The Neural Basis of NonDuality

[Atla]

But that's your hypothesis. Why do you think the universe is a consequence?

Naturally. It may or may not be a consequence.

But the question: "Is The Universe a consequence?" is a decision problem: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Decision_problem
And now you are back in my realm - computation!

The question has three possible answers: Yes/No/I don't know.

"I don't know" being the default position any certainty on the matter requires the person answering to produce the algorithm by which the answer was produced. So - you've answered 'No'. Provide the reasoning.

I've already demonstrated my reasoning. IF you value logic and consistency, then by the exact same principle by which "energy" is deemed "real" (has testable consequences), then God is real too. The testable consequence for God is The Universe itself!

Then why did you keep insisting on "Yes" as the default view?

[Atla]

But that's your hypothesis. Why do you think the universe is a consequence?

Naturally. It may or may not be a consequence.

But the question: "Is The Universe a consequence?" is a decision problem: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Decision_problem
And now you are back in my realm - computation!

The question has three possible answers: Yes/No/I don't know.

"I don't know" being the default position any certainty on the matter requires the person answering to produce the algorithm by which the answer was produced. So - you've answered 'No'. Provide the reasoning.

I've already demonstrated my reasoning. IF you value logic and consistency, then by the exact same principle by which "energy" is deemed "real" (has testable consequences), then God is real too. The testable consequence for God is The Universe itself!

And how do you "test" the universe itself?

[TimeSeeker]

Then why did you keep insisting on "Yes" as the default view?

I don't? I keep insist that I don't know!

I am merely demonstrating that IF you employ statistical reasoning (exactly like science works) the weight of evidence is towards 'YES'.
Because all the things around us have causes and causality, then through deductive reasoning one would conclude that the universe would too (which is an error in reasoning because particular->general is not deduction).

For things without a cause do not exist. If the universe is it - it's beyond the realm of science to answer it.

[TimeSeeker]

And how do you "test" the universe itself?

The exact same way you determined it's a circle.

[Atla]

Then why did you keep insisting on "Yes" as the default view?

I don't? I keep insist that I don't know!

I am merely demonstrating that IF you employ statistical reasoning (exactly like science works) the weight of evidence is towards 'YES'.
Because all the things around us have causes and causality, then through deductive reasoning one would conclude that the universe would too (which is an error in reasoning because particular->general is not deduction).

For things without a cause do not exist. If the universe is it - it's beyond the realm of science to answer it.

Of course it's beyond the realm of science to answer it, you are just now realizing the obvious?

The exact same way you determined it's a circle.

But I haven't determined it

[TimeSeeker]

Of course it's beyond the realm of science to answer it, you are just now realizing the obvious?

But I haven't determined it

So you pre-supposed it?

Like God.

[Atla]

Of course it's beyond the realm of science to answer it, you are just now realizing the obvious?

But I haven't determined it

So you pre-supposed it?

Like God.

Then you have pre-supposed that the universe was caused by something.

[TimeSeeker]

Then you have pre-supposed that the universe was caused by something.

Non-sequitur. I am not talking about the origin of the universe (which I do not know).

I am talking about the shape of the universe (which I also don't know).

Have you concluded or assumed that it's a circle ?

[Atla]

Then you have pre-supposed that the universe was caused by something.

Non-sequitur. I am not talking about the origin of the universe (which I do not know).

I am talking about the shape of the universe (which I also don't know).

Have you concluded or assumed that it's a circle ?

I haven't concluded or assumed it.

[TimeSeeker]

I haven't concluded or assumed it.

Then by what thought process did you reach the conclusion?

[Atla]

I haven't concluded or assumed it.

Then by what thought process did you reach the conclusion?

It's not a conclusion

[TimeSeeker]

It's not a conclusion

A priori knowledge? Revelation?

By what process did you acquire the idea?

[Atla]

It's not a conclusion

A priori knowledge? Revelation?

By what process did you acquire the idea?

Not circle, just circular.
It's the simplest model of the universe I can think of that actually makes sense, solves all logical problems.

[TimeSeeker]

It's not a conclusion

A priori knowledge? Revelation?

By what process did you acquire the idea?

Not circle, just circular.
It's the simplest model of the universe I can think of that actually makes sense, solves all logical problems.

Well. It solves almost all of your logical problems.

The circular non-circle is somewhat logically dubious.

[Atla]

A priori knowledge? Revelation?

By what process did you acquire the idea?

Not circle, just circular.
It's the simplest model of the universe I can think of that actually makes sense, solves all logical problems.

Well. It solves almost all of your logical problems.

The circular non-circle is somewhat logically dubious.

I tend to doubt that the shape of the universe would be a perfect 4-dimensional sphere.

There are also other possibilities: for example maybe there is a chain of universes, that form a circular structure. A closed chain of cyclic universes, 6 for example.

Again: these are metaphysical guesses, not conclusions or whatever.