Good idea to write on Substack. The more people do these kinds of things, the better. Just saw that there is a new Substack post from Chris that refers to your question. I haven't read it yet, will do so later.
Hey Patrick, This is Bishop (from the ctmu discussion group) I’m just a priest (so my logic rules and formulation isn’t completely up to date) but I believe I understand what you are asking and I believe your problem in the above was that outside of reality is not non-reality but is UBT I quote: In CTMU cosmogony, “nothingness” is informationally defined as zero constraint or pure freedom (unbound telesis or UBT), and the apparent construction of the universe is explained as a self-restriction of this potential. (p. 27)
I take your non-reality to be equivocal to Langans “nothingness” and this makes sense to me. Let me know what you think. As I love working on thought processes with you guys. Thanks..
Good idea to write on Substack. The more people do these kinds of things, the better. Just saw that there is a new Substack post from Chris that refers to your question. I haven't read it yet, will do so later.
Hey Patrick, This is Bishop (from the ctmu discussion group) I’m just a priest (so my logic rules and formulation isn’t completely up to date) but I believe I understand what you are asking and I believe your problem in the above was that outside of reality is not non-reality but is UBT I quote: In CTMU cosmogony, “nothingness” is informationally defined as zero constraint or pure freedom (unbound telesis or UBT), and the apparent construction of the universe is explained as a self-restriction of this potential. (p. 27)
I take your non-reality to be equivocal to Langans “nothingness” and this makes sense to me. Let me know what you think. As I love working on thought processes with you guys. Thanks..