/lit/ - Literature

>>11975282
other than the eerie similarity between the monist triumvirate and christian trinity (father - mind, son - body, holy spirit - neutral/unknown) which i suspect roman catholics stole from the celtic triquertra knot since it doesn't appear in judaism which as far as i can tell developed some 11 dimensional kabbalistic sefirot graph (hello string theory) in the middle ages to one up everyone else....

if you believe that the universe consists only of a higher order neutral substance, that's fine but how is that even useful? from what i can see the meme particle physics standard model believes in at least 4 baryonic types and speculates as to the nature of dark energy/matter, making it a square foundation (leptons, quarks, gauge bosons, gravity bosons) with some unknown point connecting them all, like a pyramid with the mystery at the capstone. hardly any different than the chinese wu xing of wood, fire, earth, metal, water; or gravity, electromagnetism, strong nuclear, weak nuclear, dark energy etc.

so it's either one substance, or two, or three, or four, or five. im not convinced this is even a useful way to understand the universe, but at least the chinese had some kind of divination and medicinal system and the christians have a book of do's and dont's and jesus' adventures, the jews have blood and sex magic rituals and interdimensional larping and the physicists can burn through billions charging huge lasers and magnetic fields.

we come to the show me point, besides faith, what do you have to show for neutral monism? this is why i called you religious. to contrast your thinking with that of a true believer in something, all they need is faith.

>>11975311
im not a physicalist, you would have to ask someone who is. i know at least 5% of the universe is physical and i study the boundary between that and the rest, i don't come into it with any pre-conceptions, flipping coin or not. if i had to assume something it would be that as humans we are not equipped with the ability to understand the universe, but i am pleasantly surprised by the amount we are capable of understanding, and it gives me hope for the future. note i do NOT have faith that humans will ever understand everything, which makes me highly suspicious of people who not only exhibit blind faith, but make claims about it beyond their curiosity, desire or ability to test them. those people are convincers, they want to convince you, but the truth is convincing enough on it's own it doesn't need a spokesperson.

>>11975336
are you homoeroticising me?