Alright, I supposed to have my first and last comment in the thread by that (since I also spoke to Astral), but Hecky insists "Cook something", and I said "Sir, all I can do is to burn the kitchen in process of cooking." But alas I listen now.
Anyway
My bro Astral didn't understood what I was saying
we had discussed thing to hell and back off-site after that comment, so I just say things here again with more details.
Sigh Alright I just cut it into two parts, the clarification and answer.
Yeah sure. Edited that bullet point slightly.
I was asked to prove in dms while discussing that I need to prove casual independence, so there is that ¯\(ツ)/¯
I just included every point someone else raised. And proving that a higher reality is independent of Fate/Causality (and by extension, Space, Time and Life) of the lower reality is not really an irrelevant point.
Providing independence of causality is not a problem, I just pointed out how—clear cut—it does not provide any helps for a diffrentating account, specially in this case wherein causality is just the cycle of reincarnation of the world (Samsara), for the world is full of suffering and to be free from is to liberate to PL.
Lol
I'm not arguing for 1A via Buddhism tho. Fuse has a habit of mixing up shi from god knows how many things
And as I said I didn't said YOU argue for Buddhism, just wanted to point out how author himself posited Samara by which branching into different schools, I even added at the end "it does not matter really" as even putting that aside, "what is the factor for us to diffrentate."
Uhh, are you saying the causality part is uncle
ar in how "causal" this system of "causality" is?
Like bro see "it barely holds some factor of causal superiority despite how it is posited into CRT" asked what I mean
In plain language, I was the scans barely prove that "freedom" from these causal chains gives them some form of dominance over them ("barely"), in process of becoming free in LP, by which would the last factor be information itself I suppose.
No, we are not arguing shi with Buddhism. Any relation or similarity to it is purely fuse goofing around coincidentally ¯\(ツ)/¯
I believe he did it very aware of his moves just didn't bother to understand which-is-which, like how he larped the fact that Azathoth dreams reality anyway
Again, gng, your entire argument dwelves from "how it is treated in Buddhism", we are not arguing like that
Each verse has its own unique things and is not just a copy paste of a religion or philosophy
Again, this is a fictional verse, not a copy paste Buddhism text. Funnily enough, the Samsara thing here is an aspect of the world that encompasses Fate, Time-Spacs and Causality. It kinda is the world itself.
Genuinely thought you are arguing against the scans but it's just Buddhism this Buddhism that
Why do you think we have a cosmology section for things like Samsara? If I was relying on Buddhism, I could just link the Wikipedia page and be done with it...
I did pretty much acknowledged that Samsara I the causal system of reincarnation by which encompasses time-space and Fate/Causality (even if arguing Fate encompasses all it would not be so different), in my original text, pretty much one of the points for why I said "free from all limits and constraints" is referencing to how they are free form causal order in Tensura's case itself. And…
Bro did not took the point by constantly saying "I didn't argue Buddhism"
Look, genuinely, it is not about
you using Buddhism, it is about the fact that
author did it, you cannot say "the sky is blue" when author insisting is red. And I wanted to do a pointer by referencing many Buddhist schools of thought, to show the fact that
series itself (not the supporters argumentation) barely holds commitment to any branches (which I wanted to clarify for any possible misconceptions that can arises), I very much in those comments bolded the main problem regarding the thread itself that has nothing to do with Buddhism. I am pretty much not arguing because "it is not Buddhism, is not true." And in fact, I did a pointer that saying "it can be exhausted and satisfied by even by ontological models such as what the verse
tries to posit for." But alas, all I have done was saying "Buddhism this, Buddhism that" I assume.
Thus, if we
even take Buddhism, away we I pretty much have no problems with it, because supporters believe it is "still holding to the argument" for 1-A even if we do…
What remains?
- Casual independence (transcending fate/casuality)
- Freedom from information
- A "dream" analogy without a factor of diffrentation
I will hammer on
"factor of differentiation" because that's the point.
So we have, Fate is Casuality in cycle of Samara, all things hold information as it is the ontological priority that conditions all things, dream analogy without elaboration, and does it look like it necessitates any 1-A model to be uphold? The model nevertheless is in the domain of
reducibility.
It does not satisfy or exhausts any conditions for
why, let's say, it cannot be lower.
You say "Lacking and transcending information means you cannot be bound to anything that information defines, which includes space time, and dimensionality in a way too since higher dimensions still hold information."
But I should ask
Why you think predating Information Type 2 of the given cosmology size, necessitates it necessary
transcends ontological distinctions of non1-As?
Let's say it like this, to outreach the operational domain of a principle does not mean you wholly transcend the whole genera of it by some degree of simplicity, fictionality, or unmediated contemplative activity.
Genuinely all I am asking is a factor of differentiation,
something for me to conclude that it is indeed 1-A and cannot be lower. Not "Oh well it completely lacks information and since they liberated from information, it indicates they should be 1-A for lacking it." Are we acting that it can exhaust all levels of physical intuitive spaces
we clearly are not saying that, the model can function perfectly even if we say it is limited to the operational domain of universe as it does, whilst PL is independent from it.
I am not even saying you need L1-A to transcend to become 1-A because that is low tier misconception of the system, I am asking how much is the range of "every facet of the world's" operational domain (information)? Is there a reason for us giving the benefit of doubt and giving PL 1-A because "Blue (Independent of causality) + Red (dream analogy) = Purple (1-A)"? Is there a factor to clarify a differential in their quality?
The problem is, you try to make me agree via giving examples that do not hold without the verse clarify all doubts.
If something is reducible reasonably and has other models that exhaust or satisfy its condition, it does not necessarily means we hold the highest interpretation.
That's how we treat and index all tiers, we account for the possible reducibility, and if any model of a lower value can satisfy the context given, and unless it is not resolved, we would
not give it benefit of doubt.
I do not see
why we should give it benefit of doubt that "it is 1-A surely."
As already been asked by Bern, is there any
concrete evidence that demonstrates a necessary superiority such that, no matter how much is added, the Promised Land can never be reached?
Or is there any concrete evidence that tells us, comparatively, PL by its virtue of superiority transcends all the distinctions.
Or, knowing the fact that unfortunately we have no concrete proof or evidence for the world completely cease to exist or in other words being comparatively "non existent" and that it cannot be an otherwise scenario, it raises up the question that are we dreaming for our superiority to the world of suffering, or we just experiencing what we lived through in the cycle of Samara?
There remains many gaps to this case, and the CRT's scans merely does not satisfy, neither do I willing to give the verse benefit of doubt for 1-A. But that is for mods to decide, after all, I have left my objection over the reducibility of the case and the fact that lesser models can satisfy it without qualitative superiority.
