For the discussion of all things philosophical.
https://canzookia.com/
Yes, I am part of the universe and so are my parts. THis changes nothing.
Suppose you only exist in the universe.Sculptor wrote: ↑Sat Dec 11, 2021 4:57 pmYes, I am part of the universe and so are my parts. THis changes nothing.
The universe can change as a whole uncontingently since it is all there is. There is nothing outside the universe so there is no contingency.
I am older but that is contingent on other parts of the universe.
Are you taking your meds?bahman wrote: ↑Sat Dec 11, 2021 4:58 pmSuppose you only exist in the universe.Sculptor wrote: ↑Sat Dec 11, 2021 4:57 pmYes, I am part of the universe and so are my parts. THis changes nothing.
The universe can change as a whole uncontingently since it is all there is. There is nothing outside the universe so there is no contingency.
I am older but that is contingent on other parts of the universe.
No, I am serious. The whole is contingent on its parts. No part, no whole.Sculptor wrote: ↑Sat Dec 11, 2021 5:02 pmAre you taking your meds?bahman wrote: ↑Sat Dec 11, 2021 4:58 pmSuppose you only exist in the universe.Sculptor wrote: ↑Sat Dec 11, 2021 4:57 pm
Yes, I am part of the universe and so are my parts. THis changes nothing.
The universe can change as a whole uncontingently since it is all there is. There is nothing outside the universe so there is no contingency.
I am older but that is contingent on other parts of the universe.
EVERY thing 'simply exists', OBVIOUSLY.bahman wrote: ↑Sat Dec 11, 2021 4:27 pmThere is no contradiction. Mind simply exists.
This does NOT, and I will repeat DOES NOT 'logically' follow. As can be CLEARLY SEEN here.
How could absolutely ANY thing come from absolutely NO thing? And,
WHY do you ASSUME and BELIEVE that 'regress' is NOT acceptable?
ONCE AGAIN, we have a PRIME EXAMPLE of just how BLIND and STUPID these adult human beings, in the days when this was being written, REALLY could be and WERE.
What is the ACTUAL DIFFERENCE?
So, there can, probably, be an infinite amount of 'minds', but there can NEVER be an eternal 'mind'. Yet, EVERY one of those probably, infinite amount of 'minds' ONLY ever exists since this so-called event of "the beginning of time".
Did you answer my clarifying question about what is the ACTUAL DIFFERENCE here, before?
Do you EVER wonder WHY NO one accepts and agrees with your arguments but you STILL go on to CLAIM that you have made up these arguments, which you CLAIM are true, right, accurate, and correct?
And, to you 'mind' is neither eternal.
Thank you 'captain OBVIOUS'.
I KNOW, and AGAIN, thank you 'captain OBVIOUS'.bahman wrote: ↑Sat Dec 11, 2021 4:27 pmMind being immortal does not mean that it is eternal.
Who and/or what, supposedly, does NOT die?
Just out of CURIOSITY, WHY do you INSIST that there MUST HAVE BEEN "a beginning"?bahman wrote: ↑Sat Dec 11, 2021 4:27 pmEither there was noting but mind at the beginning or there was something and mind at the beggining.Age wrote: ↑Thu Dec 09, 2021 10:30 am
You also claim that ANY thing that is subject to change requires a 'mind'. But OBVIOUSLY for the so-called "beginning" to be subject to change, then a 'mind' would be needed. But, also according to you the 'mind' did NOT exist prior to the so-called "beginning", which would OBVIOUSLY be subject to change, and would have IN FACT been CHANGE, ITSELF.
So, what you are essentially saying and CLAIMING here is that there was NOTHING (or NO thing) and then there was JUST SUDDENLY SOMETHING (or EVERY thing).
Are you at all ABLE to explain how this could even logically be a POSSIBILITY?
You STILL can NOT even respond to just this one ACCURATELY and CORRECTLY.
WHY do you say things, which CONTRADICT what you have previously said or which you are 'trying to' argue for?bahman wrote: ↑Sat Dec 11, 2021 4:09 pmEven if the physical observable universe was the whole, the whole is internally subject to change.Sculptor wrote: ↑Sat Dec 11, 2021 12:09 am Our universe is contingent
"Contingent"
1. subject to chance.
2. occurring or existing only if (certain circumstances) are the case; dependent on.
ONE
I cannot see how the universe is subject to chance. The universe is what it is there is no room for more. God does not play dice.
TWO
Since the universe, by defintion all that exists, then it cannot depned on anything else since there is nothing else outiside the universe.
The whole thread is a waste of time.
I seriously HOPE that when I POINT OUT that this is ANOTHER clearly obvious CONTRADICTION, that you will NOT, also again, say and CLAIM that, "No it is not".bahman wrote: ↑Sat Dec 11, 2021 4:33 pmBy observable universe I don't mean the stuff that we can experience due to the limitation of observation. It is the stuff that in principle can be observed.Age wrote: ↑Sat Dec 11, 2021 4:10 amOF COURSE what 'you', human beings, observe and/or experience is OBVIOUSLY NOT the whole.
Is there ANY one who would even think that only those things that they experience is the whole?
But are you here just 'trying to' DEFLECT from what you ACTUALLY said and wrote above in regards to 'that' what is beyond what you observe is NOT able to causally relate to what is observed?
Yes you can, and actually in two ways:
So, what we have here is a PRIME EXAMPLE of just HOW shallow, closed, narrowed, and egotistical the adult human being REALLY was, back in those days when this was being written. Some of them, as exampled here, ACTUALLY BELIEVED that it was only what 'it' could observe and experience which was important, and all that REALLY MATTERED. They also ACTUALLY that all of 'that' was "theirs" as well, as though they has some sort of OWNERSHIP over 'it' somehow, and that EVERY thing else was "just some thing else", and "others", and did NOT belong in their OWN 'little world' and 'very narrowed view of things'.bahman wrote: ↑Sat Dec 11, 2021 4:33 pmI call whatever that we cannot experience as other universes. I call everything the whole.
Yes, what about it?bahman wrote: ↑Sat Dec 11, 2021 4:35 pmHave read this?Age wrote: ↑Sat Dec 11, 2021 4:16 amAnd, OBVIOUSLY, you can NOT observe ANY stuff beyond the sun and the earth on a cloudless sunny day. So, to you, the 'observable universe' on a cloudless day is NOT the SAME 'universe' as on a cloudless night.
Which is a GREAT WAY to envision that what is seen as the so-called "observable universe" to EACH or EVERY one of 'you', human beings, throughout ANY time, is ONLY a PART of ALL-THERE-IS.
And, there is NO separation ANYWHERE.
So, the word 'Universe' means or refers to ALL-THERE-IS, TOTALITY, or Everything, and thee OBVIOUSLY One and ONLY Universe MUST BE and HAS TO BE infinite in 'size', and eternal in 'time'.
This can NOT be REFUTED, no matter how hard, nor how many times, 'you', human beings, 'try to' REFUTE this Fact.
But this is ONLY what you have been TOLD is true, and which you now BELIEVE, is true.
But, if I moved 'us' (whatever or whoever that ACTUALLY IS) to, lets say, for example, a position 13 billion light years away from earth, then the 'observable universe' would look VERY DIFFERENT to 'you' and so the now so-called "our universe" would be VERY DIFFERENT, and what 'you' had previously classed and called "our universe" you would now be 'trying to' CLAIM is NOT "our universe" AT ALL, and those OTHER 'things' do NOT causally relate nor interact with "our universe". Which, as can be CLEARLY SEEN, is a VERY NARROWED and SHORT-SIGHTED way of LOOKING AT and SEEING 'things'.
bahman wrote: ↑Sat Dec 11, 2021 4:43 pmHave you read this?Age wrote: ↑Sat Dec 11, 2021 4:37 amTo me, you sometimes come up with the most RIDICULOUS wording, which does NOT LOGICALLY FOLLOW, AT ALL.
What, EXACTLY, is 'this star', which the light of can, supposedly, NEVER reach us? And, who is 'us' here?
Your CONCLUSION is like saying, the sight of the internal knee cap can never reach 'us', the eyes. Therefore, the observable human body is causally independent of the whole, human body. Which is OBVIOUSLY RIDICULOUS, and ILLOGICAL.
If there is some star, of which the light has NOT YET reached 'you', personally, then:
1. How do you KNOW that "that star" even ACTUALLY EXISTS. And,
2. How does it LOGICALLY FOLLOW that 'that star' is completely and utterly independent from the rest of thee Universe?
So, to you, the size of the so-called 'observable universe' is the EXACT SAME to 'you', human beings, in the days when this is being written, as it was to 'the', human beings, in say two million years prior to when this was being written, and that size will be the EXACT SAME in say two million years, from when this was being written, to 'those', correct?bahman wrote: ↑Sat Dec 11, 2021 4:43 pmNo. The observable universe does not become bigger, the better the instrument we use. That is a physical limitation that cannot be prohibited.Age wrote: ↑Fri Dec 10, 2021 8:25 am
LOL
LOL
LOL
Here is a PRIME EXAMPLE of just HOW these people, in those days, were just NOT READY nor ABLE to LOOK AT and SEE things, from thee Truly OPEN perspective YET.
By the way, what PART EXACTLY is, SUPPOSEDLY, "nonsense"?
And, if you say, "All of it", then you will have to ELABORATE, otherwise your CLAIM is ACTUALLY PURE NONSENSE.
By the way, NO one HAS TO read what the 'observable universe' is to educate "them" 'self' that the words 'observable universe' just refers to and means that part of thee Universe that 'you', human beings, can observe at ANY given moment, in no matter what period of the human history one is LOOKING FROM.
For example, OBVIOUSLY, the 'observable universe' continually becomes BIGGER the BETTER the instruments are, which human beings are continually inventing and creating to LOOK, and SEE, further AND FURTHER.
When, and if, you EVER learn and understand FULLY what the 'you' IS, EXACTLY, then the EXACT OPPOSITE of what you had been previously ASSUMING will be DISCOVERED.
Descartes wrote, "I think therefore I am."
Mind is not contingent but the rest is contingent.
Mind simply exists since the beginning of time but it is not contingent. If you cannot understand this then I cannot help you.Age wrote: ↑Sat Dec 11, 2021 4:04 am But, IF, according to the "logic" of "bahman", absolutely NOTHING in the WHOLE Universe created the 'mind' BUT 'mind' is NOT eternal, then how in hell did the 'mind', and ALL of the other DIFFERENT and SEPARATE 'minds' come into existence? And, this is NOT even mentioning your OTHER CLAIM that NOTHING could even exist because ALL 'things' can NOT even exist without ALL of these 'minds', which somehow came to exist AFTER other 'things' were ALREADY in existence.
And, if there is NO 'contradiction' in there, there you are MORE BLIND than I first noticed.
It does follow.
I am not going to discuss this with you again.
Off-topic.
The beginning of time.
Yes.
I am not going to discuss the regress with you anymore since you cannot understand the obvious.Age wrote: ↑Fri Dec 10, 2021 7:10 amWHY do you ASSUME and BELIEVE that 'regress' is NOT acceptable?
What does 'regress' even mean or refer to, to you?
Can you REALLY NOT SEE just how STUPID and FOOLISH your words LOOK here?
How could you judge me if you have tons of questions and when my position is not clear for you yet?Age wrote: ↑Fri Dec 10, 2021 7:10 amONCE AGAIN, we have a PRIME EXAMPLE of just how BLIND and STUPID these adult human beings, in the days when this was being written, REALLY could be and WERE.
It would NOT matter how much they CONTRADICT "themselves", how much LACK OF ABILITY they had to CLARIFY or back up and support their CLAIMS and BELIEFS, those BELIEFS of theirs just completely and utterly BLINDED them to thee ACTUAL Truth and to REALITY, Itself.
What do you think or BELIEVE what you are saying is 'accurate' in relation to, EXACTLY?
Is it in relation to thee One and ONLY Truth or just in relation to what you think and BELIEVE is true?
The difference is that in former mind did not exist at the beginning of time and then come to exist whereas in later mind exist at the beginning of time.
These are really off-topic so I am not going to reply to them.Age wrote: ↑Fri Dec 10, 2021 7:10 amSo, there can, probably, be an infinite amount of 'minds', but there can NEVER be an eternal 'mind'. Yet, EVERY one of those probably, infinite amount of 'minds' ONLY ever exists since this so-called event of "the beginning of time".
Which is just MORE CONTRADICTIONS being placed onto your OTHER CONTRADICTIONS.
So, the so-called 'substance' of these, probably, infinite amount of 'minds', (which you do NOT know what it is, EXACTLY) exists since the so-called "beginning of time", BUT NOT BEFORE, and which could have come from absolutely NO thing AT ALL, but just "simply exists". Now, was this, probably, infinite amount of 'minds' existing at that moment of the so-called "beginning of time" or was there just one 'mind' and a, probably, infinite amount of 'minds' have grown out of that first 'one mind'?
Also, WHY did you NOT answer my clarifying question posed to you in relation to how is this, supposed, 'substance' passed on and shared among some things?
Off topic.Age wrote: ↑Fri Dec 10, 2021 7:10 amDid you answer my clarifying question about what is the ACTUAL DIFFERENCE here, before?
If no, then WHY NOT?
Now, let us IMAGINE if this CLAIM of yours that absolute NO thing could exist if there was NO 'mind', and that 'mind' NEVER existed before or prior to this absolutely CONFUSING, ILLOGICAL, and so-called term, "since the beginning of time", then HOW could 'time' 'begin', 'come into existence', or 'simply exist' if 'mind' was NOT so-called "simply existing" then?
Or, from YOUR "accurate thinking and seeing" of 'things' did absolutely ALL 'things' just "simply exist" ALL AT ONCE?
If no, then what is the EXACT order of 'things', according to "bahman logic"?
Do you know what is the argument from change is? Apparently yes. Then think through since you know the basics.Age wrote: ↑Thu Dec 09, 2021 10:30 amDo you EVER wonder WHY NO one accepts and agrees with your arguments but you STILL go on to CLAIM that you have made up these arguments, which you CLAIM are true, right, accurate, and correct?
Also, what is 'that' argument that, supposedly, explains WHY if there is NO 'mind' then there is a regress in causality? Obviously, it would NOT be ANY of the so-called "arguments" that you have made up "yourself" because NONE of them explains HOW a 'mind' is NEEDED for ANY thing to exist BUT if there is NO 'mind', then there, somehow, is a regress in causality?
The absolutely OBVIOUS CONTRADICTION here just SHOWS that there could NEVER be an EXPLANATION for some 'thing' occurring that is an ABSOLUTELY IMPOSSIBILITY to occur, even by your OWN so-called "logic", "bahman".
You say and CLAIM that the 'mind' is NEEDED for ANY 'thing' to exist, BUT if there is NO 'mind', then causality, itself, just regresses.
For 'causality' to exist, or regress, 'things' are NEEDED, but you CLAIM that 'things' can ONLY exist if there IS a 'mind'. So, HOW, if there is NO 'mind', could 'things' causally 'regress'?
There is no contradiction in what I am saying.
You wouldn't ask this question if it was obvious to you.
Because time has a beginning and there is no prior to the beginning of time.Age wrote: ↑Thu Dec 09, 2021 10:30 amI KNOW, and AGAIN, thank you 'captain OBVIOUS'.
I just asked you nicely to CLARIFY how you can OVERCOME the apparent and OBVIOUS 'contradiction' here.
And, to help you out THIS TIME, but do NOT expect it ALL the OTHER TIMES, to OVERCOME the seemingly OBVIOUS contradiction here all you had to say was 'immortal' may imply an 'eternalness' but one can still 'begin' and then last forever more, and be 'immortal', without necessarily having lasted forever in the past.
Happy you that could reach infinity.Age wrote: ↑Thu Dec 09, 2021 10:30 amWho and/or what, supposedly, does NOT die?
And, OF COURSE, 'you', finite human beings, could NOT reach 'infinity'.
ONLY 'I' can reach 'infinity'.
But neither of these STOPS 'you' from being ABLE to SEE and UNDERSTAND 'infinity', Itself, nor SEE and UNDERSTAND that what you have been CLAIMING is accurate and NOT contradictory is ACTUALLY NOT accurate at all and very contradictory, to say the least.
This I answered thousands of times. Because infinite past is not acceptable.Age wrote: ↑Thu Dec 09, 2021 10:30 amJust out of CURIOSITY, WHY do you INSIST that there MUST HAVE BEEN "a beginning"?bahman wrote: ↑Sat Dec 11, 2021 4:27 pmEither there was noting but mind at the beginning or there was something and mind at the beggining.Age wrote: ↑Thu Dec 09, 2021 10:30 am
You also claim that ANY thing that is subject to change requires a 'mind'. But OBVIOUSLY for the so-called "beginning" to be subject to change, then a 'mind' would be needed. But, also according to you the 'mind' did NOT exist prior to the so-called "beginning", which would OBVIOUSLY be subject to change, and would have IN FACT been CHANGE, ITSELF.
So, what you are essentially saying and CLAIMING here is that there was NOTHING (or NO thing) and then there was JUST SUDDENLY SOMETHING (or EVERY thing).
Are you at all ABLE to explain how this could even logically be a POSSIBILITY?
Off topic.Age wrote: ↑Thu Dec 09, 2021 10:30 am
Besides the Fact that there is OBVIOUSLY absolutely NO 'logical explanation' for how such a thing could even be a POSSIBILITY to occur, let alone to be AN ACTUALITY, there is ALSO the Fact that there is ABSOLUTELY NO 'need' AT ALL for such a thing to even occur.
So, AGAIN, WHY do some of 'you', human beings, PERSIST with this MOST ILLOGICAL, ABSURD, RIDICULOUS, STUPID, AND FOOLISH ASSUMPTION and idea?
Perhaps this page can help you.Age wrote: ↑Sat Dec 04, 2021 12:54 pmYou STILL can NOT even respond to just this one ACCURATELY and CORRECTLY.
OF COURSE "this page contains these comments". BUT, what 'page' are you referring to, EXACTLY?
If it is, "This page, 'which' contains these comments", then just SAY SO. But if 'it' is some thing else, then ALSO just SAY SO.
Also, if it is 'this page', which contains these comments', then HOW EXACTLY are 'we', supposedly, on "the same page"? When quite a lot of 'you', adult human beings, make the claim, "we are on the same page", then this sometimes refers to thinking or seeing the 'same things'. Which, from what I take from 'these writing' on 'this page', or 'in this response' here, we are VERY FAR from thinking or seeing the 'same things'.