|
Post by xxxxxxxxx on Mar 9, 2021 23:42:26 GMT
If all is One then all is connected, this means even the most obscure phenomenon are connect to further obscure phenomenon. Under these terms a form of universal equivocation occurs.
|
|
|
Post by Eugene 2.0 on Mar 10, 2021 0:36:16 GMT
|
|
|
Post by MAYA-EL on Mar 10, 2021 5:31:31 GMT
I do not believe all is one in the non-duality sense
But for conversation sake I will exercise the topic.
You draw the conclusion that if all is one than all is connected but even from a non duelist standpoint that is technically incorrect because if all is one then it would not all be connected because it would all be one . remember non-duality is very hard to verbalize accurately because it's more of a "not 2" instead of a "2 are the same" kind of concept
|
|
|
Post by xxxxxxxxx on Mar 10, 2021 17:16:50 GMT
I do not believe all is one in the non-duality sense But for conversation sake I will exercise the topic. You draw the conclusion that if all is one than all is connected but even from a non duelist standpoint that is technically incorrect because if all is one then it would not all be connected because it would all be one . remember non-duality is very hard to verbalize accurately because it's more of a "not 2" instead of a "2 are the same" kind of concept Connection is unity of parts, parts are an approximation of the one as observed through the many. To say something is connected is to say it is one. Multiplicity is observing the one through the mask of void. Void is not a thing in itself but rather an approximation of one through the many where the gaps between phenonemenon are void. Void does not exist on it's own terms thus only being exists. This totality of being is connected through being itself.
|
|
|
Post by MAYA-EL on Mar 11, 2021 3:25:54 GMT
>>>Void does not exist on it's own terms thus only being exists<<<
How on earth did you come to that conclusion?.
>>>This totality of being is connected through being itself.<<<
Although I agree that everything is intertwined in some way or another, however you're going to have to show me this "being" that you keep making all these assertions about.
And how do you know void doesn't exist under its own terms?
|
|
|
Post by xxxxxxxxx on Mar 15, 2021 22:17:18 GMT
>>>Void does not exist on it's own terms thus only being exists<<< How on earth did you come to that conclusion?. >>>This totality of being is connected through being itself.<<< Although I agree that everything is intertwined in some way or another, however you're going to have to show me this "being" that you keep making all these assertions about. And how do you know void doesn't exist under its own terms? 1. You cannot observe void except in the absence of some relation, this relationship is being. Only being is observed. For example in observing an empty cup the only thing being observed is the cup. 2. You typing out a response is some facet of being itself. Me typing out a response is some other facet. 3. Void doesn't exist under it's own terms as it is only observed in contrast to some other being. For example if I was in a complete void what would be observed is myself, thus a contrast.
|
|
|
Post by MAYA-EL on Mar 17, 2021 3:18:21 GMT
I agree with what your saying however Aren't you just assuming that there is a void/nothing?
Because the only thing you can observe is a something
That would mean that you have a concept in your head and you call that concept "void/nothing" and assume where/how it is in relation to all the somethings you observe
|
|
|
Post by Eugene 2.0 on Mar 17, 2021 18:40:15 GMT
I agree with what your saying however Aren't you just assuming that there is a void/nothing? Because the only thing you can observe is a something That would mean that you have a concept in your head and you call that concept "void/nothing" and assume where/how it is in relation to all the somethings you observe I apologize for the "intrude". Observing something doesn't mean not observing anything else at the same time. Both logically and metaphysically it can be explained: x[xєR]-> x[xєR&xєS] i.e. a set of some object R, that is being observed, may have some object S that is also being observed. Metaphysically: to know anything about something (as a separated, demarked) means to know about its addition or its counterparts too. Because saying what is R we're already saying what is non-R.
|
|
|
Post by Eugene 2.0 on Mar 17, 2021 18:44:48 GMT
All is one - is one of issues of Plato in his "Parmenides". But Plato had already admitted that that "all" was something really really weird. And there's no way to claim that in that "all" everything is connected.
It must be obvious, just think about it: either "all" is not really all, and you're talking about the reality where "everything is connected"; or "all" is indeed that all, but then there are separated and non-connected things or deities.
|
|
|
Post by Eugene 2.0 on Mar 17, 2021 18:54:18 GMT
There's another curious result I've posted here somewhere previously, and it concerns with it in some other route:
1. Any deity or any thing can be taken as one; twoes, thirds, bubbles, sets, chaos, universes - each of those things or even groups of those can be taken as one. Easily we can put "=" between a thing or a group of things and "1". 2. "1" is the central universal that is presented in everything. That means - anything has one (or "1"). 3. So, if through that "1" we can tie up anything then, yes, I would agree with your claim. But (!!) there is the important difference in the verb "to connect". Here they are:
a) to be linked by association; b) to be linked by causation; c) to be linked by time (or space);
None of these (or even more detailed) forms cannot get us to anything. In other words, it's impossible to leap from any thing that is in that "all" to any other thing in that "all", just because each deity has that "1" in itself.
So, your entailment about "everything is connected" can be saved in some specific way; and - that it must be important to note (!) - you cannot imply "all is one" from it. God it?
|
|
|
Post by MAYA-EL on Mar 17, 2021 18:54:57 GMT
I agree with what your saying however Aren't you just assuming that there is a void/nothing? Because the only thing you can observe is a something That would mean that you have a concept in your head and you call that concept "void/nothing" and assume where/how it is in relation to all the somethings you observe I apologize for the "intrude". Observing something doesn't mean not observing anything else at the same time. Both logically and metaphysically it can be explained: x[xєR]-> x[xєR&xєS] i.e. a set of some object R, that is being observed, may have some object S that is also being observed. Metaphysically: to know anything about something (as a separated, demarked) means to know about its addition or its counterparts too. Because saying what is R we're already saying what is non-R. It can be explained yet And perhaps even logically However that doesn't necessarily mean that it's true and correct . But just think about it for a second and think as to why we assume and call that assumption "logical" when there technically isn't any evidence to support the claim. I mean does it make since?, Yes of course it does, but so does the religious belief system you were raised in and participated in despite how it illogical it looks to a person from a different upbringing a religion Now apply that to science into it in the context of religious blinders because we were all raised with science so it's like our one shared religion and so we will all find it logical together despite the fact that it might be completely irrational fundamentally speaking.
|
|
|
Post by Eugene 2.0 on Mar 17, 2021 19:14:05 GMT
I apologize for the "intrude". Observing something doesn't mean not observing anything else at the same time. Both logically and metaphysically it can be explained: x[xєR]-> x[xєR&xєS] i.e. a set of some object R, that is being observed, may have some object S that is also being observed. Metaphysically: to know anything about something (as a separated, demarked) means to know about its addition or its counterparts too. Because saying what is R we're already saying what is non-R. It can be explained yet And perhaps even logically However that doesn't necessarily mean that it's true and correct . But just think about it for a second and think as to why we assume and call that assumption "logical" when there technically isn't any evidence to support the claim. I mean does it make since?, Yes of course it does, but so does the religious belief system you were raised in and participated in despite how it illogical it looks to a person from a different upbringing a religion Now apply that to science into it in the context of religious blinders because we were all raised with science so it's like our one shared religion and so we will all find it logical together despite the fact that it might be completely irrational fundamentally speaking. I can agree with you that there might be a religious factor that has implied on the thinking, i.e. the metaphysical thinking. I also can agree with you that logically is just a technical term. Yes, I know it, so I addressed this to the example of a set theory. In other words, when we're observing an area A, in doesn't mean we're not observing an area B. Within that A there might be B. The set theory basics can be easily transposed to the Boolean algebra or to proposition calculus and so on, because all of those languages are transitive. Science can be our religion, yet I wouldn't blend it with the religion. I can't say that science=religion. No, no way. Science is about to prove things or to get things straight. Religion can be lightful, while more often it just about to empty the pockets. I'd rather to stick to the Russell's opinion on the place of religion, science, and philosophy with a little correction: Russell's view is that philosophy is somewhere between S and R. I'd say that science (S) is grounded and the most trusted for many cases; religion (R) is trying to doubt in many things which the science studies, while it's leaning to some supernatural things. Philosophy doubts in anything, including the supernatural. So, if a scientist knows how to separate the gold from the fool's gold by using some tools and common intersubjective things, a religious person is about to find some non-physical or non-experimental (etc) ways to be able to differ one gold from another one. And a philosopher is the one who doubts at this process itself saying that the gold isn't really the fool's gold.
|
|
|
Post by MAYA-EL on Mar 19, 2021 19:35:02 GMT
It can be explained yet And perhaps even logically However that doesn't necessarily mean that it's true and correct . But just think about it for a second and think as to why we assume and call that assumption "logical" when there technically isn't any evidence to support the claim. I mean does it make since?, Yes of course it does, but so does the religious belief system you were raised in and participated in despite how it illogical it looks to a person from a different upbringing a religion Now apply that to science into it in the context of religious blinders because we were all raised with science so it's like our one shared religion and so we will all find it logical together despite the fact that it might be completely irrational fundamentally speaking. I can agree with you that there might be a religious factor that has implied on the thinking, i.e. the metaphysical thinking. I also can agree with you that logically is just a technical term. Yes, I know it, so I addressed this to the example of a set theory. In other words, when we're observing an area A, in doesn't mean we're not observing an area B. Within that A there might be B. The set theory basics can be easily transposed to the Boolean algebra or to proposition calculus and so on, because all of those languages are transitive. Science can be our religion, yet I wouldn't blend it with the religion. I can't say that science=religion. No, no way. Science is about to prove things or to get things straight. Religion can be lightful, while more often it just about to empty the pockets. I'd rather to stick to the Russell's opinion on the place of religion, science, and philosophy with a little correction: Russell's view is that philosophy is somewhere between S and R. I'd say that science (S) is grounded and the most trusted for many cases; religion (R) is trying to doubt in many things which the science studies, while it's leaning to some supernatural things. Philosophy doubts in anything, including the supernatural. So, if a scientist knows how to separate the gold from the fool's gold by using some tools and common intersubjective things, a religious person is about to find some non-physical or non-experimental (etc) ways to be able to differ one gold from another one. And a philosopher is the one who doubts at this process itself saying that the gold isn't really the fool's gold. Well the view of religion as I see it is that a religion is a set of beliefs held by one or more individuals wherein those beliefs motivate actions and govern future likelihood of the followers as well as having rules and what to do and what not to do and also faith And science meets all of those requirements. It is the most popular religion in the world because it is the most effective and yields the most results. Most religions deny the physical and require faith on the spiritual and that's where science has its strong points is it points to the physical requires very little of the spiritual and in doing so dominates all other religions in tangible proof. More specifically it is the religion of atomism because keep in mind the atom was thought up by philosophers so it's app rooted in imagination and still to this day arguably has not been proven to exist what has been proven are some tiny little fuzzy digital renderings on a screen but not actually seen and despite that fact scientists that held that belief that the atom exists for hundreds of years. But I Don't want to Sidetrack the topic at hand
|
|
|
Post by Eugene 2.0 on Mar 19, 2021 20:18:16 GMT
I can agree with you that there might be a religious factor that has implied on the thinking, i.e. the metaphysical thinking. I also can agree with you that logically is just a technical term. Yes, I know it, so I addressed this to the example of a set theory. In other words, when we're observing an area A, in doesn't mean we're not observing an area B. Within that A there might be B. The set theory basics can be easily transposed to the Boolean algebra or to proposition calculus and so on, because all of those languages are transitive. Science can be our religion, yet I wouldn't blend it with the religion. I can't say that science=religion. No, no way. Science is about to prove things or to get things straight. Religion can be lightful, while more often it just about to empty the pockets. I'd rather to stick to the Russell's opinion on the place of religion, science, and philosophy with a little correction: Russell's view is that philosophy is somewhere between S and R. I'd say that science (S) is grounded and the most trusted for many cases; religion (R) is trying to doubt in many things which the science studies, while it's leaning to some supernatural things. Philosophy doubts in anything, including the supernatural. So, if a scientist knows how to separate the gold from the fool's gold by using some tools and common intersubjective things, a religious person is about to find some non-physical or non-experimental (etc) ways to be able to differ one gold from another one. And a philosopher is the one who doubts at this process itself saying that the gold isn't really the fool's gold. Well the view of religion as I see it is that a religion is a set of beliefs held by one or more individuals wherein those beliefs motivate actions and govern future likelihood of the followers as well as having rules and what to do and what not to do and also faith And science meets all of those requirements. It is the most popular religion in the world because it is the most effective and yields the most results. Most religions deny the physical and require faith on the spiritual and that's where science has its strong points is it points to the physical requires very little of the spiritual and in doing so dominates all other religions in tangible proof. More specifically it is the religion of atomism because keep in mind the atom was thought up by philosophers so it's app rooted in imagination and still to this day arguably has not been proven to exist what has been proven are some tiny little fuzzy digital renderings on a screen but not actually seen and despite that fact scientists that held that belief that the atom exists for hundreds of years. But I Don't want to Sidetrack the topic at hand I divide such things as tools and motives. Motives can drive us even without being aware of them completely. And that's where I see religion to be rooted mostly. To view any religion as a tool is to see it practically as a ritual, or a treatment for some cases - like those Neanderthals did in magic. Science can be religion, but about what it sings then? All those practical things you've brought? I can't fully agree on it. If that would be so, then almost every person were a scientist. I'd say that the real scientists' number isn't so large as we might thought. An average person takes practice as something useful, but what animal doesn't do the same? For me science is a tool. Mostly I try to use its fruits, when life requires me to use it, or practice tells me it, but who can be sure about appearing of some new revolutions in science?
|
|
|
Post by MAYA-EL on Mar 20, 2021 21:21:35 GMT
Back in the Pythagorean/Plato days scienc was just a small part of philosophy and any educated man was considered a philosopher in his own right and a scientist as well.
I'm not sure what your point is about the animals ?
|
|