Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Mon Mar 18, 2024 5:02 am
Age wrote: ↑Sun Mar 17, 2024 1:26 pm
Do you have some sort of fear of just expressing what the actual thing is, exactly, which you are referring and/or alluding to?
For, once again, I have absolutely no idea what you are referring to or alluding to here, which is somewhere in 'the thread'.
No, I don't have a fear around that. I discussed my issues around use the use of that word in many posts.
See, even here this one does not say what it is actually referring to, exactly, but, instead, just refers to some thing, which others have to start 'assuming' what this one is even talking about and referring to.
I have also discussed 'my issues' around the use of 'that word' in many posts as well "iwannaplato". So, let 'us' see 'you' talk about 'them' and 'it' now.
Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Mon Mar 18, 2024 5:02 am
Now, if one was to assume that the words 'the thread' were referring to or alluding to 'this thread' here, and this was correct, then that one would be one step closer to finding out what you are referring to and alluding to here. However, instead of one looking back over this whole thread, reading all of this whole thread, and then just, still, assuming what 'it' is that you are talking about, referring to, and alluding to here, would it be possible if you just informed 'us', directly, what 'the reason' here is, exactly, why you would not use the 'creation' word here?
I would have thought you'd remember. It was in my first posts in the thread and was focused on the different ways you and Atla were framing causation.
Well considering that you cannot remember some things that I have repeated to you many times over, why would you expect or assume that I would remember everything that you have said and/or claimed?
Is it not more productive in communication, to you, to just say what the 'actual thing' is, exactly, that you are talking about and/or referring to, instead of just alluding to 'it'?
Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Mon Mar 18, 2024 5:02 am
Exactly like the words, 'In the beginning', have been spread among people with the connotation of 'a start', in the past, when it is 'imagined' all was 'created' all at once, with nothing prior or with an unknown and/or unexplained prior.
Also, an 'original Creation' can just mean one of only, and not 'the start', nor 'beginning' of some thing. See, the word 'Creation' does not have to be included, involved, nor connected with 'an event' nor 'an original event'. These two words have just detracted from what the 'Creation' word is meaning and referring to, exactly.
Yes, that's my point.
And that is my point. So, then you agree with me here, right?
Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Mon Mar 18, 2024 5:02 am
So, if you removed the False, Wrong, Inaccurate, and Incorrect connotation that there was an 'original Creation event', in the past, as though there was a 'prior beginning' to all-there-is, then you will not be having nor holding a view/connotation that is stopping and preventing what the actual irrefutable Truth is, exactly, from being 'seen' and 'understood' here.
Sure, that's a solution. But given that people will have those connotations, I suggest not using that word.
So, you are here more or less suggesting that you people just keep your False, Wrong, Inaccurate, and/or Incorrect connotations, views, beliefs, assumptions, misinterpretations, and/or perspectives and just keep sharing, teaching, and learning those False, Wrong, Inaccurate, and Incorrect versions, as though they are True, Right, Accurate, and/or Correct.
I instead, and however, prefer to show and reveal what the actual and irrefutable Truth is, exactly, while also showing and revealing how and why you human beings, hitherto when this is being written, have been missing what the actual Truth is, exactly.
Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Sat Mar 16, 2024 3:15 pm
If it is intended this way, then I'd want to see some explanation of the beginning. If not, I'd choose another word.
Why do you view that it is I who has to change words?
I don't see where I said you had to do something.[/quote]
you said that if 'it' is intended 'this way', then you would want to see, from me, some explanation, of the beginning. But, if 'it' was not intended 'that way', you would choose another word.
Now, 'it' was not intended 'that way', obviously. So, if you are not implying here that I need to choose another word, just so you can then begin to comprehend and understand here, then what are you implying here, exactly, by your choice of words about you would choose another word here?
Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Mon Mar 18, 2024 5:02 am
Do you not want to change your connotation? Do you want to stay rigid with your views, beliefs, perceptions, and/or connotations here?
Do you, Age, want to stay rigid with your views, beliefs, perceptions, and/or connotations here?
If the earth revolves around the sun, for example, has already been proved True to me, then, 'Yes I want to stay right with that view and perception.
Now, if you do not want to learn something new nor more, to you, then by all means keep your 'current' presumptions and beliefs. I do not care. But, what you are actually doing here, for me, is also proving True how the Mind and the brain actually work.
The proof of what the Universe is actually and fundamentally made up of, and how the Universe actually works, already exists.
For those that would like to 'know' and 'see' 'that proof' as well, then they just have to 'let go' of their pre-existing beliefs, connotations, presumptions and just start wanting to learn and understand more, and anew, here.
Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Mon Mar 18, 2024 5:02 am
Notice that your question presumes that I have a view that you have to change your words.
Notice the way you speak and write here. I have 'now' asked you to clarify. 'We' 'now' wait.
Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Mon Mar 18, 2024 5:02 am
That is an assumption your made, a belief you had when you wrote this to me AND a belief no based on a good reading of my actual words.
OF COURSE it was an assumption. Just like OF COURSE it was not necessarily a belief, at all. Although you believe otherwise here, right?
Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Mon Mar 18, 2024 5:02 am
Why you ask why in a question like that, that kind of language includes assumptions about what is the case?
Who cares?
you speak and write here, like it is some sort of a 'moral sin' to make an assumption, or that making assumptions is something that you never do.
Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Mon Mar 18, 2024 5:02 am
If you inserted would, it might not have that assumption, but here the assumption is clear what you believe.
But it is not and never was what I believed. Only a True fool would believe otherwise here.
Also, if 'my assumption' was wrong and incorrect, then you will clarify this in, when, and if you clarify my clarifying question posed, and asked to you, about this very thing here now.
But, if you do not clarify, then the readers will, once again, wonder why you have so much to hide here.
See, just maybe 'my assumption' here was and is actually True, Right, Accurate, and Correct. Which then, if I felt like it, I could then just saying that it was not 'an assumption' because I already 'knew' what you were actually meaning.
But, if 'my assumption' was and is actually False, Wrong, Inaccurate, and Correct, then I, for one, look forward to seeing what the actual Truth is here, exactly.
Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Mon Mar 18, 2024 5:02 am
I mention this since you have said you want to communicate better, but also have no beliefs or one belief.
Have you noticed how many times you keep claiming and accusing me of 'having beliefs' here?
Notice how I cannot even communicate 'to you' and make you comprehend and understand whether I have one, none, or many beliefs. Such is my lacking in ability to communicate just this one sole thing here, to you.
Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Mon Mar 18, 2024 5:02 am
If that is really true, then you are using language very unclearly, especially how important it has seemed that others believe you have no beliefs or one belief.
After how many days, and how many posts, and you still appear to have absolutely no idea nor clue about 'me' and 'beliefs'.
And, notice how this one, still, does not ask one clarifying question regarding 'me' and 'beliefs', that is; in any way where actual clarification is sought out and really wanted.
This one would much prefer to let the readers here know that it is 'me' alone who is very unclear in communicating my views about 'beliefs' here. And, let 'us' not forget that 'we' are in a thread about 'creation' and 'evolution' here.
Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Mon Mar 18, 2024 5:02 am
Notice a similar issue arises when you ask: Do you want to stay rigid...etc.? When you use the word stay, you are communicating your belief that I am rigid in the ways you listed.
But it is not a 'belief', as you have already proven absolutely True that you are 'rigid' and want to 'stay' with 'your connotations' and 'beliefs' here. This can be clearly 'seen' and proved true in and by the way you speak and write here.
Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Mon Mar 18, 2024 5:02 am
IOW you are conveying another belief.
This is your belief alone here. Which, let 'us' not forget, you arrived at and concluded after you presumed that I was doing something here, which I was not.
Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Mon Mar 18, 2024 5:02 am
If you do not have that belief, the sentence was worded incorrectly, even though it is a question.
Could your views or beliefs here be 'incorrect'? Or, does it have to be 'my sentences' that are 'worded incorrectly' here?
For example, could you be presuming or believing things that just did not even exist here? Or, is this an impossibility from your perspective or point of view here?
Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Mon Mar 18, 2024 5:02 am
The word 'Creation', by itself, holds no meaning, definition, nor connotation of some 'first nor original event'. Although people can be 'taught' and 'teach' that it has.
Connotations arise through use and what connotations humans associate with words.
Okay. But did you think that there would be anyone here who did not already know this?
Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Mon Mar 18, 2024 5:02 am
Especially with the capital C at the beginning connotations arise that seem not to fit your intentions.
And, what are 'my intentions' here, exactly?
Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Mon Mar 18, 2024 5:02 am
Words alone, not interacting with minds, may not have that connotation, but then, in a sense, they are not words, just ink on a page, for example.
When you claim that there are 'minds', do you have to prove this, first? Or, are 'we' just to accept the connotation that there is more than One?
Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Mon Mar 18, 2024 5:02 am
But Creation does have connotations of an event.
If you want to have 'that connotation'.
Also, are you aware the word 'Creation' has other connotations, to other human beings, as well?
Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Mon Mar 18, 2024 5:02 am
Sometimes it can be an ongoing process, yes, but after an event/beginning.
And, there is only One event/beginning, of all-there-is.
One, however, just needs to learn, understand, and thus know when this One event/beginning really is, exactly.
Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Mon Mar 18, 2024 5:02 am
Of course one can try to change the connotations of a word.
you do seem to believe that 'the connotation' of a word/s is the one and only one/s, and if others use 'other connotations', then it is them who 'can try to change the connotations' of a word/s.
Also, if 'the connotation' of a word/s is not fitting into a picture, puzzle, nor unified theory, of all-there-is, then just maybe 'the connotation' is False, Wrong, Inaccurate, and/or Incorrect, and no matter how long 'that connotation' has been in existence for.
Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Mon Mar 18, 2024 5:02 am
But I am suggesting that the use of other terms is likely to be better.
Have you suggested any actual 'other terms'?
If no, then why not?
Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Mon Mar 18, 2024 5:02 am
I have absolutely no idea nor clue as to what the words, 'Similar reaction', mean nor what they are referring to.
OK
A so-called 'global view' could be said or argued is a much smaller or narrow view compared to a 'universal view'.
Absolutely. But here I am not using it in relation to, for example the globe of the earth, say, but rather global rather than local.
Total.
Okay. So, you are using the 'global' word in relation to 'global' rather than 'local'.
I was just pointing out that a 'global' view or perspective is bigger than a 'local' one but can still also be smaller than a 'universal' one.
Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Mon Mar 18, 2024 5:02 am
Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Sat Mar 16, 2024 3:15 pm
So, the earlier discreteness seems to be part of a more global flow. And I think that's a better starting point: a global flow. I am not saying Age is talking about a global (universal) flow, but it sounds a bit more like that here and that connects with what I'd want to explore in relation to the earlier statements.
What I talk about and refer to here is for ALL things. So, this means from the smallest to the largest, and thus the whole.
I thought so. Or, I could say, I believed that is what you meant.
Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Sat Mar 16, 2024 3:15 pm
Matter being able to move about freely,
I don't know what is meant by freely.
And you never will if you never ask.
Hm, it seemed you were interested in having communication move quickly, from some of your earlier comments. It does seem clear that what you mean her may not be revealed to me unless you are asked a question.
Well it is only through being asked questions where and when people show interest.
For if they do not, then they are satisfied with what they already know, or think or believe they know.
Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Mon Mar 18, 2024 5:02 am
Though I have found there's no guarantee then either.
you have already been informed of how what you were actually doing failed, absolutely.
And, since you left 'that', there, then this shows to me that you were satisfied where 'that' was left off.
Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Mon Mar 18, 2024 5:02 am
Regardless you got some feedback about how people at the time this is being written may find parts of your communication unclear. And notice I did in fact ask the question below.
Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Sat Mar 16, 2024 3:15 pm
It sounds like the reactions are free somehow. Are they?
The part you quoted here talks about ' 'matter', being able to move about freely '.
So, what are you talking about when you say, 'the 'reactions' are free, somehow'?
I was talking about 'matter', whereas you are talking about, and asking about, 'reactions'.
To me, 'reactions' cannot be 'free', in the sense that they were, obviously, caused, or created, by something else, namely; the 'action' of at least two other things coming together.
See, I tried to triangulate.
And, see how I tried to gain clarity and clarification, from you.
But, again this did not work.
Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Mon Mar 18, 2024 5:02 am
You got feedback from a reader about their interpretation, which was very tentative. Here's what it seemed to me to me, with a question. Instead of telling me what you did mean, you told me what was not implied/meant.
I just, more or less, pointed out that you 'changed' my 'matter' word to your introduced 'reaction' word, which then totally skewed, twisted, distorted, deflected, and/or took away from what I was actually saying, pointing out, and meaning.
your attempt at 'triangulation' only ruined what I was actually saying, and meaning, and so your attempt at asking for clarification was asking for or about absolutely nothing at all that I said, and meant, here.
Now, either you did, and keep doing this, on purpose, or, you need to learn how to read and comprehend the actual words that I say, and use, here alone. Which means without you putting your own presumptions nor beliefs onto my words.
Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Mon Mar 18, 2024 5:02 am
If you want communication to be more effective/efficient, consider that you could have explained what you did mean.
Now, considering that it was I who pointed out the very reason for your lack of ability to communicate clearly, in the post that you are replying to here now, it could be now said that if you want to communicate more effective or efficiently here, then just stop alluding to things and just start saying what you actually mean and start meaning what you actually say.
Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Mon Mar 18, 2024 5:02 am
You did mention that you meant matter not reactions, but opted not to go into any more detail.
I do not have to. I only talked about 'matter', and for reasons to yet be explained you introduced the 'reactions' word, which has absolutely nothing at all to do with what I actually said, and meant. Would you like to go into any detail about why you introduced the 'reactions' word here, and questioned me about 'reactions' when I was talking about 'matter' only?
If no, then why not?
Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Mon Mar 18, 2024 5:02 am
I think the communication could be more collaborative that it is in the form you use now.
Okay.
And, I think you could not deflect much further than you have already.
Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Mon Mar 18, 2024 5:02 am
Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Sat Mar 16, 2024 3:15 pm
because of the distance or space between and around matter,
It seems like at the quantum level its not so clear what is space between and what is matter, with things sort of in many places, sort of nowhere, pinging in and out of existence, etc.
1. Why, at the quantum level, it is not clear, to you, what is space between and what is matter?
At the quantum level things can be in more than one place at once and even to different degrees.
Having or holding this view is like saying, 'things can be in more than one place, at once, and even to different degrees', in the Universe. But, if absolutely any one thinks or believes that it is the 'exact same thing', 'in more than one place, at once/same time, and/or in different degrees', then they are Truly delusional.
It would be like saying or suggesting, that because 'things can be in more than one place at once and even to different degrees', exactly like how there are 'things being in more than one place at once and even to different degrees', in the Universe, that 'those things' are the 'exact same thing'. This, obviously, is Truly absurd and delusional.
There are 'things', like stars, planets, and meteorites in more than one place, at once, and even to different degrees', in the Universe, at the so-called 'classical level', just like there are 'things', like protons, neutrons, and electrons in more than one place, at once, and even to different degrees', again in the Universe, at the so-called 'quantum level', but, obviously, there is never even the 'exact same thing' in more than place, at once, at any different degree, in the Universe, at 'any level'.
Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Mon Mar 18, 2024 5:02 am
2. What do you mean by, 'things sort of in many places'? What are the 'things' that you are talking about and referring to here, exactly?
I would suggesting looking into superposition and wave particle duality and how these affect the idea of emptiness or space between things being empty.
But, why suggest to me that I do something, when you said or claimed something, and I just asked you to clarify your view or claim here?
Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Mon Mar 18, 2024 5:02 am
There was a period of time I focused on qm to the degree that I might have felt comfortable explaining this, but I do not now.
Okay. This explains enough here now.
Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Mon Mar 18, 2024 5:02 am
If you are interested google those terms and try to find scholarly articles aimed at lay people.
So, if someone does not feel comfortable explaining something, which is very simple and easy to explain, then that one might not actually know that much about that thing.
Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Mon Mar 18, 2024 5:02 am
If you're not interested, well, I'm sure you'll make the appropriate choice then. I think the way you wrote doesn't fit with current scientific theory and experimental results.
There is not that much that I write here that you fits in with what you adult human beings 'currently', when this is being written, say and claim is true.
Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Mon Mar 18, 2024 5:02 am
If that leads to your interest in exploring further with experts or it doesn't is obviously up to you.
And, let 'us' not forget that it is 'I' who is talking about the unifying those things that the people of the days when this is being written could not unify. And, it is 'I' who knows not just what they have been and are missing but also how and why they keep missing, misunderstanding, misinterpreting, and are just misconceiving here.
Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Mon Mar 18, 2024 5:02 am
Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Sat Mar 16, 2024 3:15 pm
That's intuitive.
To you.
Obviously. I was owning the fact that it was intuitive and not something I can prove. I could explain it a bit more, but that would still fall short of a clear deduction, for example.
Okay, so as long as it is clear that it 'that' is 'intuitive' to 'you' "iwannaplato" here, and not necessarily anyone else.
Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Mon Mar 18, 2024 5:02 am
Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Sat Mar 16, 2024 3:15 pm
Because, here, in our corner of the universe,
Are there, really, 'corners', 'of the Universe, Itself'?
Perhaps you haven't heard that phrase. It's language that is openly metaphorical. Though even a phrase like the one you used 'To you' is metaphorical, but it's a fully dead metaphor, so we don't notice it.
Why?
Obviously, 'that' is 'intuitive' 'to you' here, unless, of course, you were lying.
Why do you think that 'to you' there was 'metaphorical' and 'not actually'?
Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Mon Mar 18, 2024 5:02 am
In the preposition to, there is a metaphor we no longer notice.
Either there are, to you, 'corners' 'of the Universe', or there are not?
Why does 'clarifying' seem like it is a Truly hard thing for you to just do "iwannaplato"?
Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Mon Mar 18, 2024 5:02 am
Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Sat Mar 16, 2024 3:15 pm
towards complexity in self-relation.
There have been many 'trends', which are not necessarily true, right, nor correct.
Also, what do you even mean by 'complexity in self-relation'?
Life forms have this complexity of self-relation - this shows in homeostasis, the incredibly complex ways that brains/minds interact and self-interact.
But, when, and if, you also learn, comprehend, and understand how the Mind and the brain work, exactly, and how the Universe works, exactly, as well, then you will also 'see' and 'know' how there is absolutely nothing complex about any thing in the whole Universe, including the whole Universe, Itself?
Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Mon Mar 18, 2024 5:02 am
As examples.
Who and what people, human beings, and the Self is, exactly, is not complex, and there is absolutely nothing towards complexity in self-relation, well to me anyway, other than the Truly unnecessary 'complexity' that adult human beings make and create, and maybe more so do in 'the days when this is being written'.
I think there is more complexity in, for example, the human mind even without words contemplating a loved one then what is happening in a red Lego piece.
Okay. But, considering the irrefutable Fact that there is no actual 'human mind', what you think here is and was just moot, from the start and beginning anyway.
Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Mon Mar 18, 2024 5:02 am
Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Sat Mar 16, 2024 3:15 pm
And that seems like it still has a long way to go.
When you say and write 'it' here, then what do you mean by, 'it still has a long way to go'?
What, exactly, supposedly, has a 'long way to go'?
That it can get even more complex.
So, the word 'it' here could be absolutely any thing.
Anyway, and by the way, once what has already been discovered, and learned, and understood here, then things do not get any more complex at all. In fact things get 'seen' and understood for what they Truly are, and for just how Truly simple all things are, exactly, and really.
Like, for example, what the Universe is made up of, exactly, is just 'matter', and, 'space', alone or fundamentally. From these two most simplest of things, every thing else is created, and all things evolve.
Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Mon Mar 18, 2024 5:02 am
you were talking about, 'pinging in and out of existence', 'if the Universe is eternal and evolving always, then, to you, there must be cycles', and of something about some 'trend towards complexity in self-relation', and then 'now' you talk about, how 'that seems' '[some thing] still has a long way to go'.
If the universe is eternal AND there are trends towards the formation of more complexity of self-relation or complexity in general, then why haven't we already arrived at the most possible complex life forms?
But, there are no 'trends' 'towards the formation of more complexity'.
In fact, the exact opposite is actually, really, starting and beginning HERE-NOW. That is; the True simplicity of 'Life', living, and all things is coming to be understood, known, and revealed, to "others" as well.
The Truth is the so-called 'most complex life form' is actually, literally, 'purely simple', like all so-called 'life forms'.
And, the 'Truly simple' was reached, and achieved, when the 'I' evolved out of and past from 'you', human beings.
Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Mon Mar 18, 2024 5:02 am
Or perhaps we have but where are they.
'They' are 'you' adult human beings.
Nothing else makes 'the simple', 'complex', and, nothing else makes 'the easy', 'hard', besides, of course, you adult human beings.
Making 'complex' and 'hard', what is not, only a 'confused and bewildered', or 'complex' 'life form' would do. And, obviously, only the adult human being is the only and/or most 'confused and bewildered' thing, existing. Well known to them anyway.
Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Mon Mar 18, 2024 5:02 am
This is exploratory.
Is there anything that is not?
And, especially in a philosophy forum.
Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Mon Mar 18, 2024 5:02 am
Are you able to express "yourself" more clearly here, stop using words that just allude to some things, and instead just say what those things are, exactly?
This added nothing to the process.
When you do not answer and clarify, then yes, this obviously added nothing to 'the process' here.
Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Mon Mar 18, 2024 5:02 am
Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Sat Mar 16, 2024 3:15 pm
At least in the last 13 billion or whatever is not posited from when things were fairly simple locally at least.
See, even here I have absolutely no idea nor clue about what 'it' is that you are talking about and referring to, at all.
There is no 'locally' in the Universe, and there is nothing complex, nor hard, anywhere, nor at any 'time', in the Universe, Itself.
There may be no 'locally', but there are local places, things, phenomena. That is, without the citation marks.
That, obviously, depends on 'the observer', and if, and how, narrow their field of view is, exactly.
Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Mon Mar 18, 2024 5:02 am
Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Sat Mar 16, 2024 3:15 pm
Going back to the beginning of this post, it seems to me that if we focus on tiny discrete 'parts', one acting on the other and then the other reacts, it leads to this kind of discreteness that seems misleading to me.
What 'kind of discreteness' are you talking about, exactly, that seems 'misleading', to you?
So you become aware, there is no actual 'discreteness' nor actual 'discrete' things anywhere. There is, however, an appearance of 'separate things' as this is the way the human brain can makes sense of, comprehend, and understand the one and only 'Thing'.
It seems like you understood what I meant.
Okay. But just so you become aware, I did not.
Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Mon Mar 18, 2024 5:02 am
Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Sat Mar 16, 2024 3:15 pm
Those parts now reaction also had momentum or something 'going' already and probably affected what affected them. And then all these 'contacts' would be happening in the being touched by the effects of other things less nearby with with affecting fields of different kinds. I am not saying the premises in the beginning are denying this way of looking at it, but I think it's misleading to start with them.
I find the way you speak and write here somewhat hard to comprehend and understand, and so much so I do not even know where to begin to start asking you to clarify things here. Are you able to say and write what you did here in a different way?
I think you got the idea below.
Okay.
Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Mon Mar 18, 2024 5:02 am
Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Sat Mar 16, 2024 3:15 pm
I think it's better to start with this whole things flow, rather than a reductionist sort-of particle view of things.
Thank you for this. This might work much better.
You're welcome.
To start with the whole Universe flowing, as one Thing, I would still need to show and prove how the Universe, Itself, is eternal, and thus has no beginning, nor ending.
The way I came to understand this was by 'seeing' what the Universe is fundamentally made up of.
OK
Either way, all, perceived, 'things', of all sizes, impact 'each other', in one way or another.
By the way, I do not see any difference at all between how the Universe works in 'particle' or 'object' sized 'things'.
I assumed that.
I am going to leave this here. I am interested to see if anyone else responds to my previous post - as you did here. I am glad at least part of my response was understood by you.
Yes, I could go on to further clarify. But going on my intuition, I think it's best to view this as a small success of communication between us and to let time pass before interacting anymore. There was a smattering of explicit and implicit ad hom on your part, but generally it was a polite interaction on both our parts.
I only want to discuss here how the Universe is just One Thing, only, which is infinite, eternal and which is creating Itself, through evolution, continually HERE-NOW, always.
But, if others want to talk 'about me', then, if I want to respond 'to that', then I will.