I'm a monist, and thus i believe that whatever things are, they are made of one "thing" or, more precisely, one "non-thing". — punos
Zero can be decomposed into two opposing values such as -1 and +1 which, when recombined, return to a 0 value (from nothing, to something, back to nothing). The interesting thing is that even though this zero was decomposed into two numbers, the zero that manifested these two numbers is still there as zero along with the two values. The result is not just (-1) and (+1), but the original 0 remains unchanged. — punos
True nothingness, with no structure or rules, would inevitably transition to “something” because it cannot sustain itself otherwise. — Daniel
I'm in full agreement, and nice poem.. i like it — punos
For me, the Tao is a fact, and in fact, it is the only permanent fact. It is not the Tao that has physical properties; rather, physical things share in the fundamental property that is the Tao. From the perspective of the Tao, the physical world is like a dream. An emergence in the universe is a dream object that doesn't fundamentally exist. — punos
What is real is what is absolutely fundamental, while what is composite is dreamlike. It comes and goes, but the Tao (primordial time) is always there, everlasting and never-ending. — punos
But how is it properly reconciled with the 'macro' world? — Bob Ross
Am I complex-composed, or simple-non-compositional? — tim wood
I don't know, a lot of this quantum physics stuff I think gets misinterpreted into voodoo; or, worse, tries to force us to disband from the truths about macros things that I am certainly not willing to give up. We still have no reconciliation of QP with newtonian nor einsteinien physics; and this indicates that we are getting some stuff wrong here. — Bob Ross
18. The physical parts of a composed being cannot exist in something which is purely simple and actual; for, then, it would not be without parts.
19. Therefore, the forms of the composed beings must exist in the purely simple and actual being. — Bob Ross
was I wrong in expecting something in return when loving someone, or I did the thing I was supposed to, but the other person wasn't for me? — Dmytro
Thanks. — T Clark
There's no intrinsically correct answer, because an enduring identity isjust a concept. — Relativist
Please explain the following song from the POV of your Theory about the Universe: — Arcane Sandwich
What is the source of the poem you included. Is it your own? What can you tell us about it? — T Clark
I'm not sure if you are referring to the Tao as literally the quantum vacuum or as a metaphor. I think taking it literally is mixing up metaphysics and physics. — T Clark
This is something I've thought about a lot - the idea of returning. This is how I think of it now - The Tao gives rise to the 10,000 things, which then returns to the Tao. That means that this process is taking place continuously and continually. The Tao didn't give rise to the multiplicity of the world once, it does it over and over. It's always doing it. I haven't heard that interpretation elsewhere, so I don't know if others would agree with it. — T Clark
20. Intelligence is having the ability to apprehend the form of things (and not its copies!).
21. The purely simple and actual being apprehends the forms of things. (19)
22. Therefore, the purely simple and actual being must be an intelligence.
23. To know the forms of every composed being is what it means to be omniscient.
24. Therefore, the purely simple and actual being is omniscient.
25. To cause the existence of a thing in correspondence to its form from knowledge (intelligence) requires a will.
26. Therefore, the purely simple and actual being must have a will. — Bob Ross
1. Composed beings are made up of parts.
2. A composed being exists contingently upon its parts in their specific arrangement.
3. A part of a composed being is either composed or uncomposed.
4. A part that is a composed being does not, in turn, exist in-itself but, rather, exists contingently upon its parts and their specific arrangement.
5. An infinite series of composed beings (viz., of parts which are also, in turn, composed) would not have the power to exist on their own.
6. Therefore, an infinite series of composed beings is impossible.
7. Therefore, a series of composed beings must have, ultimately, uncomposed parts as its first cause. (6 & 3)
8. An uncomposed being (such as an uncomposed part) is purely simple, since it lacks any parts.
9. Two beings can only exist separately if they are distinguishable in their parts.
10. Two purely simple beings do not have any different parts (since they have none).
11. Therefore, only one purely simple being can exist.
12. The purely simple being would have to be purely actual—devoid of any passive potency—because passive potency requires a being to have parts which can be affected by an other.
13. No composed being could be purely actual, because a composed being always has parts which, as parts, must have passive potency.
14. Therefore, there can only be one purely actual being which is also purely simple. (11 & 12 & 13)
15. The purely actual being is changeless (immutable), because it lacks any passive potency which could be actualized.
16. The purely actual being is eternal, because it is changeless and beyond time (as time’s subsistence of existence).
17. The effect must be some way in the cause.
18. The physical parts of a composed being cannot exist in something which is purely simple and actual; for, then, it would not be without parts.
19. Therefore, the forms of the composed beings must exist in the purely simple and actual being. — Bob Ross
My senses can deceive me, so if I cannot trust my senses, I might as well conclude that outside reality doesn't exist; It's just me and you; but if my senses cannot be always trusted then your existence must also might be an illusion. — A Realist
ultimate truth? — Corvus
we are stardust — Arcane Sandwich
Other than "Unknown" perhaps? — jorndoe
You folks wanna talk about Roko's Basilisk? — Arcane Sandwich
Is there an answer that does not admit questions (even in principle)? — jorndoe
Ok — Arcane Sandwich
things cannot be Poetry all the way down — Arcane Sandwich
And here is the Hegelian version — Arcane Sandwich
Our Father, the Absolute First
created himself from the primordial darkness. — Guarani Creation Myth
Hmmm... — Arcane Sandwich
Reality is greater than the Ultimate Truth about it, it surpasses it, it transcends it, because it is an Absolute of a very different kind, one that exists entirely outside the Ultimate Truth about it. — Arcane Sandwich
I never said that the Hegelian Absolute Spirit was First or Fundamental, all I said is that it is Ultimate and that it is a Truth about something else: Reality itself. — Arcane Sandwich
Hegel's concept of the Absolute Spirit — Arcane Sandwich
I raise you — Arcane Sandwich
but you lose the rhyming structure — Arcane Sandwich
What Hernández is saying here is that the act of singing is an act of freedom. — Arcane Sandwich
Hmmm... but is it Divine, yes or no? — Arcane Sandwich