Veritas Aequitas's illusory God

[Dontaskme]

I will wait for you to publish your empirical research which proves QFT wrong.

How can you explain the observer?

[Dontaskme]

It can't be explained.

Then stop trying to.

No one is doing it, this apparent explaining is just a feature within Absolute Infinity expressing itself.

[TimeSeeker]

How can you explain the observer?

Quantum equilibrium. Neither the observer no the subject of observation are changing in respect to each other. As ASSERTED by a THIRD observer. I-the-scientist.

The law of identity. 1 = 1

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_Zeno_effect

[Dontaskme]

How can you explain the observer?

Quantum equilibrium. Neither the observer no the subject of observation are changing in respect to each other.

The law of identity. 1 = 1

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_Zeno_effect

There is no observer, only observing.

That which appears to change never changes.

[Dontaskme]

God is a circle whose center is everywhere, and its circumference nowhere.
—Empedocles

[Dontaskme]

Aum! That is infinite, and this (universe) is infinite.
The infinite proceeds from the infinite.
(Then) taking the infinitude of the infinite (universe),
It remains as the infinite alone.

~Upanishads.

[Dontaskme]

That which dies never lived and that which lived never dies.

That which dies cannot grasp the infinite.

But here is the kicker, the 'you' that 'you' believe yourself to be has never been born so cannot die.

Infinity is neither dead nor alive.

Concepts are illusions within the dream of separation.

This is a dream dreamt by no one.

[Veritas Aequitas]

Lets expand this system and add another node: You <---> REALITY <----> Me

This is a system. A three-node system. Which is isomorphic to the Distributed consensus problem in computer science: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consensus ... r_science)

And we have various strategies for solving it:

• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paxos_(computer_science)

• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Raft_(computer_science)

You have to add another meta level to the above, i.e.

Reality-Me-You [You <---> REALITY-X <----> Me]

It is so obvious reality [reality-x] is independent of me and you which is essential for survival to some degree.

But what is not so obvious is reality is all there is which include me, you and others.
There is no way you can separate yourself from reality which you and me are imperatively a part of. Thus you have to account for this reality.

[TimeSeeker]

Reality-Me-You [You <---> REALITY-X <----> Me]

It is so obvious reality [reality-x] is independent of me and you which is essential for survival to some degree.

But what is not so obvious is reality is all there is which include me, you and others.
There is no way you can separate yourself from reality which you and me are imperatively a part of. Thus you have to account for this reality.

The map-territory distinction accounts for this. The diagram was merely ontology to bring you on the same page.

My decision-making happens exclusively on the model in my head, not on the ontology of the system. As I am sure - so does yours.
I subscribe to the KISS principle so I prefer to have only one category in my head - epistemology. Consequentialism and high-stakes of errors ensures that it's as accurate as possible.

And so this diagram (of our minds) is probably more correct : ( You (REALITY) Me ). Reality is our 'mediator' for consensus. It's far easier to agree on things out there. Trying to agree on metaphysics as Problem 1 is a losing strategy unless one of us is a mind-reader.

[Veritas Aequitas]

Reality-Me-You [You <---> REALITY-X <----> Me]

It is so obvious reality [reality-x] is independent of me and you which is essential for survival to some degree.

But what is not so obvious is reality is all there is which include me, you and others.
There is no way you can separate yourself from reality which you and me are imperatively a part of. Thus you have to account for this reality.

The map-territory distinction accounts for this. The diagram was merely ontology to bring you on the same page.

My decision-making happens exclusively on the model in my head, not on the ontology of the system. As I am sure - so does yours.
I subscribe to the KISS principle so I prefer to have only one category in my head - epistemology. Consequentialism and high-stakes of errors ensures that it's as accurate as possible.

And so this diagram (of our minds) is probably more correct : ( You (REALITY) Me ). Reality is our 'mediator' for consensus. It's far easier to agree on things out there. Trying to agree on metaphysics as Problem 1 is a losing strategy unless one of us is a mind-reader.

I see the major issue is whether reality is absolutely independent of you and me or reality is interdependent with you, me and others.

I am not sure your,
( You (REALITY) Me )
represent which model?

I would add the following;

( YOU (REALITY<--> [Me, you, others]) ME )

or
( H2O (REALITY<--> [Water, ice, steam, clouds]) H20 )


I had stated there are many layers of the self.

Note this OP;
Reality by Itself;
viewtopic.php?f=11&t=25168

[TimeSeeker]

I see the major issue is whether reality is absolutely independent of you and me or reality is interdependent with you, me and others.

It doesn't matter how you conceptualise it. Your goal is to make less errors. Because errors hurt or errors can get you killed. Or errors end up you being hungry. We don't want bad things to happen to our physical body. And so if you are to follow the KISS principle (Keep it simple stupid!) the less taxonomies you have to juggle - the less complexity in your head. The less probability of error. Mistakes - BAD!

I am not sure your,
( You (REALITY) Me )
represent which model?

From my perspective you are part of reality. Separate from I.
From your perspective I am part of reality. Separate from You.

( YOU (REALITY<--> [Me, you, others]) ME )
( H2O (REALITY<--> [Water, ice, steam, clouds]) H20 )

Wow. No This is far too complex for head. KISS.

Whether there are 1 or 100 other people it doesn't matter. They fall under the category ' reality'. And in a subcategory 'society'.

For the purposes of general awareness - sure. you can conceptualise The Whole Universe as Reality (the whole). And the quantum scale as Reality (the parts).But in practice and your day-to-day living your "territory" is 100 square Km at most and the level of abstraction of your regular perception is just fine.

The important question is Teleology. What do you NEED truth for? Because that drives all my further conceptions.

I need truth so I can decide how to act. Decision theory. But I still need a clear goal/success criterion.

[Veritas Aequitas]

I see the major issue is whether reality is absolutely independent of you and me or reality is interdependent with you, me and others.

It doesn't matter how you conceptualise it. Your goal is to make less errors. Because errors hurt or errors can get you killed. Or errors end up you being hungry. We don't want bad things to happen to our physical body. And so if you are to follow the KISS principle (Keep it simple stupid!) the less taxonomies you have to juggle - the less complexity in your head. The less probability of error. Mistakes - BAD!

I am not sure your,
( You (REALITY) Me )
represent which model?

From my perspective you are part of reality. Separate from I.
From your perspective I am part of reality. Separate from You.

( YOU (REALITY<--> [Me, you, others]) ME )
( H2O (REALITY<--> [Water, ice, steam, clouds]) H20 )

Wow. No This is far too complex for head. KISS.

Whether there are 1 or 100 other people it doesn't matter. They fall under the category ' reality'. And in a subcategory 'society'.

For the purposes of general awareness - sure. you can conceptualise The Whole Universe as Reality (the whole). And the quantum scale as Reality (the parts).But in practice and your day-to-day living your "territory" is 100 square Km at most and the level of abstraction of your regular perception is just fine.

The important question is Teleology. What do you NEED truth for? Because that drives all my further conceptions.

I need truth so I can decide how to act. Decision theory. But I still need a clear goal/success criterion.

This OP refer to God, i.e. they claim it is the ALL of ALL.
This is why I approach it from the WHOLE.

What is going on is theists are being compelled subliminally in the reification of the WHOLE in terms of God.
I am arguing the resultant of such a reification from merely thoughts is an illusion.

Based on this illusion, theists believed the illusion is a real God who had delivered commands in holy texts. What we are concerned is some of the holy texts are commanded to be immutable and contain evil elements that inspire SOME evil prone believers to commit terrible evil and violent acts. This is glaringly evident.

As such we cannot confine our concern to "100 km" when those who are a threat to humanity are taking the WHOLE of the Universe and its creator into account.

[Dontaskme]

This OP refer to God, i.e. they claim it is the ALL of ALL.
This is why I approach it from the WHOLE.

What is going on is theists are being compelled subliminally in the reification of the WHOLE in terms of God.
I am arguing the resultant of such a reification from merely thoughts is an illusion.

Based on this illusion, theists believed the illusion is a real God who had delivered commands in holy texts. What we are concerned is some of the holy texts are commanded to be immutable and contain evil elements that inspire SOME evil prone believers to commit terrible evil and violent acts. This is glaringly evident.

As such we cannot confine our concern to "100 km" when those who are a threat to humanity are taking the WHOLE of the Universe and its creator into account.

In the final analysis...

There is no such thing as a ''separate'' theist /athesist /deist ...albeit illusory.

There is no such thing as a ''separate'' person with an existential psychological crisis...albeit illusory.

There is no such thing as a ''separate'' believer in God...albeit illusory.

There is no such thing as a ''separate'' thinking thing...albeit illusory.

Reality is Nothing and Everything. Everything else is an illusory concept within the dream of separation, an illusion.

Reality IS AND IS NOT simultaneously.

It couldn't have been any other way.

Impossible and Possible are two sides of the same ONE.
Can't have one without the other, they are complimentry opposites within the same REALITY.


Reality is just another WORD for God.

.

[TimeSeeker]

I see the major issue is whether reality is absolutely independent of you and me or reality is interdependent with you, me and others.

It doesn't matter how you conceptualise it. Your goal is to make less errors. Because errors hurt or errors can get you killed. Or errors end up you being hungry. We don't want bad things to happen to our physical body. And so if you are to follow the KISS principle (Keep it simple stupid!) the less taxonomies you have to juggle - the less complexity in your head. The less probability of error. Mistakes - BAD!

I am not sure your,
( You (REALITY) Me )
represent which model?

From my perspective you are part of reality. Separate from I.
From your perspective I am part of reality. Separate from You.

( YOU (REALITY<--> [Me, you, others]) ME )
( H2O (REALITY<--> [Water, ice, steam, clouds]) H20 )

Wow. No This is far too complex for head. KISS.

Whether there are 1 or 100 other people it doesn't matter. They fall under the category ' reality'. And in a subcategory 'society'.

For the purposes of general awareness - sure. you can conceptualise The Whole Universe as Reality (the whole). And the quantum scale as Reality (the parts).But in practice and your day-to-day living your "territory" is 100 square Km at most and the level of abstraction of your regular perception is just fine.

The important question is Teleology. What do you NEED truth for? Because that drives all my further conceptions.

I need truth so I can decide how to act. Decision theory. But I still need a clear goal/success criterion.

This OP refer to God, i.e. they claim it is the ALL of ALL.
This is why I approach it from the WHOLE.

What is going on is theists are being compelled subliminally in the reification of the WHOLE in terms of God.
I am arguing the resultant of such a reification from merely thoughts is an illusion.

Based on this illusion, theists believed the illusion is a real God who had delivered commands in holy texts. What we are concerned is some of the holy texts are commanded to be immutable and contain evil elements that inspire SOME evil prone believers to commit terrible evil and violent acts. This is glaringly evident.

As such we cannot confine our concern to "100 km" when those who are a threat to humanity are taking the WHOLE of the Universe and its creator into account.

The universe is the WHOLE. No more no less.

If you an inch further you are making unsubstantiated claims. If you go an inch closer you are leaving out parts of reality.

The word EVERYTHING implies the WHOLE. Anything testable/falsifiable by science.

On this screen we can’t add a time dimension not for the sake of completeness think Big Bang is time 0 and heat death is time MAX.

Now - in that spacetimepicture. People are welcome to pin of where they think God is and it is and what we expect to observe/measure if we found ourselves in the same vicinity.

All models aside nobody has ever produced a testable/falsifiable definition for god.

So how do we know that we haven’t been talking about the warm summer breeze for 2000 years?

[Dontaskme]

Based on this illusion, theists believed the illusion is a real God who had delivered commands in holy texts. What we are concerned is some of the holy texts are commanded to be immutable and contain evil elements that inspire SOME evil prone believers to commit terrible evil and violent acts. This is glaringly evident.

The believer of any conceptual word, language, knowledge.. be it whatever concept the mind will conjure out of nowhere, nothing, is the work of the mentally created narrations made up of pure fictional story that is taken literally, just as the world and all its contents are taken to be literal things in and of themselves, when its all just the illusion of Maya, which then mistakes this believed physicality to be real actual separate things and entities...causing the illusion of division and separation..but its all a lie believed to be real.

This LIE, artificially mind constructed BELIEF.. has nothing whatsoever to do with REAL reality which is formless source energy magically manifesting itself as real live living breathing walking talking avatars...albeit illusory ...Reality is non-physical full-stop. Everything and Nothing is consciousness/Awareness one without a second...Absolute Infinity for Eternity. There is no Who, or You in AI

Science and Nonduality have been saying this for years..but as long as there is the illusory belief that matter is conscious matter, when its not, the illusory misery will continue to manifest as an energetic illusion of mind, which is just a misguided, misidentified belief in ''OTHERNESS'' ..the ONLY cause of all apparent suffering. REAL REALITY does not suffer...how can it, there is NO ONE in reality to suffer.

Matter is not conscious, consciousness is matter, but while the belief that I AM my body and I have consciousness continues to dominate society, this becomes the God of their own deluded mind creation..oh the irony.


God is not what thought or belief says it is...go figure...

.