The Neural Basis of NonDuality

[TimeSeeker]

What the fuck does that have to do with pantheism or God.

Where did The First Thing come from? What you call it doesn't matter!

The fact that it is The First Thing that exists matters.

Where did the "boundless finite universe" come from?

[Atla]

Yeah that's your hypothesis. That something with no cause is like God. And your reasoning behind this?

Because you've conceptualised the universe as a thing without a cause.

Which is exactly the same way the theistic arguments fail.

Where did the universe come from? God made it.
Where did God come from? God always existed.

So according to you, an argument doesn't fail, if it falls into infinite regress (= fails, arguably). Which is your hypothesis.

[Atla]

What the fuck does that have to do with pantheism or God.

Where did The First Thing come from? What you call it doesn't matter!

The fact that it is The First Thing that exists matters.

Where did the "boundless finite universe" come from?

Yes that's your hypothesis But why SHOULD we fall into infinite regress?

[TimeSeeker]

So according to you, an argument doesn't fail, if it falls into infinite regress (= fails, arguably). Which is your hypothesis.

I have made no claims about it. You are of the opinion that a "boundless and finite" universe is a "sufficient explanation".
To me it isn't. It's a broken explanation. It's broken in exactly the same way "God made it" is broken.

You cannot fix infinite regress!

[TimeSeeker]

But why SHOULD we fall into infinite regress?

Translation: I refuse to ask the question: "Where did the boundless and finite universe come from?"

You don't really get to choose. I am asking the question - you can't answer it.

You have regressed infinitely whether you like it or not.

[Atla]

But why SHOULD we fall into infinite regress?

Translation: I refuse to ask the question: "Where did the boundless and finite universe come from?"

Why SHOULD it come from somewhere? Why is your hypothesis better?

[Eodnhoj7]

What the fuck does that have to do with pantheism or God.

Where did The First Thing come from? What you call it doesn't matter!

The fact that it is The First Thing matters.

Where did the "boundless finite universe" come from?

If one is a cause, then 1 exists as a process as well where this process observes the particulation of 1 as inverted through void, as 0, into many 1's with one continuous as 1. 1 is both cause (itself) and uncaused (0 absence of form) through its infinite nature.

[TimeSeeker]

Why SHOULD it come from somewhere? Why is your hypothesis better?

Because according to Occam's razor "God did it" is a simpler explanation.

Those were your criteria, right?

[Atla]

Why SHOULD it come from somewhere? Why is your hypothesis better?

Because according to Occam's razor "God did it" is a simpler explanation.

Those were your criteria, right?

No, it's not simpler, and supernatural.

[TimeSeeker]

No, it's not simpler, and supernatural.

The word "supernatural" is as meaningful as a square triangle

Can you measure its consequences? Yes? Scientifically - it is a valid notion! Like energy!

Can you measure the consequences of God? Yes! The universe!

It sure is a MUCH simpler explanation than what Physics is selling us! Have you tried learning any of the maths necessary for quantum physics?!?

[Eodnhoj7]

Having spent a majority of my working life in computer science fields, I am wondering about recursiveness in writing short poems.

This is not the recursive process in writing/review/editing, but, using an element of language that implies a looped logic recursively folding into itself until a finality. That is to say, for example, the three ways a person may be perceived, what a person believes of themself, what another believes, and what a person, themself, believes another believes of themself... the recursive funciton is the act of believing.

An example in short poetry is the butterfly dream... a man dreams of a being a butterfly dreaming of being a man.

Of course, the style limiting the use of personification (that is to say, the "me" factor) may apply which restricts or confines certain ideas used for the tenets/guides outlined by Bashou near the end of his life (as I understand it, subtance over style and produndity over wittiness). Yet, there should be examples in Nature that lend to a natural recursiveness such as any procreative activity or objects (sans the human emotional projection), for simple example, mating not loving.

Exploring these aspects in Nature, more or less "as a matter of fact" opens a poem to many facets of feelings from the reader, the transform being fact to feeling (as some like to say, "show not tell").

Some examples of this recursiveness:

a drop of dew (that 180 degree fisheye reflection capturing that "world" around it) reflecting within that world dewdrops

flower scent... (undetectable by the flower, yet, integral to it's natural procreation and symbiosis through interaction with certain insects)

leaf color... (a byproduct of certain sugar production caused by light and temperature variation in a seasonal cycle, also, not detectable by the trees or bushes)

These objects (to mention just a few) are part of recursive processes occuring naturally on our planet, patterns that fold into themselves untill that which triggers the process ends.

Well, perhaps, my explanation of "recursiveness" is flawed (as I am not sure completely), but, I've started to think more about the idea.

I will attempt three examples using the above objects:

a drop of dew
within drops of dew...
sunrises

flower scent
in the wind lift of wings...
flower sent

red again
the leaf color...
fades


Copied from part of a post from The Haiku Foundation

That about sums it up.

[Atla]

No, it's not simpler, and supernatural.

The word "supernatural" is as meaningful as a square triangle

Can you measure its consequences? Yes? Scientifically - it is a valid notion! Like energy!

Can you measure the consequences of God? Yes! The universe!

The universe is the consequence of God? Are you now a creationist of some sort?

[TimeSeeker]

The universe is the consequence of God? Are you now a creationist of some sort?

Pay attention to the example I am giving you.

We don't know what "energy" is in physics! It's a concept. Nobody has ever seen energy, touched energy, smelled energy.

Energy is a reification fallacy! All physicists have ever been able to do is to measure the CONSEQUENCES of energy.

And so, it's not entirely implausible that in a future, long from now it comes to be discovered that "energy" is an emergent property of some physics notion that we are too stupid to comprehend in 2018.

Energy is a "god of the gaps" argument! But we turn a blind eye to it because the equations work!

Now, take the principle by which energy is "real" (e.g we can measure its CONSEQUENCES) and apply it to The Universe.

What is The Thing the CONSEQUENCE of which is The Universe?

[Atla]

The universe is the consequence of God? Are you now a creationist of some sort?

Pay attention to the example I am giving you.

We don't know what "energy" is in physics! It's a concept. Nobody has ever seen energy, touched energy, smelled energy.

Energy is a reification fallacy! All physicists have ever been able to do is to measure the CONSEQUENCES of energy.

And so, it's not entirely implausible that in a future, long from now it comes to be discovered that "energy" is an emergent property of some physics notion that we are too stupid to comprehend in 2018.

Energy is a "god of the gaps" argument! But we turn a blind eye to it because the equations work!

By the exact same principle of using the CONSEQUENCES to pre-suppose the THING.

If The universe is The Consequence then what is The Thing that caused it?

But that's your hypothesis. Why do you think the universe is a consequence?

[TimeSeeker]

But that's your hypothesis. Why do you think the universe is a consequence?

Naturally. It may or may not be a consequence.

But the question: "Is The Universe a consequence?" is a decision problem: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Decision_problem
And now you are back in my realm - computation!

The question has three possible answers: Yes/No/I don't know.

"I don't know" being the default position any certainty on the matter requires the person answering to produce the algorithm by which the answer was produced. So - you've answered 'No'. Provide the reasoning.

I've already demonstrated my reasoning. IF you value logic and consistency, then by the exact same principle by which "energy" is deemed "real" (has testable consequences), then God is real too. The testable consequence for God is The Universe itself!