Within Everything Exists Everything

We seem to just make it up as we go and everybody kind of agrees to it [until it changes again and everybody believes that until it changes again...so on and so forth].

The bottom-line is that even the simplest of things is created by an infinite number of things preceding, so how is it that we could possibly understand it? Add to this witch's brew the fact that everything is in constant flux and that we do not exist in the present so even our keenest observation has already dated because of the time lag of perception, so on and so on...

 

So it all means nothing and it's a big morass of nonsense why bother trying to communicate?

So how do you understand English what even is English do you understand the words I'm saying? How?

Sounds like postmodernist pseudo intellectual nonsense to me.

 

Id like to see what you got to back that up

 

"I'm interacting with my conceptualisation of an apple" - How much dope do you have to smoke/ingest to talk like that?

 

How so? It seems to me that that's all that understanding is, and all it needs to be. Have you come up with some completely different concept, and decided to label it "understanding" even though that word already means something else to everyone else?

Not sure what that's supposed to illustrate.

Why do you label this "true understanding"? What you're describing seems more like some kind of omniscience (maybe not quite). I see no reason to conflate the thing you're talking about with "understanding".

 

It's how we have to talk about what our brain thinks of the world. "Understanding" happens in our brains, and it can only work with what our brains have conceptualised, and in fact it only needs to work with what our brains have conceptualised.

I'm sure I can improve my wording of it, but the idea is a pretty common approach to the mind-body problem. Our mind works with simplifications of reality, and that is not a bug, it's a feature.

 

3 Joints, LSD, & 6 pack of beer

 

Barely.

Sounds like postmodernist pseudo intellectual nonsense to me.[/QUOTE]Why is that?

You just have to think about the intellect in a different way. You, like most, are extremely attached to your perception of reality, but it's really something that's quite fluid. Understanding that you cannot really understand is really quite liberating!

 

What actually do you believe exists outside of your own mind? Not that things don't exist, but what is existent to you is personal, that is, each of us has our own reality.

 

I already explained this to you.
Time is an abstract measuring tool we apply to our observations, nothing more.
A frog has absolutely no awareness of time as we know it.
The frog did not disappear due to lacking time.
It sounds like you are confusing time with entropy or enthalpy or something along those lines.
your claim otherwise makes no sense on any rational level I can think of with the one exception, the possibility of maybe being more specific.

 

No, I am just saying that everything is in constant flux and therefore we cannot "understand" them in any certain way. It would be like trying to pinpoint the exact position of each water molecule in a flowing river in real time. You can't. This is the way all things work.

That the great majority of what we do happens before our discriminating mind kicks in. Other species carry out incredibly complex tasks without any understanding.[/quote]

The point is that people believe they can actually understand when they cannot. It has serious ramifications and is a large part of learning how to detach.

 

because it's cognitive dissonance masquerading as intellectualism.

More cognitive dissonance.

 

I haven't heard such gobbldeygook since I left San Diego and heard a guy in sandals strumming a guitar under a tree as high as a kite.

 

Why is that?

You just have to think about the intellect in a different way. You, like most, are extremely attached to your perception of reality, but it's really something that's quite fluid. Understanding that you cannot really understand is really quite liberating![/QUOTE]
Sounds "fluid" alright. Brown fluid.

 

Denigrating what we understand on the basis of there being outstanding questions is really just absolute silliness.

For example, not being able to resolve quantum field theory and gravity is impacting NO practical decisions we are making.

 

Now we are getting to the heart of the matter!

Time is how our minds attempt to make sense out of reality. Consider the following...as the observer, each object in your field of view is at a different distance and therefore takes a specific amount of "time" to be perceived [based on its distance]. With this understanding, each object would be existent in a different time, that is, all things exist in different times.

Well, our minds really can't deal with this scenario so we seem to make it such that all these different objects exist at the same time, that is, in our human reality. Once you begin to acknowledge the absurdity of believing that everything exists at the same time, you begin to consider alternatives until you figure out that you cannot figure it out and you let it go.

 

Why not engage in the conversation? Think about it.

 

Sounds "fluid" alright. Brown fluid.[/QUOTE]Why not discuss the idea? Are you certain that your take on reality is The Reality?

 

I am. I'm just not agreeing with post modernist nonsense. In fact I'm calling it what it is.

 

I am not denigrating anything. I am simply stating that real understanding is not possible. Can you refute what I am saying?

 

This has nothing to do with the relative nature of things. It simply is a matter of common sense. How can you understand something that changes constantly?

 

Have another toke.

 

Why not discuss the idea? Are you certain that your take on reality is The Reality?[/QUOTE]
But if the reality is the time dependent component of absurdity, then the imperfection of squalid places is obviously reflected in the steadfastness of its own unreality. Having said this, then it follows that existential irrelevance of both the image and velocity of the idea-gathering elements of consciousness must be accounted for in terms of stationary, or moving considerations only found in the fields of view not only of direct observers, but in the eyes of indirect participants. This is, of course, unless the normal reference points have become fluid and may actually be outpacing the events being addressed in both the present and the past, with emphasis on cognitive strengths and shortfalls as defined by the governing body, its representatives, or the public at large. GET IT?

 

Well I was going to explain what I'd thought was the plain meaning of saying that time collapses on itself, in relation to your example: that the frog's entire life, everything it ever did, would exist simultaneously. But then I saw that @impermanence 's answer to you, was not anything at all, in that vein.

 

Thanks, I like this version:

People also ask

What is it called when time collapses?

A gravitational singularity, spacetime singularity or simply singularity is a condition in which gravity is so intense that spacetime itself breaks down catastrophically.

Gravitational singularity - Wikipedia
https://en.wikipedia.org › wiki › Gravitational_singularity