The Fundamental Theory and the Three Fundamental Laws

[jedaisoul]

...(however the opening post has become a bit of a disaster in my opinion. It may be worth my while to spend a little more time on that and start a new topic.)

I agree. If you quote a major figure in your OP, subsequently denying that you intended to do so does not alter the fact that you DID quote him, and then applied those ideas out of context.

 

Better to let your work stand (or fall) on its own merits.

[arkain101]

I agree. If you quote a major figure in your OP, subsequently denying that you intended to do so does not alter the fact that you DID quote him, and then applied those ideas out of context.

 

Applied what ideas out of what context?

 

Better to let your work stand (or fall) on its own merits.

 

???? That is what I am doing.

 

 

It is frustrating you fill my thread full of this stuff when you have not even asked me to further explain anything related to the thesis and one of its applications. I have no clue if you even know what I am talking about, and yet you make these accusations.

 

I will surely be starting a new thread another time.

[arkain101]

I got most of this information from wikipedia, (the language and terminology for the three laws) to post something familiar with mainstream philosophy.

 

However, it has come to my attention that although these laws are proven, they do not extend into the area I am taking them and require modification. In respect to rational thought, they satisfy effectively. However, they require revising when doing deeper into meaning, where I am taking them.(and therefore should be recognized, to put into contrast of my follow up posts)

 

 

 

 

 

 

http://hypography.com/forums/philosophy-of-science/19781-the-fundamental-theory-three-fundamental-laws.html#post267738

 

Did you read this?

[arkain101]

Arkain,

 

It looks like you understand the basic problem with philosophical theory, that it is philosophical theory. It has nothing to do with the realities people face every day.

 

If you can develop applications of your theory that address political/enviironmental/economic/sociological/educational problems in a way that doesn't look like a cult, I'll be thrilled and will subscribe to your newsletter. (Sorry, it just seems like the next thing I should say.)

 

--lemit

 

What do you mean that philosophical theory looks like a cult? Do you care to elaborate?

[jedaisoul]

Did you read this?

My original intention was to show that law 4 (out of context) was nonsense, which it was. Then I pointed out that Schopenhauer explicitly excluded physical reality from the scope of his laws, which he did.

 

I've read your posts, and, so far, I can't see that your laws add any new meaning to what we already know about physical reality. That may well be my limitation, but I've said what I felt was relevant. I see no point in my contributing to this thread any further.

[arkain101]

My original intention was to show that law 4 (out of context) was nonsense, which it was. Then I pointed out that Schopenhauer explicitly excluded physical reality from the scope of his laws, which he did.

 

I've read your posts, and, so far, I can't see that your laws add any new meaning to what we already know about physical reality. That may well be my limitation, but I've said what I felt was relevant. I see no point in my contributing to this thread any further.

 

That kind of reply I can understand. I see what you were getting at now. Yes, I combined terminology of laws together and also added my own definition "law of conclusion" to represent: 4. Of everything that is, it can be found why it is.

 

(keeping in mind I intentionally did not quote any authors names on any specific information because of this altering. I only wanted to point out that there are laws of thought developed for the readers unaware, as was I only hours prior to this post. I came to the realization of them through a different method, based off of physical things, there lies the connection between the physical and conceptual for those laws! They not specific to thought alone! I expect.)

 

 

I am not sure why you call this utter nonsense, I would be interested to hear your explanation.

 

 

The law of conclusion was added as a subsequential law, not a fundamental law. In other words it expresses that of everything that is, both physical, and conceptual can be found out why it is.

 

This is the key to what I am working on here. You made it clear that Schopenhauer's laws apply to concepts. That is, in order to construct rational thought those basic laws are to be obeyed.

 

I thank you for those remarks, due to the reasons I was unaware of those facts, as unaware I am/was of even the name Schopenhauer's. However, when I read that these laws exist, I was suprised to find, that they agree with what I have been working on. This is a crucial point: I arrived at very similar laws if not the same from an entirely different method, dealing strictly with physical things and their attributes.

 

 

 

I must make this as clear as I can. I am in the process of developing an explanation that can apply to physical things.

 

That is the context of the title. "The fundamental theory". I want to make it clear that I am not saying "I have the fundamental theory", I am saying it in the context of "I have a notion where the fundamental theory is (what it is)" ..

 

This (what I my purpose in this post is) should be made clear first and foremost!! Long before I move into the details the show "what is new" (ie, the answers for your statement: I can't see that your laws add any new meaning to what we already know about physical reality.)

 

I have not moved into that yet to show that it is something 'new'.

 

Why is it to be considered new? What I am developing may have to ability to predict fundamental particles, the behavior of fundamental entities, as well as things such as describing why we "get" the fundamental particles we do, when we take things apart.

 

What I am going to express in the future (on a website I am developing, or in these posts as well) is an interpretation that defines there is no such thing as fundamental particles/entities in the sense that they can be plucked from a sub atomic item. What I replace it with is the laws that predict fundamental behavior, and therefore it would be capable to say the following: (think of this as a quote prior to particle accelerators and quantum physics)

 

"If we had the ability to strip apart reality to its most basic form we would find that it would have the behaviors based on the principles and laws here in this work (what I am here to discuss). Furthermore, not only would it predict all the basic parts, but if it can, then it also explains why they are. Because of this, if it succeeds to this point, then it would follow with the prediction that anything else, both physical and conceptual, may very well be possible to be explained provided the former is validated."

 

So you see, this is what I believe I have found. Now, discussing this will take a lot of time and effort to communicate clearly. (I've learned in this thread that I have rushed far to quickly, thus adding confusion).

 

I can not get into the specifics immediately as I have yet to physically write it all out (put it all together).

 

Therefore, only discussion I expect in this thread at this point is questions and ideas that challenge my statements, which I will attempt to argue successfully.

 

In the meantime I am putting together a multimedia resource based on explaining and describing the theory that is in sight of completion; tools and methods to help the reader understand; experiments to test each hypothesis; also the inclusion of experimental evidence that already exists, that the work should predict.

 

I am trying to make it clear that I am not speaking as person in the sense of "Hey I've done it! I have the fundamental theory". I am speaking as, "Whoa, I think my work has come to a conclusion, this is what it is, this is what it says, and this is what it can do, lets find out if it flunks the test"

 

Thanks.

[jedaisoul]

I am not sure why you call this utter nonsense, I would be interested to hear your explanation.

Concepts are human constructs and, by definition, are meaningful. They are also shared. It is by associating words with the underlying concepts that we communicate. Therefore, concepts are, by definition, knowable. Also it is true, in a sense, WHY they are knowable, because we construct them to be so. So, there is an a priori reason why (using Schopenhauer's terminology) we can say "Of everything that is, it can be found why it is".

 

However, to analyse the relevance of this statement to physical reality, we need to break it down into two statements:

a) Everthing that exists physically is knowable. And...

:doh: It is possible to know why everything that exists physically is as it is.

 

Unlike concepts, there is no a priori reason why statement (a) should be true of physical reality. Also there is no way of knowing whether it is true, since we can only know that which we can know. I.e. If there were something that exists that is unknowable, we would not know it! So statement (a) fails.

 

Statement (B) automatically fails, because it is dependent on statement (a). However, it also fails in its own right... In everyday language the word "why" is often used when we actually mean "how". "How" is a scientific question. We can ask, "how is snow made?", and give a scientific answer. But the answer to questions like "why does the universe exist?" is bound up in our belief systems. By definition, belief systems are unproven, because, if they were proven, they would be facts, not just beliefs. Hence it is impossible to know "why everything that exists physically is as it is".

 

So both statements fail, both independently and together.

[Doctordick]

I have been reading this thread because it seems to be heavily used. I don’t join in because I don’t find it to be very serious; however, arkain101 has been pressuring me for comments. With regard to that I have found your responses to him to be quite in line with my impressions. You seem to be a very logical and thoughtful person. For that reason, I was moved to respond to your current post.

Concepts are human constructs and, by definition, are meaningful.

You should remember that the are actually guaranteed to be meaningful only to the human who has dreamed them up. When someone tries to explain a concept they have in mind, they are required to communicate through earlier concepts already presumed to be understood. When the listener decides that he understands the new concept, that decision is based on the assumption that the earlier concepts were correctly understood. You should keep in mind the fact that these are all assumptions.

They are also shared. It is by associating words with the underlying concepts that we communicate.

Yes, and it is an assumption that these associations are correct. All we can actually say is that there is an apparent isomorphism between what we are thinking and what the other party is thinking. We cannot “know" this isomorphism is correct because our ideas are always based upon assumptions which could very well be in error.

Therefore, concepts are, by definition, knowable. Also it is true, in a sense, WHY they are knowable, because we construct them to be so. So, there is an a priori reason why (using Schopenhauer's terminology) we can say "Of everything that is, it can be found why it is".

Only in our own minds!

 

Other than that, I have no serious complaints with your position (arkain101, please take most of what jedaisoul says as essentially isomorphic to my position :doh: ). I just thought that you might be able to comprehend the dilemma I have just laid out. To date, Anssi seems to be the only person, other than myself, to really include that concept in his world view.

 

This is one of the reasons I put so much emphasis on mathematics. Mathematics is perhaps the only language within which we can be pretty well be confident of the existence of a real isomorphism between what is in your head and what is in my head. All other languages are pretty well confusing on the fundamental level.

 

Have fun -- Dick

[jedaisoul]

I have been reading this thread because it seems to be heavily used. I don’t join in because I don’t find it to be very serious; however, arkain101 has been pressuring me for comments. With regard to that I have found your responses to him to be quite in line with my impressions. You seem to be a very logical and thoughtful person. For that reason, I was moved to respond to your current post.

I am honoured (no sarcasm intended). I've read your threads with some interest, but I've not contriubuted because the maths goes over my head!

 

You should remember that the are actually guaranteed to be meaningful only to the human who has dreamed them up. When someone tries to explain a concept they have in mind, they are required to communicate through earlier concepts already presumed to be understood. When the listener decides that he understands the new concept, that decision is based on the assumption that the earlier concepts were correctly understood. You should keep in mind the fact that these are all assumptions.

Agreed. But that does not change the fact that concepts ARE meaningful. For example, the vast majority of people (myself included) are never going to understand tensor calculus in detail. That does not make it meaningless (except to us).

 

Yes, and it is an assumption that these associations are correct. All we can actually say is that there is an apparent isomorphism between what we are thinking and what the other party is thinking. We cannot “know" this isomorphism is correct because our ideas are always based upon assumptions which could very well be in error.

The problem you cite is real, you cannot directly communicate concepts. But I believe the issue can be overcome in certain circumstances. Firstly, the listened has to have the potential to understand the concept you are trying to communicate. Without that you will never succeed. Then by feeding back what you (the listener) have understood of what the other person has said, it gives him/her the opportunity to put it in different words, or use a different metaphor, to get the message across.

 

I have experienced that myself. I believe that there are (at least) two people on the planet that understand my simultaneity-time concept of space and time. Myself, and the editor of the journal it was published in. By feeding back to me suggestions of where my description could be improved, it was clear to me that he had genuinely grasped what I was saying (and expressed it better than I had).

 

Other than that, I have no serious complaints with your position (arkain101, please take most of what jedaisoul says as essentially isomorphic to my position ). I just thought that you might be able to comprehend the dilemma I have just laid out. To date, Anssi seems to be the only person, other than myself, to really include that concept in his world view.

As I've said, I agree that it is a problem. I just don't regard it as insurmountable, in some cases.

 

This is one of the reasons I put so much emphasis on mathematics. Mathematics is perhaps the only language within which we can be pretty well be confident of the existence of a real isomorphism between what is in your head and what is in my head. All other languages are pretty well confusing on the fundamental level.

I acknowledge the superiority of mathematics, in that respect, but I am largely illiterate mathematically. That was, to some extent, a choice on my part. When doing maths at GCE A level, I took pure and applied maths as separate subjects. Applied maths was no problem, but I felt that pure maths, even at a pre-degree level, was, potentially, affecting my world view. I did not want to acquire the world view of a mathematician, so I did not pursue pure maths any further. By the way, I felt the same about philosophy, and have only come to it later on in life, when my world view is pretty well set.

 

Anyway, thanks for your comments. My apologies to arkain101 if, in this post, I have drifted somewhat from the subject of his thread...

[arkain101]

I have been reading this thread because it seems to be heavily used. I don’t join in because I don’t find it to be very serious; however, arkain101 has been pressuring me for comments. With regard to that I have found your responses to him to be quite in line with my impressions. You seem to be a very logical and thoughtful person. For that reason, I was moved to respond to your current post.

 

Agreed, there has not been anything posted that is that serious, other than an introduction. I've so far included, 1)what I've found (insight into something that looks fundamental) and 2)my purpose of working to test its validity. 3)A quick overview of what its all about.

 

I hope you did not feel pressured to reply or even read. I explained that this would function as a response to your threads, if you were interested you could then share your thoughts.

 

When I read your work I see the same tautological theorem (correct?) that I feel I have come to see the need for in some things I am working on. I can't say at this point if I have a theory, a model, or a tautology. That is because the main focus has been on relativity and fundamental particles (properties and mechanics), and a relationship I think I have found between them, which led me to suggest, this could offer something quite fundamental?

 

I recognize your impressions, which I also share, however, I have decided to pursue none the less.

 

 

 

Concepts are human constructs and, by definition, are meaningful. They are also shared. It is by associating words with the underlying concepts that we communicate. Therefore, concepts are, by definition, knowable. Also it is true, in a sense, WHY they are knowable, because we construct them to be so. So, there is an a priori reason why (using Schopenhauer's terminology) we can say "Of everything that is, it can be found why it is".

 

Although I am unfamiliar with this philosophers(?) name, it seems I am familiar with those statements and the implications. Which is to say, I agree with what he says, since I have found may way to similar conclusion.

 

 

 

However, to analyse the relevance of this statement to physical reality, we need to break it down into two statements:

a) Everything that exists physically is knowable. And...

:hyper: It is possible to know why everything that exists physically is as it is.

 

Sure, I agree. Now I suppose further one must clarify quite carefully what is physical, and how it is proved as physically existing. If two were discussing this and had different concepts of physical, well, then, it is quite obvious this would be the central obstacle.

 

 

Unlike concepts, there is no a priori reason why statement (a) should be true of physical reality. Also there is no way of knowing whether it is true, since we can only know that which we can know. I.e. If there were something that exists that is unknowable, we would not know it! So statement (a) fails.

 

Its true, we just don't know about a lot of stuff that exists in the universe. For example, there is tons of planets out there that we do not know about. We have no knowledge of the possible life forms or any other detailed things about the planet that we do not know about. Agreed.

 

But this is not the kind of "things that exist" that I am referring to when I speak of, "Everything that exists physically is knowable". What I refer to is the physics of the universe and its elementary parts and behavior, as well as the relationships between them like special relativity. Therefore, what I would be stating is "of everything that is found at the fundamental levels of physical reality can be known (prior to discovering them), and therefore why it is known" (based on the same type of priori as used in concepts). I don't expect that anyone should agree to this, as I can not even agree to it myself because I have yet to finish that part of the work to confirm this suspicion. This does not imply we can know the ontological and assume we have the right answer to things like what shape they are, and what they look like, since this is not possible due to the process of how we acquire concepts in the first place. That is, we create our own concepts form something unknowable. (That is, that conclusion will remain valid if I should fail, to succeed, at proving otherwise in this effort.)

 

However, this does not exclude the fact that we can't learn some interesting behaviors about the unknowable. Regardless if we know what an electron really is, we can determine some properties about the concept of an electron, and this goes on. However, what if there was an explanation the predicted the existence of these elementary entities and their behaviors? I am pursing exactly that, because I believe it may exist. (This is what I am doing, trying to formulate and construct this explanation in a way that can be tested).

 

 

Statement (B) automatically fails, because it is dependent on statement (a). However, it also fails in its own right... In everyday language the word "why" is often used when we actually mean "how". "How" is a scientific question. We can ask, "how is snow made?", and give a scientific answer. But the answer to questions like "why does the universe exist?" is bound up in our belief systems. By definition, belief systems are unproven, because, if they were proven, they would be facts, not just beliefs. Hence it is impossible to know "why everything that exists physically is as it is".

 

I agree statement B fails based on the expression of your statement on A.(concepts)

 

I have responded to your comments on A, and have explained that I agree with what has been deduced (based on concepts), and also pointed out the difference between your interpretation of what my work may be doing and what I am trying to communicate my work is actually doing.

 

Therefore, what my work (I don't like to call it work since I am no qualified professional in my opinion, but it is none the less what I am working on, and possibly that should suffice in the opinions of readers) is actually doing is to explain why the elementary stuff in the universe is observed to consist of the behavior it does when put under specific experiments.

 

So in conclusion, your breakdown of the law (of everything that is, it can be found why it is):

 

However, to analyse the relevance of this statement to physical reality, we need to break it down into two statements:

a) Everthing that exists physically is knowable. And...

B) It is possible to know why everything that exists physically is as it is.

 

:seems to me to be different from what I am considering physical and existing.

 

Now, this could mean that what I am working on IS NONSENSE. However, that will not be determined untill I test it. I would not bother to pursue this in the first place if I had not come across the evidence that supports it.

 

So I expect we (as in anyone involved in this) shall in time find out what is nonsense in respect to what I am working on.

 

 

So both statements fail, both independently and together.

 

Thank you for clearing that up. I agree with you, in the context of your explanation. Hopefully I have communicated clearly enough that the context of my explanations differs and therefore has not yet failed the tests I am preparing to put before them.

 

 

 

Agreed. But that does not change the fact that concepts ARE meaningful. For example, the vast majority of people (myself included) are never going to understand tensor calculus in detail. That does not make it meaningless (except to us).

 

I agree, in respect to world view comparisons, meaning is relative.

 

 

The problem you cite is real, you cannot directly communicate concepts. But I believe the issue can be overcome in certain circumstances. Firstly, the listened has to have the potential to understand the concept you are trying to communicate. Without that you will never succeed. Then by feeding back what you (the listener) have understood of what the other person has said, it gives him/her the opportunity to put it in different words, or use a different metaphor, to get the message across.

 

I have experienced that myself. I believe that there are (at least) two people on the planet that understand my simultaneity-time concept of space and time. Myself, and the editor of the journal it was published in. By feeding back to me suggestions of where my description could be improved, it was clear to me that he had genuinely grasped what I was saying (and expressed it better than I had).

 

Ah yes, the very real and common challenge of discussions and communication. A good example is this topic here. However, I've see us narrowing down those uncertainties. (The first step I try to accomplish in the explanations of concepts).

simultaneity-time concept of space and time: Is there a source I can find this? I am interested to read.

 

This real challenge can be solved adequately, using a method of exhaustion. That is, explain the same thing several times, each time raising the complexity of the elements in the explanations, until the explanation has reached the peak of the author. A rule in this method is The first explanation contains information to the extent it has communicated, while the peak explanation contains every step below it down to the first.

 

In this way the reader, can observe the journey, and when he comes to visit the author at the destination, and the other says, "That was come great scenery on the drive here wasn't it?", the reader can then respond in a valid way "Yes, I saw that scenery, it was rather catching". As opposed to, the reader jumping from check point 1, 5, 10, and having no clue of the scenery that led to the destination.

 

It requires a significant amount of extra work in the initial stage of the discussion, however, it provides a territory to fall back on when communication begins to occur. In that way the system of Q & A is organized as opposed to random (which can become very frustrating and confusing), and defeat the intention of the explanation to succeed with as much frustration and cunfusion removed as possible.

 

(I posted about this a year or two ago, and at the time was referring to this method as Truth-Basic, which I am sure can be found in a search.)

[arkain101]

I was actually looking to coincide and elaborate on how I was receiving your First Law. What I was conveying is the totality aspect of the law. I understand that the "is" portion is (LOL) the critical part. IMO, from minimalist perspective, the First Law could show up as simple as: Is

 

Well, I thank your for the contribution and effort. The start up of this thread was a bit messy in my opinion. However, I hope I can respond to this to make up for that mistake.

 

In respect to rational thought, the "is" part, is very critical indeed. Removing something that is, essentially changes it to something it as "is not".

 

With all that said, I am spinning on the "everything" part of the assertion. For me this is critical, as I believe the totality of the assertion matters, literally. And I concede that this is a bit semantical, but as a comprehensive, fundamental law, I see it as obvious.

 

I believe based on the direction this effort is going every 'thing' can said to have two types, and therefore be divided into two sections.

section 1)A concept produced by the tools of our stimulus senses(the is-am/ ism)[making this term up as a tool in this post]. This concept is not a direct representation of the source of the stimuli, only an assumed conclusion in order to relate a meaning to it, so that it may become known. 2)An event representing a thing that is recognized by a tool outside of our senses, non stimulus, which is then to be interpreted by our sensory tools (the ism) to apply a concept or lack of a concept to it.

 

That is, I begin with these statements as it is familiar and understandable. However, I will attempt to suggest a change to them which provides, that the things outside of our stimulus are symmetries of the things within or a part of out stimulus concepts. That is, the model is identical, yet the (yet to be proven)naive conception is divided or somehow separated.

 

Agreed. Though wondering if within context of First Law, are "behaviors" and "actions" to be considered things? I venture to say that - no we are not saying these are things.

Based on my statements above, yes they are things relative to an instrument. That is, it causes an interaction, and therefore has property, even if it is unknown to the ism. That is, it contains no conceptual meaning (that we are yet aware of) however is capable to be involved with the ism.

 

I would likely replace know with "understand." Perhaps trivial, but follows from what was already stated. And as I read, "ability to apply meaning to it" I get idea of "it" as either not us, and/or outside of us, when I literally believe we are it. Either way, I would rephrase what you are saying, and perhaps this is just spin, though I would say, "the extent of what we understand about reality is interdependent of ability to derive meaning from within it."

I can agree with this replacement of understand, for know, in the concepts for the ism.

 

I can grant this, but it seems presumptuous. I don't believe that it is necessarily rational to investigate how meanings are constructed and modeled, and furthermore the extents or capacity they can be related.

I suppose I can respond (and am always responding on the voice of this work, not the voice of my beleifs) by saying that the meaning is the construction, the meaning is the model. That is, if existence has/is potential, than that which exists is meaning, and therefore, the measurements that dissect what we observe as physical reality is the actual dissection of meaning (a rational thought).

 

 

While this follows from what you had in paragraph right before it, I already conveyed that I don't know if that necessarily follows in rational way. Or more precisely, I say it seems presumptuous. The belief in existence of "pure form" is presumptuous, from assertion of Law number 1 - Everything that is, exists (as everything).

 

One of the aspects to this is that, the irrational can be shown how it is rational. That is, the irrational we know (like an apple is an orange) is what is pure, whole, and one. Again, this is something I am working to prove.

 

I'm not even sure I understand what pure form means, but humorously, that strikes me as what is near heart of this discussion, understand what "pure form" is and/or means.

 

I hope what has been stated above suffices to fill in that void of non-understanding. In a sense yes, unity is the heart of these axioms as a whole. Unity of all.

 

It is presumptuous! But that is why I'd like to test the validity of these presumptions. Tests, I am certain that be developed.

 

but is ultimately what is being investigated for further understanding of reality of what is and what is not.

 

Precisely. The investigation is to demonstrate how things that are A), and are not A, can be proved in a specific context as neither, A, or not A, and instead, they are both ____ fill the blank (x, z, g...)

 

 

 

Does reality need us to discern if it is real? I believe that "everything that is, exists (as everything)" need not be discerned, interpreted, formulated, conceived of, in order for it to a) exist and :hyper: hold itself together, rationally speaking.

 

I would say that it would be interesting to demonstrate proofs through experiment. Would it not be expected that a fundamental theory would not only be final but would be based on the connecting of all?

 

 

 

 

 

As consciousness, we can be in this (physical) universe, but not necessarily of it. An analogy would be how I can be in a night dream, but that is not necessarily the reality from which my true consciousness resides. Even while all the available "evidence" around me would substantiate that I too have form like everything in that reality. And yet knowledge (or wakefulness of consciousness) would tell me my nature is not bound to that reality, even while in midst of "it" I am convinced that some of it (really most of it) is not me, not of my making alone. And yet, I am literally deriving all meaning from the manifestations I have "constructed" (I'd say projected) onto the nature of (this relative) reality.

 

Do you find it interesting to consider that in a dream, a convincing universe exists for the dreamer? And yet, while someone observes you in sleep, he may discover nothing else occurring besides a series of sets of elementary interactions? And then when you are awake, he can discover nothing else occurring besides a series of sets of elementary interactions? And the form that represents you as a human (the body), has not changed in any way other than how it normally behaves (other then it was still and slow to respond). Meanwhile, you considered yourself to be conscious throughout the entire episode?

 

I believe it is in the axiom that - Everything that is, exists (as Everything)" - in which all rationality springs from and ultimately returns to. Though it is somewhere between, enjoyable and challenging to interpret Everything as "something" and "no-thing" and "not me." Thus understanding the nature of reality from that system, is understanding nature of ourselves, while pretending it is not about us, it is about "it" (reality outside / around).

 

I think I can agree here based on (((Thus understanding the nature of reality from that system, is understanding nature of ourselves, while pretending it is not about us, it is about "it" (reality outside / around).))). Except for, the pretending aspect. Even if this can be proved, I don't think we intentionally pretend such an doing, if we are ignorant of the function even occurring. It may be that if we become aware of the proof and the act of game of It and me, the ism, and the it.. Which I suspect would be put before us some form of a choice.

[jedaisoul]

simultaneity-time concept of space and time: Is there a source I can find this? I am interested to read.

It's on my web site, which is given in my public info. I've already posted it a few times in threads, so I won't repeat it here. I don't want to be accused of flagrant advertising of my site :hyper: