Daniel

Omni-present. Literally. In space and time. Present = Here. Present = Now. Here-and-now = "what is" present-tense, or more simply "is". "What is" is defined by its partner "what isn't", or more simply "isn't" Omni-present = Here-and-now = is + isn't. Omni-present is 1 attribute of infinity. In theory, it would be the smallest part. In context: It seems that Mark was ( hopefully no longer ) misunderstanding what Michael and I were trying to describe. The divine described as infinite is not numeric infinity. Although, it can be modeled that way for discussion. The model, naturally, will need to be abandoned or adjusted though, if/when it ceases to match actual, absolute, literal infinity. Numeric infinity is, essentially, a one dimensional version of infinity describing a single attribute, quanitity. A number line. 1 dimensional. 1 attribute. There are ways to expand it to multiple dimensions, and that gets fun, but, basically it's: <---- ... -2 apples, -1 apples, 0 apples, 1 apple, 2 apples, 3 apples, 4 apples ... ----> Even if the model is expanded beyond rational numbers, it's still just 1 dimension and 1 attribute. <---- ... -2 apples, -1 apples, 0 apples, 1 apple, 2 apples, 3 apples, π apples, 4 apples ... ----> What I was trying to say is the version of infinity, the divine, that I am describing, is much-much more than that. And I gave examples. It would include much more than numbers. It would include all: objects, actions, ideas, and symbols. And their negations. Not just now, but in the past. Not just now and in the past, but also in the future. Not just now, and in the past, and in the future, but also the mysterious, everything that "could-be". If I consider just the "here-and-now" which is omni-present, isn't it much much smaller than the remainder of absolute, literal infintiy? It's just a snap-shot in time. Omni-present = "what is and what isn't" in a specific moment called "now". If I consider what is and what isn't in a specific moment, isn't that much-much bigger than a 1 dimensional number line of a specific attribute, quantity? So, what I'm saying is, "Mark, I am certainly not talking about numeric infinity no matter how it is constructed: using natural numbers, using rational numbers, using real numbers, using complex numbers... all of those are too small. Why? Because. If I consider the smallest components of absolute literal infinity, which is just a snap-shot in time, "is + isn't", even this is much-much bigger than numeric infinity. Any and all versions of numeric infinity are completely included and eclipsed by just a single moment of infinity, a snap-shot in time. How much more so for absolute literal infinity which includes and eclipses "is + isn't"? "

Here you: https://www.thedaobums.com/?app=core&module=system&controller=content&do=find&content_class=forums_Topic&content_id=51672&content_commentid=1004301 It is accessible from the little grey arrow on the top right corner of the quote:

{ deleted - irrelevant }

What are the circumstances which culminated in these deaths? Please. This is very important to me. Is there anything else that is known besides their reflection on their body? What sort of monks were they?

1st, I don't even know who actually wrote the quote. Is it the zen priest in the picture? Is it the one whose name is written there? I've seen quotes that are attributed to buddha, but, when I research them, it turns out that they are not. 2nd, I don't know how the author defines a "spiritual-height", or "perpetual-bliss", or if those words even have any meaning to them at all. Do they speak english? If I say the word "bliss" does this produce the same thoughts, emotions, and reactions in the author as they produce in me? A great example of this is the word "God" captial "G". Depending on the individual, for example, a Trinitarian Christian compared to a Muslim Fundementalist, the word "God" produces a significantly different reaction in their mind. 3rd, the quote itself could mean several things. The original image which I commented on was deleted from the thread. Using the words of the quote, and from memory of the picture, this is the closest I could find. Kodo Sawaki Roshi was a Soto Zen priest. According to wikipedia, he ordained many but did not transmit the dharma to the vast majority of those. LINK. Again and again, the dharma transmission has been broken in this tradition. Even in Japan. This indicates to me that there is reason to doubt the authenticity of the quote. What is being denied? "No matter how many years you sit doing zazen, you will never become anything special." Means: "Even if you never sit doing zazen, you will never become anything special." In other words: "No matter what you do, you will never become anything special." "becoming anything special" is being universally and absolutely denied. That's all I can comment on. I've already stated my argument against making this sort of claim about another person's inner-experience. That alone justifies ignoring anyone making such a foolish assertion. In addition, from the imagined "non-dual reality", there is no "you" there is no "other" There is no audience to read these words. There is no one to convince. The author is projecting themself as "all that exists". In this case the word "you" becomes "me", and they are actually talking about themself, to themself, the ultimate combination of confirmation bias combined with preaching to the choir. If someone wants to imagine themself as all there is, and wants to talk to themselves, and convince themselves of this, that they are nothing special no matter what, that has nothing to do with me. And this ignores that there is no "becoming" from the imagined "non-dual reallity" either. What ever "was" or "will be" already is. So the statement lacks credibility, but that doesn't automatically render it false. This renders it false: If I know my own inner-experience, then I know all that I am not. And as I've been writing about in another thread, this sort of negation is infinite. "all that I am not" is a never ending list. This gaurantees that I am unique, and you are unique, and the author is unique, and everyone and everything is unique. Even non-things are unique. All of it is inherently unique and special. It already is. They already are. That's why I say, as soon as someone starts speaking like this, they can be ignored. Time is better spent at the burrito cart.

Thank you for spending time here. I remember when I first read your posts several years ago. It's been a wild ride, and I've learned a lot. It's great news. I'm happy to hear to that. Shalom.

The first 10 minutes of a 3 hour interview? This doesn't even come close to addressing the important question of accuracy of the simulation. Have you done any research on the competing theories of perception? You do know this is just a theory, right? Philosophy, not physical science? Here's another philosopher who would be good to consider. They did a critical review of Hoffman. It's long. 48 pages. But I'm curious to see what they say about it.

A psychologist who is criticising physicists? does this make sense to you? is a psychologist qualified to comment on space-time and these sorts of complicated mathematical constructs? this is far beyond their field of study.

From the wiki-monster: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Donald_D._Hoffman "Within the interface theory of perception, neither primary nor secondary qualities necessarily map onto reality." The key word for me in this sentence is "necessarily". "Within the interface theory of perception, neither primary nor secondary qualities necessarily map onto reality." This ^^ means that qualities might map onto reality OR might not map onto reality. Agreed?

Why not? If what you're saying is true, then these should be simple questions to answer. Or, perhaps what you're saying isn't true. And it's difficult to admit it.

you lost me, sorry.

certain-doubt = certain-nondoubt ? certainly doubtful= certainly not doubtful ?

i vote no. ok.

Ah. Yes. Thank you. Sorry. I did get confused.

This one I did double check: "The axiom of regularity together with the axiom of pairing implies that no set is an element of itself" https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Axiom_of_regularity So, it's both. {} ⊆ {} violates the axiom of regularity together with the axiom of pairing.

{} ⊆ {} violates the axiom of formation/regularity?

it's listed somewhere in the thread. relevance? all that matters is, the set of all sets suffers from a paradox of self-reference. {} suffers from the same paradox. edit: unless.... like I've been saying. the inclusive ⊆ actually is inverted and means ... something else. I'll leave it at that.

anticiptation

My only reply to this is to restate what I previously wrote. and my experiences have led me, speaking only for myself, to a certain-doubt. this cultivates humility and opens my mind among other things.

Hopefully you saw my answer to this? Because I am not limiting infinity to numbers. Once everything is included, then there really is only 1. It literally includes everything, and every non-thing, and every possible thing. There can only be 1 of those. Even if i were limiting infinity to a specific domain ( why would I do that? ) the broadband spectrum is a better analogy. No holes. Any spectrum is a better analogy than numeric infinity. And. There are no holes in uncountable infinity. Like I said. I'm not sure why you're saying there is.

Did Moses doubt or was he certain? I don't know. My concern ( if that's a proper description ) is the focus of the thread: "perfection" so, I would say that Moses is not the ideal, but it's not about doubt or certainty. without some additional info from you or in writing, I'm not able to say much more than that. are spiritual laws and doing one's duty exciting? That depends. the excitement can be cultivated and I think that is good and important. It brings the service to a higher level. my question is, can it be cultivated in certainty? is doubt required for that cultivation? granted there is certainty-of-doubt, but I consider that a version of doubt, not a version of certainty. if doubt leads to excitement, and certainty prohibits it, and excitement brings the service to a higher level, then, doubt is good in that context and should not be abandoned nor compromised... in that context. not in grizzly territory

It's good to know this. I had the same reaction to one of your posts to me. Not that it is a good reason, but, the combination of the comment with the avatar sets a sarcastic tone for me.

and this is relevant to the topic because it seems like having absolutely no doubt is being lifted up as an ideal of "perfect". i'm asking "is it ideal"? it's assumed to be ideal?

no, of course not. i think there's an important distinction between having no doubt, and lacking doubt in some things. If I scroll up, I think it will be clear that no doubt, absolutely none, was being discussed. bringing an example of the pious doesn't quite fit if they are only partially lacking doubt. but this depends on what you mean by mission and what you mean by "Saint" capital "S". If you mean Christian Saints, then the 72 are relevant for discussion.

No doubts about certain things? That's different than having no doubt unqualified. Is their mission exciting? what is exciting about it? how are you defining their mission? when the 72 were sent, did they know how they would be rec'd? Luke 10?