Synchronicity

I’m not pinning down a specific start-date. It could be any finite number, for this example So let’s just come up with a random example for the sake of discussion. Let’s say it started… 1 trillion years ago That would mean its starting point was a trillion years ago, with no such thing as a before. Meaning, there was no 1 trillion & 4 years ago… Bizarre? Yes. But like I said, a never-ending chain would also exist without any prior cause

If your logic is more advanced than conventional logic, then why is it so much narrower in scope? Conventional logic would allow for both the reality you’re describing (because yours doesn’t violate self-evidence) & the finite one (because it doesn’t violate self-evidence either) So conventional logic allows for both. Your logic only allows for one Why is yours more restricted?

We could ask the same of your eternal chain. How is the chain there, if it never got there? Do you see what I mean? So think of how we’d go about answering that for the eternal chain. We’d say that the chain’s overall content doesn’t need a cause So the finite one could have the same. All of its content - including its starting point - there without a cause If you want to show me that this is illogical, then you’ll need to show how uncaused content is illogical Which would unfortunately take down your point as well… because you’re saying that you think reality has no before & after & therefore, no cause So you think an uncaused thing is logical. But then when I talk about an uncaused thing… you think it’s illogical

It’s more than simply social convention. It’s accepted as true - rather than being doubted - because it holds in all classical hypotheticals It doesn’t need to hold in absolutely all of them, because yeah, like you’re saying, we could doubt anything at that point But A = A at least holds within all classical ones, which makes it a classical certainty, even if not an absolute certainty So we accept it, because it’s classically certain & classically unbeatable Not merely because of social convention And we can show when something is classically unbeatable. So I’m not sure why you say we can’t… We can. We just show that something cannot be violated without identity breaks, contradictions, or non-binary truth values. That’s the history of self-evident logic It’s been accepted due to its classical certainty

Almost what I said, yes. I said it’d start, but not be caused Believe it or not, that’s not a contradiction. Even in physics, there are examples of things that can start without a cause. Look into some quantum field theory for examples like fluctuations & excitations I won’t say that quantum mechanics has a full picture of reality. I don’t think it’s even remotely close. But that only strengthens my point. If even a super-limited framework like quantum mechanics can have uncaused starting points, then we can’t rule it out quite yet Like how the contents of a beginningless reality would have no prior cause, same with the finite one The finite one would simply have a starting point within its uncaused package

I’m sorry, but this is wrong. Why not educate your forum members on how logic works? Here’s how it works. The reason that A = A cannot be proven & is usually accepted without proof, is because A = A holds in all classical hypotheticals. This means that - in all hypotheticals where self-evidence holds - A is always A What this means, is that we’d need to imagine a hypothetical which breaks self-evidence, in order for A != A On the other hand, we can imagine a hypothetical that defies your whole video, without even breaking self-evidence That’s because, our example of a finite a-mechanic reality has 1. No identity-breaks (because that reality would still be itself) 2. No contradictions (because it’d just be its finite self. It wouldn’t be both itself & not-itself) 3. No non-binary truth values (because it’d simply be true that the reality is finite & false that it’s - let’s say - infinite. So we wouldn’t have any cases of something being “both true & false” or “neither true nor false”) This means that the finite reality wouldn’t violate any of the 3 things that break self-evidence Therefore, it’s a hypothetical that doesn’t defy logic Which means, it’s not just the case that we can imagine some nonsensical hypothetical to doubt your insights Instead, it means we can doubt your insights, without even leaving the arena of classical logic In other words, even classical self-evident logic includes hypotheticals in which your worldview would be false But if instead, we wanted to find hypotheticals in which A = A is false? Yes, we’d have to defy self-evidence & do the 4-sided triangle thing you mentioned We’d have to do it for A = A. But not for your video

If that’s your definition of eternal, then all of reality could’ve started 13.8 billion years ago & - as long as there’s no before - you’d consider reality eternal regardless If that’s your definition of eternal, I won’t debate it, because I know how annoying semantic debates can get. All I can say is that it’s not the typical definition. But hey, we don’t all need to be typical! Thinking for yourself can be good of course

It means, you accept unplaced content, by accepting an eternal chain (which would, by definition, be unplaced) So now, picture if reality’s content simply had a starting point. So it could still be unplaced content, but it’d have a starting point Which would mean that reality started, with no cause before it I’m not saying that this is how reality is & I’m not saying that a finite uncaused reality is a tautology I’m saying it’s an option & that - because it’s an option - an eternal reality isn’t a tautology

But… you’re the one citing A = A And your points don’t hold in the way that A = A does A = A is only circularly accepted as an axiom, because it holds across all hypotheticals (at least in classical self-evident logic) Your points don’t hold in all of them. It doesn’t hold in a finite a-mechanic reality. But A = A does This is just how logic… works It’s how tautologies & necessities work

This is where you start to turn circular. You’re just saying “this is how it is” without showing that it’s necessarily how it is I get that you’re saying all these insights come from Awakening. And that’s all well & good. But it’s clearly not a logical proof, if you’re now crumbling at the knees & saying “sorry, I’m just right. Tough luck” So Awakening experience? Yes. But logical? No Also, you keep citing A = A, but people can actually show when something is tautological like A = A It happens when something holds in all hypotheticals But there’s certain hypotheticals that your worldview doesn’t hold in. For example, you just said that a finite a-mechanistic reality isn’t fine So your worldview would fail to be true, if reality turned out to be finite & a-mechanical. But A = A would still be true, even in a finite a-mechanical reality. Therefore, it’d be true in both your worldview & in that one If A = A holds in both, while yours only holds in one of them, then your insights aren’t tautologies

That’s better, but not quite there yet… at least if your goal is to show a logically conclusive proof Yeah, you summarized my point correctly by saying this finite whatever didn’t come into being from something. But… that would only make it similar to an eternal thing in the sense that it’d be a-mechanistic (like what I said in one of my comments to Leo) But a-mechanistic doesn’t automatically mean eternal. It just means uncaused. Meaning, it’s there without something putting it there Which yeah, is odd. Very odd. We can grant that But an eternal reality would also be there without being put there. It’d simply be a different flavor of that Think of it this way, cause this is kinda cool & trippy: An eternal reality (with its whole eternal chain of stuff, like you’re talking about) would have all its content there, without ever being placed there. No cause Yeah, each thing in the chain would be caused. But the chain itself wouldn’t be, because it’d have nothing prior to it There’s one of those cool Alan Watts type deals you’re talking about. The chain would be there… but without having ever been placed Now, if we’re willing to accept the weirdness of an entire eternal chain being there, but without any placement, then whatmore to stomach is there in the notion of a starting point just being there, without any cause or placement? Again, yes, it’s weird. I acknowledge that. But my point is, that an eternal reality has the same bizarre feature. We don’t get rid of the a-mechanistic weirdness by switching from a finite reality to an eternal one Both would have their full contents, without that content having ever been placed. One would simply have a starting point as part of that unplaced content

I like the first 3 But I have an issue with #4… Immaterial means nothing? Can you show me that immaterial things are impossible? The reason I bring up “impossibility,” is cause you’d need to show that it’s impossible, in order for what you’re saying to be a tautology But how are immaterial things impossible? For example, energy - even in academic physics - is considered immaterial. It’s physical, but not material (yes, those are two different things. Material means “made of matter.” Physical means “physically forceful & measurable.” Energy has the latter, but not the former) So right there, we have an example of something that’s not only an immaterial thing, but an immaterial physical thing How then, are immaterial things impossible? Why must immateriality always be nothing?

The connection part is fine. Sure yeah, all stuff in this hypothetical finite reality would be connected with each other But where are you transitioning from that fact into “therefore, it’d have to be eternal”? If you already answered that question in your post, then you’ll need to clarify, because I didn’t see a clear transition. But you can show me where you made it, if I missed it Basically, what I’m interested in is: Can you show me that all things being connected & part of the same “IT” (even in a finite reality) would debunk its finitude & prove that it’s instead, infinite? Cause in my mind, it’d certainly be possible for all things in that finite reality to be unified, while still just being a finite collection of unified things A finite IT, if you will If you can show that that’s impossible, then that’d strengthen your point

I’m guessing this is a new proof you’re coming up with right? We can look at this So tell me what method led you to conclude that numbers are nothing. And also, couldn’t nothing be a complete lack of experience as well? So is consciousness the only type of “nothing”? What led you to conclude that consciousness is the only viable kind of nothing? And again, if you’ve had an Awakening into something like that, I’ll leave it be. But I’m just asking about the pure logics & epistemics you’re using here… what led you to these conclusions you’re giving?

Not successfully, no The “incoherence” you’re noticing with a finite thing being there on its own, shares something identical to infinity That identical thing is that both would be “a-mechanistic” You’ve used that word “a-mechanistic” in past videos as well. But you didn’t really address it as much as you could’ve with your proofs in this new video (or the past videos either) Infinity would be beginningless (or at least, could be, since it’s unconstrained). Meaning, it wouldn’t need anything to come into existence This part isn’t new to you. You know this already. But… What you don’t realize is that you’re willing to accept a-mechanism as “fine” when it comes to infinity. But then as “incoherent” when it comes to something finite Meaning, there’s a bit of a double standard going on 1. a beginningless infinite reality that doesn’t come from anywhere? That’s fine 2. but a finite reality that doesn’t come from anywhere? This is incoherent Neither would come from anywhere. They’re both odd. And odd is fine But you use the oddness of one to fault it, while accepting the oddity of the other…

I can accept this part. I don’t have anything to debate here. I know you value growth & always updating your worldview. So that’s something I can leave be I see what you’re saying, but there’s a third option you’re overlooking in this part So what you were saying in this part of the vid is that either 1. The constraints on reality (if there were any) are real 2. They’re unreal If #2, then the constraints don’t exist & voila: there’s nothing constraining reality And if #1, well then… the constraints are merely another thing that reality contains & dictates Both those options are fine & I can grant that they’d lead to an unconstrained reality like you say (but ironically, they’d lead to the insane lack of lack reality instead, cause we could say it of all constraints) However, if the constraints were instead equivalent to reality, rather than either being something inside of it or outside of it, then it gets trickier And this isn’t just semantics. This really is a concrete third option The constraints wouldn’t be outside of reality (& therefore, they wouldn’t be unreal), but they also wouldn’t be inside of reality (& therefore, reality wouldn’t have control over them) In this third option, the constraints would be both genuine & uncontrolled Meaning that, if reality were finite, then it’d be genuinely finite & unable to get behind its own finitude to change it It’d just be stuck at a finite level I’m open to this third option being shown to be false. So if you have a way to show that, then that would strengthen your argument about Unity necessarily implying Omnipotence

Is it? Show me how you’ve debunked it I’m open to it

The first part’s solid Btw I hope you’ve been doing well! Anyways, to continue… I’m not saying this is what I believe, but there’s some options that your proof overlooks. For example, reality could have a beginning without just having a creation from nothing before that It’s not as crazy as it initially sounds. Believe it or not, there’s some models like this, even in academic physics. That’s how “uncrazy” it is But let’s explore what that it would even… mean for reality to have a beginning without nothing before it. Cause obviously, that sounds really weird & illogical. But actually, it’s not Stephen Hawking once said “asking what came before the Big Bang is like asking what’s North of the North Pole” Now yeah, there’s things above the North Pole, but not North of it because going further North would just end up going back South And that was Hawking’s idea. That maybe the Universe could be finite… but curved. Curved in such a way that - like an eternal reality - it’d have no beginning point before it (no North of the North Pole) but without necessarily extending on forever Again, I’m not saying I believe this nor that I’m adopting a worldview just because Hawking said it. I’m simply pointing out an alternative option that your proof would have to contend with & beat, to prove itself

I like to double-check just in case So the thing is, this unified-realness would also be true of - for example - a finite physical reality I’m not saying I believe that reality is finite & physical. But if it were, then it’d still be true that all things are unified in their realness A finite reality in which that finitude is all there is would still lack any other realities outside of itself, precisely because it’d be all of reality Therefore, unified-realness isn’t exclusive to an infinite reality And your objection to this may be “but a finite reality would lack things” Okay… yeah. But your picture of reality excludes things too. For example, according to you, there’s no such thing as * materialistic realities that weren’t imagined by Infinite Consciousness * atheistic realities in which God is absolutely absent (not just imagined absence, but unimagined absence) * Stuff outside of Infinite Consciousness Etc. My point isn’t that these examples are real. Nor that they debunk your view of reality Instead, my point is simply that you exclude certain things from your worldview too So you can’t claim that the finite reality does that while you don’t. You both do it, despite how vastly different you are This means 1. Your worldview can’t claim a lack of lack. It still lacks certain things. So your worldview can’t claim this specific kind Oneness 2. But, it can still claim the type of Oneness we talked about earlier, which was the unified-realness. However, your worldview doesn’t have a monopoly on unified-realness. Therefore, it doesn’t separate yours from the others If it doesn’t separate yours from the others, then it doesn’t count as a proof, because it’d need to defeat the others while pedestaling yours

You would have to prove that proof is infinitely imaginary, as you’re saying. Or if not prove it, you’d at least have to show that it’s a logical necessity & that therefore, it’s strong enough to accept it without prior proof For example, maybe you’ve had Awakenings that proof is imaginary. And sure, that’s all well & good But in order for it to qualify as a logical proof, you would need to either prove your foundational claim or show it to be a necessity My point isn’t to invalidate any Awakenings you may’ve had. My point is simply that if you want this to also be a logical proof, then you would need to show how the foundation is logically there, in addition to being something you Awakened to And maybe people here will say that it can’t be done. And fair enough, that’d be fine. I’m not trying to force logic onto Awakening But my point is that this is how logical proofs work. You either prove them or show that they’re a necessity & therefore, strong enough to be prior to proof even within the scope of logic (let alone your Awakening) So an example of my next question would be, do you have something which shows us that it’s logically necessary for proof to be infinitely imaginary? If you did, then that would add some power to your proof, given that your proof builds on top of the foundation of proof being infinitely imaginary

We can build to that if we want. But it’s more productive if I start here So let me steelman the first part of your first argument. The one on Oneness You’re saying that all real things are unified by their realness, right? They’re all - of course - real. So, reality is all one in that regard

No, numbers aren’t discrete. I realize that God is a topic beyond mathematics, but since we’re discussing numbers, we can look at those mathematically The number line is fluid (meaning, non-discrete) in mathematics. That’s why even finite numbers can be divided infinitely. That’s the paradox. They have a boundary (e.g. 3 stops at 3, instead of going further to 3.1+) & therefore, because they have a boundary, they’re finite But because they’re fluid, they can still be divided infinitely, despite their finitude If instead, numbers were discrete - as you claim - then they wouldn’t be infinitely divisible like that Now, here’s my overall point. I’m not saying that I believe that consciousness is some finite non-discrete thing like some numbers are. That’s not my point My point is that, your proof hasn’t even looked at the possibility that consciousness is Again, I’m not saying consciousness is. But we’re talking about logical proofs here. Not just awakening. And in order for your proof to qualify as a proof, it needs to show us how it’s impossible for consciousness to be that way And I’m sorry, but saying “consciousness is non-spatial,” isn’t enough, because there’s soooo many non-spatial things that are still bounded Therefore, non-spatiality doesn’t automatically prove infinity And that’s just looking at your 3rd premise, let alone the rest of your argument But I hope I’m not being too much of an asshole here. I’m glad that you were open-minded on the emotions example. So I hope I’m not coming across as a douchebag

Gotcha, good to know I may write up something in a bit then, while being respectful I understand that the point of the video was that Awakening comes prior to the logic. So I’d take that into account while looking at what tautologies are

The Law of Identity is “things are themselves” Tell us how that implies limitation to numbers, when even you just said that numbers can be infinite Infinities can also be themselves (which is Law of Identity). So clearly, Law of Identity doesn’t automatically limit things Show me your reasoning, because there appears to be a gap in what you’re doing Also, you didn’t acknowledge the fact that some numbers are finite & still don’t occupy space. Which already shows a gap in your 3rd premise Even if the number line is infinite, there are still many examples of things which are non-spatial & not boundless If being non-spatial is the single deciding factor in what makes God, God, then that seems like a very powerless idea of God God would be more than just non-spatial. So non-spatiality alone doesn’t prove God. Finite numbers are merely one example of this

There are massive holes in your argument. It’s not just the AI being too dumb for you For example, something can be non-spatial (not occupying space) & still be limited Biased emotions are one example. They don’t occupy space. They can be limited regardless Numbers are another example. Yes, numbers of things occupy space. Like 3 rocks, for example. But numbers themselves don’t, because they are properties/arrangements of items. Numbers themselves don’t occupy space. But many numbers are limited, despite their abstract non-spatial nature Points are another example. 0-D points don’t have any extension throughout space, cause they’re zero-dimensional. And yet, they’re limited. They’re incapable of presenting any extension. That’s their limit There’s many more examples There’s also many assumptions in your other premises, but even with just #3, the argument closes itself off from many other possibilities & corresponding objections Leo’s video has problems too. His tautologies weren’t actually tautologies. But I don’t know if if he prefers people white-knighting in his forum. That may be disrespectful & deserving of a ban. I don’t know his policies But I don’t see any good arguments or proofs in this forum so far I’m not sure where everyone is assuming that AI is too unintelligent for them. Sometimes, it is. But I think people here are just over-estimating the validity of their proofs