Potentially infinite possibilities

[Lacewing]

Some considerations about reality...

Most of us are likely capable of noticing how many different 'realities' human beings can live in. If we contemplate the implications of that, what might we consider or conclude?

For me...

Perhaps there are potentially infinite possibilities that can be seen, imagined, and experienced -- collectively and individually -- each reality appearing as real or valid to each individual/collective who experiences it.

Further, how might broader realities/states organically reflect/inform individual reality/states? I've been thinking how little sense the current reality on the world stage makes to me. Recognizing the utter absurdity and chaos that is not worth entertaining inspires me in my personal life too, to put my energy toward other possibilities.

How much distinction/separation is there between the broader collective and the individual? Are we evolving and transforming collaboratively and in unison? Perhaps the outer shows us where we are... so the inner can inspire us as to where else we can go.

[Age]

Some considerations about reality...

Most of us are likely capable of noticing how many different 'realities' human beings can live in.

There is, obviously, only One actual Reality that you human beings could, and do, actually live in.

Although it is fairly obvious, to most of 'us' anyway, that you older human beings, individually, do make up and create your own perceived, or own conceptualized, 'realities', but, obviously, a great deal of them do not align with the One and only actual Reality.

'This' can be clearly observed by the very many different ways that you human beings can, and do, 'look at',.and 'see' and experience, the 'exact same' 'thing' differently, and by 'the way' that you older human beings seemingly constantly 'argue' and fight 'over' 'things'.

Some of you people, for example, even use the words, 'our reality', as though one's own, group or individual, and different perspective is 'the reality', and at a subliminal level they are actually acknowledging that 'that reality' is, actually, just 'made up', and thus 'owned', by them, only.

'These ones', literally, see and assess their 'own reality' as the one and only true and right one.

There really is only 'One True, Right, Accurate, and Correct way' to 'look at', and 'see', 'the world' around one, that is, the One and only Real Universe in which one has 'found' "itself within. However, many human beings just end up, Falsely, believing that there are actually 'more or many ways' to 'look at' and 'see' 'things'.

Some will actually claim that 'there are more ways to see and assess our reality than what another viewpoint and judgements is', however there is only 'One way', which will actually reveal what the One and only Truth and Reality is, HERE, exactly, in this One and Only Real Universe.

Although there are more or many ways that human beings can and do look, and see, things, believing that those 'different ways' are going to produce thea True, Right, Accurate, or Correct assessment, viewpoint, or judgement is another prime example of people just leading 'themselves" completely astray.

If we contemplate the implications of that, what might we consider or conclude?

If one, firstly, contemplates how many different 'realities' in which you human beings can live in, which is obviously as many as you human beings can conjure up and imagine, and then, secondly, contemplates 'the implication' of 'that', then what one might consider or conclude is another absolutely unimaginable amount of 'other things'. Or, to 'that one' just 'another, so-called, reality'.

For me...

Perhaps there are potentially infinite possibilities that can be seen, imagined, and experienced --

Was 'this' not already obvious a, relatively, 'long time ago:?

collectively and individually -- each reality appearing as real or valid to each individual/collective who experiences it.

you are just expressing what you older human beings do anyway.

But, again, and obviously, what you older human beings actually do is not necessarily in alignment with what is actually good and/nor Right, in Life.

Surely 'this' does not need to be continually repeated, here, throughout this forum.

Or, does it?

Further, how might broader realities/states organically reflect/inform individual reality/states?

In both negative or positive ways, as well as in neutral ways. However, and by the way, there are no actual so-called broader 'realities' nor 'states', as there are what is actually Real and True, here. But, there are obviously broader views or broader ways of looking and seeing, here. For example there are much broader views, and much broader ways of looking and seeing than you 'currently' have, and are doing, here.

I've been thinking how little sense the current reality on the world stage makes to me.

So, why do 'you' not just take 'your own advice' and broaden 'your view'?

Which, by the way, is what I have been suggesting 'you do' since entering this forum. However, you believe that 'the way' that you 'look at' and thus 'see' thins, 'now', is 'the best' and 'most optimal way', correct?

Recognizing the utter absurdity and chaos that is not worth entertaining inspires me in my personal life too, to put my energy toward other possibilities.

Except, of course, because of your 'current' beliefs you are not yet open to the 'actual way', which can, and will and does, produce the 'best and most optimal way' of 'looking at' and 'seeing' things for, exactly, how they 'actually are'.

'you: might well be, supposedly, open to :some oher possibilities', only, but you are obviously absolutely closed and shut to all possibilities.

Unless, of course, you have 'let go' of those Truly debilitating beliefs, which you had previously, here.

How much distinction/separation is there between the broader collective and the individual?

you ask questions as though your own personal answers to them are the only true and right ones. However, because you are still looking for and seeking answers, here, 'your own personal way', here, has not yet actually been working out, for you. Or, do you believe, absolutely, otherwise?

Are we evolving and transforming collaboratively and in unison?

The 'current' conflicts, wars, and disharmony in 'the world', in the days when this is being written, would be an obvious clue as to 'the actual answer', here. Well for some of 'us' anyway they are.

Perhaps the outer shows us where we are... so the inner can inspire us as to where else we can go.
[/quote]

'Perhaps', but then again 'perhaps not'.

Once you, again, also come to understand and know the 'True and Right way' to 'look at', and 'see', all things, then you too will understand and why you went, and have been.goinh, so Wrong, here.

[ThinkOfOne]

Some considerations about reality...

Most of us are likely capable of noticing how many different 'realities' human beings can live in. If we contemplate the implications of that, what might we consider or conclude?

For me...

Perhaps there are potentially infinite possibilities that can be seen, imagined, and experienced -- collectively and individually -- each reality appearing as real or valid to each individual/collective who experiences it.

Further, how might broader realities/states organically reflect/inform individual reality/states? I've been thinking how little sense the current reality on the world stage makes to me. Recognizing the utter absurdity and chaos that is not worth entertaining inspires me in my personal life too, to put my energy toward other possibilities.

How much distinction/separation is there between the broader collective and the individual? Are we evolving and transforming collaboratively and in unison? Perhaps the outer shows us where we are... so the inner can inspire us as to where else we can go.

There is one - and only one - reality that we live in. The problem is that a very high percentage of humans do not live in that reality. In other words, they live in delusion. Even worse, the vast majority of those living in delusion, do not believe that they live in delusion. Part-and-parcel of that delusion seems to be the belief that those who do not share their delusion are the ones living in delusion. By and large, this is why so much of what's going on in this world makes little sense.

Perhaps the most perverse thing about all this is that self-delusion is so common that many consider it to be acceptable instead of something that needs to be eradicated. "It's normal".

[Lacewing]

There is one - and only one - reality that we live in.

How do you know that?

[ThinkOfOne]

There is one - and only one - reality that we live in.

How do you know that?

Other than there no reasonable evidence to the contrary?

[Lacewing]

There is one - and only one - reality that we live in.

How do you know that?

Other than there no reasonable evidence to the contrary?

There's no reasonable evidence for it, either... right?

There are, however, a vast range of realities that we can see people believing in and living in... and there are indications of many seemingly 'supernatural' energies that we don't fully understand... so that inspires me to question the idea of a 'single reality' based in our human terms.

It seems more reasonable to me that there would be multi-dimensional realities... even perhaps overlapping. Whereas, a linear model -- and singleness of anything -- doesn't seem in alignment with what we see in nature, where there's an explosion of possibilities continually evolving for no apparent reason. A single reality might seem to suggest something more static, in comparison to that.

Interesting to think about. Thanks for participating.

[ThinkOfOne]

How do you know that?

Other than there no reasonable evidence to the contrary?

There's no reasonable evidence for it, either... right?

There are, however, a vast range of realities that we can see people believing in and living in... and there are indications of many seemingly 'supernatural' energies that we don't fully understand... so that inspires me to question the idea of a 'single reality' based in our human terms.

It seems more reasonable to me that there would be multi-dimensional realities... even perhaps overlapping. Whereas, a linear model -- and singleness of anything -- doesn't seem in alignment with what we see in nature, where there's an explosion of possibilities continually evolving for no apparent reason. A single reality might seem to suggest something more static, in comparison to that.

Interesting to think about. Thanks for participating.

There's no reasonable evidence for it, either... right?

Hopefully you understand the fallacy in that and mean that tongue in cheek.

There are, however, a vast range of realities that we can see people believing in and living in... and there are indications of many seemingly 'supernatural' energies that we don't fully understand... so that inspires me to question the idea of a 'single reality' based in our human terms.

It seems more reasonable to me that there would be multi-dimensional realities... even perhaps overlapping. Whereas, a linear model -- and singleness of anything -- doesn't seem in alignment with what we see in nature, where there's an explosion of possibilities continually evolving for no apparent reason.

What kind of things do you have in mind there?

[Lacewing]

There is one - and only one - reality that we live in.

How do you know that?

Other than there no reasonable evidence to the contrary?

There's no reasonable evidence for it, either... right?

Hopefully you understand the fallacy in that and mean that tongue in cheek.

Please explain the fallacy you see. How is my suggestion automatically a fallacy, but yours isn't?

What kind of things do you have in mind there?

I offered the following general and visible examples of what I look to for considering natural patterning and apparent potential:

There are, however, a vast range of realities that we can see people believing in and living in... and there are indications of many seemingly 'supernatural' energies that we don't fully understand... so that inspires me to question the idea of a 'single reality' based in our human terms.

It seems more reasonable to me that there would be multi-dimensional realities... even perhaps overlapping. Whereas, a linear model -- and singleness of anything -- doesn't seem in alignment with what we see in nature, where there's an explosion of possibilities continually evolving for no apparent reason.

Why would I need to get any more specific? What are you basing your 'what is' on?

I genuinely find the nature and potential of 'our reality' interesting to ponder. No offense is intended in my questioning! I would very much appreciate it if you (or anyone) would meet me in the middle for the questioning, instead of simply claiming how it is (especially without offering what that is being based on). I am open to considering other perspectives/ideas... just not absolute claims that I don't think are possible to know, and which shut down further questioning and mutual discussion. I don't care what everyone thinks/believes... I care how they got there.

I think NATURE is a wonderful example for considering broader potential.

[ThinkOfOne]

There is one - and only one - reality that we live in.

How do you know that?

Other than there no reasonable evidence to the contrary?

There's no reasonable evidence for it, either... right?

Hopefully you understand the fallacy in that and mean that tongue in cheek.

Please explain the fallacy you see. How is my suggestion automatically a fallacy, but yours isn't?

What kind of things do you have in mind there?

I offered the following general and visible examples of what I look to for considering natural patterning and apparent potential:

There are, however, a vast range of realities that we can see people believing in and living in... and there are indications of many seemingly 'supernatural' energies that we don't fully understand... so that inspires me to question the idea of a 'single reality' based in our human terms.

It seems more reasonable to me that there would be multi-dimensional realities... even perhaps overlapping. Whereas, a linear model -- and singleness of anything -- doesn't seem in alignment with what we see in nature, where there's an explosion of possibilities continually evolving for no apparent reason.

Why would I need to get any more specific? What are you basing your 'what is' on?

I genuinely find the nature and potential of 'our reality' interesting to ponder. No offense is intended in my questioning! I would very much appreciate it if you (or anyone) would meet me in the middle for the questioning, instead of simply claiming how it is (especially without offering what that is being based on). I am open to considering other perspectives/ideas... just not absolute claims that I don't think are possible to know, and which shut down further questioning and mutual discussion. I don't care what everyone thinks/believes... I care how they got there.

I think NATURE is a wonderful example for considering broader potential.

Please explain the fallacy you see. How is my suggestion automatically a fallacy, but yours isn't?

It's about burden of proof. You've never come across Bertrand Russell's Teapot? Or is it that you think Russell is incorrect? If so, how?

From Google AI:
Russell's teapot is a philosophical thought experiment used to illustrate the burden of proof. It argues that if a claim is made without evidence, especially one that is unfalsifiable, it shouldn't be believed simply because it's difficult to disprove.
Here's a more detailed explanation:
The Analogy:
Imagine someone claims that a tiny teapot, too small to be seen with telescopes, orbits the sun between Earth and Mars. They refuse to offer any evidence but claim that it can't be proven wrong, so it must be true.
The Point:
Russell, who originated this analogy, argues that simply because a claim cannot be disproven doesn't mean it should be believed. The burden of proof lies with the claimant to present evidence supporting their assertion.

There are, however, a vast range of realities that we can see people believing in and living in... and there are indications of many seemingly 'supernatural' energies that we don't fully understand... so that inspires me to question the idea of a 'single reality' based in our human terms.

It seems more reasonable to me that there would be multi-dimensional realities... even perhaps overlapping. Whereas, a linear model -- and singleness of anything -- doesn't seem in alignment with what we see in nature, where there's an explosion of possibilities continually evolving for no apparent reason.

Why would I need to get any more specific?


"There are, however, a vast range of realities that we can see people believing in and living in"

Seems much more reasonable to explain that as delusion on the part of those people. In my experience, a large number of people have never developed solid critical thinking skills. Even fewer have developed solid conceptual thinking skills. So, believe things sans solid evidence and sound reasoning. Consider those who buy into conspiracy theories for example.

"there are indications of many seemingly 'supernatural' energies that we don't fully understand"

What indications do you have in mind here?

" there's an explosion of possibilities continually evolving for no apparent reason."

What do you have in mind here?

[Lacewing]

...

You seem to be asking me to offer the burden of proof for what I've suggested... as if I even could! YET, you are offering no such thing for your own claim? Where's your burden of proof? What is your claim based on? (I've offered at least that much.)

[ThinkOfOne]

...

You seem to be asking me to offer the burden of proof for what I've suggested... as if I even could! YET, you are offering no such thing for your own claim? Where's your burden of proof? What is your claim based on? (I've offered at least that much.)

At this point I'm asking for clarification as to what you have in mind. Why are you refusing to give it?

What claim of mine do you have in mind?

[Lacewing]

You seem to be asking me to offer the burden of proof for what I've suggested... as if I even could! YET, you are offering no such thing for your own claim? Where's your burden of proof? What is your claim based on? (I've offered at least that much.)

At this point I'm asking for clarification as to what you have in mind. Why are you refusing to give it?

What claim of mine do you have in mind?

I have already offered more for my comments than you have for yours. Are you playing games with me, or do you really not see your lack of follow-through in offering explanation (or clarification and burden of proof) for your own claim... as you seem to require of me?

You said:

There is one - and only one - reality that we live in.

I asked:

How do you know that?

You responded:

Other than there no reasonable evidence to the contrary?

I've asked:

What is your reasoning in support of it? Is your only answer that there's no reasonable evidence to the contrary... therefore, it is and must be? What kind of logic is that? Where did you come up with that idea/belief in the first place?

[ThinkOfOne]

You seem to be asking me to offer the burden of proof for what I've suggested... as if I even could! YET, you are offering no such thing for your own claim? Where's your burden of proof? What is your claim based on? (I've offered at least that much.)

At this point I'm asking for clarification as to what you have in mind. Why are you refusing to give it?

What claim of mine do you have in mind?

I have already offered more for my comments than you have for yours. Are you playing games with me, or do you really not see your lack of follow-through in offering explanation (or clarification and burden of proof) for your own claim... as you seem to require of me?

You said:

There is one - and only one - reality that we live in.

I asked:

How do you know that?

You responded:

Other than there no reasonable evidence to the contrary?

I've asked:

What is your reasoning in support of it? Is your only answer that there's no reasonable evidence to the contrary... therefore, it is and must be? What kind of logic is that? Where did you come up with that idea/belief in the first place?

Evidently you've either lost perspective on this discussion OR you don't understand the Russell Teapot thought experiment.

You started this thread with the following claim:
"Some considerations about reality...Most of us are likely capable of noticing how many different 'realities' human beings can live in. If we contemplate the implications of that, what might we consider or conclude?...Perhaps there are potentially infinite possibilities that can be seen, imagined, and experienced -- collectively and individually -- each reality appearing as real or valid to each individual/collective who experiences it."

And the following elaboration:
"that inspires me to question the idea of a 'single reality' based in our human terms...It seems more reasonable to me that there would be multi-dimensional realities... even perhaps overlapping.. Whereas, a linear model -- and singleness of anything -- doesn't seem in alignment with what we see in nature "

Yours is an extraordinary claim that is unfalsifiable AND made without any reasonable evidence. Per the Russell Teapot, the burden of proof is on the one making such a claim. The burden of proof is not on the individual who disputes it. In saying, "There is one - and only one - reality that we live in. The problem is that a very high percentage of humans do not live in that reality. In other words, they live in delusion". I was indicating that I was disputing your claim. By saying "Other than there no reasonable evidence to the contrary?" I was indicating that you haven't provided any reasonable evidence.

Consider the Russell Teapot. If "someone claims that a tiny teapot, too small to be seen with telescopes, orbits the sun between Earth and Mars" and someone indicates that they were disputing that claim by saying, "There's no teapot orbiting the sun between the Earth and Mars", the burden of proof is on the original claimant and not on the person disputing that claim. They need only point out that there is no evidence to support the original claim. That's the point of the thought experiment.

As such, the burden of proof is on you to provide the evidence.

Do you now understand my position? And why I need not provide reasoning for my position beyond pointing out that no reasonable evidence has been given for your claim?






"

[Age]

How do you know that?

Other than there no reasonable evidence to the contrary?

There's no reasonable evidence for it, either... right?

There are, however, a vast range of realities that we can see people believing in and living in... and there are indications of many seemingly 'supernatural' energies that we don't fully understand... so that inspires me to question the idea of a 'single reality' based in our human terms.

It seems more reasonable to me that there would be multi-dimensional realities... even perhaps overlapping. Whereas, a linear model -- and singleness of anything -- doesn't seem in alignment with what we see in nature, where there's an explosion of possibilities continually evolving for no apparent reason. A single reality might seem to suggest something more static, in comparison to that.

Interesting to think about. Thanks for participating.

That there exits, already, proof of there being a one - and only one - reality means that any perception or presumption of any imagined unsubstantiated multi dimensional realities is refuted.

What can be proved factual always outweighs what is just thought, assumed, or believed to be true only.

What just 'seems more reasonable', to this one or even to the vast majority, will never over ride what has already been as proved Fact.

Now, for those who want to also become savvy to the already proved Fact, here, then you will seek out a discussion. For the rest of you, however, your 'current' presumptions or beliefs will keep you closed, narrowed, and/or disinterested, and thus will prevent and stop you from learning more and anew, here.

[Age]

How do you know that?

Other than there no reasonable evidence to the contrary?

There's no reasonable evidence for it, either... right?

Wrong.