True monitor. I was asking questions regarding YOUR beliefs only. Especially NOW considering your second sentence here.

If you mean, higher degree than belief in absolute certainty, then no.

This is not what I meant.

In that case everyone is always insane, it's only a matter of degree.

You were pretty quick to JUMP to and make up a conclusion ALL based on my written words; This is not what I meant.

Just because this is not what I meant, that does NOT mean there is only ONE other possible conclusion for you to reach.

I have explained, enough times already, HOW a very thorough and full understanding can be obtained, and in a very quickly, simply, and easily fashion also. Do I need to explain HOW again.

Technically we could say that that's correct, but I don't think that's a good use of the word "insane".

Fair enough, and I agree wholeheartedly.

You wrote: But I'm fairly certain that if everything loops back into itself within the eternal now, then that means that no change is ever possible.

YES I KNOW to your knowledge loops are loops, and they are not recursive spirals. As I see them I agree wholeheartedly with you also. BUT, that was NOT was WHAT you said, that I was questioning about. What you said, of which I was questioning you was; If everything loops back into itself, then that means NO CHANGE IS EVER POSSIBLE. (and that you were fairly certain of this.)

The NO CHANGE IS POSSIBLE part was the point that I was questioning you with my two questions. That are;

WHY are you FAIRLY CERTAIN of such a thing?
Did you come to that 'fairly certain' (view) all by your self?

I asked BOTH questions because I do NOT see anywhere HOW if every thing loops back into itself then that means that NO CHANGE IS POSSIBLE. That is NOT a VIEW I have seen anywhere. Unlike you it is NOT a view I have nor hold.

So, if you explain WHY you are fairly certain that NO change is possible if everything loops back into itself. And, if you also explain HOW you came to that 'fairly certain' view that change is not possible if everything loops back into itself, then I might possible be able to see WHY you see this.

But if Everything loops back onto Itself, then does that NECESSARILY mean that change is an impossibility?

The kind of change and evolution that we normally talk about / experience is already there in the eternal now.

Who/what is the 'we' you refer to here?

And, i would use the word 'HERE' and NOT 'THERE' for the obviously fact that EVERYTHING is HERE (in the eternal NOW), and NOT THERE (wherever that is?).

And it already containts all the loops, which have no additional effect. Loops are loops, not recursive spirals.

Is that NOT what I said?

This is where many people go wrong, they fall into a cognitive pseudo-infinite regression and don't properly dissolve it. (They have to realize that human thinking processes are always finite.) So they start to think that the infinite-looping-back-to-itself has an additional effect.

What do these human beings think that 'additional effect' IS, or could be?

Are human thinking processes always finite? Is that just another finite human thinking process that just can NOT thinking infinitely and so just imagines that human thinking processes are ALWAYS finite?

What IF one human thinking process was to REMAIN completely and fully OPEN, ALWAYS?

WHERE is the always finite thinking process in that human body, and, WHAT is it, exactly?

[Age]

THAT (whatever that may be) what EVERYONE, as One, agrees upon IS 'RIGHT'.

But we haven't agreed on anything yet, so there is no right and wrong yet?

EXACTLY. You have finally arrived. Yeeha

HOWEVER, there may just be A right and wrong already existing within ALL OF US, but we just have NOT YET come to understand that yet, and so have not come to that agreement, yet also.

As you suggested earlier, YOU will have to wait and see.

YES, that IS RIGHT. I have NO beliefs.

What about this belief that "what EVERYONE, as One, agrees upon IS 'RIGHT'" ?

But it is NOT a belief. For the sole fact that it could be completely and utterly WRONG. I will have to wait and see.

I have already also explained, to you, that even IF EVERYONE, as ONE, agrees upon what IS RIGHT, then I will still REMAIN OPEN.

But I do NOT believe that at all.
I have explicitly explained to you, on some occasions already, that only THAT what EVERYONE as One agrees with, is what IS RIGHT, and, is what IS WRONG.

OK, but YOU are part of the WE. So when the time comes YOU have to AGREE to something.

HOW do you KNOW there is a time when one HAS TO agree to something?

Only a foolish person WOULD agree to some thing if there was STILL SOME DOUBT, would you NOT agree?

I do NOT see any set time when everyone HAS TO agree. Do you foresee that time? Do you think/BELIEVE there will be a time like that?

So you must KNOW what is 'right' or 'wrong' otherwise you wouldn't agree to anything.

EXACTLY. ONLY a completely uninfluenced OPEN person would NOT agree on some thing, unless they KNEW, for sure, that it was either 'right' or 'wrong'.

So, ONLY when EVERY one is like that, then the actual real and true Truths come to light.

What if everybody-but-you agrees that murder is OK? Are you willing to remain that OPEN?

Even if I agree or not-agree on some thing I will still ALWAYS REMAIN OPEN.

WHY would ONE just start to BELIEVE some thing just because they agree with it NOW?

Obviously as soon as they start BELIEVING, that new thing they agree with, then they will NOT be OPEN to any thing newer coming forthwith.

WHY do you think it takes human beings SO LONG to agree on things like; that the earth revolves around the sun?

Do you think it was/is because they were OPEN to that idea, OR, because they BELIEVED the opposite was/is true?

Some human beings to this day some 400 or so years later still BELIEVE that it is NOT true. They are NOT OPEN to what is actually thee TRUTH of things.

In saying that if, and when, some human beings NOW start BELIEVING that the earth revolves around the sun, then they also are NOT OPEN to new ideas and to what is actually thee TRUTH of things.

It does NOT matter what is being BELIEVED, whatever the BELIEF is, THAT will prevent and STOP people from learning and understanding more and anew, That is; what thee actual TRUTH IS.

[Nick_A]

Age

Is there a NECESSITY of the functioning Universe to have a CONSCIOUS source? If yes, WHY?

We already KNOW the Universe is already functioning because we have become CONSCIOUSLY aware of IT and It functioning. Even for the very fact that if the Universe was NOT functioning then we would NOT be CONSCIOUS of It. So, if as you see it, and say, the IMPORTANT beginning HAS TO BE agreement on the NECESSITY of THIS functioning Universe having a conscious source, then WHEN you provide the answer to the WHY question I just asked you, then we can if AGREEMENT can be reached on what you see as being the IMPORTANT BEGINNING.

BUT, I would suggest before we even begin to consider that the Universe NEEDS to have a conscious source and we just consider that there IS already conscious source, that being; (the) 'you' and (the) 'I' conscious beings, which are the obvious evidence of and for this fact, then we consider WHAT that conscious source ACTUALLY IS, WHERE that conscious source ACTUALLY IS, WHEN, or if, that conscious source ACTUALLY CAME INTO BEING, HOW that conscious source ACTUALLY EXISTS, and finally WHY that conscious source ACTUALLY EXISTS, but we are still a fair way off from KNOWING the TRUTH to these yet.

WHY the conscious source ACTUALLY EXISTS in the (functioning) Universe WILL become obviously seen and understood thus KNOWN, but other things NEED to be looked at first in order to eventually understand and KNOW this FACT.

First of all what I mean by a conscious source IS beyond the limits of time and space providing the laws and the life force which makes the universe within the Source possible. The ONE IS while the universe EXISTS. I cannot fathom any way that universal laws come into existence by accident so the only other alternative is a conscious creation. Many IMO make the mistake of arguing creation from the point of view of results. I’ve learned that the purpose of the universe is in the process rather than the results. The process is the transformation of substances. The universe is a living machine which transforms substances. It is sustained by relative qualities of consciousness or “being” within creation which sustains the complimentary vertical processes of the involution of being (away from the source) and evolution or the movement of return to the source. This is the hypothesis I use to understand universal purpose and the purpose of Man within it both as animal Man and conscious man.

Imagine a saturated log floating in a pond. The log is in the pond and the pond water is in the log. Using this analogy, the ISness of the Sources is within the universe while the functioning universe is within the Source.

To me, once any thing becomes an 'ism', that is; a BELIEF, then it is better being completely disregarded, and then start looking all over again.

I am describing a hypothesis we are invited to verify by becoming able to “Know Thyself” as Socrates described. Man, as I’ve come to understand, is mini universe. The higher and lower parts of the human essence mirror the same arrangement as the levels of reality of our great universe.

Blind belief IMO is as foolish as blind denial for any legitimate seeker of truth.

One of the means for self knowledge was explained well by Einstein. In these days of the dominance of secularism and dualism it must be condemned. Yet there are those open to surrendering to deductive reason to reveal what inductive reason is incapble of.

1930
"Many people think that the progress of the human race is based on experiences of an empirical, critical nature, but I say that true knowledge is to be had only through a philosophy of deduction. For it is intuition that improves the world, not just following the trodden path of thought. Intuition makes us look at unrelated facts and then think about them until they can all be brought under one law. To look for related facts means holding onto what one has instead of searching for new facts. Intuition is the father of new knowledge, while empiricism is nothing but an accumulation of old knowledge. Intuition, not intellect, is the ‘open sesame’ of yourself." -- Albert Einstein, in Einstein and the Poet – In Search of the Cosmic Man by William Hermanns (Branden Press, 1983, p. 16.), conversation March 4, 1930

This is written way to clumsy, cumbersome, complicated, confusingly, contradictory, and conflicting for me to begin to fully understand what the writer was intending to mean. NOT because it is wrong but because I probably do NOT know the definition and meaning for more than half of words being used here. Therefore, I know less than I know more.

But on first glance and the gist I got from it is it is more or less has come to the same conclusion as I have and is just about saying the exact same thing I am. We just use different words and terminology, also we are using different definitions for the words and the terms that we each use. But I KNOW with the RIGHT agreed upon words and definitions, then we WILL come to the EXACT same agreement of things.

I respect your honesty. Socrates was called wise by the Oracle because he experienced that he knew nothing. Philosophy invites us to experience contemplation leading to intuition. Modern philosophy doesn’t respect the contradiction and argues right and wrong. But philosophy worthy of the name IMO invites us to experience the higher degree of consciousness we are capable of through intuition that reconciles right and wrong revealing a conscious perspective.

"When a contradiction is impossible to resolve except by a lie, then we know that it is really a door." Simone Weil

Rather than truth, I believe meaningful philosophy reveals the essential contradictions. The problem is admitting it in what passes for philosophical discussion so we can psychologically pass through the door..

[Atla]

My point completely misunderstood, overlooked, or taken out of context.

You were stating that there is a difference between two beliefs. You wrote; Well I wouldn't rate the belief that there's a monitor in front of me, and the belief in absolute certainty, as equally insane.

I asked; If the BELIEF, 'that there is a monitor in front of you', could NOT be True? In other words are you 'absolutely certain' of this? There is NO right or wrong answer. I was just wondering.

I NEVER meant any thing regarding a True monitor. I was asking questions regarding YOUR beliefs only. Especially NOW considering your second sentence here.

Okay, but you left out the word "belief" in your earlier question.

I asked; If the BELIEF, 'that there is a monitor in front of you', could NOT be True? In other words are you 'absolutely certain' of this? There is NO right or wrong answer. I was just wondering.

No. Some get caught up in the stupid game of "being certain of not being certain, therefore having found absolute certainty", but they just trick themselves. There is just no absolute footing available for us.

You were pretty quick to JUMP to and make up a conclusion ALL based on my written words; This is not what I meant.

Just because this is not what I meant, that does NOT mean there is only ONE other possible conclusion for you to reach.

I have explained, enough times already, HOW a very thorough and full understanding can be obtained, and in a very quickly, simply, and easily fashion also. Do I need to explain HOW again.

What do you mean then? A full understanding is unreachable, and quick, simple methods usually turn out to be false.

Who/what is the 'we' you refer to here?

Philosophizing humans in general.

Is that NOT what I said?

What do these human beings think that 'additional effect' IS, or could be?

Then how does the creation you talked about, enter the picture?

Are human thinking processes always finite? Is that just another finite human thinking process that just can NOT thinking infinitely and so just imagines that human thinking processes are ALWAYS finite?

What IF one human thinking process was to REMAIN completely and fully OPEN, ALWAYS?

WHERE is the always finite thinking process in that human body, and, WHAT is it, exactly?

Thoughts are basically in the head. Now of course thoughts are continuous with and inseparable from the rest of the universe, just like everything else is, "one with it", but that doesn't change the fact that basically, by and large, thoughts are in the head and finite.

Openness has nothing to do with it; people who think they have infinite thoughts, and have special realizations based on that, have simply gone insane. It's fairly common. Then they start to preach like they were the voice of the universe.

[TimeSeeker]

Absolute certainty is impossible in a Bayesian framework. It's equivalent to "infinite evidence".

https://wiki.lesswrong.com/wiki/Absolute_certainty