The NEW Worldview to explain it all | Q&A with Bernardo Kastrup

The fight of the EGO ! 😂❤. SAD 😢 WAKE UP . The FLAWED human mind ❤.

Oh god, that "Could have been" logic was something I came to when I was in high school and my Christian dad was very mocking about it.

Robinson Patricia Martin Carol Hernandez Carol

I think our mania for music is one of the strongest arguments for a Mind-first reality. It is the most abstract experience we can have while still in a body.

I love this Q&A!! 💜 Thank you so much. 🙏✨

Can anyone point out to me if the last mentioned question discussed in a later video already? Thanks

Bernardo has understood Brahman intellectually. He knows the TRUTH.
He is my brother on this seemingly dualistic plane. But he has understood that underlying this world of dualities, there is a principle that is all encompassing. In that non-dual realm Bernardo and I are not brothers…. We are the same.
It’s time now to close your eyes and experience the things you talk about….
To drown in Brahman and let it shine through you.

I like very much how Bernardo thinks and expresses himself. I myself come from idealism/ dualism and hope to remain there (yummi) . Some concerns:

1. My logical argument:

Entropy is a specific measure based on current understanding/ knowledge of physics and mathematics. Physics are founded on our understood/perceived laws/ models INHERENT in the universe (assuming science can actually give ontological insights). Thus, entropy is a human measure of the "real" universe (not an illusion as Bernardo claims).

Break-down:

Entropy is described here as the tendency to disorder. But in physics/ statistical mechanics (and information theory) it is a HUMAN/SCIENTIFIC MEASURE which has a formal definition (and necessarily describe nature from a Positivist's perspective). It provides a quantitative framework for understanding thermodynamic systems and is rooted in empirical observation and mathematical derivation, which enhances its reliability and utility as a concept.

Boltzman's simple formula of entropy: S = klnΩ where k is boltzmann's constant and Ω is the possible space-energy microscopic states in which a system can be found. The possible space-energy states are finite/ measurable. So if we extrapolate this to a finite universe as a close (local) system, there should be a huge however finite number of possible states. According to the law of conservation of mass-energy, the total amount of matter and energy in the universe remains constant (However I know that whether the universe is truly closed and finite in all its aspects (including dark matter, dark energy, and other cosmological factors) is still a subject of active research and debate. See osmological models such as the inflationary universe or theories of an accelerating universe ). Thus, if we accept the law of conservation, at least matter-energy has finite possible states (based on natural laws of current physics. Laws that should be considered inherent in nature, right? at least from a physicalist's or dualist's perspective). Thus, in my understanding, when we talk about universe's entropy, we do not "decide" what is order and what is not as Bernardo claims.

We have specific possible states in our current model of the universe, and specific probabilities of a system for it to be in any of them, depending on its current state. If s1 is the current state, s2 is dependent on s1, assuming at least some level of determinism ( In quantum mechanics, however, this determinism is limited by inherent probabilistic nature, which might complicate the straightforward application of Boltzmann’s entropy formula at microscopic scales.). Except if we consider all phenomena (things we observe) and models of physics epistemologically false because of human bias. Then entropy should be one of those "lies" as well. In that case we cannot KNOW anything with human science, and we go back to the good old phenomenology-epistemology-ontology debates of idealism vs materialism and such. Of course there is scientific instrumentalism, which suggests that theories are not necessarily true but useful. But in that case we can never KNOW IF WE (CAN) KNOW THE ONTOLOGICAL TRUTH with intellectuality that derives from logic and observation which can be shared and tested by a 3d person (science). Thus we rely only to idealistic/ spiritual/ phenomenological experiences for access, to identify and recognize as glimpses of ONTOLOGICAL TRUTHS. Of course again in the latter case we make an assumption and a bet, and one cannot argue about it with words of logic. So I cannot test it and I can not validate it and persuade you for the truth i acquired writing words in a text like this one 😛

the dashboard… isnt that Schopenhauer's representation?

L

If we are the Brahmin and Atman then free will exists it’s just determined by us before entering this body.

I am studying philosophy and Kastrup is truly one of the most interesting modern philosophers out there. A truly unique mind!

The boundaries of self expand or contract based upon free will. Our selfishness and charity expand and contract based upon how self chooses to include or exclude others from its network group of competing free will thumbs up, self reinforcement choices. The can choose which soccer team, sports or political system to identify with, because we have free will and the ability the choose what cloths and tattoos to wear, flags to fly, meals to eat, books to read and content to create for likes, because we are all the philosopher kings of what is right. Everyone is right in everyones own mind because each and every one of us has free will and is king, judge and god over what is right. You can identify with free will or determinism because everyone can make different choices over what faction, alliance or belief system to join or defend, because we all have the free will to arbitrate what constitutes truth. We all have the free will to decide when to reverse course in order to reinforce or overhaul what we believe to be right.