r/OpenIndividualism

Is it possible that OI can be refuted by simply saying there is no causal link between me and every other person that exists? Like just because there are other people doesn't mean I'm them.

Idk.

6÷2(2+1) = What, exactly?

There are many problems like this on the internet. I'm going to use this one as an example, but the analyses can be applied to any of the “viral” problems of similar ambiguous notation. I take deep issue with the proclamation that the “modern answer” is 9 and believe that our continued insistence upon its validity as an answer could have negative ramifications on the average person's ability to understand how math really works. There are important reasons that “the general public” chooses to interpret the question the way they do. You do need to satisfy the other end of your division symbol. Everyone is aware that “divided by” is an open question that needs answered. When you input “6÷2(2+1)=” into a scientific calculator, it will, before your very eyes, re-write the problem to validate the answer 9. These are compelling reasons for choosing to put 2 with 6. I intend to walk through several key elements of the controversy which should help guide a clearer perspective into public awareness.

The first question, as with any math problem, has to be: “Is this properly notated?” Both sides can probably agree it is not properly notated. Attempting to solve a problem left to right using PEMDAS/BODMAS/the order of operations (I will simply refer to this method as “PEMDAS” from now on) without accounting for notation is the equivalent of pronouncing the word “boat” like “Bow-At” or “music” like “muss-sick” because of phonetics and the left to right reading rule. You can only apply left to right rules once everything is on one single line, and reduced to its simplest terms. In order to get 9, you have to begin reading left to right before the parentheses are resolved.

So it stands to reason that both sides of the argument, 9 and 1, are changing the notation to answer the problem, at least to some extent. We all agree that the problem is poorly notated and no one in math would write it this way. But in spite of that and for fun, many have tried to answer it anyway. The general rule when/if you run into improper notation “in the field” is to follow Occam's' Razor:

1. Make the fewest assumptions as possible and
2. Favor the more simple answer given one answer is overly complex.

“More simple answer” doesn't mean “1 is smaller than 9, therefore 1 must be the answer.” What it means is, if I did my problem my way and you did your problem your way, and you came up with 9 and I came up with 1.7266666, I wouldn't have a leg to stand on. Clearly in that scenario, the interpretation that you would be using to arrive at 9 would be the simpler and better way to interpret the information. But that isn't the case. 1 and 9 are both equally “simple”, seemingly elegant solutions. So, we seem to be looking at which answer is making the fewest number of assumptions about the notations and the question being asked.

Notation, Notation, Notation

In order to get “6÷2(2+1) to equal 9, with proper notation, the solver or calculator contains 6÷2 into parentheses, rewriting the problem like this:

(6÷2)(2+1)=9

and uses PEMDAS to solve, “parentheses first”

(6÷2) = 3

(2+1)=3

(3)(3)= 9

Except “(3)(3)” isn't how simple multiplication questions are notated. It should be 3 * 3 or 3 x 3. So in order to fix this, another assumption must be made in the notation from the beginning, and that is the addition of * between the two (3)'s like this

(3) * (3) = 9

It's true that some scientific calculators will not add the parentheses around 6/2 and let it stand without them making the problem look like this:

6÷2 * (3)

instead, but in 100% of cases, it will add a multiplication symbol between the two 3s. It must assume the multiplication symbol. If “(3)(3)” were the same thing as saying “(3) * (3)” or “3x3”, why would the calculator insist upon adding a seemingly redundant symbol? The answer is, it's not redundant.

First of all, we're going to have to agree that “division symbol” is not really used in higher level math. By the time someone who has done a lot of math sees a “ ÷ ” again, their brain has been automatically rewired to view it as a fraction bar. That is because always, without fail, “ ÷ ” in our human math language means “a fraction bar sits here”. Even the 9-sayers agree that 6 is a numerator of SOME fraction, as in 6 halves, or (6/2). No assumptions are made by turning the division symbol into a fraction bar, and this is agreed upon by both sides.

So then, the real discrepancy between getting the answer 1 and the answer 9 has nothing to do with the division symbol. It is whether 2(2+1) is one term, or can be separated from each other. How far should the fraction bar “stretch”? Across just the 2? Or across the entire 2(2+1)? To answer this, lets examine the difference between “2 * 3” or “2 x 3” and “2(3)”.

The former, “2*3” and “2x3”, are interchangeable. They both simply mean “multiply two times three” and both are properly notated basic math questions. However, 2(3) is not in the same realm. Are we still multiplying two times three? Yes. Are we still coming up with 6? Yes. However, 2(3) doesn't “equal” 6. It “represents” 6.

Two slices of cake times 3 kids equals six slices of cake looks like:

2x3=6 or

2*3=6.

But “2(3)” means that you reduced a term inside the parentheses to arrive at the conclusion that there are 3 of them, first, and that we must multiply by 2 to figure out how many there really are. You have “2 groups of 3 things”. The 2 and 3 are an inseparable representation of the number 6. If I have 2(3) slices of cake, for example, I'm not just stating that I have 6 slices of cake. I am stating that I have 3 slices of cake each, set up on two different tables. 2 x 3 = 6 is simply telling you how many slices there are. But, 2(3) = 6 is giving you more information. It represents splitting the 6 slices into 2 groups, the product of which will tell you how many slices there are total. It also “implies” that the 3 slices of cake may be different “kinds” of the same thing, because they were previously grouped separately inside parentheses. This is why we don't use parentheses for simple math problems like 3x3=9. Understanding how 2(3) represents 6 but 2x3 equals 6 is a subtle but important difference. A representation of a number that can be further worked out isn't quite “equal” to a number, at least not yet. The rules of parentheses, therefore, are different than the rules of “regular old” multiplication. They are not interchangeable with other multiplication symbols because you can and will end up with estranged units. This explains why you cannot just “grab” the 2 away from 2(2+1). That 2 doesn't quite equal two. It is 2 groups of something.

The REAL “P-step”:

So (“Parentheses”) doesn't just mean “multiply” or “multiplied by”. This seems to be a common misconception. Because parentheses mean “I am a group of something”, the correct way to deal with them is to solve what is inside (this is undisputed) and then multiply that number by whatever number is OUTSIDE of the parentheses to the left. The “P”-step requires you to resolve the parentheses entirely in this way before moving on with the rest of the question. Someone who learned “The distributive property” already knows this. In most online PEMDAS tutorials, they define the step simply as “Parentheses” before moving on to list “Exponents”, as if just saying “Parentheses” clarifies what is meant in the step. This has been a disservice. Solving inside the parentheses was never meant to be the end of the step. “P for Parentheses” is just a mnemonic to help you remember what to do first in the series. It tragically clarifies nothing about the step or what it fully entails.
If we apply the updated P-step to the viral math problem, we will first solve (2+1) but then you are looking at “2(3)” which is correct notation for “two groups of 3 things”, not “2x3”. When you attempt to solve 2(2+1), and turn that into 2(3), you've solved what is inside the parentheses, but the parentheses are still there! They didn't go away yet. And in order to move on with the problem, or solve left to right, the parentheses are supposed to disappear.

At this very moment, you can go to online PEMDAS lessons or look at any old textbook where the “P” step is interpreted as “solve inside” instead of clarifying the whole (real) step, and you will not see any practice questions or examples where there are numbers situated outside the parentheses of the problem to the left. You will not find a 2 just hanging out by itself in front of a (2+1) without a + or – or * in between them. Your PEMDAS homework probably looked like this:

(6÷2) * (2+1) =

But never this:

(6÷2) * 2(2+1)

Many people, it seems, were not exposed to a number existing outside parentheses, or what that means for “reading” the question and how to resolve it. The creators of your textbooks/lessons were very careful not to give you these problems so that you could focus on learning the basic principles of PEMDAS without getting confused by “multiple groups of things needing "juxtaposition multiplication”. This has created a situation where, as the student, you don't know how much you don't know until you move upward in the math lessons. If you never move upward to higher level math, you continue to think that you reached the top of knowledge about math with PEMDAS and working left to right, when in reality you never learned to resolve parentheses entirely. PEMDAS can still be used in higher level math, sometimes multiple times in the same problem, but ALWAYS with the P-step completely resolving parentheses, not just solving what is inside them.

So, why do the parentheses seem to disappear on their own in some problems, but not others?

When you're solving a problem in PEMDAS class, say for example this problem:

(6*3) – (3+2) =

You first solve (6*3) and (3+2). Why do you then get to re-write the problem as “18 – 5” and not

“(18) - (5)”? Where did the parentheses go? They ONLY disappeared here because there is no visible number outside them to multiply by. When you have 3+2 inside parentheses like this (3+2), signifying a “group” of (3+2), what you are really saying is:

“Whatever thing is inside the parentheses, we have exactly ONE group/bundle of it.”

or

“three plus two, one time”

(3+2) represents ONE “group” of (3+2) while

2(3+2) represents TWO “groups” of (3+2).

You can resolve (3+2) simply by knowing 3+2, because there is only “one group” of (3+2) and “anything times 1 is itself”. Basic math. Since no number in front of the parentheses actually means “one group of whatever this is”, “one group of (5) for example is the same as saying 1 x 5 = 5. You still multiplied by the number outside the parentheses to the left, it's just that the number was a 1, allowing the parentheses to be eliminated fully without changing what was calculated inside of them. This gives the illusion in most carefully constructed problems, that solving what is “inside” the parentheses makes them disappear as if by magic. It's also why you'll never see PEMDAS lessons with incomplete “P-steps” offering problems with multiple “groups” of things requiring juxtaposition (priority) multiplication. The “number of groups” have always been there, hiding in all of the incomplete PEMDAS lessons, and forgotten like the “1” in “1x”. You can think of it as an invisible “times 1 multiplier” outside of every set of parentheses unless otherwise specified with a different number. “2(2+1)” or “2(3)” for example, has specified that there are 2 “groups” of 3 things.

However, in “(3)(3)”, the parentheses being “alone” looks, and is, wrong. The calculator knows this, that is why it adds the multiplication symbol between the two when you plug it in. This is because you need an operator between the two “groups” in order to engage the “x1 multiplier” rule and resolve the parentheses entirely.

So this: (2+1) + (2+1) = 6

Is REALLY this:

[1 * (2+1)] + [1 * (2+1)] = 6

Without the operator between to engage the “x1 multiplier”, writing “(3)(3)” for basic math is like saying “there are 3 in each group and there are 3 in each group” without a way to resolve the questions “how many groups are there?”. As soon as you begin dealing with multiple groups, or “juxtaposition multiplication” the “P” in PEMDAS takes on its role more visually instead of doing the work behind the scenes. You don't notice the parentheses disappear when you're multiplying by 1 because the value of what is inside the parentheses didn't change. But as soon as that becomes any other number, you realize that you have to do the multiplication yourself or else the parentheses don't resolve. This requires you to do that multiplication FIRST before moving on.

If you go back to the viral math problem now, “6÷2(2+1)”, you should be beginning to understand the rather large assumption you are making when you group 6 and 2 together. You are assuming that 2 does not belong as a group with (2+1), even though “2(2+1)” is correct notation for 2 groups of (2+1). To arbitrarily throw the 2 in with 6 goes against what would appear to be a more simple answer, which also makes the least assumptions about the notation. Grouping 6÷2 together in order to “hurry” to resolve the uncomfortable division symbol isn't practical or rational. 2(2+1) is one inseparable term. It is notated correctly as such, making no assumptions.

“But the calculator says”:

When you input “6÷2(2+1)” into the scientific calculator, it will begin assuming notation almost right away. It comes up with it's own interpretation, it's own notation of what you are asking. It looks, again, like this:

(6÷2) * (2+1) = 9 or

6÷ 2 * (2+1) = 9

Many say that we should stop here. That's the answer. Game over. In my experience, though, calculators are smart but they aren't all knowing. There is a reason it's doing this, and it is not because it has the “correct” or the “simplest” interpretation. It's because the calculator does not recognize that division symbols can be resolved by complex denominators. You might be trying to enter “2(2+1)” as a denominator, but the limited capacity of the calculator won't allow anything to be understood past the number 2. As soon as the “open question” division symbol is satisfied, the calculator is satisfied. It isn't smarter than its operator. It doesn't know how to do a fraction with a denominator that has some nuance and flair. The calculator grabs the 2 as soon as it's available, away from its rightfully notated spot next to the parentheses, in order to satisfy its division symbol. However, to its horror, you continue to type. When your next move is to input an open parentheses, this is a big problem for the calculator because parentheses, (the P step in PEMDAS), absolutely must be resolved entirely. The calculator can't just leave your (2+1) hanging off to the right without a way to resolve the parentheses they are in because that leads to “(3)(3)”. Unfortunately, it already impatiently stole the “2” which would have resolved them just fine. Assuming the multiplication symbol and separating the question into two questions is the calculators last-ditch effort to salvage meaning from what you're typing after making a huge error from the beginning. It NEEDS to believe there is a multiplication symbol or SOME symbol there to kick in your invisible x1 multiplier and eliminate your parentheses! Otherwise, it's a joke and won't get invited to parties.

The scientific calculator, with adjusted settings, can account for complex denominators in its calculations by being instructed not to “rush” to resolve the division symbol. This is like the calculator suddenly being able to “recognize” that there could be more to a denominator IF certain conditions are met. Having no marks or numbers at all between the 2 and the (2+1), again, is proper notation for 2 groups of (2+1), and the calculator can now accept this one single term as a valid way to satisfy the division symbol. Suddenly, the answer, according to the calculator, is 1 instead of 9, and no assumptions have been made in the notation at all. So while the 9-sayers re-write the problem (6÷2) * (2+1) =9 to mimic the calculators assumptions, turning off its ability to add assumptions at all and declaring boldly that “6÷2(2+1) EQUALS something” the calculator will finally reveal to you that this has been an expression of “1” all along.
You didn't just regress your calculator back to 1917 math settings. Calculators are designed to work from left to right which is directly reflected in that “1917” change. When you type the division symbol into your calculator, it KNOWS the rule is to satisfy it with ONE term on the other side. That's precisely why it does just that, regardless of how that might change the meaning of anything else that is thereafter typed in. In fact, the arguments against “9” have nothing to do with choosing to use the whole section on the right as the denominator arbitrarily “because of some old math grammar” involving the division symbol. It has everything to do with recognizing a complex denominator for what it is without the aid of the calculator at all, and recognizing the practicality of seeing 2(2+1) as one term especially when combined with 6 as a numerator.

Wait, what's the question?:

When you work out “(6/2)”, you are reducing or evaluating a fraction: Six halves. This is it's own little math problem because it is a fraction that reduces. 6 divided by 2, or “6 halves”, or “one-half, six times”. You are asking "what is 6 divided by 2?" and that reduces to 3. And 3 is the only relevant information in your journey to the answer 9. For example:

We're playing a measuring game with some kids. There are 2 boys and 1 girl for a total of 3 children. (That's the undisputed (2+1)). I give each child a scoop that holds ½ cup of water and a bucket and I ask “how much water will be in your bucket if you do 6 scoops?” The children are working out the problem “(6/2)” or “six halves” =3. When they are done measuring out 3 cups of water into each of their buckets, they bring the buckets of water to you. So then I come to you and ask, “how many cups of water do you have across all buckets? This, after all, is the question I have to ask in order to get the answer “9”. The problem you are then working through is: 3 cups of water per bucket x 3 buckets to get your answer 9.

The kids could have measured in whole cups. They could have measured in liters or tablespoons, inches or centimeters, grapes or fingernails. At the end of the day, as long as they got 3 cups of water into the bucket, it won't change your math or your outcome. Even if the ½ cup measurement is seemingly relevant in the situation, it is NOT relevant to the question which leads you to the answer “9”. This type of bizarre phrasing is what your scientific calculator is assuming when it rewrites the problem the way it does. It is understanding the question as “3 x 3” with extra arbitrary steps. Embellishing a simple problem with fancy notation by adding irrelevant information is the math equivalent of asking, “How many hours does it take to get to San Francisco given that it's 6 o'clock?” You started with information that was leading in one direction and then asked something else in the same sentence.

The types of questions that are common with multiple “sets” of things, complex denominators, and fancy notation such as this, you would never see embedded with all whole numbers, no exponents, no variables, and no combined terms. Most often, maybe exclusively, this type of notation is seen in problems that look more like:

6xy^2

____________ * 2(3x+1) =

2xy^2(2+1)

The answer here is not so immediately recognized and the puzzle is not immediately solvable like the viral math problem. Yet, this is the format we are expected to believe is being utilized to express something as simple as “3x3”? If we agree that the best answer to a poorly notated problem is one that makes the fewest assumptions and arrives at the simplest answer, why are we then interpreting the question in such a complicated way? And referring back to that same example: What mathematician will suggest that the “2” in “2(3x+1)” somehow “belongs” with the previous “6xy^2” and its denominator, just because of a “left to right” general rule? By doing that, you would be robbing “3x+1” of an entire group of itself, which will dramatically change your answer. The complexity of the notation being assumed doesn't match with the simplicity of the problem or question at hand. We appear to be changing the question in order to fit an answer we like, rather than seeking out a complex but more realistic truth.

In reality, the 9-sayers are solving a puzzle (not a real math problem) by doing a series of simple math problems. That series of simple problems is notated like this:

6÷2 = 3

and

2+1=3

so

3x3=9

Using overdressed notation, this mutant is being created:

6 * (2+1) = 9 or (6/2) * (2+1) = 9

which is technically notated correctly, so the calculator is able to give an answer. However, there is no compelling reason to use it in real life or assume that this is a legitimate translation. We aren't evaluating all of those factors “at once” so they don't truly belong in the same sentence.

But you can interpret the viral math problem exactly as shown in such a way that renders each term relevant in contributing to a coherent question and answer; by considering it to be evaluating an expression of 1. For example, instead of having a bucket game where ½ cups are measured for seemingly no reason, you have something more like this:

“There are 6 slices per whole cake. 2 boys and 1 girl are coming to the party and I want each child to have 2 slices of cake. How many whole cakes do I need to buy?”

Though this question is represented by a fraction with a “complex denominator”, it is undeniably simple, common and demonstrable in a real-life scenario, and each element is relevant information in answering the one question presented.

Conclusion:

One possible reason for the public's propensity to invoke complex notation and argue that it is actually “more simple or correct” could be the desire to avoid “dealing with” a live fraction. Especially in America, people don't seem to understand fractions well, and actively avoid them when possible. We can fall back on elementary school math if we interpret “divide” as just another simple operator. “6 divided by 2” is a lot easier for us to stomach than “6 divided by 2 groups of some number we've yet to work out.” Thus, it is being treated as “simpler” to rush to resolve the division. This treatment of fractions is having a negative impact on the way people understand math and math notation. It may create the false impression with “math newbies” that this complicated notation legitimately reflects how we would go about pursuing and notating basic information in real world math, science, and technology. It creates the impression that we routinely add unnecessary information and complexity to our math problems, and that when we ask (or write) questions, we are not really sure where the answer comes from. Isn't math complicated enough?

Pretend for a moment that an alien species beamed down a mathematical message: 6÷2(2+1). Their symbology is certainly different, but we were able to translate the message down to “six divided by two times two plus one.” Given these options, which is the more “simple” answer that makes the fewest assumptions? :

1. The aliens meant us to work left to right using our childish little division symbol that requires immediate gratification?
2. The aliens were going out of their way to be extra transparent or extra confusing with their run-on question by using irrelevant information? Or
3. The aliens sent a fraction with a complex denominator that reduces to the number 1?

It seems rational that “6÷2(2+1)” is not a “problem” at all in the sense that it requires a solution, but rather it is an “expression” of the number 1. What a human could almost intuitively recognize as a valid representation of “1”, our calculator with it's left/right algorithm and blind loyalty to the division symbol, missed out on and instead sent back to the aliens an irrational and presumptive “9”. For some, believing the calculators process is the “correct” way to re-shape the question appears to be (at least in part) persuaded and validated by the calculators decision to do it that way. I find that problematic because they're essentially saying “the calculator is right because it's a calculator and calculators are right.”

Two “groups” of something divided by 6 would be a simpler and more universal interpretation, even if it is more difficult for us to notate in our calculators and, perhaps, articulate with words. To be fair to the 9-sayers, if I were given this problem by a 2^(nd) grader in their adorable scribble-y handwriting and asked if I could figure out their handmade “cool math puzzle”, I would certainly reconsider my position on this whole matter. However, I refuse to bestow the same handicap onto the adult academic world. By coming out more squarely on the side of “9” instead of “1” simply because some obscure notation makes it technically true, we are encouraging bad habits in everyone who learned or understands their P-Steps in PEMDAS incorrectly, and are treating math like a number puzzle rather than something that reflects ONE real question with ONE answer in our physical world.

Source: The distributive property.

Nonduality is the name of an understanding of reality that is arrived at in multiple ways both experiential and logical, but I would argue that it has the distinction of being a perspective that requires one to believe absolutely nothing that is not given directly in first-person experience. All other metaphysical positions come with some baggage that can never be proven, or even evidenced, in our experience. Nonduality proceeds directly from a standpoint of universal skepticism about all assumptions not given in our direct perception of life, whatever life may be. This post will give a (probably lengthy) account of the chain of reasoning that leads to the non-dual conclusion: that you alone are what actually exists, and you are just the simple awareness of your own existence.

We begin with the observation that, while we know that we exist beyond a shadow of a doubt, we can have all kinds of doubts about what we are. We seem to be a person with a body and a mind, but this may be an illusion, since we have the clear experience of believing ourselves to be a particular body and mind and being mistaken about that, such as when we are dreaming. Thus, the fact that it strongly seems as if we are a body with a mind is not evidence that we are actually a body/mind.

When do we seem to be a body/mind? In our experience, we seem to cycle through three distinct states. In our current state, the waking state, we seem to be individual beings with bodies and minds located in a world. In a very similar state, dreaming, we seem to be different bodies located in different worlds. But are these the only two states of being we know?

Importantly, there is a third state we experience: the state of dreamless sleep. In dreamless sleep, we have no awareness of a body, a mind, or a world, nor do we experience space and time. However, we are aware of our own existence, because when we leave the state of dreamless sleep, we clearly know that we were in a state with no awareness of any phenomena. Otherwise, we would experience an unbroken series of waking and dream states, and would have no concept of deep sleep; we would simply assume that for the entire time we slept, we were dreaming. We do not assume this, because we have clear introspective knowledge of having been in a state where no phenomena were present.

So, are we the bodies that we seem to be while waking or dreaming? If we were these bodies, then we would not be able to experience our own existence in their absence. Yet, while we are sleeping dreamlessly, we are aware of our existence while there is nothing else present, and certainly no body present.

If we exist and are aware of our existence in all three states, but seem to be a body in only two of the three, how can we assert that we are actually a body without accepting something we cannot experience directly? In our actual experience (in the uninterrupted awareness of our own existence), the phenomenon of seeming to be a body in a world rises and subsides. It rises in the waking state and the dream state alike, along with memories that create the impression of a continuous flow of time across multiple waking states.

Since we have the impression of continuity in both waking and dreams, there is no basis to conclude that the waking state is actually a continuous one while our dreams are intermittent and fleeting. The impression of continuity may certainly occur in a dream, where nothing exists independently of our perception of it. The same can be said of any justification we may provide in the waking state to establish it as primary or real relative to a dream.

In principle, there is no experience we can have in the waking state, when we are convinced that a world exists independently of our perception of it, that could not occur in a dream, when we have the same conviction even though it is known to have been mistaken when the dream ends.

Therefore, no evidence could possibly demonstrate that we are actually a body with a mind in an independently real waking world that exists even if we do not perceive it. As a result, the only reasonable conclusion is that the waking state is just a long dream, within which we seem to experience other dreams as well as dreamless sleep.

So, given all this, what are we?

The answer should be getting clearer now. We cannot be the bodies that appear in only two dreamlike states, since we clearly exist and are aware of our existence without the appearance of a body in the third state without dreams. We must therefore be whatever the appearance and disappearance of this erroneous body-identity occurs in. In our dreams, though we seem to be a dream character in a world of other characters, when we awaken we know none of them were real (not even the one we believed ourself to be). The same must therefore be true even of our waking experience, since as shown earlier, nothing experienced therein can unequivocally distinguish it from a dream. Taking ourself to be an individual in an independent world is a fundamental error.

What we actually are is formless, unlimited, infinite, and eternal awareness that is always aware of ourself, even when we seem to take the perspective of an individual (due to ignorance of our real nature) in the dream that is our life. But since dreams are unreal and do not really exist, the ultimate fact of the matter is that we have never actually made this mistake; we seem to undergo change while circulating through the three states, but in reality we are unchanging and do not have any state other than existing.

As a dream is nothing apart from the dreamer, and only exists in the view of the dreamer, the whole universe is your dream-projection (but not as the person you believe yourself to be; you are all the persons and the entire world). This is what non-duality, or advaita, means: other than you as unchanging awareness, there is no second thing, no countably separate reality; whatever seems to be separate from you is only an appearance that is made of you while appearing in you, which you mistake for something independent only when you take yourself to be an individual with a body.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

All of which is to say, this nonduality stuff is not the unfounded belief that we "don't exist" or "nothing is real". We exist and are real, and are in fact all that is real, but we are mistaken about what we are. Since we make this mistake whenever we know ourself as an individual with a body in a world, the reality of whatever we perceive is also mistaken. However, so long as we are under the sway of this delusion, and by all means I still am, we have no reason to behave as if this world is false. We should not use nonduality as justification for being cruel to others, since the only reason we would want to is because we feel someone else has something we want. If we are cruel, it is because we see the victim of our cruelty as separate from us, so nonduality can never justify cruelty.

On the contrary, knowing that everybody (or every body) including "yourself" is an appearance in a vast, unlimited awareness is an excellent reason to recede from egotistical behavior and practice compassion. What is worth pursuing in this world if it has no reality apart from you the pursuer? The sting of desiring this or fearing that becomes weaker and weaker as we progress on the non-dual path.

I will do my best to respond to any earnest questions while completely ignoring personal attacks or bad-faith remarks. Thanks for reading all this, if you in fact did read it all. :)

Regarding personal identity, I mostly agree with Parfit that identity itself may not matter as much as we usually think. What matters is psychological continuity, such as memory, character, and other mental connections. From a reductionist physicalist view, there is no additional “further fact” about personal identity beyond these relations.

Open Individualism seems to accept many of Parfit’s arguments, but I am not sure how it can go beyond Parfit without adding the kind of metaphysical assumption he rejects. If there is no deep further fact about personal identity, how can we argue for a constant identity, even if it is universalized so that everyone is ultimately the same subject?

In this sense, Open Individualism sounds almost like a real-self view expanded to include everyone. But that seems close to the kind of view that Buddhist no-self doctrine tries to overcome. As I understand it, Buddhism does not replace the individual self with one larger universal self. It questions whether there is such a self at all.

I am also not sure Open Individualism gives a stronger ethical message than Parfit or Buddhism. Parfit’s view already weakens egoistic concern, and Buddhism can support compassion without appealing to a metaphysical self. So I wonder whether Open Individualism adds something genuinely new, or whether it either reintroduces a self or collapses back into something like Parfit’s view.

Alright, so this is something that sort of just popped into my head this morning.

So alot of people who subscribe to OI say that we all have the same baseline consciousness shared between all conscious beings right?

But what if that baseline consciousness is still distinct somehow.

like, say I have 2 red balls, both completely identical, would you say they are the same ball? no because they are clearly two different objects despite being identical, because of their placement in spacetime.

Now you can say that they both have the baseline properties of being spherical and red, but what if one of them was blue. Sure you can then say that they both share the baseline property of being spherical, but they'd still be different because of their placement in spacetime.

idk, what do you guys think?