I'm saying that you're largely asking the wrong questions. You were asking the right question when you asked "who am I".
RightSide, I know a lot about physics. Like, a lot. Too much. And everything I know about it leads me to the conclusion that the universe is purely deterministic. That time and causality are as linear as a fucking cassette tape, that all my decisions are already made by circumstance of preconditions.
But I don't live that way. I presume that I have free will even though the science tells me convincingly that I probably don't.
Why?
Because I want to have a house on the shore of the great lakes with a boat and a hot wife and go fishing and hunting and eat tasty animals for dinner. I want to believe that I will get there and that when I do it will be because I spent a lifetime getting there.
That's my meaning. It might be the case that I have absolutely no control over whether that happens, but I choose to believe that I have the power to make it happen.
I choose to believe "I am me" when I strongly suspect there is no "I" at all.
it is entirely possible that an outer context exists which cannot be proven to exist
Let me put this into a different perspective...you can physically perceive that you exist; yet you can only mentally comprehend that your existence (life) is defined by a beginning (inception) and an end (death).
Now add motion as the foundation to existence...you represent ONE magnetic potential, within the momentum, of ALL electric potentiality. Your beginning was set into motion (inception); you're now perceiving the consequence of that action within motion (life) and since all actions have consequences within motion, your end (death) was already defined when the beginning (inception) was set.
You're in balance between two natural opposites (beginning and end; defined by motion), and as a potential, you perceive being physically in use; while only able to mentally comprehend the unused potentiality of the electric flow that sustains your magnetic existence.
Both body and mind in balance represents communication between ALL and ONE within motion. Whenever others speak about "prove" (from probo; to test) they only refer to the physical perception; not the mental comprehension.
divine
That's the inversion under a false authority (deity). Each of us is ONE within ALL; and ALL is ONE in energy. ONEs free will of chocie represents ONEs sole authority over self within ALL. They inverted this through suggestion of the opposite in exchange for consent by free will to "believe" them.
Instead of using reason to what I just wrote (conflict between belief in truth versus false); try to utilize implication (if/then) , which is in adherence to motion (as taught in the talmud btw).
This is the only part of that wall of text that actually matters.
You're too focused on the extraneous.
No.
I'm saying that you're largely asking the wrong questions. You were asking the right question when you asked "who am I".
RightSide, I know a lot about physics. Like, a lot. Too much. And everything I know about it leads me to the conclusion that the universe is purely deterministic. That time and causality are as linear as a fucking cassette tape, that all my decisions are already made by circumstance of preconditions.
But I don't live that way. I presume that I have free will even though the science tells me convincingly that I probably don't.
Why?
Because I want to have a house on the shore of the great lakes with a boat and a hot wife and go fishing and hunting and eat tasty animals for dinner. I want to believe that I will get there and that when I do it will be because I spent a lifetime getting there.
That's my meaning. It might be the case that I have absolutely no control over whether that happens, but I choose to believe that I have the power to make it happen.
I choose to believe "I am me" when I strongly suspect there is no "I" at all.
https://communities.win/c/General/p/12i43vOtzV/the-suppressed-potential-of-man/c/
I find this to be extremely strong evidence for something beyond deterministic physics at play, even in our plane/“context” of existence
...
You think that guys showing that they can be really dumb and withstand pain says something about the fundamental nature of the universe?
I think it shows that humans aren't that much different from rams, butting heads to show who should get to fuck.
EXTRA'NEOUS, adjective [Latin extraneus.] - "Foreign; not belonging to a thing; existing without; not intrinsic".
ALL is ONE in energy. All existence coexists. There's no existence outside ALL existence, which would be a contradiction of itself.
I used to think like that.
Writing lots of software changed my perspective on that a bit.
The simulationists are correct in one regard, it is entirely possible that an outer context exists which cannot be proven to exist.
It is in that ambiguous outer context void that I entertain the possibility (even likelihood) of divinity.
Let me put this into a different perspective...you can physically perceive that you exist; yet you can only mentally comprehend that your existence (life) is defined by a beginning (inception) and an end (death).
Now add motion as the foundation to existence...you represent ONE magnetic potential, within the momentum, of ALL electric potentiality. Your beginning was set into motion (inception); you're now perceiving the consequence of that action within motion (life) and since all actions have consequences within motion, your end (death) was already defined when the beginning (inception) was set.
You're in balance between two natural opposites (beginning and end; defined by motion), and as a potential, you perceive being physically in use; while only able to mentally comprehend the unused potentiality of the electric flow that sustains your magnetic existence.
Both body and mind in balance represents communication between ALL and ONE within motion. Whenever others speak about "prove" (from probo; to test) they only refer to the physical perception; not the mental comprehension.
That's the inversion under a false authority (deity). Each of us is ONE within ALL; and ALL is ONE in energy. ONEs free will of chocie represents ONEs sole authority over self within ALL. They inverted this through suggestion of the opposite in exchange for consent by free will to "believe" them.
Instead of using reason to what I just wrote (conflict between belief in truth versus false); try to utilize implication (if/then) , which is in adherence to motion (as taught in the talmud btw).
That's just your perspective on it.
Life is continuous.