There ARE parallel universes

How does science work? And what's all this about quantum mechanics?

Moderators: AMod, iMod

surreptitious57
Posts: 4217
Joined: Fri Oct 25, 2013 6:09 am

Re: There ARE parallel universes

Post by surreptitious57 »

ken wrote:
surreptitious57 wrote:
ken wrote:
I could quite clearly communicate how there could very easily be multi verse LIKE places but still belonging within the realm of the
one and only Universe. Just maybe why people can not communicate clearly the idea of how different and separate multiverses could actually be possible is because then they would have to explain how they are separate or other places. How would any person expect to explain that? Where and how could a separation or divide actually exist between things?
In the brane world hypothesis other universes cannot be seen. For light cannot travel between them. So the only way they can be detected
is through gravity since it affects all matter and objects of mass even more so. Also in this universe it is impossible to see all the way back
to the Big Bang. Light can only travel to the Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation although this is just 380 000 years after the Big Bang
But gravity permeates everywhere and so was bound up with the other three fundamental forces at the very beginning 13.72 billion years
ago. It is therefore the most natural cosmic detector there is
I did not ask how do human beings detect what you call other universes. I asked how would any person be expected to be able to explain
what separates what you call other or different universes. The word other and different infers that there is at least two or more so naturally
they would have to be actually separated? In other words what could possibly divide one so called universe from another one? Where is the
division what is it made up of and how is it made up?

Also assuming that there was the very beginning is a absolutely huge assumption
In the brane world hypothesis it would be the brane itself that separates universes. As they reside at different ends
In the Big Bang / Big Crunch hypothesis the universes are separated by time. And when I said the very beginning this
was only a reference to this universe not anything else. As it is entirely possible that time did not actually begin then
ken
Posts: 2075
Joined: Mon May 09, 2016 4:14 am

Re: There ARE parallel universes

Post by ken »

surreptitious57 wrote:
ken wrote:
surreptitious57 wrote: In the brane world hypothesis other universes cannot be seen. For light cannot travel between them. So the only way they can be detected
is through gravity since it affects all matter and objects of mass even more so. Also in this universe it is impossible to see all the way back
to the Big Bang. Light can only travel to the Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation although this is just 380 000 years after the Big Bang
But gravity permeates everywhere and so was bound up with the other three fundamental forces at the very beginning 13.72 billion years
ago. It is therefore the most natural cosmic detector there is
I did not ask how do human beings detect what you call other universes. I asked how would any person be expected to be able to explain
what separates what you call other or different universes. The word other and different infers that there is at least two or more so naturally
they would have to be actually separated? In other words what could possibly divide one so called universe from another one? Where is the
division what is it made up of and how is it made up?

Also assuming that there was the very beginning is a absolutely huge assumption
In the brane world hypothesis it would be the brane itself that separates universes. As they reside at different ends
In the Big Bang / Big Crunch hypothesis the universes are separated by time. And when I said the very beginning this
was only a reference to this universe not anything else. As it is entirely possible that time did not actually begin then
Okay that is totally understandable. For now, let us assume that the brane separates these different universes. What is the new agreed upon word for 'all there is?. I have just noticed a couple of new words for what these so called different universes are supposedly inside, that is 'all there is'. The new names being "bulk" and "hyperspace", plus the other name of "multiverse", and any other names that I have possibly forgotten. What is the generally accepted word these days for "IT"?

Anyway all of this is rather tedious when in the end that whatever we call 'all there is' I think it will be found IS infinite. That is no end with no beginning and no start with no finish because there is absolutely nothing to suggest that "IT" could be anything but infinite. I have highlighted absolute nothing so that it would drive some person to show otherwise. I have felt the frustration some have felt over the past thousand years or so of hearing "in the beginning", "when it all began", et cetera, when I have yet seen any sort of evidence that would lead "IT" to have began.

Does it amuse or amaze anyone else here or does anyone else find it hilarious that human beings have for thousands of years been trying to limit the whatever we will finally call what was once known as the Universe? What I find so funny is that over all this period of time whenever people have tried to put a limit to what I think is so obviously limitless, when they make new discoveries or they just want to change their own views to see something that is more obviously correct they inevitably also try to change the words or the definition of words to fit in with what they now view and see. For example the people who once viewed the big bang as the beginning and so the "universe" had a limit, and have who now changed this this view, also appear to want to change the names and definitions of things so that it does not appear that they actually have had to change their own view. It is like they are trying to appear as they knew what is true and correct all along. Some people appear to Me as though they really fear appearing as they did not know the Truth of ALL things, always. This pretending some human beings do has always amused Me because how could any one human being be expected to know the Truth?

Why do human beings just not look at 'what is' the Truth from the onset? Instead of believing the things that are written in a book or told by others? Looking at 'what is' reveals the Truth, and the Truth is there for ALL to see. All the other minor details of 'how it is' can be looked at, delved into and discussed later. Through these discoveries then the where, the when, and the all important why WILL naturally appear.
surreptitious57
Posts: 4217
Joined: Fri Oct 25, 2013 6:09 am

Re: There ARE parallel universes

Post by surreptitious57 »

ken wrote:
Why do human beings just not look at what is the Truth from the onset? Instead of believing the things that are written in a book or told by others Looking at what is reveals the Truth and the Truth is there for ALL to see. All the other minor details of how it is can be looked at delved into and discussed later. Through these discoveries then the where the when and the all important why WILL naturally appear
Human beings have subjective bias which prevents them from seeing objective truth. All possess this including those of us
who strive to be as logical as possible. The goal is not to entirely remove such bias [ as this is not possible ] but as much as
one can. And recognise that bias will always exist in one form or another. While nonetheless trying to keep it to a minimum
ken
Posts: 2075
Joined: Mon May 09, 2016 4:14 am

Re: There ARE parallel universes

Post by ken »

surreptitious57 wrote:
ken wrote:
Why do human beings just not look at what is the Truth from the onset? Instead of believing the things that are written in a book or told by others Looking at what is reveals the Truth and the Truth is there for ALL to see. All the other minor details of how it is can be looked at delved into and discussed later. Through these discoveries then the where the when and the all important why WILL naturally appear
Human beings have subjective bias which prevents them from seeing objective truth. All possess this including those of us
who strive to be as logical as possible. The goal is not to entirely remove such bias [ as this is not possible ] but as much as
one can. And recognise that bias will always exist in one form or another. While nonetheless trying to keep it to a minimum
Do you believe what I have said is not possible?

Doing what I said here allows human beings to be able to learn a way of looking, and thus seeing,which prevents any and all subjective bias, so that objective Truth can and will be seen.

Being able to look from a truly objective viewpoint, instead of from a subjective biased viewpoint, allows a purely logical perspective from which to view and see from.

Believing it is impossible to entirely remove such subjective bias, or believing (in) anything (besides in one's own ability), will prevent a human being from discovering and learning how to remove any and all subjective bias, as well as prevent them from being able to look at and see 'all there is' objectively, and for what IT really is.

Bias, in any form, will only exist if one wants to keep it.

Why just keep bias to a minimum when bias can be removed all together, once you know how?
User avatar
Noax
Posts: 670
Joined: Wed Aug 10, 2016 3:25 am

Re: There ARE parallel universes

Post by Noax »

ken wrote:Doing what I said here allows human beings to be able to learn a way of looking, and thus seeing,which prevents any and all subjective bias, so that objective Truth can and will be seen.

Being able to look from a truly objective viewpoint, instead of from a subjective biased viewpoint, allows a purely logical perspective from which to view and see from.
By definition, there can be no objective viewpoint. Discarding biases given only subjective knowledge is not a simple task and can never be completely achieved. I happen to entirely agree with S57's post BTW.

Does my apparent belief in that statement make it true for me? Given belief, is it possible to discard all biases, or is it just naive to think so?
ken
Posts: 2075
Joined: Mon May 09, 2016 4:14 am

Re: There ARE parallel universes

Post by ken »

Noax wrote:
ken wrote:Doing what I said here allows human beings to be able to learn a way of looking, and thus seeing,which prevents any and all subjective bias, so that objective Truth can and will be seen.

Being able to look from a truly objective viewpoint, instead of from a subjective biased viewpoint, allows a purely logical perspective from which to view and see from.
By definition, there can be no objective viewpoint.
What is the definition of 'objective viewpoint'?

Is that definition what it really is or just what you perceive it to be? Does that definitiion come from an objective or a subjective viewpoint?
Noax wrote: Discarding biases given only subjective knowledge is not a simple task and can never be completely achieved.
Are you completely sure of this?
Noax wrote:Does my apparent belief in that statement make it true for me?
Are you asking Me that question? I think only noax could really answer that. But I will ask you now, would you believe in something if it were not true?

If you answer all these questions, then we can begin to delve into if it is actually possible to look with and from an objective point of view instead of just a subjective point of view. Of course that is reliant upon to how open you actually are.
Noax wrote:Given belief, is it possible to discard all biases, or is it just naive to think so?
If you discard all beliefs and assumptions, then all biases are discarded also.
User avatar
Greta
Posts: 4389
Joined: Sat Aug 08, 2015 8:10 am

Re: There ARE parallel universes

Post by Greta »

surreptitious57 wrote:In the brane world hypothesis other universes cannot be seen. For light cannot travel between them. So the only way they can be detected is through gravity since it affects all matter and objects of mass even more so. Also in this universe it is impossible to see all the way back
to the Big Bang. Light can only travel to the Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation although this is just 380 000 years after the Big Bang
But gravity permeates everywhere and so was bound up with the other three fundamental forces at the very beginning 13.72 billion years
ago. It is therefore the most natural cosmic detector there is ...

In the brane world hypothesis it would be the brane itself that separates universes. As they reside at different ends In the Big Bang / Big Crunch hypothesis the universes are separated by time. And when I said the very beginning this was only a reference to this universe not anything else. As it is entirely possible that time did not actually begin then
Could there be other big bangs may happening elsewhere that are simply too far away to ever see or feel their effects?

I'm not thrilled with the idea of space itself being created with the BB because, if there is no "stuff" then what else can there be but space? I would agree that "spacetime" would have to be created with the BB though because it's not empty, being thinly filled with EM, gravity and the nuclear forces.
User avatar
Noax
Posts: 670
Joined: Wed Aug 10, 2016 3:25 am

Re: There ARE parallel universes

Post by Noax »

ken wrote:What is the definition of 'objective viewpoint'?
One without a viewpoint? If it has one, that viewpoint is subjective. You can take an objective stance, but it cannot be from any perspective.
Are you completely sure of this?
Nope.
Are you asking Me that question?
Thought it was rhetorical.
If you discard all beliefs and assumptions, then all biases are discarded also.
Agree.
surreptitious57
Posts: 4217
Joined: Fri Oct 25, 2013 6:09 am

Re: There ARE parallel universes

Post by surreptitious57 »

ken wrote:
surreptitious57 wrote:
ken wrote:
Why do human beings just not look at what is the Truth from the onset? Instead of believing the things that are written in a book or told by others Looking at what is reveals the Truth and the Truth is there for ALL to see. All the other minor details of how it is can be looked at delved into and discussed later. Through these discoveries then the where the when and the all important why WILL naturally appear
Human beings have subjective bias which prevents them from seeing objective truth. All possess this including those of us
who strive to be as logical as possible. The goal is not to entirely remove such bias [ as this is not possible ] but as much as
one can. And recognise that bias will always exist in one form or another. While nonetheless trying to keep it to a minimum
Doing what I said here allows human beings to be able to learn a way of looking and thus
seeing which prevents any and all subjective bias so that objective Truth can and will be seen

Being able to look from a truly objective viewpoint instead of from a subjective
biased viewpoint allows a purely logical perspective from which to view and see from

Believing it is impossible to entirely remove such subjective bias or believing ( in ) anything ( besides in ones own ability )
will prevent a human being from discovering and learning how to remove any and all subjective bias as well as prevent them
from being able to look at and see all there is objectively and for what IT really is
The irony here is that you do not accept that bias is always going to exist which is itself evidence of bias. You claim that all bias
can be removed. But this is false because as emotional beings we are automatically biased. And so it is therefore not a question
of believing that it is impossible to remove all bias but knowing that it is impossible
ken
Posts: 2075
Joined: Mon May 09, 2016 4:14 am

Re: There ARE parallel universes

Post by ken »

Noax wrote:
ken wrote:What is the definition of 'objective viewpoint'?
One without a viewpoint? If it has one, that viewpoint is subjective. You can take an objective stance, but it cannot be from any perspective.
Okay that is your definition, which is fine. Rather circular, and using the same word that is being defined also in the definition does not really clear things up for Me, but at least you defined and clarified something for Me when I asked a question, which is far more than I usually get in this forum, so thanks for that. But now, how does an 'objective stance' differ from any perspective but mostly from an 'objective perspective'?

How can a human being take an objective stance but not be able to look from an objective viewpoint?
Noax wrote:
Are you completely sure of this?
Nope.
Honestly, great to see you are still open. Thank you.

Being open, in my definition of an 'objective viewpoint', is what allows a human being to be able to gain and see from a truly objective viewpoint.
Noax wrote:
Are you asking Me that question?
Thought it was rhetorical.
My type of autism leads Me to take things literally. So, if and when others ask Me a question, then I will reply to THAT question (if I see the question and do not forget about it), and if I ask a question, which is ANY sentence ended by a ? I write, then I am literally asking a truly open-ended question seeking a truly open and honest answer to THAT question.

My way of communicating also, especially in a philosophy - to become wiser - forum, is to take absolutely everything written down as literally to mean what it says. If human beings do not mean what they say (or write), then why say (or write) it?
Noax wrote:
If you discard all beliefs and assumptions, then all biases are discarded also.
Agree.
Great. So if you agree, then could your agreement then lead us towards the premise that if a human being is completely open, which is they have discarded all beliefs and assumptions, then they can actually look from a no biased viewpoint, and/or have a view without any biases at all?

If you literally have no beliefs nor assumptions, then what could you possibly be biased about?

To give an example let us say if a view, which is not influenced by personal feelings or opinions in considering and representing facts, and which is in fact agreed upon and accepted as Truth not just by every human being but also by absolutely every thing, then COULD that view that is accepted as True Fact by Everything actually have come from an objective viewpoint, and, BE an objective view?

If the way to obtain those, accepted by every thing as absolutely, True Facts comes from being truly and completely open, which comes from have absolutely no beliefs nor assumptions and which rids one's own self of ALL biases, then just maybe that is the way to be able to gain a view from Everything's perspective. If you could Instead of just looking at things from a truly open viewpoint instead of from your own personal perspective, then could that be the way which allows you and all human beings to be able to see from a truly objective viewpoint, which then obviously also allows a truly objective view to be formed?

I guess you could not answer that until you tried it.

Could being able look from Everything's perspective as One, instead of looking from just one's own personal viewpoint, which obviously has come from one's own personal experiences, which obviously no person has lived a true and right life, also allow them to evolve and to form the ability to see and view ALL things objectively, instead of just subjectively?
ken
Posts: 2075
Joined: Mon May 09, 2016 4:14 am

Re: There ARE parallel universes

Post by ken »

surreptitious57 wrote:
ken wrote:
surreptitious57 wrote: Human beings have subjective bias which prevents them from seeing objective truth. All possess this including those of us
who strive to be as logical as possible. The goal is not to entirely remove such bias [ as this is not possible ] but as much as
one can. And recognise that bias will always exist in one form or another. While nonetheless trying to keep it to a minimum
Doing what I said here allows human beings to be able to learn a way of looking and thus
seeing which prevents any and all subjective bias so that objective Truth can and will be seen

Being able to look from a truly objective viewpoint instead of from a subjective
biased viewpoint allows a purely logical perspective from which to view and see from

Believing it is impossible to entirely remove such subjective bias or believing ( in ) anything ( besides in ones own ability )
will prevent a human being from discovering and learning how to remove any and all subjective bias as well as prevent them
from being able to look at and see all there is objectively and for what IT really is
The irony here is that you do not accept that bias is always going to exist which is itself evidence of bias.
What is more ironic is that you BELIEVE in something that is absolutely NOT true, because, I DO ACCEPT that bias COULD always exist.

If I was going to believe that bias is not always going to exist, then that would in itself be a bias, which honestly I do not have. Learning and knowing how something CAN happen does NOT in itself mean that it is always going to happen. Knowing how to look and view without bias does not mean bias can not nor will not creep back into the picture.

If I use what I have seen and noticed from all other human beings as an example, then there is nothing I can see that shows Me that biases will stop existing, even for a very short period. You Believing (or knowing) bias is always going to exist is absolute further proof that biases will not stop in the very near future. However because I have learned a way to NOT have biases, and to Me, it worked so, to Me, it has been proven that it is possible to view things without bias, I know that biased views can stop. But knowing that some thing can happen does not mean that it will happen. In fact, at this very moment, from what I see and view around Me, there is nothing showing Me anything other than biases continuing on forever more. But if I were to believe biases are going to always exist, then I would be back having biased views again, which I know I do not have to have, and which I know can negatively affect the way in which I view, look at, and see (or understand) things.
surreptitious57 wrote: You claim that all bias
can be removed. But this is false because as emotional beings we are automatically biased.
Do you think I could possibly and maybe successfully argue that you are NOT truly able to claim what is actually false regarding what I say, ESPECIALLY if you have NEVER really shown that much interest nor inquisitiveness, nor have asked any real clarifying and open-ended questions to Me about what it is that I am actually saying and meaning?

Do you think that just maybe some of your own beliefs and assumptions, and thus biases, could be interfering with the way you are viewing what I am trying to say? It sure comes across that way to Me, but as I have said before I have been wrong before. Just your honest response would be nice.

Some of us, especially autistic ones, are NOT necessarily very emotional beings, which can be a downfall at times, but it can also be a very uplifting and rewarding experience, especially when what can be and is actually learned, from NOT being an emotional being. Being able to not be influenced by emotions at all can give a completely different view of things. Quite literally a completely different picture of Life can be painted, and thus seen.

Also, your view 'that all bias can be removed is false' MUST be a subjective view. Now, by your very own logic, can subjective views honestly be trusted to be completely and absolutely true, right, and correct? If not, then what does that mean to what you are saying?


surreptitious57 wrote:And so it is therefore not a question
of believing that it is impossible to remove all bias but knowing that it is impossible
[/quote]

If you could possibly know this, and/or any or ALL other things, for ALL human beings, for EVER more, then that puts you way ahead of ALL other human beings.

Maybe being that far in front of ALL human beings you could direct the rest of us into HOW it is possible to knowing what is impossible, for All human beings, and WILL "it" be impossible forever more? And, while you are at it you might as well inform of us of what else is impossible.

By the way what is the difference between believing and knowing? If you know something is TRUE, would you not then believe it anyway?

Remember that just about everything that human beings have discovered, learned, invented, and created SO FAR were ONCE seen to be absolutely impossible.
surreptitious57
Posts: 4217
Joined: Fri Oct 25, 2013 6:09 am

Re: There ARE parallel universes

Post by surreptitious57 »

Humans are emotional beings and emotional interpretations are subjective and so therefore biased. So in order to eliminate bias one
would have to eliminate emotion which is not possible in humans. But machine or artificial intelligence can be programmed for logic
only. And in that model [ that is the next logical step from human intelligence ] all bias could be removed. In fact it would not even
exist in the first place. And if you were to use that as your model for objective truth instead then I would absolutely agree with you

My scepticism with regard to humans however is based on pre existing knowledge. Of course I cannot predict the future
and so I could be wrong. But my view is determined by what I already know. I cannot use knowledge I have not acquired

The difference between knowing and believing is that knowledge can be justified or demonstrated. Whereas belief can
not because it is an article of faith. Sometimes believe is synonymous with think but in that case the word means some
thing else because thinking implies a degree of cognition. Whereas belief as an article of faith requires absolutely none
User avatar
Noax
Posts: 670
Joined: Wed Aug 10, 2016 3:25 am

Re: There ARE parallel universes

Post by Noax »

ken wrote:Okay that is your definition, which is fine. Rather circular, and using the same word that is being defined also in the definition does not really clear things up for Me, but at least you defined and clarified something for Me when I asked a question, which is far more than I usually get in this forum, so thanks for that. But now, how does an 'objective stance' differ from any perspective but mostly from an 'objective perspective'?

How can a human being take an objective stance but not be able to look from an objective viewpoint?
I agree that my circular wording will not suffice as a definition, but the word objective is opposed to subjective, and subjective implies a viewpoint, and all our knowledge is confined to what can be gleaned via that viewpoint.
Noax wrote:Thought it was rhetorical
... and if I ask a question, which is ANY sentence ended by a ? I write, then I am literally asking a truly open-ended question seeking a truly open and honest answer to THAT question.
...
If human beings do not mean what they say (or write), then why say (or write) it?
Are you thus seeking my open and honest answer to that question? Looked rhetorical to me.
Noax wrote:
If you discard all beliefs and assumptions, then all biases are discarded also.
Agree.
Great. So if you agree, then could your agreement then lead us towards the premise that if a human being is completely open, which is they have discarded all beliefs and assumptions, then they can actually look from a no biased viewpoint, and/or have a view without any biases at all?
Yes, I agree with this, but only because of the 'if'. I think a human is incapable of this kind of openness. Logic is a tool to supplement the emotional part where beliefs are held and decisions are made. We all like to think of ourselves as rational beings, but the rational seems always secondary to deeper roots that are the source of our biases. We are evolved for survival, not truth. The truth is not conducive to survival. I have seemingly identified enough of my own biases to see where the path leads. I cannot discard those biases, but at least I'm aware of them. So I have a closer awareness of what I feel is truth, but cannot embrace it.
This might be the solution to the Fermi paradox. Truth eventually kills any sufficiently advanced race.
To give an example let us say if a view, which is not influenced by personal feelings or opinions in considering and representing facts, and which is in fact agreed upon and accepted as Truth not just by every human being but also by absolutely every thing, then COULD that view that is accepted as True Fact by Everything actually have come from an objective viewpoint, and, BE an objective view?
There are agreed upon facts? Especially facts not known by subjective means? Sure, 12+17=29 seems to be something on the nature of an objective fact, but even that one would never have been known without subjectivity. It certainly does not come intuitively to uneducated minds.
If the way to obtain those, accepted by every thing as absolutely, True Facts comes from being truly and completely open, which comes from have absolutely no beliefs nor assumptions and which rids one's own self of ALL biases, then just maybe that is the way to be able to gain a view from Everything's perspective. If you could Instead of just looking at things from a truly open viewpoint instead of from your own personal perspective, then could that be the way which allows you and all human beings to be able to see from a truly objective viewpoint, which then obviously also allows a truly objective view to be formed?
I think I have to disagree. Being totally open is to start at zero, from where no progress can be made. So gain knowledge, get the biases, but work through them. You can only rid yourself of a bias if you know you have them. Not so simple to just start without them if you don't know they're there.
User avatar
Noax
Posts: 670
Joined: Wed Aug 10, 2016 3:25 am

Re: There ARE parallel universes

Post by Noax »

surreptitious57 wrote:But machine or artificial intelligence can be programmed for logic only. And in that model [ that is the next logical step from human intelligence ] all bias could be removed.
I've been having a hard time finding something of yours to disagree with, but maybe this one. Something has to program the logic rules in the machine, and thus our biases (killing people and puppies is worse than killing bugs, cars, and dandelions) are transferred in. Also, the machine will be confined to the same subjective viewpoint that we're stuck in, so it will spew interpretations of reality just like us, not objective facts. A higher AI will certainly discover truths that are beyond us, but it may well not be able to convey them to us any more than I can describe the theory of relativity to my cat.

Suppose we put the benevolent AI in charge of the world. What long term goals should it have, and what means are taboo in achieving those goals? The conflict between the goals and the means is a good demonstration of how human emotions completely trump logic.
ken
Posts: 2075
Joined: Mon May 09, 2016 4:14 am

Re: There ARE parallel universes

Post by ken »

surreptitious57 wrote:Humans are emotional beings and emotional interpretations are subjective and so therefore biased. So in order to eliminate bias one
would have to eliminate emotion which is not possible in humans.
Obviously you have not lived my life.

I would have to add here that to eliminate bias one would not only have to eliminate emotion but also have to eliminate beliefs and assumptions as well.
surreptitious57 wrote:Of course I cannot predict the future
and so I could be wrong. But my view is determined by what I already know. I cannot use knowledge I have not acquired
Exactly.

Knowledge that has not been acquired yet is based on what will happen in future events, and of course you can not know or predict future events, therefore you can not use the knowledge that you will acquire very shortly, in the future, and further beyond, which if you are true to the Self could also be wrong. I found that always staying open to what is possible is far more enriching, enlightening, and rewarding, then just assuming/believing/thinking/knowing that the knowledge I have already obtained NOW is right, and could NOT be wrong.

Knowledge that i have already acquired is HOW to view things differently, from how I always had been taught to view things, and had previously done. A newer way is by never looking from beliefs and/or assumptions, and never looking determined solely by what I already "know". Because what I "know", based solely on past experiences, can be just as easily wrong as it could be right. Instead I NOW look at 'what is' and what could 'possibly be'

To assume or believe that for human beings to be able to eliminate emotions is not possible is to refuse what could actually possibly be. I am sure to a human being that has only ever lived with emotions that it would seem impossible to eliminate emotions, but that human being is looking ONLY from their own past personal experiences, which unless a person has had a perfect existence, then what they know could actually not be true, right, and correct.

If a human being is only looking from what they only know, then they are only able to see what they assume, believe, and think is right. They are not being open to what is actually right.
surreptitious57 wrote:The difference between knowing and believing is that knowledge can be justified or demonstrated.
Okay I will agree with and accept your definition here. But how could you or how do you justify or demonstrate that it is not possible for human beings to eliminate their emotions?

I say it is not just very possible to eliminate emotions but that I was doing it, unconsciously and consecutively, for many years and at times I still do it now.
Post Reply