Yep, its totally an open question if math has real world applications onto the universe that gives rise to it.

The mind that holds the concept of the real line or topology isn't in nature? How peculiar. Of course a little thinking on this (more than zero) and we can see the concept is conceptual, and concepts happen in conceivers, and conceivers are indeed a part of nature, which proves those concepts part of nature. Further thinking still entails that the topological or underlying structure of the universe which gives rise to you, also gives rise to your mind, which gives rise to the concepts in your mind. So math really is an aspect of nature, isn't it?

Unless you're claiming you don't exist again.

I consist of a decaying corpse. And that's all I am.

If you cared to learn about it, you could always read some history about it. That's kind of what people do when they wonder about the past.

I await an example of "the real line" being used in a real world application sort of way.

*Yawn*

Once again, we've come to the place where you're just smashing words together as if they're meaningful when they're not. The whole is the same as the part and every property of the part is also a property of the whole, and when I flip a coin it is both heads and tails but cannot be self-contradictory, and blah blah blah.

The universe that exists inside my head and the universe that exists outside of it are not identical to each other.

I can conceive of a universe in which I don't exist. Therefore, your logic concludes that such a universe must exist in reality. Because any time something is conceived in the mind, it is made manifest in reality because what is the universe other than what exists and since it exists in my head it must be real. Hence, I don't exist and yet I do exist at the same time, which isn't a contradiction.

The other way from dividing the universe up is unifying. Look for divisions, look for connections. What’s connected. What relates? What corresponds. What is separable and what is inseparable. What is it? (It’s it!)

One who has an imagination in the universe and can imagine the universe with imagination has the universe in their imagination. Inseparable. Like how imagination is inseparable from other mental faculties.

Anyone with an imagination can imagine the word universe like it was written in the sky, mysterious formed by clouds. No dogma can really dictate this as long as someone can imagine the universe. You can say they can’t, but how can you stop imagination?

And back to that division...one can imagine the universe divvied up in parts with the imagination which can imagine the universe and express inseparability.

So an imaginary universe includes divvying the universe up just fine, but divvying it up doesn’t change the inseparable relationship indicated by being able to imagine the universe having an imagination in the universe inseparable.

Correct, which entails no imaginations. You're not really imagining yourself dead, because you dont know what a universe would be like (if anything) if you were dead. You're just pretending to imagine one.



Ya and one of the problems with the study of history is we have no direct access to it beyond reading the accounts of the people who did. Beyond those accounts, history is actually just one big problem of inference/induction which is why it's considered to be inherently limited in what it can actually tell us about the past.

So you're not really imagining 1837 either. You're making inductions about 1837 based on some facts written down that may or may not correspond to 1837. You cant escape the problem of induction here any more than you can escape it when attempting to imagine yourself dead.

Except it's even worse than that. You cant directly observe a universe without you in it (which is what imagining is, observing a thing in the mind) or 1837 (you arent in 1837) so saying anything about either of those things is simply rubbish.

Huh? What do you think "imagine" means? It sounds like you have a bizarre definition in order for it to fit into your OP.

By your argument above, no one has ever imagined anything, ever.

Conceptions are part of the real world. Conceiving the real line is a real world application of the real line.

The rest of your post is gibberish.

No. No one has ever imagined anything apart from themselves.

I dont know what that means

D0DN doesn't think ideas can be about something other than themselves or refer to another object. They are always locked inside our own minds, not just as ideas existing in our minds, but even as what those ideas are about. Thus, when I talk about the sun, I'm not talking about the ordinary idea of a giant ball of gas around which our planet orbits, but rather about an idea in my mind of a giant ball of gas.

Shall we delve into the question of what an "application" of something is? I mean, you've already butchered the meaning of about a dozen specific words that you've used in your presentation, so why not add a few more?

Is an "application" of something merely that it exists?

Ooooohhh.. So you're now saying I have a "pretend" imagination? But because I'm imagining myself imagining something, doesn't that mean that I'm actually imagining it?

And yet somehow, he seems to think he's capable of talking about the actual universe and telling us about what's actually there.

You can imagine nonfiction as well as fiction is a fair general statement. It’s just more likely what you can imagine about non fiction actually happened in the history of the universe while it is unlikely any fiction ever happened anywhere in the universe but imagination.

Yeah, a fiction/nonfiction binary imaginary universe, I guess, exists for at least as long as a post. is that the universe?

Every time someone conceives the sentence "there exists a married bachelor" another universe ceases to exist.

The universe must allow for the creation of universe since well that’s what’s been posted. Imagination is a perfect fit for how to create universes with what’s in the universe.

And a cosmic joke teller got a laugh.

Who is this "us" you refer to here? We also are but ideas in D0DN'S mind.

Besides imagination is absurd and baffling enough to recreate nonfiction absurdity and create absurd fiction created into nonfiction. When creating universe does one be sure to add creativity?

It’s like how to perceive universe, inseparable from imagination. Discoverable like using imagination can discover ways to do a math problem or otherwise learn.

We still are the closest imaginations to us that we know about. While the universe is imaginable non local and beyond, the imaginations are so far local unique and very specific. We can only discover planets with imaginations at planets with imaginations in the universe. Imagine something is there and it may be discovered and you may discover your imagination when that’s what you find. It’s pretty cool. Art. Whatever. Imagination has a great place where it belongs in the universe.

I can imagine myself imagining that someone as bright as D0DN would be able to imagine a universe in which everyone agreed with him.

Did the year 1837 actually exist? If so, in what sense did (does?) it exist?

A group of posters talking about imaginary universes walked in an imaginary bar, and the bartender said the only talk about imaginary universes allowed in this bar is with imaginary mouths.

A biological ecosystem is still an ecosystem if non-essential species are removed. This happens daily. Not all parts of an ecosystem are necessary. Some parts exist unnecessarily. More broadly - not all, if any, ecosystems are essential to the universe. Why is consciousness, as opposed to something simpler like perception, essential or necessary to the ecosystem - universe?

It's not the same ecosystem.

Because for perceptions to make sense, they have to be perceived by some form of consciousness/mind. It seems necessary that consciousness is a predicate of perception and/or understanding. It doesn't make sense at all to speak of the two things in disunion.

In order for the universe to make sense to us, we require consciousness. If we didn't have it, speaking about the universe being intelligible would be absurd (how does one speak without a mind?). But we do have consciousness, and we do make sense of the universe to some extent, and we are in the universe, so consciousness is, as far as we are concerned (and remember, we are part of the universe in an ontological sense), a fundamental aspect of what it means to be an intelligible universe.

I don't know, did it? We just assume it did because we assume that the past wasn't created 5 minutes ago. There is no rigorous proof of the past just like there is no rigorous proof that reality is objectively real. The only thing we have to go on is our perception. In that sense we can say with greater certainty that the year 2019 is more empirically real to us because we have direct observation of the year 2019. This is the whole problem of induction. Speaking about years in which we have no direct observance is like a 2nd order problem of induction.

The only thing we can really say is that our experience of whatever it is we are experiencing is totally dependent upon some mental state existing, because mental experiences are self-evident.