[futrethink]

JAK.

It is your hypothesis that you are paradoxically both finite and infinite. Thus, the burden of proof should fall on your shoulders.

---True. My burden of proof falls to me, to prove that reality is a paradox.
---You solutions are interesting. Multiple dimensions and the types of limits are also something that, I have ‘been there and done that’ in discussions, if not also, already, thought out and included in my hypothesis and they are indeed, possibilities for one version of me being infinite and finite, but that is not idea that the paragraph contains, if you had read and thought about it; all and everything in it of reality is infinite and finite.

Dream States - if reality is only an illusion of the mind, then true reality may go well beyond our understandings or even our ability to understand.

---True. There will always be a tiny bit of unknown, to be believed to objectively exist and from that, we will always have doubts of our understanding.
---At least, until the time comes when we believe that we do have a full understanding of it and become that objective reality, since there will be nothing to stop us from doing that.

I need your definition of "proof". If "perception" is required for any "proof", then there is no proof for the geologic history of the Earth - especially the precambrian time-frame as well as back to the big-bang. It is external information, not an internal belief, that can be seen/smelt/felt/tasted/heard/recorded/logically or mathematically or chemically put together by/affecting [i]any[i] individual, regardless of their intellectual level, be they animal, human animal, vegetable or mineral (computer, say). This information is to be factual, within existence and considered to be a real and repeatable concept, as relating to the past and in connection with other aspects of reality. Postulating internal/external assumes a definition, thus, creating limits.

---JAK, you simply can’t get past that mindtrap can you? You asked for my definition of what I consider to be ‘proof’ and all you do is take it apart and analyze it to fit your 3 laws. Sheesh.

Please provide some contradictive facts.

---You are frozen in time; absolutely unmoving and going nowhen. You are moving in time; coming from the past, existing in the now and moving into an unknown future.

Natural selection creates instinct. Intelligence is not required unless you stipulate that orderly laws of nature are "intelligence"

---According to Socratic thinking a computer is an intelligence.
---Are the laws themselves intelligence? Hmm, did you really ask that question?

Do either of you have a compelling argument for how complexity can be stored in a simplistic mechanism?

---For me, the hypotheses of the material that, makes up an atom; massenergy or even the quantum strata.
---How simplistic is an atom when its make-up involves an electron, which can be a wave and a particle. Something that can, hypothetically, be non-local: everywhere and no ‘where’. And let us not forget or the positron or the antiparticle of the electron.
---The Uncertainty Principal, shows that for it to be ‘seen/perceived’ by someone or something, an electron would have to be hit with a photon to knock it of course and affect its outcome and yet, where in existence is there not a photon that can be hitting it and causing it to be ‘seen/perceived’ by someone or something
---An electron can be tracked and has a history, within reality, just as it is no ‘where’ and no ‘when’. As a part of an electron’s existence, it is connected to other things through advanced and retarded waves. A Google list of links:
http://www.google.ca/search?hl=en&client=firefox-a&rls=org.mozilla:en-USfficial&hs=P15&sa=X&oi=spell&resnum=0&ct=resul t&cd=1&q=advanced,+retarded+waves,+electron&spell= 1 One specific link with cached: http://72.14.205.104/search?q=cache:hzwycQNl-nUJ:www.npl.washington.edu/ti/TI_30.html+electron,+advanced,+retarded+waves&hl=e n&ct=clnk&cd=2&gl=ca&client=firefox-a
---Let me add in another thought for the simplistic electron/positron/make-up of the atom; quantum entanglement http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_entanglement
---Even if the atom is separate from other atoms, that were a part of the mind that contained the original idea, are no longer in that one mind are you sure that those atoms are still not in contact, in a transformed state that can still retain the original idea, as a part of that atom’s existence.

---Your answer to the opening question, in post # 60, will tell me, for sure, whether you understand your own 3 laws hypothesis, as well as you think you do, but I already believe I know the answer.

[futrethink]

Mohan.C.

An atom cannot hold anything. It is just a medium of energy transfer.

---An atom has to hold itself together. It holds a field that, acts as a magnet/receptacle/way station. It must therefore have some ‘memory’ of how to act like an atom, does it not?

I should say your analogy is wrong. butterfly does not come with a caterpillar's death. I'm talking of ideas lost with death you're talking about transformation.

---Yeah, ‘transformation’ is a good enough symbol for it, for now. You are talking about how that one idea is lost from one human individual’s knowledge or/and when it is not passed on to another human individual, the gorilla example notwithstanding.
---I am talking about the idea/knowledge/same variables being put together continuing after an individual’s death, within existence, in a way that is differently perceived, but is no less a part of that previously living individual’s existence.

[JAK]

Originally Posted by futrethink JAK. ---I have one question for you, before I continue answering your post: will your 3 laws be right for; all times, all space and all circumstances?

The 1st law is valid for all times, all space and all circumstances. If differences do not exist anywhere else in all times, all space and all circumstances, then wherever that is (or how ever that is) such a situation is different from this universe. This universe exists; thus, in the superset of all universes, differences exist since they exist here. Whether the 2nd and 3rd laws apply, I have not thought through it. If any universe incorporates any type of dynamism, the 2nd law applies. If differences (1st and 2nd law) are determined as relative (by comparison), then the 3rd law applies, too. No matter what universe you can conceive, this universe has the 3 laws. Therefore, in the universal set (which includes anything, anytime, anywhere), the 3 laws a difference exist.

Now, whether these laws are a subset is debatable. In other words, do they apply in all circumstances everywhere and anytime? Maybe. I dunno. But they apply here, right now.

I'm sure you've got something up your sleeve. Give me your best shot.

[JAK]

Originally Posted by futrethink JAK. ---True. My burden of proof falls to me, to prove that reality is a paradox. ---You solutions are interesting. Multiple dimensions and the types of limits are also something that, I have ‘been there and done that’ in discussions, if not also, already, thought out and included in my hypothesis and they are indeed, possibilities for one version of me being infinite and finite, but that is not idea that the paragraph contains, if you had read and thought about it; all and everything in it of reality is infinite and finite. ---True. There will always be a tiny bit of unknown, to be believed to objectively exist and from that, we will always have doubts of our understanding. ---At least, until the time comes when we believe that we do have a full understanding of it and become that objective reality, since there will be nothing to stop us from doing that. ---JAK, you simply can’t get past that mindtrap can you? You asked for my definition of what I consider to be ‘proof’ and all you do is take it apart and analyze it to fit your 3 laws. Sheesh. ---You are frozen in time; absolutely unmoving and going nowhen. You are moving in time; coming from the past, existing in the now and moving into an unknown future. ---According to Socratic thinking a computer is an intelligence. ---Are the laws themselves intelligence? Hmm, did you really ask that question? ---For me, the hypotheses of the material that, makes up an atom; massenergy or even the quantum strata. ---How simplistic is an atom when its make-up involves an electron, which can be a wave and a particle. Something that can, hypothetically, be non-local: everywhere and no ‘where’. And let us not forget or the positron or the antiparticle of the electron. ---The Uncertainty Principal, shows that for it to be ‘seen/perceived’ by someone or something, an electron would have to be hit with a photon to knock it of course and affect its outcome and yet, where in existence is there not a photon that can be hitting it and causing it to be ‘seen/perceived’ by someone or something ---An electron can be tracked and has a history, within reality, just as it is no ‘where’ and no ‘when’. As a part of an electron’s existence, it is connected to other things through advanced and retarded waves. A Google list of links: http://www.google.ca/search?hl=en&client=firefox-a&rls=org.mozilla:en-USfficial&hs=P15&sa=X&oi=spell&resnum=0&ct=resul t&cd=1&q=advanced,+retarded+waves,+electron&spell= 1 One specific link with cached: http://72.14.205.104/search?q=cache:hzwycQNl-nUJ:www.npl.washington.edu/ti/TI_30.html+electron,+advanced,+retarded+waves&hl=e n&ct=clnk&cd=2&gl=ca&client=firefox-a ---Let me add in another thought for the simplistic electron/positron/make-up of the atom; quantum entanglement http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_entanglement ---Even if the atom is separate from other atoms, that were a part of the mind that contained the original idea, are no longer in that one mind are you sure that those atoms are still not in contact, in a transformed state that can still retain the original idea, as a part of that atom’s existence. ---Your answer to the opening question, in post # 60, will tell me, for sure, whether you understand your own 3 laws hypothesis, as well as you think you do, but I already believe I know the answer.

Again, you present voluminous information but refuse to stand with one of them for discussion. Even your own presentation sews the seeds of its undoing: "the hypotheses of", "hypothetically", etc. Hypotheses are unproven assertions which are questionable by definition. Even Heizenberg's Uncertainty Principal presents the idea of uncertainty, not because nature is bizarre, but because our tools are unable to provide better information.

And even your "entanglement" link has this glaring caveat:

However, there may be experimental problems, known as "loopholes," that affect the validity of these experimental findings. High-efficiency and high-visibility experiments are now in progress that should confirm or invalidate the existence of those loopholes..

But let's say, for a moment, that all of your links and suppositions are true. I still say that, even as described, everyone of them supports the 3 laws of difference. Even a paradox supports the first law by virtue of using the concept of "not". If "not" does not exist, then no paradoxes exist. You can't have any situation and its opposite unless the 1st law exists. To try to describe a situation any other way, you begin babbling like MJA - everything is equal. There are no features in a universe without differences. It is a void, zilch, nada, zero.

Originally Posted by futrethink ..JAK, you simply can’t get past that mindtrap can you? You asked for my definition of what I consider to be ‘proof’ and all you do is take it apart and analyze it to fit your 3 laws. Sheesh. ...

I'm not sure that I am the one caught in a mindtrap. Why are all of your suppositions so easily placed within the 3 laws? Every sentence you use has nouns, verbs, and modifiers - 1st law, 2nd law, 3rd law. Yes, language may be the source of your undoing, but it would be the same for mental constructs as well. Any image held in the mind and any "feeling" held in the "heart" would fall prey to the same deductive reasoning. Are there no differences in your feelings? Are there no differences in you mental images?

Let's take you "infinite" self. It is truly infinite, then I am included in it and vice versa. If so, why do we ascribe a difference in who the infinite self belongs to?

Maybe we should change the focus.

Why is it important for you to be both finite and infinite? Does this have to do with spirituality per chance?

[futrethink]

JAK.

Now, whether these laws are a subset is debatable. In other words, do they apply in all circumstances everywhere and anytime? Maybe. I dunno. But they apply here, right now.

---This is one of the things that I have up my sleeve. I was waiting for you to admit this, because I knew that you would tear apart anything I bring up, as just being a hypothesis/guess with the possibilities for it to be wrong or to have loopholes.
---Everything that anyone brings up, will always have the possibility of being wrong or having loophole, due to something being unknown and as long as there are things that are known by anyone or anything in existence, there will always be an unknown.
---I have tried to show you a circumstance that applies, here and now, as a way for you to be wrong and you blew it off, because you don’t like it, in relation to your hypothesis: to a person, in a coma, a deep and black sleep (one in which, you wake up not noticing any time has passed or you wake up unsure that you were even asleep) or in a trance, there is no proof, to you, that there are any differences, while you are in that state.
---Now, if all of the concept that we describe as ‘reality’ is like an individual in that state, there are no differences between anything, because there would be absolutely no knowledge of anything. Your 3 laws only work, if there is something/someone to perceive something else as a not. A ‘not’ is only a ‘not’ as long as there is something/someone/an individual to perceive it as having separateness.
---By perception, I mean it as the interaction of ‘fields’ of ‘energy’ at any level; quantum, relative, electric, magnetic, known five senses or whatever. A rock ‘perceives’ another rock hitting it, by the interaction of the granite hitting granite or the electromagnetic fields relating to each other or whatever. That same rock perceives gravity and gravity perceives the rock by the ineraction/perception of the energy fields that each individual concept has, as a part of their existence.

To try to describe a situation any other way, you begin babbling like MJA - everything is equal.

---MJA keeps focusing on things being equal/=, but I see a different perception. For example; reality exists, it doesn’t exist, it is both at the same time, it is neither of them, it is all of the previous at the same time and it is none of the concepts described by this sentence. So, the equal fits in as a part of it, but only as a part.
---For the above example to happen, would be for something to be simply as you describe it:

There are no features in a universe without differences. It is a void, zilch, nada, zero.

or you could call it a singularity or a unique individual, with nothing to compare it to.
---Yes, I know that you will bring up that ‘nothing’ or ’nonexistence’ is a ‘not’, but it is not a not (For something to not be a not, it has to be something, but if it is ‘not’ a thing, how can it be a ‘not’?), since it doesn’t even exist, the argument of being a ‘not’ is moot anyway. It has an existence, but only within certain parameters/variables of being perceived by something/ANYTHING that exists. Take away those parameters/variables, have nothing perceive it and that past ‘existence’ of nonexistence goes away.
---As I have already stated and agreed to, just because you take away a perception, it doesn’t take away the things that were previously perceived about that thing, but again nonexistence is not a ‘thing’, in any way shape or form, it is merely a perception, itself, of a lack of things.

I'm not sure that I am the one caught in a mindtrap.

---Let me repeat that line, with the hopes that you will think about it more, if I place an emphasis on one word; JAK, you simply can’t get past that mindtrap can you?
---You asked me for a definition/explanation of what I think ‘proof’ is to be. Instead of focusing on how the interaction of the, not the same, energy fields that create words prove you right, how about you focus on what information I put forward and get past that mindtrap, huh?

Let's take you "infinite" self. It is truly infinite, then I am included in it and vice versa.

---Comes down to perceptions and what seems to be a play on words, but isn’t; the energy that makes up my being does not stay in one spot or exist in a stasis, at one level of perception and travels through all of existence, so, in a way, my being extends everywhere and includes you as a part of it. It works as vise versa, as well, but it depends on the perception of you and me.

If so, why do we ascribe a difference in who the infinite self belongs to?

---That involves a long discussion on why we have the non-meaning/meaning of life; to search for the answer to the question, “Is there nothing more?”
---Let me put it another way; we/everyone/you/I use/create/see differences to search for if there are anymore differences, out there, past what we/everyone/you/I know is the same in our/everyone’s/your/my existence and not different.

Why is it important for you to be both finite and infinite?

---Perception # 1: It doesn’t mean a damn thing to me, if I am infinite and finite. It also doesn’t mean a thing to the rest of reality since, to the moon, I don’t mean a damn thing either.
---Perception # 2: It is important that I am infinite and finite, because it allows me to have the freedom to choose any future I want, but only from what is available for me to choose from. And others perceive the same thing, when expecting me to make a choice involving them.
---Perception # 3: It is both, because both things are happening to me at the same time.
---Perception # 4: It is neither, because without paying attention to any of those things, I just am.
---Perception # 5: It is all those things, because every one of those things happen within and are perceived by the rest of reality.
---Perception # 6: It is none of these 6 perceptions, because there is nothing outside of reality to give a care or perceive anything and there is no difference of totality of it all.

Does this have to do with spirituality per chance?

---Do you mean in the sense of Drifter’s, MJA’s and Melanie’s ramblings?
---No.
---Drifter’s, MJA’s and Melanie’s ramblings notwithstanding, if you separate the wheat from the chaff, you find that what he (Drifter mainly) is saying is something that scientists are saying in their scientific hypotheses and theories. It is only because, he has learned these things from such writings and that type of style that that is the only way he can think of disseminating the same information.
---He, Drifter, also has an arrogance that, won’t allow him to notice, if someone else is describing the same thing, but using different words. He is too busy selling his ideas, to notice when others already have the same things.

[JAK]

I've been away for over two weeks. Sorry, futrethink. Life is still hectic for me, but I will be more timely (at least for a while).

Originally Posted by futrethink ---This is one of the things that I have up my sleeve. I was waiting for you to admit this, because I knew that you would tear apart anything I bring up, as just being a hypothesis/guess with the possibilities for it to be wrong or to have loopholes.

This is true. To counter, I expect you to produce a testable exception to my rule. Mental contrivances require my 3 laws, so they, too, fail.

But let's not "throw the baby out with the bathwater". Mental jousting has its benefits even if it just exercises infrequently used brain cells. Let's continue ...

Originally Posted by futrethink ---Everything that anyone brings up, will always have the possibility of being wrong or having loophole, due to something being unknown and as long as there are things that are known by anyone or anything in existence, there will always be an unknown.

This is the line of logic is at the root of a flaw with using the powerful Coherence Theory of Truth - unless you are omniscient, this criteria cannot be used. However, from this logic comes the my favorite, Negative Pragmatism, which states that what "works" may or may not be true (due to your logic above), but what fails cannot possibly be true because "the truth always works". The underlying belief is that truths are constants which we can always rely upon. The more constancy, the more powerful the truth.

Originally Posted by futrethink ---I have tried to show you a circumstance that applies, here and now, as a way for you to be wrong and you blew it off, because you don’t like it, in relation to your hypothesis: to a person, in a coma, a deep and black sleep (one in which, you wake up not noticing any time has passed or you wake up unsure that you were even asleep) or in a trance, there is no proof, to you, that there are any differences, while you are in that state. ---Now, if all of the concept that we describe as ‘reality’ is like an individual in that state, there are no differences between anything, because there would be absolutely no knowledge of anything. Your 3 laws only work, if there is something/someone to perceive something else as a not. A ‘not’ is only a ‘not’ as long as there is something/someone/an individual to perceive it as having separateness.

I did not mean to "blow it off". But your example is not compelling. A myriad of differences exist despite the comatose patient not realizing (or observing) them. Failure to observe changes does not eliminate them from existence. But you seem to be suggesting the changes require an observer.

Here is your assertion again: "A ‘not’ is only a ‘not’ as long as there is something/someone/an individual to perceive it as having separateness."

Let's cut to the chase: WHY??!! Why is an observer required for changes to occur, for differences to exist, for any separateness?

Again, I am not "blowing off" your "exception".

The problem appears to be this: I am not convinced that changes (differences) require an observer, and you have not presented a compelling case supporting the need for an observer in order for change to occur. I claim that changes occur inspite of the lack of an observer. Change and differences are independent of their observation.

To convince me otherwise, you will need to show why an observer is needed for change to occur.

(I am breaking this here because the ToE editing software chokes on large posts.)

[JAK]

Originally Posted by futrethink ---By perception, I mean it as the interaction of ‘fields’ of ‘energy’ at any level; quantum, relative, electric, magnetic, known five senses or whatever. A rock ‘perceives’ another rock hitting it, by the interaction of the granite hitting granite or the electromagnetic fields relating to each other or whatever. That same rock perceives gravity and gravity perceives the rock by the ineraction/perception of the energy fields that each individual concept has, as a part of their existence.

A rock hitting a rock is "perception"?? A rock is an observer??!!
Wow, if you are going to redefine standard English as we go along, this will never come to a concensus.
Okay, if a rock can be an observer which "perceives" another rock upon hitting it, then change occurs and differences occur. With this twisted definition of "perceive", then "not" requires "perception".
So what have we gained? If all differences now require "observation", the only place no "observation" and no "perception" can occur is in a featureless void where nothing moves and nothing exists.
Given that such a place exists, it is not here. As a result, there are at least two "places" in the universe - one with features and one with none. Given the duality, the 1st law remains intact. The featureless void is not this corner of the universe. And this corner is not the featureless void part.

Originally Posted by futrethink ---MJA keeps focusing on things being equal/=, but I see a different perception. For example; reality exists, it doesn’t exist, it is both at the same time, it is neither of them, it is all of the previous at the same time and it is none of the concepts described by this sentence. So, the equal fits in as a part of it, but only as a part.

After watching you redefine "perceive", I don't doubt that you can redefine existence and non-existence into meaning the same thing.
So, what have you gained by this feat of grammatical sleight of hand? Let's suppose that everything exists and does not exist? So, what? Of what benefit is that?
Moreover, how do you convince someone that their definitions of existence and non-existence are wrong, or at least, not as useful as yours? Sell me on why your definition of existence and non-existence are better and more useful.

Originally Posted by futrethink ---For the above example to happen, would be for something to be simply as you describe it: or you could call it a singularity or a unique individual, with nothing to compare it to.

Only a featureless void can have "a unique individual, with nothing to compare it to". If it is the "being" surrounded by nothing, then you have duality - that which is "the being" and that which is not (the surroundings of nothing). The only way to retain the singularity is to claim that there is nothing but the being - the being is featureless and is omnipresent and omnipotent. By your definition of perception, you can probably add omniscient to the list, too.

Originally Posted by futrethink ---Yes, I know that you will bring up that ‘nothing’ or ’nonexistence’ is a ‘not’, but it is not a not (For something to not be a not, it has to be something, but if it is ‘not’ a thing, how can it be a ‘not’?), since it doesn’t even exist, the argument of being a ‘not’ is moot anyway. It has an existence, but only within certain parameters/variables of being perceived by something/ANYTHING that exists. Take away those parameters/variables, have nothing perceive it and that past ‘existence’ of nonexistence goes away.

Okay, you claim your “being” is not a void, but it is still featureless as well as omnipotent, omnipresent, and omniscient. I think I'm still with you.

Originally Posted by futrethink ---As I have already stated and agreed to, just because you take away a perception, it doesn’t take away the things that were previously perceived about that thing, but again nonexistence is not a ‘thing’, in any way shape or form, it is merely a perception, itself, of a lack of things.

This is not clear at all. Are you saying that a perception is not a thing? Or are you about to say that this universal "being" is a single perception? If so, please say so.

Originally Posted by futrethink ---Let me repeat that line, with the hopes that you will think about it more, if I place an emphasis on one word; JAK, you simply can’t get past that mindtrap can you?

Let's be nice. You obviously have a mindtrap of your own that you are struggling with. I suggest we stick with the facts (as poorly as they may appear before us).

Originally Posted by futrethink ---You asked me for a definition/explanation of what I think ‘proof’ is to be. Instead of focusing on how the interaction of the, not the same, energy fields that create words prove you right, how about you focus on what information I put forward and get past that mindtrap, huh?

I am trying to get out of my mindtrap, but you do not appear to be doing likewise. You redefine standard terms on the fly ("perceive", existence=non-existence, etc.), and the examples you try to make are not well-conceived. I am trying to adapt to your vocabulary and stay with the spirit of your examples inspite of them. So, bear with me.

(Okay, another breakpoint for the sake of the ToE software which choked again.)

[JAK]

Originally Posted by futrethink ---Comes down to perceptions and what seems to be a play on words, but isn’t; the energy that makes up my being does not stay in one spot or exist in a stasis, at one level of perception and travels through all of existence, so, in a way, my being extends everywhere and includes you as a part of it. It works as vise versa, as well, but it depends on the perception of you and me.

You are now going into the standard All is One idea of Buddhism. (I thought you said earlier that this discussion was not going toward spiritual stuff?)

Originally Posted by futrethink ---Comes down to perceptions and what seems to be a play on words, but isn’t; the energy that makes up my being does not stay in one spot or exist in a stasis, at one level of perception and travels through all of existence, so, in a way, my being extends everywhere and includes you as a part of it. It works as vise versa, as well, but it depends on the perception of you and me.

Your logic is faltering again. Once you fall out of stasis, you are no longer a featureless being. The instance that happens, the 3 laws are activated. And prior to movement, the 3 laws are potentials of the being. Fundamentally, the being has the potential for creating difference whether it "chooses" to or not. (I use "choose" in the same sense that you use "perceive".)

Originally Posted by futrethink ---That involves a long discussion on why we have the non-meaning/meaning of life; to search for the answer to the question, “Is there nothing more?”

I think a short discussion would work. If you declare the universe to be one "being", then there cannot be anything more. This "being" is all, in all (omnipotent, omnipresent, omniscient, and all that jazz.)

Originally Posted by futrethink ---Let me put it another way; we/everyone/you/I use/create/see differences to search for if there are anymore differences, out there, past what we/everyone/you/I know is the same in our/everyone’s/your/my existence and not different. ---Perception # 1: It doesn’t mean a damn thing to me, if I am infinite and finite. It also doesn’t mean a thing to the rest of reality since, to the moon, I don’t mean a damn thing either. ---Perception # 2: It is important that I am infinite and finite, because it allows me to have the freedom to choose any future I want, but only from what is available for me to choose from. And others perceive the same thing, when expecting me to make a choice involving them. ---Perception # 3: It is both, because both things are happening to me at the same time. ---Perception # 4: It is neither, because without paying attention to any of those things, I just am. ---Perception # 5: It is all those things, because every one of those things happen within and are perceived by the rest of reality. ---Perception # 6: It is none of these 6 perceptions, because there is nothing outside of reality to give a care or perceive anything and there is no difference of totality of it all. ---Do you mean in the sense of Drifter’s, MJA’s and Melanie’s ramblings? ---No. ---Drifter’s, MJA’s and Melanie’s ramblings notwithstanding, if you separate the wheat from the chaff, you find that what he (Drifter mainly) is saying is something that scientists are saying in their scientific hypotheses and theories. It is only because, he has learned these things from such writings and that type of style that that is the only way he can think of disseminating the same information. ---He, Drifter, also has an arrogance that, won’t allow him to notice, if someone else is describing the same thing, but using different words. He is too busy selling his ideas, to notice when others already have the same things.

Futrethink, overall, I do not believe you have refuted the 3 laws.

Ultimately, you appear to claim the "Buddha Oneness". Science also agrees that everything in the universe is connected into one whole. The connectedness is termed energy.

To support your claim, it is necessary to envision a universal and featureless potential. That potential holds the ability to create differences within the being itself. (There is nothing else that could be differentiated.) Though this being may be featureless at birth, it can produce features. Thus, this being is the ultimate Creator. And it follows that this being can also return to the featureless state.

However, once this being creates any difference, at least the 1st law of differences exists. Further, because a featureless state pre-existed the featured state, a change has occured and the 2nd law of difference is required. And because any change is relative to the featureless original state of the being, the 3rd law of difference also exists.

Now, once the being returns to the featureless state, do the 3 laws of difference exist? I claim that they do. For without the potential to create difference, the being cannot create, the being cannot move, the being cannot produce feature.

The paradox is how can a being with inherent (but unused) potential be considered featureless? If this being can assume two states - featured and featureless, is this not duality?


BTW, the laws of difference are not limiting. You can still be infinite under the 3 laws if you choose. The 3 laws only say that you can choose to be limited - for as long as you want. And is that not what this "being" does in creating a feature - "choose" a limitation, choose a "not"?

Fundamentally, the 3 laws enable the being to have choice. A truly featureless being cannot "choose", it cannot have multiple states. Only through having choices does it become infinite.