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

©2025 Poal.co

983

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 )

In the current paradigm using existing language to describe our human experience I would say that my statement is not an opinion but rather fact.

It's basic set theory.

If you define the entirety of a given set (Universe) as X, you can't later move the goal posts to say woops, I now define the entirety of the Universe set as Universe + X.

If you do then I'll point out that you're back to your original assertion - the set (Universe) is Universe + X which is now redefined as Universe.

To be clear, one can redefine their original assertion but your logical rigor is then suspect and rightfully called in to question.

IOW you subsume your own argument recursively.

[–] [deleted] • 0 pt

Calling something a fact or believing it is doesn't necessarily correlate to it being one. All of theories are just that anyway, theories rather than laws or facts.

The observable univers requires enormous plugs anyway so where one places the goal posts isn't relevant. I would call this an erroneous equation, you disagree and that's ok.

Yet, no matter which set of theories your looking at, both say the same thing. Matter is energy and energy is both a packet and a wave with multiple outcomes occuring at the same time, which implies a multiverse rather than a universe.

[–] [deleted] • 0 pt

To put it more simply the Universe encompasses everything there is.

That is the definition of Universe.

You can play semantic games and call for Multiverses but language dictates that the original definition of Universe encompasses the notion of Multiverses.

As Socrates said, (paraphrasing) the key to discussion and debate is to carefully define your terms.

[–] [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.