natures regulations are tentative and subject to manipulation by necessary actions that work. since there is a possibility of existence, anything is possible.
And you have to add the possibility of non existence. I think I agree, which is the best I think I could possibly say right now. Nature? What nature?
nature- the cosmos- the universe- where there is existence of anything. nothing is static because, of radiation. and everything vibrates to certain degrees, creating change, decay and death.
It's possible that the cosmos and universe doesn't exist. Is it not? That could all be a hallucination. The fact that anything is possible still remains.
the universes enigmas can be quantified by mathematics; everything stems from the number 1. zero holds no value but, somehow, thru an act of curiosity- something comes from nothing. the miracle is anything existing at all.
Remember numbers are human perspectives. However, zero would be nothing. It is possible for nothing to come from nothing, it is possible for something to come from nothing. It is possible for nothing to come from something. If nothing came from nothing, nothing would be possible fact. If something came from nothing, it is still possible that nothing is possible fact. If nothing came from something, nothing is still possible fact. It is also possible that nothing is not possible, because big bang could have created everything. Big bang could have came from nothing. Nothing could have come from big bang. Or nothing could have come from nothing. Nothing is possible. Nothing is not possible. Everything is possible. All in all there is still an equal chance that we are real.
there are no rules other than those evolved by the necessity of energy manifesting the experiences intended by Consciousness, or.. by the self-imposed limitations of our own individualized perceptions.
What if energy is not possible. I guess it's still possible because anything is possible. Energy is human perception
the truth is one and only; never at fault, absolute and static, unwaveringly permeating evenly in essential balance as a pinnacle of perfection.
Damn bro. You disappear for a minute and come slamming in like a bat out of hell. Never at fault, never incorrect.
No, it's already been explained to you why we must exist/be, whether we exist by hallucination or by concrete substance is besides the point. Gibberish - the fact that everything is possible does not in any way disprove all theories, because all of those theories must also be possible too, and thus many of them could be factually true. EDIT; Search through google for the definition of ''disprove''.
Hallucinations do not exist. Hallucinations are not real. Hallucinations are 0% or nothing. Nothing inside a hallucination is real. Which means if we are a hallucination we would not exist because we would not be real. Disprove is the correct word. People saying that evolution is fact would be false, because it can not be verified by "humans". The only fact that can be verified 100% is the fact that something happened to "create" what "we" "experience", the fact that there is a fact is fact regardless of everything.
Sigh. Hallucinations do not exist. Hallucinations are not real. Hallucinations are 0% or nothing. Nothing inside a hallucination is real. Which means if we are a hallucination we would not exist because we would not be real. Hallucinations are real to a subject, a subject under hallucination is still a subject that experiences, whether the contents of his/her experience are fictions/phantasms, he/her still experiences, and must therefore be. Disprove is the correct word. People saying that evolution is fact would be false, because it can not be verified by "humans". The only fact that can be verified 100% is the fact that something happened to "create" what "we" "experience", the fact that there is a fact is fact regardless of everything. Well, now you're speaking under the supposition that your vapid notion is actually true and not actually using the word ''disprove'', which, in it's original context, was used incorrectly, I'll attempt to further explain to you why you are simply wrong below, but it most likely won't have any effect - if you had shown yourself either capable or willing to listen to what's reasonable, this thread wouldn't have made it past the first page; (Not to mention how it's absurd that you could draw an inferential fact out of experience, yet deny experience itself, but people like you don't like to abide by common logical principles, do they? And there's nothing I can do about that. ). Ignoring the clear fallacy in the sentence, (which I have already explained) I'll try to address instead what I think it actually intends to say - you're offering a ludicrous possibility, and rashly concluding from it that all other theories are disproved, but you've leapt over the second logical step needed to disprove those theories, that is, you've forgotten that you must first prove your ''ludicrous possibility'' as true before you can conclude that all others are false, (or before you can ''disprove'' them).
The hallucination is not real, the subject is real. That statement is still possible to be true. Also the hallucination is possible to not be real because there might be no hallucination, humans might be real created by God or big bang. Therefore it's possible there is no hallucination even happening. Regardless, the fact remains that the truth/fact is real.
I'll come back later to respond to the last post for me, but just wanted to chime in.. stop saying the big bang created us. You said it a few times in your video, and on here. It didn't create us.. nor did it even create the universe. It's a model on why the universe is expanding, the universe that existed in one form or another before the big bang.. seeing as energy cannot be created or destroyed and all.
You disregarded the rest of what I said. It's also possible the hallucination is not real because we could be real. God, big bang, etc.