• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

One ~Thing~ observing two stars simultaneously

@Molinaro: If your distillation is accurate, I can't find anything in it to object to. *shrug* Seemed a long way to go to get there. Glad you did the heavy lifting... :-}
 
I offer my own attempt at translation, which may differ a bit from Molinaro's:

lifegazer said:
I just went outside and looked up at the clear sky. There were many stars in my view. Some were very close together... so close that I could observe two stars simultaneously. More actually.

... So, the conclusion is that ONE ~thing~ observes two+ ~things~ simultaneously.
Click to expand...
He saw two different objects, at the same time (regardless of their actual light-years of distance apart), and calls it a single observation.

... The conclusion is NOT that many things individually observe alot of other single things.
Click to expand...
This was not two observations made at the same time, this was one, single observation that happens to have what looks like two different objects in it. Are we clear, so far?

The ~thing~ embracing all observation is absolutely singular.
Click to expand...
There can be only one person making a specific observation, from a specific vantage point.

Even if you're obstinate-enough to argue that many individual things observe alot of other single things, you must eventually yield to the fact that ~something~ absolutely-singular embraces 'the picture' as a whole.
Click to expand...
Even if you argue you just saw two (or more) different things at the same time, you must admit that only one person made that specific observation, from that specific vantage point.

So?
... So the entity that is You is absolutely singular and embraces the totality of it's experience = the whole world that 'you' experience is within you.

So?
... So... those two stars out there... are not "out there".
Click to expand...

However, you can never really tell, (even if other witnesses testify to it), that those objects you saw really exist. They could merely be a figment of your imagination. A figment made out of whatever "stuff" experience is made from.

(And that experience exists only within you, the observer, of course.)

So?
... So, the space and time I also perceive between my [apparent] own body and those two [apparently] distant stars, is an illusion, for there can be no space and no time (no division) between an absolutely-singular entity. Regardless, if those two stars are illusions within 'me', then the time & space between them, must also be illusion.
Click to expand...
Here, he repeats the point I made above, using a different set of words. But, he adds spacetime to the list of possible illusions.

Space & time are not absolute. Just relative concepts regarding unreal objects observed within an absolutely-singular being that is, by logical-default, indivisible in itself.
Click to expand...
Again, the same point, but more concise. The last bit reiterates the idea that there is only one (indivisible) person having these supposedly illusionary experiences.

Open your eyes and have a look around. You embrace the totality of every-thing that you experience... and the laws-of-physics and the concepts associated to them, ONLY relate to that experience.
Click to expand...
Here he seems to claim the following: You can not trust the laws of science, because they only relate to your possibly illusionary experiences.

(Ironically enough, he indicates that we can determine this by "opening our eyes". But, that could just be an analogy for "opening your mind".)

They do not relate to THE ABSOLUTE entity which embraces that experience - 'You'.
Click to expand...
He extends his claim by saying: Science can not be trusted, because it can not determine where you, as an experiencer of objects, ultimately came from.

If my translation is correct, I would say his assessment of science is at best misguided, at worst dangerous.

I politely remind lifegazer that the purpose of science is only to build provisional, useful models of the universe around us, based on whatever we can manage to experience. Science was never meant to be the search for ultimate truth.
 
Last edited:
I suspect Molinaro is right. It's also significant that he managed to distill it into a handful of sentences. It seems that when all of the illogical statements are excised Lifegazer is simply attempting to restate some of the early elements from Descartes' "Method of Doubt". But without more structure to his proposition his claims are only fragmentary.

Steven
 
Wowbagger said:
I politely remind lifegazer that the purpose of science is only to build provisional, useful models of the universe around us, based on whatever we can manage to experience. Science was never meant to be the search for ultimate truth.
Click to expand...
And I would remind lifegazer that science is pretty damn goodl at building useful models that enable us to communicate over long distances, travel, prevent and cure disease and simplify our lives. These provisional models might be wrong but it doesn't stop most of us from availing ourselves of them.

That is the biggest fly in your ointment lifegazer as far as I am concerned. Hot fudge sundaes might not be real but they sure taste good and believing that they are not real won't stop me from gaining weight. I personally find life easier to assume that it is real. If I assume that it is not real nothing really changes. I'll still gain weight by eating too much.
 
When I open my eyes I see science working... it's "what works" systematized.

I can't make head nor tail of lifegazer's text. Doesn't matter much. Being a simple-minded critter I go by that quotation someone has as a sig -- to the effect that "When you stop believing, what remains is reality." :-}
 
Meffy said:
When I open my eyes I see science working... it's "what works" systematized.QUOTE]

It's funny how often people who tell you to "open your eyes" are really asking that you do just the opposite.

Steven
Click to expand...
 
lifegazer said:
I just went outside and looked up at the clear sky. There were many stars in my view. Some were very close together... so close that I could observe two stars simultaneously. More actually.

... So, the conclusion is that ONE ~thing~ observes two+ ~things~ simultaneously.
Click to expand...
When are you going to admit that you were not really observing them. You were just experiencing the observation. It's gotten beyond a joke - not just because you're wrong, but because until you reform yourself to a position that is obvious from this post you will not progress.
 
RandFan said:
I'll still gain weight by eating too much.
Click to expand...

Not after the revolution you won't. There'll be no eating after the revolution because there must be no death and no suffering, remember? So there will be no flab. Everyone will have a perfect body.

No fudge sundaes. No lobsters. No Parma ham. No scones with clotted cream and strawberry jam.
 
JustGeoff said:
Has anyone established what "~thing~" is supposed to mean?
Click to expand...
It reminds me of an anecdote from Spike Milligan's war memoirs. An NCO had been aggravated beyond endurance by the stupidity of a new recruits and, because he wasn't allowed to swear at the men, ended up shouting "you...you...you...~thing~, you!"
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom