Then why did you keep insisting on "Yes" as the default view?TimeSeeker wrote: ↑Thu Nov 08, 2018 10:40 pmNaturally. 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!
The Neural Basis of NonDuality
Re: The Neural Basis of NonDuality
Re: The Neural Basis of NonDuality
And how do you "test" the universe itself?TimeSeeker wrote: ↑Thu Nov 08, 2018 10:40 pmNaturally. 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!
-
- Posts: 2866
- Joined: Tue Sep 11, 2018 8:42 am
Re: The Neural Basis of NonDuality
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.
Last edited by TimeSeeker on Thu Nov 08, 2018 10:51 pm, edited 2 times in total.
-
- Posts: 2866
- Joined: Tue Sep 11, 2018 8:42 am
Re: The Neural Basis of NonDuality
Of course it's beyond the realm of science to answer it, you are just now realizing the obvious?TimeSeeker wrote: ↑Thu Nov 08, 2018 10:49 pmI 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.
But I haven't determined itThe exact same way you determined it's a circle.
-
- Posts: 2866
- Joined: Tue Sep 11, 2018 8:42 am
Re: The Neural Basis of NonDuality
Then you have pre-supposed that the universe was caused by something.
-
- Posts: 2866
- Joined: Tue Sep 11, 2018 8:42 am
Re: The Neural Basis of NonDuality
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 ?
Re: The Neural Basis of NonDuality
I haven't concluded or assumed it.TimeSeeker wrote: ↑Thu Nov 08, 2018 11:07 pmNon-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 ?
-
- Posts: 2866
- Joined: Tue Sep 11, 2018 8:42 am
Re: The Neural Basis of NonDuality
It's not a conclusionTimeSeeker wrote: ↑Thu Nov 08, 2018 11:09 pmThen by what thought process did you reach the conclusion?
-
- Posts: 2866
- Joined: Tue Sep 11, 2018 8:42 am
Re: The Neural Basis of NonDuality
Not circle, just circular.TimeSeeker wrote: ↑Thu Nov 08, 2018 11:12 pmA priori knowledge? Revelation?
By what process did you acquire the idea?
It's the simplest model of the universe I can think of that actually makes sense, solves all logical problems.
-
- Posts: 2866
- Joined: Tue Sep 11, 2018 8:42 am
Re: The Neural Basis of NonDuality
Well. It solves almost all of your logical problems.Atla wrote: ↑Thu Nov 08, 2018 11:20 pmNot circle, just circular.TimeSeeker wrote: ↑Thu Nov 08, 2018 11:12 pmA priori knowledge? Revelation?
By what process did you acquire the idea?
It's the simplest model of the universe I can think of that actually makes sense, solves all logical problems.
The circular non-circle is somewhat logically dubious.
Re: The Neural Basis of NonDuality
I tend to doubt that the shape of the universe would be a perfect 4-dimensional sphere.TimeSeeker wrote: ↑Thu Nov 08, 2018 11:33 pmWell. It solves almost all of your logical problems.Atla wrote: ↑Thu Nov 08, 2018 11:20 pmNot circle, just circular.TimeSeeker wrote: ↑Thu Nov 08, 2018 11:12 pm
A priori knowledge? Revelation?
By what process did you acquire the idea?
It's the simplest model of the universe I can think of that actually makes sense, solves all logical problems.
The circular non-circle is somewhat logically dubious.
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.