along with that, what i meant about “any physical incarnation” of the water bottle is that it doesnt matter what state the water bottle is in (or, for that matter, any physical entity of the universe), because it is still composed of the tao.

I think you make a keen observation:

the water bottle lives on (even after it is destroyed) because it is, at its simplest form, tao.

This is a great way to look at it. I’ve actually never thought of it this way before! Before you destroy something, it’s Dao. After you destroy something, it’s still Dao. And so it lives on, in a way. That’s a great new perspective to look at things — thanks for sharing!

Here’s where I start to lose you, though:

if the water bottle did not exist, neither would tao, and neither would we.

I don’t think this kind of reverse logic works. For example, fruits are made of cells, which are made of molecules, which are made of atoms. Imagine yourself at the “beginning of the universe” (assuming there ever was one – which I don’t think there ever was), prior to the creation of any fruit. Would it be correct to say that because fruits didn’t exist, neither do atoms?

Hmm… also, what exactly do you mean by “any physical incarnation” of the water bottle?

Cheers, and welcome to i0!

Here’s what I think is funky. When you actually think you’re talking about (i.e. attacking) Dao, you’re not, because you make it something it’s not. But when you assert your own views, I’d say you’re right on the mark with Dao, whether you know it or not.

Also, you’re not really talking about the smallest “X” particle when you talk about the invisible pink unicorn; you talk about it as if it “rules the entire universe.” Let’s assume atoms WERE the smallest part of the universe. Would they “reign supreme” over everything? No. Physical laws are what make things move; they dictate paths of energy. Atoms aren’t agents at all; they are products or pawns in a complex physical system.

Also, when you say something just “is”, that is an empirical observation. It either “is” or “is not”; therefore, it warrants proof for this fact. It’s the same thing when I argue with Christians and I say “you need proof that your god exists” and they say “god is outside the bounds of logic.” I say, “no, he’s not, because your complex conception of god is riddled with empirical facts about the universe that are either true or false; anything with a true or false value is subject to debate and hence falls in the domain of rationality.” The invisible pink unicorn is no exception.

But let me put it this way:

What are we made of? Cells.
What are cells made of? Molecules.
What are molecules made of? Atoms.
What are atoms made of? Subatomic particles.
What are subatomic particles made of? Quarks.

What are quarks made of? We don’t know yet.

If you keep going back for, say, an infinite number of times, you’ll eventually arrive at a stage where you say, “What are Xs made up of?” And your answer would be, “Nothing, it just is what it is.” This is the pink unicorn I’m describing.

The pink unicorn isn’t something you prove or disprove, you’re looking at it all wrong. It just IS.

I don’t think I proved anything in the post. And I never said that ephemeral things can’t tell us anything about a truth. They can’t prove anything to us, but they can have clues to a truth – that’s what I was trying to get at.