Message from @Soyeb
Discord ID: 501426670276837386
like a chilleagon
which is btw proof that metaphysics exist
outside of the material expression
@Misha I am not thinking of the once in the throne, remember that prince who married an American actress?
The ginger haired guy
And that mixed race woman
Mutt
but platonic forms are the subatomic building blocks of the universe, Plato possibly inadvertently stumbled upon how to manipulate the universe at the sub atomic level
Yes they are mutts hahah
Can electrons be divided @Vril-Gesellschaft
I don't think so?
@Vril-Gesellschaft then that's the fundamental particle? And it is made up of itself ?
@Soyeb the fundamental "particle" is not actually a particle but a set of geometric metaphysical concepts which are then applied to the particle expressions
wherein the variation of the forms is what then changes the expression of reality
i wont
yes the material world is an illusion
the Vedic tradition has always maintained this
Then what is reality 😂
Dude like everything we know is based on our own perception and sensation so how do we know it's true <:HyperThinking:356316737588690944>
As has the Gnostic tradition
@Young Druid You can only build a worldview off of non-logical axioms tbh
Which means your worldview is flawed inherently lel
Even the most basic of mathematical concepts is based on presumptions
but the material world is necessarily an illusion because temporal change is constant within the material, thus any knowledge you attain of the material can in principle change
Hey @Mord , do you think you can DM me those documents/articles that got you into Corporatism
metaphysics however imo are the static sub strata which then express themselves in flux
so the platonic forms are the sort of building block "architecture" blueprints of nature
@Vril-Gesellschaft so everything exists in the form of waves unless observed ?
@Frost very few of us
dunno that is the meme new age view
I personally am highly skeptical of quantum physics
l will send you some things, sure @PainSeeker5
2+2=4 presumes that we know what 2 is and that's not really something that can be defined