A common mistake "truth-seekers" probably make

[GrayArea]

Whatever, I was simply referring to what you came up with when I said "true nature". In that sense I believe it does exist. I suppose we registered the meaning of the phrase differently. What I simply meant was "the set of rules that happen within existence" and so on.

Then it seems to me that you haven't followed your own (correct) argument to its full conclusion. Everything we ever experience, think etc. throughout our entire lives, are reflections within our own minds, without any basis to stand on. In other words, all human understanding is inherently circular, relative. All our concepts only make sense in relation to our other concepts.

So as such, not only can't we explain existence that way, we also can't explain anything else that way and never could. And that doesn't even make sense. So it's a non-sequitur to single out existence, it's not relevant to the "truth-seeking".

I see what you mean. But I still have to disagree. It has indeed reached its full conclusion, because by singling out existence as something we cannot explain and something that is outside of us, we paradoxically create a model of that specific feature of existence within our minds. The fact that everything I said was able to be described (and was indeed described) signifies that I have inevitably created a reflection of what I had referred to anyway. But the fact still remains that this "reflection" in particular is a reflection of the inevitability of reflection, which furthers the scope of whatever we can reflect about existence within our own minds.

[Atla]

Whatever, I was simply referring to what you came up with when I said "true nature". In that sense I believe it does exist. I suppose we registered the meaning of the phrase differently. What I simply meant was "the set of rules that happen within existence" and so on.

Then it seems to me that you haven't followed your own (correct) argument to its full conclusion. Everything we ever experience, think etc. throughout our entire lives, are reflections within our own minds, without any basis to stand on. In other words, all human understanding is inherently circular, relative. All our concepts only make sense in relation to our other concepts.

So as such, not only can't we explain existence that way, we also can't explain anything else that way and never could. And that doesn't even make sense. So it's a non-sequitur to single out existence, it's not relevant to the "truth-seeking".

I see what you mean. But I still have to disagree. It has indeed reached its full conclusion, because by singling out existence as something we cannot explain and something that is outside of us, we paradoxically create a model of that specific feature of existence within our minds. The fact that everything I said was able to be described (and was indeed described) signifies that I have inevitably created a reflection of what I had referred to anyway. But the fact still remains that this "reflection" in particular is a reflection of the inevitability of reflection, which furthers the scope of whatever we can reflect about existence within our own minds.

Ok I don't know what you mean. No sane person positions himself outside existence. Of course the self-reflection of the human mind is part of the equation it's trying to solve.

[GrayArea]

Whatever, I was simply referring to what you came up with when I said "true nature". In that sense I believe it does exist. I suppose we registered the meaning of the phrase differently. What I simply meant was "the set of rules that happen within existence" and so on.

Then it seems to me that you haven't followed your own (correct) argument to its full conclusion. Everything we ever experience, think etc. throughout our entire lives, are reflections within our own minds, without any basis to stand on. In other words, all human understanding is inherently circular, relative. All our concepts only make sense in relation to our other concepts.

So as such, not only can't we explain existence that way, we also can't explain anything else that way and never could. And that doesn't even make sense. So it's a non-sequitur to single out existence, it's not relevant to the "truth-seeking".

I see what you mean. But I still have to disagree. It has indeed reached its full conclusion, because by singling out existence as something we cannot explain and something that is outside of us, we paradoxically create a model of that specific feature of existence within our minds. The fact that everything I said was able to be described (and was indeed described) signifies that I have inevitably created a reflection of what I had referred to anyway. But the fact still remains that this "reflection" in particular is a reflection of the inevitability of reflection, which furthers the scope of whatever we can reflect about existence within our own minds.

Ok I don't know what you mean. No sane person positions himself outside existence. Of course the self-reflection of the human mind is part of the equation it's trying to solve.

Welp, I supposed I haven't explained myself well enough. Can't say I didn't try though. I cannot outright say that it is your fault for not understanding, because who knows if I'm wrong? Maybe I'll come back later for a better explanation but for now—I'll see you by then.

[Atla]

This is because like I said, the “mind” is to the theory of everything, what “existence itself” is to what the theory refers to. If we’re gonna build a model of existence inside our mind, then existence itself is substituted by our mind.

Are we talking about this part? I re-read this a few times and don't understand it at all.

[Pattern-chaser]

If I would discuss my actual philosophy with others, I would name that topic something like:

Comparative philosophy of nondual, extradimensional, circular-dimensional, infinite-possibilities/infinite-multiversal unified theories of everything, to find the most probable answer to "why are we here". (Also accounts for all known scientific facts and all features including GR and QM etc.)

• What statistical theory or theories do you employ to estimate (or otherwise calculate) "the most probable answer to "why are we here""? What statistical theory allows you/us to estimate the specific numerical probability associated with an open-ended "why?" question?
• What connection do science and "scientific facts" have to "why?" questions? As far as I can see, science has nothing at all to offer here. Not support; not refutation; nothing.

"Why?" questions are only answerable if their context is fully known and understood. The context of your question, "why are we here?", is not defined, described or discussed, nor is there evidence resulting from investigation of some (any) kind. To seek answers when the question falls short of intelligibility is ... optimistic, I think.

[GrayArea]

This is because like I said, the “mind” is to the theory of everything, what “existence itself” is to what the theory refers to. If we’re gonna build a model of existence inside our mind, then existence itself is substituted by our mind.

Are we talking about this part? I re-read this a few times and don't understand it at all.

Just like how existence encompasses its components, the mind encompasses the theory and its components (which are the reflections of the components encompassed by existence).

In that sense, the mind takes on the role of existence when it comes to modeling components of existence into a theory, as it allows these theories and their components to exist.

However the weird part is that while a theory itself is supposed to be inside the human mind, therefore is supposed to be a mere reflection of the true existence outside of our mind, making its components be the reflections of the components of "true existence"——they are only reflections because we refer to them as what they refer to(true existence / or components of true existence) and not themselves (I don't know if that was delivered in the best way).

For example, when we see a bird, we don't think to ourselves, "That is a mere reflection of a bird that I am looking at". We instead think "That is a bird that I am looking at". Even though looking at a bird did not instantly teleport that actual bird into our brain or anything, we refer to it as the actual bird.

So in a way, I suppose they have to be referred to as the same even though they are different. But since naturally and inevitably refer to things and form images of them through words and such, I must say that they ARE indeed the same.

This was one of the two main points that I was pointing out in one of my recent posts about ToE. One could argue that it doesn't matter, because it is such a fundamentally obvious fact. But imo that's exactly why it should be included in all Theories of Everything, because it is that obvious and fundamental to its existence and thus it is what solidifies and justifies itself.

[Atla]

This is because like I said, the “mind” is to the theory of everything, what “existence itself” is to what the theory refers to. If we’re gonna build a model of existence inside our mind, then existence itself is substituted by our mind.

Are we talking about this part? I re-read this a few times and don't understand it at all.

Just like how existence encompasses its components, the mind encompasses the theory and its components (which are the reflections of the components encompassed by existence).

In that sense, the mind takes on the role of existence when it comes to modeling components of existence into a theory, as it allows these theories and their components to exist.

However the weird part is that while a theory itself is supposed to be inside the human mind, therefore is supposed to be a mere reflection of the true existence outside of our mind, making its components be the reflections of the components of "true existence"——they are only reflections because we refer to them as what they refer to(true existence / or components of true existence) and not themselves (I don't know if that was delivered in the best way).

For example, when we see a bird, we don't think to ourselves, "That is a mere reflection of a bird that I am looking at". We instead think "That is a bird that I am looking at". Even though looking at a bird did not instantly teleport that actual bird into our brain or anything, we refer to it as the actual bird.

So in a way, I suppose they have to be referred to as the same even though they are different. But since naturally and inevitably refer to things and form images of them through words and such, I must say that they ARE indeed the same.

This was one of the two main points that I was pointing out in one of my recent posts about ToE. One could argue that it doesn't matter, because it is such a fundamentally obvious fact. But imo that's exactly why it should be included in all Theories of Everything, because it is that obvious and fundamental to its existence and thus it is what solidifies and justifies itself.

I can't make sense of this. The "experience of the bird inside my head" and the "bird out there" are literally two different spacetime events. And a ToE is a model made of a bunch of abstract concepts inside the human mind, nothing more.