Forums > Social Discussion > The Ultimate Theory of Reality.
Login/Join to ParticipateGOLD Member
Carpal \'Tunnel
3,252 posts
Location: sheffield, United Kingdom
Carpal \'Tunnel
3,252 posts
Location: sheffield, United Kingdom
Posted:
As promised in the 'Superultimate Question' thread: -
[Old link]
I've put together my proposed answer to the question- 'why is there something rather than nothing?'.
It's here: -
https://www.geocities.com/combatunicycle/utor/utor.html
Please note before adding to this thread that quantum physics, cosmology, Hawking, the 'Big-Bang', Einstein and Schrodingers cat are almost certainly off-topic due to the fact that the 'nothing' refered to in the question is philosophical nothingness (absolute emptiness) rather than the physical 'empty space' nothingness covered by physics.
(For more on this check out the first link above where this point was extensively discussed)
As promised in the 'Superultimate Question' thread: -
[Old link]
I've put together my proposed answer to the question- 'why is there something rather than nothing?'.
It's here: -
https://www.geocities.com/combatunicycle/utor/utor.html
Please note before adding to this thread that quantum physics, cosmology, Hawking, the 'Big-Bang', Einstein and Schrodingers cat are almost certainly off-topic due to the fact that the 'nothing' refered to in the question is philosophical nothingness (absolute emptiness) rather than the physical 'empty space' nothingness covered by physics.
(For more on this check out the first link above where this point was extensively discussed)
"You can't outrun Death forever.
But you can make the Bastard work for it."
--MAJOR KORGO KORGAR,
"Last of The Lancers"
AFC 32
Educate your self in the Hazards of Fire Breathing STAY SAFE!
small member
116 posts
Location: Hastings
116 posts
Location: Hastings
Posted:
Sorry I've only read a bit past the first page of this topic so excuse me if I'm spouting nonsense
ok the UToR....
I just am not seeing how, what seems to be a fundemental of your theory works. ie the separation of mathematical realm from the universe itself.
the universe is "The totality of all existing things." this includes the math. thus proving the universe is greater than pi because its just a single aspect of it. and by saying that the math exists regardless of a physical universe, If you stripped everything out of the universe and only left nothingness And in your theory pi and mathematical entities still "exist" then pi would be the universe(even in the absrtact sense of existance, ie exists in nothingness which quite rightly simply isn't nothing.) then at the very most pi is equal to the universe cos its the whole of and the same thing.
or is that exactly what your saying? either way really I still haven't got a good reason as to why there wouldn't be
pi in the realm of nothingness..except in my most bizare hypothetical musings
And the god you disprove is a crap god, the universe it self is far more impresseive than that one. but who cares.
still was interesting, I think I should read a bit more of this thread.
EDITED_BY: Colin J (1127745870)
Sorry I've only read a bit past the first page of this topic so excuse me if I'm spouting nonsense
ok the UToR....
I just am not seeing how, what seems to be a fundemental of your theory works. ie the separation of mathematical realm from the universe itself.
the universe is "The totality of all existing things." this includes the math. thus proving the universe is greater than pi because its just a single aspect of it. and by saying that the math exists regardless of a physical universe, If you stripped everything out of the universe and only left nothingness And in your theory pi and mathematical entities still "exist" then pi would be the universe(even in the absrtact sense of existance, ie exists in nothingness which quite rightly simply isn't nothing.) then at the very most pi is equal to the universe cos its the whole of and the same thing.
or is that exactly what your saying? either way really I still haven't got a good reason as to why there wouldn't be
pi in the realm of nothingness..except in my most bizare hypothetical musings
And the god you disprove is a crap god, the universe it self is far more impresseive than that one. but who cares.
still was interesting, I think I should read a bit more of this thread.
EDITED_BY: Colin J (1127745870)
GOLD Member
Carpal \'Tunnel
3,252 posts
Location: sheffield, United Kingdom
Carpal \'Tunnel
3,252 posts
Location: sheffield, United Kingdom
Posted:
By 'universe' I'm referring only to the physical world i.e. not 'the totality of all existing things' but rather the totality of all existing physical things.
By 'universe' I'm referring only to the physical world i.e. not 'the totality of all existing things' but rather the totality of all existing physical things.
"You can't outrun Death forever.
But you can make the Bastard work for it."
--MAJOR KORGO KORGAR,
"Last of The Lancers"
AFC 32
Educate your self in the Hazards of Fire Breathing STAY SAFE!
small member
116 posts
Location: Hastings
116 posts
Location: Hastings
Posted:
I read a bit more now and I'm coming to the conclution I can't disprove it.
It could broken if
A: all possible alternate universes exist even the one where there is an absolute nothing(which is a complete contradiction)or even a universe where its possible that the laws of phsyics/maths are different.
B: the mathematic realm is not set in stone ie: say the speed of light which is a fundemetal constant changes or the math it self is affected or is changed in some way by the physical universe.
then in theory(which is what we are talking here)it might not work
I read a bit more now and I'm coming to the conclution I can't disprove it.
It could broken if
A: all possible alternate universes exist even the one where there is an absolute nothing(which is a complete contradiction)or even a universe where its possible that the laws of phsyics/maths are different.
B: the mathematic realm is not set in stone ie: say the speed of light which is a fundemetal constant changes or the math it self is affected or is changed in some way by the physical universe.
then in theory(which is what we are talking here)it might not work
GOLD Member
Carpal \'Tunnel
3,252 posts
Location: sheffield, United Kingdom
Carpal \'Tunnel
3,252 posts
Location: sheffield, United Kingdom
Posted:
1. Remember, that according to UToR, the existence of physical universes, however many, is irrelevant in the explanation of our experince of reality.
ie that our experience of reality is exactly the same whether or not physical universes exist- that our experience of reality is accounted for purely by the 'mathematical realm'.
2. Actually the mathematical realm is 'set in stone'- it does not change. For one thing it's a non-temporal realm (no time) and that alone ensures no change.
The speed of light is a quantity of the physical world, not the mathematical realm.
.
1. Remember, that according to UToR, the existence of physical universes, however many, is irrelevant in the explanation of our experince of reality.
ie that our experience of reality is exactly the same whether or not physical universes exist- that our experience of reality is accounted for purely by the 'mathematical realm'.
2. Actually the mathematical realm is 'set in stone'- it does not change. For one thing it's a non-temporal realm (no time) and that alone ensures no change.
The speed of light is a quantity of the physical world, not the mathematical realm.
.
"You can't outrun Death forever.
But you can make the Bastard work for it."
--MAJOR KORGO KORGAR,
"Last of The Lancers"
AFC 32
Educate your self in the Hazards of Fire Breathing STAY SAFE!
small member
116 posts
Location: Hastings
116 posts
Location: Hastings
Posted:
What is your deffinition of Pi? a number with infinite decimals, an irrational number, ratio of the circumference of a circle to its diameter?
Besides pi what are these other entities in the mathematical realm?
What is your deffinition of Pi? a number with infinite decimals, an irrational number, ratio of the circumference of a circle to its diameter?
Besides pi what are these other entities in the mathematical realm?
GOLD Member
Carpal \'Tunnel
3,252 posts
Location: sheffield, United Kingdom
Carpal \'Tunnel
3,252 posts
Location: sheffield, United Kingdom
Posted:
Pi is the ratio of a circles diameter to its circumference- irrational, with infinite decimals.
Other entities in the mathematical realm include all numbers, and the 'program' elements that make up consciousness (more accurately, non-temporal 'instants' of consciousness).
Pi is the ratio of a circles diameter to its circumference- irrational, with infinite decimals.
Other entities in the mathematical realm include all numbers, and the 'program' elements that make up consciousness (more accurately, non-temporal 'instants' of consciousness).
"You can't outrun Death forever.
But you can make the Bastard work for it."
--MAJOR KORGO KORGAR,
"Last of The Lancers"
AFC 32
Educate your self in the Hazards of Fire Breathing STAY SAFE!
BRONZE Member
member
829 posts
Location: Houston, Texas, USA
member
829 posts
Location: Houston, Texas, USA
Posted:
the answer you all seek is .........
32
or 69 in some circles
Super'
the answer you all seek is .........
32
or 69 in some circles
Super'
Courage is resistance to fear, mastery of fear--not absence of fear.
- Mark Twain
GOLD Member
Carpal \'Tunnel
3,252 posts
Location: sheffield, United Kingdom
Carpal \'Tunnel
3,252 posts
Location: sheffield, United Kingdom
Posted:
I've recently updated the UToR site by altering the last part that, initially, claimed that UToR, if true, disproved the existence of God.
I had reservations about this because some religious people do feel benefit from their faith.
Recent thought has yielded the surprising conclusion that, while UToR definitly disproves the God that rigid fundamentalists belief in, it simultaneously demostrates the existence of the God defined as a being of pure, unconditional love.
The link to the updated UToR page is-
https://www.davidpanther.plus.com/utor/utor.html
and the relevant extract is-
I've recently updated the UToR site by altering the last part that, initially, claimed that UToR, if true, disproved the existence of God.
I had reservations about this because some religious people do feel benefit from their faith.
Recent thought has yielded the surprising conclusion that, while UToR definitly disproves the God that rigid fundamentalists belief in, it simultaneously demostrates the existence of the God defined as a being of pure, unconditional love.
The link to the updated UToR page is-
https://www.davidpanther.plus.com/utor/utor.html
and the relevant extract is-
Written by:
God
Originally I stated that-
Concerning God; I don't wish to criticise anyone’s religious beliefs, but this particular consequence of my theory is important and unusual. Most would agree I think, that one of the essential defining characteristics of God, is that of God being 'The Creator' (of everything). If that is the case, then the theory disproves the existence of God because it shows that all conscious beings are mathematical entities that have necessary existence i.e. that it is logically impossible for them not to be. They thus cannot have been created, by God or anything else. Consequently, God, as the 'creator of all', is disproven.
I now feel that this was not a particularly useful way to make the point and, given the importance of peoples religious views, needs further elaboration.
Where religion is concerned, I feel there are, broadly speaking, two varieties of views, those which are healthy and productive, based on unity and love and, those which are typically associated with fundamentalism, whose adherents seem to be more interested in rigid interpretations of religious texts and whose views seem to settle more on divisiveness and, ultimately, hatred.
Religious individuals of the first kind tend to be relatively happy, well-adjusted, tolerant and seem to derive considerable personal benefit from their beliefs. Their focus is generally on using the teachings to improve themselves and their relationship to God.
Individuals of the second kind, in contrast, tend to be more interested in (what they see as) the faults of others and tend to be not particularly happy or well-adjusted; their religious beliefs seem to be a source of anxiety and unhappiness. At its most extreme, in the form of fundamentalism, it can lead to hostility and violence towards others.
How does UTOR relate to these two different ways of belief in and experience of, God?
Where the second type of belief is concerned (the rigid, fundamentalist variety), UTOR does indeed undermine and disprove their notion of God. As fundamentalists believe that their God is the creator of everything, UTOR undermines this, by showing that some aspects of the world could not be created (conscious states of awareness/beings and mathematical objects) because there never was a time when they weren’t real.
I feel this is a good result, as it undermines a set of extremely destructive views, right at their root.
For those however, whose relationship with God is based on love, tolerance etc- who derive genuine benefit from their faith and whose faith, by making them better people, actually benefits humanity as a whole- where these are concerned, I don’t feel that UTOR in any way threatens their beliefs; indeed, arguably, it supports them.
Firstly, the fact that UTOR says that certain things (conscious states, mathematical objects etc) are uncreated, is not going to be a problem to the well-adjusted religious individual- compared to the far more important aspects of their faith, which are based on love, self-improvement etc.
Secondly, unlike the fundamentalists, whose view of God is one of a being with rigid characteristics (male, vengeful, having a plan for mankind and punishing those who don’t match up to that plan, etc), those with a healthy set of views are more likely to have a relationship with a God whose essence is pure, unconditional love.
What does UTOR say about such a being (one of pure, unconditional love)? It says that such a being exists- that such a being definitely, purely by the laws of logic, has to exist and has always done so.
Thus, UTOR disproves the God of the fundamentalists, whilst asserting and confirming the existence of the God whose essence is love.
"You can't outrun Death forever.
But you can make the Bastard work for it."
--MAJOR KORGO KORGAR,
"Last of The Lancers"
AFC 32
Educate your self in the Hazards of Fire Breathing STAY SAFE!
Scientist of Fortune
1,189 posts
Location: Edinburgh
1,189 posts
Location: Edinburgh
Posted:
Would not a being of pure, unconditional hate also exist?
Would not a being of pure, unconditional hate also exist?
According to Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle of Quantum Dynamics, we may already be making love right now...
GOLD Member
Carpal \'Tunnel
3,252 posts
Location: sheffield, United Kingdom
Carpal \'Tunnel
3,252 posts
Location: sheffield, United Kingdom
Posted:
Yes.
According to UToR, all possible states of consciousness are real.
Many believers in God, it must be said, do also believe in a being of unconditional evil (hate?)- known as Satan; so the fact that UToR establishes it shouldn't be a problem.
As I've suggested above though, non-fundamentalist, well-adjusted believers, tend not to focus much on the existence of evil, as they're occupied with doing what they can to increase good.
For them, what's important is that the God of unconditional love that forms the basis of their world-view/lives, is real.
And, I'm under no illusions that such well-adjusted religious individuals particularly care that UToR 'proves' their God is real- in the main they're not in need of such proof.
It does just so happen that, as far as I can tell, a consequence of UToR, is that naive, fundamentalist notions of God are invalidated, whereas the God of unconditional love, is established.
Do you, Jeff, see the fact that UToR also establishes the reality of a being of pure, unconditional hate, as being a problem for the theory?
Yes.
According to UToR, all possible states of consciousness are real.
Many believers in God, it must be said, do also believe in a being of unconditional evil (hate?)- known as Satan; so the fact that UToR establishes it shouldn't be a problem.
As I've suggested above though, non-fundamentalist, well-adjusted believers, tend not to focus much on the existence of evil, as they're occupied with doing what they can to increase good.
For them, what's important is that the God of unconditional love that forms the basis of their world-view/lives, is real.
And, I'm under no illusions that such well-adjusted religious individuals particularly care that UToR 'proves' their God is real- in the main they're not in need of such proof.
It does just so happen that, as far as I can tell, a consequence of UToR, is that naive, fundamentalist notions of God are invalidated, whereas the God of unconditional love, is established.
Do you, Jeff, see the fact that UToR also establishes the reality of a being of pure, unconditional hate, as being a problem for the theory?
"You can't outrun Death forever.
But you can make the Bastard work for it."
--MAJOR KORGO KORGAR,
"Last of The Lancers"
AFC 32
Educate your self in the Hazards of Fire Breathing STAY SAFE!
Scientist of Fortune
1,189 posts
Location: Edinburgh
1,189 posts
Location: Edinburgh
Posted:
No I don't, why should I?
However your newest chapter troubles me in the way it is presented. Whilst if correct it would mean that multiple or infinite beings of infinite "love" would exist (as well as all other emotions, or sensations, or food products, including mixtures and finite quantities or other things humans can't even imagine), there would be no reason to suppose that any would ever have any connection with us. For that reason I think it would be inaccurate to compare such things with any deity.
No I don't, why should I?
However your newest chapter troubles me in the way it is presented. Whilst if correct it would mean that multiple or infinite beings of infinite "love" would exist (as well as all other emotions, or sensations, or food products, including mixtures and finite quantities or other things humans can't even imagine), there would be no reason to suppose that any would ever have any connection with us. For that reason I think it would be inaccurate to compare such things with any deity.
According to Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle of Quantum Dynamics, we may already be making love right now...
GOLD Member
Carpal \'Tunnel
3,252 posts
Location: sheffield, United Kingdom
Carpal \'Tunnel
3,252 posts
Location: sheffield, United Kingdom
Posted:
For non-fundamentalist, well-adjusted believers, i think that often they view God as 'pure, unconditional love'.
So, the conscious state of 'pure, unconditional love' that UToR says is necessarily real, would, on that view, be God.
(Arguably, it could also be said to fulfill the quality of 'oneness' that many feel is an attribute of God, because, at that level of pure, unconditional love, there would be only one instance, as, if ther were two, they would be the same entity- in a similarl way that there can't be two pi's).
The more other attributes that are added, the less this is the case.
For example, if a believer is of the kind that needs to see God as also being male, condemning homosexuals, converting or attacking unbelieivers etc, then UToR does not say their god exists.
To be more accurate, of course UToR does assert the existence of hate-filled beings who dislike homosexuals etc, but, to fundamentalist believers, these would not equate to God- if only because they would also insist that their God is the creator of everything, which UToR shows cannot be the case.
For non-fundamentalist, well-adjusted believers, i think that often they view God as 'pure, unconditional love'.
So, the conscious state of 'pure, unconditional love' that UToR says is necessarily real, would, on that view, be God.
(Arguably, it could also be said to fulfill the quality of 'oneness' that many feel is an attribute of God, because, at that level of pure, unconditional love, there would be only one instance, as, if ther were two, they would be the same entity- in a similarl way that there can't be two pi's).
The more other attributes that are added, the less this is the case.
For example, if a believer is of the kind that needs to see God as also being male, condemning homosexuals, converting or attacking unbelieivers etc, then UToR does not say their god exists.
To be more accurate, of course UToR does assert the existence of hate-filled beings who dislike homosexuals etc, but, to fundamentalist believers, these would not equate to God- if only because they would also insist that their God is the creator of everything, which UToR shows cannot be the case.
"You can't outrun Death forever.
But you can make the Bastard work for it."
--MAJOR KORGO KORGAR,
"Last of The Lancers"
AFC 32
Educate your self in the Hazards of Fire Breathing STAY SAFE!
GOLD Member
Stream Entrant
2,829 posts
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Stream Entrant
2,829 posts
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Posted:
Hi Dave, I don’t understand why you feel compelled to compromise such a great theory.
As they say there is only one god, not two as you now propose.
Hi Dave, I don’t understand why you feel compelled to compromise such a great theory.
As they say there is only one god, not two as you now propose.
If we as members of the human race practice meditation, we can transcend our fear, despair, and forgetfulness. Meditation is not an escape. It is the courage to look at reality with mindfulness and concentration. Thich Nhat Hanh
GOLD Member
Stream Entrant
2,829 posts
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Stream Entrant
2,829 posts
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Posted:
Hi Dave, I don’t understand why you feel compelled to compromise such a great theory.
Take a stand for you belief.
As you said the first time:
There is no God.
It's all made up.
Thats the access to getting of the wheel, is it not?
Hi Dave, I don’t understand why you feel compelled to compromise such a great theory.
Take a stand for you belief.
As you said the first time:
Written by:
the the theory disproves the existence of God because it shows that all conscious beings are mathematical entities that have necessary existence i.e. that it is logically impossible for them not to be. They thus cannot have been created, by God or anything else. Consequently, God, as the 'creator of all', is disproven.
There is no God.
It's all made up.
Thats the access to getting of the wheel, is it not?
If we as members of the human race practice meditation, we can transcend our fear, despair, and forgetfulness. Meditation is not an escape. It is the courage to look at reality with mindfulness and concentration. Thich Nhat Hanh
GOLD Member
Carpal \'Tunnel
3,252 posts
Location: sheffield, United Kingdom
Carpal \'Tunnel
3,252 posts
Location: sheffield, United Kingdom
Posted:
I'm definitly not proposing two gods.
I'm not even necessarily saying there's even one- simply that, according to UToR, as all possible states of consciousness are real, that there exists a state of pure, unconditional love, which, some of the more well-adjusted religious people could identify as being God.
I really don't feel that I'm compromising the theory- UToR predicts that this state of consciousness exists.
Personally, I think it's great that a consequence of UToR is that the fundamentalists conception of God is shown to be untenable- purely because fundamentalists are the source of so much hatred and pain for humanity.
I don't see why those religious individuals who have a much more positive and life-improving form of belief, should be tarred with the same brush, so I'm also happy that UToR does not invalidate their beliefs.
But, ultimately, whether I'm happy about particular aspects of UToR does not in any way affect the truth of it (there are other consequences of UToR about which I'm certainly not happy, such as the fact that, as all possible states of consciousness necessarily exist, there are many alternate versions of me in various hellish scenarios involving pain and misery).
I've changed the bit of the webpage that expressed how UToR dealt with God, purely because I've come to see that what I wrote back then was not as straightforward as I then thought and, arguably, was wrong.
Written by: Stone
Hi Dave, I don’t understand why you feel compelled to compromise such a great theory.
As they say there is only one god, not two as you now propose.
I'm definitly not proposing two gods.
I'm not even necessarily saying there's even one- simply that, according to UToR, as all possible states of consciousness are real, that there exists a state of pure, unconditional love, which, some of the more well-adjusted religious people could identify as being God.
I really don't feel that I'm compromising the theory- UToR predicts that this state of consciousness exists.
Personally, I think it's great that a consequence of UToR is that the fundamentalists conception of God is shown to be untenable- purely because fundamentalists are the source of so much hatred and pain for humanity.
I don't see why those religious individuals who have a much more positive and life-improving form of belief, should be tarred with the same brush, so I'm also happy that UToR does not invalidate their beliefs.
But, ultimately, whether I'm happy about particular aspects of UToR does not in any way affect the truth of it (there are other consequences of UToR about which I'm certainly not happy, such as the fact that, as all possible states of consciousness necessarily exist, there are many alternate versions of me in various hellish scenarios involving pain and misery).
I've changed the bit of the webpage that expressed how UToR dealt with God, purely because I've come to see that what I wrote back then was not as straightforward as I then thought and, arguably, was wrong.
"You can't outrun Death forever.
But you can make the Bastard work for it."
--MAJOR KORGO KORGAR,
"Last of The Lancers"
AFC 32
Educate your self in the Hazards of Fire Breathing STAY SAFE!
Scientist of Fortune
1,189 posts
Location: Edinburgh
1,189 posts
Location: Edinburgh
Posted:
Surely it also shows that in fact an infinite number of the fundamentalist type gods exist (as well)?
The important side note is that there is absolutely no reason to suppose that they have any contact with our region of reality.
Surely it also shows that in fact an infinite number of the fundamentalist type gods exist (as well)?
The important side note is that there is absolutely no reason to suppose that they have any contact with our region of reality.
According to Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle of Quantum Dynamics, we may already be making love right now...
BRONZE Member
wandering thru the woods of WI
3,556 posts
Location: Wisconsin, USA
wandering thru the woods of WI
3,556 posts
Location: Wisconsin, USA
Posted:
perhaps a bit off topic
satan isn't all bad because God made him and all things he created are good ultimately. Satan chose the life away from God and he can choose a life with God still-Milton "paradise lost premise"
and this whole math formula smacks of psychohistory
sorry if this is repetitive
perhaps a bit off topic
satan isn't all bad because God made him and all things he created are good ultimately. Satan chose the life away from God and he can choose a life with God still-Milton "paradise lost premise"
and this whole math formula smacks of psychohistory
sorry if this is repetitive
Faith
Nay, whatever comes one hour was sunlit and the most high gods may not make boast of any better thing than to have watched that hour as it passed
GOLD Member
Carpal \'Tunnel
3,252 posts
Location: sheffield, United Kingdom
Carpal \'Tunnel
3,252 posts
Location: sheffield, United Kingdom
Posted:
I'd so 'no'; on the grounds that any true fundamentalist would deny that any of the entities postulated by UToR are God, purely because none of them 'created' the world and the beings in it.
(Because, as UToR shows all conscious beings exist eternally and therefore cannot be created).
So, the beings do exist, but, lacking that important characteristic (of being the creator of everything), they cannot be identified with the Gods of fundamentalists.
I'm not sure what you mean by 'contact'?
According to UToR 'our reality' is that of being states of consciousness that are no more connected than we are to Pi.
In communicating with you, our 'contact' is, according to UToR, simply the fact that I know you are real and vice-versa- there's no relevant physical link.
If you can clarify what it is you mean by 'contact' and 'region of reality', I'm sure I can tell you what UToR says with regard to them.
Written by: jeff(fake)
Surely it also shows that in fact an infinite number of the fundamentalist type gods exist (as well)?
I'd so 'no'; on the grounds that any true fundamentalist would deny that any of the entities postulated by UToR are God, purely because none of them 'created' the world and the beings in it.
(Because, as UToR shows all conscious beings exist eternally and therefore cannot be created).
So, the beings do exist, but, lacking that important characteristic (of being the creator of everything), they cannot be identified with the Gods of fundamentalists.
Written by: jeff(fake)
The important side note is that there is absolutely no reason to suppose that they have any contact with our region of reality.
I'm not sure what you mean by 'contact'?
According to UToR 'our reality' is that of being states of consciousness that are no more connected than we are to Pi.
In communicating with you, our 'contact' is, according to UToR, simply the fact that I know you are real and vice-versa- there's no relevant physical link.
If you can clarify what it is you mean by 'contact' and 'region of reality', I'm sure I can tell you what UToR says with regard to them.
"You can't outrun Death forever.
But you can make the Bastard work for it."
--MAJOR KORGO KORGAR,
"Last of The Lancers"
AFC 32
Educate your self in the Hazards of Fire Breathing STAY SAFE!
GOLD Member
Stream Entrant
2,829 posts
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Stream Entrant
2,829 posts
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Posted:
Dave you said
Dave your theory either proves or disproves the existence of God. You said “God, as the 'creator of all', is disproven.” Now, you say “UTOR disproves the God of the fundamentalists, whilst asserting and confirming the existence of the God whose essence is love. “
What a load of rubbish. War, terror, hostility and violence towards others will only cease when people understand that we come from nothing, and ultimately life has no meaning. It’s the meaning we put on everything, like what is written in books like the bible, that cause the conflicts. The other myth is that our ego or self can be made permanent and we succumb to the illusion of afterlife, reincarnation, heaven and all those stories.
So what you appear to be saying is that beings (ones of pure, unconditional love) exist, that such a beings definitely, purely by the laws of logic, have to exist and have always done so.” Which imo, has nothing to do with supernatural entities like God and more about amazing human beings like Buddha and Jesus.
So what do you think
cheers
Dave you said
Written by:
They thus cannot have been created, by God or anything else. Consequently, God, as the 'creator of all', is disproven
Dave your theory either proves or disproves the existence of God. You said “God, as the 'creator of all', is disproven.” Now, you say “UTOR disproves the God of the fundamentalists, whilst asserting and confirming the existence of the God whose essence is love. “
What a load of rubbish. War, terror, hostility and violence towards others will only cease when people understand that we come from nothing, and ultimately life has no meaning. It’s the meaning we put on everything, like what is written in books like the bible, that cause the conflicts. The other myth is that our ego or self can be made permanent and we succumb to the illusion of afterlife, reincarnation, heaven and all those stories.
So what you appear to be saying is that beings (ones of pure, unconditional love) exist, that such a beings definitely, purely by the laws of logic, have to exist and have always done so.” Which imo, has nothing to do with supernatural entities like God and more about amazing human beings like Buddha and Jesus.
So what do you think
cheers
If we as members of the human race practice meditation, we can transcend our fear, despair, and forgetfulness. Meditation is not an escape. It is the courage to look at reality with mindfulness and concentration. Thich Nhat Hanh
GOLD Member
Carpal \'Tunnel
3,252 posts
Location: sheffield, United Kingdom
Carpal \'Tunnel
3,252 posts
Location: sheffield, United Kingdom
Posted:
We have one group of people who believe in a God who supports destructive fundamentalist views that encourage intolerance and hatred: and, another group who believe in a God which is a state of pure, unconditional love.
Clearly, those two 'Gods' are very different entities.
As such, there is no reason whatsoever why UToR can disprove one (the fundamentalist) whilst simultaneously asserting the existence of the other.
I can maybe relate to your feelings on this, having once been heavily critical of all God-based religion my self.
However, the years have passed, I've encountered a good few well-adjusted christians/muslims etc, who clearly are secure in their faith and in whom it seems to enhance both their own lives and those around them.
To bundle everyone into the category of being responsible for the war and pain in the world, soley because of their faith, is exactly the kind of intolerance that we dislike in the fundamentalists.
----------
Finally, all that aside (how we feel about UToRs view on god), the simple facts are, that following the logic of UToR, the only rational conclusion is that it disproves the fundamentalist God (who, by definition, has the impossible characteristic of being the creator of things which cannot be created); whilst asserting that a (non-creator) state of pure, unconditional love, is real.
As to whether people identify that being of pure, unconditional love with their idea of God, that is a matter for them to decide.
Hopefully, that clarifies things a little.
If not, the theory of UToR is set out in its entirety on the webpage, so, if you (or anyone else here) believe UToR actually does deny the existence of a being of pure, unconditional love, or doesn't lead to the conclusions I'm picking up; then feel free to point out why.
Written by: Stone
Dave you saidWritten by:
They thus cannot have been created, by God or anything else. Consequently, God, as the 'creator of all', is disproven
Dave your theory either proves or disproves the existence of God. You said “God, as the 'creator of all', is disproven.” Now, you say “UTOR disproves the God of the fundamentalists, whilst asserting and confirming the existence of the God whose essence is love. “
What a load of rubbish. War, terror, hostility and violence towards others will only cease when people understand that we come from nothing, and ultimately life has no meaning. It’s the meaning we put on everything, like what is written in books like the bible, that cause the conflicts. The other myth is that our ego or self can be made permanent and we succumb to the illusion of afterlife, reincarnation, heaven and all those stories.
So what you appear to be saying is that beings (ones of pure, unconditional love) exist, that such a beings definitely, purely by the laws of logic, have to exist and have always done so.” Which imo, has nothing to do with supernatural entities like God and more about amazing human beings like Buddha and Jesus.
So what do you think
cheers
We have one group of people who believe in a God who supports destructive fundamentalist views that encourage intolerance and hatred: and, another group who believe in a God which is a state of pure, unconditional love.
Clearly, those two 'Gods' are very different entities.
As such, there is no reason whatsoever why UToR can disprove one (the fundamentalist) whilst simultaneously asserting the existence of the other.
I can maybe relate to your feelings on this, having once been heavily critical of all God-based religion my self.
However, the years have passed, I've encountered a good few well-adjusted christians/muslims etc, who clearly are secure in their faith and in whom it seems to enhance both their own lives and those around them.
To bundle everyone into the category of being responsible for the war and pain in the world, soley because of their faith, is exactly the kind of intolerance that we dislike in the fundamentalists.
----------
Finally, all that aside (how we feel about UToRs view on god), the simple facts are, that following the logic of UToR, the only rational conclusion is that it disproves the fundamentalist God (who, by definition, has the impossible characteristic of being the creator of things which cannot be created); whilst asserting that a (non-creator) state of pure, unconditional love, is real.
As to whether people identify that being of pure, unconditional love with their idea of God, that is a matter for them to decide.
Hopefully, that clarifies things a little.
If not, the theory of UToR is set out in its entirety on the webpage, so, if you (or anyone else here) believe UToR actually does deny the existence of a being of pure, unconditional love, or doesn't lead to the conclusions I'm picking up; then feel free to point out why.
"You can't outrun Death forever.
But you can make the Bastard work for it."
--MAJOR KORGO KORGAR,
"Last of The Lancers"
AFC 32
Educate your self in the Hazards of Fire Breathing STAY SAFE!
110% MONKEY EVERY TIME ALL THE TIME JUST CANT STOP THE MONKEY
3,149 posts
Location: London
3,149 posts
Location: London
Posted:
Hi Dave,
i enjoyed reading your theory, i think it's cool but i don't agree.
i can't really see what makes it necessary. i agree pi and any mental construction can be said to exist in some sense of the word, but thats mainly because of the fairly broad and fuzzy definition of our word 'exist'. It doesn't mean that those things possess properties such as other things that we say 'exist'. An important sense of 'exist' would be to have an effect on other entities, to cause them to be in a different state than they would otherwise be. Pi doesn't have that property. But our minds do.
as a related criticism, i think you cannot seperate the human mind from the physical world, any more than a game of pacman exists without some medium to exist through (such as an arcade cabinet / board game / frenzied nightmare). Hmm, but i suppose UTOR would claim that all possible games of pacman exist, in exactly the same sense as my teapot exists... i dunno, it seems a weak theory in explaining the apparent consistency of the reality with which i'm faced. But as with all ontological type arguments based around existence its pretty tricky to pin things down, as our language doesn't have the equipment to deal with it. i reckon the theory is essentially based around a misunderstanding or vagueness of language.
i'm comforted that Kant reckons 'existence' can't be used as a logical property of things, and he were cleverer than me
Hi Dave,
i enjoyed reading your theory, i think it's cool
but i don't agree.i can't really see what makes it necessary. i agree pi and any mental construction can be said to exist in some sense of the word, but thats mainly because of the fairly broad and fuzzy definition of our word 'exist'. It doesn't mean that those things possess properties such as other things that we say 'exist'. An important sense of 'exist' would be to have an effect on other entities, to cause them to be in a different state than they would otherwise be. Pi doesn't have that property. But our minds do.
as a related criticism, i think you cannot seperate the human mind from the physical world, any more than a game of pacman exists without some medium to exist through (such as an arcade cabinet / board game / frenzied nightmare). Hmm, but i suppose UTOR would claim that all possible games of pacman exist, in exactly the same sense as my teapot exists... i dunno, it seems a weak theory in explaining the apparent consistency of the reality with which i'm faced. But as with all ontological type arguments based around existence its pretty tricky to pin things down, as our language doesn't have the equipment to deal with it. i reckon the theory is essentially based around a misunderstanding or vagueness of language.
i'm comforted that Kant reckons 'existence' can't be used as a logical property of things, and he were cleverer than me
"Switching between different kinds of chuu chuu sometimes gives this "urgh wtf?" effect because it's giving people the phi phenomenon."
GOLD Member
Carpal \'Tunnel
3,252 posts
Location: sheffield, United Kingdom
Carpal \'Tunnel
3,252 posts
Location: sheffield, United Kingdom
Posted:
Really?
I'm not clear on why an important sense of 'exist' is that it has an effect on other entities.
It's important in enabling them to 'know' of its existence, but I don't see why having an effect is essential for the existence of the first object.
UToR makes no claims about the existence of objects (like Teapots or Pacman games)- the things it asserts are all states of consciousness.
So, the experience of you looking at a teapot is, according to UToR, real and logically necessary, but, as far as the actual physical existence of the teapot is concerned, UToR regards that as irrelevant.
With Kant, again, if the 'existence' he claims can't be a logical property of things, is about actual physical things, then he may well be right- but I don't think it relates to UToR, because 'existence' in UToR is not about physical objects, but 'mathematical objects' (including states of consciousness).
Written by: simian
An important sense of 'exist' would be to have an effect on other entities, to cause them to be in a different state than they would otherwise be. Pi doesn't have that property. But our minds do.
Really?
I'm not clear on why an important sense of 'exist' is that it has an effect on other entities.
It's important in enabling them to 'know' of its existence, but I don't see why having an effect is essential for the existence of the first object.
Written by: simian
as a related criticism, i think you cannot seperate the human mind from the physical world, any more than a game of pacman exists without some medium to exist through (such as an arcade cabinet / board game / frenzied nightmare). Hmm, but i suppose UTOR would claim that all possible games of pacman exist, in exactly the same sense as my teapot exists...
i'm comforted that Kant reckons 'existence' can't be used as a logical property of things, and he were cleverer than me
UToR makes no claims about the existence of objects (like Teapots or Pacman games)- the things it asserts are all states of consciousness.
So, the experience of you looking at a teapot is, according to UToR, real and logically necessary, but, as far as the actual physical existence of the teapot is concerned, UToR regards that as irrelevant.
With Kant, again, if the 'existence' he claims can't be a logical property of things, is about actual physical things, then he may well be right- but I don't think it relates to UToR, because 'existence' in UToR is not about physical objects, but 'mathematical objects' (including states of consciousness).
"You can't outrun Death forever.
But you can make the Bastard work for it."
--MAJOR KORGO KORGAR,
"Last of The Lancers"
AFC 32
Educate your self in the Hazards of Fire Breathing STAY SAFE!
110% MONKEY EVERY TIME ALL THE TIME JUST CANT STOP THE MONKEY
3,149 posts
Location: London
3,149 posts
Location: London
Posted:
hmm, ok. the first point: the only things i think exist are things which, directly or indirectly, affect me. i reckon pluto probably exists because i've been told so by other people who found from other information sources that ultimately come from someone who spotted it, because of light bouncing off it. i only think pluto exists, because its had an effect on something.
that's why i think affecting other things is an important property. in what way can a thing be said to exist if it doesn't interact with other entities in any sense?
what does the word exist actually signify in the sense in which you're using it? how would something that exists differ from something that doesn't?
hmm, ok. the first point: the only things i think exist are things which, directly or indirectly, affect me. i reckon pluto probably exists because i've been told so by other people who found from other information sources that ultimately come from someone who spotted it, because of light bouncing off it. i only think pluto exists, because its had an effect on something.
that's why i think affecting other things is an important property. in what way can a thing be said to exist if it doesn't interact with other entities in any sense?
what does the word exist actually signify in the sense in which you're using it? how would something that exists differ from something that doesn't?
"Switching between different kinds of chuu chuu sometimes gives this "urgh wtf?" effect because it's giving people the phi phenomenon."
GOLD Member
Stream Entrant
2,829 posts
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Stream Entrant
2,829 posts
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Posted:
No, sorry Dave they all believe in the same God. You already told me that. And that’s the catch. Remembering your bit on artificial intelligence, I say they were the same robots with different programming. Fundamentalists are programmed from different life experiences than say “good” believers, but both believe in the “one” God. And as you have so clearly explained in your theory, a God that cannot exist. So this is not so much about belief in supernatural beings that don’t exist, as belief in stories/religions, and belief in whose stories is the best story. Whatever, it is the interpretation of these stories that creates the conflict.
Furthermore, there are many groups not just one group of “destructive fundamentalist” and, and another group that believes in a God which is a state of pure, unconditional love. I’m sure all groups believe they are doing the right thing by their God, and it’s only an opinion or moral judgement on whether they are right or wrong.
I suggest sticking to your original conclusion that, “God, as the 'creator of all', is disproven”. Its becomes really messy when you pander to so called good religious believers. It just doesn’t work when you bring religion into it.
Written by:
We have one group of people who believe in a God who supports destructive fundamentalist views that encourage intolerance and hatred: and, another group who believe in a God which is a state of pure, unconditional love.
Clearly, those two 'Gods' are very different entities.
No, sorry Dave they all believe in the same God. You already told me that. And that’s the catch. Remembering your bit on artificial intelligence, I say they were the same robots with different programming. Fundamentalists are programmed from different life experiences than say “good” believers, but both believe in the “one” God. And as you have so clearly explained in your theory, a God that cannot exist. So this is not so much about belief in supernatural beings that don’t exist, as belief in stories/religions, and belief in whose stories is the best story. Whatever, it is the interpretation of these stories that creates the conflict.
Furthermore, there are many groups not just one group of “destructive fundamentalist” and, and another group that believes in a God which is a state of pure, unconditional love. I’m sure all groups believe they are doing the right thing by their God, and it’s only an opinion or moral judgement on whether they are right or wrong.
I suggest sticking to your original conclusion that, “God, as the 'creator of all', is disproven”. Its becomes really messy when you pander to so called good religious believers. It just doesn’t work when you bring religion into it.
If we as members of the human race practice meditation, we can transcend our fear, despair, and forgetfulness. Meditation is not an escape. It is the courage to look at reality with mindfulness and concentration. Thich Nhat Hanh
GOLD Member
Carpal \'Tunnel
3,252 posts
Location: sheffield, United Kingdom
Carpal \'Tunnel
3,252 posts
Location: sheffield, United Kingdom
Posted:
?
I didn't tell you that all religious groups believe in the same God- either you've misunderstood something I've said, or I've said something I didn't intend to.
Perhaps you could quote the bit where you think I said that?
I'm not 'pandering' to anyone- these are direct logical consequences of UToR.
I do not have the option of sticking to the original conclusion because it is clearly incorrect.
UToR could be summed up as saying that all possible states of consciousness are real.
Therefore, to the extent that a conscious state of 'pure, unconditional' love is possible, according to UToR, it does exist.
Written by: Stone
No, sorry Dave they all believe in the same God. You already told me that.
?
I didn't tell you that all religious groups believe in the same God- either you've misunderstood something I've said, or I've said something I didn't intend to.
Perhaps you could quote the bit where you think I said that?
Written by:
Furthermore, there are many groups not just one group of “destructive fundamentalist” and, and another group that believes in a God which is a state of pure, unconditional love. I’m sure all groups believe they are doing the right thing by their God, and it’s only an opinion or moral judgement on whether they are right or wrong.
I suggest sticking to your original conclusion that, “God, as the 'creator of all', is disproven”. Its becomes really messy when you pander to so called good religious believers. It just doesn’t work when you bring religion into it.
I'm not 'pandering' to anyone- these are direct logical consequences of UToR.
I do not have the option of sticking to the original conclusion because it is clearly incorrect.
UToR could be summed up as saying that all possible states of consciousness are real.
Therefore, to the extent that a conscious state of 'pure, unconditional' love is possible, according to UToR, it does exist.
"You can't outrun Death forever.
But you can make the Bastard work for it."
--MAJOR KORGO KORGAR,
"Last of The Lancers"
AFC 32
Educate your self in the Hazards of Fire Breathing STAY SAFE!
GOLD Member
Carpal \'Tunnel
3,252 posts
Location: sheffield, United Kingdom
Carpal \'Tunnel
3,252 posts
Location: sheffield, United Kingdom
Posted:
Generally, in the 'mathematical realm', as long as it's possible, it does exist.
So, pi exists, as does the number 3; but square triangles don't exist and neither does 'the largest number'- they don't exist because they can't, due to containing logical contradictions.
Where states of consciousness are concerned, again, if they're possible, then they are real (do exist).
On your account of existence, presumably anything in the universe that is more than x light years away, where x=your lifespan, could not be said to exist, as, according to the laws of physics (specifically, einsteins relativity) it is physically impossible for them to directly affect you?
As for what UToR has to say on physical objects- it neither affirms nor denies them: as all conscious beings experience of reality is covered purely by UToRs pointing out that all possible states of consciousness exist simply as logical necessities, the existence or non-existence of physical matter is irrelevant (according to UToR).
Written by: simian
hmm, ok. the first point: the only things i think exist are things which, directly or indirectly, affect me. i reckon pluto probably exists because i've been told so by other people who found from other information sources that ultimately come from someone who spotted it, because of light bouncing off it. i only think pluto exists, because its had an effect on something.
that's why i think affecting other things is an important property. in what way can a thing be said to exist if it doesn't interact with other entities in any sense?
what does the word exist actually signify in the sense in which you're using it? how would something that exists differ from something that doesn't?
Generally, in the 'mathematical realm', as long as it's possible, it does exist.
So, pi exists, as does the number 3; but square triangles don't exist and neither does 'the largest number'- they don't exist because they can't, due to containing logical contradictions.
Where states of consciousness are concerned, again, if they're possible, then they are real (do exist).
On your account of existence, presumably anything in the universe that is more than x light years away, where x=your lifespan, could not be said to exist, as, according to the laws of physics (specifically, einsteins relativity) it is physically impossible for them to directly affect you?
As for what UToR has to say on physical objects- it neither affirms nor denies them: as all conscious beings experience of reality is covered purely by UToRs pointing out that all possible states of consciousness exist simply as logical necessities, the existence or non-existence of physical matter is irrelevant (according to UToR).
"You can't outrun Death forever.
But you can make the Bastard work for it."
--MAJOR KORGO KORGAR,
"Last of The Lancers"
AFC 32
Educate your self in the Hazards of Fire Breathing STAY SAFE!
110% MONKEY EVERY TIME ALL THE TIME JUST CANT STOP THE MONKEY
3,149 posts
Location: London
3,149 posts
Location: London
Posted:
That use of the term makes perfect sense. But i fail to see how that then applies to states of consciousness in the terms of which we experience them.
No. i'm not defining existence as being a property "if and only if it has some effect on myself". i'm only pointing out that one property we sometimes ascribe to the broadly defined word 'existence' is the potential an entity has to affect other entities. In that sense the mind exists, but pi does not.
i disagree that my experience of reality is covered by UToR. By what agency do i seem to experience a consistent continuity of mind states (waiting for the tube, getting on the tube, going to work), as opposed to a random mess of possible concepts? (eggplant, one hundred and forty two, green shark). It seems to me that the simplest answer would be the relevance of physically existing entities to my mind state.
Pi can't talk to the concept of Justice. But i can talk to you. By what sense or agency can things be said to 'interact' if not physically?
Written by: onewheeldave
Generally, in the 'mathematical realm', as long as it's possible, it does exist.
That use of the term makes perfect sense. But i fail to see how that then applies to states of consciousness in the terms of which we experience them.
Written by: owd
On your account of existence, presumably anything in the universe that is more than x light years away, where x=your lifespan, could not be said to exist, as, according to the laws of physics (specifically, einsteins relativity) it is physically impossible for them to directly affect you?
No. i'm not defining existence as being a property "if and only if it has some effect on myself". i'm only pointing out that one property we sometimes ascribe to the broadly defined word 'existence' is the potential an entity has to affect other entities. In that sense the mind exists, but pi does not.
i disagree that my experience of reality is covered by UToR. By what agency do i seem to experience a consistent continuity of mind states (waiting for the tube, getting on the tube, going to work), as opposed to a random mess of possible concepts? (eggplant, one hundred and forty two, green shark). It seems to me that the simplest answer would be the relevance of physically existing entities to my mind state.
Pi can't talk to the concept of Justice. But i can talk to you. By what sense or agency can things be said to 'interact' if not physically?
"Switching between different kinds of chuu chuu sometimes gives this "urgh wtf?" effect because it's giving people the phi phenomenon."
Scientist of Fortune
1,189 posts
Location: Edinburgh
1,189 posts
Location: Edinburgh
Posted:
Our reality is doing a very good impersonation of being objective...
I don't see why "conciousness" should have any special place in the UToR over, say, the concept of a potato.
Written by: onewheeldave
According to UToR 'our reality' is that of being states of consciousness that are no more connected than we are to Pi.
Our reality is doing a very good impersonation of being objective...
I don't see why "conciousness" should have any special place in the UToR over, say, the concept of a potato.
According to Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle of Quantum Dynamics, we may already be making love right now...
GOLD Member
Carpal \'Tunnel
3,252 posts
Location: sheffield, United Kingdom
Carpal \'Tunnel
3,252 posts
Location: sheffield, United Kingdom
Posted:
Good point- how are the dissconnected instants of consciousness experienced as being in a strict sequential order?
UToR doesn't give any actual mechanisms by which this can occur.
What UToR does is, as an aid to understanding, go back to the trad view of reality (as being minds in bodies in a physical world).
Each instant of awareness is then seen to be part of the sequence you mention.
Now zoom in on one instant. Taken in isolation, we see that there is no actual connection, physical or otherwise, that connects it to any other instant.
(other than the likes of 'memory', but even here, the remembered state is nothing more than an aspect of the current state, there is no actual connection other than that).
So, even on the trad view, the instants making up your life have non connection other than your feeling that they are connected.
Secondly, again take the instants that make up your life in the trad view- UToR says that each of these (and many others) exist necessarily and they are identical to the ones in the trad view, in every way.
As they are identical, of necessity, any feelings of connection, sequentiality, time-flow etc, evident in the trad view, would also be evident in the UToR view.
(ie if continuity is explained in the trad view by the isolated instants having 'memories' of other instants, then the same factor would occur in the UToR instants.
In short, the reason we feel we are in a sequence of connected instants, is because those feeling are a possible state of consciousness and, UToR shows that all possible states of consciousness are necessarily real.
Additionally of course, there are versions of 'you', where the sequence feels out-of-order, or there seems to be no sequnce.)
Written by: simian
i disagree that my experience of reality is covered by UToR. By what agency do i seem to experience a consistent continuity of mind states (waiting for the tube, getting on the tube, going to work), as opposed to a random mess of possible concepts? (eggplant, one hundred and forty two, green shark). It seems to me that the simplest answer would be the relevance of physically existing entities to my mind state.
Good point- how are the dissconnected instants of consciousness experienced as being in a strict sequential order?
UToR doesn't give any actual mechanisms by which this can occur.
What UToR does is, as an aid to understanding, go back to the trad view of reality (as being minds in bodies in a physical world).
Each instant of awareness is then seen to be part of the sequence you mention.
Now zoom in on one instant. Taken in isolation, we see that there is no actual connection, physical or otherwise, that connects it to any other instant.
(other than the likes of 'memory', but even here, the remembered state is nothing more than an aspect of the current state, there is no actual connection other than that).
So, even on the trad view, the instants making up your life have non connection other than your feeling that they are connected.
Secondly, again take the instants that make up your life in the trad view- UToR says that each of these (and many others) exist necessarily and they are identical to the ones in the trad view, in every way.
As they are identical, of necessity, any feelings of connection, sequentiality, time-flow etc, evident in the trad view, would also be evident in the UToR view.
(ie if continuity is explained in the trad view by the isolated instants having 'memories' of other instants, then the same factor would occur in the UToR instants.
In short, the reason we feel we are in a sequence of connected instants, is because those feeling are a possible state of consciousness and, UToR shows that all possible states of consciousness are necessarily real.
Additionally of course, there are versions of 'you', where the sequence feels out-of-order, or there seems to be no sequnce.)
"You can't outrun Death forever.
But you can make the Bastard work for it."
--MAJOR KORGO KORGAR,
"Last of The Lancers"
AFC 32
Educate your self in the Hazards of Fire Breathing STAY SAFE!
GOLD Member
Carpal \'Tunnel
3,252 posts
Location: sheffield, United Kingdom
Carpal \'Tunnel
3,252 posts
Location: sheffield, United Kingdom
Posted:
On the trad physical view, the 'interaction' is between two minds, in bodies, in a world.
ie 'between' the minds is a network of nervous systems, senses, bodies, matter and space.
On the trad view, the conscious mind states are determined partly by what is happening in that network of physical matter between the two minds.
UToR, in contrast, postulates the existence of the exact same two states of consciousness, including their feelings towards each other and their feelings of 'being connected' (to the other).
To me, it's those 'feelings' that are important and it doesn't seem that ratifying them with intervening matter, is either necessary or useful.
Written by: simian
Pi can't talk to the concept of Justice. But i can talk to you. By what sense or agency can things be said to 'interact' if not physically?
On the trad physical view, the 'interaction' is between two minds, in bodies, in a world.
ie 'between' the minds is a network of nervous systems, senses, bodies, matter and space.
On the trad view, the conscious mind states are determined partly by what is happening in that network of physical matter between the two minds.
UToR, in contrast, postulates the existence of the exact same two states of consciousness, including their feelings towards each other and their feelings of 'being connected' (to the other).
To me, it's those 'feelings' that are important and it doesn't seem that ratifying them with intervening matter, is either necessary or useful.
"You can't outrun Death forever.
But you can make the Bastard work for it."
--MAJOR KORGO KORGAR,
"Last of The Lancers"
AFC 32
Educate your self in the Hazards of Fire Breathing STAY SAFE!
© 1998 - 2024 Home of Poi
All prices converted to United States dollars using XE.com