Questions about consistency and impermanence

[Someone here]

1. What is preventing my hands right now from magically turning into a tentacle?. There is consistency to this reality. Even tho I understand that object's permanence is conceptual. There is no "hand" to begin with as a physical "object". It changes every millisecond. Takes different locations in time and space. So It has no consistency from this pov. The consistency is imagined to a certain degree. But not fully. Since it nevertheless keeps the overall structure of a human human hand the same. Still there is some form of consistency. If there isn't you will literally go nuts. Nothing in the universe will make any sense. The question as I said above.. How and why? Why doesn't my hand magically turn into a dog right now? What is stopping this exactly? The physical laws? What is stopping the laws from changing themselves?  And whatever that Is.. What is stopping it from changing itself?.. You should see now that ultimately NOTHING really is stopping this. Then again so why does it not happen? What keeps everything consistent?

2 impermanence. This is obvious enough. Everything is constantly fluctuating without stop. So how do we ground ourselves? How is it that we can ground ourselves in a reality that is constantly changing?..How are we able to do it?.. I hope the question is clear. 

 

Edited November 25, 2020 by Someone here

[Breakingthewall]

because God is not omnipotent, needs to do things with an order, with a process. for that it creates time, to grow in complexity. so he needs stability to perfect his work

[Adamq8]

I would say that how the world appears and what ur life is, is outmost perfection, if you could create the best creation ever how would it really be?

Would it not be something like this? 

It is stable and makes more sense and makes you live a life that feels totally real and True.

This is heaven.

Without suffering you would not know joy.

Duality is always changing somehow,  but non dual does not change one bit, IE conciousness True form is changeless. 

Thats why when in a body or world it is stable cause conciousness is always the same, I asked my dad yesterday, he is 65, if he felt any different then 20 years ago for example,  he said NO, your life might be different but YOU are not.

 

[Gesundheit]

We could very easily solve this problem by assuming an external God that is not the same thing as existence. And then by assuming that existence is God's creation, not God himself.

Yep, an external God could do anything. He does not need to explain anything or tell us how he does his stuff though.

[Breakingthewall]

15 minutes ago, Gesundheit said:

And then by assuming that existence is God's creation, not God himself.

It's god himself but developing himself, so like creating and improvising. Or looks like that

[LastThursday]

I have no answers. 

But the following two thought threads come to mind (persistence might be more accurate a word than consistency though):

1. Consistency is a kind of absolute. In a sense the consistency of your hand is absolute. So if all is flux, then where is the source of Absolute in all this? Is it god, existence, something else?

2. Consistency is an impression or feeling. You have a feeling that your hand is the same hand from moment to moment. Say that you're in the matrix and a giant computer is generating your universe as a snapshot. Right, NOW! In that snapshot there you are with your hand and all your memories and feelings - freshly created. Those memories give you a sense of consistency. In other words you and your hand don't exist except as a timeless snapshot. But you are hoodwinked by the nasty overlord computer into thinking you are in a persistent consistent moment in time. And then POOF! Gone.

This video is loooong and technical, but it's a marvel and if I remember rightly discusses the interplay between change and permanence:

 

Edited November 25, 2020 by LastThursday

[Gesundheit]

4 hours ago, NondualesStudium said:

You imagine consistency. You kinda "retro-project" it into an imagined past.

Same goes for impermanence.

That, first, does not answer the initial questions.

And second, it begs another question; why am I imagining anything in the first place?