What isn't connected?
“Connected” is doing too much work there. Things can share properties, obey the same physical laws, influence one another, or have common causes without being literally connected or part of one deeper whole. Gravity affects everything with mass, but that does not prove some broader metaphysical unity. So the real question is what kind of connection you are claiming and what that claim is supposed to establish.
What isn't connected?
“Connected” is doing too much work there. Things can share properties, obey the same physical laws, influence one another, or have common causes without being literally connected or part of one deeper whole. Gravity affects everything with mass, but that does not prove some broader metaphysical unity.
Okay, then prove those aren't connected then.
I think your 'too much work there' is doing too much work there when I'm otherwise making a simplistic point rather than a complex one.
Okay, then prove those aren't connected then.
I think your 'too much work there' is doing too much work there when I'm otherwise making a simplistic point rather than a complex one.
You are the one claiming that everything is connected, so defining and supporting that claim is your burden. Calling it “simplistic” does not solve the ambiguity: if “connected” only means that things can share causes, properties, or physical laws, then the claim is trivial and does not establish existential unity, plagiarism, or a single foundation for all thought. If you mean something stronger, you still have not said what it is or provided evidence for it.
Okay, then prove those aren't connected then.
I think your 'too much work there' is doing too much work there when I'm otherwise making a simplistic point rather than a complex one.You are the one claiming that everything is connected, so defining and supporting that claim is your burden. Calling it “simplistic” does not solve the ambiguity: if “connected” only means that things can share causes, properties, or physical laws, then the claim is trivial and does not establish existential unity, plagiarism, or a single foundation for all thought. If you mean something stronger, you still have not said what it is or provided evidence for it.
Moreso, what thing can be isolated from any form of connection, and how would we ever find out about it without connecting with it in some way ourselves?
Occam's Razor goes with this being the simplest answer, and the simple one is usually the best.
Moreso, what thing can be isolated from any form of connection, and how would we ever find out about it without connecting with it in some way ourselves? Occam's Razor goes with this being the simplest answer, and the simple one is usually the best.
The fact that we must interact with something to discover it only establishes an epistemic connection between us and the object during observation. It does not prove that every existing thing was already connected to everything else, or that all thoughts and creations share one meaningful foundation. Occam’s razor also does not mean “choose the broadest simple-sounding claim”; it means avoid unnecessary assumptions when explanations account for the evidence equally well. Saying different things have different, limited relationships requires fewer assumptions than asserting an undefined universal connection.
Correct me if I’m wrong but the word hell originated from Judaism.
The English word hell comes from Old English hel, which is related to the Old Norse Hel and the wider Germanic idea of an underworld or hidden realm of the dead. In English Bible translations, “hell” has been used to represent several distinct concepts, including Sheol, Hades, Gehenna, and Tartarus.
Yeah here's a thought - go fuck yourself. Oh wait it's not that original cus a lot of people are thinking it about you.
I wasn't thinking that about her.
