For the discussion of all things philosophical.
https://canzookia.com/
I don't know
Oh I see, so according to you there is a ''real'' nondualism as opposed to an ''unreal'' nondualism.Atla wrote: ↑Sat Apr 07, 2018 4:48 pmYes, from an Eastern nondualism point of view, I'm certain. I have no idea how you could read the books of Eastern teachers and think that they were talking about Gnosis or Pseudo Advaita?
Hint: what is the common essence of the Eastern understanding of the "nondual state" or "Buddha-nature" or "zen" or "seeing the Tao", is NOT Christian Gnosis.Dontaskme wrote: ↑Sat Apr 07, 2018 4:58 pmOh I see, so according to you there is a ''real'' nondualism as opposed to an ''unreal'' nondualism.
OMG, you are totally clueless.
I think that's likely right. How would we understand the claim, "There's a universe in which mutually contradictory things are all true"? That would seem a very bizarre thing to say.
Well, it's worse than that. It's such wild speculation that nothing we know objectively conforms to it. In other words, it is about as counter-scientific and counter-rational an idea as anyone can express.But then again who knows, it's as wild a speculation as it gets.
There's a difference between saying, "I'm entertaining a version," and saying, "The version I'm imagining myself entertaining is possible." For example, there are no universes with square circles, married bachelors, and so forth in them. The male-female styrofoam Superman universe is likely just as absurdly impossible as those.Don't know what you mean. I'm entertaining some version of this idea right now, so I guess the idea is possible.
That raises a question, though. If the term "natural" bounds a specific set of possible items, and rules out other things that are "impossible," then it's not true to say "everything can happen," and certainly not true to say, "everything that can happen does happen somewhere in the universe or in the multiverse." We would be saying, "Only natural things happen anywhere, no matter how much space is out there."But my idea is that everything can exist naturally, does exist.
Well that's not entirely true. We know OUR universe, it objectively conforms to itself. That's more than nothing, while the alternative, the God idea has nothing at all.Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Sat Apr 07, 2018 5:10 pmWell, it's worse than that. It's such wild speculation that nothing we know objectively conforms to it. In other words, it is about as counter-scientific and counter-rational an idea as anyone can express.
As such, it's not even really conceivable.
Yes, but I replied to you writing that the idea itself (as in the thought, idea itself) might not be possible (maybe I misunderstood).There's a difference between saying, "I'm entertaining a version," and saying, "The version I'm imagining myself entertaining is possible." For example, there are no universes with square circles, married bachelors, and so forth in them. The male-female styrofoam Superman universe is likely just as absurdly impossible as those.
Not sure what you mean, I consider the multiverse to fall under the "natural" category here. In this picture all of existence is made of things from this category and that's it.That raises a question, though. If the term "natural" bounds a specific set of possible items, and rules out other things that are "impossible," then it's not true to say "everything can happen," and certainly not true to say, "everything that can happen does happen somewhere in the universe or in the multiverse." We would be saying, "Only natural things happen anywhere, no matter how much space is out there."
But that kills the multiverse hypothesis as a useful postulate to try to explain why we're in the particular kind of naturally-bounded universe in which we're found. And the "spiritual consequence" (to use your term) is then that we can no longer say that our existence is unsurprising and needs no explanation due to the multiverse idea. The multiverse idea now fails to explain that.
Answer: not when existence is defined as any manifestation.
Well in the multiverse theory, I guess it's fair to say that existence is defined as the sum of all possible manifestations. I won't see all possible chessgames being played, but all possible chessgames may exist in the multiverse.Walker wrote: ↑Sat Apr 07, 2018 5:28 pm Answer: not when existence is defined as any manifestation.
It's like this:
Because a human lacks the capacity to witness each of the potentialities locked within the 64 squares of a chess board, does not negate the rationality that any particular potentiality can manifest from that little patch of reality, given the combination of elements that comprise a proper condition.
That would make sense if every moment is a new universe due to changing conditions.Atla wrote: ↑Sat Apr 07, 2018 5:36 pmWell in the multiverse theory, I guess it's fair to say that existence is defined as the sum of all possible manifestations. I won't see all possible chessgames being played, but all possible chessgames may exist in the multiverse.Walker wrote: ↑Sat Apr 07, 2018 5:28 pm Answer: not when existence is defined as any manifestation.
It's like this:
Because a human lacks the capacity to witness each of the potentialities locked within the 64 squares of a chess board, does not negate the rationality that any particular potentiality can manifest from that little patch of reality, given the combination of elements that comprise a proper condition.
I don't think you know what universe means or how physics works.Walker wrote: ↑Sat Apr 07, 2018 5:42 pmThat would make sense if every moment is a new universe due to changing conditions.Atla wrote: ↑Sat Apr 07, 2018 5:36 pmWell in the multiverse theory, I guess it's fair to say that existence is defined as the sum of all possible manifestations. I won't see all possible chessgames being played, but all possible chessgames may exist in the multiverse.Walker wrote: ↑Sat Apr 07, 2018 5:28 pm Answer: not when existence is defined as any manifestation.
It's like this:
Because a human lacks the capacity to witness each of the potentialities locked within the 64 squares of a chess board, does not negate the rationality that any particular potentiality can manifest from that little patch of reality, given the combination of elements that comprise a proper condition.
But, that little incomprehensible patch of 64-square reality exists in this universe, along with more possibilities than you can imagine ... so what again is the basis to exclude any possibility of manifestation in this universe that is or can be imagined?
Like I said, until you can come up with your own definition of what ''real'' nondualism is...since you implied I didn't know what it is.
I know how to think, you don't. You have already demonstrated that last time with that cat in the car.
Look idiot, I did try to explain to you roughly what "real" nondualism is, like 2 months ago. You didn't understand any of it. Besides I'm not your teacher.Dontaskme wrote: ↑Sat Apr 07, 2018 5:55 pmLike I said, until you can come up with your own definition of what ''real'' nondualism is...since you implied I didn't know what it is.
I asked you to put forward what it is, since you so confidently dismissed my idea of nondualism as not being the ''real'' nondualism....but then you decided to turn it into one big joke, when all I'm doing is trying to be serious about this... all you could come up with was to play a prank on me, and me being a genuine person believed the prank, and really believed it was your own idea ...this kind of trickery just says to me that you are an idiot like I've always suspected.
You will just keep piping up with random BS that you expect other people to swallow. I read your post above and have no idea what you are supposed to be talking about.
It's no good just saying something is true without explaining how it is true, you then have to explain how you can know for certain that I do not know what ''real'' nondualism is...and you also have to explain how would you know that?
If you can't do any of the above, then you are just a blithering idiot like I've already figured out about you.
.