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?

Imagine being blessed with a predetermined meditation session with your cat. Thats some good life right there.

First of all, I agree that we dont know shit, im just laying down possible options. Second of all , you pointing to epistemic issues doesnt engage with metaphysics. You not knowing what is true is compatible with weird things being true that you find incredibly implausible. You not knowing X and or you not being justified in thinking that X is true is compatible with X being true. But for clarity - im not arguing in favour of any particular position there, im just introducing more options, thats it.

Since people are making things more difficult and confusing, I will add to the confusion, cause why not. Yes, but that doesn't exhaust the possibility space. For example, having preferences that arent caused is a possibility and there your choices arent random at all, they are based on those uncaused preferences. - for instance, having an eternal soul outside of time and space and that soul having preferences. Or we can consider platonic objects determining things (which you can categorize under determinism, but there you need to invoke a different notion of causation that works outside of time and space). And we can complicate things more by introducing the concept of "bruteness" and "brute facts", where a brute fact is a fact that in principle doesn't have an explanation. The relevance of bringing this up is that this can potentially break the dichotomy you created (this can break the idea that if your thoughts arent caused, then they are necessarily random). And then we can cash out how and why brute facts are different from randomness (depending on what is meant by randomness). So for example, If by randomness you mean having a set of n possible options, where each option has an equal probability of being chosen, then thats going to be different from brute facts, because brute facts are compatible with you choosing one particular option no matter how many times we run back the exact same scenario. Generally, the approaches that attempt to “save” some form of free will involve - introducing nuance when it comes to different notions of causation and invoking notions that arent easily or directly mappable onto the dichotomy between randomness and regular causation.

I dont think this is true. We are talking about certain "emergent" properties and the issue about them won't go away, just because give an explanation why and how they emerged. Whether the explanation is a different configuration of the same thing or its about an ontologically different thing doesnt matter in this case, what matters is your contribution to it. You can define it this way (I personally wouldnt, but we can sidestep that and I will try to engage with how you defined things), but again this just pushes the issue down one more layer. You are making the problem about transformation now and as long as you contribute to that transformation, the issue about ethics (under anti-natalism) will still remain. Using your analogy it would be like creating ice from water (and creating the "emergent" property of the water being frozen) and then pretending that just because its fundamentally still the same thing, that "emergent" property is now not an issue somehow.

Im glad, but I could have approached the topic in a less complex way and I should have only added nuance when it is actually necessary. I think Carl managed to cut through whats irrelevant and immediately get to whats relevant to most people (where relevance is roughly defined by how a given view will affect your actions and how it will affect you phenomenologically and not necessarily about whats true independent from those)

Then I fucked up. I probably introduced unnecessary nuance, that I shouldnt have. The one takeway should be just that you dont actually know 100% whats the answer, and you should act as though there is free will.

Im just trying to break down the different versions of determinism and trying to show some of the entailments that comes from those views and also try to point out that depending on what is true, what actions you can take (without trying to push a particular view on you). The other main point is that the creation of this whole thread only make sense if you assume some level of control, because otherwise people giving you answers wont change anything, since under determinism even your reaction to those answers are completely predetermined (including what actions you will take, and what feelings and thoughts those answers will create within you). The other main point is that you shouldnt use Leo as an authority figure on the topic,and all of this is just speculation. Its pragmatically beneficial to act as though free will is true, because it might actually be true.

Im offended by that. UnbornTao fell for a double layered irony.

Yeah this is quite important to mention. The question and the problem is often times loaded with a specific sense of 'you' that is taken for granted.