If everything is lacking in definition, how can you say that holism is false and mutliplicity is true?daramantus wrote: ↑Tue Dec 12, 2017 10:45 pmaccording to me, 'everything' is lacking definition, because we don't know everything, so we can't make any theories about it, so, no, I don't believing in any " unifying theory" . and each "theory of everything" has failed in the past. because there is no such thing to begin with. Some people have hard time accepting it, hard time accepting that we don't know the unknown, actually we know little to nothing. We can only know from the frame of knowledge available to us, not beyond it. and what is beyond the beyond and outside it. It's like, there is really no such thing as "everything unified"Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Tue Dec 12, 2017 10:41 pmSo according to you, everything is unified as a dividing line?daramantus wrote: ↑Tue Dec 12, 2017 10:37 pm
"theare is naoh separation man, naoh separata doer, naoh separation, naoh observer, pwerceiver,pelease, agreae witht me, naoh doer, me vs yoo"
you seem to suffer from separation complexity. You really CAN'T accept reality, you can't accept that you are in your home, you are a perceiver of your computer, you are seeing it because you have healthy eyes and healthy rods and cones, if you weren't the perceiver of the object, you wouldn't need eyes if u werent in your body in the central locus of your consciousness. and I'm here in another part of the world, perceiving my computer, that's not even obvious, that's not debatable, you really have problems accepting it, you are like discussing nothing here. It's just that. I don't know why you repeat something that you're clearly wrong, it's laughable.
If we can only understand our own framework, is that a unified theory?