|
Post by xxxxxxxxx on Oct 4, 2022 20:26:25 GMT
Observation is interaction, the two are inseperable giving both rely on action and reaction. As such the universe is self-aware, because of not only the interactions occur within it, but also because only "everything" exists. Only "everything" exists results in self-referentiality as there is no comparison, there is no other "everything" otherwise it would not be "everything". This singularity necessitates a universal consciousness as all things, including the phenomenon of consciousness, are connected.
|
|
|
Post by Eugene 2.0 on Oct 4, 2022 20:30:54 GMT
Observation is interaction, the two are inseperable giving both rely on action and reaction. As such the universe is self-aware, because of not only the interactions occur within it, but also because only "everything" exists. Only "everything" exists results in self-referentiality as there is no comparison, there is no other "everything" otherwise it would not be "everything". This singularity necessitates a universal consciousness as all things, including the phenomenon of consciousness, are connected. The University doesn't self aware, or else it's totally one mind, but if there's nothing, but mind there's one deity, and therefore – no minds at all. Anything the Universe does to whom or to what should it report? Seems like it's very unusual, and unnecessary. No need to double the reality for no reason.
|
|
|
Post by xxxxxxxxx on Oct 4, 2022 20:53:28 GMT
Observation is interaction, the two are inseperable giving both rely on action and reaction. As such the universe is self-aware, because of not only the interactions occur within it, but also because only "everything" exists. Only "everything" exists results in self-referentiality as there is no comparison, there is no other "everything" otherwise it would not be "everything". This singularity necessitates a universal consciousness as all things, including the phenomenon of consciousness, are connected. The University doesn't self aware, or else it's totally one mind, but if there's nothing, but mind there's one deity, and therefore – no minds at all. Anything the Universe does to whom or to what should it report? Seems like it's very unusual, and unnecessary. No need to double the reality for no reason. There is only everything thus leaving the universe as self-referential; it occurs through itself as itself. This self-interaction not only points to it having no form but necessitates it as a self-aware given everything within it is connected through the nature of things sharing the same quality of existence; this sharing of the quality of existence within all things necessitates consciousness as connected through all of being. There is absolute mind, which is no-thingness, and there is relative mind, which is thingness.
|
|
|
Post by Eugene 2.0 on Oct 4, 2022 20:56:05 GMT
The University doesn't self aware, or else it's totally one mind, but if there's nothing, but mind there's one deity, and therefore – no minds at all. Anything the Universe does to whom or to what should it report? Seems like it's very unusual, and unnecessary. No need to double the reality for no reason. There is only everything thus leaving the universe as self-referential; it occurs through itself as itself. This self-interaction not only points to it having no form but necessitates it as a self-aware given everything within it is connected through the nature of things sharing the same quality of existence; this sharing of the quality of existence within all things necessitates consciousness as connected through all of being. There is absolute mind, which is no-thingness, and there is relative mind, which is thingness. No arguments are detected. "Occurs itself as itself"... How is anyone supposed to believe in it? 2+2=4 because 2+2=4? Great. The explanation is indeed cool.
|
|
|
Post by xxxxxxxxx on Oct 4, 2022 21:01:50 GMT
There is only everything thus leaving the universe as self-referential; it occurs through itself as itself. This self-interaction not only points to it having no form but necessitates it as a self-aware given everything within it is connected through the nature of things sharing the same quality of existence; this sharing of the quality of existence within all things necessitates consciousness as connected through all of being. There is absolute mind, which is no-thingness, and there is relative mind, which is thingness. No arguments are detected. "Occurs itself as itself"... How is anyone supposed to believe in it? 2+2=4 because 2+2=4? Great. The explanation is indeed cool. Everything cannot reference anything beside itself otherwise it would not be everything, as such it is self-referential.
|
|
|
Post by Eugene 2.0 on Oct 4, 2022 21:05:19 GMT
No arguments are detected. "Occurs itself as itself"... How is anyone supposed to believe in it? 2+2=4 because 2+2=4? Great. The explanation is indeed cool. Everything cannot reference anything beside itself otherwise it would not be everything, as such it is self-referential. Ok, then E+1=E, so it is E+x=E as well. By such 'x' is a pointless and unusual. And as this 'x' is out of consciousness, and then it's not a part of that consciousness everything. Therefore, E+1=E or E+x=E are wrong
|
|
|
Post by xxxxxxxxx on Oct 4, 2022 21:13:26 GMT
Everything cannot reference anything beside itself otherwise it would not be everything, as such it is self-referential. Ok, then E+1=E, so it is E+x=E as well. By such 'x' is a pointless and unusual. And as this 'x' is out of consciousness, and then it's not a part of that consciousness everything. Therefore, E+1=E or E+x=E are wrong No, this example does not apply as Everything cannot have 1 or x added to it otherwise it would not be everything.
|
|
|
Post by MAYA-EL on Oct 5, 2022 16:18:21 GMT
The University doesn't self aware, or else it's totally one mind, but if there's nothing, but mind there's one deity, and therefore – no minds at all. Anything the Universe does to whom or to what should it report? Seems like it's very unusual, and unnecessary. No need to double the reality for no reason. There is only everything thus leaving the universe as self-referential; it occurs through itself as itself. This self-interaction not only points to it having no form but necessitates it as a self-aware given everything within it is connected through the nature of things sharing the same quality of existence; this sharing of the quality of existence within all things necessitates consciousness as connected through all of being. There is absolute mind, which is no-thingness, and there is relative mind, which is thingness. What? No it doesn't necessitate anything none of what you said was factual and none of what you said necessitates anything it was all nonsensical new age
|
|
|
Post by Eugene 2.0 on Oct 6, 2022 14:31:50 GMT
Ok, then E+1=E, so it is E+x=E as well. By such 'x' is a pointless and unusual. And as this 'x' is out of consciousness, and then it's not a part of that consciousness everything. Therefore, E+1=E or E+x=E are wrong No, this example does not apply as Everything cannot have 1 or x added to it otherwise it would not be everything. Haha! (Yes, in my example there was a mistake, but different one: instead of saying e+1=e, then e = 0, I should have said e = ∞.) If everything cannot add 1, then this 'everything' is limited, and thus 'either your everything is wrong, or your conceptualization of it is impossible'.
|
|
|
Post by xxxxxxxxx on Oct 6, 2022 20:29:42 GMT
There is only everything thus leaving the universe as self-referential; it occurs through itself as itself. This self-interaction not only points to it having no form but necessitates it as a self-aware given everything within it is connected through the nature of things sharing the same quality of existence; this sharing of the quality of existence within all things necessitates consciousness as connected through all of being. There is absolute mind, which is no-thingness, and there is relative mind, which is thingness. What? No it doesn't necessitate anything none of what you said was factual and none of what you said necessitates anything it was all nonsensical new age If all is one then consciousness exists through all things. Reality exists as one as there is only everything, this everything necessitates all things connected through the underlying quality which is being itself.
|
|
|
Post by xxxxxxxxx on Oct 6, 2022 20:37:10 GMT
No, this example does not apply as Everything cannot have 1 or x added to it otherwise it would not be everything. Haha! (Yes, in my example there was a mistake, but different one: instead of saying e+1=e, then e = 0, I should have said e = ∞.) If everything cannot add 1, then this 'everything' is limited, and thus 'either your everything is wrong, or your conceptualization of it is impossible'. Everything is beyond conception as everything is formless, this formlessness is because there is nothing beyond everything that allows for contrast necessary for form. In regards to rationalizing everything through equations, everything cannot equate to anything as the equation points to a dyad, the thing and the thing that the thing is equal too. Because equality is dyadic 'everything' cannot equate to anything at all because said equation would require 'everything' and 'something else beside everything'. This 'something else beside everything' would result in everything not being everything. 'Everything' can have no rational equation because the equation would require 'everything' to be a part thus necessitating it as a part having parts beyond it (in which case everything is not everything).
|
|
|
Post by Eugene 2.0 on Oct 6, 2022 21:24:45 GMT
Haha! (Yes, in my example there was a mistake, but different one: instead of saying e+1=e, then e = 0, I should have said e = ∞.) If everything cannot add 1, then this 'everything' is limited, and thus 'either your everything is wrong, or your conceptualization of it is impossible'. Everything is beyond conception as everything is formless, this formlessness is because there is nothing beyond everything that allows for contrast necessary for form. In regards to rationalizing everything through equations, everything cannot equate to anything as the equation points to a dyad, the thing and the thing that the thing is equal too. Because equality is dyadic 'everything' cannot equate to anything at all because said equation would require 'everything' and 'something else beside everything'. This 'something else beside everything' would result in everything not being everything. 'Everything' can have no rational equation because the equation would require 'everything' to be a part thus necessitating it as a part having parts beyond it (in which case everything is not everything). Everything is not this, everything is not that... Seems you are unaware of what is it. You're saying it's our of conception while constantly conceptualizing it, and (!!!) at the moment to predict it a quality of formless (douh!). And (ta-dam!) you put everything out of rationalization - trying all the time to rationalize it! What kind of talks is that?? Of course such a manner can lead you to nowhere. This is not even metaphysics. It's not even a parody on it. No words to express what kind of talk is it. But, okay, I will continue to talk, even having no idea what on earth purposes it may have? Besides, how is it at all possible to deny semantics (from the other post of yours) and at the same moment with such heat to try to explain me (which I understand properly) that there is everything overall everything we can imagine. Yes, there's a one, usually named Kantian domain, because Kant was the one who proposed it. Unlike Parmenides Kant was trying to analyze and to conceptualize it. He resulted in time & space idea as what limit us. If you want to try to rationalize it at the end you'll meet time&space coneptions. Nothing more. The Speculative Realism school, which is quite young (formed in 2008), proposed a critique to such a view thinking that Kantian idea was just a correalism, and by that a human is a measurement source (which, of course, is not should be). So, for them an observer disappears as a necessary element, and pre-human era means not less, than the human one. (Which is quite interesting, isn't it?) However, they haven't lead anywhere properly yet. Doesn't seem this school have plenty of ambitions and ideas. Your case is bad, because you do not follow any stable and comprehended methodic. What kind of methods do you use anyway? For why and why do you say that everything is that or this, why do you take equality and its seemed dyadic-ness?? I don't know what to answer you, because either you don't have methods, or you change them just as you wish. It's not good, because you cannot change basketball or chess rules during the game. The methods are more important, than any results. Funny thing that when you're writing about everything it seems the same to write about God. Why so? Because we also cannot say about God, but only in negative /apophatic/ manner. We can say what God is not, but we cannot say positively, except only using metaphors. The problem is that even if you write down about such everything you don't know about what are you talking also. The question appears then: how did you find that everything out?
|
|
|
Post by xxxxxxxxx on Oct 6, 2022 21:36:42 GMT
Everything is beyond conception as everything is formless, this formlessness is because there is nothing beyond everything that allows for contrast necessary for form. In regards to rationalizing everything through equations, everything cannot equate to anything as the equation points to a dyad, the thing and the thing that the thing is equal too. Because equality is dyadic 'everything' cannot equate to anything at all because said equation would require 'everything' and 'something else beside everything'. This 'something else beside everything' would result in everything not being everything. 'Everything' can have no rational equation because the equation would require 'everything' to be a part thus necessitating it as a part having parts beyond it (in which case everything is not everything). Everything is not this, everything is not that... Seems you are unaware of what is it. You're saying it's our of conception while constantly conceptualizing it, and (!!!) at the moment to predict it a quality of formless (douh!). And (ta-dam!) you put everything out of rationalization - trying all the time to rationalize it! What kind of talks is that?? Of course such a manner can lead you to nowhere. This is not even metaphysics. It's not even a parody on it. No words to express what kind of talk is it. But, okay, I will continue to talk, even having no idea what on earth purposes it may have? Besides, how is it at all possible to deny semantics (from the other post of yours) and at the same moment with such heat to try to explain me (which I understand properly) that there is everything overall everything we can imagine. Yes, there's a one, usually named Kantian domain, because Kant was the one who proposed it. Unlike Parmenides Kant was trying to analyze and to conceptualize it. He resulted in time & space idea as what limit us. If you want to try to rationalize it at the end you'll meet time&space coneptions. Nothing more. The Speculative Realism school, which is quite young (formed in 2008), proposed a critique to such a view thinking that Kantian idea was just a correalism, and by that a human is a measurement source (which, of course, is not should be). So, for them an observer disappears as a necessary element, and pre-human era means not less, than the human one. (Which is quite interesting, isn't it?) However, they haven't lead anywhere properly yet. Doesn't seem this school have plenty of ambitions and ideas. Your case is bad, because you do not follow any stable and comprehended methodic. What kind of methods do you use anyway? For why and why do you say that everything is that or this, why do you take equality and its seemed dyadic-ness?? I don't know what to answer you, because either you don't have methods, or you change them just as you wish. It's not good, because you cannot change basketball or chess rules during the game. The methods are more important, than any results. Funny thing that when you're writing about everything it seems the same to write about God. Why so? Because we also cannot say about God, but only in negative /apophatic/ manner. We can say what God is not, but we cannot say positively, except only using metaphors. The problem is that even if you write down about such everything you don't know about what are you talking also. The question appears then: how did you find that everything out? Everything is beyond form thus a void; it is beyond form as it has no comparison because comparison would require something beyond everything thus everything is not everything. Thingness is a void of void thus also a void. In conceptualizing everything we conceptionalize nothing, but in conceptionalizing nothing we conceptionalize an absence and this absence is a negative limit thus a thing. Everything is both no-thing and a thing and neither no-thing nor a thing, thus everything is a contradiction. As a contradiction it exists as a contradiction, thus exists as contradictions exist.
|
|
|
Post by MAYA-EL on Oct 6, 2022 21:54:05 GMT
What? No it doesn't necessitate anything none of what you said was factual and none of what you said necessitates anything it was all nonsensical new age If all is one then consciousness exists through all things. Reality exists as one as there is only everything, this everything necessitates all things connected through the underlying quality which is being itself. That's the thing all is not one and like I said that is just part of that new age junk All is not one just like I am not anything like the child molester or the murderer or especially Gladys. Now people that say all is one like to pretend that they are the same but their is not a drop of evidence to back that concept up and even the very thing they hold as the highest most important thing (consciousness) proves that we are not all one through the phenomenon of singular awareness IE imme your you we both know that it doesn't accidentally get blended together we will always be separate and every single human being experiences this. So I only have examples that we are not all one whereas you don't have a single example that we are all one But based off of the fact that you cannot differentiate reality from fiction due to your imagination I'm going to assume that you're going to disagree with me on this scenario and find some justification to keep believing exactly the way you have been, possibly make a new thread topic or two about it
|
|
|
Post by xxxxxxxxx on Oct 13, 2022 19:52:30 GMT
If all is one then consciousness exists through all things. Reality exists as one as there is only everything, this everything necessitates all things connected through the underlying quality which is being itself. That's the thing all is not one and like I said that is just part of that new age junk All is not one just like I am not anything like the child molester or the murderer or especially Gladys. Now people that say all is one like to pretend that they are the same but their is not a drop of evidence to back that concept up and even the very thing they hold as the highest most important thing (consciousness) proves that we are not all one through the phenomenon of singular awareness IE imme your you we both know that it doesn't accidentally get blended together we will always be separate and every single human being experiences this. So I only have examples that we are not all one whereas you don't have a single example that we are all one But based off of the fact that you cannot differentiate reality from fiction due to your imagination I'm going to assume that you're going to disagree with me on this scenario and find some justification to keep believing exactly the way you have been, possibly make a new thread topic or two about it All things are connected through the underlying quality that is "being". All things are connected in the respect they share existence.
|
|