The mind is omnipresent in space-time

[VVilliam]

In here, I provide proof for the existence of the mind. The mind however has to be omnipresent in space-time. Here is the proof: 1) The mind has to be omnipresent in space: Change/process occurs in every place. Consider two places, A and B where a change happens in A first and then in B. Let's assume that there is no mind in B first. This means that the mind itself is subject to change. This leads to regress since another mind is needed to cause the former. The regress is not acceptable. Therefore, the mind is omnipresent in space. 2) The mind is omnipresent in time: Let's assume two points in time T1 and T2 where the mind exists in former time but not later. This means that there is a change in the mind. This leads to regress since another mind is required to cause the former. The regress is not acceptable therefore the mind is omnipresent in time. Therefore, the mind is omnipresent in space-time.

The Mind: You wrote that “reality explains itself. It is indeed almighty and we need not presume something "more" almighty outside of it is responsible for its existence.”
Me: Yes – I remember that.
The Mind: The wheel of time.
You also wrote “The bits I have read haven't dissuaded me from being curious about such an entity as YHWH - and I admit I did go through a stage of thinking he was Satan - which I think is acceptable given the scribed association...but I got over that through the assistance of a hypnogogic experience which brought that being to my bedside...
Not to digress any more than necessary, I can see why YHWH left it up to humans to tell their stories re their interactions with said entity...so the stories would be different and it is obvious that YHWH works with whoever makes themselves available and this would have to involve working within the boundaries of the individuals belief systems - something which could indeed give a reader the impression of contradiction...”
Me: Yes. I also remember writing that…
The Mind: Occupy "The Trinity of Love" - three things operating as One Thing
Me: You refer to Matthew 22:40.
The Mind: Went To The Devil YouTube Video "AI robot terrifies officials, explains our illusion..."

The Mind: The Agenda of YHVH
“The Mind is omnipresent in space-time.”

The mind is different from God.

According to what premise?

[bahman]

The Mind: You wrote that “reality explains itself. It is indeed almighty and we need not presume something "more" almighty outside of it is responsible for its existence.”
Me: Yes – I remember that.
The Mind: The wheel of time.
You also wrote “The bits I have read haven't dissuaded me from being curious about such an entity as YHWH - and I admit I did go through a stage of thinking he was Satan - which I think is acceptable given the scribed association...but I got over that through the assistance of a hypnogogic experience which brought that being to my bedside...
Not to digress any more than necessary, I can see why YHWH left it up to humans to tell their stories re their interactions with said entity...so the stories would be different and it is obvious that YHWH works with whoever makes themselves available and this would have to involve working within the boundaries of the individuals belief systems - something which could indeed give a reader the impression of contradiction...”
Me: Yes. I also remember writing that…
The Mind: Occupy "The Trinity of Love" - three things operating as One Thing
Me: You refer to Matthew 22:40.
The Mind: Went To The Devil YouTube Video "AI robot terrifies officials, explains our illusion..."

The Mind: The Agenda of YHVH
“The Mind is omnipresent in space-time.”

The mind is different from God.

According to what premise?

God cannot cause without the mind. The causation is the ability of the mind.

[VVilliam]

The mind is different from God.

According to what premise?

God cannot cause without the mind. The causation is the ability of the mind.

What logical steps where taken to reach that premise?

[bahman]

The mind is different from God.

According to what premise?

God cannot cause without the mind. The causation is the ability of the mind.

What logical steps where taken to reach that premise?

You can find my argument for the mind here. I would be happy to elaborate if you need to.

[VVilliam]

The mind is different from God.

According to what premise?

God cannot cause without the mind. The causation is the ability of the mind.

What logical steps where taken to reach that premise?

You can find my argument for the mind here. I would be happy to elaborate if you need to.

The link leads the following sentence.

In here, I argued about different processes, namely discrete, continuous, and simultaneous. Our reality seems continuous which means that there is an arbitrary small interval between the events we experience. This means that an event cannot possibly cause another event, because of the interval. Therefore, the mind, a substance with the ability to experience and cause, is the cause of the process.

That link leads to the following sentence.

There are three regimes when it comes to a process, namely discrete, continuous, and simultaneous. A discrete process refers to a set of events in which they occur in discrete intervals with the interval being a constant. A continuous process refers to a set of events in which they occur in intervals where the intervals are arbitrarily small. A simultaneous process refers to a set of events that occur by no interval.

Upon reading the data I am no closer to understanding your claim "The mind is different from God" or to finding the premise you hold re the claim.

It might be best to simply provide the premises which have allowed you to make the claim.

1:
2:
3:(...et al...)
(4:) Therefore, the mind is different from God

[bahman]

What logical steps where taken to reach that premise?

You can find my argument for the mind here. I would be happy to elaborate if you need to.

The link leads the following sentence.

In here, I argued about different processes, namely discrete, continuous, and simultaneous. Our reality seems continuous which means that there is an arbitrary small interval between the events we experience. This means that an event cannot possibly cause another event, because of the interval. Therefore, the mind, a substance with the ability to experience and cause, is the cause of the process.

That link leads to the following sentence.

There are three regimes when it comes to a process, namely discrete, continuous, and simultaneous. A discrete process refers to a set of events in which they occur in discrete intervals with the interval being a constant. A continuous process refers to a set of events in which they occur in intervals where the intervals are arbitrarily small. A simultaneous process refers to a set of events that occur by no interval.

Upon reading the data I am no closer to understanding your claim "The mind is different from God" or to finding the premise you hold re the claim.

It might be best to simply provide the premises which have allowed you to make the claim.

1:
2:
3:(...et al...)
(4:) Therefore, the mind is different from God

The mind is a substance with abilities to experience and cause. That follows from the argument of change. Causation requires experience though. The creation is a change, in other words, the act of bringing something from nothing. But nothing cannot be experienced since it is nothing. Therefore the mind cannot cause anything from nothing. God, if there is any, is an agent submerged inside the mind. He cannot cause anything without mind as we cannot cause as well.

[VVilliam]

The mind is a substance with abilities to experience and cause. That follows from the argument of change. Causation requires experience though. The creation is a change, in other words, the act of bringing something from nothing. But nothing cannot be experienced since it is nothing. Therefore the mind cannot cause anything from nothing.

Can you explain why you find it necessary to separate "Mind" from "God"?

The premises I am currently studying are as follows.

1. The Universe exists, and therefore, it can be considered a Being.
2. If the Universe did not have a beginning, it qualifies as an uncaused cause.
3. Since it is known that the Universe exists, but unknown if it had a beginning, it is logical and rational to acknowledge, until shown otherwise, that the Universe appears to be the only example of an Uncaused Being that we can study.

God, if there is any, is an agent submerged inside the mind. He cannot cause anything without mind as we cannot cause as well.

I understand that "God" has no universally accepted/agreed-upon definition, but what makes your definition the correct one we should adopt?

[bahman]

The mind is a substance with abilities to experience and cause. That follows from the argument of change. Causation requires experience though. The creation is a change, in other words, the act of bringing something from nothing. But nothing cannot be experienced since it is nothing. Therefore the mind cannot cause anything from nothing.

Can you explain why you find it necessary to separate "Mind" from "God"?

The mind causes change but for doing that it needs to experience something. God on another hand, is the creator of the universe from nothing. The act of creation is a change. So if there is a point that only God exists and nothing else including the mind then God is not able to cause the change, creates.

The premises I am currently studying are as follows.
1. The Universe exists, and therefore, it can be considered a Being.

True.

2. If the Universe did not have a beginning, it qualifies as an uncaused cause.
3. Since it is known that the Universe exists, but unknown if it had a beginning, it is logical and rational to acknowledge, until shown otherwise, that the Universe appears to be the only example of an Uncaused Being that we can study.

The universe has a beginning and could still be an uncaused cause.

God, if there is any, is an agent submerged inside the mind. He cannot cause anything without mind as we cannot cause as well.

I understand that "God" has no universally accepted/agreed-upon definition, but what makes your definition the correct one we should adopt?

God is the creator of the universe out of nothing. Could we agree on this?

[VVilliam]

The mind causes change but for doing that it needs to experience something. God on another hand, is the creator of the universe from nothing. The act of creation is a change. So if there is a point that only God exists and nothing else including the mind then God is not able to cause the change, creates.

The premises I am currently studying are as follows.
1. The Universe exists, and therefore, it can be considered a Being.

True.

2. If the Universe did not have a beginning, it qualifies as an uncaused cause.
3. Since it is known that the Universe exists, but unknown if it had a beginning, it is logical and rational to acknowledge, until shown otherwise, that the Universe appears to be the only example of an Uncaused Being that we can study.

The universe has a beginning and could still be an uncaused cause.

Explain how this apparent contradiction works.
Perhaps we need to clarify what we each mean by "The Universe" in order to make sure we are not talking past one another?

God, if there is any, is an agent submerged inside the mind. He cannot cause anything without mind as we cannot cause as well.

I understand that "God" has no universally accepted/agreed-upon definition, but what makes your definition the correct one we should adopt?

God is the creator of the universe out of nothing. Could we agree on this?

I would not agree with that definition because it implies a supernatural being/that a "God" has to be supernatural in order to be a God.

Also I do not accept the belief that something can derive from nothing.

The premises I am currently working with are;
1. The Universe exists, and therefore, it can be considered a Being.
2. If the Universe did not have a beginning, it qualifies as an uncaused being which also is able to cause things to happen (to begin, to exist, and to end) within itself.
3. Since it is known that the Universe exists, but unknown if it had a beginning, it is logical and rational to acknowledge, until shown otherwise, that the Universe appears to be the only example of an Uncaused Being that we can study.

Premise 2. adequately defines "God" as "an uncaused being" able to cause things to happen (to begin, to exist, and to end) within itself.

Could we agree on this?

[bahman]

The mind causes change but for doing that it needs to experience something. God on another hand, is the creator of the universe from nothing. The act of creation is a change. So if there is a point that only God exists and nothing else including the mind then God is not able to cause the change, creates.

The premises I am currently studying are as follows.
1. The Universe exists, and therefore, it can be considered a Being.

True.

2. If the Universe did not have a beginning, it qualifies as an uncaused cause.
3. Since it is known that the Universe exists, but unknown if it had a beginning, it is logical and rational to acknowledge, until shown otherwise, that the Universe appears to be the only example of an Uncaused Being that we can study.

The universe has a beginning and could still be an uncaused cause.

Explain how this apparent contradiction works.
Perhaps we need to clarify what we each mean by "The Universe" in order to make sure we are not talking past one another?

The stuff that makes the universe, physical, just exists at the beginning of time or a point after.

God, if there is any, is an agent submerged inside the mind. He cannot cause anything without mind as we cannot cause as well.

I understand that "God" has no universally accepted/agreed-upon definition, but what makes your definition the correct one we should adopt?

God is the creator of the universe out of nothing. Could we agree on this?

I would not agree with that definition because it implies a supernatural being/that a "God" has to be supernatural in order to be a God.

Then what is your definition of God?

Also I do not accept the belief that something can derive from nothing.

Prove it.

The premises I am currently working with are;
1. The Universe exists, and therefore, it can be considered a Being.
2. If the Universe did not have a beginning, it qualifies as an uncaused being which also is able to cause things to happen (to begin, to exist, and to end) within itself.

The universe indeed has a beginning. Like it or not there are two strong arguments in favor of it, one is mine and another is based on the second law of thermodynamics.

3. Since it is known that the Universe exists, but unknown if it had a beginning, it is logical and rational to acknowledge, until shown otherwise, that the Universe appears to be the only example of an Uncaused Being that we can study.

The universe has a beginning.

Premise 2. adequately defines "God" as "an uncaused being" able to cause things to happen (to begin, to exist, and to end) within itself.

Do you mean that we are within God?

Could we agree on this?

Definitely no.

[VVilliam]

The universe has a beginning and could still be an uncaused cause.

Explain how this apparent contradiction works.
Perhaps we need to clarify what we each mean by "The Universe" in order to make sure we are not talking past one another?

The stuff that makes the universe, physical, just exists at the beginning of time or a point after.

Can you be more specific? Presently your reply infers that the universe is also made of "non-stuff" as well as "stuff" The "Stuff" had a beginning but the "non-stuff" did not?

The contradiction of your statement currently remains.

I understand that "God" has no universally accepted/agreed-upon definition, but what makes your definition the correct one we should adopt?

God is the creator of the universe out of nothing. Could we agree on this?

I would not agree with that definition because it implies a supernatural being/that a "God" has to be supernatural in order to be a God.

Then what is your definition of God?

Currently my definition of a God would be "The Universe".

Also I do not accept the belief that something can derive from nothing.

Prove it.

I am. I am proving that I do not accept the belief that something can derive from nothing.
If you are actually asking me to prove that something can derive from nothing, that is your burden (if indeed that is what you are claiming) not mine, because I am not making the claim that something can derive from nothing.
If neither of us are making the claim that something can derive from nothing, we can agree the claim has no bearing on our argument/attempt to be on the same philosophical page.

The premises I am currently working with are;
1. The Universe exists, and therefore, it can be considered a Being.
2. If the Universe did not have a beginning, it qualifies as an uncaused being which also is able to cause things to happen (to begin, to exist, and to end) within itself.

The universe indeed has a beginning. Like it or not there are two strong arguments in favor of it, one is mine and another is based on the second law of thermodynamics.

This is where we need to establish that we are talking about the same thing when referring to "The Universe"

The Universe as generally accepted;
The universe is ALL of space and time[a] and their contents.[10] It comprises ALL of existence, any fundamental interaction, physical process and physical constant, and therefore all forms of energy and matter, and the structures they form, from sub-atomic particles to entire galaxies.


Do you agree with this definition of The Universe? Currently I agree with that definition.

3. Since it is known that the Universe exists, but unknown if it had a beginning, it is logical and rational to acknowledge, until shown otherwise, that the Universe appears to be the only example of an Uncaused Being that we can study.

The universe has a beginning.

That would depend upon how one is defining "The Universe".

Premise 2. adequately defines "God" as "an uncaused being" able to cause things to happen (to begin, to exist, and to end) within itself.

Do you mean that we are within God?

It depends on one's definition of God of course, but I am happy to currently define "God" as "ALL of space and time[a] and their contents.[10] It comprises ALL of existence, any fundamental interaction, physical process and physical constant, and therefore all forms of energy and matter, and the structures they form, from sub-atomic particles to entire galaxies."

Could we agree on this?

Definitely no.

Why not?

[bahman]

The universe has a beginning and could still be an uncaused cause.

Explain how this apparent contradiction works.
Perhaps we need to clarify what we each mean by "The Universe" in order to make sure we are not talking past one another?

The stuff that makes the universe, physical, just exists at the beginning of time or a point after.

Can you be more specific? Presently your reply infers that the universe is also made of "non-stuff" as well as "stuff" The "Stuff" had a beginning but the "non-stuff" did not?

I am saying that that is one feasible scenario. I am not talking about non-staff/non-physical.

The contradiction of your statement currently remains.

Where is the contradiction?

I understand that "God" has no universally accepted/agreed-upon definition, but what makes your definition the correct one we should adopt?

God is the creator of the universe out of nothing. Could we agree on this?

I would not agree with that definition because it implies a supernatural being/that a "God" has to be supernatural in order to be a God.

Then what is your definition of God?

Currently my definition of a God would be "The Universe".

Ok, so to you they are synonyms. To me, they are not.

Also I do not accept the belief that something can derive from nothing.

Prove it.

I am. I am proving that I do not accept the belief that something can derive from nothing.
If you are actually asking me to prove that something can derive from nothing, that is your burden (if indeed that is what you are claiming) not mine, because I am not making the claim that something can derive from nothing.
If neither of us are making the claim that something can derive from nothing, we can agree the claim has no bearing on our argument/attempt to be on the same philosophical page.

You claimed that nothing cannot lead to something. Didn't you? I am agnostic toward that statement.

The premises I am currently working with are;
1. The Universe exists, and therefore, it can be considered a Being.
2. If the Universe did not have a beginning, it qualifies as an uncaused being which also is able to cause things to happen (to begin, to exist, and to end) within itself.

The universe indeed has a beginning. Like it or not there are two strong arguments in favor of it, one is mine and another is based on the second law of thermodynamics.

This is where we need to establish that we are talking about the same thing when referring to "The Universe"

By the universe I mean, spacetime and physical within.

The Universe as generally accepted;
The universe is ALL of space and time[a] and their contents.[10] It comprises ALL of existence, any fundamental interaction, physical process and physical constant, and therefore all forms of energy and matter, and the structures they form, from sub-atomic particles to entire galaxies.


Do you agree with this definition of The Universe? Currently I agree with that definition.

If by universe you mean all of existence then you should include non-physical within.

3. Since it is known that the Universe exists, but unknown if it had a beginning, it is logical and rational to acknowledge, until shown otherwise, that the Universe appears to be the only example of an Uncaused Being that we can study.

The universe has a beginning.

That would depend upon how one is defining "The Universe".

No, it is what it is. You are welcome to read my other thread here that I am discussing the beginning of time, the infinite regress, other things such as the nature of time.

Premise 2. adequately defines "God" as "an uncaused being" able to cause things to happen (to begin, to exist, and to end) within itself.

Do you mean that we are within God?

It depends on one's definition of God of course, but I am happy to currently define "God" as "ALL of space and time[a] and their contents.[10] It comprises ALL of existence, any fundamental interaction, physical process and physical constant, and therefore all forms of energy and matter, and the structures they form, from sub-atomic particles to entire galaxies."

Could we agree on this?

That is the definition of the whole to me. You are free to define it differently.

[VVilliam]

*snip*

Let's unpack all this then.

I am saying that that is one feasible scenario. I am not talking about non-stuff/non-physical.

Okay so you are speaking only of natural physical stuff?

Where is the contradiction?

I have already pointed out the contradiction.

Ok, so to you they are synonyms. To me, they are not.

This is because you define God as supernatural being while I define The Universe as God (thus a natural being.)

You claimed that nothing cannot lead to something. Didn't you? I am agnostic toward that statement.

It appears that while you claim to be agnostic toward the idea that nothing cannot lead to something you are not agnostic towards the idea that something can come from nothing. In that, there appears to be further contradiction – possibly related to the previous contradiction.

If by universe you mean all of existence then you should include non-physical within.

You are furthering the contradiction by at first claiming that you mean (by The Universe), "spacetime and physical within" and then adding to that, the belief that there is also “non-physical” within The Universe, which has to be accounted for.

The burden is on you to account for this supposed "non-physical" stuff.

No, it is what it is.

Indeed, I agree. Where we disagree is in our definition of "what is The Universe.".

That is the definition of the whole to me. You are free to define it differently.

You appear to now be introducing another element called “The Whole” which you consign "that which is ALL of space and time and their contents. It comprises ALL of existence, any fundamental interaction, physical process and physical constant, and therefore all forms of energy and matter, and the structures they form, from sub-atomic particles to entire galaxies." but is not The Universe. The difference between our philosophies is that I consign both The Universe and God as the same, (having the exact same attributes) and you do not.

[bahman]

*snip*

Let's unpack all this then.

OK.

I am saying that that is one feasible scenario. I am not talking about non-stuff/non-physical.

Okay so you are speaking only of natural physical stuff?

It depends.

Ok, so to you they are synonyms. To me, they are not.

This is because you define God as supernatural being while I define The Universe as God (thus a natural being.)

OK.

You claimed that nothing cannot lead to something. Didn't you? I am agnostic toward that statement.

It appears that while you claim to be agnostic toward the idea that nothing cannot lead to something you are not agnostic towards the idea that something can come from nothing. In that, there appears to be further contradiction – possibly related to the previous contradiction.

I am agnostic toward both.

No, it is what it is.

Indeed, I agree. Where we disagree is in our definition of "what is The Universe.".

Whatever you please.

That is the definition of the whole to me. You are free to define it differently.

You appear to now be introducing another element called “The Whole” which you consign "that which is ALL of space and time and their contents. It comprises ALL of existence, any fundamental interaction, physical process and physical constant, and therefore all forms of energy and matter, and the structures they form, from sub-atomic particles to entire galaxies." but is not The Universe. The difference between our philosophies is that I consign both The Universe and God as the same, (having the exact same attributes) and you do not.

Yes. We disagree on the definition. But let's work with your definition.

[Dimebag]

Would you object to saying space and time are present in mind?