Welcome • User Guide
ToS • Privacy • Canary
Donate • Bugs • License

©2025 Poal.co

577

Oppenheimer seems to have thought so, of course he could speak sanskrit and recognized the brahmastra weapon described in the mahabarata and its effects as nearly identical to those of his creation, the A-bomb.

https://www.hinduhumanrights.info/the-bhagavad-gita-oppenheimer-and-nuclear-weapons/

Oppenheimer seems to have thought so, of course he could speak sanskrit and recognized the brahmastra weapon described in the mahabarata and its effects as nearly identical to those of his creation, the A-bomb. https://www.hinduhumanrights.info/the-bhagavad-gita-oppenheimer-and-nuclear-weapons/

(post is archived)

You are currently inside a comment thread.
Click here to see all the comments (64).
[–] [deleted] • 0 pt (edited )

You're argument would imply that the nature of reality is dictated by the assigned definition of sounds uttered by people.

Edit: my statement above is incorrect.

I agree that any intellictual discussion basically boils down to the underlying definition. Which basically just means your definition of a universe includes my definition of the multiverse. I just use the term multiverse, because I don't think we can participate in all iterations of it currently occuring.

[–] [deleted] • 0 pt

You're argument would imply that the nature of reality is dictated by the assigned definition of sounds uttered by people.

Not really. My argument says humans use shared logic and definitions to delineate their reality. A meadow, a forest, an ocean, a lake. Yes there are gray areas in those concepts but when it comes to absolute terms as is found in set theory, there are no gray areas.

The UNIVERSE is everything there is. It has nothing to do with sounds made by humans. It exists as an idea apriori to human consciousness and language.

[–] [deleted] • 0 pt

I misread your post and edited mine as above.

[–] [deleted] • 0 pt

Agree. Different ways of describing the same thing.