You would make a wonderful companion on a long bus journey.
Observation is inherent in all things at all levels. I assume the meta-being/body would be a quantum mirror, something akin to polarity but where its tao is the manifest/un-manifest instead of negative/positive, matter/antimatter or what have you. If the liquidised version of reality is God, it would be the eye you can take through anything and into any scale of existence. I’d say observing is pretty close to a universal as one could get. That with behaviours and qualities appear to be the basics things at root imho. All of which are facets of the same thing.
The observing you speak of is post? Not an eternal reality? What baffles me is the very concept of time and the afterlife. If the observation that you referenced is the essence of existence, but is dependent, that by itself means there has to be more to existence than just the fact of observation.
What always concerns me is why? Why this or that principle?
I don’t believe in an afterlife myself, just that existence is a work-in-progress.
My latest data on reality is that the point is power possessing itself; the source wants to be able to use itself, yet needs to experience reality in order to achieve that state, otherwise all the source is left with is the problem of difference fighting with the state of being both applier and appliance.
Would you agree with that premise: that reality is the means to the sources’ ability to use itself, and that because of this perfection is perhaps reality itself being the intent, just not relative to the source?
I shall not want…?
…so no distinction between being alive and being dead? I doubt it.
shellytrokan
Cannot a universal observer see also the book of all histories [Einstein’s all-time]? So yes, i’d say its an eternal reality.
Of course, the observer is not dependent though, sorry if I am not explaining that very well. You observe another person and they you, and so there are observers and things observing. I wonder if the act of observing is what makes an observer ~ as I am the observed in your eye, and you mine.
That is a big issue. We only know that there is stuff, my thoughts are that there can’t be nothing, and so reality has to do something else other than that. If it were just emptiness, that would by virtue of there being nothing else, be infinite. So now it is something! …and it hasn’t had to do or change anything for that. Then once you got the infinite, its equal and opposite is going to happen in response and you got the infinitesimal, then what’s inbetween them etc etc.
Well we could say that shape automatically confers utility. So perhaps it doesn’t require the ‘need’ as it just is the said occurrence happening. ‘power’ is what?
I think that a more powerful thought would be in realizing that there is no afterlife (if that be true).
If shellytrokan believes in an afterlife, in what way does that influence his/her life NOW to make that knowledge more powerful than the belief in no afterlife?
What sort of afterlife are we discussing here? Heaven or hell? Reincarnation? Conservation of Energy? Oblivion?
All of them probablyI. I think this universe is so vast and time being only a figment of our imagination, that all that we think we know about our mortality may be
totally wrong. In fact the most obvious guess would be, do we exist at all, and birth and death are only transitory markers, between coming and going to vast resevoirs of energy. These are the heavens and hells eternity’s storing houses.
Some of the options I gave above are mutually exclusive. So how could all be possible?
That’s just it,. In the afterlife, there is no mutual exclusivity.
Well we could say that shape automatically confers utility. So perhaps it doesn’t require the ‘need’ as it just is the said occurrence happening. ‘power’ is what?
[/quote]
Could you just elaborate on that a bit, about shape allowing use? Shape allowing use implies division between the two: shape therefore is not use, but is it the user?
Power could be anything; I just mean the conundrum of the duplication of power, and its resolution. How can power have reason and yet be separate from reason?
The afterlife being true changes everything, doesn’t it? The logical conclusion of the afterlife being true means its being true amidst a workshift, or during any supermarket visit, or during any war in history. Naturally this feels preposterous, but then is the idea of an afterlife in of itself meant to be preposterous, given that there’s no way the afterlife can be true without its having been true during any part of existence on any planet?
I’m not understanding what you mean by any of this.
Can you clarify it for me.
The afterlife being real means its existing during a day in Rhyl (a seaside town in Wales), or a day in any city in the world; is this concurrence meant to be referenced, or meant to change reality - or, because the lack of reference is the inability to change reality, is the afterlife being linked to reference but not to change coherent?
Is the afterlife meant to be referenced?
So we exist in eternity now?
How can one know that is true?
If there is an afterlife then either I am the final reincarnation or solipism is true.
shellytrokan
The problem here for me is basically your use of the phrase “meant to be”.
What you seem to be saying - and I may be wrong because I don’t know how you express yourself - is that because there is human life, there has to also be an afterlife.
A lawyer during a criminal trial may reference or refer to or cite other cases which resemble his/her case in order to make a strong argument. But that is usually based on facts and reason.
I’m not so sure that the afterlife is necessarily “meant to be” referenced. But one may ask: Does it “make sense” to reference the after life? That would only depend on a person’s beliefs. There was a time that I believed in God and I also kind of intuited that there might just be reincarnation based on what I saw in nature, its cycles and rhythms, how nothing seemed to be wasted, et cetera and also based on how we all deserve a second chance. lol
That’s all I have for you unfortunately. Others can probably enlighten you a whole lot better than I can.
You might want to ask yourself why for you is that question so important.
You hit the nail right on the head, when saying “Does it “make sense” to reference the after life?”: yes, I think that’s what I mean. if the afterlife is meant to be referenced because doing so is the practical means to making reality better, can it being the desire of God ever be logical?
Can God wanting the life forms of the universe to reference external-universe be logical?