Synchronicity

You’re continuing to say that no outside = no inside, but you haven’t yet logically proved that point Re-statements aren’t proofs A thing with an inside but no outside would still 1. be itself 2. not be both itself & not-itself 3. It’d also be true to say of it, that it is what it is & false to say that it is what it’s not So it doesn’t violate any of the 3 axioms of classical logic Therefore, it’s not classically impossible This isn’t up for debate, unfortunately. This is how classical logic works. If you want to claim like Leo is, that you’ve Awakened to a different logic, then by all means, we can discuss that. But this stuff here isn’t presenting anything so far that adheres to Classical Logic

It’d be inside that one event The event would have its finite boundaries & there’d be nothing past those boundaries The boundaries would have an inside with no outside Are you thinking that such a one-sided boundary would be illogical? Is that where you’re feeling confused by the idea? Help me understand what about this feels confusing or oddball-ish to you

Therefore, reality isn’t Everything, under your findings Just say “I Awakened to the Truth & the Truth is that not-everything is real” This is precisely what you’re claiming. Please be honest with yourself

There’d be an inside. Just no outside You’re using your own Nondual presuppositions, instead of using classical logic Just because Alan Watts says an inside with no outside is impossible, doesn’t make it true Study logic for yourself, instead of taking Alan Watts’ philosophy at his word A finite reality would - by definition - still have an inside

It’d be Absolutely Two, because it’d be Everything And it’d be Absolutely Two just as much as it’s Absolutely One, because it’d be Everything It’d even be Absolutely 300, because it’d be Everything You don’t believe in Everything, because you believe Oneness is more inclusive than 300-ness

But there wouldn’t be nothing… there’d be a finite reality There wouldn’t be only nothing. A finite something plus nothing, is still a finite something 3 + 0 is 3 Not 0 Adding nothing to a finite thing, doesn’t make it nothing

Nope. You already failed at this step Everything would also be non-Oneness, Absolute Duality, Absolute Division, Absolute Materialism, Unconsciousness, etc. because it’s everything It doesn’t matter if you think those things are impossible. Everything would be Everything You don’t believe in Everything, because there’s many things you don’t believe in

It’s not my theory. It’s a theory One of many. It only states that time is finite. Finite time is a general category of theory. There’s many smaller potential theories within it (many possible ways for time to be finite). We don’t need to pick a specific sub-category for our purposes here That’s like if we had a conversation about dogs & you asked me to pick a specific breed. Why ya doing that? Dogs are a general category I’m sorry to be brutally honest, but I encourage you to study logic more. You seem to confuse logic with science We don’t need to pick a specific theory of time in order to say that there’s many potential theories of time, which are both finite & conventionally logical Even if we say “time is real in our example,” there’s still many many many different theories (logically valid theories) under which time is real Why do we need to pick a specific dog-breed to talk about dogs? Why can’t we discuss dogs in general. That’s a perfectly coherent discussion that many people have had before I didn’t say I believe this theory of time… I’ve merely been presenting it, to show you that you haven’t found a conventional tautology, because you haven’t addressed all conventional possibilities

I mean… I don’t know what to tell ya. This is how classical logic works. If you want to conventionally prove Oneness, you gotta jump through these hoops, otherwise you haven’t conventionally proven Oneness Claiming to Awaken to Oneness is one thing. But claiming you have some classically logical proof for it, is another You gotta walk the walk, if you really have a proof of that. Or at least, a proof of that kind As an after-thought, 4-dimensional triangles are another trippy topic Lol They’re usually called hyper-triangles

Gotcha, then yeah, that’s basically what I was getting at with trying to correctly summarize what you were saying

Could be all manner of things. If we’re still talking about classically logical options, then time could be * a physical sequence of frames * old moments collapsing & new ones being created on the fly (besides the first one, cause that one would be uncreated in our example Lol) * time being fluid & non-discrete, like a stretched singularity which doesn’t require points in-between moments It’s rather besides my main point. We could come up with all sorts of logical options for what time could be in our example We don’t really need to pick one, unless we wanna now try & prove what time itself is Lol

Since you’re saying that Infinity is Love though, you’d also be saying that the kangaroo’s reason (Love) is identical to the infinitude before it (the causeless chain)?

Yeah, it could end To make it an easier example, picture one 50 trillion year stretch of time. No such thing as a “before the start” & no such thing as an “after the end” Just a 50 trillion year blip No more realities before or after. It’s all still just one reality. And all of reality is just a 50 trillion year stretch

Mmmm… I can grant you that one There are logicians who make a living dealing with such topics, but I can agree that they don’t go nearly as deep into it as they could or should. They don’t quite see how trippy it is for both options to result in everything being uncaused. They could do better work there

I think your burden would be, that someone could come along & have a direct experience of their own & see some new logic of their own which - for example - says that transparent swans are impossible You would need a way to show that your Awakening beats their’s, because you’re saying that this logic applies to everyone (not just you)

Sure yeah, I’m not trying to tell you I’ve settled what time is. Nor *how* it could have a beginning without cause (cause yeah, let’s be honest, it’s a very weird idea Lol) My only point in this discussion was to show you that it’s a genuine option (no stranger than an eternal reality) & that therefore, an eternal reality isn’t tautological Or at least, it’s not a classical tautology

You’re thinking of the Principle of Sufficient Reason, in conventional logic That’s actually been very controversial & there’s many papers debunking it, because it assumes that a genuine starting point isn’t possible So if you want to claim it’s illogical, then by all means we can look into that. But it’s not a settled matter in conventional logic. Uncaused starting points don’t violate convention anymore than an uncaused infinity does In an infinite reality, a kangaroo would also be uncaused & there for no reason, because it’d have a never-ending chain of causation before it. That chain would’ve never been caused or created by something & so, by the transitive property, the kangaroo would be uncaused (existing for no ultimate reason)

I’m further in the child & imbecile direction you mentioned Lol I’m whacky as hell Then again, for that reason, I can’t even give a direction Lol But I just use Classical Logic in daily life, cause well… obviously I can. I can place 2 items next to 2 others & always have 4

Yeah Quite a mind-twist, isn’t it? I understand why you would initially think that’s illogical, but at least in terms of classical logic, there’s nothing contradictory or non-self-evident about a starting point with no priors. It’d just be… well… a starting point That’s why academics are fine with it. Not that I believe that they’re right. My point is simply that it still adheres to conventional logic. If - like Leo - you want to throw away conventional logic, then that’s another matter

I’ll accept this, this is good to leave the debate/discussion at I don’t have a problem with you saying that’s how reality works under what you’ve found through Awakening

My stuff’s very strange. But I won’t get into that, cause that hasn’t been my point here But sure yeah, I can accept that this is restricted

It didn’t start from nothing. It’s not that the nothing created it or caused it It’d instead be that it started (uncaused) with nothing prior to it There’s no need for a sequential transition from nothing to something, cause it’d just be there - uncaused - without a transition

Honestly though, we could contend that your restricted logic doesn’t work better But I’m open to being shown that it does. Is there anything in this restricted logic that shows itself to be better? You may say Awakening. Okay, sure. But that doesn’t quite prove it per se. You’d need to show why yours is better

Yeah By “unplaced” I mean “uncaused.” So if nothing came before the 1-trillion-year-mark, then that mark is uncaused So it’d be when everything started, but… nothing caused the start See what I’m saying? Never-ending chains run into the same deal. It’s just that they also lack a starting point, in addition to a cause

I don’t actually just stick with Classical Logic. I’m only doing so for the sake of this discussion, because you were citing A = A. I actually have all sorts of insane notions of 4-sided triangles & the like But I get your overall point. You’re saying that restriction isn’t a bad thing, because conventional logic restricts more than a child’s logic. A child’s logic would be silly, while conventional logic works better. And therefore, you’re claiming that your logic works even better Okay, that point’s fine. But then, from now on, don’t claim that your view of reality is unrestricted. I’m going to screenshot this, to show people that - in your own words - it isn’t