Is there really a single universe?

[surreptitious57]

This is the fundamental flaw in your reasoning here

Was this a fundamental flaw because it did not fit in with your view and perception of how the Universe works which you hopefully would
honestly admit that you do not fully understand yet or was this a fundamental flaw because it did not fit with how the Universe actually works

Were the God perspective you suggested actually true there would be evidence to demonstrate this. But human beings still have to work hard to acquire knowledge they are not in possession of at the time specifically knowledge referenced here that is currently unknown. So you coming up
with a metaphysical ontology is not actually helping to provide that knowledge no matter how much you may try to convince your self otherwise

[ken]

The surface discrepancy problem pertains to space being smooth at the classical level and rough at the quantum level

Do you realize a problem is just a question posed for a solution so until you pose the
actual question you are unable to be given the answer which will solve your problem

The problem does not actually have to be in the form of a question but simply a statement with all the relevant information

Fair enough. But if you want the answers, then you need to provide or ask the questions.

I gave you two examples and so the onus is upon you to provide an answer to either of them if you can but if not just say so.

If that is ALL the relevant information that you want provide, which you want answers or solutions to, in the two examples you gave, then I will proceed. (But it's a bit like saying, "We want to find the solution to 'the world starvation problem'." But until the, so called, " problem" is put into question form, the answer thus solution will NOT be found. What is 'it' EXACTLY that is being sought? But this is another issue.)

For your first, so called, "problem";
The surface discrepancy problem pertains to space being smooth at the classical level and rough at the quantum level

As of now this thread I do not ever recall hearing nor seeing any thing about a so called 'surface discrepancy problem' and without looking it up I can already see and understand WHY human beings are a difference at both "levels" and WHY they see and think there is a discrepancy. I have explained previously to you HOW and WHY human beings see and THINK there is two different things happening at the, so called, 'quantum "level" ' and at the, so called, 'classical "level".

I will reiterate, there is NO actual separation of things. But if human beings THINK there is a separation line somewhere, then they will be looking for a difference.

Human beings generally tend to find and SEE only what they are looking for. You can see a lot of examples of this occurring, if you go looking for it. I wrote it that way on purpose because all adults have already experienced and seen this happening. They already KNOW it is true.

Anyway, if you can show Me what the actual distinction is, and where it is exactly in real Life, between the two so called "levels", then we can have a look at them. Because you have been told there are different levels, by those you believe and/or have faith in, then leads you to believing there is differing "levels" so then this will be what you look for and SEE, and understand.

Obviously there has to be a transition between the "two", without separation, so really there is ONLY One. But because you assume, think, and/or believe that there is a discrepancy, which you have not actually witnessed first hand by the way and only believe it exists because you have read it some where, then that imaginary discrepancy is what you see.

WHY that discrepancy is a, so called, "problem" is because human beings deep down already, from the real and true Self, KNOW what IS true, right, and correct.

That Self IS One with EVERY thing so It KNOWS ALL, already and instantaneously.

There is NO surface discrepancy. There is only a perceived discrepancy. This happens because of the way the human brain has learned to compartmentalize all things into separate categories.

This ill-gotten trait is one reason human beings are being "led" down the path they are going. But again that is another issue.

As for your other, so called, "problem";
Infinites are nonsensical in physics equations because a probability can only be between zero and one and nothing else

Again, WHY only look for 'probabilities'?

You will NEVER see what IS actually true and right with just probabilities.

And by the way it is not my problem as you have incorrectly stated since I do not ever expect to possess absolute knowledge

I wrote it that way purposely NOT because it had anything whatsoever to do with possessing absolute knowledge or in fact possessing any knowledge at all. I wrote it that way because IT IS only a human being problem. This IT IS YOUR problem ONLY. There are NO actual problems in Life, Itself. Human beings are the ONLY ones who cause and create problems.

[ken]

The problem with this is that it is not how it actually works

What is the it which you are referring to here
Could you mean some thing like that is not how you actually work

The it is knowledge acquisition and yes it is how I actually work but others do this as well
It applies to any human being trying to acquire knowledge they want for whatever reason

But that is how I acquire knowledge. So, that is how I and knowledge acquisition do and CAN work. WHY knowledge acquisition takes so long for human beings is because of the way you and others do it, compared to how I do it.

[ken]

For one thing the truth can not always be known

Is that the truth If so can that always be known

Yes it is the truth and it can always be known

You do see the contradiction you are making here, right?

[ken]

Did human beings evolve from some thing else Did human beings stop evolving [ at some point ]

What could human beings evolved from and what could human beings evolve into

Or anther question could human beings just be a part of One thing which is always evolving into Its Self [ now ]

Human beings did evolve from something else but may have stopped evolving before now though I do not know

How do you propose one species could stop evolving, especially when the rest of the Universe continues to evolve?

Human beings share a common biological ancestor with all animals and plants going back nearly four billion years

Did this common biological ancestor just stop/start there at nearly four billion years ago, or did it continue further back?

The trouble with looking at things from the brain only, is the brain stops/starts the vision by compartmentalizing things and separating them into different catergories, which gives a false picture of what IS actually true, right, and correct.

I see no reason at all to think that human beings are a part of Mind or Consciousness or any other non falsifiable idea

One reason I see for doing that is because by doing it you are then remaining OPEN, which is obviously a far better way to learn than by being CLOSED is.

[surreptitious57]

Did human beings evolve from some thing else Did human beings stop evolving [ at some point ]

What could human beings evolved from and what could human beings evolve into

Or another question could human beings just be a part of One thing which is always evolving into Its Self [ now ]

Human beings did evolve from something else but may have stopped evolving before now though I do not know

How do you propose one species could stop evolving especially when the rest of the Universe continues to evolve

Not everything evolves at the same rate and many species are already extinct and so can no longer evolve

[surreptitious57]

As of now this thread I do not ever recall hearing nor seeing any thing about a so called surface discrepancy problem and without looking it up
I can already see and understand WHY human beings are a difference at both levels and WHY they see and think there is a discrepancy. I have explained previously to you HOW and WHY human beings see and THINK there is two different things happening at the so called quantum level
and at the so called classical level

I will reiterate there is NO actual separation of things
But if human beings THINK there is a separation line somewhere then they will be looking for a difference

Anyway if you can show Me what the actual distinction is and where it is exactly in real Life between the two so called levels then we
can have a look at them. Because you have been told there are different levels by those you believe and / or have faith in then leads
you to believing there is differing levels so then this will be what you look for and SEE and understand

Obviously there has to be a transition between the two without separation so really there is ONLY One. But because you assume think and
/ or believe that there is a discrepancy which you have not actually witnessed first hand by the way and only believe it exists because you
have read it somewhere then that imaginary discrepancy is what you see

All this is true or mostly true

[surreptitious57]

You will NEVER see what IS actually true and right with just probabilities

No but when those probabilities are entirely wrong what is true and right cannot be determined at all

[surreptitious57]

Human beings share a common biological ancestor with all animals and plants going back nearly four billion years

Did this common biological ancestor just stop / start there at nearly four billion years ago or did it continue further back

Biologically no but chemically and physically yes and even though these are separate disciplines they are also interconnected

[Dontaskme]

You're the one not making sense.

PhilX

I don't exist.

.

Your problem.

PhilX

I don't exist in the sense that I am aware of my true nature being fundamental consciousness. I am one of a minute proportion of people who has actually experienced fundamental clarity and is able to perceive true nature directly.

As Consciousness...we can all do this, simply because we ARE this.

The universe is Consciousness itself. It's endlessly ONE ALL ALONE... ''other universes'' or ''other people'' or ''other things'' are ''mentally constructed thoughts'' appearing in Consciousness...there is nothing outside of Consciousness.

In this realisation process you do NOT lose your identity. Rather, you lose all your limiting false identities, all your masks and pretences, and discover your true identity as a micro-facet of fundamental Consciousness itself. Your natural FREE state. Few people know what real freedom is.

.

[Philosophy Explorer]

I don't exist.

.

Your problem.

PhilX

I don't exist in the sense that I am aware of my true nature being fundamental consciousness. I am one of a minute proportion of people who has actually experienced fundamental clarity and is able to perceive true nature directly.

As Consciousness...we can all do this, simply because we ARE this.

The universe is Consciousness itself. It's endlessly ONE ALL ALONE... ''other universes'' or ''other people'' or ''other things'' are ''mentally constructed thoughts'' appearing in Consciousness...there is nothing outside of Consciousness.

In this realisation process you do NOT lose your identity. Rather, you lose all your limiting false identities, all your masks and pretences, and discover your true identity as a micro-facet of fundamental Consciousness itself. Your natural FREE state. Few people know what real freedom is.

.

Still your problem. How does non-existence lead to being aware of your identity? My existence does lead to being aware of my identity (btw I'm more free than many people I'm aware of).

PhilX

[Dontaskme]

Still your problem. How does non-existence lead to being aware of your identity? My existence does lead to being aware of my identity (btw I'm more free than many people I'm aware of).

PhilX

Awareness aware of itself is being aware that awareness is what I AM, and what I AM has no identity, yet identity arises in I AM...aka as a name, form etc.. In essence, that which has no identity is witness and knower of all apparent identity...therefore all identity is an illusion apparently appearing real.

So I'm not talking about non-existence literally since there is no such thing as non-existence ..I'm talking about the non-existence of identity.

Existence IS....and it does not belong to any thing.



.

[ken]

This is the fundamental flaw in your reasoning here

Was this a fundamental flaw because it did not fit in with your view and perception of how the Universe works which you hopefully would
honestly admit that you do not fully understand yet or was this a fundamental flaw because it did not fit with how the Universe actually works

Were the God perspective you suggested actually true there would be evidence to demonstrate this.

There is plenty of evidence to demonstrate and support the Spirit, Allah, God, and Enlightenment perspective, but if one is NOT open to seeing it, then they can NOT, and thus will NOT, see IT.

Again, if you have a belief (in) some thing already, then you will only look for and see and understand that what you want to find and see. Confirmation bias distorts what IS.

But human beings still have to work hard to acquire knowledge they are not in possession of at the time specifically knowledge referenced here that is currently unknown.

The reason you, human beings, still have to, apparently, "work hard" to acquire new or further knowledge is because of the way you are all are preoccupied in looking for and seeing what it is that you already believe is true. If you stopped presuming, assuming and believing (in) things, then things become much clearer, and thus also much easier to understand. But this is not a direct fault of your own doing. You can only know and do what you have learned and have been taught to do. You learn from others. This is what you do as children. You can not suddenly know how to find and see the knowledge referenced here if you have never been taught how to find and see it. You just accept what is shown or taught to you by the ones that you believe or have faith in. Just like now you accept what is told to you, by those who you put your trust in, about both theories, you also would have in another time period just accepted what was told to you, by those who you put your trust in, about how the Universe was created by a God.

So you coming up
with a metaphysical ontology is not actually helping to provide that knowledge no matter how much you may try to convince your self otherwise

What do you mean by 'coming up ...'? I am just expressing what I observe of what IS. If by 'coming up' you mean that I am just making up a story of some thing that does not exist, then can you point out where you think I am doing that. However, I will also wait till you clarify what you mean by 'coming up with a metaphysical ontology' before I respond any further to that part.

I have already stated I NEVER try to convince any one of any thing, which includes My self. You are free to believe or not believe (in) any thing. I, for One, neither believe nor disbelieve any thing. What I say is either true, right, and/or correct. If it is not any of these, then I am sure that some one could point that out to Me.

[ken]

Human beings did evolve from something else but may have stopped evolving before now though I do not know

How do you propose one species could stop evolving especially when the rest of the Universe continues to evolve

Not everything evolves at the same rate

Any examples?

How is the rate of evolution measured? And, what tool is used for taking these measurements.

and many species are already extinct and so can no longer evolve

Yes true. Obviously, if a labelled species of a particular shape and form does not exist, then that species can not evolve.

What was the point of going down this line of thought?

Was that the answer to My question about ho do you propose one species could stop evolving? If so, I apologize for not making it clear that I meant a species that was still existing. My question was clearly directed at your response about human beings may have stopped evolving, so i thought that it would be clear.

You wrote: "Human beings may have stopped evolving before now".

I am asking; "How do you propose one species, which is obviously still existing, could have stopped evolving?"

[ken]

As of now this thread I do not ever recall hearing nor seeing any thing about a so called surface discrepancy problem and without looking it up
I can already see and understand WHY human beings are a difference at both levels and WHY they see and think there is a discrepancy. I have explained previously to you HOW and WHY human beings see and THINK there is two different things happening at the so called quantum level
and at the so called classical level

I will reiterate there is NO actual separation of things
But if human beings THINK there is a separation line somewhere then they will be looking for a difference

Anyway if you can show Me what the actual distinction is and where it is exactly in real Life between the two so called levels then we
can have a look at them. Because you have been told there are different levels by those you believe and / or have faith in then leads
you to believing there is differing levels so then this will be what you look for and SEE and understand

Obviously there has to be a transition between the two without separation so really there is ONLY One. But because you assume think and
/ or believe that there is a discrepancy which you have not actually witnessed first hand by the way and only believe it exists because you
have read it somewhere then that imaginary discrepancy is what you see

All this is true or mostly true

It is even MORE true, and is MORE easily understood, IF you quoted Me EXACTLY as I wrote it.

It must take you some considerable amount of more time to re-write what I wrote, instead of just clicking on the quote button.

I have asked you a couple of times already WHY you do NOT just copy My words EXACTLY, but for some unknown reason you do not like to share this knowledge.

I have asked you nicely, and I will again, could you please copy My writings EXACTLY, when you quote Me? I ask for this because of the difficulty you are making it for others to understand Me better. You can be and will cause more confusion by NOT copying My words EXACTLY. People do NOT want to go back through our writings just to reconfirm if what you are replying to is EXACTLY what I did say. IF you quote Me EXACTLY, then they would NOT have to do that.