🚀 go-pugleaf

selflab@go.com (Sergey Karavashkin) wrote in message news:<1305a9da.0304011315.55fbd920@posting.google.com>...
> shrikanthas@yahoo.com (Shrikantha S. Shastry) wrote in message news:<92a87ac5.0303292225.2f8fc42f@posting.google.com>...
> > Trouble with the universe is that it cannot be believed. Scientists
> > explore the universe under the assumption that the universe is real,
> > unaware of its illusory nature. The universe is indeed unreal or
> > illusory with respect to its actual reality, the singularity. And so,
> > the illusory universe can only lead to delusory conclusions. Creation
> > of the universe and its evolution are our major delusory conclusions.
> > No wonder paradoxes keep cropping up in any such theory.
> > 
> > Observations and measurements may indeed lead to conclusions about the
> > universe which being illusory never exists. Then, what about those
> > conclusions? For more details and consequences see in steps, Conscious
> > worldview;
> > 
> > http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=92a87ac5.0301210236.4169197f%40posting.google.com
> 
> Thank you for your respond, Mr Shastry. It means that you are
> monitoring the processes and people of 'erroneous way'. It also seems,
> you are challenging us to continue this eternal dispute of our ways of
> comprehension. Okay, let us.
> 
> I agree, a man is able to comprehend only the things achievable for
> his observations, and this always reserves a possibility to say, "only
> this surrounding is real, no reality is beyond the boundary of
> achievable". The progress moves apart the limits of achievable, and
> every time it appears that beyond the old limit there is also the
> Real. It appears the same tangible, graspable and usable as everything
> known before.
> 
> Please see an example. 500 years ago there were no telescopes, so
> people could speak of a solid celestial sphere similar to the Roof of
> the Covenant Ark and of stars connected to it, just like the Roof is
> decorated with jewels, and this construction had the Earth in its
> centre. The telescopes have been invented, and people were amazed
> seeing multitude worlds and that the Earth is not an exclusion and not
> the centre. However the observations had the engineering limitations.
> With their lifting, the area of observations and of our knowledge of
> the universe also broadened. Then people flied to the space and saw
> and tangled many things themselves. Everything which is achievable for
> today appeared real, material, measurable. The same has been
> discovered in penetrating to the depths of substance - to the
> micro-universe. Of course, human knowledge is much contradictive, but
> personally I know the only way to be never mistaken - this is to do
> nothing. The new knowledge lifts old discrepancies, the useful result
> remains.
> 
> The entire history of mankind corroborates such course of events. We
> nowhere found a corroboration for your thesis of irreality beyond our
> yesterday scope. We everywhere have a corroboration of the fact you
> are trying to disprove. None the less, you are insisting, though you,
> the same as all other people, use the achievements of just our way.
> That's a contradiction! To solve it and to lift once and forever, let
> us be consistent. Let only the people consecutively adhering to the
> way of comprehension of the real, material world enjoy the results of
> the scientific knowledge and engineering progress, and let the people
> insisting that the universe is illusory will not enjoy the goods
> achieved in the 'hostile' way. Please do leave your computer, phone,
> car, home, and even your dress and food - this all without exception
> has been obtained from the unified, here and there material universe
> by way of endeavouring to master it (and to the point, in your
> computer and mobile phone the space does work for you). Don't you
> think that you can stay naked, homeless and hungry and you may wish to
> return to this all what you have?
> 
> Then, please do not act against your conscience.
> 
> Olga Karavashkina.


Well, my response was a general statement about the nature of the
universe which is ilusory. This evaluation, if my link above is
followed, is done with respect to its reality, the singularity. While
the unobservable singularity is real, its observable universe has to
be unreal or illusory. There is an unbridgeable gap between the
unobservable singularity and the observable universe separating them
out as the reality and the illusory.  And when the universe is
illusory the consequences mentioned above are inevitable.

In other words, the evaluation of the universe as illusory is indeed
because of the identification of the basically important singularity
as the reality which has been approximated, avoided or ignored
completely in the history of science. How can the inherent singularity
or the essential consciousness be ignored in the rational advancement
of science?