Well, I read what Mithus inserted but it was kind of like all Greek to me, Meno.
If someone could put it into layperson’s terms, though I am not sure if that itself is even possible, I might be able to think about it.
I still find it difficult to believe that this could ever be true in light of the complexity of each human being ~~ our genes, our memories, our life experiences, our personal psychic lives and the ways in which each of us experience and respond to our own environment, so many of those environments being different, etc.
Even identical twins are not completely identical to one another, not even facially completely identical, I do not think. That particular something which could even make identical twins go in two different directions in life. Wouldn’t that alone speak of us as being more like the snowflakes rather than tools off an assembly line?
I would need strong, strong evidence for it. I would need to observe and examine another me for a very long time and even then I would be skeptical. Okay, I am now rambling.
The simpler explanation rests with Cantor and his set theory and also the blog we carried on for quote a while regarding the mathematical formulation of whether .99999999999999999999999 and so on toward infinity , can ever =1.As a mathematical progression, it can’t ever happen, even if, the numbers become Infinitissably small to become ever closer to infinity. That’s the idea , but, when the closeness to infinity become so slight that they are indistinguishable from one and the other, then there is a problem dealing with open and closed sets. A closed set indicates the same idea Leibnitz was propagating, and for a perfect identity to develop, that mathematical impossibility of reaching a perfect identity, is probable to an absolute certainty given a number of infinite recurrences.
For if this was not true , then there would be no place in evolution which would individuate unto higher and more defined sets of bits of information
This is the idea based on the negative individuation of primary differentiation. The allegory of the cave+, the reflextive consciousness of Narcissus make clear the archaic notions surrounding the tie in between the foundations of mythological types and the logical contradiction between a post scriptive derivation and its pre reflexive antimony
How this squares with Hindu and Buddhist philosophy can be noted with Schpenhauer’s inquiry into esoteric beliefs.
The point is that philosophy itself deals with the basic beliefs of the existence of the self, and its survival, and my feeling is that this duplex between the two is one of reflection, risen of a conscious manifestation and pre occupation with, the problem .
These thoughts are really preliminary and do away with mathematical notation, which claims that mathematics are an a-priori tool
Post Leibnitzian thought has steered away from this line of argument, and is satisfied with the Kantian notion of an a priori synthetic, and perhaps that a is why we humans lost faith in the idea of immortality.
However such dismissal based on a few hundred years of reliance on man for man, as opposed to God for man, seems not to justify the abandonment of non differential myths connected with a pre realized reality. Such is postscriptively
unfair to the vestiges which remain of the processes of reflection, of consciousness as a whole.
god could just as well Be the sum of all infinite sets, separate and distinct at the same time on whatever level
.
New physics is toying with the idea that reality described in this way could manifest as one single atomic particle , where no laws of math or physics can describe this state.
And this state is akin to the ages old proverbial manifestation of innumerable angels dancing on the top of a pin. If the soul is infinitely divisible then, the state is populated with beings infinitely small, having no known existence in space time as we have come to learn it.
If You mind to go along with this so far, then what the mystics say about attain ing Sartori, can become plainly evident, where a singular(ity) position may become more understandable-in that such attainment requires giving up on further 're-births.
Giving up on reincarnation may be extremely hard to attain, sometimes requiring millions of recurrences. That’s pretty much hard to fathom.