Prove An Independent Reality-in-Itself Exists

For all things philosophical.

Moderators: AMod, iMod

User avatar
Conde Lucanor
Posts: 846
Joined: Mon Nov 04, 2013 2:59 am

Re: Prove An Independent Reality-in-Itself Exists

Post by Conde Lucanor »

Skepdick wrote: Sun Apr 11, 2021 9:56 am
Conde Lucanor wrote: Sun Apr 11, 2021 1:04 am OK, you can pass. I'll wait for anyone else that does want and does think they can refute my claims.
Why can't you point out the limits and gaps of your own assumptions while you wait?
Point out to whom? Only those willing to discuss my points and refute them will have the chance to weigh them. You already said you are not one of them.
Skepdick wrote: Sun Apr 11, 2021 9:56 am
Conde Lucanor wrote: Sun Apr 11, 2021 1:04 am No, your idea that science and philosophy are mere personal, subjective enterprises, is completely misguided. Science and philosophy are social practices, disciplines that build common knowledge on dialogue and interaction with others. The personal burden is to add one's own insights to a a systematic body of principles on which you can ground truths that are once universal and necessary. That's where refutations take place.
You have no idea what my idea of science and philosophy are about - you are guessing.
No, no need to guess. I took it from your own post, in which such views were explicit.
Skepdick wrote: Sun Apr 11, 2021 9:56 am I am simply pointing out that any scientist who values their own intellectual integrity burdens themselves with volunteering the limits of their own assumptions, gaps in understanding and likely scenarios in which their model/understanding does not apply.

You don't want to volunteer your short-commings. You want others to find them for you.
Scientists do that in the process of doing their work as scientists or in the process of becoming scientists, none of which is the case of this forum where one already arrives with ideas to propose and be challenged. Implicit to those ideas are their philosophical foundations, but you have said out loud that there are no foundations and refused to refute any points. It's a game, anything goes, remember? And of course, all that talk about some foundational "burdens", "models", and "intellectual integrity" are to be understood as part of the farce. We're just having fun.
Skepdick wrote: Sun Apr 11, 2021 9:56 am From this we can infer that either you are not entirely committed to intellectual honesty, or you simply lack self-reflection.
In my coherent, make-sense world, intellectual honestly can actually be measured and valued. In the absurd, incoherent, nonsensical world that you advocate, it is a joke.
Skepdick wrote: Sun Apr 11, 2021 9:56 am
Conde Lucanor wrote: Sun Apr 11, 2021 1:04 am Which would confirm that you can only say that illusion is a possibility, as much as reality of the thing in itself is a possibility. So you cannot refute realism, you can only advocate for a sort of agnosticism: no one knows and anything goes.

I'm not sure what you mean exactly by "experiment", but I've chosen the only reliable philosophical path: that of realism and materialism.
You are contradicting yourself. On the one hand you say you can't refute any philosophy.

On the other hand you are claiming that only your philosophy is "reliable". How did you refute the reliability of the philosophies you reject?
No, that was not my claim, I was restating your own claim and what it entails, I mean, assuming (perhaps wrongly) that you follow the logic of your own words. Your statements can only entail illusion as a possible case, not as the actual case, they lead to not having reliable assurance of what is the case (for you), and leaves open that it is the case that the world is not illusory, therefore not refuting my claim.
Skepdick wrote: Sun Apr 11, 2021 9:56 am
Conde Lucanor wrote: Sun Apr 11, 2021 1:04 am No, that's only you advocating for absurdity as foundational. But it self-defeats.
It doesn't self-defeat - it self-affirms. You are interpreting it incorrectly.

This sentence does not exist. That's not self defeat. The sentence is still there.

Q.E.D your interpretation is wrong.
The sentences "this sentence does not exist" and "the sentence is still there" contradict each other. Their concurrence becomes absurd. They self-defeat.
Skepdick wrote: Sun Apr 11, 2021 9:56 am
Conde Lucanor wrote: Sun Apr 11, 2021 1:04 am What you really mean is how one chooses to avoid epistemological nihilism and embrace the absurd and the arbitrary as the foundation of all? Well, there are several testing methods you can try on epistemological nihilists to see if they really embrace the absurd and the arbitrary as foundation of all. The only problem is, the only ones that seem to deal with the issue, choose to die.
I don't believe any such test exists. Nobody has yet been able to test whether I "embrace" anything without having some dubious assumptions in their testing methodology.
This response is the confirmation of the hypothesis I put to test after my previous observation. Invocation of "dubious assumptions" and "testing methodology" must say something about someone who made a lot of noise about "anything goes" and "no foundations", doesn't it?
Skepdick wrote: Sun Apr 11, 2021 9:56 am This is a peculiar game to play indeed. What if there are no masks where you expect some?
In this ball, I expect some to wear them and others not. It's easy to identify who's posing.
Skepdick wrote: Sun Apr 11, 2021 9:56 am Computer Science is the science of Metaphysics.
Oh, come on!! Computer science, really? Pfff...please don't get me started.
User avatar
Conde Lucanor
Posts: 846
Joined: Mon Nov 04, 2013 2:59 am

Re: Prove An Independent Reality-in-Itself Exists

Post by Conde Lucanor »

Veritas Aequitas wrote: Sun Apr 11, 2021 7:40 am Generally the point is reality is all there is and humans are a part and parcel of reality. Fundamentally there is no way humans can extricate themselves from what they are part and parcel of to make themselves independent of what they are part and parcel of.
There lies the problem of your argument, as I already explained. Humans (humanity) are only contingently entangled with the world they are part of, but they can easily be disentangled by not being part of the world, which is nothing rare. Today's humanity did not exist 200 years ago, neither any single human existing today. Perhaps one can say this humanity and these humans alive are fundamentally entangled with reality, but that's a temporary circumstance that will come to an end when they cease to exist. And yet, reality has been there and will be there, regardless of humanity.
User avatar
Conde Lucanor
Posts: 846
Joined: Mon Nov 04, 2013 2:59 am

Re: Prove An Independent Reality-in-Itself Exists

Post by Conde Lucanor »

Veritas Aequitas wrote: Sun Apr 11, 2021 8:01 am
  • Of course it is not by argument that we originally come by our belief in an independent external world.
    We find this belief ready in ourselves as soon as we begin to reflect: it is what may be called an instinctive belief.
    https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Page%3AR ... 12.djvu/41
If all we could rely on was common wisdom, that's what we get: how things look like at first hand. But we have already many centuries of developing systematized ways of thinking that can reliably confirm or deny the truth of what appears to our senses, and reveal its real, intrinsic nature. So, it is both things: we find the belief already in ourselves, but it evolves, takes shape, it is transformed to something else along with our cultural practices.
Skepdick
Posts: 14347
Joined: Fri Jun 14, 2019 11:16 am

Re: Prove An Independent Reality-in-Itself Exists

Post by Skepdick »

Conde Lucanor wrote: Sun Apr 11, 2021 9:50 pm Point out to whom? Only those willing to discuss my points and refute them will have the chance to weigh them. You already said you are not one of them.
Point them out to anyone who asks. Can you even refute yourself?

If you can't - you are only making my point. You are making your self-refutation other people's problem.
Conde Lucanor wrote: Sun Apr 11, 2021 9:50 pm No, no need to guess. I took it from your own post, in which such views were explicit.
If my views were "explicit" then why are you misrepresenting them?
Conde Lucanor wrote: Sun Apr 11, 2021 9:50 pm Scientists do that in the process of doing their work as scientists or in the process of becoming scientists, none of which is the case of this forum where one already arrives with ideas to propose and be challenged.
Que? Scientists put forward the limits of their ideas at the outset. So that you don't have to waste your time "challenging" things that the scientist already knows can be challenged. Win-win.
Conde Lucanor wrote: Sun Apr 11, 2021 9:50 pm Implicit to those ideas are their philosophical foundations but you have said out loud that there are no foundations and refused to refute any points. It's a game, anything goes, remember? And of course, all that talk about some foundational "burdens", "models", and "intellectual integrity" are to be understood as part of the farce. We're just having fun.
"Philosophical foundations" sure is a big word for "basic assumptions". The value of scientific ideas is not determined on the quality of their "foundations".

It's determined on their utility/applicability towards solving important problems.

A useful theory with poor foundations is just as useful as a theory with good foundations.
Conde Lucanor wrote: Sun Apr 11, 2021 9:50 pm In my coherent, make-sense world, intellectual honestly can actually be measured and valued. In the absurd, incoherent, nonsensical world that you advocate, it is a joke.
Nobody's even trying to put a price on it. I am simply pointing out that you are not even interested in practicing it. Whether it's coherent or incoherent.
Conde Lucanor wrote: Sun Apr 11, 2021 9:50 pm No, that was not my claim, I was restating your own claim and what it entails, , I mean, assuming (perhaps wrongly) that you follow the logic of your own words.
Logical entailment is arbitrary. Any conditional supports any conclusion. Curry's paradox.
Conde Lucanor wrote: Sun Apr 11, 2021 9:50 pm Your statements can only entail illusion as a possible case, not as the actual case, they lead to not having reliable assurance of what is the case (for you), and leaves open that it is the case that the world is not illusory, therefore not refuting my claim.
You are abusing "only". I am pointing out that multiple possibilities exist. I am pointing out that you have chosen one possibility out of many.

I am asking you to explain the process by which you dismissed the other alternatives.

It's not on me to refute your claim. it's on you to explain how you've chosen to use the adjective "real" instead of the adjective "illusionary" when you speak about your experiences, when the adjective makes no difference to the experiences.
Conde Lucanor wrote: Sun Apr 11, 2021 9:50 pm The sentences "this sentence does not exist" and "the sentence is still there" contradict each other. Their concurrence becomes absurd. They self-defeat.
And yet this "absurd concurrence" is right before your very eyes - empirical and everything. So what does this "self-defeat" amount to?

It sure seems to me that "self-defeat" is actually impossible.
Conde Lucanor wrote: Sun Apr 11, 2021 9:50 pm This response is the confirmation of the hypothesis I put to test after my previous observation. Invocation of "dubious assumptions" and "testing methodology" must say something about someone who made a lot of noise about "anything goes" and "no foundations", doesn't it?
Sure. So what can you infer about my beliefs given the words that I am using? Surely you need a theory of how words relate to beliefs.

And you need some "foundations" as to what beliefs are. Tell us!
Conde Lucanor wrote: Sun Apr 11, 2021 9:50 pm In this ball, I expect some to wear them and others not. It's easy to identify who's posing.
From where I am looking - you are posing and I am not.

Unless, of course, you are willing to tell us how to distinguish a real universe from an illusionary one.
Conde Lucanor wrote: Sun Apr 11, 2021 9:50 pm Oh, come on!! Computer science, really? Pfff...please don't get me started.
Don't be shy. You have a long road ahead of explaining why all of our Physics (mathematics) are computational; and why the feasibility of getting answers to mathematical questions about the universe hinges upon space, time and entropy as computational resources.
tillingborn
Posts: 1314
Joined: Wed Jan 04, 2012 3:15 pm

Re: Prove An Independent Reality-in-Itself Exists

Post by tillingborn »

Skepdick wrote: Sun Apr 11, 2021 9:26 pmI am the wanker who funds (some of) your research grants.
Thanks very much.
Skepdick wrote: Sun Apr 11, 2021 9:26 pmSo if you like to do research on other people's dime you best believe that you actually need a fucking story as to why your intellectual circle-jerk is worth the investment and what positive impact you expect it to have on other people's lives, coupled with some predictions on when you plan to deliver.
Like a research proposal?
Skepdick wrote: Sun Apr 11, 2021 9:26 pmGod forbid you actually had to figure out how to make academic research financially self-sustainable.
All anyone has to do to be "financially self-sustainable" is provide a commodity or service that other people are willing to pay for. Again, thank you for your contribution.
Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 12243
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: Prove An Independent Reality-in-Itself Exists

Post by Veritas Aequitas »

Terrapin Station wrote: Sun Apr 11, 2021 12:19 pm
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Sun Apr 11, 2021 7:26 am
Nope I had never argued for solipsism which is a incoherent theory.
Your views amount to solipsism, whether you explicitly argue for that, whether you like that, or not. It's the upshot of various things you claim. All idealism amounts to solipsism.
All idealism, you mean to include your "empirical idealism".

Demonstrate my transcendental idealism aka empirical realism amounts to solipsism.
To insist on the incoherent theory of solipsism is coherent is stupidity [lack philosophical intelligence] as influenced by the bastardized philosophies of the LPs.
User avatar
Terrapin Station
Posts: 4548
Joined: Wed Aug 03, 2016 7:18 pm
Location: NYC Man

Re: Prove An Independent Reality-in-Itself Exists

Post by Terrapin Station »

Veritas Aequitas wrote: Mon Apr 12, 2021 10:04 am
Terrapin Station wrote: Sun Apr 11, 2021 12:19 pm
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Sun Apr 11, 2021 7:26 am
Nope I had never argued for solipsism which is a incoherent theory.
Your views amount to solipsism, whether you explicitly argue for that, whether you like that, or not. It's the upshot of various things you claim. All idealism amounts to solipsism.
All idealism, you mean to include your "empirical idealism".

Demonstrate my transcendental idealism aka empirical realism amounts to solipsism.
To insist on the incoherent theory of solipsism is coherent is stupidity [lack philosophical intelligence] as influenced by the bastardized philosophies of the LPs.
I'm no sort of idealist.

You don't believe that you can observe anything external to your own mind.
Skepdick
Posts: 14347
Joined: Fri Jun 14, 2019 11:16 am

Re: Prove An Independent Reality-in-Itself Exists

Post by Skepdick »

tillingborn wrote: Mon Apr 12, 2021 9:33 am
Skepdick wrote: Sun Apr 11, 2021 9:26 pmI am the wanker who funds (some of) your research grants.
Thanks very much.
Skepdick wrote: Sun Apr 11, 2021 9:26 pmSo if you like to do research on other people's dime you best believe that you actually need a fucking story as to why your intellectual circle-jerk is worth the investment and what positive impact you expect it to have on other people's lives, coupled with some predictions on when you plan to deliver.
Like a research proposal?
Skepdick wrote: Sun Apr 11, 2021 9:26 pmGod forbid you actually had to figure out how to make academic research financially self-sustainable.
All anyone has to do to be "financially self-sustainable" is provide a commodity or service that other people are willing to pay for. Again, thank you for your contribution.
No need to thank me. You don't seem to be working on anything I could possibly care to fund.

But maybe I'm mistaken. Which research proposal was yours?
tillingborn
Posts: 1314
Joined: Wed Jan 04, 2012 3:15 pm

Re: Prove An Independent Reality-in-Itself Exists

Post by tillingborn »

Skepdick wrote: Mon Apr 12, 2021 10:15 amYou don't seem to be working on anything I could possibly care to fund.
All the more gracious of you to do so.
Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 12243
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: Prove An Independent Reality-in-Itself Exists

Post by Veritas Aequitas »

Conde Lucanor wrote: Sun Apr 11, 2021 8:08 pm
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Sun Apr 11, 2021 6:27 am
Conde Lucanor wrote: Sat Apr 10, 2021 8:25 pm So you mean this: that in order for the universe to exist, it cannot be disentangled, separate from humans.


Then at a certain point in time, homo-sapiens gradually emerged out to the original soup of star dusts but they are still deterministically connected [entangled] with the all of reality.
Jesus!! That was fast...I never thought my points would be so effective as to change your stance of "the universe exists only if there are humans" in one post to "the universe started and then humans gradually emerged out" in the very next post.
I am trying to be effective in getting to the eventual point.
To be effective I had also dealt with each point separately.

Veritas Aequitas wrote: Sun Apr 11, 2021 6:27 am 4. The only reason why humans think they are disentangled is when they are endowed with a higher consciousness of self-awareness and it was only around 500+ years ago that Descartes' heavy influence that separate the mind from the body and made everything else of reality independent of the mind.

Which humans think they are disentangled from reality? Dualists?
It is the realists, i.e. the philosophical realists,
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Sun Apr 11, 2021 6:27 am 5. Fundamentally humans are connected [entangled] with all the things of reality as parts of the whole.

"Humans" in an abstraction of the set composed by every human, but every human is a contingent being that begins to exist and then ceases to exist. Therefore, all entanglements/disentanglements with the reality of the universe are contingent, dependent of each being coming to existence. No matter the nature of entanglements, it is the universe that brings about human existence, not vice versa.
Your views are that of the common and conventional sense.
As I had stated, within the common and conventional sense, it is very evident all humans are disentangled from the external independent world. So it is also evident that the universe caused and brings about humans into existence.

The term 'brings about' is very misleading.
Btw, are you theist or non-theist.

As I had stated earlier, there is this soup of star-dusts particles [even this is mind-entangled fundamentally] that enable things and humans to emerge from it.
It is too complex to state, humans were brought into existence or were caused to exist which implied by something [what can that be??].

Thus the best [still limited] we can say is, humans emerged out of the soup of star-dust and that entail fundamental entanglement or some sort of inevitable relations. Thus whatever follows cannot escape this fundamental entanglement and relationship.

Therefore philosophical realism [whilst acceptable at the common and conventional sense] is not realistic and tenable at the fundamental level of reality.
This is what happen with Newtonian Physics being acceptable at the conventional sense but not sound at the more fundamental levels of reality which has to be handled by Einsteinian and QM physics.

Veritas Aequitas wrote: Sun Apr 11, 2021 6:27 am What is critical here is from point 1 [believe the big bang is true] to point 5, all the above are conditioned upon the human conditions.

First, belief in the big bang is not necessary for acknowledging the universe exists. It is a theory of how it came to exist as we know it and experience it.
That is the best theory we have so far and thus acceptable to explain my position.
How else? If you are a theist, then you will of course resort to 'God did it'.
Secondly, your use of words in not appropriate. "Conditioned upon the human conditions" is ambiguous and sometimes you use it to mean "existence determined (therefore caused) by humans" and sometimes "knowledge of its existence determined (therefore caused) by humans". You have a confusion between the metaphysical aspect of the problem and the epistemological aspect of it.
"Conditioned upon the human conditions" meant we cannot be disentangled whether it is epistemological [obvious] or even the ontological [not so obvious] from the human conditions.

Note I posted various threads re this ontological issue;
Humans are the Co-Creator of Reality They are In [2]
viewtopic.php?f=5&t=32476

Therefore the reality that humans know [epistemologically] and described is co-created [ontologically] by humans themselves.
Note "create" in this case, it not like humans waving a wand and the universe appear.
It is more subtle like the entanglement and relationship via star-dusts I mentioned above.

Veritas Aequitas wrote: Sun Apr 11, 2021 6:27 am Thus whatever you claim, i.e. humans are independent of the universe which could be true in the common and conventional sense, this claim is subsumed within the ultimate entanglement.

What ultimate entanglement? You mean between the abstract concept of humans and the universe, which boils down to nothing meaningful.
"Ultimate entanglement" [not common or conventional sense] means at the most deepest level reducible, humans are entangled or related in someway to the reality which they co-created.
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Sun Apr 11, 2021 6:27 am There is no way you can take any independent objective stance [i.e. God's eye view] to make any objective independent claim.
All claims about the world are propositions of knowledgeable states of the world, and all claims come from subjects.
Objectivity, having an independent objective stance, has nothing to do with "God's eye view", but with propositions that arising from the subject's point of view, acknowledge the existence of real objects independent of that subject, so that the subject itself is part of the set of all real objects, and such domain and other objects will continue to exist even when the subject is not present anymore. It takes subjectivity to reach objectivity.
As I had stated what you are expressing is from the common and conventional sense but not the ultimate sense of reality.

As I had stated, at the ultimate sense of reality, we and the universe and all of reality are related and entangled on the level of being star-dusts or the particles which we are still comprised in the present albeit in 'coalesced' forms.
The point that humans emerged with self-awareness and a sense of independent do not make the difference at the fundamental level of reality.

ps. I am having problem loading with the internet, will address the other posts later.
Skepdick
Posts: 14347
Joined: Fri Jun 14, 2019 11:16 am

Re: Prove An Independent Reality-in-Itself Exists

Post by Skepdick »

tillingborn wrote: Mon Apr 12, 2021 10:40 am All the more gracious of you to do so.
Ah well, then you must know exactly who I am and who's funding your research ;)

So why do you keep lying about me not being a scientist?
tillingborn
Posts: 1314
Joined: Wed Jan 04, 2012 3:15 pm

Re: Prove An Independent Reality-in-Itself Exists

Post by tillingborn »

Skepdick wrote: Mon Apr 12, 2021 11:18 am
tillingborn wrote: Mon Apr 12, 2021 10:40 am All the more gracious of you to do so.
Ah well, then you must know exactly who I am and who's funding your research ;)

So why do you keep lying about me not being a scientist?
You keep proving you're not a scientist by making hopeless inferences, but thanks for the cash.
Skepdick
Posts: 14347
Joined: Fri Jun 14, 2019 11:16 am

Re: Prove An Independent Reality-in-Itself Exists

Post by Skepdick »

tillingborn wrote: Mon Apr 12, 2021 11:30 am You keep proving you're not a scientist by making hopeless inferences, but thanks for the cash.
You keep proving that you aren't spending my cash - or else you'd be able to tell me what my name is and what my background is ;)

Them hopeless inferences you keep projecting.
Atla
Posts: 6607
Joined: Fri Dec 15, 2017 8:27 am

Re: Prove An Independent Reality-in-Itself Exists

Post by Atla »

tillingborn wrote: Mon Apr 12, 2021 11:30 am
Skepdick wrote: Mon Apr 12, 2021 11:18 am
tillingborn wrote: Mon Apr 12, 2021 10:40 am All the more gracious of you to do so.
Ah well, then you must know exactly who I am and who's funding your research ;)

So why do you keep lying about me not being a scientist?
You keep proving you're not a scientist by making hopeless inferences, but thanks for the cash.
Last time we spoke he didn't have a job either. He's probably broke anyway.
User avatar
Conde Lucanor
Posts: 846
Joined: Mon Nov 04, 2013 2:59 am

Re: Prove An Independent Reality-in-Itself Exists

Post by Conde Lucanor »

Veritas Aequitas wrote: Mon Apr 12, 2021 10:46 am
Conde Lucanor wrote: Sun Apr 11, 2021 8:08 pm
Which humans think they are disentangled from reality? Dualists?
It is the realists, i.e. the philosophical realists,
I'm a realist and I don't think I'm permanently disentangled from reality. No realist thinks they are permanently disentangled from reality. Realist think that you will be entangled with reality when you're part of it and disentangled when you aren't. Since reality still exists when one is disentangled (by not existing), reality is prior to the entanglements and independent of them.
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Mon Apr 12, 2021 10:46 am Your views are that of the common and conventional sense.
As I had stated, within the common and conventional sense, it is very evident all humans are disentangled from the external independent world. So it is also evident that the universe caused and brings about humans into existence.
My views just make sense. I'm ready to listen to any other that makes more sense, but so far there's silence.
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Mon Apr 12, 2021 10:46 am As I had stated earlier, there is this soup of star-dusts particles [even this is mind-entangled fundamentally] that enable things and humans to emerge from it.
This is plainly absurd. It is like saying Peter and Mary got together, she got pregnant and as a result the same Peter was born, so he was his own father and his own son. Is this supposed to be the great alternative to realism?
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Mon Apr 12, 2021 10:46 am Therefore philosophical realism [whilst acceptable at the common and conventional sense] is not realistic and tenable at the fundamental level of reality.
This is what happen with Newtonian Physics being acceptable at the conventional sense but not sound at the more fundamental levels of reality which has to be handled by Einsteinian and QM physics.
I was wondering how late would the quantum stuff arrive to crown the phenomenological stance. But Peter and Mary still cannot produce the miracle.
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Mon Apr 12, 2021 10:46 am
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Mon Apr 12, 2021 10:46 am

What is critical here is from point 1 [believe the big bang is true] to point 5, all the above are conditioned upon the human conditions.
Conde Lucanor wrote: Sun Apr 11, 2021 8:08 pmFirst, belief in the big bang is not necessary for acknowledging the universe exists. It is a theory of how it came to exist as we know it and experience it.
That is the best theory we have so far and thus acceptable to explain my position.
How else? If you are a theist, then you will of course resort to 'God did it'.
How about 'no one did it'. There was nothing to 'do'.
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Mon Apr 12, 2021 10:46 am
Therefore the reality that humans know [epistemologically] and described is co-created [ontologically] by humans themselves.
You keep repeating the same sentence following the same pattern of "I meant X, therefore X". Repeatedly asserting something does not make it true all of the sudden.
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Mon Apr 12, 2021 10:46 am "Ultimate entanglement" [not common or conventional sense] means at the most deepest level reducible, humans are entangled or related in someway to the reality which they co-created.
Sure, but will we ever see an argument to support this assertion?
Post Reply