zurew

You cant have a metaphysically ambigous micro-vibration. What is that micro-vibration fundamentally, metaphysically? If that micro vibration is fundamentally not consciousness, then that micro-vibration wont have any possible connection with a reality where everything is fundamentally consciousness.

Your absence of limits talk is just a poetic way to express an infinite number of seperate realities. You have a reality where physicalism is true, you also have a completely seperate reality where everything is fundamentally consciousness, you have a seperate reality where everything is fundamentally something thats neither physical nor mental and so on. The "Everything is interconnected" doesnt work in your case. You have completely seperate realities, where there is no possible connection between them. You talk about absence of limits, but a reality where fundementally everything is physical that reality is limited to that metaphysics and there is no absence of limits there, the reality where everything is consciousness that reality is "limited" to that metaphysics and there isn't any absence of limits there in the sense that that reality cant be metaphysically anything other what it already is. So for example - what could possibly be the connection between a reality that is fundmentally physical and a reality that is fundamentally consciousness?

Dude wants you to watch porn, thats crazy work.

It doesnt have to be substance , monism is compatible with non-substance as well. It just says that there is one fundamental thing/essence or whatever other label you want to use there. The difference would be that under monism you can have an infinite number of Worlds/Universes that are all fundamentally united in one thing/essence, under your view though, there would be an infinite number of fundamentally separate realities, (you shouldnt even use the word 'reality', you should make it plural and call it realities), because there is no uniting factor between those realities at all, because they are fundamentally separate under your view.

That isnt an argument against monism, because even if your argument would go through (which doesn't) against idealism, that still wouldnt show that monism is false. Monism is comaptible with reality having one substance with infinite attributes. But you for some reason say that reality has infinite number of different substances. I dont think you realize how much work you would need to do to make an argument for your system Establish an argument that there are an infinite number of dimensions in reality (whatever you meant by dimension) After that, establish an argument that you cant have that many dimensions under monism (again - monsim is compatible with more than just idealism, so you would need to categorically rule out all monisms) After that categorically rule out all remaining non-pluralistic models of reality. And lastly, rule out all pluralistic models of reality that are incompatible with yours.

We do have an immortal vegan vampire though - Bryan Johnson.

That doesnt show that it is impossible, thats just a report about what isn't aligned with what makes sense to you. It is a move, where you ironically appeal to a limited human norm and not to an epistemic norm that isn't so constrained by the human perspective. Your own sense of rationality has almost nothing to do with whats possible. What is your argument for metaphysical pluralism and what is your argument against monism?

Whats impossible about it?

I dont know what any of that means. What does it mean for a definition to occur anywhere? I dont see how that is incompatible with non-duality. There it sounds like you are talking about epistemology - on how you come to know what the ultimate reality is or how you connect to it, but you dont say anything about ultimate reality that would be incompatible with non-duality (when it comes to metaphysics.)

Yeah you have a unqiue notion of logic and thats fine, just be aware that this is not how it is typically used. You didnt directly answer the questions I asked - If you are not sure what im trying to ask, then I will clarify, but you probably know what I mean by non-duality, so again - How is your view different from non-duality?

Then we probably roughly share the same notion.

So do you think your sense of connectedness is irrelevant? Beucause to me non-doership means more than being stuck in a foreign body.

I would just flag that dissociation from your ego can be bad if it is simulated . You can achieve a sense of "dissociation" by the help of your ego creating the simulation of non-doership. Probably one good heruistic to use is your sense of connectedness with the world. If you have a sense of dissociation from your ego and you don't have highly elevated connectedness with the whole world, then its probably simulated by your ego. It would be the difference between having a sense of being stuck in a foreign body that moves on its own and you are located in nowhere, disconnected from everything vs having a strong sense of being one with the Universe

@Breakingthewall I dont think im tracking, because you seem to be using the term "logic" in a very loaded way, where it is hardcore loaded with your own sense of whats true/accurate and it isn't just about the laws of classical logic. I will try it this way - are you a modal realist? How is your view different from non-duality?

@Breakingthewall Are you a monist? Since you are saying that everything is just relations - how can you have relations without relata?