One ~Thing~ observing two stars simultaneously

[lifegazer]

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.
... The conclusion is NOT that many things individually observe alot of other single things.

The ~thing~ embracing all observation is absolutely singular.
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.

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".

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.

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.


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.
They do not relate to THE ABSOLUTE entity which embraces that experience - 'You'.

 

[Donks]

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.
... The conclusion is NOT that many things individually observe alot of other single things.

Sorry, what were the premises that you used to reach this conclusion?

 

[lifegazer]

Sorry, what were the premises that you used to reach this conclusion?

One ~thing~ embraces [observes] the vision of the whole divided world.

 

[Beleth]

Oh, so it's tildes now, is it?

Lifegazer, what is the difference between a ~thing~ and a thing?

 

[Donks]

One ~thing~ embraces [observes] the vision of the whole divided world.

Your single premise seems remarkably similar to yor conclusion. Since you only have one premise, that was to be expected.

 

[lifegazer]

Your single premise seems remarkably similar to yor conclusion. Since you only have one premise, that was to be expected.

So, your plan is to disregard the argument by pretending that you don't understand it?

My first post was very clear.

And by the way [Beleth], I used tildes around 'thing' to differentiate it from the things-of-the-world that 'it' was observing.

Even a simpleton should understand that ~an object~ is distinct from the 'things' that are embraced within it's experience.

... Though, this isn't about what makes sense, is it? It's about desparate egos
"diving in the box" in the hope of a penalty.

You're both red-carded.

 

[Beleth]

Just trying to understand you...

So ~things~ observe and experience things, then?

 

[Donks]

So, your plan is to disregard the argument by pretending that you don't understand it?

I don't actually have a plan to disregard your argument, because you don't have an argument. You have an assertion.

... Though, this isn't about what makes sense, is it? It's about desparate egos
"diving in the box" in the hope of a penalty.

You're both red-carded.

Cool, I'll go watch a movie instead. Hey, how's your mountain moving going?

 

[RandFan]

My first post was very clear.

Really?

Premise: You (1 thing) viewed two stars simultaneously (2 things)
Conclusion 1: One thing observes two things.
Conclusion 2: Many things do not observe many other single things.

Huh?

For the love of Ed learn some formal logic. Hell, learn some informal logic.

Your argument is nonsensical.

 

[Foster Zygote]

Lifegazer, do you mind if I really blow your mind. Those two stars were most likely thousands of light-years apart from one another. One may well be much nearer to the ONE ~thing~ that observes them than the other ~thing~. Now suppose you are standing with a companion and you point this 2+~things~ out to ~thing~, would that not be 2 ~things~ observing the ~things~?

Seriously, are you trying to make an argument supporting solipsism?

Steven

 

[RandFan]

Gazer, your argument is so bad it isn't even wrong. As far as I can tell, at best, it is tautalogical. Asside from that it is a non-argument. It's more of an odd assertion.

An argument is "a connected series of statements to establish a definite proposition."

 

[I less than three logic]

He appears to be using English, or at least the letters and some of the words appear to be in English. However, when the standard syntax for decoding the English language back into ideas is used, the results make absolutely no sense whatsoever. I think we should first establish what language lifegazer is actually using, perhaps all these letters he strings together will make some sense then.

 

[Tricky]

Oh, so it's tildes now, is it?

Lifegazer, what is the difference between a ~thing~ and a thing?

He will rant ~ mountains crumble to the sea.
He will babble ~ stars fall from the sky.
He will spout gibberish ~ day he ceases to be.
He will be a fool ~ fools all die.

 

[Foster Zygote]

He will rant ~ mountains crumble to the sea.
He will babble ~ stars fall from the sky.
He will spout gibberish ~ day he ceases to be.
He will be a fool ~ fools all die.

................................................OH! Hee hee hee!

Steven

 

[Jimbo07]

I just went outside and looked up at the clear sky.

You'll note that I've just learned how to operate a door knob. My mom's so proud! Anyway,

There were many stars in my view. Some were very close together... so close that I could observe two stars simultaneously. More actually.

I even tried counting them! I lost track after 1 and 1 and 1 and 1

... So, the conclusion is that ONE ~thing~ observes two+ ~things~ simultaneously.

Let me reiterate: since there are at least two (1 and 1 and 1 I think) stars that I could see, therefore I'm the only ~ thing ~ that exists! This hurt my head bone, which I concluded was just an experience. This hurt more.

... The conclusion is NOT that many things individually observe alot of other single things.

Again, the conclusion is that there is only a singular #~ thing ~# and that @#~ thing ~#@ is me. Since this conclusion is so stupid and only the singular !@#~ thing ~#@! can make stupid conclusions, it must have meant that I was stupid. This made me sad.

The ~thing~ embracing all observation is absolutely singular.

That's me. Or wait...

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.

Which could be you.

Do you get it? Let me say it again:

There is one singular *!@#~ thing ~#@!* that is separate and embraces the whole. It is me, the observer. Unless it is you.

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 just so we're clear, I'm not making AyouA up. You exist and you're singular

So?
... So... those two stars out there... are not "out there".

Which really baked my cake! Think about it! If I'm in here having a bunch of singular experiences and you're out there having singular experiences, the stars can't be "out there."

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.

Except, of course, the space and time between you and me.

Regardless, if those two stars are illusions within 'me', then the time & space between them, must also be illusion.

Because if I have experiences there can be nothing generating those experiences. You singular jerks will say that even though you agree that an experience is different from the &^%$%&$&^&^ thing %@!$&^*&) itself, there can still be a thing generating those other qualia(edit Jimbo: Ooh I finally got to use that word in line with a post ).

Space & time are not absolute. Just relative concepts regarding unreal objects

Exacitactly as Einstein would have said if he wasn't in a cabal dedicated to licking Newton's grave.

observed within an absolutely-singular being that is, by logical-default, indivisible in itself.

Or at least, by logical-default as I understand it. There, I sure trumped you skepticalistidioticians.

Open your eyes and have a look around.

Like I did when I saw those stars. I'm pretty sure they were stars. My mom keeps telling me to stop staring at streetlights, but I don't know why she says this.

You embrace the totality of every-thing that you experience...

And if, for example I want to embrace my teddy bear... well... darn it... I don't care what you think, because I'm singular.

and the laws-of-physics and the concepts associated to them, ONLY relate to that experience.

Which is exactly why science needs to deform.

They do not relate to THE ABSOLUTE entity which embraces that experience - 'You'.

So here's my cunning plan for science. Instead of quantifying everything non-existant that's "out there," we'll try to quantify the singular. Ready? ...

1.

There. That was easy! It was way easier than counting those darned stars. Whoa! This is way better than that old science stuff. Now I'm going to quantify everything else!

0.

Dang! That's slick. See? If only science were how I decide, then we'd be making great progress! We could soon dance on rainbows! Oh wait, rainbows don't exist because I'm the only

[][][][][][][][][][][][][]thing[][][][][][][][][][][][]

...

 

[RandFan]

Again, the conclusion is that there is only a singular #~ thing ~# and that @#~ thing ~#@ is me. Since this conclusion is so stupid and only the singular !@#~ thing ~#@! can make stupid conclusions, it must have meant that I was stupid. This made me sad.

Damn what a great post.

 

[Zep]

This post has exactly 234 letters, including spaces. That's how many "things" you are observing here, if letters are "things". Of course, you could count pixels as "things", which gives you a completely different number.

Pointless, no?

 

[Meffy]

Clarification requested. Is this the ~thing~ that gets mentioned in all those great old sci-fi horror flicks? You know:

"Sweet mother of Tesla! What could have crumpled the Impervium plates in this Earthian Peace Forces XZ-1 rocketship's hull like so much tinfoil?"

"I don't know, General, but some one or... some ~thing~ has it in for us Earthmen -- and whatever it is, you're just the general to shoot big guns at it! Now get out there and get vaporized. Our special effects team are waiting."

 

[Mojo]

I'm off to another thread (or possibly even another forum) where I won't be observing you.

Bye.

 

[Ryokan]

I'm off to another thread (or possibly even another forum) where I won't be observing you.

Bye.

Imagine observing two of him.